It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Patriot Act Does Not Apply To Bush?

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher
If it quacks like a dictator....then it probably is.
"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - just so long I'm the dictator."
George W Bush - December 18, 2000


Like Bill Clinton threatening to rule the country by executive order if congress would not adopt his agenda???

I do not intend to defend Bush against charges of overstepping and conspiring to even further overstep his bounds, as you may have guessed from my last post, but I would not hinge that on an offhand remark like that anymore than I would do so against Clinton.

Afterall, from time to time the quacking is not actually a duck- just a silly little boy immitating a duck because he thinks it's funny. Maybe we can thank Donald for that (Donald Duck, not Rummy- that's one thing I actually don't think we can blame him for).

I've told a few dozen people I intended to kill or maim them in my life: I was serious with exactly two of them. Current body count is zero. Attempts to increase body count are zero.

In so many words, think abuse of power when somebody abuses power or is taking actions which serve no purpose other than to faciliate abuse of power: not when a happy-go-lucky frat boy turned political candidate makes a joke in bad taste.


•Virtrol is still effective means of displacement and relegation.
•Vitriol strips the enemy of his personality, prominency and prestige.
•Vitriol erodes the enemy's claim to justice and exposes their carnality.
•Vitriol eliminates the enemy's image of invincibility and fortitude.
•Vitriol weakens the conscience and political capital of the enemy.


It causes the enemy's supporters to circle the wagons, it undermines the intellectual legitimacy of your point, and causes the enemy to refuse negotiations.
Sun Tsu would not be impressed.

The enemy should know as little about you as possible. He should think you are his friend, he should be willing to become your friend, his troops should be turned on him, and if it comes to confrontation he should not know when or where you will strike.

The anti-bush camp has been hey-diddle-diddle, right-up-the-middle from day 1 and as a result the policies which are most outrageous to his opponents have not been defeated, despite the STAGGERINGLY low approval numbers of this administration.

Why did enough people rally around the leader even 2 years after 9/11 for Bush to sell the Iraq war to congress? Why couldn't the opposition sway public opinion enough to stop this in congress? Because it wasn't anything new! The vitriol created a boiled frog effect- you started warming up before things really got bad, and when Iraq came along the sudden surge of opposition wasn't very sudden, was it?

This game was played so badly that not only did Congress give this administration the war, but they unconstitutionally delegated that decision to Bush before the fact (unless you take the point of view that the authorization was a modern-day letter of marque).


So here's to vitriol, knock them off of their stinkin' high ponies,
serve it up raw and in their face Sun Tzu style!

You apparently read one of Sun Tsu's other books. The Art of War stresses subtly, flexibility, and the superiority of victory without fighting.


Less complacency and more vitriol is good for America,
but bad for big egos.


I'm not just trying to be contrary. My point is that vitriol breeds intellectual complacency. A calm, composed, intellectual approach is generally favorable to the superior position. Pathos is what you resort to when the facts aren't on your side, and in this case, it turns out that some of the facts are on your side. I think going negative with Bush was the biggest favor anyone could have done for him. He's not an exciting person (well given his substance history, he might be the life of any party but he's not politically exciting). This man was elected twice by Republicans rallying around the party, not the candidate. (Just for the sake of argument I'm leaving the Ohio and Florida issues out of it, although I have personal experience which suggests that the Republican party DID register dead voters in Utah in 2004.)

If the Democrats had those elections to do over again, there were two obvious answers: 1. Don't nominate Clinton's VP- that got the Republicans riled up. 2. Don't attack an incumbent who the American public is already attacking- run positive and play the "restoring dignity to the office" card.


Thanks for laying out the specifics of the law though!



I call em as I see em. Enjoy it while you can. I'll bet money that the Democrats will be running AT LEAST the White House and Senate come 2008, and I'll bet a little more money that within a couple of years of that they'll tick me off and I'll be doing the same thing to them.

Here's to not hating eachother... if only for the moment.


[edit on 25-3-2006 by The Vagabond]




posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I'm not just trying to be contrary. My point is that vitriol breeds intellectual complacency. A calm, composed, intellectual approach is generally favorable to the superior position. Pathos is what you resort to when the facts aren't on your side, and in this case, it turns out that some of the facts are on your side. I think going negative with Bush was the biggest favor anyone could have done for him. l

Here's to not hating eachother... if only for the moment.


