Bush sets record-longest vacation in recent history

[sodaseller]

No, you're misquoting me. I said:

Read as to what prompted that - look up Royce Lamberth

 

[Charade]

Oh now isn't this interesting...

The politics of presidential vacations was certainly taken to new heights when Dick Morris took a poll for Bill Clinton. The Clinton chief political adviser actually asked Americans where the president should rest up.

It revealed the obvious (as most polls do): that Americans would see another Clinton trip to Martha's Vineyard as too elitist. Instead, the First Family went to Jackson Hole, Wyo., where the president was photographed riding a horse and wearing a blue denim shirt, with a tan cowboy hat fitted squarely on his head, looking more Teddy Roosevelt than Franklin.

Faux cowboy Bill????

 

[bsnyder]

Read as to what prompted that - look up Royce Lamberth

Are you admitting you misquoted me?

 

[sodaseller]

Are you admitting you misquoted me?

No - because I didn't - you were parroting the talking point - you placed agency on Gorelick, which was a right wing talking point to undermine the 9/11 Commission. That's false

 

[bsnyder]

No - because I didn't - you were parroting the talking point - you placed agency on Gorelick, which was a right wing talking point to undermine the 9/11 Commission. That's false

"you placed agency on Gorelick"

Huh??

You said she created the mechanism that prevented the conspiracy from being discovered through sharing

I didn't say she created anything.

 

[sodaseller]

"you placed agency on Gorelick"

Huh??



I didn't say she created anything.

You are granting her agency for a change that was dictated by the then judicial rendering the statute and what was required. I can look it upo when I get more time - I'm 90% sure it was Lamberth

 

[BuckNaked]

Brenda, you may have slept through Bush's June 28, 2005 speech (the soliders who were forced to listen to this dumb speech clearly fell asleep as evidenced by the lack of applause). However, this speech did contain one of the more recent attempts by the Bushies to imply that Saddam was behind September 11. Bush Says War Is Worth Sacrifice As for a poster making the claim, look at Lyag's post. The only THIS being discussed on this thread was the war in Iraq. Again, conservatives and Bushies can not defend the war in Iraq except by trying to claim that Saddam was somehow link to the September 11 attacks which is simply a false claim.

Nope, I didn't sleep through it. And nowhere in that speech (or in any speech, for that matter) has the President EVER said that Iraq was behind 9/11. Unless, of course, you have a speech that says otherwise. Since you've claimed that the President and the rest of us are lying and saying that Iraq was behind 9/11, you must have a quote somewhere...right? Or are you ready to admit that you are, once again, incorrect in your claims?

 

[Tanuki]

According to the right wing talk show hosts Bush NEVER linked Sadaam to any weapons of mass destruction either. If you got the impression that Bush ever did before the war, well you just weren't listening carefully either.

The text of Bush's speech June 28th is equally carefully parsed.

It's Sept 11 and terrorists over and over again - as a justification to why we are in Iraq. No direct linking of Iraq and terrorism - BEFORE we got there.
Of course, now . . . . .

(and they wonder why people didn't trust his Social Security plan)

I will believe we have set up a true democracy in Iraq when the question is put before the people of Iraq for a vote "do you want American soldiers to remain in your country or not?"

They could put that question on the ballot at the same time the people of Iraq vote for their new constitution.

If they vote no - they're on their own to fight for their own freedom.

 

[BuckNaked]

It's Sept 11 and terrorists over and over again - as a justification to why we are in Iraq.

No argument there, but that is a far cry from saying that Iraq was behind 9/11, as has been repeatedly claimed here.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

What I find extremely objectionable is that even after 9/11, the Left continues to attack the Patriot Act and the Bush Administration, for trying to rectify these glaring shortcomings. My fear is that if we don't use some common sense, we'll end up with more frequent attacks and a huge segment of the general population will be clamoring for something much more draconian than the Patriot Act.

IMO, no law should be ushered through without question, as unfortunately, the original Patriot Act was. In the days that followed 9/11, America was in such shock that many Americans would have given up their basic Constitutional rights for the false promise that the government could keep them safe from terror. That is why I feel groups like the ACLU and a strong free press are so important in the climate of today's world. I prefer keeping those who are in power on their toes, and questions about the validity of certain laws and how they affect our unalienable rights as laid out in the Constitution are not only good, but necessary. This is America. We left our incontestable king in England over two centuries ago, and I'm not willing to budge an inch to bring one back, no matter what the cost. Too many good American's have fought and died to hand our rights back to the government.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

IMO, no law should be ushered through without question, as unfortunately, the original Patriot Act was. In the days that followed 9/11, America was in such shock that many Americans would have given up their basic Constitutional rights for the false promise that the government could keep them safe from terror. That is why I feel groups like the ACLU and a strong free press are so important in the climate of today's world. I prefer keeping those who are in power on their toes, and questions about the validity of certain laws and how they affect our unalienable rights as laid out in the Constitution are not only good, but necessary. This is America. We left our incontestable king in England over two centuries ago, and I'm not willing to budge an inch to bring one back, no matter what the cost. Too many good American's have fought and died to hand our rights back to the government.

Just out of curiousity, what Constitutional rights has the Patriot Act rescinded or even barely infringed upon?

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Just out of curiousity, what Constitutional rights has the Patriot Act rescinded or even barely infringed upon?

I'll answer your question, but tell me....what has become of the Republican party? For some reason, rubber stamping government policy, which liberals used to be vilified for, has become the #1 priority for conservatives everywhere. You may think that checks & balances are passe, but I'd like to keep them around thank you.

