| Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/18/2008 6:27:50 PM | | seems to me,denial of factual information, is as unreal as anyone can get.you might try addressing the message instead of the messenger. In case you missed it, the source was posted at the top of the article. | |
|
| Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/18/2008 7:56:19 PM | | ronjo ? you defend bush? are you insane ? oh wait you have been so I take that as guilty ! | |
|
| Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/19/2008 6:57:18 AM | Whenever one sees a veteran,please thank him for his service. Because of those who were brave enough to serve, this country has been able to grant to every citizen, the right of free speech. Because of veterans, all opinions have the right to be heard.
When one holds true to a factual,rather than a baseless opinion, that is not because of an inability to think outside the box but rather, a true awakening of the mind. In the minds of so called outside the box thinkers,and I use the term loosely, I may be considered crazy. But at least I am not stupid. | |
|
| Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/19/2008 8:46:44 AM | .
Well heh.... I wont touch that one.
If you or anyone else thinks that free speech zones are the intended application of our inalienable rights, the lifting of habeous corous, the repeal of the posse commitatus act, the 4th violations, well there is a good chance your mental capabilities will come into question.
The oath of office does not include the words "I will get an army of attorneys to help me violate the constitution", as your dubya crew has done.
Many veterans, past present and I am sure future, myself included, when we see how this administration tore up the constitution, feel like we have been shit on. Not directly by the people but directly by the government and indirectly by the people as they stand by and watch or simply dont give a shit.
I am not proud to have an administration that has committed war crimes and worse a congress that sanctioned it.
. | |
|
| Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/19/2008 11:26:11 AM | The Patriot Act Authorized Better Information Sharing Between Law Enforcement And Intelligence Agencies. Before the Patriot Act, criminal investigators were separated from intelligence officers by a legal and bureaucratic wall. The Patriot Act helped tear down this wall - and now law enforcement and intelligence officers are sharing information, working as a team, and breaking up terror networks.
The Patriot Act Gives Law Enforcement Agents The Ability To Use Tools Against Terrorists That Are Already Available Against Other Criminals. The Patriot Act permitted law enforcement to use the same tools to investigate terrorists that they already had to investigate drug dealers, tax cheats, and organized crime.
The Patriot Act Updates The Law To Meet 21st Century Threats Like Computer Espionage And Cyberterrorism. Terrorists are using every advantage of 21st century technology - and Congress needs to ensure that our law enforcement can as well.
The Patriot Act Helps Law Enforcement Fight Terrorism While Safeguarding Civil Liberties For All Americans. The judicial branch has a strong oversight role in the application of the Patriot Act. Law enforcement officers must seek a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone, track his calls, or search his property. These strict standards are fully consistent with the Constitution. Congress also oversees the application of the Patriot Act, and in more than three years there has not been a single verified abuse.
The Patriot Act Has Protected American Liberty and Saved American Lives. Law enforcement has used the Patriot Act to break up terror cells and prosecute terrorist operatives and supporters in New York, Oregon, Virginia, Florida, California, Texas, New Jersey, Illinois, North Carolina, and Ohio.
If anyone would read the 4th paragraph, they would see that the facts show that the Patriot Act is in fact consistant with the constitution.
| |
|
| Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/19/2008 12:00:04 PM | .
Dude if you arent getting paid for this propaganda you certainly should be.
This crap is nothing more than one big advertisement that tries to sell a pile of shit as desireable and appeals to those out here who are uneduacted, programmed, or in denial.
Rot gut is rot gut no matter how pretty you want to paint it. Even people who often disagree with me on these issues disagree with you, thats how far out to lunch your pitch is.
There is less terrorist activity (to use your bullshit word) in 1990 and 1980 than there was in th elate 20's when grandpa bush tried to pull off a nazi coup in this country.
Like eve all you ever do is babble hyperbole, nothing more than a big advertisement with no substance.
I shot down your 13 or whatever terror attempts where they try to paint everything in a light that the billions we are spending to tear up our constitution are actually worth it.
Like mungo you are all for federalist expansion, a dictatorship or at least a monarchy.
The patriot act is precisely the opposite and is only pretty in name.
People have cited all the atrocities the government is pulling off as a result of the patriot (and other linked acts), and you do not bother to pay any attention and like eve simply come outhere to advertise for the government and it shows.
the question is how can you even look at yourself in the mirror at at night after all this?
