Thread: How much more of this Presidency can you take?

Originally Posted by BoneCrusher

The only people still loyal to Bush are the egotistical types unable to admit that they backed the wrong horse or that their party screwed the country. If you still back Bush produce something with SOURCES that shows he has made good leadership choices. Skip the onesy-twosy crap cuz I'm talkin policy here and keep the opinionated BS to your self ... be ready to produce stats and sources.

What stats and sources can u produce to discredit our President?

Originally Posted by thefutureisnow

What stats and sources can u produce to discredit our President?

Is this a joke? You wouldn't have time to read it all.

Originally Posted by BoneCrusher

The only people still loyal to Bush are the egotistical types unable to admit that they backed the wrong horse or that their party screwed the country.

That is a pretty bold statement.

Originally Posted by fufu

That is a pretty bold statement.

That's a bold statement in itself.

Originally Posted by thefutureisnow

Okay. What they do is they have these supercomputers that collect information on which number calls which and stores them in huge databases. Then it looks for patterns or links to suspected terrorist operatives. No conversations are recorded. This is not being analyzed by a person, it's being analyzed by a computer. This has been leaked by someone inside the NSA. Have you ever heard of classified information? The reason they don't tell us about it is so the terrorists don't gain and upperhand by circumventing methods used by the NSA. Congress was briefed about this program and they had the full knowledge of what was going on. And there is no reason to worry if you're not communicating with terrorists. Contact your phone company, they're the ones who turned over your records. I'm sick and tired of people blaming the President or Congress for trying to protect our country. Do you really think that if we would just sit back and do nothing that there wouldn't be another terrorist attack? If you answered yes, then you are a complete idiot. These people are sworn enemies of us. They would like to see everyone in America killed.

-J

The NSA shut down the Justice Department's investigation into this spying program. Bush already violated FISA by permitting spying without a warrant on the content of phone calls btn americans. Now Bush has authorized the collection of phone call data of all americans...forever, with no oversight. Essentially Bush is claiming ABSOLUTE power and that we should trust the administration--that it will use the information for good reasons only.

If you do not see a clear destruction of the checks and balances of power that is at the heart of our constitutional form of government, then you are just not looking.

Also, your contention that the terrorists are now on notice that they are under surveillance is comical. It's that kind of condescending rationalizing that opens the US to danger. Do you really believe that Al Qaeda didn't know the US was using every tool to get them? Why with your misunderestimating of the enemy, anything is possible....even 19 guys w/ boxcutters commandeering several jets to attack an enemy.

It's not that this data mining is not necessary, it might be--although I have presented an expert's opinion to the contrary--the problem is that there is no oversight of presidential power and Bush has already lied repeatedly about the nature and extent of Big Government spying on americans.

Originally Posted by John H.

Hi Decker,

I NEVER DID. I did NOT trust him from the start. Nor did I vote for Nixon, Reagan, Bush (the father), etc. ....
Take Care, John H.

Did you vote for Ike or Kennedy too?

Originally Posted by BigDyl

That's a bold statement in itself.

Originally Posted by Decker

The NSA shut down the Justice Department's investigation into this spying program. Bush already violated FISA by permitting spying without a warrant on the content of phone calls btn americans. Now Bush has authorized the collection of phone call data of all americans...forever, with no oversight. Essentially Bush is claiming ABSOLUTE power and that we should trust the administration--that it will use the information for good reasons only.

If you do not see a clear destruction of the checks and balances of power that is at the heart of our constitutional form of government, then you are just not looking.

Also, your contention that the terrorists are now on notice that they are under surveillance is comical. It's that kind of condescending rationalizing that opens the US to danger. Do you really believe that Al Qaeda didn't know the US was using every tool to get them? Why with your misunderestimating of the enemy, anything is possible....even 19 guys w/ boxcutters commandeering several jets to attack an enemy.

It's not that this data mining is not necessary, it might be--although I have presented an expert's opinion to the contrary--the problem is that there is no oversight of presidential power and Bush has already lied repeatedly about the nature and extent of Big Government spying on americans.

The short version: The more we allow our government to invade our privacy in the name of national security, the more the terrorists win.

Originally Posted by DOMS

The short version: The more we allow our government to invade our privacy in the name of national security, the more the terrorists win.

You make alot of sense. I would agree with what you're saying. Who and what are we as a government...a people? Our national identity is always changing--defined by every new action our country takes. Some things are worth preserving even in the face of adversity/battle/attack. Integrity, in all it's forms, is hard to recover once lost.

Try to name one right that the American people have lost that they have since recovered? I can't think of any.

