Bush vows to continue breaking the law

Something to think about: The War on Terror™ won't be over by 2009, so will all of you who support Bush's eavesdropping now, will you give President Hillary the same unbridled executive power?
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Something to think about: The War on Terror™ won't be over by 2009, so will all of you who support Bush's eavesdropping now, will you give President Hillary the same unbridled executive power?[/QUOTE]

lol, we're going to be amazed at how fast republican congressmen can backpedal in 2009. :lol:
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Anyone who thinks they are above the Constitution should be thrown out of office right now. Dubya should be impeached.[/QUOTE]

Interesting you should say that. I doubt you were saying the same a few years ago when a certain president clearly perjured himself before a grand jury...oh, but wait, he was a Democrat.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Interesting you should say that. I doubt you were saying the same a few years ago when a certain president clearly perjured himself before a grand jury...oh, but wait, he was a Democrat.[/QUOTE]

Lying to a grand jury under oath is an impeachable offense.
Breaking a 1978 law prohibiting spying on US citizens is an impeachable offense.
Kidnapping foreign citizens and flying them to a third country for "interrogation" is an impeachable offense.
Formenting a cultural invasion in the south and not properly executing the laws of this country to stem the flow of illegal immigration is an impeachable offense.
Permitting torture of foreign nationals in violation of the Geneva convention is an impeachable offense.
Holding an American citizen for years without trial, access to legal counsel or due process is an impeachable offense.

Clinton did one. As for Bush, take your pick.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Interesting you should say that. I doubt you were saying the same a few years ago when a certain president clearly perjured himself before a grand jury...oh, but wait, he was a Democrat.[/QUOTE]

Is perjury somehow above the constitution??

in your "gotcha" game looks like you forgot to read.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']No clueless.

It's military if it is funded by the DOD.

The NSA has its own budget, own organization and is in no way shape or form under the purview of the DOD.

NASA is a government agency that takes on missions for civillian and military missions alike. In that regards it has commercial aspects as well since NASA launches of civillian satellites are paid for by private enterprise.[/QUOTE]

That reminds me. I usually wouldn't propose such a Conservative idea except for NASA but why do we tolerate their bullshit nowadays? I wish we'd force some bloody savings from them by threatening to contract out to a business if they don't cut like 10% of the cost of the next Space Shuttle.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Interesting you should say that. I doubt you were saying the same a few years ago when a certain president clearly perjured himself before a grand jury...oh, but wait, he was a Democrat.[/QUOTE]

Clinton violated a law that affected no one in that instance. Holding him accountable was more symbolic than anything. Bush's violation (if in fact there was one) affected real people and real lives. Clintons only affected people if they bothered to be concerned about his perjury.

Perjury laws are not in place to prevent people from lying about their sex life, that is just a side effect.
 
All this raises an interesting point.

Republicans were all about the "rule of law" during Clinton's impeachment, arguing that even if he lied under oath about a personal matter it was still perjury and thus a reason to remove him from office.

But now Bush has admitted on the record to breaking the law. And in a major and very needless way. Where are all these "rule of law" arguments now?
 
The White House started this policy 4 years ago. One year ago they knew the NY Times had the story. Two weeks ago they couldn't talk the Times into holding the story any longer.

So why do the excuses and justifications continue to dribble out now? Hasn't the White House had plenty of time to get their ducks in a row on this?
 
kirk.jpg
 
[quote name='usickenme']Is perjury somehow above the constitution??

in your "gotcha" game looks like you forgot to read.[/QUOTE]

Looks like you don't know that the Constitution says the president can be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors...and perjury is a crime...oops...
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Clinton violated a law that affected no one in that instance. Holding him accountable was more symbolic than anything. Bush's violation (if in fact there was one) affected real people and real lives. Clintons only affected people if they bothered to be concerned about his perjury.

Perjury laws are not in place to prevent people from lying about their sex life, that is just a side effect.[/QUOTE]

So it's okay to violate the law as long as by your own assertion it "doesn't affect anyone"? Wow, shoplifters should know about this! Perjury is a serious crime and people have done serious jail time for it (yes, including lying about sex!). Clinton was merely disbarred and nearly removed from office. The only reason is that idiots felt that because it "didn't affect anybody" it was okay to violate the law if you're the president. In fact, as Dennis has pointed out well, by the Democrats' logic of Clinton's era Bush should get off scot-free.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']So it's okay to violate the law as long as by your own assertion it "doesn't affect anyone"? Wow, shoplifters should know about this! Perjury is a serious crime and people have done serious jail time for it (yes, including lying about sex!). Clinton was merely disbarred and nearly removed from office. The only reason is that idiots felt that because it "didn't affect anybody" it was okay to violate the law if you're the president. In fact, as Dennis has pointed out well, by the Democrats' logic of Clinton's era Bush should get off scot-free.[/QUOTE]

It all depends if you see the world in black and white or in shades of grey. There are so many conditions placed on severity of crimes that need to be taken into account when considering the punishment.
 
[quote name='coffman']So now we find out that the NSA spied on an anti-war group. How surprising. I guess they must have been talking to terrorists, right PAD? I believe this is the same thing that brought down the Nixon administration.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/NSA_documents_show_massive_spy_operation_0110.html[/QUOTE]

It's the same thing that caused the law to be passed in the first place...you know, the law that Bush thinks he's above. They were tapping anti-war groups, MLK, etc. and we the people through Congress said: stop it! Now that the administration has said they aren't going to obey the law instead of enforcing it, their duty under the Constitution, what are we the people to do? The courts I guess.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Now that the administration has said they aren't going to obey the law instead of enforcing it, their duty under the Constitution, what are we the people to do? The courts I guess.[/QUOTE]

You mean them damn activist judges who think Republicans should obey the laws too? Anywho, once Alito is properly ordained by congress, the court system essentially becomes meaningless - Bush is pretty much guaranteed the votes he needs to declare that ANYTHING he does is legal. We're now on the countdown to the day the United States officially becomes a monarchy (undeclared, of course.)
 
[quote name='Drocket']You mean them damn activist judges who think Republicans should obey the laws too? Anywho, once Alito is properly ordained by congress, the court system essentially becomes meaningless - Bush is pretty much guaranteed the votes he needs to declare that ANYTHING he does is legal. We're now on the countdown to the day the United States officially becomes a monarchy (undeclared, of course.)[/QUOTE]

I think you are too doom and gloom, something PAD rightly points out is more and more a trait of liberals in this country, sadly. I think you all should realize that optimism is much more effective in motivating people.

Anyway, I think the majority of judges who are not activist (and personally I don't define activist in terms of liberal/conservative like some do) are getting a bad rap from you here.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I think you are too doom and gloom, something PAD rightly points out is more and more a trait of liberals in this country, sadly. I think you all should realize that optimism is much more effective in motivating people.[/quote]
With regards to PAD, I think the old saying 'ignorance is bliss' applies quite well here. If liberals are pessimistic, I'd say it has a lot to do with them realizing how completely fucked our country is at this point. For those on the right, a frightening number of them tend to consider our country's fuckedness as a good thing, because it means the great and glorius Jebus will be coming any day now to save us.

Anyway, I think the majority of judges who are not activist (and personally I don't define activist in terms of liberal/conservative like some do) are getting a bad rap from you here.
Click to expand...
There's a lot of good judges in the country. Once you control the Supreme Court, though, they all become quite irrelevant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top