. | |
|
| Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/19/2008 1:36:56 PM | ---The Patriot Act Authorized Better Information Sharing Between Law Enforcement And Intelligence Agencies. Before the Patriot Act, criminal investigators were separated from intelligence officers by a legal and bureaucratic wall. The Patriot Act helped tear down this wall - and now law enforcement and intelligence officers are sharing information, working as a team, and breaking up terror networks.---
So all law enforcement is under one roof. Thats martial law. When all law enforcement is under control of one entity. The word "sharing" is somewhat dubious. You might mean "compiling" information from all sources. So does this mean the FBI cannot investigate the CIA. As a matter of fact you have so many intelligences agencies and law enforcement why would you need a Homeland Insecurity organization. And of course an Administration that has proven itself pre 911 not to listen to them, but to blame them.
Now tell me, why do you need a Patriot Act in the first place. To give understanding what a Patriot is. Do they need to create an Act to define what a Patriot is. Sounds like a little Oxymoron to me. Smoke and mirrors of what its really about. And I think that is obvious.
-- breaking up terror networks.---More people in the US die of Hospital mistakes to the average of over 100,000 a yr. I think the doctors and nurses are terrorist. I think most people are more concerned with the street thugs they got to pass when they go home at night after work. Are the thugs terrorist. You can't stop illegal immigration or the drug trade but you can stop a terrorist. Of course theres those who die of Car accidents, are the ones who survive terrorist. Terrorism is the least of your fears. You would be struck by lightning first.
Of course this all stems back to 911. So why not get every bit of physical evidence you got an hold a mock trial for Bin Laden seeing you can't find him. (hes dead, Bhutto admitted to it on an interview, two days later she was dead) You know what, it would be thrown out of court because there is no physical evidence, nada inch of it. As a matter of fact, if you review the tapes and videos on 911 it was "Suggested"---Let me rephrase that---"Suggested" that Bin Laden was the criminal of 911. Now you got it in your head that he was. Due process of the law is required to find a person guilty, is it not.
What nation had more to "GAIN" from planes crashing into the trade center. Who wants the US military in the middle east. Thats the culprit. Whomever they are.
rojo-you sound like a government shill. Blind faith! Since 911 the only people who have been under scrutiny is the American Public. If thats the case then Bin Laden has won because he has made you paranoid and afraid. You know the guy who is jealous of your freedoms. Buddy you got to wake up. | |
|
| Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/19/2008 2:25:05 PM | Thanks for the factual post on the subject amid all the hysteria.
A lot of people have let themselves be told what the patriot Act means, instead of finding out for themselves. If what they've been told fits their worldview, they swallow it without question.
I have yet to have anyone convince me that the Patriot Act has in any significant way affected my rights. I really don't care if the government has the right to find out what books I check out at the library. | |
|
| Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/19/2008 2:28:42 PM |
So all law enforcement is under one roof. Thats martial law. When all law enforcement is under control of one entity.
Nope.. that is not martial law, but thanks for playing. Martial Law is administration of justice by the military.
When your argument is based on making up new definitions for established terms, you haven't much of an argument. | |
|
| Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/19/2008 2:30:31 PM |
rojo-you sound like a government shill. Blind faith! Since 911 the only people who have been under scrutiny is the American Public.
Oh really? No one has been conducting surveillance of anyone outside the US?
Do you people read what you post? You should try it. | |
|
| Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/19/2008 8:45:03 PM | What a breath of fresh air it is, to see people that actually honor the facts rather than
send them to outer space. The anarchists really stink up this country with their hate of America. Maybe they would fair better where their minds always go. Of course to outer space. | |
|
| Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/19/2008 9:00:03 PM | .
tall what he is trying to say is that the patriot act in combination with the military act, domestic terrorism act the removal of posse commitatus act and the creation hl SS, has created a functional police state.
That and yes if you were to look at the record or even read a couple posts back you can see that busco was attempting to try padilla an american citizen with a military tribunal.
The patriot act gave dubya the authority to label anyone a terrorist and do what he wanted to at that point with them just like hitler did. No attorney, no habeous zippo so while the statre of the union as a whole is not under martial law he could get around, (or at least thought he could) the constitution and pick and choose those whom he wanted to abuse in this manner to use for his criminal war advertising.
. | |
|
Hoop
|
Joined: 5/1/2006
Msg: 138 | |
| Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/19/2008 9:35:21 PM | I always suspected Jose Padilla is another governement actor, same as Zacarias Moussaoui is.
Inventions to entertain the masses..
http://www.cnn.com/US/9712/09/nichols/john_doe_two_lg.jpg | |
|
| Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/19/2008 9:58:28 PM |
and “Lone Individuals” should also be reported. The Lone Ranger is a terrorist? I knew Tonto was, but this! | |
|
| Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/19/2008 10:10:24 PM |
The Patriot Act helped tear down this wall - and now law enforcement and intelligence officers are sharing information, working as a team, and breaking up terror networks.
