Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Released Bush Memos

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.

AllieGator

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
316
The Obama administration has released some memos of internal communications between President Bush and the Justice Department. Some scary stuff...the one that the CNN article references includes discussion of Bush trying to expand his power to fight terrorism without having to go through the usual paths.

This is from John Yoo, who was a deputy assistant attorney general:

"We conclude that the president has ample constitutional and statutory authority to deploy the military against international or foreign terrorists operating within the United States," wrote John Yoo, then a deputy assistant attorney general. "We further believe that the use of such military force generally is consistent with constitutional standards, and that it need not follow the exact procedures that govern law enforcement operations

This doesn''t surprise me, to be honest, but it is somewhat disturbing to read the actual memo that might have led to Bush''s disregard for the conventional path to war.

Any other thoughts/discussion points?

Links:

CNN Article: link

Actual Memo: link
 

Hudson_Hawk

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 2, 2006
Messages
10,541
It should be interesting to see what other sorts of "memos" come out in the coming months. I have to imagine that the more horrible things some believe Bush to have approved would not have been communicated through memos though...
 

beebrisk

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Dec 18, 2005
Messages
1,000
Date: 3/3/2009 9:02:12 AM
Author:AllieGator
The Obama administration has released some memos of internal communications between President Bush and the Justice Department. Some scary stuff...the one that the CNN article references includes discussion of Bush trying to expand his power to fight terrorism without having to go through the usual paths.


This is from John Yoo, who was a deputy assistant attorney general:


''We conclude that the president has ample constitutional and statutory authority to deploy the military against international or foreign terrorists operating within the United States,'' wrote John Yoo, then a deputy assistant attorney general. ''We further believe that the use of such military force generally is consistent with constitutional standards, and that it need not follow the exact procedures that govern law enforcement operations


This doesn''t surprise me, to be honest, but it is somewhat disturbing to read the actual memo that might have led to Bush''s disregard for the conventional path to war.


Any other thoughts/discussion points?
Unconventional wars demand and deserve unconventional action.
 

swimmer

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
2,516
Date: 3/3/2009 10:33:39 AM
Author: beebrisk
Date: 3/3/2009 9:02:12 AM

Author:AllieGator

The Obama administration has released some memos of internal communications between President Bush and the Justice Department. Some scary stuff...the one that the CNN article references includes discussion of Bush trying to expand his power to fight terrorism without having to go through the usual paths.



This is from John Yoo, who was a deputy assistant attorney general:



''We conclude that the president has ample constitutional and statutory authority to deploy the military against international or foreign terrorists operating within the United States,'' wrote John Yoo, then a deputy assistant attorney general. ''We further believe that the use of such military force generally is consistent with constitutional standards, and that it need not follow the exact procedures that govern law enforcement operations



This doesn''t surprise me, to be honest, but it is somewhat disturbing to read the actual memo that might have led to Bush''s disregard for the conventional path to war.



Any other thoughts/discussion points?

Unconventional wars demand and deserve unconventional action.
I am so very excited that Beebrisk wants to give Obama unfettered rights to do as he pleases with the current economic situation! Hey its an "unconventional" crisis. Bushy did exactly what Jefferson feared most from a President. Bush undermined the very basis of American democracy.
 

Hudson_Hawk

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 2, 2006
Messages
10,541
Date: 3/3/2009 10:41:20 AM
Author: swimmer
Date: 3/3/2009 10:33:39 AM

Author: beebrisk

Date: 3/3/2009 9:02:12 AM


Author:AllieGator


The Obama administration has released some memos of internal communications between President Bush and the Justice Department. Some scary stuff...the one that the CNN article references includes discussion of Bush trying to expand his power to fight terrorism without having to go through the usual paths.




This is from John Yoo, who was a deputy assistant attorney general:




''We conclude that the president has ample constitutional and statutory authority to deploy the military against international or foreign terrorists operating within the United States,'' wrote John Yoo, then a deputy assistant attorney general. ''We further believe that the use of such military force generally is consistent with constitutional standards, and that it need not follow the exact procedures that govern law enforcement operations




This doesn''t surprise me, to be honest, but it is somewhat disturbing to read the actual memo that might have led to Bush''s disregard for the conventional path to war.




