Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder beau, since you're wholly incapable of writing a post that doesn't include attacks, take the coward act out to someone else. You're persona non grata on this thread.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy What attacks? I am simply telling you that you supporting this ruling tells us all we need to know about your legal world view. It's flawed. Anyone with any con- law can see that she will be overturned. Yet you tell me 80% of your coworkers or lawyers you know agree with the far left activist judge? Enough said. Can't wait to remind you again and again you thought the ruling was good after it gets overturned.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<In fact, I want a liberal to tell me how if they WERE trying to help the terrorists, how they would have done anything different?>> If I was trying to help the terrorists I would pre-emptively attack a Middle Eastern country that poses us no real danger. Then I would mismanage the occupation so we ended up being there for years. I would make sure not to disarm the guys previously in the Iraqi Army to make sure there were plenty of weapons around for the Iraqis to shoot each other with. Let's see now... do I have the bases covered? *Unprovoked Attack *Mismanaged Occupation *Many Civilian Deaths Yup... that should piss off the Middle East enough that al Qaeda will get LOTS of new recruits. Yup... that's what I would do it I was trying to help the terrorists. What? You say someone has already done that? Who knew?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Wow RT, you sure are a great after the fact armchair QB. You should see what I can write about WWII and the war that war was bungled every day. Fact is, your liberal buddies are doing everything in their power to help the toerrosts win. Why deny it. We have people on here actually celebrating every loss Bush has in regards to how he is trying to protect the country. Then these people get offended when they are called bad Americans who benefit the enemy?
Originally Posted By MagicSnakes look at this big man on the internet trying to scare everybody. Claiming we "love to help terrorists win!". you are a facist sir, a racist, and a certified success for capitolist conservative brainwash. A QUOTE FROM NAZI WAR CRIMINAL HERMAN GORING “Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.†IS IT NOT CRYSTAL CLEAR WHAT YOUVE BEEN TRAINED TO PROMOTE? HATRED, VIOLENCE, AND BIGOTRY.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> Then these people get offended when they are called bad Americans who benefit the enemy? << To my way of thinking, a "bad american" is one that seeks to subvert the constitution and undermine american freedoms and liberties. Are you offended beau?
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>Fact is, your liberal buddies are doing everything in their power to help the toerrosts win. << I have to call bullcrap on this. Which ideology has its adherents constantly bringing up the the terrorists in the name of doing all kinds of questionable thing? The extreme Right. Which ideology has an inherent foundation in authoritarianism and specifically said that a "Pearl Harbor type event" was necesary in order to get their plans enacted? The extreme Right. What would a "terrorist win" entail? A scared populace. Which ideology has adherents constantly scaring the living daylights out of people all the time? The extreme Right. Seems to me that the extreme Right wants the terrorists to win...they're the ones trying to keep everyone scared.
Originally Posted By YourPalEd If president elect, al gore was in office, he wouldn't have had to ignore 1,000 memos and generals, and honest secret service agents, screaming at them that we were going to be attacked, only to be ignored, on purpose, so that their traitorous plans, to allow america to be attacked by known, plane flying terrorists, could be carried out. These are criminals, these are parasites. They are being stopped, no one will have anything to do with george bush. People see how the world ignores them, and they try, like republican cowards always do, they try to take credit for the other nations, who actually do the work, and clean up their playpen messes. Bush is a disgrace. The wiretaps were used for political purposes. As soon as a democrat said one thing, the traitor, rove, would send a script to rush, and others on their payroll in the media, who are being arrested right now, by the way, to change the charges against them to the democrats even though it is nonsensical to say democrats lower defenses when they are the only ones who can defend america. Liars can not communicate incoming threats. These people think like sick ceo's who protect themselves with paperwork, which does not work when there are incoming missiles. Instead, bush lets the attacks happen, then he dolls out the cleanup and construction contracts to his friends. We have no protection under these known traitors, in the white house. Our number one mission right now to remove the terrorists is to impeach george bush, and dick cheney. Gonzalez, roberts will all either be behind bars, or at least barred from their jobs. Without an intelligent democrat to plan out, and be tactful in negotiations, we see what happens. Chaos! Tact and sensitivity, intelligence and planning are required now to clean up the republican hate fest.
Originally Posted By YourPalEd I forgot to edit, hee hee. oh well time for a trip to disneyland see ya later. I know you'll miss me, sniff sniff. Have fun.
Originally Posted By bboisvert Way back on post #10... <snip> <<God help us all if the ACLU had existed during the Civil War when Abraham Lincoln felt compelled to suspend habaes (sic) corpus.>> </snip> What the neo-con bloviators fail to mention everytime that they trot this out is that his action was also overturned. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Merryman" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E x_parte_Merryman</a>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <What the neo-con bloviators fail to mention everytime that they trot this out is that his action was also overturned.> Not quite. The article you linked to says that despite an unfavorable ruling, President Lincoln continued the suspension throughout the Civil War.
Originally Posted By bboisvert So then you agree with this statement...? "When the President does it, that means it is not illegal." Richard M. Nixon
Originally Posted By vbdad55 Yes, it was in play for the better part of three years...but a tregetour would fail to mention that......
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So then you agree with this statement...?> No, but I also don't think that Executive Power can be curtailed by Judicial fiat.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <tregetour> Don't think I've ever come across this word before. Thanks for the education.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy "Anyone who knows what legal analysis and legal argument look like -- anyone who knows the requisites of legal reasoning -- must look on the handiwork of Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in the NSA case in amazement. It is a pathetic piece of work. If it had been submitted by a student in my second year legal writing class at the University of St. Thomas Law School, it would have earned a failing grade. On the issue of the legality of warrantless interception of enemy communications, for example, it is entirely conclusory. It does not address precedent. It assumes its conclusion, essentially framing the issue as whether the president can break the law. It simply asserts that the NSA eavesdropping program is "obviously in violation of the Fourth Amendment" -- apparently because it is warrantless. (Wrong.) She sagely observes that the "President of the United States is himself created by that same Constitution" -- you know, the one with the Fourth Amendment that she apparently thinks requires warrants in all cases. Judge Taylor is like the big bad wolf in the fairly tale. She huffs and she puffs. I think she's facing the brick house that can't be blown down -- she at least can't blow it down -- but the end of this unedifying fairy tale has yet to be written by a higher and presumably more competent authority." <a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/" target="_blank">http://www.powerlineblog.com/</a>
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <<tregetour> Don't think I've ever come across this word before. Thanks for the education.< I thought it could apply here...long ago before MBA and PhD in business related areas I was an English undergrad...loved it, just didn't pay very well--LOL ! Will make one ready for scrabble though
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<look at this big man on the internet trying to scare everybody. Claiming we "love to help terrorists win!". you are a facist sir, a racist, and a certified success for capitolist conservative brainwash.>> I love when the libs get nailed for being the terrorist supporters they are so they bust out the words they learn in lib school....facist, racist, hater, bigot, etc. Nice debating skills magic snakes. Next time one of your liberal judges decides to do something stupid like cancel a terrorist monitoring program that just saved 4000 lives last week feel free to undertand what just happened. Hint... you are not safer now.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I was an English undergrad...> As was I, but my professor must not have assigned the Canterbury Tale that included that word, and I guess Shakespeare and Johnson never used it.
