Bush Vindicated Again!

MonsterMark

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
9,225
Reaction score
3
Location
United States
Keeps on getting better for us NeOcOnS.:p

Looks like the NYT has made a 180.

Bush will turn out to be one of the greatest Presidents ever.

Oh, ya, and did I mention... The latest Zogby poll had the Democratic led Congress enjoying a 3% Approval Rating. +/- 1% that is.:eek: :D

Bush Signs Law to Widen Legal Reach for Wiretapping

House Approves Wiretap Bill


Gee, I guess that whole manufactured flap about FISA was much ado about nothing.

And FYI, the Democrat led House and the Democrat led Senate approved this bill.

Bush a lame duck? HaHa.
 
Keeps on getting better for us NeOcOnS.:p

Looks like the NYT has made a 180.

Bush will turn out to be one of the greatest Presidents ever.

Oh, ya, and did I mention... The latest Zogby poll had the Democratic led Congress enjoying a 3% Approval Rating. +/- 1% that is.:eek: :D

Bush Signs Law to Widen Legal Reach for Wiretapping

House Approves Wiretap Bill


Gee, I guess that whole manufactured flap about FISA was much ado about nothing.

And FYI, the Democrat led House and the Democrat led Senate approved this bill.

Bush a lame duck? HaHa.

What exactly has the NYT done a 180 on? Your link simply reported the news.

The congressional approval at 3% was specifically for their handling of the war. Considering a large majority of Americans want us out, that approval rating is not exactly surprising. This is hardly a vindication for Bush.

As for the wiretapping? I don't even know what to say, other than to say goodbye to what little remains of the Constitution. The law puts the wiretapping authority in the hands of that f*cking idiot Gonzales and the DNI. It can apply to cases not involving terrorism. So we're putting this system into the hands of a man who looks at the Constitution as an obstacle to his goals rather than the foundation of our freedom. And no one will be able to review how it's used. F#CK.

And then there's the compliant, chicken-sh#t congress who are more worried about their vacation time than doing their goddamn jobs.

I can't wait to hear you bitching and moaning when the next Democrat takes over and they decide to use these powers on people like YOU, which is entirely possible now. You're so f*cking clueless about the concepts of freedom and democracy it boggles the mind.

The president took an oath to DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION. He did NOT take an oath to defend this country "AT ALL COSTS" as you've put it before. One of the costs of freedom is knowing that we might get attacked again one day. I am willing to live with that risk if it means I am free to go about my life without the government snooping into every last aspect of my life. You apparently are not. That makes you a coward and a traitor. I don't care if this gets me banned for life, I'm through pulling punches with you. F*ck you.
 
Tommy,

All that profanity would be better served being used on DemocratUnderground or DailyKos, not Lincolnvscadillac. I mean that sincerely. Whether or not I agree with your point is rendered moot by your excessive cursing. It's not necessary and it doesn't advance the discussion in any way.

And for the record, I actually agree with the meat of what you said.
 
:shifty: CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG!

d8_1elmo (2)2.jpg
 
What exactly has the NYT done a 180 on? Your link simply reported the news.
As for the wiretapping? I don't even know what to say, other than to say goodbye to what little remains of the Constitution. The law puts the wiretapping authority in the hands of that f*cking idiot Gonzales and the DNI. It can apply to cases not involving terrorism. So we're putting this system into the hands of a man who looks at the Constitution as an obstacle to his goals rather than the foundation of our freedom. And no one will be able to review how it's used.
Janet Reno also wiretapped without court approval. It's amazing how some choose oportune times to complain. The Fourth Amendment states that there shall be no "unreasonable" search and seizure. Tell me what's "unreasonable" about intercepting telephone calls from foreign countries which may be terrorist related? Also, given past leaks of highly classified information I wouldn't necessarily want some liberal sympathizer judge having knowledge of intelligence operations. Correct me if I'm wrong, didn't a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court judge leak classified information to the press. :rolleyes:
 
What exactly has the NYT done a 180 on? Your link simply reported the news.

