When any president lies and breaks the law, he should be impeached and thrown out of office.
We know Bush lied and broke the law of FISA.
He should be impeached; it's up to congress.
Jimmy Carter, 1978:
Quote: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978
Statement on Signing S. 1566 Into Law.
October 25, 1978
I am pleased to sign into law today the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. As I said a year and a half ago at the beginning of the process that produced this bill, "one of the most difficult tasks in a free society like our own is the correlation between adequate intelligence to guarantee our Nation's security on the one hand, and the preservation of basic human rights on the other."
This is a difficult balance to strike, but the act I am signing today strikes it . . . .
Read the rest of President Carter's signing statement
HERE (pdf format).
kuvasz wrote:dude, i hope your root canal troubles did not affect vision too.
my remark on whither came your talking points was:
[quote]and oddly, i found almost verbatim commentary posts you have made here mysteriously appear on another site from which was gleaned additional data in a series of posts from glenn greenwald's site.
included in that set of commentaries were citations from Powerline's Assrockett that very closely matched your own point for point.[/color][/quote]
I don't understand your point, then. My earlier point was that you took word for word most of your one post from that particular blog entry of Jack Balkin, although you did swish it around a bit to make it germain to the context of FISA. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with doing so ... I just like to know whom I'm arguing with.
Your implications have been that I took, verbatim, my posts from "Ass Rocket" or some anonymous posters to the Glen Greenwald blog site .... implications that are untrue. In fact, your post caused the poster following you to exclaim that I was, in fact, plagiarizing.
If your point is that my position is remarkably congruent with other persons who visit and participate in online political discussions on the Web, then I don't disagree, and find that to be a wholly unremarkable conclusion, as I expect the same could be said about anyone's political views.
Quote:and I am truly sorry to hear about the root canal. the pain must be a bitch for you. hope you get better quickly.. and that chevis might work, but to be sure, repeat frequently :wink:
I drink a 12 year old, single malt called Glen Moray, which has a soft, almost fruit-like flavor.
Kodi loves it too, but doesn't hold her liquor too well
Wasn't a root canal .... had all my wisdom teeth removed. And I was too young at the time to participate in hard drink (at least with my parent's acquiescence), so my pain medication was limited to prescription Tylenol.
Nowadays, Chevis is at the top of my list ... although I do like Johnny Walker Red. Truth be told, I haven't met a scotch I didn't like. :wink:
cicerone imposter wrote:When any president lies and breaks the law, he should be impeached and thrown out of office.
We know Bush lied and broke the law of FISA.
He should be impeached; it's up to congress.
As in "I did not have sex with that woman"?
We know that was a lie,because he admitted to lying.
So,did you support his impeachment,or is there a degree of lying that applies?
mm, We're not talking about Clinton any more. He's past history, and impeachment was thrown out. Nixon is also gone, so trying to compare his potential impeachment with Bush is also assinine.
Your inability to compare a personal sexual indiscretion with a lying president that performs illegal wiretaps on American citizens is telling of your ignorance and ability at logic or common sense. Give up before you make yourself a fool.
We're talking about the current president.
cicerone imposter wrote:mm, We're not talking about Clinton any more. He's past history, and impeachment was thrown out. Nixon is also gone, so trying to compare his potential impeachment with Bush is also assinine.
Your inability to compare a personal sexual indiscretion with a lying president that performs illegal wiretaps on American citizens is telling of your ignorance and ability at logic or common sense. Give up before you make yourself a fool.
We're talking about the current president.
That's uncalled for.
Everyone here is entitled to their opinion and shouldn't be called "ignorant" or a "fool" for expressing it.
If you don't agree with the subject matter, that's your prerogative. Name-calling is childish.
Momma Angel wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:mm, We're not talking about Clinton any more. He's past history, and impeachment was thrown out. Nixon is also gone, so trying to compare his potential impeachment with Bush is also assinine.
Your inability to compare a personal sexual indiscretion with a lying president that performs illegal wiretaps on American citizens is telling of your ignorance and ability at logic or common sense. Give up before you make yourself a fool.
We're talking about the current president.