Any other thoughts/discussion points?


Unconventional wars demand and deserve unconventional action.

I am so very excited that Beebrisk wants to give Obama unfettered rights to do as he pleases with the current economic situation! Hey its an ''unconventional'' crisis. Bushy did exactly what Jefferson feared most from a President. Bush undermined the very basis of American democracy.
Ouch.
 

AllieGator

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
316
Date: 3/3/2009 10:33:39 AM
Author: beebrisk
Date: 3/3/2009 9:02:12 AM

Author:AllieGator

The Obama administration has released some memos of internal communications between President Bush and the Justice Department. Some scary stuff...the one that the CNN article references includes discussion of Bush trying to expand his power to fight terrorism without having to go through the usual paths.



This is from John Yoo, who was a deputy assistant attorney general:



''We conclude that the president has ample constitutional and statutory authority to deploy the military against international or foreign terrorists operating within the United States,'' wrote John Yoo, then a deputy assistant attorney general. ''We further believe that the use of such military force generally is consistent with constitutional standards, and that it need not follow the exact procedures that govern law enforcement operations



This doesn''t surprise me, to be honest, but it is somewhat disturbing to read the actual memo that might have led to Bush''s disregard for the conventional path to war.



Any other thoughts/discussion points?

Unconventional wars demand and deserve unconventional action.
I agree with this sentiment, in general, but I don''t think an unconventional war means that the executive branch has the power to undermine our constitutional rights.

It was Jefferson, I believe, who said "Those who sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither"
 

E B

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Aug 31, 2005
Messages
9,488
Date: 3/3/2009 10:41:20 AM
Author: swimmer

I am so very excited that Beebrisk wants to give Obama unfettered rights to do as he pleases with the current economic situation! Hey its an 'unconventional' crisis. Bushy did exactly what Jefferson feared most from a President. Bush undermined the very basis of American democracy.
It's absolutely indefensible, though some will try.
 

beebrisk

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Dec 18, 2005
Messages
1,000
Date: 3/3/2009 10:41:20 AM
Author: swimmer
Date: 3/3/2009 10:33:39 AM

Author: beebrisk

Date: 3/3/2009 9:02:12 AM


Author:AllieGator


The Obama administration has released some memos of internal communications between President Bush and the Justice Department. Some scary stuff...the one that the CNN article references includes discussion of Bush trying to expand his power to fight terrorism without having to go through the usual paths.




This is from John Yoo, who was a deputy assistant attorney general:




''We conclude that the president has ample constitutional and statutory authority to deploy the military against international or foreign terrorists operating within the United States,'' wrote John Yoo, then a deputy assistant attorney general. ''We further believe that the use of such military force generally is consistent with constitutional standards, and that it need not follow the exact procedures that govern law enforcement operations




This doesn''t surprise me, to be honest, but it is somewhat disturbing to read the actual memo that might have led to Bush''s disregard for the conventional path to war.




Any other thoughts/discussion points?


Unconventional wars demand and deserve unconventional action.

I am so very excited that Beebrisk wants to give Obama unfettered rights to do as he pleases with the current economic situation! Hey its an ''unconventional'' crisis. Bushy did exactly what Jefferson feared most from a President. Bush undermined the very basis of American democracy.
Not an honest argument, and you know it.

Ad hominem (typical).

We have never fought a war like we are fighting now. We have however, faced financial crisis in the past and unfortunately our new administration refuses to learn from them.

So yeah, I do give him unfettered "rights" to do as he wishes. And hope as Limbaugh does that his policies fail. You know, those policies that undermine our free market''s very foundation??

Sad, after taking the stance he did on Israel, you are so contemptuous of Bush. But not surprised, at all.
 

beebrisk

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Dec 18, 2005
Messages
1,000
Date: 3/3/2009 12:21:13 PM
Author: EBree
Date: 3/3/2009 10:41:20 AM

Author: swimmer


I am so very excited that Beebrisk wants to give Obama unfettered rights to do as he pleases with the current economic situation! Hey its an ''unconventional'' crisis. Bushy did exactly what Jefferson feared most from a President. Bush undermined the very basis of American democracy.
Back it up with actual, constitutionally based FACTS (as opposed to say all those "expert" opinions posted on the blogosphere) and maybe someone, somewhere will listen.