The congressional approval at 3% was specifically for their handling of the war. Considering a large majority of Americans want us out, that approval rating is not exactly surprising. This is hardly a vindication for Bush.

As for the wiretapping? I don't even know what to say, other than to say goodbye to what little remains of the Constitution. The law puts the wiretapping authority in the hands of that f*cking idiot Gonzales and the DNI. It can apply to cases not involving terrorism. So we're putting this system into the hands of a man who looks at the Constitution as an obstacle to his goals rather than the foundation of our freedom. And no one will be able to review how it's used. F#CK.

And then there's the compliant, chicken-sh#t congress who are more worried about their vacation time than doing their goddamn jobs.

I can't wait to hear you bitching and moaning when the next Democrat takes over and they decide to use these powers on people like YOU, which is entirely possible now. You're so f*cking clueless about the concepts of freedom and democracy it boggles the mind.

The president took an oath to DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION. He did NOT take an oath to defend this country "AT ALL COSTS" as you've put it before. One of the costs of freedom is knowing that we might get attacked again one day. I am willing to live with that risk if it means I am free to go about my life without the government snooping into every last aspect of my life. You apparently are not. That makes you a coward and a traitor. I don't care if this gets me banned for life, I'm through pulling punches with you. F*ck you.

Where does one start with such an eloquent rant? I guess if one has to use foul language to express oneself, it tends to demonstrate ones inability to communicate effectively.

Truly, I should moderate the thread, delete all offensive comments, and give the offender a 2 week vacation, BUT, it is so much fun to watch liberals melt-down that I can't help myself but sit back and enjoy.:D

The lack of heavy handed moderating has probably chased off many a member who used to visit this forum but that is the price you pay for FREE SPEECH! If TommyB were true to his word, he would try a CONSERVATIVE foul-mouthed filled rant at the DU or Kos or HuffP.O.S. and then he really see what free speech is.:rolleyes:

When all the forum rules are broken by a member in an attempt to get at me, I tend to let it slide so the member cannot accuse me of using my 'powers' to step on them. So no immediate ban is on the table, although unlike the esteemed Hussein Obama, the nuclear option has not been taken off the table.;)

TommyB, you don't know what you don't know and that is a very dangerous thing.

First off, the NYT spends 2 months with front page articles DAILY decrying the surveillance program. Go back and read your history on this. Bush was the Devil to the NYT. The surveillance program was the worst thing to ever happen to the U.S. even though Democrat President Kennedy was the 1st to use to spy on U.S. citizens Jackson, ML King and Al (not so) Sharpton. Let's not forgot that the 1st black President, Mr. Clinton, also used the program with abandon.

That said, my reason I pointed out the NYT article is that nowhere in the article did they profusely object to the legislative result. Isn't that fascinating? And why didn't they object you (should ask)? Because it was a Democratic held Congress that let the legislation pass. Now, if it were a Republican Congress, do you really think the NYT would have remained on the sidelines.? The noise from the NYT would have been shrill.

What else.

Oh yeh. Um, Congress at 3%. Blame it on the war TommyB. It is all Bush and the War, which btw, has been going in a positive direction recently, much to the shagrin of the lefty losers campaining for the defeat of America.

3%. LMAO. What is Bush's number? According to Rasmussen, it is still steady at 37%. Same level as the last 3 years. I guess Pelosi and Reid aren't doing such a bang-up job eh? LMAO again.

TommyB,
The survelliance act helps the U.S. stop the bad guys before they can do us harm. Read up on the British airline plot that was foiled recently. 8-10 airliners would have been blown up by Allah worshippers carrying 'sport drinks' onto airlines had we not had the program in place worldwide. You want to see a loss of 'FREEDOM'? Had that happened, try stepping on a plane anywhere in the world. The planes would still be grounded unless you were willing to board a plane buck naked, that is, after having a body cavity search first.

Freedom. My greatest fear is having the Democrats in charge when the next attack occurs. They will wipe away your 'freedoms' faster that you can say fre.....

