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.
by niteboy82:
REPLY: Contrary to what you believe, I have no problems whatsoever with what you call this "problem." It's quite obvious you haven't done much research into either the ABA or Mr. Sphincters political background..
That one of the presidents own party is considering the suit has been made an issue of before I did, and I'm sure it will continue to be. I merely stated the Mr. Sphincter is a RINO, which means, Republican In Name Only. Just so you know, there is no such thing as a "moderate" republican; either you are or you are not.
As to the leanings of the ABA, that, too, shows little research into their actions/beliefs over the past 25 years, but in no way indicates their lack of knowledge of law.
As to your sarcasm pertaining to the "activist judges" terminology, it at least substantiates their existence. Thanks!
As to corruption of the separation of powers, sad as it for you to realize, a charge or accusation is by no means a finding of guilt, as was. Sadly, this was evident during the previous administration, during which it appears you were asleep.
On the contrary, I have found many issues of contention towards the president, though mostly with his social and immigration issues.
Originally posted by zappafan1
REPLY: Contrary to what you believe, I have no problems whatsoever with what you call this "problem." It's quite obvious you haven't done much research into either the ABA or Mr. Sphincters political background..
That one of the presidents own party is considering the suit has been made an issue of before I did, and I'm sure it will continue to be. I merely stated the Mr. Sphincter is a RINO, which means, Republican In Name Only. Just so you know, there is no such thing as a "moderate" republican; either you are or you are not.
As to the leanings of the ABA, that, too, shows little research into their actions/beliefs over the past 25 years, but in no way indicates their lack of knowledge of law.
As to your sarcasm pertaining to the "activist judges" terminology, it at least substantiates their existence. Thanks!
As to corruption of the separation of powers, sad as it for you to realize, a charge or accusation is by no means a finding of guilt, as was. Sadly, this was evident during the previous administration, during which it appears you were asleep.
On the contrary, I have found many issues of contention towards the president, though mostly with his social and immigration issues.
by marg6043:
I have not problems with a president doing what he most due during times of war . . . but taking into consideration that the War in question was his own doing to a country with not provocation . . . and and a war declared to an ideology"
It makes me question as any good law abiding citizens as to the powers invested in the president by himself.
One question that comes to mind is . . . who can control a president that seems to be over anybody else in the governmental ladder due to political power because of war.
Originally posted by zappafan1
REPLY: A war authorized Congress. It is not a war against an ideology; He cannot actually say it, but it is a religious war against a religion-turned-politic. As has been proven time and again, Saddams payments to the family members of suicide bombers, his ties with Al Queda, and the 14 or so UN sactions ignored by him, were enough to be considered a provocation.
by marg6043:
Actually the war was against Afghanistan . . . Iraq was something that was a most do. taking into consideration that Saudi Arabia was involve also. . . it looks like pure hypocrisy to go after Saddam and please is more links to the 9/11 and Saudi that ever was to Iraq and Saddam.
the AP article downplayed its own scoop with a sentence almost as amusing as it is inane: "There is no indication the Iraqi's alleged terror-related activities were on behalf of Saddam Hussein's government, other than the brief mention of him traveling to Pakistan with a member of Iraqi intelligence."
by marg6043
Just propaganda when things started to become questionable by the polls in the US when people started to drop their support for the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq.
REPLY: Again, propaganda is usually the truth; the opposite of misinformation and disinformation. The MOAC onformation has been aroud for a coup[le of years, and I doubt most anyone is even aware of it, so it wouldn't affect the polls unless it received major media attention; which of course they won't do, since it would cause the polls to go up.
When it comes to this war and its reasons . . . I personally question everything . . . the same way that I have the right to question what the elected government and officials are doing in our behave and at our expenses.
REPLY: I couldn't agree with you more. But "questioning" has more to do with the acceptance and research of ALL pertinent information, and making an informed decision, no matter what your personal beliefs on any given issue.
Bush has become a president that has lost its credibility and his doings under the powers of war are going to do the most horrible damage to our nation when other presidents take over . . .
REPLY: Again, I agree. But much of what Bush, and America, is now going through (including 9-11), and what will happen in the future, has been brought about by the inaction of the previous admin.
[edit on 26-7-2006 by zappafan1]
Originally posted by zappafan1
REPLY: Again, I agree. But much of what Bush, and America, is now going through (including 9-11), and what will happen in the future, has been brought about by the inaction of the previous admin.
posted by niteboy82:
Well, when I spout things out, I attempt to pull sources,
REPLY: Ah, well, I have over 38 years of sourcing and independent investigation. You?
Quite silly, again. If they call themselves a moderate republican, that's in fact what they are.
REPLY: Believe whatever trips your trigger.
I didn't spew out the accusation against the ABA, you did, your burden to prove it.
REPLY: Not my burden if you disbelieve it, and I'm sure you'd side with many of their ideals.
So because one evil president (and I have many times expressed my distaste for Clinton in this forum) perpetrates a wrongful act, it's just fine and dandy for the next one to go unchecked as well? Interesting.
REPLY: I have seen some of your posts pertaing to ex-president pantload, and I appload you for them; however, there's little comparison between the two in their actions or beliefs.
".... and we'll see you think outside the partisan box.
REPLY: My partison box= Conservative Constitutional Libertarian.
by marg6043:
When the constitution is in danger so is also in danger our nation and its citizens.
Originally posted by yeah right
and quickly had a REPUBLICAN sue him in the SUPREME COURT
that way the republican lawyers can SCREW IT UP and case gets thrown out
(makes the republicans LOOK LIKE they really care too)