In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Bush has been or will be pardoned
kyplumber
Member Posts: 11,111
Comments
He wanted to be "Puffy" the Mighty Neocon Terror-Warrior and he got his wish.
NOW that "damn dirty piece of paper", otherwise know as the US Constitution, comes out of the blue and slaps him upside his pointy head.
The scramble is now on to cover some serious *.
Bottom line, if he and his neocon crony's were doing nothing wrong, why the frenetic attempts to get immunity?
If they were acting within the Constitution, then there is zero to fear.
Hmmm?????[;)]
Go figure...
Half have become Paranoid, pathological, psychotic Bush haters and
half have become terrrorist fighting, tyrant ousting defenders of freedom.
Which are you?
"I wonder what we're becoming in this country"
Half have become Paranoid, pathological, psychotic Bush haters and
half have become terrrorist, fighting, tyrant ousting defenders of freedom.
Which are you?
What we are becoming is a nation of collectivists, governed "by" collectivists.
We are pissing away our Republic quite simply.
I personally am not a Bush hater per se. I detest all collectivist minded persons, particularly those in government who have the means and ability to affect my individual liberty.
Collectivists cross all spectrum's and both wings of the Republican and Democrat party.
Those who fail to follow the tenants of the Constitution and Bill of Rights earn my enmity.
Our current POTUS and his crony's fit that bill perfectly. Almost the entire Democrat/Republican cabal also fit that bill.
We as a people, need to decide whether we are for personal liberty, or for government power. You can't have it both ways.
I vote personal liberty.
How about you?
"I wonder what we're becoming in this country"
Half have become Paranoid, pathological, psychotic Bush haters and
half have become terrrorist, fighting, tyrant ousting defenders of freedom.
Which are you?
break that in to thirds and you may be right, being the other third swing from the republicans nuts no matter what they do!
I just can't seem to get as worked up about any of them as I did with Kennedy. Now that was/is a really good hate.
I don't like Bush, but you need to think!
Slick Willie killed more people than Bush and no one calls for his blood!
Freaking grow up! LBJ killed more American boys than old shrub!
Go figure....
He wanted to be "Puffy" the Mighty Neocon Terror-Warrior and he got his wish.
NOW that "damn dirty piece of paper", otherwise know as the US Constitution, comes out of the blue and slaps him upside his pointy head.
The scramble is now on to cover some serious *.
Bottom line, if he and his neocon crony's were doing nothing wrong, why the frenetic attempts to get immunity?
If they were acting within the Constitution, then there is zero to fear.
Hmmm?????[;)]
Go figure...
That is the best argument I've heard lending credence to the fact that Bush is a criminal, a coward, and a liar.
If they were acting within the Constitution, then there is zero to fear."
Probably because they fully understand that the far left may take over at the end of his term. If that happens, it doesn't matter if he was strictist constitutionalist that ever lived, the far left wants BLOOD.
Much like the participants in a KKK ralley, the far left doesn't care about guilt or innocence. Bush displeased them and didn't give them free reign to do whatever they wanted. For that they want him to pay, and pay HARD. What exactly they have to do or what they have to claim to have this happen, they don't much care, as long as he is punished.
Walk by any street full of left wing protestors, close your eyes, and listen carefully. Through there chants, you can hear an unspoken, common theme: "HANG HIM, PUT HIM IN PRISON FOREVER, SHOOT HIM, WE DON'T CARE JUST DO SOMETHING HORRIBLE TO HIM!!!"
When you browse around the net and understand how many in the left wing of this country have near mastabatory fantasies about Bush being shot, stabbed or hung, and how many of these people are courted by the Democrats, you start to wonder why they haven't tried anything in earnest yet. If they get real power, you can bet they will try.
"Bottom line, if he and his neocon crony's were doing nothing wrong, why the frenetic attempts to get immunity?
If they were acting within the Constitution, then there is zero to fear."
Probably because they fully understand that the far left may take over at the end of his term. If that happens, it doesn't matter if he was strictist constitutionalist that ever lived, the far left wants BLOOD.
Much like the participants in a KKK ralley, the far left doesn't care about guilt or innocence. Bush displeased them and didn't give them free reign to do whatever they wanted. For that they want him to pay, and pay HARD. What exactly they have to do or what they have to claim to have this happen, they don't much care, as long as he is punished.