What happened to the guilt by association theory, C.I.? It doesn't apply to past presidents? I mean, afterall, these men did CHOOSE to run for President, didn't they? According to what you have said before regarding guilt by association, would it fit here?
I have always heard, if a man will lie about one thing, he'll lie about anything. So, what's the difference between Clinton and Bush in your determination?
Clinton WAS impeached..
If you want to bring up Clinton then lets be consistent here which would require impeachment of Bush.
parados,
I didn't say a thing about whether Bush should be impeached or not. I was asking C.I. a question about something he had said before. I was trying to find out about his guilt by association thought in reference to this subject.
I'm a child of 70. Attack my thesis, not me, before you go spouting about how I address nincompoops on a2k.
Yes, everybody is entitled to their opinion; but they don't get a free ride if their thesis is so screwed up, it tells us nothing but babble.
If you wish to defend mm, tell us why comparing Bush's crime of wiretapping American citizens by ignoring FISA to Clinton's sexual encounter has any relevance.
cicerone imposter wrote:I'm a child of 70. Attack my thesis, not me, before you go spouting about how I address nincompoops on a2k.
Yes, everybody is entitled to their opinion; but they don't get a free ride if their thesis is so screwed up, it tells us nothing but babble.
If you wish to defend mm, tell us why comparing Bush's crime of wiretapping American citizens by ignoring FISA to Clinton's sexual encounter has any relevance.
Perhaps you should re-read the guidelines for this forum, which includes:
Quote:As per the membership agreement, it is a given that flaming, rude comments, and personal attacks are not acceptable here.
What's the matter, JW, don't like my challenge?
FYI, I know more about the TOS than you do. I've been active on Abuzz and a2k longer and more active than most, so you don't have to preach to me about what's permissable and what is not.
Grow up!
cicerone imposter wrote:What's the matter, JW, don't like my challenge?
FYI, I know more about the TOS than you do. I've been active on Abuzz and a2k longer and more active than most, so you don't have to preach to me about what's permissable and what is not.
Grow up!
Then you should know that name-calling adds nothing to a debate. Your disagreement with someone's opinion does not give you a right to name-calling, personal attacks or rudeness.
Just a refresher for us all:
III. POSTINGS
A. Postings are those portions of the Able2Know service (including but not limited to question-and-answer exchanges, forums, topics, featured topics, articles, announcements and commentary) where members post content to the service. You shall not upload to, or distribute or otherwise publish in any Posting any libelous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, gratuitously sexual, abusive, harassing or otherwise illegal material. To do so will result in a deletion or editing of said material from the site and may result in your removal from the service.
B.
1) Be courteous. You agree that you will not threaten or verbally abuse other members, use defamatory language, or deliberately disrupt topics with repetitive messages, meaningless messages or "spam." Spammers will be removed from the service, and their accounts terminated.
2) Use respectful language. You agree not to use language that abuses or discriminates on the basis of race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual preference, age, region, disability, etc. Hate speech of any kind is grounds for immediate and permanent removal from the service.
3) Use appropriate language. While open exchanges, even about adult-oriented issues, are encouraged, members are asked to consider the different ages and sensitivities of the entire community while participating in the Able2Know service. If necessary, inappropriate language will be deleted or edited, or a topic containing said inappropriate language will be marked as such (e. g. Warning: contains adult language).
4) Vulgar speech is not tolerated. Vulgarisms may be deleted or edited, and may result in a warning or eventual removal of the member from the site.
5) Lively debate is accepted, and even encouraged, but personal attacks are not. Active topics and heated debate are welcome in the Able2Know service. However, personal attacks are a direct violation of this Agreement and are grounds for immediate and permanent removal from the service.
6) While occasional breaches of decorum in the heat of debate will be tolerated, members whose interactions are marked by a consistent pattern of demeaning and abusive interactions will be subject to disciplinary action up to and including permanent removal from the service.[/b]
when it comes to TOS, my personal experience on a2k over the years that I have posted here is that the right-wing christians have been the most flagrant abusers.
Some people think this is a grade school playground where everybody plays nice. They have never grown up to debate like adults; they go crying to momma as soon as their feelings are hurt.