It''s absolutely indefensible, though some will try.
 

beebrisk

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Dec 18, 2005
Messages
1,000
Date: 3/3/2009 11:22:05 AM
Author: AllieGator
Date: 3/3/2009 10:33:39 AM

Author: beebrisk

Date: 3/3/2009 9:02:12 AM


Author:AllieGator


The Obama administration has released some memos of internal communications between President Bush and the Justice Department. Some scary stuff...the one that the CNN article references includes discussion of Bush trying to expand his power to fight terrorism without having to go through the usual paths.




This is from John Yoo, who was a deputy assistant attorney general:




''We conclude that the president has ample constitutional and statutory authority to deploy the military against international or foreign terrorists operating within the United States,'' wrote John Yoo, then a deputy assistant attorney general. ''We further believe that the use of such military force generally is consistent with constitutional standards, and that it need not follow the exact procedures that govern law enforcement operations




This doesn''t surprise me, to be honest, but it is somewhat disturbing to read the actual memo that might have led to Bush''s disregard for the conventional path to war.




Any other thoughts/discussion points?


Unconventional wars demand and deserve unconventional action.

I agree with this sentiment, in general, but I don''t think an unconventional war means that the executive branch has the power to undermine our constitutional rights.


It was Jefferson, I believe, who said ''Those who sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither''
When, exactly did you "sacrifice" your freedom??

By the way, it was Benjamin Franklin. And the Bill of Rights did not fall with the towers.
 

AllieGator

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
316
Beebrisk, you're right...at this point, there is no proof of the things that Bush did wrong--other than admitting to wiretapping, there really isn't. But I'm hoping that as these memos are released, we learn more about the inner workings in the Bush Administration.

Your stance, however, that this is a new type of war isn't exactly correct--when you look at the idea of the Bush Doctrine. The current "War on Terror" is very similar in ideology to the "war on communism", aka the Truman Doctrine. Just replace communism with terrorism, and there you go.

There may not be proof yet, but that's probably because most of it is still classified. Take, for instance, during the Nixon years when the CIA kidnapped and murdered Chileans who opposed Augusto Pinochet, the radical dictator (It was called Operation Condor). There wasn't proof of it then, although there was some opposition to it. Now, the papers involved have been declassified, and we know exactly what was going on inside the administration. People then, like now, said that there was no proof, and that the opposition was wrong. But we now know that we were simply murdering people because they may have been communists. Lack of cold hard proof does not mean that what we fear does not exist.

Edited to Add: The Bush administration violated many freedoms under the Patriot Act. But thank you for correcting me on who said it.
 

beebrisk

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Dec 18, 2005
Messages
1,000
Date: 3/3/2009 12:36:18 PM
Author: AllieGator
Beebrisk, you're right...at this point, there is no proof of the things that Bush did wrong--other than admitting to wiretapping, there really isn't. But I'm hoping that as these memos are released, we learn more about the inner workings in the Bush Administration.


Your stance, however, that this is a new type of war isn't exactly correct--when you look at the idea of the Bush Doctrine. The current 'War on Terror' is very similar in ideology to the 'war on communism', aka the Truman Doctrine. Just replace communism with terrorism, and there you go.


There may not be proof yet, but that's probably because most of it is still classified. Take, for instance, during the Nixon years when the CIA kidnapped and murdered Chileans who opposed Augusto Pinochet, the radical dictator (It was called Operation Condor). There wasn't proof of it then, although there was some opposition to it. Now, the papers involved have been declassified, and we know exactly what was going on inside the administration. People then, like now, said that there was no proof, and that the opposition was wrong. But we now know that we were simply murdering people because they may have been communists. Lack of cold hard proof does not mean that what we fear does not exist.


Edited to Add: The Bush administration violated many freedoms under the Patriot Act. But thank you for correcting me on who said it.
Again. What "freedoms" were taken from you? How were you violated?

Agreed. Lack of cold hard proof does not mean that what we fear doesn't exist. But insinuation and conjecture don't either.
 

AllieGator

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
316
Here''s the one that comes up off the top of my head

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

That is the fourth amendment, which guarantees that in order for a person to be investigated by the government, a warrant must be provided to the person before they can be searched.