Walk by any street full of left wing protestors, close your eyes, and listen carefully. Through there chants, you can hear an unspoken, common theme: "HANG HIM, PUT HIM IN PRISON FOREVER, SHOOT HIM, WE DON'T CARE JUST DO SOMETHING HORRIBLE TO HIM!!!"
When you browse around the net and understand how many in the left wing of this country have near mastabatory fantasies about Bush being shot, stabbed or hung, and how many of these people are courted by the Democrats, you start to wonder why they haven't tried anything in earnest yet. If they get real power, you can bet they will try.
You are right! Don't try to be right again in this liberal wonderland!
God bless you!
Please, all you cry babies he is tearing up the constitution, list the things he has done to you, not some Muslim terrorist but to you.
How has your life been personally affected constitutionally????
During the Clinton admin there were a number of things done that I witnessed and affected my personal life.
With Bush he beats up the bad guys and you girls cry!!! He taps the phones from overseas terrorist and you think he will go further and spy on you looking at porn. He could care less.
I watched Bill-Hillary and Janet role their tanks and burn the children in Waco but the horror dished out by Bush has been to our enemies.
I was never for Iraq, don't think those people are or will ever be worth the life of a family cat but, as bad a choice as he made and, IMO, a mistake he at least has his pants on in the oval office.
Given our choices we would be better off with Bush than any of the retard stooges the next election will bring.
Keep crying you blithering ladies when Obama gets in it won't be out enemies that will feel the wrath of Washington it will be Americans and particularly gun owners.
Get a backbone
Wulfmann
"Fools learn from their own mistakes. I learn from the mistakes of others"
Otto von Bismarck
"Bottom line, if he and his neocon crony's were doing nothing wrong, why the frenetic attempts to get immunity?
If they were acting within the Constitution, then there is zero to fear."
Probably because they fully understand that the far left may take over at the end of his term. If that happens, it doesn't matter if he was strictist constitutionalist that ever lived, the far left wants BLOOD.
They can WANT all day long, but if there is no crime, wanting just don't cut the mustard.
Much like the participants in a KKK ralley, the far left doesn't care about guilt or innocence. Bush displeased them and didn't give them free reign to do whatever they wanted. For that they want him to pay, and pay HARD. What exactly they have to do or what they have to claim to have this happen, they don't much care, as long as he is punished.
Again, all that is fine and I agree with your point that the far-left espouses exactly what you say.....however, if he and his cohorts were acting within the law and within the framework of the Constitution....then the far-left can "want" in one hand and poop in the other.
Walk by any street full of left wing protestors, close your eyes, and listen carefully. Through there chants, you can hear an unspoken, common theme: "HANG HIM, PUT HIM IN PRISON FOREVER, SHOOT HIM, WE DON'T CARE JUST DO SOMETHING HORRIBLE TO HIM!!!"
Agreed again, BUT that doesn't matter if he acted within the law, now does it?
When you browse around the net and understand how many in the left wing of this country have near mastabatory fantasies about Bush being shot, stabbed or hung, and how many of these people are courted by the Democrats, you start to wonder why they haven't tried anything in earnest yet. If they get real power, you can bet they will try.
Refer to my previous points about legality -vs- wishing you could hang the dirty basturd.
No crime, no fear.
Outside the law and outside the Constitution, well then, Houston, I think we have a problem here.[;)]
Bush has not done one thing to be pardoned for, give me a break girly men!!!!
Please, all you cry babies he is tearing up the constitution, list the things he has done to you, not some Muslim terrorist but to you.
How has your life been personally affected constitutionally????
During the Clinton admin there were a number of things done that I witnessed and affected my personal life.
With Bush he beats up the bad guys and you girls cry!!! He taps the phones from overseas terrorist and you think he will go further and spy on you looking at porn. He could care less.
I watched Bill-Hillary and Janet role their tanks and burn the children in Waco but the horror dished out by Bush has been to our enemies.
I was never for Iraq, don't think those people are or will ever be worth the life of a family cat but, as bad a choice as he made and, IMO, a mistake he at least has his pants on in the oval office.
Given our choices we would be better off with Bush than any of the retard stooges the next election will bring.
Keep crying you blithering ladies when Obama gets in it won't be out enemies that will feel the wrath of Washington it will be Americans and particularly gun owners.
Get a backbone
Wulfmann
You still blathering about stuff you are apparently ignorant of?
One of these days, when I can muster up a tiny spark of interest, i'll address one of your "blathers" in detail.