The Patriot Act Gives Law Enforcement Agents The Ability To Use Tools Against Terrorists That Are Already Available Against Other Criminals. The Patriot Act permitted law enforcement to use the same tools to investigate terrorists that they already had to investigate drug dealers, tax cheats, and organized crime.
Your utter and complete misunderstanding of the implications of the patriot act is exceeded only your naivete regarding what it means. You are utterly clueless. I can only assume you haven't read it or you wouldn't be regurgitating the same old gibberrish post after tiresome post. You keep parroting the same rubbish over and over and over again as if repeating it makes it more true than the last time. Hitler used that same technique as well - repeat a lie often enough and it will become the truth. I'm here to tell you that no one here is stupid enough to buy into the big lie.
Now if you want to debate the legal ramifications of the act, you go get yourself a law degree and we'll discuss it. I have one. I'll even wait the three years it'll take. | |
|
| Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/20/2008 12:53:27 AM | Just before midnight on August 26, three days before Katrina was to make landfall, Kathleen Blanco received a phone call from George Bush. The president had been through a series of briefings from Deputy Chief of Staff Joe Hagin and knew the potential dangers to New Orleans and the surrounding area from a storm the size of Katrina. Now he was attempting to convince the Governor of Louisiana that she needed to take immediate action.
So tell me if I have this right. It's OK for George Bush, for five straight years, to ignore pleas for funding from the Corp Of Engineers responsible for raising the levees of New Orleans. It's OK for him to display incompetence and negligence toward the safety of the city and it's residents since his inauguration in 2001. But when he finally wakes up and smells the coffee and realizes that there may have been danger only three days before the storm, then it's automatically someone else's fault when action is not taken?
Why would George Bush refuse to listen to the Director of the Corp of Engineers, Al Naomi, for such an extended period of time, and then suddenly decide 3 days before the hurricane that it was important because of what Deputy Chief of Staff, Joe Hagin had to say?
Now he was attempting to convince the Governor of Louisiana that she needed to take immediate action.
His pleas fell on deaf ears. It seemed that the Governor was more concerned with the legalities of accepting federal assistance, and the appearance that her office could not handle the emergency.
I'm sorry, but if the president, who was currently spending 5 weeks vacation at his ranch in TX, had called me to tell me that there was going to be a disaster, I too would have probably hung up the phone. If he were truly afraid of a catastrophic natural disaster, then why did he, the Vice President, and the Chief of Staff all remain on vacation until after the hurricane hit? I'm calling BS.
It is a verifiable fact that not only was Bush on vacation in TX, but that****Chaney was on vacation at his ranch in Wyoming and Andrew Card (Chief of Staff) was on vacation at his lakefront summer home in Maine before and during the time of Hurricane Katrina.
Since Andrew Card (current Chief of Staff) is a veteran crisis manager who managed the federal response to hurricanes under George H.W. Bush, wouldn't that probably make him the most knowledgeable and effective person to be calling George Bush to tell him that the city was in danger. Wouldn't it have been more effective if Card himself, given his past experience in the department, had coordinated with Kathleen Blanco about the storm and it's potential effects on the city and it's people? Then again, I'm sure that if one of these men had had the gumption to take the hurricane seriously then they would all have to have ended their R&R abruptly. And we all know how little vacation George Bush gets to take. I'm sure he needs all that he can get, despite a devastating natural disaster head toward the country.
I guess what I am trying to say here is, if George Bush had really thought the hurricane would have been such a great disaster before the storm hit, then why did he and his staff continue to remain on vacation? And why did he not heed the warning of the Corps of Engineers when they told him 4 years before Katrina what would happen if the levees were neglected?
What a breath of fresh air it is, to see people that actually honor the facts rather than send them to outer space.
I agree. I only wish you would get on board and start honoring the facts as well. | |
|
| Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/20/2008 6:12:30 AM | tall what he is trying to say is that the patriot act in combination with the military act, domestic terrorism act the removal of posse commitatus act and the creation hl SS, has created a functional police state.
That is not in any context what I have said. those are the words that were said by your authorship.not mine.
My posts say there is an act that protects this country without infringing upon the constitution.
There is no"police state"
There is no "martial law" imposed
There are no government SS troops in the United States | |
|
| Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/20/2008 6:25:45 AM | First of all take all those statements and apply them to yourself.
What I posted was completely factual and was presented in this form to the United States Congress
who voted for the Partriot Act. Democrats and Republicans alike.