So what's old Sun Tzu say about serving it up in your face style?


In battle, there are not more than two methods
of attack--the direct and the indirect; yet these two
in combination give rise to an endless series of maneuvers.

The direct and the indirect lead on to each other in turn.
It is like moving in a circle--you never come to an end.
Who can exhaust the possibilities of their combination?

If the enemy leaves a door open, you must rush in.

Reduce the hostile chiefs by inflicting damage
on them; and make trouble for them, and keep them
constantly engaged; hold out specious allurements,
and make them rush to any given point.

Rouse him, and learn the principle of his
activity or inactivity. Force him to reveal himself,
so as to find out his vulnerable spots.

Therefore the clever combatant imposes his will on
the enemy, but does not allow the enemy's will to be imposed on him.

Sun Tzu


Sun Tzu also made the points as to when your enemy is angry, annoy the hell out of him, and is always good to feign inferiority in that I might glimpse thy feathers of an arrogant peacock waxing his prose.


Ramirez made quite a vagabond, ehh?

So if you believe vitriol or ridicule erodes trust, then never trust my position and maybe the message will sink in that trust is earned over long spans of time and not freely given... even if the person resides in a powerful position.

We cannot enter into alliances until we are acquainted with the designs of our neighbors. ~Sun Tzu

Btw, I like Ike...not the Klintoons nor Fat Ted's camp in Taxachusetts.

Bashing Bush was probably not a condusive play in 2000 and 2004, and you didn't see me bashing him then either as RM the Freeper. Although bashing Ketchup King seemed to pull the engines right out of his swift boat.

Here's a good read: The Hero with a Thousand Faces


An effective weapon against terrorists: Ridicule -USA Today

Shhh, don't tell them about vitriol


History teaches that ridicule weakens the moral and political capital of our enemies. Ronald Reagan employed it with great effect during the Cold War. We all remember the "evil empire" speech, but what about the jokes? Two guys were standing in line at the vodka store. They were there for half an hour, then an hour, then an hour and a half. "I'm sick of this," one finally said. "I'm going over to the Kremlin to shoot (Mikhail) Gorbachev." The man left and returned about an hour later. "Well, did you shoot him?" "Heck no," he responded. "The line up there is a lot longer than this one."





Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


So let's just say you have your rationales, I have mine and all roads going up the mountain meet at the top








"That desert kook seems to have no sense,
cause the sense is really just for you to opine."







Enjoyed the depth Señor Contrario,
as I wave from the Sonoran desert.

[edit on 25-3-2006 by Regenmacher]



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher
What have you submitted to say you have any experience in the matters?



Originally posted by Regenmacher
Yeah, you just speak from the halls of no experience while waxing hypocrisy.


I'll finish reading this whole thread in a few minutes, but for right now, I felt I had to stop and say:

I disagree completely with Agent47's viewpoint, but how much he has posted has nothing to do with whether his opinions/statements are valid or not! To try to argue against someone using this viewpoint is ridiculous and makes you seem petty and childish.

OK, enough on that. Now to get back to reading posts, researching facts and determining the truth of what's posted for myself.



[edit on 3/25/2006 by Jaryn]



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Anyone who wants to read about Signing Statements and about a few precedents set by previous Presidents, I recommend reading this.

The Legal Significance of Presidential Signing Statements



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 10:13 AM
link   


You have voted The Vagabond for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.



Originally posted by The Vagabond
Bottom line my friends, at the end of the day, these signing statements are irrelevant because their ends are unconstitutional. If the court were to actually recognize them, and defend them against all legislative recourse, they could hypothetically render the legislative branch all but obsolete for the purpose of passing laws. In the worst case scenario, which I do not consider likely, the people, through the legislative branch, may actually have to fight a legal war to pull the judiciary back to the middle so that the executive branch can be put in its place. I'm not going to call it imminent fascism, as some would, but I do call it a dang bad idea and a butt-load of problems just begging for a chance to happen.