Right now, your neocon talking points bore me.[;)]
quote:Originally posted by meunke
"Bottom line, if he and his neocon crony's were doing nothing wrong, why the frenetic attempts to get immunity?
If they were acting within the Constitution, then there is zero to fear."
Probably because they fully understand that the far left may take over at the end of his term. If that happens, it doesn't matter if he was strictist constitutionalist that ever lived, the far left wants BLOOD.
They can WANT all day long, but if there is no crime, wanting just don't cut the mustard.
Much like the participants in a KKK ralley, the far left doesn't care about guilt or innocence. Bush displeased them and didn't give them free reign to do whatever they wanted. For that they want him to pay, and pay HARD. What exactly they have to do or what they have to claim to have this happen, they don't much care, as long as he is punished.
Again, all that is fine and I agree with your point that the far-left espouses exactly what you say.....however, if he and his cohorts were acting within the law and within the framework of the Constitution....then the far-left can "want" in one hand and poop in the other.
Walk by any street full of left wing protestors, close your eyes, and listen carefully. Through there chants, you can hear an unspoken, common theme: "HANG HIM, PUT HIM IN PRISON FOREVER, SHOOT HIM, WE DON'T CARE JUST DO SOMETHING HORRIBLE TO HIM!!!"
Agreed again, BUT that doesn't matter if he acted within the law, now does it?
When you browse around the net and understand how many in the left wing of this country have near mastabatory fantasies about Bush being shot, stabbed or hung, and how many of these people are courted by the Democrats, you start to wonder why they haven't tried anything in earnest yet. If they get real power, you can bet they will try.
Refer to my previous points about legality -vs- wishing you could hang the dirty basturd.
No crime, no fear.
Outside the law and outside the Constitution, well then, Houston, I think we have a problem here.[;)]
Don't get me wrong. All things being equal, I AGREE WITH YOU that he really doesn't have anything to fear. To take that a step further if they tried to do something, they would have to take into account all the senators and reps that agreed with him on Iraq and other things (both Republican AND Democrat.)
However, all things are NOT equal. Just because a law was not broken DOES NOT mean that there will be not attempt at a trial and some kind of 'conviction.' Afterall, where does it say that foreign POWs should have access to our civil courts? Where in the Constitution or the constitutions of the states does it say that the government can take your land and give it to a commercial developer on the sole basis that it thinks it will get more tax revenue? It doesn't. Not anywhere. But these things happen anyway.
I've seen these people. They exist in the area of the left wing where the feathers start to run out and empty space begin, but they are numerous, they are demanding, they are catered to... AND THEY ARE MULTIPLYING.
We're I Bush, I would want my @ss covered regardless. You can bet they will try everything they can.
However, all things are NOT equal. Just because a law was not broken DOES NOT mean that there will be not attempt at a trial and some kind of 'conviction.' Afterall, where does it say that foreign POWs should have access to our civil courts? Where in the Constitution or the constitutions of the states does it say that the government can take your land and give it to a commercial developer on the sole basis that it thinks it will get more tax revenue? It doesn't. Not anywhere. But these things happen anyway.
I've seen these people. They exist in the area of the left wing where the feathers start to run out and empty space begin, but they are numerous, they are demanding, they are catered to... AND THEY ARE MULTIPLYING.
We're I Bush, I would want my @ss covered regardless. You can bet they will try everything they can.
First off and to stake out my position....I abhor the collectivist socialist/marxist left and I also abhor the collectivist neocon/fascist right.
I believe that individual liberty is paramount to ANY government action.
That being said......
I fully expect that the left will attempt some type of "reckoning" with the Bush cabal.
Unless some law was broken, that "reckoning" will have to be political in nature.
You can't try and convict a sitting or former POTUS of a "non-criminal" matter. I'd be surprised if an "actual/provable" criminal matter will even see a trial or conviction.
As to the SCOTUS ruling, that is the logical, and IMO, proper, result of GW "Puffy" Bush declaring "war" on a "tactic". We are NOT in a declared state of war constitutionally.
Puffy & Co made a calculated move to set up a "new" classification of "enemy combatant" and "terror suspect". Along with that classification, in a time of conflict (NOT WAR), Puffy & Co attempted to authorize themselves the executive authority to simply declare "people" as terrorists or "enemy combatants" and perpetually lock them away with no provision for charges, legal counsel or an opportunity to challenge Puffy & Co's assertions as to their guilty/not guilty "limbo" status.