You will find them in this form at www.whitehouse.gov
Seems to me with all the liberal democrats in congress, if there had been a problem with the patriot act,it would have been rooted out. but of course anarchists know more than any Congressman. The anarchists are excellent anal-yists. | |
|
| Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/20/2008 6:31:07 AM | | What about the fact that congress has to approve those funds? Why wasn't it done in fact under Clinton? Bush gave what funds were provided. It was up to congress to provide the rest . No President can conjure up funds at random. | |
|
| Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/20/2008 7:50:16 AM |
That is not in any context what I have said. those are the words that were said by your authorship.not mine.
ronjo;
My response to tall was in reference to pappy's post;
Well I have posted at least 300 points of contention that trump your 10.
Blues:
Now if you want to debate the legal ramifications of the act, you go get yourself a law degree and we'll discuss it. I have one. I'll even wait the three years it'll take.
You will be a skeleton before ole ronjo comes up with anything substantive!
If he had even so much as a remote clue as to the legal ramifications his face would be so red for posting that jibber that he would blind himself.
Seems he thinks anything less than totalitarian is anarchy.
. | |
|
| Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/20/2008 3:10:57 PM | What about the fact that congress has to approve those funds?
It's true. Congress has to pass the funds. But before they can pass it, Bush needs to present OK it.
Why wasn't it done in fact under Clinton?
Why wasn't what done under Clinton? Cut levee funding? Because we need the levees. It was Bush who decided to cut the yearly funding in 2001 so that the levees could not be added upon. You see, the levees are constantly sinking, which means that it's an ongoing job to maintain them. During the Clinton administration, the levees were funded. But when Bush cut funding, there was not enough money to maintain them. The levees then dropped well below the level required to prevent flooding from a cat. 5 or sustained cat. 4 hurricane. Bush was warned of this when he first cut the funding.
Bush gave what funds were provided.
No he didn't. He cut funds drastically. If there were no funds, then it was because of his ongoing fund diversions.
No President can conjure up funds at random.
If you would take a few legal courses you may be surprised to find out just how much control the president has over government spending. In fact, this is the one aspect of government which the president has the most control over, and it's for this very reason that a president can so easily overspend (as Bush has been so overwhelmingly successful in doing).
In George Bush's first term in office, Discretionary spending went up 48%. That's more than double that of both of Bill Clinton's terms (21%). So if you are obviously spending more money, then how can you justify funding cuts to a program as important as this one?
Including costs for fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, defense spending under Bush has gone up 86 percent since 2001, according to Chris Hellman of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.
Current annual defense spending — not counting war costs — is 25 percent above the height of the Reagan-era buildup. This figure is adjusted for inflation.
He spends more money, but gets less done.
The problem here is that while people like you are duped into believing that his outrageous spending is an indication of his concern and dedication to solving the problems. The only thing it is really doing is throwing us further into debt, and in turn ruining our economy. It's amazing how one man can be so incompetent that every time he half heartedly tries to solve one problem, he ends up creating two more. | |
|
| Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/20/2008 6:25:24 PM | | Still won't respond to my post will you! Still haven't actually READ the patriot act have you? But you keep saying it's on the up 'n up. Wanna cracker? Polly? Open your eyes. You really might just see something. | |
|
| Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/21/2008 7:36:37 AM | I had to wait because the rules say only 3 posts a day are allowed. First of all, the inference to parroting is a little on the childish side especially for someone claiming to be a lawyer. But as the country song says, you are much cooler online,right?
I was a Police Officer for over 23 years in Miami and although my degree is only a two year AA in criminal justice, I have a world of experience dealing with Defense Attorneys. As usual Attorneys that cannot dazzle with brillance try to baffle with BS.
If by opening your mind to nonfactual BS is your thing, then certainly there is no sane reason for criticizing factual information and research. Ask the Law clerks who do all the real work for Attorneys. | |
|
| Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/21/2008 7:41:35 AM | | I look in my mirror everyday,knowing that I have always sought out factual and true information. I would be ashamed to post endless opinionated propaganda that has no factual basis and then attack those who refused to agree with me. When all those postings can come up with any proven facts, rather than opinions, then maybe there could be intelligent discussion. | |
|
| Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/21/2008 8:32:50 AM | http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HR03162:@@@D&summ2=m&
(Sec. 102) Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) the civil rights and liberties of all Americans, including Arab Americans, must be protected, and that every effort must be taken to preserve their safety; (2) any acts of violence or discrimination against any Americans be condemned; and (3) the Nation is called upon to recognize the patriotism of fellow citizens from all ethnic, racial, and religious backgrounds.
this is from the patriot act. now what about this, is not understood?
Now if our self proclaimed holder of a law degree would like to discuss( the message not the messenger),obviously, the point by point text of the patriot act, I am well prepared to do so. Shall we? | |
|
Home
login 