Talk about clueless. You take the cake.

Gonzales another devil. I won't even waste my time.
 
And for the record, I actually agree with the meat of what you said.
That's sad.:(

TommyB. It is people like you that are really taking away our freedoms. Supporting surveillance cameras on all street corners, permanent speed traps, the list goes on and on.

Need more proof? The b and h word.

Do you really think it is conservatives supporting this crap?

Clueless? Look in the mirror.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The congressional approval at 3% was specifically for their handling of the war.

Maybe this is the real reason for the 3% rating.

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/JohnBoehner/2007/08/06/enough_is_enough?page=full&comments=true

Enough is Enough
By John Boehner

Seven months have passed since I handed the gavel to Nancy Pelosi, formally returning control of the House to Democrats for the first time in 12 years. In my remarks to the House that day, I offered a bit of advice to the members of the incoming majority. I told them:

“A congressional majority is simply a means to an end. The value of a majority lies not in the chance to wield great power, but in the chance to use limited power to do great things.

“The [American] people don’t care which party controls it; what they want is a government that is limited, honest, accountable, and responsive to their needs. The moment a majority forgets this lesson, it begins writing itself a ticket to minority status.”

My friends: the Democrats’ ticket is being punched.

The stolen 215-213 vote Thursday night on the Republican motion denying taxpayer benefits to illegal immigrants could be the legislative equivalent of the “shot heard ’round the world.” This was about far more than just arcane parliamentary process. It was an act I believe will eventually come to symbolize this majority.

In a fateful moment that capped off seven straight months of cynical broken promises, the current leadership thumbed its collective nose at the will of the American people. In one telling instant that has now been viewed by millions of our constituents via the Internet and other means, the Democratic majority revealed it is willing to break any rule, trample on any precedent, and run roughshod over its own Members to defend a left-wing, big government agenda most Americans utterly reject. [snip]

The severity of this breach hasn’t occurred to every Democrat yet. As this morning’s Washington Post revealed, there is disagreement within the Democratic leadership ranks as to whether Thursday night’s stolen vote action was even a mistake at all. Majority Leader Hoyer acknowledged on the floor that it was a mistake, and apologized. But Speaker Pelosi brushed Leader Hoyer’s comments aside, saying there was no mistake, and calling the incident something that was just an “inconvenience” for the Republican minority.

[snip]

They stuck pork-barrel spending for peanuts and spinach on a bill meant to fund American troops in harm’s way.

They created slush funds for secret earmarks, attempting to spend billions of taxpayer dollars without transparency.

They jammed “green pork” accounts into the energy tax bill, allowing taxpayer funds to be used to subsidize things like Lexus Hybrids in Beverly Hills and putting copies of Al Gore’s book in children’s classrooms.

They voted to look the other way when the Speaker’s own choice for majority leader broke House rules by threatening a Republican member who dared to challenge an illegitimate earmark.

They stonewalled lobbying reforms that require lobbyists to disclose taxpayer-funded earmarks for which they’re lobbying Congress, repealed Republican reforms requiring earmarks in tax and authorizing to be publicly disclosed and subject to challenge on the House floor, and killed legislation requiring taxpayer-funded state and local government lobbyists from following the congressional gift ban as they lobby for pork.

They trumpeted passage of a lobbying reform bill largely indistinguishable from the one Republicans passed through the House last year – the bill Democratic leaders condemned at the time as a “sham.”

Bad behavior breeds bad behavior. During the last three weeks, things only got worse.

They Abused the Rules to Give Illegal Immigrants Your Money. Without so much as a hearing, Democratic leaders rammed a bill through the House that cuts seniors’ Medicare benefits and raises taxes to expand government-run health care that illegal immigrants can receive. They silenced Republicans who rose to object to the process by which this irresponsible legislation was brought to the floor. Then they overturned the 215-213 vote.

