It's been all over TV

President Bush's wartime powers make him literally the most powerful man on the planet. Is there something wrong with this? I say yes. No man should be able to wield this much power, especially someone who has as much trouble with speaking to the press. How many times has he screwed in the middle of his speeches?

The CIA has been taking people & making them disapear to who knows where. To torture them on foreign soil, because it's illegal to do it on American soil. Legal Loopholes, aren't they amazing? (note the sarcasm)

Have you tried watching Condoleeza Rice on TV defending President Bush's actions & the CIA's action?

To Me, it doesn't matter if they're American citizens, or not, they're on American soil, & NO ONE should be tortured for any reason.

You're telling Me, that if they suspected YOU as a "terrorist", that you'd be okay with it? I'm not saying you are a suspect, or that you've done anything wrong to be suspected of, just that they think you're suspect.

Think about it. All it takes, is the Government "suspecting" you of something they don't agree with or you being a real annoyance to them (like a protester), & off you go.

That's what it's coming to.

[edit on 23-12-2005 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

very true you hit the nail on the head....also in the news this week is the fact that the fbi has been monitoring human rights groups and PETA and many others.. the goal as it seems to me is to be ready to pounce on any person or group that comes out against the govt. like when bush said that the people who "leeked" the story about his illegal wire taps is the criminal. Like the whistle blower is the felon here not the guy breaking the damned law in the first place?...i mean really But yuor right thats what its coming to. "kill the messanger" apparently is the name of the game in white house strategy. And not to mention that Bush and company have labelled every group they can to terrorism.. drug dealers.. gang members.... the homeless.... illegal mexican immagrants.... Human rights groups.... and coming soon...pornographers.... hollywood... and democrats in general(im not a dem or rep, btw).. this is getting out of control!

the question is- what'll happen if there's another terrorist attack. Isn't there another patriot act waiting in the wings? I thought I heard something about a "Patriot Act II" or something like that.

Let's be real here. Anyone who opposes BushCo. are essentially deemedterrorists.

It's very creepy.

[edit on 1/1/06 by EastCoastKid]

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
No man should be able to wield this much power, especially someone who has as much trouble with speaking to the press. How many times has he screwed in the middle of his speeches?

Upset because he's not a great speaker? It's like attacking a poster here for bad spelling. Standard political tripe in this thread I see.

The CIA has been taking people & making them disapear to who knows where. To torture them on foreign soil, because it's illegal to do it on American soil.

They have been doing it far longer than just this Administration. Again of course...it's just another bunch of political finger-pointing.

You're telling Me, that if they suspected YOU as a "terrorist", that you'd be okay with it? I'm not saying you are a suspect, or that you've done anything wrong to be suspected of, just that they think you're suspect.

The police could "think" I am a criminal too and put me in jail, search my house, and make my life bad. So what? It's been the same all along in some fashion or another. My boss could "think" I am lazy, my wife could "think" I was cheating, etc, etc.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Let's be real here. Let's be real here. Anyone who opposes BushCo. are essentially deemed terrorists.

Hmmm, more of the standard name-calling? Oh sure...you now edited the original post, but you actually wanted to label, finger-point, and pass judgement on people that simply have different views.

Hypocritical to say the least...


[edit on 1-1-2006 by ZeddicusZulZorander]

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Let's be real here. Anyone who opposes BushCo. are essentially deemed terrorists.

Hmmm, more of the standard name-calling? Oh sure...you now edited the original post, but you actually wanted to label, finger-point, and pass judgement on people that simply have different views.

Hypocritical to say the least...

[edit on 1-1-2006 by ZeddicusZulZorander]

I did not edit any original meaning.

Different views? Yeah, I think lawbreakers are lower than scumshyt. Don't you?

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
I did not edit any original meaning.

Different views? Yeah, I think lawbreakers are lower than scumshyt. Don't you?

Well, if their PROVEN lawbreakers then yeah, I do.

If they're only labeled and branded by a "lynch-mob" mentality before there is actually a trial, then I guess I have a problem. You remember trials and whole innocent until proven guilty thing, right?

Obviously not. You label people criminals before such ever happens and then start the name-calling and the accusations. The Patriot Act comes up and you cry about your "rights" yet you'll turn and stamp on someone else's without question.

I repeat...hypocritical

ps) Playing games with profanity and evading the censures is somthing a former ATS Councilor should know not to do.

Bush went around the FISA court multiple times for one reason: his demands wouldn't even be authorized by a rubberstamp court. Read the constitution, brother. That's illegal.

You would obviously support this nonsense until they came to your door. Then you would wake up and scream bloody murder.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Bush went around the FISA court multiple times for one reason: his demands wouldn't even be authorized by a rubberstamp court. Read the constitution, brother. That's illegal.

The NSA has been doing the same thing since the 70's. It's nothing new.

You would obviously support this nonsense until they came to your door.

No, only until there was a court case and the LAW ruled that the activity was illegal and criminal. Until that happens...me passing judgement on others yet not wanting them to pass judgement on me is hypocritical.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Let's be real here. Anyone who opposes BushCo. are essentially deemedterrorists.