Under the Patriot Act, the government had the right to wiretap your phones, or even search your house without you ever knowing.

I''d call that a violation of constitutional rights, or loss of freedom.

That''s not even mentioning the fact that it violates the unwritten, but widely accepted, Right to Privacy that we hold so dear in the United States.
 

strmrdr

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 1, 2003
Messages
23,295
I read it and it is a spot on historical assessment of the issue.
The president has always had a lot of power to use the military.
Remember the founding fathers feared a standing army because it would be abused.
So the rules were written in a way as if there was not one.
That was a mistake not adding a line that a standing army shall not exist except in a time of declared war.

There is no right to privacy in the constitution beyond the 4th and 10th amendments backed up by the force of the first and second.
 

trillionaire

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
3,881
not to mention that if you were accused of terrorism, habeus corpus was out the window.
 

beebrisk

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Dec 18, 2005
Messages
1,000
Date: 3/3/2009 12:47:30 PM
Author: AllieGator
Here''s the one that comes up off the top of my head


''The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.''


That is the fourth amendment, which guarantees that in order for a person to be investigated by the government, a warrant must be provided to the person before they can be searched.


Under the Patriot Act, the government had the right to wiretap your phones, or even search your house without you ever knowing.


I''d call that a violation of constitutional rights, or loss of freedom.


That''s not even mentioning the fact that it violates the unwritten, but widely accepted, Right to Privacy that we hold so dear in the United States.

And there are sunset provisions in place...

Meantime, if you find our evil government rummaging through your drawers, you can always defend your life, liberty and property with fire power.
Oh wait. Now, that''s one liberty we need stripped, right???

Sigh...What would Jefferson think?
 

trillionaire

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
3,881
Date: 3/3/2009 1:14:08 PM
Author: beebrisk
Date: 3/3/2009 12:47:30 PM

Author: AllieGator

Here''s the one that comes up off the top of my head



''The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.''



That is the fourth amendment, which guarantees that in order for a person to be investigated by the government, a warrant must be provided to the person before they can be searched.



Under the Patriot Act, the government had the right to wiretap your phones, or even search your house without you ever knowing.



I''d call that a violation of constitutional rights, or loss of freedom.



That''s not even mentioning the fact that it violates the unwritten, but widely accepted, Right to Privacy that we hold so dear in the United States.


And there are sunset provisions in place...


Meantime, if you find our evil government rummaging through your drawers, you can always defend your life, liberty and property with fire power.

Oh wait. Now, that''s one liberty we need stripped, right???


Sigh...What would Jefferson think?
so... are you defending rights, or supporting their recension? And defending your property with fire power is a pretty funny idea. Good idea if you like being peppered with bullets. But, it was said... Give me liberty, or give me death. And they would happily give you the latter.
 

trillionaire

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
3,881
The legal memos written by the Bush administration''s Office of Legal Counsel show a government grappling with how to wage war on terrorism in a fast-changing world. The conclusion, reiterated in page after page of documents, was that the president had broad authority to set aside constitutional rights.

Fourth Amendment protections against unwarranted search and seizure, for instance, did not apply in the United States as long as the president was combatting terrorism, the Justice Department said in an Oct. 23, 2001, memo.

"First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully," Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo wrote, adding later: "The current campaign against terrorism may require even broader exercises of federal power domestically."

On Sept. 25, 2001, Yoo discussed possible changes to the laws governing wiretaps for intelligence gathering. In that memo, he said the government''s interest in keeping the nation safe following the terrorist attacks might justify warrantless searches.

That memo did not specifically attempt to justify the government''s warrantless wiretapping program, but it provided part of the foundation.

The memos reflected a belief within the Bush administration that the president had broad powers that could not be checked by Congress or the courts. That stance, in one form or another, became the foundation for many policies: holding detainees at Guantanamo Bay, eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without warrants, using tough new CIA interrogation tactics and locking U.S. citizens in military brigs without charges.

pesky rights. pesky checks and balances.
 

swimmer

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
2,516
Date: 3/3/2009 12:26:13 PM
Author: beebrisk
Date: 3/3/2009 10:41:20 AM

Author: swimmer

Date: 3/3/2009 10:33:39 AM


Author: beebrisk


Date: 3/3/2009 9:02:12 AM



Author:AllieGator



The Obama administration has released some memos of internal communications between President Bush and the Justice Department. Some scary stuff...the one that the CNN article references includes discussion of Bush trying to expand his power to fight terrorism without having to go through the usual paths.