They Abused the Rules to Raise Taxes and Gas Prices. To pay for new spending in the farm bill, Democratic leaders attached a surprise tax hike to it – with no debate and no committee consideration – on the day before it hit the floor. The tax hike threatens more than five million American jobs. A week later, they rammed energy legislation through the House that raises not only taxes, but gas prices, too – just so they could say they passed an energy bill.

They Abused the Rules to Leave Our People More Vulnerable to Attack at Home and Abroad. Six months ago, Majority Leader Hoyer promised me on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that Republicans would be given a vote on legislation by Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX) barring Congress from cutting off funding for American troops in harm’s way. Six months have passed. There has been no vote. Instead we spent hours this month debating meaningless Iraq bills that everyone knew were going nowhere, and many Democrats themselves didn’t even believe in.

[snip]

That there are devastating consequences for American families and small business owners when Democrats control Congress. Our freedom and security are at risk, subjected to death by a thousand cuts by a legislature that believes the answers to our problems lie in bigger government and higher taxes. An undeclared war on American jobs is being waged. The size and scope of the federal government is being expanded by reaching into the pockets of hard-working American families and taking more of their money.

[snip]
 
Bryan,

Just to clarify, the part of TommyB's statement that I agree with is the part that refers to possible future abuses of these powers. It is consistent with government that government does not make an effort to repeal or restrict powers it already has. When/if the time for these powers has passed, will the government relinquish them? I think not.

I do struggle with the obvious need to use certain tech to catch terrorists, and you do make good points about what airline travel would be like if we couldn't stop attacks. I'm still rather ambivalent about it.
 
I'm still rather ambivalent about it.

No ambivalence here.

I understand completely the odds we face.

We will be attacked again by radical muslims on a suicide mission to virgin paradise.

We will be attacked conventionally - homemade bombs in shopping centers, etc.

We will be attacked with dirty bombs - enough radioactivity to force us to evacuate huge areas of cities.

We will be hit with a nuclear bomb - Washington, New York, LA, - somewhere. All our eggs are in one basket. President, Congress, say bye bye.

These events WILL all happen. What is questionable is when. How long can we delay the inevitable? How fast can our technology keep up to catch the bad guys before they do it?

Will we be able to stop it? No!

Will we have to give up some freedoms to delay it? Yes!

And that is where I come down on this.

Setting up filters to listen to U.S. citizens or illegals talking to people overseas seems like a small price to pay to assist the effort in catching these people before they act or catching them after they do.

Do I walk around and say nuclear and bomb and Allah and infidel, etc, etc, etc? Well I just did and with this swirling about the internet, I'll probably hit somebody's radar screen. So be it. I having nothing to fear. I am not a bad guy. So if I choose to call my gal pal in Paris, chances are we'll have a nice private consersation. If I go and call my pal in Saudi Arabia, well I might want to choose my words carefully.

Get my drift. We can't go on as we have. The world has changed. If we want to survive, we have to change with the world.

When we have the capacity to actually listen to the 2 billion calls :eek: made EACH DAY worldwide, then I'll worry who's listening in.
 
Janet Reno also wiretapped without court approval. It's amazing how some choose oportune times to complain. The Fourth Amendment states that there shall be no "unreasonable" search and seizure. Tell me what's "unreasonable" about intercepting telephone calls from foreign countries which may be terrorist related? Also, given past leaks of highly classified information I wouldn't necessarily want some liberal sympathizer judge having knowledge of intelligence operations. Correct me if I'm wrong, didn't a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court judge leak classified information to the press. :rolleyes:
Actually, people DID complain, including many Republicans.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15429

YOUR PAPERS, PLEASE ...
Lawmakers to Reno: Scrap 'Carnivore'

FBI Web-snooping program raises'Fourth Amendment questions'
Posted: July 28, 2000
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Jon E. Dougherty
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com

A bipartisan group of lawmakers yesterday sent Attorney General Janet Reno a letter asking her to scrap the FBI's new Internet surveillance system known as "Carnivore," claiming it could be widely misused to gather information on Web users not under investigation by the bureau.

