Problem with Bush

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Laser100, Aug 29, 2004.

  1. BLD

    BLD New Member

    Documentation please?

    And if they voted for it for use on a "temporary basis" why is it part of the official Democrat platform that Kerry's running on?

  2. Tom Head

    Tom Head New Member

    The wording of the Patriot Act itself, which includes an expiration date.
    There you go again, BLD. As I've already documented in at least two different threads you've participated in (including this one--scroll to the previous page of postings, folks), the 2004 DNC platform specifically states that the party does not support extending the current, unrevised Patriot Act. It supports revising the Patriot Act to remove sections that constitute a threat to civil liberties, while adding sections to address international money laundering. To say that the DNC platform supports the Patriot Act because it will support the revised version if it is passed is like saying that John Kerry supports all of the president's actions because he will if he becomes president. It is, as I've said before, a Clintonian half-truth--a redefinition of what "is" is. You really should know better.

  3. BLD

    BLD New Member

    There you go again, Tom. My point has been that the Dems have no plans whatsoever to retract the Patriot act. Sure, they might want to make a couple of minor changes, but if you ask the average democrat on the street they will tell you that the party is against the Patriot act and are going to get rid of it. That isn't even close to true. The fact is that they support 98% of it!

  4. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Tom Head said, in part

    I ask again, for the umpteenth time, what specific civil liberties has anyone on this board lost due to the Patriot Act?
  5. Tom57

    Tom57 Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Problem with Bush

    Joking? Not in the least.

    So if your leader can't force himself to lie, why is it the rest of the party can't follow his lead? The Swift Boat Veterans for Propaganda keep peddling their lies and distortions, and the rest of the party eats it up.

    The truth is that Bush would like it both ways. He wants to take the high road when put on the spot by admitting that Kerry served honorably, and that Kerry's service trumps his (how can he say otherwise without looking like an idiot?). Yet he wants the Swift Boat crew to keep hammering away in the hope that it will sway enough swing voters. Essentially, by not directly asking them to stop, he is tacitly endorsing a lie. Truly an act of desperation.
  6. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    I also supported the President when he attacked Afghanistan. So did most of the civilized world. When it comes to an unnecessary war in Iraq, however, I feel lied to and used to further the ambitions of the Bush family and their friends and business connections.

    I said "I feel" quite deliberately. As a voter, not a lawyer in Court, I base my decisions on emotional reactions as well as reason.

    This administration scares me.
  7. Casey

    Casey New Member

    Well, I have basically been falsely imprisoned by the liberal protestors who often set up shop on the sidewalk outside of my apartment door. Does that count? ;)
  8. Casey

    Casey New Member

    Let the pouch drop ....

    Come on Nozzy, be serious. If President Bush scares you, then you should be shaking in your boots at the thought of Saddam. Imagine if he were your leader!

    The invasion of Iraq was more than necessary. Saddam Hussein was a murderous dictator. He gassed and killed his own people; he disobeyed UN resolutions; he shot at our fighter jets; he had the ability to make weapons; he hated America's freedom, and he supported terrorism. Like Mayor Rudy said, Saddam himself was a weapon of mass destruction. He was a danger to his own people, the middle east, and the entire civilized world.

    But not anymore!!! Saddam is now in jail picking lice from his ass hair. He can no longer torture humans, rape women, or add to his collection of mass graves. And this, Nosborne, is a direct result of the President's (and government's) decision to invade Iraq and conquer its regime. We are better off!

    Making friends and allies won't help us. We need to be proactive by taking the fight to our enemies; even if the wussy Europeon population doesn't support our decision. The Russians and the French refused to provide us with any real support. Did this protect them from terrorist attacks? In light of the the recent plane bombings in Russia and French journalist hostage situations, I would argue that the answer is no.

    These terrorist devils don't want to make friends. They want to kill any sign of freedom. If we don't destroy them now, they will succeed and make us pay. President Bush realizes this. John Heinz-Kerry will get us all killed.

    Think about this:
    The Russians didn't support us... they were attacked (planes bombed)
    The French didn't support us.... their journalists have been kidnapped and held hostage
    We took the fight to the monsters... we haven't been attacked in 3 years
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 31, 2004
  9. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    Saddam was not a credible threat to the United States. The world is full of brutal dictators; shall we spill American blood and spend American treasure to remove them all?