It's very creepy.

[edit on 1/1/06 by EastCoastKid]

Taking in consideration what I have experienced by some hard core pro-Bush followers I have to agree with you.

Occurs in my example the bad spelling keeps coming out.

It seems that anybody that is questioning Bush is either an Islamic terrorist in disguised or either hates the president.

By the way over and over the excused that he went around the Court was necessary do to his powers given by him with the help of Gonzales is nothing but a lie.

The court was available even for extreme last minute request.

So he just did it because he thinks that he is above the law and the constitution.

Funny, in the records of how many request were denied they were not many he got most of them when he asked.

The question that the congress in an inquiry hearing that they will be doing this year will be, to give an explanation of why.

So far Bush and his backing partner Gonzales has given none.

If he was listening to Al-qaida only related communication then he has nothing to fear.

If he was doing illegally surveillance on American citizens then these citizens can sue the government withing the law.

The whole deal is going to get better and better.

[edit on 1-1-2006 by marg6043]

It's quite interesting. For the simple statements I made above, I've earned two warnings.

So much for freedom of thought and speech.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
It's quite interesting. For the simple statements I made above, I've earned two warnings.

So much for freedom of thought and speech.

From vain attempts at board drama, as anyone (including yourself) can see by clicking on the "Warn Tags' that they represent violations in two completely different threads, and to add to that, two different Staff Members. To assert anything but that is disingenuous at best. You are a long term member, well versed in the Terms & Conditions and fully understand what is acceptable and what is not. As a former ATS Councilor you are well aware of the Complaints Forum, the purpose it serves, and that it is to be used in any instance where a member feels that they have been unfairly acted upon by Staff. As for your poorly veiled claim of "censorship," there's no such thing on a privately owned board... As an ATS Member, you post at the pleasure and discretion of the Three Amigos, you have agreed to this, and therefore submit to the framework under which their website operates. If the confines of this incredibly successful format disagrees with you, there is a whole "world wide web" of possibilities available to you.

For reference:

Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: ATS & Censorship – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: Warnings – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: ATS Gripe/Idea – Please Use This Link.

Mod Note: The Digital Ego – Please Review This Link.

Hello Mirthful Me, it's been too long.

There seems to be a lot of sensitivity surrounding this issue with Bush and the NSA. As well as others.

It's not sensitivity it's called TRUTH, you are trying like heck to claim Bush and Co started the bugs and constitution breaking spying on citizens and it's CRAP, Clinton was doing it, I'm sure Bush Sr. was doing it and I'll even bet Carter was doing it. It doesn't serve your political agenda to admit Bush and Co. DID NOT initiate it so you cast BS around hoping someone will believe it.

Your lame attempt to cry victim by indicating you got the warns for this thread are sickening, I expect MUCH BETTER out of you but alas...


Springer...

ECK, nothing much has changed around here.
I missed you while you were gone, but I see that you still think the circumvention rule doesn't apply to you. You are no newbie. Tighten up. You have discipline, so use it.

Originally posted by Springer
It's not sensitivity it's called TRUTH, you are trying like heck to claim Bush and Co started the bugs and constitution breaking spying on citizens and it's CRAP, Clinton was doing it, I'm sure Bush Sr. was doing it and I'll even bet Carter was doing it. It doesn't serve your political agenda to admit Bush and Co. DID NOT initiate it so you cast BS around hoping someone will believe it.

Your lame attempt to cry victim by indicating you got the warns for this thread are sickening, I expect MUCH BETTER out of you but alas...

Springer...

Your very presence here illuminates the very sensitivity I mentioned. I don't think I even said anything to warrant near the response. But that's just me.

Your making an issue over nothing, ECK.
Don't feel alone though, I have done likewise, self-admittedly.
Nonetheless, being that this issue(s) of your circumventing of the censors has been gone over with you indepth before, simply accept the warnings and move on for it would be best for all involved, methinks.

Welcome back, btw.







seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof
Your making an issue over nothing, ECK.
seekerof

Good to see you, too, Seekerof.

Actually, though, it was not me who gave myself the warning here. It was someone who felt I had stepped over some line. And I guess, you yourself, became attracted to that little drama.

ECK,
Be it far from me to get involved in matters dealing with staff, I merely got involved to reinforce what was indicated before, below quoted:

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
.....but I see that you still think the circumvention rule doesn't apply to you. You are no newbie. Tighten up. You have discipline, so use it.

If you remember, it was I, among a few others, that were busting you over the chops for doing what you apparently are doing now under the guise of "sensitivity".

I will say nothing further. It is between you and staff.
I only urge caution, friend.
Peace and I hope you have a happy New Year.





seekerof

[edit on 2-1-2006 by Seekerof]

The sensitivity in this matter we speak of has to do with George W. Bush being unaccountable to the law and those who still (for whatever reason support him) getting mad at those who try and point that out.

Happy New Years to you, too, Seekerof.