Twenty-eight lawmakers, both Democrats and Republicans, said they had "strong reservations" about the FBI's Web monitoring program, which has so far reportedly been used in about 25 investigations.

The letter said Carnivore reportedly "enables the federal government to scan all of the traffic on an Internet Service Provider's network." Although national security and law enforcement remain "priorities," the letter said, "Carnivore has raised serious Fourth Amendment questions."

"Should the federal government be trusted with this kind of personal communication?" lawmakers wrote.[Absolutely NOT]

The letter, which was published on House Majority Leader Dick Armey's "Freedom" website, hinted that growing privacy concerns and concerns that the software could be misused were becoming frequent and more vigorous.

"Given the uproar Carnivore has created, and the potential impact reports on Carnivore could have on consumer confidence in the Internet, we urge you to suspend any activity involving the development or use of Carnivore until the serious privacy issues involved have been satisfactorily answered," lawmakers wrote.

Citing economic concerns, the lawmakers said, "consumer confidence in the privacy and security of the Internet are essential for continued growth of e-commerce."

"People should feel secure that the federal government is not reading their e-mail, no matter how worthy the objective," the letter states.
(More at link)

Even John Ashcroft---JOHN ASHCROFT!!! scoffed at the Clinton proposals to listen in on internet communications.

From the August 12, 1997 Washington Times:

"Welcoming Big Brother"

"The Clinton administration would like the capability to read any international computer communications. Government agencies want access to decode, digest and discuss financial transactions, personal e-mail and proprietary information sent abroad - all in the name of national security. To accomplish this, President Clinton would like government agencies to have the keys for decoding all exported U.S. software and Internet communications.

This proposed policy raises obvious concerns about Americans' privacy, in addition to tampering with the competitive advantage that U.S. software companies currently enjoy in the field of encryption technology. Not only would Big Brother be looming over the shoulders of international cybersurfers, but he threatens to render our state-of-the-art computer software engineers obsolete and unemployed. There is a concern that the Internet could be used to commit crimes and that advanced encryption could disguise such activity. However, we do not provide the government with phone jacks outside our homes for unlimited wiretaps. Why, then, should be grant government the Orwellian capability to listen at will and in real time to our communications across the Web?

The protections of the Fourth Amendment are clear. The right to protection from unlawful searches is an indivisible American value. Two hundred years of court decisions have stood in defense of this fundamental right. The state's interest in effective crime-fighting should never violate the people's Bill of Rights.

The president has proposed that American software companies supply the government with decryption keys to high-level encryption programs. Yet European software producers are free to produce computer encryption codes of all levels of security without providing keys to any government authority. Purchasers of encryption software value security about all else. These buyers will ultimately choose airtight encryption programs that will not be American-made programs to which the U.S. government maintains keys.

In spite of this truism, the president is attempting to foist his rigid policy on the exceptionally fluid and fast-paced computer industry. Furthermore, recent developments in decryption technology bring into question the dynamic of government meddling in this industry. Two weeks ago, the 56-bit algorithm government standard encryption code that protects most U.S. electronic financial transactions, from ATM cards to wire transfers, was broken by a low-powered 90 MHz Pentium processor.

In 1977, when this code was first approved by the U.S. government as a standard, it was deemed unbreakable. And for good reason: There are 72 quadrillion different combinations in a 56-bit code. However, with today's technology these 72 quadrillion different combinations can each be tried in a matter of time.

Two days after this encryption code was broken, a majority of the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee voted, in accordance with administration policy, to force American software companies to perpetuate this already compromised 56-bit encryption system - in spite of the fact that 128-bit encryption software from European firms is available on Web sites accessible to every Internet user. Interestingly, European firms can import this super-secure encryption technology (originally developed by Americans) to the United States, but U.S. companies are forbidden by law from exporting these same programs to other countries.