This is from John Yoo, who was a deputy assistant attorney general:





''We conclude that the president has ample constitutional and statutory authority to deploy the military against international or foreign terrorists operating within the United States,'' wrote John Yoo, then a deputy assistant attorney general. ''We further believe that the use of such military force generally is consistent with constitutional standards, and that it need not follow the exact procedures that govern law enforcement operations





This doesn''t surprise me, to be honest, but it is somewhat disturbing to read the actual memo that might have led to Bush''s disregard for the conventional path to war.





Any other thoughts/discussion points?



Unconventional wars demand and deserve unconventional action.


I am so very excited that Beebrisk wants to give Obama unfettered rights to do as he pleases with the current economic situation! Hey its an ''unconventional'' crisis. Bushy did exactly what Jefferson feared most from a President. Bush undermined the very basis of American democracy.

Not an honest argument, and you know it.


Ad hominem (typical).


We have never fought a war like we are fighting now. We have however, faced financial crisis in the past and unfortunately our new administration refuses to learn from them.


So yeah, I do give him unfettered ''rights'' to do as he wishes. And hope as Limbaugh does that his policies fail. You know, those policies that undermine our free market''s very foundation??


Sad, after taking the stance he did on Israel, you are so contemptuous of Bush. But not surprised, at all.
What? I know what ad hominem means, but am unsure if you grasp the argument. Bush and I disagree on almost every single aspect of Israeli policy other than that Israel should exist. You are so far out of line I am not going to get into more detail as you just want to provoke more of that violence that you love so much. Usually you jump on one phrase and ramble on, so a trick I teach undergrads is to re-read things so that they get more out of a text than an initial impression

You are wrong. The US has encountered many conflicts of this nature, it is called a "war of ideology." Ideology means ideas or beliefs. Even a cursory knowledge of history would disabuse you of the notion that this is something new.

You, like Limbaugh and other armchair observers of politics take such a surface and shallow view that you miss the entire point. Hoping that Obama fails is hoping that the US fails. I think the US public was really clear about how violently out of touch you both are. Your candidates lost. They lost everywhere, and all the votes were counted this time.

Don''t presume to understand all of what I''m say, (probably my fault as English is my third language out of six), but I will strive to use smaller words so you "get" more of what I''m typing.

Jefferson was not actually a huge proponent of arming the masses, he feared idiots tremendously. Check your sources on him so far this thread as they are not remotely historically accurate. Any library should have the transcripts of the Constitutional Convention if you don''t already own a copy. Elbrigdge Gerry is my fave if you do a deep read, you two really share a similar debate style.

Have fun researching!
 

AllieGator

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
316
Date: 3/3/2009 1:14:08 PM
Author: beebrisk
Date: 3/3/2009 12:47:30 PM

Author: AllieGator

Here's the one that comes up off the top of my head



'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'



That is the fourth amendment, which guarantees that in order for a person to be investigated by the government, a warrant must be provided to the person before they can be searched.



Under the Patriot Act, the government had the right to wiretap your phones, or even search your house without you ever knowing.



I'd call that a violation of constitutional rights, or loss of freedom.



That's not even mentioning the fact that it violates the unwritten, but widely accepted, Right to Privacy that we hold so dear in the United States.


And there are sunset provisions in place...


Meantime, if you find our evil government rummaging through your drawers, you can always defend your life, liberty and property with fire power.

Oh wait. Now, that's one liberty we need stripped, right???


Sigh...What would Jefferson think?
When did I ever say that guns should not be allowed...???

I would appreciate it if words were not put in my mouth...I don't think that gun rights should be revoked. I have no problem with people owning hunting guns, as long as that is all they are used for, or in cases of self defense.

The right to privacy does not exist in our constitution, true, but it IS what protects our medical records from being open to the public, for example. It's often used in US law.