I am all for the imprisonment of prisoners of war and of criminals, however, there are certain rules that must apply. Perpetual imprisonment without charge and without ANY provision to challenge the "status" you are placed in, is not acceptable.
My understanding is that many of those so "detained" were not caught on the field of battle, but for a variety of reasons were picked up by and/or handed over to the US as being "suspected" in certain activities. I also seem to remember an American Citizen, Jose Padilla, who was scooped up and locked away as a "terror suspect", with no criminal charges for years. Finally the courts forced Puffy & Co to "bring forth the body" Habeus Corpus I believe.
I may be incorrect on some points related to Padilla, but I think that generally covers it.
Note that I make no argument for his innocence, merely that a person has the right to challenge their imprisonment, particularly a "suspect", not captured on the battlefield.
I for one, have zero faith in American Government as to protecting my rights. We have seen far too many examples of the Fed using near dictatorial powers, not granted by the Constitution, in times of "war".
Lincoln imprisoned newspaper people for printing negative things about him, Roosevelt rounded up, confiscated the property of and then imprisoned, thousands of American Citizens in WWII.
I could go on, but that illustrates the point that government MUST be accountable to the Constitution and to "The People"; not the other way around, where the people must be "accountable to government".
THAT is pretty much where we find ourselves now.
There were no provisions to protect American citizens from Puffy &Co declaring them an "enemy combatant", or a "terror suspect", then promptly whisking them away "somewhere" to be held with no chance to refute or fight the "charge" or the Federal Gov't applied "status", for how long.....forever?
To allow the Fed the authority to do so endangers us all. All it takes is the next small step of declaring one a "domestic terrorist" for espousing Libertarian, liberty-minded, or Constitutionalist views.
There is plenty of existing evidence that those who hold such views are already looked upon with suspicion as potential "domestic terrorists"
That is not the way America's Republic operates, regardless of what GW "Puffy" Bush & Co. want to make out, period.
We all know that the US Constitution does not make any provision for the theft of a private persons property for the purpose of giving it to another private entity.
That was simply another in a long, long line of un-Constitutional SCOTUS rulings.
You are correct that these things DO happen and they happen far too frequently.
Regardless, a criminal trial and conviction must be based on a violation of existing law.
I keep returning to the bottom-line. That being, if Puffy & Co have not violated any law, they cannot be held legally accountable for a violation of what, " outraging public opinion", or "offending the opposition party".
IMO, Puffy & Co have violated Constitutional Principals.
They have ran "point" on Federal Government actions which far exceeded those allowed under existing law and what the Constitution grants the Federal Government, particularly the Executive.
He and his crony's probably DO have something to fear.
If it makes any of you feel better, I seriously doubt that the Globalist Left will be allowed to try and convict the Globalist Right POTUS.
You need to have committed a crime to need a pardon.No crime no pardon needed!
I don't like Bush, but you need to think!
Slick Willie killed more people than Bush and no one calls for his blood!
Freaking grow up! LBJ killed more American boys than old shrub!
+1
washington plays musical chairs with the best of them .
What the liberals call illegal today will be totally legal in Jan./09.
I think that is when we will see the real damage .
In the Old testament there is a overview of all the Kings of Judah and Israel.
There is a statement about the reign of each ,based on what he did , but one overall theme :" And the next generation was worse than the one before ".
Heaven help us with what the next POTUS does with these laws .
Not only you but not one of the Bush haters has ever posted anything that makes an argument concerning "their" right being violated.
They cry about the poor terrorist in Gitmo, boohoo!!
That is not an endorsement of Bush by me but when cry babies whine about things that are flatly untrue it becomes tiring.
What do facts have to do with any of this?
My biggest concern about these intrusive laws is not the current administration which sees them as a means to combat the enemies of the United States.
The next administration will use these abilities to diminish the rights and freedoms of the people, mark my words.
Wulfmann
"Fools learn from their own mistakes. I learn from the mistakes of others"
Otto von Bismarck
Thanks, you confirm my post It496; not one single infringement of your rights by Bush in all that babbling long drawn out rhetoric.
Not only you but not one of the Bush haters has ever posted anything that makes an argument concerning "their" right being violated.
They cry about the poor terrorist in Gitmo, boohoo!!
That is not an endorsement of Bush by me but when cry babies whine about things that are flatly untrue it becomes tiring.
What do facts have to do with any of this?
My biggest concern about these intrusive laws is not the current administration which sees them as a means to combat the enemies of the United States.