Originally Posted by DOMS

Try to name one right that the American people have lost that they have since recovered? I can't think of any.

Here's one: the fundamental constitutional right to privacy. Here's another--the right of protection from unreasonable search and seizures by Gov. found in the Fourth Amendment. FISA was enacted to protect americans from unreasonable governmental intrusion. Does violation = elimination of the right? The right is still on the books but the president's violation renders the legal right meaningless.

As with most fundamental constitutional rights, the Sp.Ct. generally notes that even the slightest compromise or violation is worth judicial redress.

Originally Posted by Decker

Here's one: the fundamental constitutional right to privacy. Here's another--the right of protection from unreasonable search and seizures by Gov. found in the Fourth Amendment. FISA was enacted to protect americans from unreasonable governmental intrusion. Does violation = elimination of the right? The right is still on the books but the president's violation renders the legal right meaningless.

As with most fundamental constitutional rights, the Sp.Ct. generally notes that even the slightest compromise or violation is worth judicial redress.

I think you misunderstood my question. I was asking for any right that we had lost and had won back.

I also wasn't just referring to Bush, but to the government in general. Yes, we've lost rights under Bush, but how many did we lose user Clinton? This isn't a partisan problem.

I worked on a case where a man was convicted of rape based on dog scent evidence in 1982. He was imprisoned for 22 years. In 1988, when DNA came out, he began requesting the test; the state denied his requests. Starting in 1994 he had the funding to pay for the tests himself, and the government refused to release the evidence. In 2001 DNA testing of pubic hairs found at the crime scene proved that they were not his. The government had offered these hairs as 'conclusive proof' of his guilt at his original trial, however now they argued that the hairs proved nothing. The State held him for three years after he was proven innocent, arguing procedural bullshit in court. They argued that despite the DNA hair test, the government should be able to refuse to release the rape kit for conclusive DNA testing. At one point the government said that they would support keeping him incarcerated even if they knew he was absolutely innocent. In 2004, after 22 years of incarceration for a crime he did not commit, after requesting DNA testing for 16 years, Wilton Dedge was released from prison after being found factually innocent by DNA testing. The state didn't buy him a bus ticket, didn't give him cab fare, didn't give him a quarter for a phone call. They opened up the gates of the prison and put him out on his ass without a penny's compensation for 22 years of work, and 22 years of life lost.

The government owns you, and they have for a long long time. Anyone who thinks they live in a free country is a fucking idiot. Don't talk about some computer program that analyzes phone numbers as some monumental breach of your sacred individual liberty. The government can lock you away for a crime you didn't commit, and even admit that you are innocent while doing it, take a quarter of your life without compensation, and then refuse to expunge your criminal record after you are proven innocent. Somehow a computer program that remembers the phone numbers of people calling Afghanistan and Iran isn't high on my priority list.

Also, note that it would make a lot more sense to only monitor the phone calls of people of Arab nationalities who are calling Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran. How many whites, hispanics, or black do you know that have made car bombs or crashed planes into buildings. However, thanks to the righteous, holier-than-thou liberal party, that is considered unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by DOMS

I think you misunderstood my question. I was asking for any right that we had lost and had won back.

I also wasn't just referring to Bush, but to the government in general. Yes, we've lost rights under Bush, but how many did we lose user Clinton? This isn't a partisan problem.

I'm sorry. My attention to detail is horrible today. I pulled an upper back muscle a couple of days ago resulting in a headache that just won't quit--it's there when I wake up and there when I goto bed.

I can't think of any direct violation of fund. const. rights under Clinton but I can point to an indirect violation re NAFTA. The (extra-constitutional) powers afforded corporations where corporate rights stand above the rights of any other sovereignty re labor practices, environmental concerns etc. are the things I find objectionable. Since the president is the maker of treaties, I'd lay that at his feet directly.

Sorry to hear about your injury. I'm just getting over a knee injury. A pretty stupid one too. I was getting off a plane in LA. I was pulling my carry-on from the overhead bin, when my knee got caught on the armrest of one of the seats and yanked my knee to the side, pulling my tendon.

You can also add the DMCA to Clinton. There are plenty others if you care to look.

