Are we ready to concede yet?

reply to post by kettlebellysmith


Must say you answered the questions pretty damn good. Everybody wants to blame the last 8 years and the problem like you and I both know go back a long freakin time.

Good job pointing that out....

Starred.

reply to post by tracer


Name the constitutional rights you are talking about and show me how the administration single handedly enacted legislation to limit constitutional rights.

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by tracer

 

Name the constitutional rights you are talking about and show me how the administration single handedly enacted legislation to limit constitutional rights.

Fourth Amendment, Patriot Act

Example one

Example two

reply to post by davion


You cite good examples where there is possible or actual violations of constitutional rights but it involves the FBI not Bush. Kinda like when a policeman stops a black guy for no other reason than being black. This is also a violation of our rights but in no way attributed to Bush. Is there a directive or paperwork where Bush told them to do this or did an FBI superior make the decision on the assumption that this was well within their scope?

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by davion

 

You cite good examples where there is possible or actual violations of constitutional rights but it involves the FBI not Bush. Kinda like when a policeman stops a black guy for no other reason than being black. This is also a violation of our rights but in no way attributed to Bush. Is there a directive or paperwork where Bush told them to do this or did an FBI superior make the decision on the assumption that this was well within their scope?

Didn't Bush sign the Patriot Act into law

Edited to add: Bush appointed Robert Mueller as the director of the FBI in 2001, who is in charge of making sure cases and his staff are conducting investigations properly.

[edit on 11-10-2008 by davion]

Originally posted by AndrewTB

Originally posted by Grafilthy
reply to post by sos37

 

If you think Neo-cons are bad just wait until the lazy Neo-libs have controll of the entire political arena. If obama is elected and congress becomes veto proof we are doomed as americans. The framers worked long and hard to have a system that keeps itself in check.

How can we become country when the entire political system is close to becoming democratically (party) led?

Same good ole boy code... How do you think AMERICA survived six years of GOP
"leadership".

You sound like a chicken running from a tree, get a grip!

I figured you just pretend to not see the dixie dump. Yank!

reply to post by davion


yes, he did sign the Patriot act, but didn't Congress write up and pass the legislation first. So Robert Mueller is responsible for those violations if made the call without specific orders from Bush. Basically what I am trying to prove is that if any of our rights have been eroded we have more people to thank than just Bush. Singling only Bush is not being fair nor honest. Last I checked many Democrats voted to pass the Patriot Act and FISA.

Originally posted by davion

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by davion

 

You cite good examples where there is possible or actual violations of constitutional rights but it involves the FBI not Bush. Kinda like when a policeman stops a black guy for no other reason than being black. This is also a violation of our rights but in no way attributed to Bush. Is there a directive or paperwork where Bush told them to do this or did an FBI superior make the decision on the assumption that this was well within their scope?

Didn't Bush sign the Patriot Act into law

Edited to add: Bush appointed Robert Mueller as the director of the FBI in 2001, who is in charge of making sure cases and his staff are conducting investigations properly.

[edit on 11-10-2008 by davion]

Didn't Obama vote in favor of the Patriot Act? As a matter of fact, he did - after he promised to repeal the Patriot Act, on March 2, 2006 he turned around and voted for the second version of the Patriot Act. Here's the proof straight from the U.S. Senate Website:

www.senate.gov...

And you leftists have the gaul to accuse the right of flip-floppery???

So let the question stand - give us an example of how Republican-only legislation has taken away ANY of your Constitutional rights.

That's right, you can't. Up to now it's always been a bi-partisan effort. Just like FISA.

Nice job trying to portray your candidate as "fault-free" but you can't do it in this case.

Hmmmm

Originally posted by sos37
Finally, someone who knows what the hell they are talking about when placing the blame for this mess. It was Clinton who signed the laws into effect which created this mess. Did you know that Bush tried 17 times in 2008 alone to correct the situation but Democrats in Congress refused to allow him to pass his measures because they were too busy fattening their wallets!?