I would only change the word "irrelevant" to "dangerous", but otherwise wholeheartedly agree!



Originally posted by WestPoint23
Anyone who wants to read about Signing Statements and about a few precedents set by previous Presidents, I recommend reading this.

The Legal Significance of Presidential Signing Statements




You must have me on IGNORE...
Posted that on page one... But if you read the actual judicial opinions, I think you will find that your position is weakened, and not strengthened, in terms of the nature of the signing statements issued today.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 10:37 AM
link   
No I simply did not notice it, however after reading that article I feel it gives a fair explanation of the different kinds of signing statements.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Thanks for the WATS loam
. Even if I'll never win.

We have come to a point seldom seen since Worchester v Georgia: (although it is disputed that Jackson actually defied the Supreme Court to enforce its ruling, it is admitted that he did speak to the effect that the decision was toothless, and he did not act against Georgia's defiance, even though he obviously had no qualms about threatening to personally lead the army against a state, as he threatened against South Carolina during the Nullification Crisis.)

The SCOTUS needs some teeth- or at least a serviceable pair of dentures, with which to help Congress check the President when he fails to acknowledge the checks presently imposed.

Smarter men than I (unless I decide to devote amounts of time I simply don't have to studying the matter, just in the name of coming to a toothless conclusion) will have to decide what kind of teeth the court needs, and whether or not it must come from an amendment, but it's becoming quite apparent that the president must be stripped of the power to essentially dare congress to impeach him by ignoring the law.

Any thoughts?


WestPoint: By the admission both of the DOJ link you have discussed with loam and the Alito memo, signing statements are fulfilling new purposes of questionable constitutionality.

Furthermore I have already explained the 3 "legitimate" objectives spelled out in the DOJ link (please keep in mind which branch the DOJ is under by the way)
It is true, but tricky, that interperative signing statements are binding on all other executive positions. This means, in effect, that they are an order from the president for his subordinates to do something, and of course his subordinates must. That does not make the signing statement law.
If the order is unconstitutional, an executive official has an obligation to disobey. Could the President order Federal agents to assassinate a congressman? No (doesn't mean it never happened though). Can the president order, via signing statement, the Patriot Act to be construed as a declaration of Martial Law? No. (Doesn't mean he couldn't try, or that he wouldn't be obeyed)
In so many words, as I have already said, all that item really explains is that as the executor of our laws, the President can hypothetically break the law with impugnity short of being impeached.

"Explaining to the public" is all well and good, but all that amounts to is a press release. It has no legal weight.

Refusing to enforce a law on the grounds that it is unconstitutional in "some" (read the intended) applications, and therefore will be applied out of context, is simply outside the scope of the Executive's power.


Such a Presidential statement could be analogized to a Supreme Court opinion that upheld legislation against a facial constitutional challenge, but warned at the same time that certain applications of the act would be unconstitutional. Cf. Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589, 622-24 (1987) (O'Connor, J., concurring)


The DOJ can "analogize" all it wants, but that's exactly the problem. Where in the constitution is the president given any power even remotely analogous to the powers of the Judiciary?

One of the cases cited on the DOJ site only permitted executive defiance for lack of a resultant injury- hardly a strong endorsement of executive power.

United States v. Morrison held that "Every possible presumption is in favor of the validity of a statute, and this continues until the contrary is shown beyond a rational doubt".

The same arguments which struck down the Line-Item Veto in Clinton v New York also must kill signing statements on the grounds that they circumvent Article One, Section 7 proceedures for repeal of laws. Frankly not an interpetation I would have made myself, if only for technical reasons, but it is precedent none the less. Furthermore I do have to agree with the position that it violates the Presentment Clause.


Regenmacher:
There has been no subtlty, no mix of the indirect with the direct, in the attacks on Bush. As a result, this method has not worked.

The American people are not mindless partisans from birth. Give them an intelligent case in plain language and win the opponent's base over.
A base vote of yours is worth zero, or -1 if it is lost. A rallied vote is worth 1, and they can be many. A swing vote is worth 2 but they are few. A captured vote is worth 2, and they are only limited by your own virtue. To fulfill the requirements set forward in the quote you used, entice his base peacefully and let him fight that rebellion.


