What should we do with Bush?

[Electrophil]

Originally Posted by Earthworm

Thankfully no one read this thread title as, "What should we do with bush?"

I say F*** it

Crazy Manitobians.

[Trevor]

He WAS elected ! Would you prefer a dictator ? For gods sake value the democratic system you have. You will have another vote. Stop b i t c h i n g.

You appear to class Bush as a dictator. Is he ???

[Electrophil]

He isn't allowed to be a dictator, but he tries continuously, and is partially successful. His own party is ticked off at him right now for that very reason. Taking liberties with our constitution that are not allowed. Wire tapping US citizens without a warrant, the first FBI search in the capital building against an equal branch of government, sealing and unsealing documents at will without congressional oversight, etc.

Just the wire tapping without court approval should be enough to cause an outroar, but he is justifying it saying it is necessary without giving proof. He has sealed what he is saying is his proof and not allowing the other two branches of government to see if it truly is justification. Our congressional and legislative branches have no idea and must just "take his word" if wiretapping our citizens is OK without getting a warrant. You know..... kind of like a dictatorship.

Yeah, he isn't allowed under our constitution to be a dictator, but he's trying real hard to be by ignoring our constitution.

Bush wasn't elected in 2000, the supreme court made the "decision", and he did not win the popular vote in 2004, he took an all or nothing in Ohio with the electoral vote and pulled it off.

Demanding and getting accountability with our leaders. To not allow either would make the U.S. a dictatorship, wouldn't it?

Checks and balances or complaining.. same thing depending on which side you are on. To "shut up" turns it immediately into a dictatorship, doesn't it?

The United States is in an awkward position at this time of being "the" world superpower.. both economically, and militarily. There is no true form of a world check and balance at this time. Think about it, do you want someone over here in charge ignoring our constitution, and deviating the norm? Do you really want the people shutting up and allowing one man to do as he pleases?

Power corrupts. It's a universal human trait. Tell me, did you really give a hoot whether Iraq had a "dictator"? Do you really think we did? Did you really believe Saddam was a "threat"? To anyone? Iran was the only one that should have been worried.... That worked out well, didn't it?

I've been to Auckland cruising back from Brisbane. New Zealand is an absolutely beautiful country. Maybe Bush may want to make it a U.S. possession. That would take about 2 days, and be extremely wrong, unjustified, and outrageously immoral. But hey!! He's the president, the people here should just keep their mouth shut.

I have no idea how you guys run your government, but over here... Democracy does not stop with the vote, it starts there.

And trust me on this, at this point, you want us kicking and screaming to keep a check on tyranny. Short term may just be some wiretapping, and wiping out a government or two. We are capable of much, much more.

The Second World War did not end with a contract saying another one couldn't happen, and both of them started with the simple overtaking of a small government.

So..... If you don't mind, I'm not going to "stop b i t ching". That's how our Republic works, and it's the only check and balance our world has left. We saw how effective the U.N. was at the onset of the Iraqi invasion.

[Noir]

Originally Posted by Trevor

He WAS elected ! Would you prefer a dictator ? For gods sake value the democratic system you have. You will have another vote. Stop b i t c h i n g.

You appear to class Bush as a dictator. Is he ???

i didn't vote for him trevor.

[Noir]

Originally Posted by Electrophil

H
The United States is in an awkward position at this time of being "the" world superpower.. both economically, and militarily.

dunno how 'super' it is anymore.

[Electrophil]

Originally Posted by Noir

dunno how 'super' it is anymore.

They sent us upstairs without our super.

[lhopp77]

Trevor--Electrophil is very misleading on many issues. He makes it sound like Bush is tapping Americans lines without court orders. The government agencies are ONLY listening in on conversations that have one end in a foreign country and the caller is on the list of suspected terrorists. He also forgets to mention that the vast majority of the Americans support this to protect them from terrorism.

And as to the FBI searching the Congressman's office. He forget to mention that the FBI went to a Judge and got a search warrant to conduct the search of a congressman that WAS CAUGHT ON TAPE TAKING A $100K bribe and then stored the money in his office freezer. This is NOT an abuse of power by the executive branch as the judicial branch was also involved and Bush has NO control over the judicial branch and congressman are NOT immune from our laws. The ONLY thing the Constititution protects them from is actually going to and from Congress to vote on an issue---a protection to keep the executive branch from inflluencing congressional votes. I hardly think this criminal activity applies. Again the vast majority of the population applauds taking down corrupt politicians of EITHER party.