The thread

So, you can blame Clinton for signing a bill into law and getting us into this mess with the economy, but when it comes to the Patriot Act, which Bush signed into law, it's suddenly bipartisan?

Thanks, that's all I needed to know.

[edit on 11-10-2008 by davion]

[edit on 11-10-2008 by davion]

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by davion

 

yes, he did sign the Patriot act, but didn't Congress write up and pass the legislation first. So Robert Mueller is responsible for those violations if made the call without specific orders from Bush. Basically what I am trying to prove is that if any of our rights have been eroded we have more people to thank than just Bush. Singling only Bush is not being fair nor honest. Last I checked many Democrats voted to pass the Patriot Act and FISA.

I never claimed that Bush was the only one responsible, not even tracer said that it was only Bush's fault, in fact he said the Bush ADMINISTRATION in his post, and even you asked what the Bush administration had done specifically. So I don't know where you're getting this. I never said that Congress wasn't at fault for voting on it, and neither did tracer.

In any event Bush's administration would include Bush and the people he appoints, wouldn't it? And Robert Mueller would be included. So yes, Bush is at fault for signing in the Patriot Act, and he's at fault for appointing someone to the FBI that apparently doesn't do his job. That would be on the administrations head, I believe. I recall the President having a veto power as well. But I guess Bush wanted it in as much as everyone else, which would also be on his head.

[edit on 11-10-2008 by davion]

[edit on 11-10-2008 by davion]

reply to post by davion


When I say Bush I am referring to him and his administration. An administration is big and no one administration should be held liable cause an agency or individual did something illegally without consent. Now if there is consent then the Administration is liable. That doesn't mean the administration shouldn't be responsible in recognizing the mistake and seeking solutions to remedy the incident and prevent it from happening in the future. And Bush did appoint Mueller and the Senate confirmed him on a 98-0 vote. So it shouldn't just be on Bush head but everybody who approved him as well. And Congress also has Congressional oversight to ensure the executive branch is not abusing their powers.

The Patriot Act was passed blindly. The Congress was told it was needed to stop terrorist attacks. And the name, Patriot Act, was named specifically to make sure people voted for it. Of course after passing it and later read majority of the Congress, both sides, said it was a bad bill and shouldn't have been passed. But the Bush Admin played on their fears of terror attacks. Much like they've been doing ever since 2001. Either afraid of Arabs or gays being treated like every one else. It's all been terror tactics by the Bush Admin.

reply to post by GamerGal


Couldn't be better said!

President Bush didn't wrote the law but it was his administration with the fear tactics that took opportunity of the situation to pass laws that are to the detriment of all of us.

And whoever can't accept this is completely blind to their political affiliation.

Originally posted by GamerGal
The Patriot Act was passed blindly. The Congress was told it was needed to stop terrorist attacks. And the name, Patriot Act, was named specifically to make sure people voted for it. Of course after passing it and later read majority of the Congress, both sides, said it was a bad bill and shouldn't have been passed. But the Bush Admin played on their fears of terror attacks. Much like they've been doing ever since 2001. Either afraid of Arabs or gays being treated like every one else. It's all been terror tactics by the Bush Admin.

No way - that argument doesn't hold water, because while you might get away with that argument for one version of the Patriot Act, it doesn't explain why Obama voted Yes to the SECOND version.

If you really believe he voted yes blindly, then you're essentially saying that he votes without fully comprehending what he's voting on.

If you're saying that he was successfully swayed by talk of fear from Bush, then you're saying that he is easily swayed by whom the majority of America now calls a "moron", which shouldn't give you any comfort in how he will handle negotiations with smart men and women, especially adversarial ones.

In all cases above that you mentioned, Obama fails the test.

So what's your excuse for him now?

Originally posted by davion
Hmmmm

Originally posted by sos37
Finally, someone who knows what the hell they are talking about when placing the blame for this mess. It was Clinton who signed the laws into effect which created this mess. Did you know that Bush tried 17 times in 2008 alone to correct the situation but Democrats in Congress refused to allow him to pass his measures because they were too busy fattening their wallets!?