I believe that moving forward with the president's policy or the Commerce Committee's bill would be an act of folly, creating a cadre of government peeping Toms and causing severe damage to our vibrant software industries. Government would be caught in a perpetual game of catch-up with whiz-kid code-breakers and industry advances. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott has signaled his objection to both proposals"

"....The Clinton administration's paranoid and prurient interest in international e-mail is a wholly unhealthy precedent, especially given this administration's track record on FBI files and IRS snooping. Every medium by which people communicate can be subject to exploitation by those with illegal or immoral intentions. Nevertheless, this is no reason to hand Big Brother the keys to unlock our e-mail diaries, open our ATM records or translate our international communications."



Where was the Left? How about the ACLU:

http://www.aclu.org/privacy/anon/15442leg20000308.html

Anonymity on the Internet is not a thorny issue; it is a Constitutional right. The United States Supreme Court held that the Constitution grants citizens the right to speak anonymously. (See McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995).) However, the report treats the anonymity of Internet users as a "thorny issue," rather than a constitutional right. Indeed, the report suggests that the identity of individuals along the "Information Superhighway" should be stripped away to deal with purported problems with the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 and various telephone harassment statutes. An end to Internet anonymity would chill free expression in cyberspace and strip away one of the key structural privacy protections enjoyed by Internet users.
(more at link)

Whenever there has been a demand for records from this administration, they use the same excuse: "Letting people know what goes on would interfere with our ability to get honest input". In other words, making anything the administration does public has a "chilling effect" on what they can talk about privately, even when what goes on is presumably legal and not related to national security.

So what we've got is a government that demands an open window into the private lives of its citizens, while erecting an iron curtain around its own activities. That is the direct OPPOSITE of a free country in my opinion, and NONE of us should stand for it!

As for my earlier rant, while I regret using the language I did, I stand firmly by the basis of my argument. And I do believe that if more people feel like Bryan does, it will mean the end of our way of life in America. I cannot possibly stress enough how terrible this law is. A government with these kinds of UNCHECKED powers will only demand more of them, they will NEVER relinquish them, as Fossten pointed out. The story of the frog in the water is the perfect analogy.

Be aware, this law, as passed, says nothing about what kind of investigations it applies to. It simply states that the attorney general can intercept communications of any kind if one of those persons is "reasonably believed" to be overseas. That's it. Not reasonably believed to be a terrorist. Just reasonably believed to be overseas.

This is a black day for America.
 
Get my drift. We can't go on as we have. The world has changed. If we want to survive, we have to change with the world.



How about this. Wouldnt this fix the problem? Add this to the law.

1) No intercepted transmissions may be used in any way against American Citizens unless the crime is terror or terror related;

2) If non FISA court authorized wiretapping takes place, the court must be informed at the earliest possible time; i.e. The court must be made aware of every wiretap;

3) Allow for stiff civil penalties for violations of American Citizens' rights in this regard;


I know I would feel a whole lot better about the law.
 
How about this. Wouldnt this fix the problem? Add this to the law.

1) No intercepted transmissions may be used in any way against American Citizens unless the crime is terror or terror related;

2) If non FISA court authorized wiretapping takes place, the court must be informed at the earliest possible time; i.e. The court must be made aware of every wiretap;

3) Allow for stiff civil penalties for violations of American Citizens' rights in this regard;


I know I would feel a whole lot better about the law.

As written there are no teeth in the provision for protecting citizens' rights. How about this for #3:

3) Any wiretap that is determined by a court of law to violate the 4th Amendment of the Constitution in any way, shape, matter, or form, shall be punishable by not less than 5 years in prison and a fine of not more than $100,000 for each and all parties involved directly or indirectly in said wiretap. DHS shall institute policies that mandate permanent removal without exception of any employee knowingly involved in such a violation. Under no circumstances shall any such involved employee of DHS have his or her employment retained one day longer than the date of the court's determination that a violation has occurred. Additonally, all employees named in the citizen's complaint shall immediately be put on administrative leave pending investigation and shall not be permitted entry to any DHS facility in order to prevent loss of records.