And Swimmer, right on with your response!
 

beebrisk

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Dec 18, 2005
Messages
1,000
Date: 3/3/2009 1:57:28 PM
Author: swimmer
Date: 3/3/2009 12:26:13 PM

Author: beebrisk

Date: 3/3/2009 10:41:20 AM


Author: swimmer


Date: 3/3/2009 10:33:39 AM



Author: beebrisk



Date: 3/3/2009 9:02:12 AM




Author:AllieGator




The Obama administration has released some memos of internal communications between President Bush and the Justice Department. Some scary stuff...the one that the CNN article references includes discussion of Bush trying to expand his power to fight terrorism without having to go through the usual paths.






This is from John Yoo, who was a deputy assistant attorney general:






'We conclude that the president has ample constitutional and statutory authority to deploy the military against international or foreign terrorists operating within the United States,' wrote John Yoo, then a deputy assistant attorney general. 'We further believe that the use of such military force generally is consistent with constitutional standards, and that it need not follow the exact procedures that govern law enforcement operations






This doesn't surprise me, to be honest, but it is somewhat disturbing to read the actual memo that might have led to Bush's disregard for the conventional path to war.






Any other thoughts/discussion points?




Unconventional wars demand and deserve unconventional action.



I am so very excited that Beebrisk wants to give Obama unfettered rights to do as he pleases with the current economic situation! Hey its an 'unconventional' crisis. Bushy did exactly what Jefferson feared most from a President. Bush undermined the very basis of American democracy.


Not an honest argument, and you know it.



Ad hominem (typical).



We have never fought a war like we are fighting now. We have however, faced financial crisis in the past and unfortunately our new administration refuses to learn from them.



So yeah, I do give him unfettered 'rights' to do as he wishes. And hope as Limbaugh does that his policies fail. You know, those policies that undermine our free market's very foundation??



Sad, after taking the stance he did on Israel, you are so contemptuous of Bush. But not surprised, at all.

What? I know what ad hominem means, but am unsure if you grasp the argument. Bush and I disagree on almost every single aspect of Israeli policy other than that Israel should exist. You are so far out of line I am not going to get into more detail as you just want to provoke more of that violence that you love so much. Usually you jump on one phrase and ramble on, so a trick I teach undergrads is to re-read things so that they get more out of a text than an initial impression


You are wrong. The US has encountered many conflicts of this nature, it is called a 'war of ideology.' Ideology means ideas or beliefs. Even a cursory knowledge of history would disabuse you of the notion that this is something new.


You, like Limbaugh and other armchair observers of politics take such a surface and shallow view that you miss the entire point. Hoping that Obama fails is hoping that the US fails. I think the US public was really clear about how violently out of touch you both are. Your candidates lost. They lost everywhere, and all the votes were counted this time.


Don't presume to understand all of what I'm say, (probably my fault as English is my third language out of six), but I will strive to use smaller words so you 'get' more of what I'm typing.


Jefferson was not actually a huge proponent of arming the masses, he feared idiots tremendously. Check your sources on him so far this thread as they are not remotely historically accurate. Any library should have the transcripts of the Constitutional Convention if you don't already own a copy. Elbrigdge Gerry is my fave if you do a deep read, you two really share a similar debate style.



Have fun researching!
You are right. I don't grasp the argument.
You are right. I am "far out of line".
You are right. I love violence and I am violently out of touch.
You are right. I jump on a phrase (mostly to make a point, but then again, my points are always out of line)
You are right. Clearly you need to teach me to read.
You are right. Unlike you, I am surface and shallow.
You are right. Unlike you, I miss the whole point.
You are right. I could never presume to understand what you are saying. Thanks for the smaller words.
You are right. I could never under understand our constitution and historical "accuracy" as you do.

How could I EVER be right?? After all, I disagree with you! And even more to the point is that I happen to have a conservative viewpoint. And really, isn't that all it takes to get the tolerant liberal vitriol rolling around here? Isn't that all it takes to feel justified in personal attack?

Oh yeah. One thing you ARE wrong about? Failed policies do not equate to failed countries. G-d knows we've seen it happen before. On both sides. But please correct me if I am historically inaccurate in my assertion here.

I can see your response required (and shows) MUCH research.