As to you question, The Patriot Act allows greatly expanded law enforcement access to records and communications, with little or no court oversight. It allows access, without a warrant, to student, library, bookstore and medical records, and forbids disclosure that such records have been sought or turned over. In addition, it allows the indefinite detention or deportation of non-citizens even if they have not been charged with a crime.

If that's the America you think the first Americans fought the Revolutionary War for, you might want to pick up a history book.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

That would be the 4th Amendment to the Constituton, if you're looking it up: Fourth Amendment - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

[BuckNaked]

As to you question, The Patriot Act allows greatly expanded law enforcement access to records and communications, with little or no court oversight. It allows access, without a warrant, to student, library, bookstore and medical records, and forbids disclosure that such records have been sought or turned over. In addition, it allows the indefinite detention or deportation of non-citizens even if they have not been charged with a crime.

I believe you are incorrect in stating that no warrants are required for such searches. Warrants are required, but they are much easier to obtain through the Patriot Act.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

I'll answer your question, but tell me....what has become of the Republican party? For some reason, rubber stamping government policy, which liberals used to be vilified for, has become the #1 priority for conservatives everywhere. You may think that checks & balances are passe, but I'd like to keep them around thank you.

Since I am not a member of any organized (or unorganized) political party, I would have a difficult, if not impossible time answering this question. That said, it seems that this is mostly a matter of one's chosen perspective. What one person may perceive as "rubber-stamping" another might perceive it as following the party's platform or game plan.

Your statement does what too many on this board do: attempts to paint then condemn a sweeping generalization that doesn't accurately represent reality. Well, maybe reality as you see it, but it's not the same reality that others see. Then again, as I've said before, reality, like truth, seems to be fairly relative these days.

As to you question, The Patriot Act allows greatly expanded law enforcement access to records and communications, with little or no court oversight. It allows access, without a warrant, to student, library, bookstore and medical records, and forbids disclosure that such records have been sought or turned over. In addition, it allows the indefinite detention or deportation of non-citizens even if they have not been charged with a crime.

If that's the America you think the first Americans fought the Revolutionary War for, you might want to pick up a history book.

I am no constitutional expert, but from my decidely amateur understanding of that document, none of these are specifically guaranteed Constitutional rights. I know this will probably divert this thread into a new discussion about whether or not the right to privacy is (was) envisioned in the Constitution, so I apologize for creating yet another swerve in this thread.

Finally, IMO non-citizens of the U.S. have no Constitutional rights. If they want to go through the legal process to become citizens, then they (and you) can start claiming all these rights and I will stand right next to you and fight for those rights. Until then, they are what they are -- non-citizens.

 

[Charade]

If that's the America you think the first Americans fought the Revolutionary War for, you might want to pick up a history book.

Just as a side note. The Bill of Rights wasn't ratified until some 20 years after the Revolution and 10 years after the Constitution was ratified. We've had 200 years of amendments to the Constitution since then so I doubt the founding fathers had any clue as to what America would become. Heck, they may not have liked some of the future amendments but they gave us the process to change things as we saw the need to. So to say "is that the America they fought to create?" is a weak argument IMO.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

I am no constitutional expert, but from my decidely amateur understanding of that document, none of these are specifically guaranteed Constitutional rights.

You don't have to be an expert. Just read the 4th, the 5th and the 14th Amendments and you'll get a good idea why there are so many questioning the Patriot Act..

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Just as a side note. The Bill of Rights wasn't ratified until some 20 years after the Revolution and 10 years after the Constitution was ratified. We've had 200 years of amendments to the Constitution since then so I doubt the founding fathers had any clue as to what America would become. Heck, they may not have liked some of the future amendments but they gave us the process to change things as we saw the need to. So to say "is that the America they fought to create?" is a weak argument IMO.

Fine, but it's still just your opinion, just like that statement is mine, and I can appreciate that. The rest of the post, however, is not opinion. It's the truth.

 

[wvrevy]

Just as a side note. The Bill of Rights wasn't ratified until some 20 years after the Revolution and 10 years after the Constitution was ratified. We've had 200 years of amendments to the Constitution since then so I doubt the founding fathers had any clue as to what America would become. Heck, they may not have liked some of the future amendments but they gave us the process to change things as we saw the need to. So to say "is that the America they fought to create?" is a weak argument IMO.

So, what, you think they fought to create a country where the government could spy on the people and invade their homes with no notice and no need to show cause ?

It's interesting, though, that you point out that the BoR wasn't added until much later. Many people back then didn't want to add the bill onto the original document. Know why ? Because they were afraid that some fools in the future would think that, because certain rights were specifically enumerated, those were the only ones meant to be given.

Seems to me they were prophetic, and those that urged the addition of the Bill were either too optimistic about the future or simply had too much faith in the will of the people to maintain their freedoms.

(BTW...This is addressed in the 9th Amendment specifically: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.")

 

[Tigger_Magic]

You don't have to be an expert. Just read the 4th, the 5th and the 14th Amendments and you'll get a goog idea why there are so many questioning the Patriot Act..

I have read them... many times. I still do not see where in the Patriot Act any Constitutional rights are rescinded or even barely restricted. As I read the 4th Amendment, it is your personal property that is protected, not documents about you as a student, library user, bookstore shopper, etc. It sounds like you are trying to create some sort of super-blanket of privacy expectation that was never envisioned in the 4th Amendment.