In the event that an American citizen's rights are violated outside of section (1), the citizen(s) shall be compensated for court costs and additional damages up to and including $1,000,000 tax free, and shall be issued a personal verbal public apology via a major television news network by the Secretary of Homeland Security and the President of the United States. A signed, written copy of the apology shall be furnished to the citizen for his or her records. All records obtained by this violation pertaining to this citizen shall be purged from DHS files and a Presidential pardon shall be issued to the citizen for good measure.

There, I fixed it.
 
I have no problem putting in any provision that protects innocent American citizens. None whatsoever.

I'm glad everybody agrees that we can't sit on the sidelines anymore. We can't sit back and react to events. We must make an attempt to change future events. Prevent an attack. Whatever it takes.

As a business man who travels occasionally, I know all too well what the cost will be when another attack occurs. 9/11 cost this Country tens of billions of dollars. The next attack if serious enough will cost tens of trillions.

So put whatever you want into the law that protects US citizens so that we do not tie the hands of the President when it comes to protecting us.

Many of you hate George Bush but God has a plan and he put George Bush in power at the right time and in the right place. He turned out to be one of the few politicians that understand stood the threat then and understands the repercussions now of not doing everything we can to prevent, not respond, to future attacks on this Country.

God Bless George W. Bush. I pray this Country remains unscathed throughout the term of his Presidency. He deserves to be vindicated in persistence, despite all the naysayers, that what he did (while certainly not perfect)was in the best interest of this Country and the world as a whole.

Kill the bad guy before he kills you. So repugnant an action yet so necessary.

You are only in denial if you don't think that mankind will eventually kill itself. It will. Destiny has already been set in motion. The nuclear holocaust is coming. Radical Islam will make sure it does.
 
This is a black day for America.
Is this supposed to be a racist comment?

Why not pink, or gray, or blue day? Why not a dark day for America?

Show a little more political correctness in your future postings libby.
 
I have no problem putting in any provision that protects innocent American citizens. None whatsoever.

I'm glad everybody agrees that we can't sit on the sidelines anymore. We can't sit back and react to events. We must make an attempt to change future events. Prevent an attack. Whatever it takes.

As a business man who travels occasionally, I know all too well what the cost will be when another attack occurs. 9/11 cost this Country tens of billions of dollars. The next attack if serious enough will cost tens of trillions.

So put whatever you want into the law that protects US citizens so that we do not tie the hands of the President when it comes to protecting us.

I believe this is what we call having common ground. This is a compromise that would actually benefit both sides of the issue. Give the president power but put a toothy provision in there to both punish and protect against abuses.

I don't see a nuclear holocaust in our future. But somebody's got to deal with Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria or else I could end up wrong.
 
But somebody's got to deal with Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria or else I could end up wrong.


Yeah - but GW isnt the one so long as Bush family money and interests are so deeply involved with Saudi Arabia.
 
So what we've got is a government that demands an open window into the private lives of its citizens, while erecting an iron curtain around its own activities. That is the direct OPPOSITE of a free country in my opinion, and NONE of us should stand for it!

:I :Beer


MonsterMark said:
Many of you hate George Bush but God has a plan and he put George Bush in power at the right time and in the right place.

:runaway: Spoken like a true christianofacist. :rolleyes:

MonsterMark said:
Kill the bad guy before he kills you.

Which one of the 10 commandments was that one? I must have missed it. Or was it one of the 5 that Moses dropped on the way down the mountain?
 
Johnny, ever more the marginal hater DUmmie and Daily Kossack, I see. Nothing to contribute, just an ugly little snapping pug dog nipping at my heels.

Ho hum.
 
Is this supposed to be a racist comment?

Why not pink, or gray, or blue day? Why not a dark day for America?

Show a little more political correctness in your future postings libby.
:rolleyes: Oh brother. I hope you're just being facetious. You ever hear of Black Monday?