[edit on 25-3-2006 by The Vagabond]



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jaryn
[I'll finish reading this whole thread in a few minutes, but for right now, I felt I had to stop and say:

I disagree completely with Agent47's viewpoint, but how much he has posted has nothing to do with whether his opinions/statements are valid or not! To try to argue against someone using this viewpoint is ridiculous and makes you seem petty and childish.


Talk is cheap


Direct experience is the master teacher. Don't have any experience, then don't expect me to consider your prose as relevant compared to those who have actually took the time and effort to walk the talk. Same reasoning goes into job positions, experience counts.

Children rattle off at the top of their heads and the world has plenty of inexperienced blowhards, so maybe you need to think about your ridiculous, petty and childish response that is absent of experience too.

en.wikipedia.org...

__________________________________

Envy: Agent 47 attacks what he has little to no experience in.


Maybe he should learn how to do things before becoming a critic?







[edit on 25-3-2006 by Regenmacher]



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jaryn

I disagree completely with Agent47's viewpoint, but how much he has posted has nothing to do with whether his opinions/statements are valid or not! To try to argue against someone using this viewpoint is ridiculous and makes you seem petty and childish.



Well thank you for the support. Now I wait the obligatory image laden post from the afformentioned poster.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Anyone who wants to read about Signing Statements and about a few precedents set by previous Presidents, I recommend reading this.


How about signing bills that never passed the House? So you go look at your resource and see what it says about that.


Group sues to block budget law that never passed House

WASHINGTON - For anyone who took fifth-grade social studies, how legislation turns to law always seemed pretty simple: The House passes a bill, the Senate passes the same bill, and the president signs it.

But last month, Washington threw all that old-fashioned civics stuff into a tizzy when President Bush signed into law a bill that never passed the House. The bill -- in this case, a major budget-cutting measure that will affect millions of Americans -- became a law because it was ``certified'' by the leaders of the House and Senate.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Another new precedent for your fuhrer Bush, so when do you plan to burn down the Reichstag for him?


The Bicameral Clause of the United States Constitution states that “every bill [must] have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate” before it becomes a law. Because the president signed a bill that was passed only by the Senate, the act is unconstitutional.


Democrats Say Bush Violated Constitution -Houston Chronicle

Recently Passed Law Cutting Medicare,
Student Loan Spending Is Invalid,
Public Citizen Tells Federal Court
-Public Citizen

Congressman: Bush Signed Bill That Didn't Pass Congress -Truthdig

[edit on 25-3-2006 by Regenmacher]



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher

Talk is cheap
Direct experience is the master teacher. Don't have any experience, then don't expect me to consider your prose as relevant as those who have actually took the time and effort to walk the talk. Same reasoning goes into job positions, experience counts.

World has plenty of inexperienced blowhards, why you think that is?






As of two days ago I didn't even know who you were but you seem to hold your self in pretty high regard.....

I've spent a good number of days on ATS making my points in threads, the fact I don't use ATSNN to a degree doesn't add up to a hill of beans.

And really prose? What are you a poet?



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent47
I've spent a good number of days on ATS making my points in threads, the fact I don't use ATSNN to a degree doesn't add up to a hill of beans.

And really prose? What are you a poet?


Considering you don't moderate ATSNN nor have submitted to it and then claim you know the reasoning behind why this story was shuttled, doesn't add up to a hill o' beans either.

Here look it up: dictionary.reference.com...


So have "a" bean....




[edit on 25-3-2006 by Regenmacher]



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 06:15 PM
link   
I love agent 57's deny ignorance bub banner...is he urging us to deny ignorance or is he denying his own? I suspect the latter. Sooner or later all these amendums will be before the supreme court and i suspect will be shot down. Sounds like from some of agents posts he wants to be living under a dictatorship...because that is what you get if you concede final authority to the excuetive branch.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
I love agent 57's deny ignorance bub banner...is he urging us to deny ignorance or is he denying his own? I suspect the latter.


Get a life, attacking my avatar cause you have nothing better to say? Now whos being ignorant. Go play dead red rover or whatever a grover is...


before the supreme court and i suspect will be shot down. Sounds like from some of agents posts he wants to be living under a dictatorship...because that is what you get if you concede final authority to the excuetive branch.


