| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58
Comments:
<0> waltrip is in front
<1> Hmm Yeah I guess he could be.
<2> Free: And, you'll find our very brief PM exchange quite relaxing. "Problem Solved", as it were. ;)
<1> I gave up ll movie channels for Netflix for $10 a month I receive 2 movies a week.
<1> not 11 movie channels, I gave up ALL
<1> hahahaha
<3> FT: you may appreciate this: http://snltranscripts.jt.org/77/77jupdate.phtml
<1> So I save $40.00 I wont go with HBO and the others because they have digital copy protection.
<0> oh my god!
<0> you guys
<0> there was a huge crash on the last lap of the Busch race
<1> and so far there are no good programs to break copy protection from MS-DVR or DVR-MS
<0> about 100 yards before the finish
<2> Hemi: Who won?
<0> about 15 cars
<2> Hahaha.
<2> (***uming that was 15 cars won... not 15 in the crash)
<3> or, not.
<1> I dont like the senate plan to expand Fisa when the problem with judges to begin with is they are too judicial in a military time, where the only judges I trust is the supreme court..
<1> Given its an issue of balance of powers.
<0> FT, the problem with FISA is senatorial leaks
<1> Its wrong for people to think the constitution grants Congress the power to define the presidents powers.
<0> and trying to politicise it
<0> politicians want to act like "Ohh we aren't informed"
<1> The constitution directly defines his power and precedent and stare decisis pretty much has established an idea of where that line is.
<0> but they ARE in formed
<4> I don't think FISA was consitutional to begin with, if it limited teh power of teh Exec.
<5> timur
<5> what are you doing later?
<0> Us-Male exactlty
<0> its not legal
<1> Its ok for the Congress to affirm a right the president already has.
<4> I don't believe COngress can do that without amending the Constutution
<1> But unless the president feels the congressional program will not harm the war effort should he allow it to p***.
<0> FT, yes but the congress doesn't have the right to set the guidelines that the president can act within
<0> the congress doesn't have the right to limit the president
<1> He can file in the supreme court a petition to look at the law even if a veto proof majority p*** it.
<0> FT
<1> Bush apparently is agreeable to one of these plans.
<0> we can not afford to have a presidents hands tied
<1> I dont like the idea of judges.
<1> I prefer political people
<0> by binding his hands in law
<0> and questioning every thing he does
<1> Political oversite by dems and reps who are sword to secrecy or prison
<1> Its a lie and a myth that fisa is no impediment to getting eavesdrops
<0> i would suggest if you all want to learn the powers of the presidency?
<4> portions of the original FISA law need to be struck down if COngress think they limited the Exec's power with simple legislation
<1> It is an impediment
<1> even 72 hours later.
<4> because that s not legally possible to do
<0> i would suggest you look at the powers that Andrew Jackson adopted while he was president
<0> the president is virtually the king, he is elected
<5> timur
<0> he doesn't have the power to declare himself king or usurp power
<1> Its a burecratic process very time consuming and distracting from the fact that we need to know why Zawahiri is calling Dan Rathers RIGHT NOW instead of missing any part of it.
<0> but he has the power of decree
<0> i would ask if you want to know about presidential power?
<0> look at the power of presidential direct discretion
<0> or PDD's
<4> now -- current Congress can amend the Constitution if they desire, and take teh FISA approach in either direction
<6> My only problem is that Bush has proven he's a liar on this whole wiretap thing, so I don't know that I want to give him anymore power.
<1> He is the commander in chief which confers the powers of commander in chief on him.. Define those powers? The courts have had to in the past, but they have mostly allowed the executive privalege under war.
<7> What I don't get is why if they can tap without the court, they have to go back later to the court, when the tapping has already been done, What can the court do, say no to something that's already been done? Why bother with them at all?
<0> the president can decree just about anything
<1> Which I have said over and over again.
<6> From an April 2004 speech in Buffalo, NY....There are such things as roving wire taps. Now, by the way, anytime you hear the United States government talking about wire tap, it requires...a wire tap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand. When
<0> as long as it doesn't step on the toes of the legislature
<1> What I have not said over and over but is true is that FISA is not as easy as people make it sound.
<0> FISA is a political tool
<1> If it were why would people in the NSA and in the executive say it isnt ?
<0> nothing more
<1> It makes no sense.
<0> exactly FT
<0> it can be made to say anything
<6> Thus, Bush is a lieing sack of ****.
