Congressman calls for Bush impeachment

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sirach14
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
MikeWM:
Look through my past posts. I’ve been through this three or four times already.

Mike
Click to expand...
You havent shown any excesses at all. What you have done is make unsubstantiated accusations-none of which survive even a cursory examination.
 
40.png
estesbob:
You havent shown any excesses at all. What you have done is make unsubstantiated accusations-none of which survive even a cursory examination.
Click to expand...
I concur.
 
40.png
estesbob:
You havent shown any excesses at all. What you have done is make unsubstantiated accusations-none of which survive even a cursory examination.
Click to expand...
Not at all, but I refuse to go through the gruesome details every time with a different person every time the same subject comes up.
Seven states (Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Montana and Vermont) and 389 cities and counties (including New York City, Los Angeles, Dallas, Chicago, Eugene, Oregon, Philadelphia, and Cambridge, Massachusetts) have passed resolutions condemning the Act for attacking civil liberties.
Click to expand...
Maybe they are all imagining things too, along with the courts that have struck out parts as unconstitutional, and those who refused to renew it indefinitely in the Senate the other day.

Mike
 
CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDER…"
It’s not true. Here’s the breakdown - What Drudge says: Clinton, February 9, 1995: “The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order” What Clinton actually signed: Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section. That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.” That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States. The entire controversy about Bush’s program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clinton’s 1995 executive order did not authorize that. Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter. What Drudge says: Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: “Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.” What Carter’s executive order actually says: 1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section. What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain “the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.” So again, no U.S. persons are involved.
 
40.png
estesbob:
There have been NO cuts either suggested or voted upon to any programs for the poor and elderly. I also am not aware of any bills passed that harm the enviroment. Nor are your assertions that that they have abused civil rights, are illegaly spying on citizens or involved in an unjust war correct. In shot you rant is long on emotion but has no basis in fact.
Click to expand...
Probably another thread topic. However, anyone wishing to start a thread on Republican cuts of aid to the poor and elderly is free to use this story to kick off discussion:
Senate passes health, education spending cuts
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate on Wednesday passed a $602 billion bill that cuts funds for health, education and labor programs on the same day the Senate approved two separate rounds of cuts to health care programs for the poor.

By voice vote, the Senate approved the fiscal 2006 spending bill for the Health and Human Services, Labor and Education departments.

The bill, which now goes to President George W. Bush for signing
into law, cuts $1.4 billion from last year’s spending.
Click to expand...
Full article:
today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2005-12-22T102919Z_01_KRA217492_RTRUKOC_0_US-CONGRESS-HEALTH-SPENDING.xml&archived=False
 
40.png
MikeWM:
Not at all, but I refuse to go through the gruesome details every time with a different person every time the same subject comes up.

Maybe they are all imagining things too, along with the courts that have struck out parts as unconstitutional, and those who refused to renew it indefinitely in the Senate the other day.

Mike
Click to expand...
So 43 states have no problems with the Act-Correct?

BTW-the courts have not struck down** anything** contained in the patriot act. You are just full of misinformation and misconceptions.

In short you hate Bush, 7 States dont like the Patriot Act and that is all the substantation you feel is necessary.
 
Philip P:
Probably another thread topic. However, anyone wishing to start a thread on Republican cuts of aid to the poor and elderly is free to use this story to kick off discussion.
Click to expand...
Except the proposed bill INCREASES funding for these programs by nearly 7%. The Democrats are complaining because they want to increase the funding more. Increasing the programs LESS than originaly intended is always seized on by the MM, in complicity with the Democrat party, as being a cut. Of course when the Democrarts are in power it always refered to as an increase in spending.
 
40.png
estesbob:
Except the proposed bill INCREASES funding for these programs nearly 7%. The Demorts are complning becuase they want to increase the funding more. Incresng the progrms LESS than origianly intended is always ezed n by the MM as being a cut.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand. If the bill cuts “1.4 billion from last year’s spending,” then how could it be a percentage increase? You can’t increase the budget from last year by subtracting from the original amount.
 
40.png
estesbob:
So 43 states have no problems with the Act-Correct?

BTW-the courts have not struck down** anything** contained in the patriot act. You are just full of misinformation and misconceptions.

In short you hate Bush, 7 States dont like the Patriot Act and that is all the substantation you feel is necessary.
Click to expand...
Try not being rude and telling me what I think. I neither hate Bush nor are full of misconceptions. And try looking at

cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/27/patriot.act/

and

cnn.com/2004/LAW/10/15/ramasastry.patriot.act/index.html

for starters.

Mike
 
40.png
MikeWM:
Try not being rude and telling me what I think. I neither hate Bush nor are full of misconceptions. And try looking at

cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/27/patriot.act/

and

cnn.com/2004/LAW/10/15/ramasastry.patriot.act/index.html

for starters.

Mike
Click to expand...
You fell for the old bait and switch one often encounters when the MM gets their info from th ACLU What the judge overturned were some provisions of section 2709 of the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act- In fact the judge mentioned the Patriot act only three times in his 129 page decision and that was to point out that the modifications of the law included in the Patriot ACT were NOT germaine to his reason for overturning a small part of the origianal law. The original law , BTW, was the work of Democrat Senator Patrick Leahy.

BTW both the NYT and Washington Psts issued retractions the next day concening their story that incorectly claimed that of the Patriot Act wee overturned…
 
40.png
estesbob:
BTW both the NYT and Washington Psts issued retractions the next day concening their story that incorectly claimed that of the Patriot Act wee overturned…
Click to expand...
That’s neither the NYT or the WP, it is CNN. It is still on their website. Where is CNNs retraction, if they are, as you say, wrong?

Mike
 
40.png
MikeWM:
That’s neither the NYT or the WP, it is CNN. It is still on their website. Where is CNNs retraction, if they are, as you say, wrong?

Mike
Click to expand...
The Patriot Act was extended for 6 months. I certainly don’t see how that is defeated.
 
40.png
MikeWM:
That’s neither the NYT or the WP, it is CNN. It is still on their website. Where is CNNs retraction, if they are, as you say, wrong?

Mike
Click to expand...
Read the opinion-I have gven you ample evidence-all you have done is cut n pated lnks. Face it Mike-you were had.
 
40.png
thestickman:
There has been no declaration of war. Doesn’t need to be. You might want to read up on the War Powers Act.
Click to expand...
But contrary to the ridiculous rulings of the SCOTUS, is the War Powers Act Constitutional?
 
40.png
estesbob:
You havent shown any excesses at all. What you have done is make unsubstantiated accusations-none of which survive even a cursory examination.
Click to expand...
I disagree. He has thrown up many valid, though arguable points as to excesses.
 
40.png
estesbob:
BTW-the courts have not struck down** anything** contained in the patriot act.

In short you hate Bush, 7 States dont like the Patriot Act and that is all the substantation you feel is necessary.
Click to expand...
So you disagree with the SCOTUS position on Roe v Wade but it’s position on the Patriot Act is Ok. Sounds to me like a secular version cafeteria Catholicism.
 
40.png
Petertherock:
Bill Clinton used wire tapping without a warrant and Jimmy Carter did too. So why weren’t they impeached?
Click to expand...
Just because they did it doesn’t make it right and as they are no longer president, they are irrelevant.
 
40.png
Adonis33:
What civil liberties have you lost under this administration? How has you rour life been more retrained in the last six years?
Click to expand...
In a word, yes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top