Once again using your Bush hatred to negate the truth. sm

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

However, talking about the supreme court. I really don't like the idea of lifers. What happens if several get sick at the same time? Then you have a president who is able to fill those positions with whatever he decides, thus shifting (either way) the whole court for MANY years to come. I think their terms should be staggered and only about 10 yrs (at most). You can also wind up with a court that is elderly, set in its ways (whether because of age or what they've lived through), and completely out of touch with current changes in society. I think there needs to be infusion of new blood on a regular basis.

Bush�s Snoopgate
The president was so desperate to kill The New York Times� eavesdropping story, he summoned the paper�s editor and publisher to the Oval Office. But it wasn�t just out of concern about national security.

Dec. 19, 2005 - Finally we have a Washington scandal that goes beyond sex, corruption and political intrigue to big issues like security versus liberty and the reasonable bounds of presidential power. President Bush came out swinging on Snoopgate�he made it seem as if those who didn�t agree with him wanted to leave us vulnerable to Al Qaeda�but it will not work. We�re seeing clearly now that Bush thought 9/11 gave him license to act like a dictator, or in his own mind, no doubt, like Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War.

No wonder Bush was so desperate that The New York Times not publish its story on the National Security Agency eavesdropping on American citizens without a warrant, in what lawyers outside the administration say is a clear violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I learned this week that on December 6, Bush summoned Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller to the Oval Office in a futile attempt to talk them out of running the story. The Times will not comment on the meeting,
but one can only imagine the president�s desperation.

The problem was not that the disclosures would compromise national security, as Bush claimed at his press conference. His comparison to the damaging pre-9/11 revelation of Osama bin Laden�s use of a satellite phone, which caused bin Laden to change tactics, is fallacious; any Americans with ties to Muslim extremists�in fact, all American Muslims, period�have long since suspected that the U.S. government might be listening in to their conversations. Bush claimed that �the fact that we are discussing this program is helping the enemy.� But there is simply no evidence, or even reasonable presumption, that this is so. And rather than the leaking being a �shameful act,� it was the work of a patriot inside the government who was trying to stop a presidential power grab.

No, Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important story�which the paper had already inexplicably held for a year�because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker. He insists he had �legal authority derived from the Constitution and congressional resolution authorizing force.� But the Constitution explicitly requires the president to obey the law. And the post 9/11 congressional resolution authorizing �all necessary force� in fighting terrorism was made in clear reference to military intervention. It did not scrap the Constitution and allow the president to do whatever he pleased in any area in the name of fighting terrorism.

What is especially perplexing about this story is that the 1978 law set up a special court to approve eavesdropping in hours, even minutes, if necessary. In fact, the law allows the government to eavesdrop on its own, then retroactively justify it to the court, essentially obtaining a warrant after the fact. Since 1979, the FISA court has approved tens of thousands of eavesdropping requests and rejected only four. There was no indication the existing system was slow�as the president seemed to claim in his press conference�or in any way required extra-constitutional action.

This will all play out eventually in congressional committees and in the United States Supreme Court. If the Democrats regain control of Congress, there may even be articles of impeachment introduced. Similar abuse of power was part of the impeachment charge brought against Richard Nixon in 1974.

In the meantime, it is unlikely that Bush will echo President Kennedy in 1961. After JFK managed to tone down a New York Times story by Tad Szulc on the Bay of Pigs invasion, he confided to Times editor Turner Catledge that he wished the paper had printed the whole story because it might have spared him such a stunning defeat in Cuba.

This time, the president knew publication would cause him great embarrassment and trouble for the rest of his presidency. It was for that reason�and less out of genuine concern about national security�that George W. Bush tried so hard to kill the New York Times story.

From her posts, it's clear that she's a very compassionate, kind, intelligent person who is capable of thinking independent thoughts. She cares about people who need help in this country. Nobody who is consumed by hatred can do that.

She's expressed fear and concern and frustration at this administration and where it's taking us, and she expressed anger at the person who's leading us in that direction. She's not alone. An increasing number of Americans feel the same way.