The liberals like Electrophil are pissed off because Bush has appointed 2 conservatives to the Supreme Court. The liberal judges have decided that since the the legislatures cannot pass laws to further the agendas of the super liberals--that they will make judicial decisions that are in effect making laws instead of determining if laws violate our Constitution. They are legislating from the bench WHICH IS THE PLACE OF CONGRESS and not judges. It is anticipated that the conservative judges will get back to doing what judges are supposed to do and keep a full separation of the Judicial/Legislative/Executive Branches of our government as intended by the Constitution.

So, like we say--there are two sides to the story.

Oh, I don't know if you get Fox News in New Zealand, but it drives the liberals crazy. As the bulk of the news media in the US is liberal we have for years only received slanted and editorialized news--until FOX. Now we get balanced reporting and yet even Fox presents BOTH sides of the issure simultaneously. That drives people like Robert (Electrophil) and WGJ CRAZEEEEEEEEEE. But the fact remains that FOX viewer percentages are only going up.


Just thought you should know a little of the other side in case you have not been following the political discussions.

Lee

[Electrophil]

Originally Posted by lhopp77

Trevor--Electrophil is very misleading on many issues. He makes it sound like Bush is tapping Americans lines without court orders. The government agencies are ONLY listening in on conversations that have one end in a foreign country and the caller is on the list of suspected terrorists. He also forgets to mention that the vast majority of the Americans support this to protect them from terrorism.

And as to the FBI searching the Congressman's office. He forget to mention that the FBI went to a Judge and got a search warrant to conduct the search of a congressman that WAS CAUGHT ON TAPE TAKING A $100K bribe and then stored the money in his office freezer. This is NOT an abuse of power by the executive branch as the judicial branch was also involved and Bush has NO control over the judicial branch and congressman are NOT immune from our laws. The ONLY thing the Constititution protects them from is actually going to and from Congress to vote on an issue---a protection to keep the executive branch from inflluencing congressional votes. I hardly think this criminal activity applies. Again the vast majority of the population applauds taking down corrupt politicians of EITHER party.

The liberals like Electrophil are pissed off because Bush has appointed 2 conservatives to the Supreme Court. The liberal judges have decided that since the the legislatures cannot pass laws to further the agendas of the super liberals--that they will make judicial decisions that are in effect making laws instead of determining if laws violate our Constitution. They are legislating from the bench WHICH IS THE PLACE OF CONGRESS and not judges. It is anticipated that the conservative judges will get back to doing what judges are supposed to do and keep a full separation of the Judicial/Legislative/Executive Branches of our government as intended by the Constitution.

So, like we say--there are two sides to the story.

Oh, I don't know if you get Fox News in New Zealand, but it drives the liberals crazy. As the bulk of the news media in the US is liberal we have for years only received slanted and editorialized news--until FOX. Now we get balanced reporting and yet even Fox presents BOTH sides of the issure simultaneously. That drives people like Robert (Electrophil) and WGJ CRAZEEEEEEEEEE. But the fact remains that FOX viewer percentages are only going up.


Just thought you should know a little of the other side in case you have not been following the political discussions.

Lee

Lee, you are the most accusatory person on this network. Can't you please just stick with the issues instead of continuously making things personal?

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by Electrophil

Lee, you are the most accusatory person on this network. Can't you please just stick with the issues instead of continuously making things personal?

Did I say something that was not true? You definitely provided a slanted view on the details you provided. I just reported the facts. You did not bother to give the full details on the wiretapping OR even the congressional search flap--you implied that it was purely Bush's executive branch to support your dictator position. Actually I did not even give my opinion (except maybe about the conservative judges)--just factual reporting of the situation.

You are totally accusatory about Bush and not in the least bit objective or fair. Like I said before--I definitely did not like Clinton but I gave him credit for good things and was fair about the bad things.

Anything I said is definitely supported by multiple postings on here or by factual findings. You can disagree with the wiretaps, but what I have said is truthful--what you said was only part of the story and results in slanted information. The same applies to your comments on the Congressional search issue. You failed to mention the judge issued search warrant--making it sound like a unilateral FBI (excutive branch) misuse of power.

Just be fair Robert. Tell it like it is and not how you would like it.

Lee

[Electrophil]

Originally Posted by lhopp77

Did I say something that was not true? You definitely provided a slanted view on the details you provided. I just reported the facts. You did not bother to give the full details on the wiretapping OR even the congressional search flap--you implied that it was purely Bush's executive branch to support your dictator position. Actually I did not even give my opinion (except maybe about the conservative judges)--just factual reporting of the situation.

You are totally accusatory about Bush and not in the least bit objective or fair. Like I said before--I definitely did not like Clinton but I gave him credit for good things and was fair about the bad things.

Anything I said is definitely supported by multiple postings on here or by factual findings. You can disagree with the wiretaps, but what I have said is truthful--what you said was only part of the story and results in slanted information. The same applies to your comments on the Congressional search issue. You failed to mention the judge issued search warrant--making it sound like a unilateral FBI (excutive branch) misuse of power.

