LawTalkers
Page 276 of 334 « First 176226266274275 276 277278286326 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=719)

sgtclub 02-24-2006 06:09 PM
Port (yes, whine) Issue
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I don't think anyone has said Bush is using this for nefarious purposes. Fighting terrorism is laudable, everyone agrees, and that's it's purpose.

But there are plenty of crime-fighting programs that have a laudable purpose but an unconstitutional implementation. Look no further than any proposal to arrest all blacks because the crime rate is higher. It's not nefarious in purpose, is it? It's just trying to reduce crime.
Plenty has insinuated it (none here, just in general). It usually is mentioned along with a "Patriot Act" shriek as shorthand for civil rights abuses.

sgtclub 02-24-2006 06:13 PM
Port (yes, whine) Issue
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Just so we're clear -- I don't really think the President is using this program for "nefarious" purposes. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I didn't mean you specifically. I understand that you are focused on the SOP issue.

Quote:
Aren't we talking about the President's power as CIC?
I don't know, I haven't read the WPA since law school. I was hoping to get educated.

Quote:
And if you're arguing that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Afghanistan somehow trumps FISA, don't bother. It's later in time, but FISA specifically deals with wartime, too, so there's no reason to think that Congress was trying to change FISA when it passed the AUMF. An earlier, specific statute will trump a later, general one.
I thought the one of the several resolutions passed gave the president pretty broad authority for the WOT, but if it is true that FISA provides for wartime, then obviously the reso wouldn't trump.






It would be a dumb thing to lie about, since it would be so easily refuted. [/QUOTE]

Tyrone Slothrop 02-24-2006 06:22 PM
Port (yes, whine) Issue
 
Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
Plenty has insinuated it (none here, just in general). It usually is mentioned along with a "Patriot Act" shriek as shorthand for civil rights abuses.
Well, wait a second. It's completely rational for Bush to worry more about another terrorist attack than about violating civil liberties. His job puts him in the position of balancing the two harms. You can understand why he would err on the side of the former (and in a recent profile in the New Yorker, his speechwriter Michael Gerson pretty explicitly said that that's what he's doing - you should find the quote on my blog and a link to the profile if you search for "Gerson"), but that doesn't mean that his judgment is correct. It's not nefarious, but it may lead to civil rights abuses. That's a reason to have other branches of government involved.

Tyrone Slothrop 02-24-2006 06:23 PM
Port (yes, whine) Issue
 
Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
I thought the one of the several resolutions passed gave the president pretty broad authority for the WOT, but if it is true that FISA provides for wartime, then obviously the reso wouldn't trump.
50 U.S.C. s 1811.

Tyrone Slothrop 02-24-2006 07:56 PM
quiz time
 
Who said this?
  • One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. ....
    Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans....
    The ... invading American army would succeed in training Iraqi soldiers and policymkers to cope with insurgents bent on violence. This last did not happen. And the administration has, now, to cope with failure. . . . .

(a) Michael Moore
(b) Silvio Berlusconi
(c) Barbara Boxer
(d) William F. Buckley
(e) Ramsay Clark
(f) Nancy Pelosi
(g) Howard Dean

no cheating....

sgtclub 02-24-2006 08:24 PM
quiz time
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Who said this?
  • One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. ....
    Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans....
    The ... invading American army would succeed in training Iraqi soldiers and policymkers to cope with insurgents bent on violence. This last did not happen. And the administration has, now, to cope with failure. . . . .

(a) Michael Moore
(b) Silvio Berlusconi
(c) Barbara Boxer
(d) William F. Buckley
(e) Ramsay Clark
(f) Nancy Pelosi
(g) Howard Dean

no cheating....
WFB

Spanky 02-24-2006 08:57 PM
quiz time
 
Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
WFB
2.

sgtclub 02-24-2006 09:05 PM
quiz time
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
2.
He's been skeptical about the war from the start.

ltl/fb 02-25-2006 01:30 AM
quiz time
 
Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
He's been skeptical about the war from the start.
and, he was pretty much the only non-liberal on there. dead giveaway.

Spanky 02-25-2006 02:09 PM
quiz time
 
Quote:
Originally posted by ltl/fb
and, he was pretty much the only non-liberal on there. dead giveaway.
Yes. Painfully obvious. A list of only conservatives would have been much better.

ltl/fb 02-25-2006 04:10 PM
quiz time
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
Yes. Painfully obvious. A list of only conservatives would have been much better.
We are as one on this.

Tyrone Slothrop 02-25-2006 05:47 PM
I wrote up a trickier quiz based on pages W2 and W3 of today's Financial Times, but the computer ate it and I don't feel like doing it again. Sorry.

Hank Chinaski 02-25-2006 05:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I wrote up a trickier quiz based on pages W2 and W3 of today's Financial Times, ..........
Stop this. Go play with your kids, then later, go running. Tomorrow- repeat.

Hank Chinaski 02-25-2006 07:35 PM
Islam- the drunk Hank Post of religions
 
So a paper publishes a cartoon of Mohammed and all across the World hundreds of thousands of Muslims riot and bomb and kill each other-

and when someone blows up the one of the holiest Mosques in the Shite faith.......protests? (I mean outside Iraq)

sgtclub 02-25-2006 07:49 PM
Islam- [i]the drunk Hank Post of religions[/i]
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
So a paper publishes a cartoon of Mohammed and all across the World hundreds of thousands of Muslims riot and bomb and kill each other-

and when someone blows up the one of the holiest Mosques in the Shite faith.......protests? (I mean outside Iraq)
The peaceful protests in Iraq were huge. Shia and Sunni alike. And what is the difference between the Iraqis and the rest of the Arab Muslim world?* Democracy maybe? Maybe they are getting it? Maybe the long term strategy has some merit?

*excluding turkey.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:13 AM.
Page 276 of 334 « First 176226266274275 276 277278286326 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com