Originally Posted by clemson357

I worked on a case where a man was convicted of rape based on dog scent evidence in 1982. He was imprisoned for 22 years. In 1988, when DNA came out, he began requesting the test; the state denied his requests. Starting in 1994 he had the funding to pay for the tests himself, and the government refused to release the evidence. In 2001 DNA testing of pubic hairs found at the crime scene proved that they were not his. The government had offered these hairs as 'conclusive proof' of his guilt at his original trial, however now they argued that the hairs proved nothing. The State held him for three years after he was proven innocent, arguing procedural bullshit in court. They argued that despite the DNA hair test, the government should be able to refuse to release the rape kit for conclusive DNA testing. At one point the government said that they would support keeping him incarcerated even if they knew he was absolutely innocent. In 2004, after 22 years of incarceration for a crime he did not commit, after requesting DNA testing for 16 years, Wilton Dedge was released from prison after being found factually innocent by DNA testing. The state didn't buy him a bus ticket, didn't give him cab fare, didn't give him a quarter for a phone call. They opened up the gates of the prison and put him out on his ass without a penny's compensation for 22 years of work, and 22 years of life lost.

The government owns you, and they have for a long long time. Anyone who thinks they live in a free country is a fucking idiot. Don't talk about some computer program that analyzes phone numbers as some monumental breach of your sacred individual liberty. The government can lock you away for a crime you didn't commit, and even admit that you are innocent while doing it, take a quarter of your life without compensation, and then refuse to expunge your criminal record after you are proven innocent. Somehow a computer program that remembers the phone numbers of people calling Afghanistan and Iran isn't high on my priority list.

It's a cliche, but our justice system is not perfect...it's the best we have. We do live in reasonably free society. Freedom is not equated w/ license--you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater--but we are free nonetheless. Society necessarily needs an organizing entity called a federal government. Our job as citizens is make that government accountable to its citizenry.

Our government is a system of checks and balances that operates through elected officials doing the will of the people. The issue with this data mining is absolute presidential power asserted by Bush/NSA with no accountability. That strikes at the heart of our way of government.

For the hell of it, ideally, what I'd like to see longterm is the Fed. Gov. diminish corporate hegemony, then have the people reduce the Fed. Gov.'s size by at least half since most of the governing powers would fall to the states.

Originally Posted by DOMS

Sorry to hear about your injury. I'm just getting over a knee injury. A pretty stupid one too. I was getting off a plane in LA. I was pulling my carry-on from the overhead bin, when my knee got caught on the armrest of one of the seats and yanked my knee to the side, pulling my tendon.

You can also add the DMCA to Clinton. There are plenty others if you care to look.

I seem to recall we talked about the DMCA before, but I'm drawing a blank as big as the sky today. Copyright law tend to do that to me.

Good luck w/ your recovery. Wow, that blows--getting injured in such strange way.

We live in a society in which the government can lock you away, and stand in a court of law and argue that they would keep you locked up even if they knew you were innocent, and deny you DNA testing when it costs the government nothing to allow it. That is not a free society, IMO.

"When the people shall grow weary of their constitutional right to amend the government, they shall exert their revolutionary right to dismember and overthrow that government." Abe Lincoln, Republican

The Speech I Would Write
This is the speech that would raise the president's poll numbers.

My fellow Americans. My poll numbers are in the shitter. I don't have to worry about getting elected again so I have decided to do what's right.

To the congress: If you send me another bloated piece of shit legislation I will veto it.

Trent Lott does not need to have us move a railroad track. If Mississippi needs to have it moved, let them pay for it themselves.

Senator Stevens does not have to have a $200 million bridge to an island that has only 50 people.

We've given enough money to New Orleans. Half of it will wind up into the pockets of corrupt politicians anyway.

The people elected us to shrink the size of government, not expand it. I can understand Senator Byrd wanting another building in West Virginia named after him. He's a Democrat. I expect that from him. But I do not expect that from small government Republicans.

When did our party turn into the Democratic Party? What happened to the revolution of 1994? We need to quit spending like drunken sailors and I need to start wielding the veto pen.

Now I want to talk about illegal immigration. What part of illegal is so hard to understand? If they are here illegally, they are breaking the law. Before we can talk about an amnesty or guest worker program we need to get immigration under control. We tried an amnesty program in 1986. It didn't work.

Putting troops on the border will not solve the problem. We need to build a fence. A big fence. A fence that runs from San Diego to Texas. My fellow Americans we will build that fence.

After we build that fence, any illegal Spanish speaking alien will be sent back to Mexico. I don't care if you're Mexican or not. If you are here illegally and you speak Spanish we'll put you on the Mexican side of the fence. You think our laws are bad? Wait until you see how Mexico treats illegals.

Only after we get the illegal immigration problem under control will we start talking about an amnesty program.

To President Fox: I don't give a shit if you don't like this. Maybe if you would fix the problems in your Third World shithole country your prople wouldn't want to live here. What the fuck do you do with all of your oil money and tourism dollars? I think you ought to give us free oil since we are taking care of so many of your citizens.

That is my plan. Good night and God bless America.

Originally Posted by fufu

That is a pretty bold statement.