Just be fair Robert. Tell it like it is and not how you would like it.

Lee

What facts on the wiretapping? There are no facts. Congress has no idea. We have no idea. We don't know who has been tapped, we don't know when anyone has been tapped, and we don't know what records they are keeping. What facts are you talking about that is so "backed up"?

This means there is only one so called "side". The side where it was leaked that they were tapping U.S. citizens without a warrant, and Bush said "Yeah, we are." Where's the slant? Where's the so called Liberal tree hugger issues?

My gosh man, what is it that 29% of you immediately call everything anti Bush some huge liberal media conspiracy slant on destroying the American way of life? Why is it immediately some personal attack? The American way of life is being demonstrated by the people wanting things to be up top and transparent. People have to stand up and say when things are wrong. This doesn't make them tree huggers. It's not a personal thing, this is our society.

The FBI received a warrant to search his two homes in LA, not to search the capital building. Do you really think any even tempered judge is going to allow that? Remember Watergate? Did any judge allow the FBI to go in and Seize the tapes from the White House? Will this bribery numbskull end up in jail? Well, I certainly hope so. But lets stick to the constitution, and the administration has control over the security branches, that wouldn't have happened without one of Bush's appointees allowing it. It was way too over the top. (Did it happen with Delay, or any of the Abe' group?)

Stick to the issues, don't be playing into the personal attack game. If you and WGJ want to go there, have at it. I personally don't want to go there.

[Electrophil]

Today's article from that highly biased, left wing, tree hugging, fanactically liberal organization we know as Yahoo. I heard some working at their company are..... oh my gosh! minorities! It's easy to see their left slant by presenting who said what.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060527/...NlYwMlJVRPUCUl

[Beav]

Just tosssing this in to stir the brew a bit. I record, mostly textbooks, for the blind and dyslexic (did I spell that right? ;-) on a volunteer basis. The purpose of me telling you is that I don't normally get to complete an entire text.

Several weeks ago I was recording a book about computer piracy, exploits, etc. One particular chapter I was reading addressed the phone tapping Bush approved. It wasn't so much concerned about the constitutional ramifications but rather the technology, and players, involved. Before blaming Bush, and don't get me wrong I'm not an ardent fan, consider the people that actually put the plan in place and their motives, plus how would one go about such an enormous endeavor.

First, for those wishing to assign blame: Check into the head of Homeland Security, the changes and oops (sic) that have gone on there. Then migrate over to the CIA and check out the who's who in the past coulple years. Don't forget the guys at the FBI and what they'd like to be doing - if they dared to strap on the big, brass ones like the CIA & HS do. Now look into who reports to who, who has more to gain from whatever, who needs to cover his or her fanny and who wants to play but will only do so as long as their respective fanny is covered.

Secondly, look into the technology required to take on such a vast project. Do you actually think YOUR rights will be violated by this phone tapping? "Let's see.... we need to tap the lines on maybe ten thousand foreign nationals and their families, friends and business associates. OH, WAIT!!! We don't want to forget to hook up and listen in on those idiots over at the Subaru SVX site!! God & GeoW know they're nothing but trouble!" Jumpin' Jeeeehosophat! The job requires a helluva lot of computing power to pull it off. They haven't employed 22,000 people to listen to random phone calls. They have computer programs watching for specific strings and then they still need to fine tune the ability to decipher languages and dialects. 230,000,000+ Americans, making approx. 5 calls each/day, each call lasting an avg. 12 minutes... get real! Doesn't anybody here have a brain that goes beyond the yellow journalism of CBS, Mike Wallace, and your local pie-eating-contest reporters?

Or do you have the capability to think, on your own (I know, it's already too late for that), that if something happened and it came out that a round of phone tapping could have saved a few thousand lives, you would now be *****ing that the dumbass president should have done that a long time ago? Who's gonna be your scapegoat when you forget to take out the trash next week?

Quit pointing fingers, it doesn't help. If you think you have something to offer get off yer butt and go down to your local party office and get involved. If you have constructive ideas on how to do things better, share them with the people there. There's one thing for certain - none of us will ever know all there is to know about what happened and who was responsible. Kennedy was assasinated 43 years ago and we still don't know who was responsible. Sitting on your soft side isn't making anything better so go put your energy to better use. Otherwise you're making no more difference than a gnat.

Everything in this thread, so far, has been negative and accusatory - this included (on purpose.) How about structuring it towards solutions instead? I'll be over here, sitting behind the chicken-wire fence....

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by Electrophil

What facts on the wiretapping? There are no facts. Congress has no idea. We have no idea. We don't know who has been tapped, we don't know when anyone has been tapped, and we don't know what records they are keeping. What facts are you talking about that is so "backed up"?

