The Patriot Act

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Not certain I follow your meaning here.  Care to clarify?

649962[/snapback]

Impeachment is actually close to an act removing the President from office, censure is more of a resolution telling him you are wrong and should refrain from this illegal activity, these are analogies. The House passed the impeachment resolution, from what I could find, the Senate tied 50-50 and did not pass it, but both voted on it.

[GG]

When there are no political checks on the one party in charge and little info coming out except leaks it leaves us to assuming and hypothesizing, given this admins track record, hard not to trust the hypotheticals, rumors, innuendos etc.  They don't give us any reason to think otherwise and the rest of the deceit speaks for itself. 

 

You think that we should trust the system?

649777[/snapback]

 

This is where we differ. I still believe that the checks & balances work.

 

I won't comment on this admin's track record, because that will also differ from a different perspective. Just becuse this administration can't talk its way out of a paper bag, does not equate to its track record being horrendous.

 

Whether I trust the admin to do the right thing is what matters to me. In matters relating to national security, I will always defer to the executive branch, as legislative has too many cooks and too short of an attention span to deal with serious matters with actions that sacrifice the long term benefit for short term political gain.

 

Interesting that there was a knee-jerk, "what about Clinton" in this thread. No matter what you thought of the man, dragging the administration through mud and taking its mind of real issues to deal with a BJ had its consequences.

 

The question that few have attempted to answer is why, if the administration has had a near 100% approval from FISA of intel gathering, they would need to circumvent the process wrt these specific AQ taps. To me, it seems that there was some extraeneous complication that led them to go outside formal FISA approval (but still keep CKK & JR in the loop).

 

Again, it may boil down to whether Congressional authorization of the use of force against "terrorists" post 9/11 is tantamount to declaring war on a nation-state. If that is the case, then all references to FISA are moot.

[Taro T]

Impeachment is actually close to an act removing the President from office, censure is more of a resolution telling him you are wrong and should refrain from this illegal activity, these are analogies.  The House passed the impeachment resolution, from what I could find, the Senate tied 50-50 and did not pass it, but both voted on it.

649976[/snapback]

I understand the difference between censure and impeachment. The portion of your statement that I requested clarification on (thus the highlighting), was what was the "more serious crime".

[Ghost of BiB]

I understand the difference between censure and impeachment.  The portion of your statement that I requested clarification on (thus the highlighting), was what was the "more serious crime".

650027[/snapback]

 

And I'm the one who needs the Gollum avatar?

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

I understand the difference between censure and impeachment.  The portion of your statement that I requested clarification on (thus the highlighting), was what was the "more serious crime".

650027[/snapback]

Ah jeez, you need an answer? Seriously, morally you are splitting hairs, both are crimes, societal, going around FISA and breaking a Federal Law. Otherwise gollum rules apply.

[Taro T]

Ah jeez, you need an answer?  Seriously, morally you are splitting hairs, both are crimes, societal, going around FISA and breaking a Federal Law.  Otherwise gollum rules apply.

650106[/snapback]

No I am not. I thought you were going somewhere else with your statement, thus the confusion and requests for clarification.

 

As an aside, it is premature to state that a crime has been committed regarding FISA.

[Alaska Darin]

Oh common, really you think Bush has been investigated anywhere near as much for legitimate law breaking, not some tittilation about sex and some phony trumped up charges called Whitewater? 

 

The GOP beat Clinton to death with all their investigations, so until that happens there is no comparison.  Sure I am partisan, won't deny it, but in this case civil liberties and rule of law, you right wingers so much like to hold as a standard for issues such as illegal aliens, should be applied.  You guys even managed to get a censure resolution passed over the sex issue because the President lied about ....sex...., well this is a lot more serious, so why the double standard?

649917[/snapback]

Right, like the Democrats don't abuse Constitutionally guaranteed rights. 2nd Amendment, anyone? Or is the right to defend yourself not as fundamental as the right to assemble?

 

This is why these retards stay in power. Because people like you jump up and down pretending the other guy is somehow worse. Hypocrite.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Right, like the Democrats don't abuse Constitutionally guaranteed rights.  2nd Amendment, anyone?  Or is the right to defend yourself not as fundamental as the right to assemble?

 

This is why these retards stay in power.  Because people like you jump up and down pretending the other guy is somehow worse.  Hypocrite.

650174[/snapback]

Now I don't disagree with you on the fundalmental rights, but are there any limits on either assembly or defending yourself, that is where we might disagree, but I think both are at least equal and the right to defend oneself is probably greater.

 

Your statment, "...jumping up and down pretending the other guy is somehow worse..." statement I am not sure how to react to. For political argument sake I guess you have to believe they are worse and your folks are better or you shouldn't have chosen the side you are on, and just like others who disagree with my priorities choose others they believe are better.

 

However, I acknowledge there are plenty of finks on both side. Yes, I focus on their side more often then my own, and I make an effort to point out where the other side is blatently wrong in their attacks. However, I try to acknowledge when I believe or understand my side is out in left field, i.e., Pelosi sometimes and McKinney whose field she is in, I think folks are still trying to figure out. Rush could share some Oxy and it still wouldn't do much good in that case.

 

I guess it is not so much hypocritcal, but may be disengenous to use similar arguements to justify or fight against things I am for or against. Both sides do it because in certain instances the arguing style is just good politics, but it doesn't make for consistency of arguement, that I agree with. So shoot if you want to call me a hypocrite, so be it, but remember I am principled hypocrite!