The next administration will use these abilities to diminish the rights and freedoms of the people, mark my words.
Wulfmann
Like I said before slick, I'll address one of your inane posts in detail when I can muster a modicum of interest in what you spew.
If you'd do a bit of research, you'd find that party lackey's like you have trolled around here for years and have been periodically taken to task.
Frankly and speaking for myself, your superfluous rhetoric is old and very, very tiresome.
None of your crap is original, it is party line BS.
One final point on my long post. It was not in response to anything you said as "should" have been obvious.
Go figure.
Evil people have been trying to kill my neighbors and family, and rain ruin upon my country and way of life.
These evil people have been doing this for decades.
They went too far on Bush's watch. He reacted the way I wanted. Go kill the SOBs. Previous leaders did nothing.
The liberals have deserted Bush in the name of regaining power, because they hate the man that defeated their golden boy(s), twice.
Liberals hate him because Clinton was a loser, scumbag and was impeached. Liberals will never forgive for that piece of history. Clinton was their GOD.
Liberals, by the act of deserting Bush and any alligience to the cause of defeating evil men, have caused hundreds of U.S. soldiers and Marines to die in a prolonged war...prolonged by the devisive Democrats. The enemy simply waits for the weak to rise to power. Democrats thereby aid and abet my enemies. I loathe them for the lack of national integrity, unity and willpower.
Instead of standing shoulder to shoulder with Bush, Democrats openly seek to destoy his leadership, curtail his war making ability and therefore weaken our military response and morale. For this unforgivable weakness I loathe Democrats.
Democrats openly hate and mock Bush while praising such despicable people as Murtha, Kennedy, Clinton, (both of them), the whinny nobody Obama and the obnoxious hypocrit Gore. The democrat God is Power and their mantra is payback for impeaching their man, the one that was supposed to start a thousand year reich.
This is what I know and it causes me to want to create a new counrty...one without traitorous democrats.
Once again, like all you anti somethings not one single thing.
I did not ask for anyone to offer political opinions regarding abstract BS.
I asked for a simple statement.
What, has Bush done to lessen your personal rights. What laws has he imposed that have caused you to lose liberties?
Are you forbidden to worship or not as you please?
Are you forbidden from making unfounded accusations that when questioned you make even more without ever making one point regarding those accusations and in so doing feel it is wrong?
Has he taken away from your second amendment rights?
Has he not made gun owners rights better?.
Are you paying a higher tax rate now?
Then assure me, when your Obamanation takes hold can you state our second amendment rights will remain as under Bush, be improved or less????
Will our taxes be lower under Obama?
Will this brother of a Muslim ((who states Barack is actually a Muslim ((I do not know the reality on this, do you??)) make us safer in the world of Muslim terrorism and how??
You and all you Bush haters use the same name calling to anyone that simply ask that you to post any evidence and never once have you or any of your small minded I don't know what to like but I can dislike anything approach posted a lost freedom. Not one!!
Why would anyone that believes what you claim not have the obvious answers if there is an ounce of truth to anything you say?
Let me answer that since I already know.
You are full of Scheise, you have not lost any rights at all but just don't like Bush so parrot what the left wing hate anything that is not Marxist do.
Get an original thought and when you do try it on but I doubt you would recognize one if it ran you over.
Wulfmann
"Fools learn from their own mistakes. I learn from the mistakes of others"
Otto von Bismarck
It496,
Once again, like all you anti somethings not one single thing.
I did not ask for anyone to offer political opinions regarding abstract BS.
I asked for a simple statement.
What, has Bush done to lessen your personal rights. What laws has he imposed that have caused you to lose liberties?
Are you forbidden to worship or not as you please?
Are you forbidden from making unfounded accusations that when questioned you make even more without ever making one point regarding those accusations and in so doing feel it is wrong?
Has he taken away from your second amendment rights?
Has he not made gun owners rights better?.
Are you paying a higher tax rate now?
Then assure me, when your Obamanation takes hold can you state our second amendment rights will remain as under Bush, be improved or less????
Will our taxes be lower under Obama?
Will this brother of a Muslim ((who states Barack is actually a Muslim ((I do not know the reality on this, do you??)) make us safer in the world of Muslim terrorism and how??
You and all you Bush haters use the same name calling to anyone that simply ask that you to post any evidence and never once have you or any of your small minded I don't know what to like but I can dislike anything approach posted a lost freedom. Not one!!