<0> no
<0> he has claimed that his power is beyond FISA
<0> and is rooted in the constitution
<0> BEYOND FISA
<0> FISA is not constitutional
<0> neither is the war powers act
<1> Its a lot of paperwork and bureacracy and maybe information we dont need to share with the fisa court, Apparently one quit in protest and god knows what he might be leaking. Most he leaks by all inside accounts either exagerate or completely miss what is actually going on.
<8> "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so." - George W. Bush, April 20, 2004
<3> legalisms
<4> all Exec. power is rooted in the Constitution.... COngress must amend it if they wish to change it
<7> Brak55, no, Bush isn't a lying sack of ****, but thatnks for the chilish stupidity.
<1> Rusty, the tension between congress and the executive was intentionally built into the system.
<6> Tailor: Read what I posted (If you have the ability). He lied.
<1> But yes you are right its a constitutional powers debate.
<8> Brak55... I put that one on my blog a month or two back.
<8> :P
<8> http://glock21.blogspot.com/2005/12/bush-on-surveillance-circa-2004.html
<5> Timur
<0> Brak, in the constitution, tell me what is "reasonable search and siezure"?
<8> Brak55... he appears to contradict himself on this issue.
<1> Well the president has a lot more power than is literally and directly worded in the constitution, But then So has congress taken a lot more power than the literal word of the constitution has granted it.
<0> the constitution clearly states you don't need a warrant to search
<1> All institution of power in this nation have increased their own power through a series of court precedents and time.
<6> ...and, as usual, Tailor throws an insult and runs away with his tail between his legs.
<7> Brak55, I don't know where you got that or what Bush's subject was, what I do know is this, YOU are a liar and that has been shown time and again, there hasn't been a showing of this with Bush.
<1> All the 3 branches I am talking about.
<0> Brak?
<0> Brak, in the constitution, tell me what is "reasonable search and siezure"?
<3> The people's good is the highest law.
<5> Timur
<3> -Cicero
<1> brak55, Who lied ?
<6> Tailor: It is a direct quote. And bull**** on the liar part.
<6> FreeTrade: Bush
<1> About what ?
<6> There are such things as roving wire taps. Now, by the way, anytime you hear the United States government talking about wire tap, it requires...a wire tap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand. When you think Patriot Act, constitutional guara
<0> Timur, which explains why Cicero was never elevated to the likes of Caesar
<3> no, it doesn't.
<1> Bush allegedly lied about what ?
<0> and in fact later proclaimed that the greatest wrong was allowing his ***asination
<6> FreeTrade: Read the quote
<7> Brak55, direct quote IN PART, we don't know where you got that or what Bush was talking about overall
<1> What quote ?
<8> Tailor: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html
<8> It's from there.
<9> heh
<0> Timur, i would suggest you study Cicero and Caesars time
<1> WHAT QUOTE
<8> "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so." - George W. Bush, April 20, 2004
<0> Caesar did more for the poor than Cicero ever did
<8> That quote
<8> Brak keeps posting a bigger one that cuts off.
<6> FreeTrade: The one I just posted where he says that the government will get a court order for wiretaps.
<0> hehe Timur on the military channel they just did a whole write up on roman rule
<3> FT: pay attention. :)
<1> Well Bush is right about the US Government bureacracies.
<3> It is the spirit and not the form of law that keeps justice alive. -Cicero
<1> but he doesnt require one.
<7> Glock21, was he talking about international terrorists or internal?
<3> the spirit of the law is hugely important
<1> He can authorize them as long as its related to the war.
<8> Tailor... a bit of both.
<1> the minue he does one with a search warrant for a drug dealer he has broken the lawe
<4> "wiretaps" may refer to domestic cases.
<0> Timur, yes and when Caesar was killed he said "Today justice died"
<0> "and we killed it"
<3> all the bla bla about the 'constitutionality' is irrelevant, if the whole dynamic is based on legitimate needs, which, it seems, it is.
<1> But as long as its related to war, Bush is within his authority
<7> Glock21, well that certainly is inconclusive :-) I'll read it later.
<3> of course, he would say that
<4> if you have one side overseas, that may not be called a "wiretap" although technologically similar
<0> Timur he though Caesar was the shiznit
<3> Even when laws have been written down, they ought not always to remain unaltered.
<3> [info][add][mail]
<3> Aristotle
Return to
#politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
#beginner
#italy
sendto in send_ip_packet: sendto => Operation not permitted
allumomzen
#cisco
#beginner
track-it agent
link:www.swifttrade.com
#computers
#dreamweaver
|
|