Many of you hate George Bush but God has a plan and he put George Bush in power at the right time and in the right place.
Many of us hate George Bush and the people who control him precisely because we firmly believe they are corrupt, evil men, and as far removed from God as can possibly be. This may all be part of God's plan, but I absolutely reject the notion that God put George Bush into power to carry out His will. Of this I am certain.

He turned out to be one of the few politicians that understand stood the threat then and understands the repercussions now of not doing everything we can to prevent, not respond, to future attacks on this Country.
You still don't get it. By saying "everything we can", you're basically saying that nothing, not even the Constitution, should stand in the way of making Americans "feel" safe. I can think of plenty of things that would make us "safer": implants to track our every move, random home searches, roadside checkpoints, cameras installed in our homes to keep an eye on what we do. After all, if you're not doing anything wrong, there's nothing to fear right? Your papers please.

Those may be extreme, or even unlikely, examples, but my point is that once you accept one violation of the Constitution (the fourth amendment in this case), then you open the door to even more extreme violations. So consider what you are really saying when you use phrases like "everything we can" or "at all costs". The Constitution sets limits on what the government can do to keep us "safe". Those limits were put there, not to hinder our ability to protect ourselves from outside dangers, but to protect ourselves from dangers within.
 
Oh brother. I hope you're just being facetious. You ever hear of Black Monday?
Just trolling!:p

Many of us hate George Bush and the people who control him precisely because we firmly believe they are corrupt, evil men, and as far removed from God as can possibly be. This may all be part of God's plan, but I absolutely reject the notion that God put George Bush into power to carry out His will. Of this I am certain.
So what you are saying is that God didn't want George Bush to win? Must be Satan that pull that string!

You still don't get it. By saying "everything we can", you're basically saying that nothing, not even the Constitution, should stand in the way of making Americans "feel" safe. I can think of plenty of things that would make us "safer": implants to track our every move, random home searches, roadside checkpoints, cameras installed in our homes to keep an eye on what we do. After all, if you're not doing anything wrong, there's nothing to fear right? Your papers please.].
I'll back off the "everything we can" statement. How bout: Leave no stone unturned.

Those may be extreme, or even unlikely, examples, but my point is that once you accept one violation of the Constitution (the fourth amendment in this case), then you open the door to even more extreme violations. So consider what you are really saying when you use phrases like "everything we can" or "at all costs". The Constitution sets limits on what the government can do to keep us "safe". Those limits were put there, not to hinder our ability to protect ourselves from outside dangers, but to protect ourselves from dangers within.
I'm willing take a small step here. Listen in on the bad guys overseas. You seem to think it must lead to a race. Ever order a pizza and only eat one slice?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have no problem putting in any provision that protects innocent American citizens. None whatsoever.

I'm glad everybody agrees that we can't sit on the sidelines anymore. We can't sit back and react to events. We must make an attempt to change future events. Prevent an attack. Whatever it takes.

As a business man who travels occasionally, I know all too well what the cost will be when another attack occurs. 9/11 cost this Country tens of billions of dollars. The next attack if serious enough will cost tens of trillions.

So put whatever you want into the law that protects US citizens so that we do not tie the hands of the President when it comes to protecting us.

Many of you hate George Bush but God has a plan and he put George Bush in power at the right time and in the right place. He turned out to be one of the few politicians that understand stood the threat then and understands the repercussions now of not doing everything we can to prevent, not respond, to future attacks on this Country.

God Bless George W. Bush. I pray this Country remains unscathed throughout the term of his Presidency. He deserves to be vindicated in persistence, despite all the naysayers, that what he did (while certainly not perfect)was in the best interest of this Country and the world as a whole.

Kill the bad guy before he kills you. So repugnant an action yet so necessary.

You are only in denial if you don't think that mankind will eventually kill itself. It will. Destiny has already been set in motion. The nuclear holocaust is coming. Radical Islam will make sure it does.

In the fifties, wasn't the nuclear scare over the [god-less] Soviets and how they would bring destruction to America/the world? Though I agree with you sometimes, when you go on these religious-inspired rants, it's... its just weird man.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top