Why would anyone that believes what you claim not have the obvious answers if there is an ounce of truth to anything you say?
Let me answer that since I already know.
You are full of Scheise, you have not lost any rights at all but just don't like Bush so parrot what the left wing hate anything that is not Marxist do.
Get an original thought and when you do try it on but I doubt you would recognize one if it ran you over.
Wulfmann
Your pie-hole is open again AND you fail to even know a damn thing about me.
You are a perfect Neocon/Republican.
If you had two brain cells rubbing together you would know that I hold the lefty/socialist democrats in even less regard than I do the neocon/Wulfmann brigades, barely, but less.
GW "Puffy" Bush, the mighty Neocon Terror-Warrior King, merely happens to be the current occupier of the office of POTUS, who has acted contrary to the Constitution, therefore he is the "POTUS" in focus at this point.
"Puffy" (I call him that because he gets all "puffed up" about his authority, or actions, being questioned), a true "servant of the people" has taken Executive Branch Federal Power, which seems contrary to federal authority, in a number of areas.
That fact is obviously lost on you in you blind indignation over someone being critical of King George and his holy war on terror.
It is apparent also that the concept of Federal Government "trends", "patterns" and clear signs of "government power-grab" is lost on you.
If only from your inane "defend the holy terror-warrior king and his minions" posts, I can read you like a book and a cheap dime-store novel at that.
As long as one of you precious repubs, or neocons is at the helm, you, like most other blind fervent "patriot types", are quite willing to ignore or make excuses for Federal Government, particularly executive branch, actions which are contrary to the Constitution.
Ben Franklin would puke if he saw such as you actually living the "give liberty for security" types.
Keep your eye on the ball sir, it ain't about me individually and it ain't about you individually. It is about "Collectivist Government" and the things that it does/the direction it is going.
A suggestion, if I may, in furtherance of educating yourself on the base-line issues at hand in my discussions (much needed I must add).
How about you go read our foundational document, The Declaration of Independence first. It will give you the concept of what ideals and principals we adopted.
Then, if you can finish that one and hopefully grasp the simple concept, you may want to move on to the US Constitution.
When you have some inkling of how the government is set up to operate, as a Republic, and the framework that it must work within, then you can step over to what we call "The Bill of Rights".
That one is also relatively short AND easy to read, so even you may be able to get through it. I suspect that long before you get to the BOR, that your delicate sensibilities will be so offended that you may fall into the old hell, "its just a dirty G-damn piece of paper" faction. You know, like your Terror Warrior-King hero, GW "Puffy" Bush feels.
If you do manage to continue reading and comprehending, then you will clearly see that the BOR lists certain "unalienable" rights. These are God-given, or Natural Rights, which are enumerated as things that the government CAN NOT INTERFERE WITH.
Now, once through this light reading, take a few moments and use the "founding principals and ideals" from the Declaration, the "framework of government" and its "clear restraints", the "powers and duties" of the Federal Government (just so you know, the Fed is made up of three (3) branches of gov't, the Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary), from the US Constitution and finally, the first Ten Amendments to the US Constitution (those are called the Bill of Rights) and the simple and irrefutable fact that they were placed there as an absolute "leash" on government actions.
Put all that into that bowl you call a head and mix it around and viola, you will have a grasp on how American Government is supposed to operate!!!
Once that sinks in, use all that "founding document", Constitutional Republic, and "leash on government" stuff and mold it into a yardstick.
Take that yardstick and use it to "measure" government actions and the actions of individual members of the government when appropriate.
You will find it quite enlightening I think.
You will see that going back many years, the government has far exceeded its role and its Constitutional authority. You will see that many POTUS's, not just your precious GW "Puffy" Bush, have far exceeded their Constitutional authority, as has the Federal Judiciary (including the SCOTUS) and the Legislature.
One sad commentary on all this is that many of America's Citizens are simply too abjectly stupid and/or ignorant to even grasp the concept, let alone see what the government has steadily been doing for generations and what has been accelerating rapidly in recent decades.
I am certain that "you", Wulfmann, surely can't fall into this category (heavy sarcasm intended[;)])
Keep your eye on the ball sir, it is about what government "does" and if they are within the rules, mentioned above.
Have a nice day....more to come.