    No. The Bush administration is an imminant threat to our system of constitutional government with separated powers. That affects ME personally. The President IS a credible threat.
  10. Khan

    Khan New Member

    Without a warrant and without probable cause, the FBI now has the power to access your most private medical records, your library records, and your student records... and can prevent anyone from telling you it was done.
  11. Casey

    Casey New Member

    Saddam was a threat to the U.S. He had the capacity to make weapons (at least), and he supported terrorist acts. He is better off in prison, and you know it. It just doesn't make sense to argue otherwise. he was an evil criminal, and he is now in jail. This is a good thing!! No, a great thing!!

    And if the President decides to unilaterally attack another terrorist regime, he will have my support. If he feels that an there is an eminent threat that needs dealing with U.S. style,I will have no problem with him taking forceful action. Our troops are well trained, and ready and willing to defeat evil.

    And the President is NOT a threat to our freedom. No branch of government is. Our system of checks and balances ensures this. You, of all people, should know better!
  12. Casey

    Casey New Member

    What are you hiding?

    If you don't have anything to hide, Khan, you should't have a problem with this. If the FBI feels that evaluating my library records will help them win the war on terror, so be it.

    Things like real estate and tax records, criminal histories, voter registrations, voting histories, litigation filings, wills, etc. are already available to the general public. All one needs to do is visit the court house, or get a Lexis or Westlaw membership. It seems to me that this stuff is more private than library records.
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 31, 2004
  13. Khan

    Khan New Member

    Re: What are you hiding?

    He asked what civil liberties I lost. I lost due process. Innocence before being proven guilty. They don't need a warrant or probable cause. And they make mistakes.
  14. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    I don't know what sections of the Patriot Act refer to library or medical records. But your allegation is not entirely accurate regarding student records. The Attorney General or his designee must apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for a court order. The application must show that the requested records are likely to contain specific and articulable facts pertinant to an investigation of domestic or international terrorism.

    See Sec. 507.
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 31, 2004
  15. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    Yes, I of all people do know that our system of checks and balances should protect me from the Administration.

    The trouble is, it is PRECISELY these checks and balances that the administration sought to circumvent.

    You phrase my argument well.
  16. Casey

    Casey New Member

    Which checks and balances are being circumvented? How is the Bush Administration limiting the powers of Congress and/or the Judiciary?
  17. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    By attempting to arrest and hold persons indefinitely without access to the Courts, the President is attempting to take over the functions, and eliminate the protections, of the judiciary, for one.
  18. Tom57

    Tom57 Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Problem with Bush

    Wrong. Most retirees do not qualify as living at the poverty level - at least not the ones that you describe. Income in the form of capital gains, dividends, db pensions, and dc distributions do qualify as income in the poverty calculation. Hence most retirees with this kind of income do not make the poverty rolls.
  19. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Re: Re: Re: Problem with Bush

    It's not about Kerry's Vietnam service, it's about his post service.

    Kerry cannot run for President as a hero of a war he bitterly, vehemently, and adamently condemned as criminal, corrupt, immoral, and ignoble and admitted before a congressional hearing and on the Dick Cavett show that he, himself committed war crimes.

    Kerry, like Lt. William Calley, needs to be held accountable for crimes against humanity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  20. Tom57

    Tom57 Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Problem with Bush

    Sure he can. The military awarded him medals for his service. The right wing has tried to make an issue of those medals for over 30 years. Kerry has defended the awarding of the medals, and has tried to explain what he did, and did not do, in Viet Nam. The right-wing continues to make an issue of his service, and at the same time they ridicule him for using Viet Nam as a centerpiece of his campaign. In other words, they would like to fire away at his reputation while he remains quiet.

    Kerry has every right to condemn the Viet Nam War. In fact, he is eminently qualified to do so, since he was there. In a related way, Robert McNamara has done the very same thing. The basic question is this. Is it possible to act heroically in a war that you don’t believe in? Obviously, the answer is yes, and many people did just that in Viet Nam. Some got medals. Some didn’t. The second question is this. Even if you believe the war was unjust, is it okay to defend your service in that war when your service is attacked and called into question by others? Clearly the answer is yes again.

    So it's not the case that Kerry walks around condemning the VNW at then says, "Oh by the way, I was a hero of that war." He has criticized the war for nearly 40 years. The right wing has attacked him for nearly 40 years. He is merely defending his record of service. He is not endorsing the war. Those are two very different things.

    The right wing continues to work overtime on this, trying vainly to catch Kerry in some sort of grave contradiction. There is none. In the process, the right wing is beginning to sound positively shrill on the point. Next we’ll see Ken Starr emerge from his hole to start some sort of Congressional investigation on the matter. Is there some intern in Kerry’s past that he made an off-color comment to 20 years ago that the right could start parading down Main Street? I’m sure they’re looking – and frantically at that.

Share This Page