 

E B

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Aug 31, 2005
Messages
9,488
Date: 3/3/2009 2:51:32 PM
Author: beebrisk

After all, I disagree with you! And even more to the point is that I happen to have a conservative viewpoint. And really, isn''t that all it takes to get the tolerant liberal vitriol rolling around here? Isn''t that all it takes to feel justified in personal attack?
The PS liberal vs. conservative bully blame game is getting awfully old. You are just as guilty of launching personal attacks as those you accuse. Believe what you''d like, but your ''conservative viewpoint'' has little to do with the way people occasionally respond to you. For more on why, simply look at your responses to them.
 

MaggieB

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
646
Date: 3/3/2009 2:51:32 PM
Author: beebrisk

Date: 3/3/2009 1:57:28 PM
Author: swimmer

Date: 3/3/2009 12:26:13 PM

Author: beebrisk


Date: 3/3/2009 10:41:20 AM


Author: swimmer



Date: 3/3/2009 10:33:39 AM



Author: beebrisk




Date: 3/3/2009 9:02:12 AM




Author:AllieGator




The Obama administration has released some memos of internal communications between President Bush and the Justice Department. Some scary stuff...the one that the CNN article references includes discussion of Bush trying to expand his power to fight terrorism without having to go through the usual paths.






This is from John Yoo, who was a deputy assistant attorney general:






''We conclude that the president has ample constitutional and statutory authority to deploy the military against international or foreign terrorists operating within the United States,'' wrote John Yoo, then a deputy assistant attorney general. ''We further believe that the use of such military force generally is consistent with constitutional standards, and that it need not follow the exact procedures that govern law enforcement operations






This doesn''t surprise me, to be honest, but it is somewhat disturbing to read the actual memo that might have led to Bush''s disregard for the conventional path to war.






Any other thoughts/discussion points?




Unconventional wars demand and deserve unconventional action.



I am so very excited that Beebrisk wants to give Obama unfettered rights to do as he pleases with the current economic situation! Hey its an ''unconventional'' crisis. Bushy did exactly what Jefferson feared most from a President. Bush undermined the very basis of American democracy.


Not an honest argument, and you know it.



Ad hominem (typical).



We have never fought a war like we are fighting now. We have however, faced financial crisis in the past and unfortunately our new administration refuses to learn from them.



So yeah, I do give him unfettered ''rights'' to do as he wishes. And hope as Limbaugh does that his policies fail. You know, those policies that undermine our free market''s very foundation??



Sad, after taking the stance he did on Israel, you are so contemptuous of Bush. But not surprised, at all.

What? I know what ad hominem means, but am unsure if you grasp the argument. Bush and I disagree on almost every single aspect of Israeli policy other than that Israel should exist. You are so far out of line I am not going to get into more detail as you just want to provoke more of that violence that you love so much. Usually you jump on one phrase and ramble on, so a trick I teach undergrads is to re-read things so that they get more out of a text than an initial impression


You are wrong. The US has encountered many conflicts of this nature, it is called a ''war of ideology.'' Ideology means ideas or beliefs. Even a cursory knowledge of history would disabuse you of the notion that this is something new.


You, like Limbaugh and other armchair observers of politics take such a surface and shallow view that you miss the entire point. Hoping that Obama fails is hoping that the US fails. I think the US public was really clear about how violently out of touch you both are. Your candidates lost. They lost everywhere, and all the votes were counted this time.


Don''t presume to understand all of what I''m say, (probably my fault as English is my third language out of six), but I will strive to use smaller words so you ''get'' more of what I''m typing.


Jefferson was not actually a huge proponent of arming the masses, he feared idiots tremendously. Check your sources on him so far this thread as they are not remotely historically accurate. Any library should have the transcripts of the Constitutional Convention if you don''t already own a copy. Elbrigdge Gerry is my fave if you do a deep read, you two really share a similar debate style.



Have fun researching!
You are right. I don''t grasp the argument.
You are right. I am ''far out of line''.
You are right. I love violence and I am violently out of touch.
You are right. I jump on a phrase (mostly to make a point, but then again, my points are always out of line)
You are right. Clearly you need to teach me to read.
You are right. Unlike you, I am surface and shallow.
You are right. Unlike you, I miss the whole point.
You are right. I could never presume to understand what you are saying. Thanks for the smaller words.
You are right. I could never under understand our constitution and historical ''accuracy'' as you do.