This means there is only one so called "side". The side where it was leaked that they were tapping U.S. citizens without a warrant, and Bush said "Yeah, we are." Where's the slant? Where's the so called Liberal tree hugger issues?

My gosh man, what is it that 29% of you immediately call everything anti Bush some huge liberal media conspiracy slant on destroying the American way of life? Why is it immediately some personal attack? The American way of life is being demonstrated by the people wanting things to be up top and transparent. People have to stand up and say when things are wrong. This doesn't make them tree huggers. It's not a personal thing, this is our society.

The FBI received a warrant to search his two homes in LA, not to search the capital building. Do you really think any even tempered judge is going to allow that? Remember Watergate? Did any judge allow the FBI to go in and Seize the tapes from the White House? Will this bribery numbskull end up in jail? Well, I certainly hope so. But lets stick to the constitution, and the administration has control over the security branches, that wouldn't have happened without one of Bush's appointees allowing it. It was way too over the top. (Did it happen with Delay, or any of the Abe' group?)

Stick to the issues, don't be playing into the personal attack game. If you and WGJ want to go there, have at it. I personally don't want to go there.

As good old R Reagan would say "There you go again." Making incomplete, half truth and misleading statements..

First, you know full well that I was talking about the overwhelming support for the foreign/domestic wiretaps which is at approximately 70 percent and not the overall support for the Bush performance.

I might also point out that the Democrats are very quiet now about the issue because they have found out that the 8 member intelligence oversite committee WAS IN FACT being kept informed of the entire program. The overwhelming approval of the very author of the NSA program (Gen Hayden) to be the new head of the CIA further proves what I have just said.

Your next wrong statement concerns the Search Warrant. You imply that it was only to search his residences and that no judge would sign a warrant to search the Capitol offices. Well read the warrant for yourself and quit making statements that you have no basis in fact for making.

http://www.npr.org/documents/2006/may/sw_redacted.pdf

For you info that specifically permits the search of Room 2113 of the Raburn House Office Building and even in his own handwriting on the first page, the judge orders the Capital Police to provide access to the office.

Now as to the constitutional legality of this search, that is for the Supreme Court to decide. By just reading the actual Constitution, I personally see nothing that precludes it as the Congressman was not going to or from the house to vote on a bill. He was involved in criminal activity. Total bribes exceeding $300K.

You seem to be hedging your bet about if a judge did approve it, then it must be one of Bush's appointees. Well, I don't know about that, but a judge did sign the warrant and so what if it was a Bush appointee. The Supreme Court will STILL decide ultimately if it was or is legal and within the Constitution.

IF it is not within the Constitution to search the offices of a member of the legislative branch for further evidence in a criminal case (consistent with legal searches and seizures)----we are in deep doo-doo. And you will note that Republicans are as much up at arms as the Demos---but it is definitely time we got crooks out of the legislature--no matter which party.

Just the facts Robert--just the facts.

Lee

PS: Beav, thanks for the view from a different and impartial prespective. Not that you don't support one side or the other, but that your insight definitely provides food for thought.

[Royal Tiger]

I wonder at how empty your lives must be to devote this much time an effort into something so meaningless and illogical. Slap his mama? Come on. Considering the next two candidates will probably also be total idiots doesn't bode well for the future. I blame clinton. He was so polarizing we have yet to recover. Bush is a direct result of the anti-clintons, and the next liberal moron will be fuled be the anti-Bush B.S. you all seem fixated on. Until the 2 party system goes away, it will always be one side or the other. Reagan was the last great President. Until we get a new system though, the "Republican" party backs more of the issues I agree with.

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by Tigershark

I wonder at how empty your lives must be to devote this much time an effort into something so meaningless and illogical. Slap his mama? Come on. Considering the next two candidates will probably also be total idiots doesn't bode well for the future. I blame clinton. He was so polarizing we have yet to recover. Bush is a direct result of the anti-clintons, and the next liberal moron will be fuled be the anti-Bush B.S. you all seem fixated on. Until the 2 party system goes away, it will always be one side or the other. Reagan was the last great President. Until we get a new system though, the "Republican" party backs more of the issues I agree with.

Cheez--Tiger--I have to keep these liberals from polluting and contaminating the net with falsehoods, propaganda, half truths, misquided opinions, downright lies, erroneous data-----etc etc etc without an objecting voice. Besides some of the stuff is soooooooo absurd that I just can't keep quiet.

In a way I do agree that Clinton administration was the polarizing factor even though the republican congress did not fight him on every single issue, appointment, etc. The current Democratic leadership wrote that book. Just the differences in how the liberal justices were debated and confirmed versus the conservative appointments proves that statement.

Lee