Do you notice I am addressing you in spite of the fact I have not quoted your long boring post. Well perhaps you find mine worthy to be repeated, thanks, but I would be able to figure out you are ranting incoherently to me without doing so
You talk about anything and everything in abstract, call me names for not understanding how not answering the question and trying to degrade me somehow allows you to mask the simple fact that not one single right of yours has been violated.
In all your babbling you can not post one single thing.
How embarrassing it must be to be called on your rant and not have one answer to site.
Bush has a horrible approval rating but it is three time as good as the democratically controlled congress.
You post how little I know about you yet those who know me know I am far from the neocon you mistakenly assume but considering you cry about lost rights you have not lost that seems fair.
Let's see how long you can ramble on this time and still not site one example of your lost constitutional rights
Wulfmann
"Fools learn from their own mistakes. I learn from the mistakes of others"
Otto von Bismarck
It is amazing how you can go on and on about anything but what is relevant to my question to you and every Bush hater.
Do you notice I am addressing you in spite of the fact I have not quoted your long boring post. Well perhaps you find mine worthy to be repeated, thanks, but I would be able to figure out you are ranting incoherently to me without doing so
You talk about anything and everything in abstract, call me names for not understanding how not answering the question and trying to degrade me somehow allows you to mask the simple fact that not one single right of yours has been violated.
In all your babbling you can not post one single thing.
How embarrassing it must be to be called on your rant and not have one answer to site.
Bush has a horrible approval rating but it is three time as good as the democratically controlled congress.
You post how little I know about you yet those who know me know I am far from the neocon you mistakenly assume but considering you cry about lost rights you have not lost that seems fair.
Let's see how long you can ramble on this time and still not site one example of your lost constitutional rights
Wulfmann
Once again, the entire concept of the "discussion" is lost on you.
You are focused entirely on Bush. He is merely the culprit in this particular discussion for me.
Go figure.
I am not going to allow you to set up some "straw-man" question and draw me into whatever specious argument it is you want to get into.
You simply seem to have a reading comprehension problem.
My opinions, my positions specific to this issue and in the other similar thread in "Politics", are quite clear.
Where you seem to have gotten sidetracked is when I used harsh rhetoric against Puffy.
My points on this issue have been made. My reasoning behind those positions has been laid out in detail and my opinion has been generously spread through the posts.
You on the other hand, want a straw-man.
I note that you offer ZERO rational defense of the detainee program and the specific issue of Bush seeking a pardon and why that may be desired by him, which is the subject of the OP.
Again, go figure.
Since you like questions so much, here are a couple for you. See if you choose to answer them, it will be interesting if you do, but I won't hold my breath:
Where does the Executive Branch derive the authority to conduct the detainee program as it existed prior to the SCOTUS ruling?
Where is the Constitutional authority for the specific situation with Padilla, an American Citizen, picked up on American soil and held initially under this same program?
Where does the authority derive from to pick up and detain anyone not in direct conflict with our troops and remove them to American controlled territory, or custody and then to hold them "indefinitely" with no charge or access to any challenge?
I have lots more of these type questions related to government if you want to play.
FISA - Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
Allows the government of the United States to monitor all forms of electronic communication under the guise of homeland security.
- neither probable cause nor a warrant are requisites for this surveillance. That is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution:
"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."
Also Wulfmann, you may want to check out this little rant by King George:
By DOUG THOMPSONDec 5, 2005, 07:53
Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.
Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.
GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
"I don't give a G.D.," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."
"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a G.D. piece of paper!"
This information comes from three West Wing sources who say a fourth White House employee in the meeting told them the President of the United States called the Constitution "a G.D. piece of paper."
What I would like to know. Is why in the hell would anyone want to be president. Its a no win job. You have zero chance of approval by the majority of the people no matter what you do. Had bush not gone to war there would be just as many people trashing him for that. This is why we have no great presidents anymore. Anyone with an ounce of smarts in their heads wants no part of this job. And I dont blame them.
AMEN!! That's how I see it.
POTUS has become nothing but a punching bag for the US citizens.
A complete lack of respect to a magnitude that has never been seen before.
AMEN!! That's how I see it.
POTUS has become nothing but a punching bag for the US citizens.
A complete lack of respect to a magnitude that has never been seen before.
Could the reason behind this be that we, as US citizens along with our Constitutional rights have become nothing more than a punching bag for the POTUS?
I respect the position of POTUS, but when the occupant of that office has a complete lack of respect for the Constitution and the rule of law, to a magnitude that has never been seen before, then my respect for said occupant of that office is greatly diminished or non-existent.[:(!]