The only person I see consumed by hatred is YOU. You've repeatedly littered this board with your hateful posts. It's very easy to see who the hateful people are.

I suggested below that you/all the others (assuming there really is more than one) should be ignored. You contribute nothing to this board but anger, rage, hatred and skewed thinking.

Having said that, I won't bother reading/responding to your posts any more. It's simply not worth it because you don't want to debate. All you want to do is attack others.

If Michael Moore has tapped into the river of hatred of the Democrats, what about a guy like Rush Limbaugh? What has he tapped into, the river of good will of the Republicans?

Elections are held every two years, and this election the people chose a majority of Democratic candidates. I for one am glad that they did if for no other reason than it will bring new perspectives into a government that has been completely controlled by one party. Further hope is that it may bring changes that work to the good of all of us.

I come (used to come) to this board to hear about the candidates. Instead all I'm reading lately is posters attacking others for posting their viewpoints. Someone posts something about Obama and the O supporters attack them "lies" they call them. They don't defend Obama but instead insult and attack the poster. Then they come out and say "oh poor me, you just hate Obama, your so insulting" while at the same time calling them every name in the book. What I'm hearing is the republicans are trying to shed some light on what Obama is but some of the democrats don't want to hear it and already exclaim that Obama has won. They are condescending towards anyone who has a different viewpoint than theirs. They won't read anything that has negative things to say about Obama and they won't read anything that has anything positive to say about McCain. It's just hate-filled spew that comes out. You'll cite polls if they favor Obama, and if they favor McCain you ignore them. You won't even admit that the race is too close to call. In your minds Obama has already won the election. You'll support cheating if it favors Obama and condemn it if it favors McCain. You'd rather live your lives having government regulate your lives, tell you what you can and cannot do, and take all your money to give a check to the people who are able to work but won't because why should they since they are receiving a check from government, while you are being told its your patriotic duty to give to these poor fellow Americans. You'd rather have an inexperienced radical person running the country than someone who has experience and has shown by his voting record that he fights for the American people. Yet not giving any reason (being older is not a reason). I have not yet read any posts that are positive reasons for Obama being president, just hate-filled garbage against Palin. Also makes me wonder why people are trying to keep Biden out of the spotlight. Makes me want to find out more about what he's done in the past.

So I have decided to give the board a rest for awhile and will be back to vist after the election is over. I'm no longer getting any valuable information here. We have not had an election yet. The polls are too close to call and even then you can't rely on the polls to give you accurate information (after all these polls are incuding all the dead people, pets, Santa Claus, Mary Poppins, Rama Dama Ding Dong, and all the other fictitious people, not to mention the people who registered 13 and 14 times or more as a democrat) in their polls. I remember back in 2000 everyone was claiming Gore had won the election and it was very very close and look what happened. He lost.

I will also continue to listen to all stations, and read all articles so I can at least get a fair and balance opinion of what is going on.

So have at it y'all. You seem to love attacking people for no reason and when I read these posts I can really feel the negativity and hatred oozing. So maybe I'll just stick to the Gab board - I need some more positive vibes.

P.S. - Just one more note. Whoever wins will win, and whether it is democrat or republican we will deal with it. When a democrat has won in the past there were no riots, republicans continued to try to work with the democrats, but we all know what happened the last two times a republican won. As for the threats of "if Obama doesn't win there's going to be rioting in the streets". Well if that does happen that goes to show you how many biggots wanted him in just because he's black - all the things they claim don't matter will come out.

before, and it was turned against Bush. 'He's a moron, a retard, a national embarrassment a bumbler, a fool, a cowboy, a yokel.' 'So happy the moron is gone and we have Obama.' yada, yada, yada. And it's still going on, right on this very board, although (and I hate to break it to everyone) Bush ain't prez anymore and did not run in the last election.

I think it's impressive that Obama has managed to draw all this fire in 90 short days! It took some dems twice that long to hate Bush's guts.