The thread

So, you can blame Clinton for signing a bill into law and getting us into this mess with the economy, but when it comes to the Patriot Act, which Bush signed into law, it's suddenly bipartisan?

Thanks, that's all I needed to know.

[edit on 11-10-2008 by davion]

[edit on 11-10-2008 by davion]

Check the link I posted. If you still maintain that passing the Patriot Act wasn't bi-partisan then you're denying facts - you're denying the voting record itself POSTED ON THE SENATE WEBSITE, which only proves that you're either incompetent of rational thought or blindly following Obama based on your hatred of the Bush Administration. I suspect hatred because based on your posts you don't seem to be stupid at all.

When was the PA enacted into law?

Originally posted by intrepid
When was the PA enacted into law?

N/m, I found it. Oct. 2001. Both the House and the Senate were controlled by the Republicans.

reply to post by sos37


To tell the truth, as a conservative, I don't truly have anyone to vote for. The only thing left is to vote against what I consider the worst of the two, which is Barack.

Maybe over the course of the next four years, the Republican party can once again find it's soul. Because I don't even recognize it right now.

And at the end of the day, America will get the President it deserves. Not needs, deserves.

Originally posted by sos37

Originally posted by davion
Hmmmm

Originally posted by sos37
Finally, someone who knows what the hell they are talking about when placing the blame for this mess. It was Clinton who signed the laws into effect which created this mess. Did you know that Bush tried 17 times in 2008 alone to correct the situation but Democrats in Congress refused to allow him to pass his measures because they were too busy fattening their wallets!?

The thread

So, you can blame Clinton for signing a bill into law and getting us into this mess with the economy, but when it comes to the Patriot Act, which Bush signed into law, it's suddenly bipartisan?

Thanks, that's all I needed to know.

[edit on 11-10-2008 by davion]

[edit on 11-10-2008 by davion]

Check the link I posted. If you still maintain that passing the Patriot Act wasn't bi-partisan then you're denying facts - you're denying the voting record itself POSTED ON THE SENATE WEBSITE, which only proves that you're either incompetent of rational thought or blindly following Obama based on your hatred of the Bush Administration. I suspect hatred because based on your posts you don't seem to be stupid at all.

You guys are funny you can trace this current crises back even further than Clinton there were several factors that lead to the bank collapse biggest however is us ending the gold standard that meant money could be created thru lending. Every time a bank makes a loan they create money that was not in existence. When enough people default on loans that created money plays havoc with the books. Quick example say a bank has 100.00 deposited they can lend out up to 90 percent. so 90.00 is loaned out. Now you have 1 person in the bank with 100.00 and a person who borrowed 90.00 the bank shows 190.00 in assets now but still only has the original 100.00. 90.00 exists only on paper.

And the patriot act is a joke it was renewed in 2006 by a democratic congress. So obviously both parties are on board with this huh? And democrats and republicans better wake up people like me dont really have a choice to throw out both these bums and are stuck choosing the lesser of to evils, But it wont be that way for ever.

PS I have noticed that the hatred for republicans do to the idiot in the white house is causing people to vote without knowing why which is also funny. I will say when i talk with a MccAin supported they usually have an issue they want to discuss. obamma supporters tend to just tell me We cant handle four moore years of George Bush. Reality is the president is not the one controlling the country its congress. So now matter which one is elected the results will be the same. Taxes will not be raised for anybody. New regulations for banking nope still has to pass thru congress. National health care oh no again, Health care has the best lobbyist. So for you people that believe the president matters the only way that will happen is if we can get a president that can get people to work together that is his real power. And that doesnt apply to either candidate does it?

Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by sos37

 

the "right to bear arm's" is not the right to bear any weapon you wish, by that logic people should be free to have a nuke in the back yard and a chemical weapons lab in their basement.

Let me ask you... Where do you draw the line under the Second Amendment? Where can you say, "You can't arm yourself with that," and not infringe the right to bear arms?

And who gets to decide where that line is drawn? Who is so noble and worthy?

[edit on 10/11/2008 by Amaterasu]