How could I EVER be right?? After all, I disagree with you! And even more to the point is that I happen to have a conservative viewpoint. And really, isn''t that all it takes to get the tolerant liberal vitriol rolling around here? Isn''t that all it takes to feel justified in personal attack?

Oh yeah. One thing you ARE wrong about? Failed policies do not equate to failed countries. G-d knows we''ve seen it happen before. On both sides. But please correct me if I am historically inaccurate in my assertion here.

I can see your response required (and shows) MUCH research.









Finally something upon which beebrisk and I can agree. Swimmer is almost always right.
 

strmrdr

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 1, 2003
Messages
23,295
te:[/b] 3/3/2009 1:19:25 PM
Author: trillionaire
Date: 3/3/2009 1:14:08 PM

Author: beebrisk



Sigh...What would Jefferson think?

so... are you defending rights, or supporting their recension? And defending your property with fire power is a pretty funny idea. Good idea if you like being peppered with bullets. But, it was said... Give me liberty, or give me death. And they would happily give you the latter.
[/quote]

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."
Thomas Jefferson
 

trillionaire

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
3,881
Date: 3/3/2009 3:53:34 PM
Author: strmrdr


'God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.

The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is

wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts

they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,

it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...

And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not

warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of

resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as

to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost

in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from

time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

It is its natural manure.'

Thomas Jefferson
I don't wish to die defending the right to a right I already have been granted. (I'd prefer to honor and recognize those who fought and died for them in the 1st place) If it is illegal to search my place without warrant, I need no gun, because no one is coming with their guns blazing.

I don't buy into the 'power grab' of this historical moment. I will happily die for my rights, even at the hands of a terrorist. There is a distinction between dying for your rights, and dying unwarranted for self defense. One serves others, the other is self serving.
 

strmrdr

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 1, 2003
Messages
23,295

trillionaire

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
3,881
Date: 3/3/2009 4:55:28 PM
Author: strmrdr
Date: 3/3/2009 4:17:57 PM

Author: trillionaire

Date: 3/3/2009 3:53:34 PM

because no one is coming with their guns blazing.
Really?

One of several thousand such accounts...Many in which a human life was unjustifiably taken.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/23/AR2009012302935.html

I''m sorry, I should have been more clear. No one is coming for ME


Plus, I''m black. They will shoot me with or without a gun, if they come.


I''m sure you can link to those articles, too.
 

purrfectpear

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
4,079
This whole Dems vs. Repubs and Liberals vs. Conservative thing is getting ridiculous when you attempt to paint each other with the brush of whose President abused power the most.

I seriously doubt if any President in the last 60 years has not contemplated, plotted, or actually abused their power and the constitution.

Good lord is there nothing we can agree on? Naive much
 

icekid

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
7,471
Date: 3/3/2009 8:24:08 PM
Author: purrfectpear
This whole Dems vs. Repubs and Liberals vs. Conservative thing is getting ridiculous when you attempt to paint each other with the brush of whose President abused power the most.

I seriously doubt if any President in the last 60 years has not contemplated, plotted, or actually abused their power and the constitution.

Good lord is there nothing we can agree on? Naive much
I am so with you, purrfectpear. To actually WANT these positions enough to do what is necessary to get to the White House...
None of these politicians are innocent angels.
 

Dancing Fire

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
32,396
Date: 3/3/2009 8:24:08 PM
Author: purrfectpear
This whole Dems vs. Repubs and Liberals vs. Conservative thing is getting ridiculous when you attempt to paint each other with the brush of whose President abused power the most.

I seriously doubt if any President in the last 60 years has not contemplated, plotted, or actually abused their power and the constitution.

Good lord is there nothing we can agree on? Naive much
sure there is...
we can all agree that Dems should keep their pants on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
Be a part of the community It's free, join today!
    20th Anniversary Upgrade
    20th Anniversary Upgrade
    Horses for Courses: Polo Match Jewelry
    Horses for Courses: Polo Match Jewelry
    An Excellent K Color Graded Diamond
    An Excellent K Color Graded Diamond

Need Something Special?

Get a quote from multiple trusted and vetted jewelers.

Holloway Cut Advisor



Diamond Eye Candy

Click to view full-size image.

New posts

Top