If you had read the earlier posts you would be able to infer that I don't want a particularly strong executive branch, I just consider the legislative branch a bloated body of politicians who look out for themselves. And the courts? Too busy debating abortion policy and not looking out for our rights.



[edit on 3/25/2006 by Agent47]



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher

Considering you don't moderate ATSNN nor have submitted to it and then claim you know the reasoning behind why this story was shuttled, doesn't add up to a hill o' beans either.


I have submitted to ATSNN in the past (prior its updates) and after the updates. I don't moderate it because the people who do moderate it don't need help. Once again this is an opinion piece that was attempted to be filed under news. If it had been an opinion piece then maybe things would be different.

Sorry I don't have a lame ass photo to upload to retort
....



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Regenmacher:
There has been no subtlty, no mix of the indirect with the direct, in the attacks on Bush. As a result, this method has not worked.


I don't consider a forum about consipiracy as the place to sway partisans, most are already fully entrenched and I'll leave the boardroom for the serious power play. This is liesure time to me, throw some political coconuts and ponder science related material.

As for Bush winnning, there is no single reason why Bush won and to me his fear campaign was the greatest motivator, especially if your constituents are largely impassioned reactionary types: see the chart

As for an intelligent candidate with sound principles, philosophy and integrity:
I am still waiting for one. You formulated any ideas yet?

So far, it looks like Hillary verses McCain in 2008.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Hey guys, well we all know the patriot act is a bunch of baloney. All its really gonna do is piss alot of people off, cause now the government can spy on anybody believed to be a threat, and the government uses this term losely. In fact everyone on this site that posts messages conaining anything political is possibly a threat and might already be on their watch lists....
I was watching a news program last night that said some peace protests were going to happen, supposedly some anti-war thing, but the airforce with there "info" said this group was evil, planned something and i quote "special" was going to happen at the demostration. But at the actual demonstration, all that showed up was a few old people, and a bunch of 12 year old girls and their parents!!! I mean however the government gets their infomation is truly clouded and this patriot act isnt even accurate. Anyway BUsh is being investigated on several different levels, and maybe lead to impeachment......And im having a huge party at my house when this happens folks, so your all invited.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by df1

Originally posted by Regenmacher
I am wondering why this story was shuttled from ATSNN to ATS?
Someone have an agenda?

Me too.

Count me as another former ATS news poster. The news posting system is too cumbersome for me to waste my time jumping through those hoops only to have a valid story canned.

PS: I have no desire to debate this issue or to receive any explanation.


df1:

I'm going to ask you to reconsider. Your contributions are very much appreciated.

I, too, am confused why this got moved.

MODS, any help here? It would be nice to understand the technical rational for this.



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent47
Sorry I don't have a lame ass photo to upload to retort
....


You don't moderate cause they have never chose you to, and they sure won't choose a member with no experience in writing articles for ATSNN. One submission doesn't cut it try 300 or so then I would say you speak from sound experience. PM FredT, if you want the facts.

Lack of lame ass photo = either quit with the lame ass excuses for your lack of talent/creativity or challenge me in a graphical design contest then. Walk the talk, bub. Put up or shut up.



I suggest you seriously look at "Vagabond's response addressed to you". Then ask yourself why you have skipped making an intelligent reply to the Vagabond and gravitated to ego driven posturing, excuse making, whining and envy ridden responses. www.abovetopsecret.com...

Bush doesn't make addendum for the hell of it and plans to use them:

Bush Quietly Says No Need Follow Patriot Act Oversight Measure -ABC News
After the bill-signing ceremony, the White House discreetly issued a ''signing statement," an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law. In the statement, Bush said he did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act's powers were being used and that, despite the law's requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would ''impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties."

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


This issue is not whether a bill gets passed, but whether the president decides a bill even applies to him or the executive branch.

Bush logic = check and balances be damned, so welcome to the People's Republik of Amerika.




[edit on 26-3-2006 by Regenmacher]



posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Lets keep the personal issues out of this.....the subject is Bush and the Patriot act




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join