The Worst President in History?

Okie-Ticomaya is a good lawyer. He would not be part of the lawyer jokes, I am sure.

Okie- I think I was wrong about Debra LAW. She knows when she is outmatched. I have noted the same phenonmenon at times when you post. When your arguements are too solid to rebut, they do not rebut them, but I will give the learned Debra LAW another look at my post. If she answers( I do not think that she will since she lost her argument totally when we last debated) you will get a look at the phenomenon of extreme left wing liberalism mixed with strident feminism.
***********************************************************
Okie- Give it up. I am sorry to tell you that but you are in danger of being outmatched. You have encountered Debra LAW! Do you know what that means, Okie? She is the most brilliant LEGAL mind in the USA. How else could she be named Debra LAW.

The problem, Okie, is that she THINKS she is the most brilliant legal mind in the USA. She is really arguing from a stale and worn out feminist liberal basis. She is about ten years behind the times and despite the fact that she THINKS she knows all about Roe Vs. Wade, she is really clueless.

At one time she actually stated that there would be no more victories by the Anti-Abortion groups against Roe Vs. Wade. I held that Roe Vs. Wade would be picked to pieces.

So, Okie, what has happened today?

The Congress of the United States voted in a bill to punish anyone who aids women in crossing state lines to obtain an abortion.

Debra L A W's ideas, Okie are rooted in the kind of old fashioned feminist extreme liberalism that idiots like Catherine McKinnon present!

So the media and the official US-congress sources got it wrong?
It's not a bill making it a federal crime to evade parental consent laws by taking minors across state lines for abortions?

Or do you mean something different which I missed?

Yes, Mr. Walter Hinteler. You are correct. Thank you for picking up the fact that I wrote women rather than minors.

But, I must reiterate. Debra LAW, the most brilliant legal mind on these threads, has repeatedly held that Roe Vs. Wade will not be weakened by these kinds of decisions.

I have held that it will be weakened. Little by little---states will enact laws which protect minors from being taken across state lines, states will enact laws blocking "partial birth" abortions; states will enact laws which will refuse abortions for minors who do not have parental consent; states will enact laws to protect Anti-Abortion counseling services.

As I have predicted, soon Roe Vs. Wade will be almost completely eviscerated!!!

Of course you are correct, BernhardR: minors, women - all the same crap.

Mr. Walter Hinteler- Please sir, Note the precision with which I spell your name---Do the same for me. It is Bernard not Bernhard. and I must really correct you. Women and minors are not all the "Same crap" Minors need more protection than grown women.

That is why the law was passed!!

okie said
Great! I'd been a bit worried.



As you perhaps know, presently in the US, five corporations control the major media that people watch/read. Would it be fine with you if free enterprise, working untethered by government restrictions, consolidated that number to two? How about to one? In answering, could you please relate your answer to media in Berlusconi's Italy.

Your quote above advances the familiar proposition that citizens, choosing freely, will gravitate towards products and services which best suit their needs. Further, you advance a liberty principle that citizens ought to have the freedom to make such choices without the oppressive restrictions which government might apply. How would this proposition and this principle apply with pornography? Access to abortion?

A couple of hours ago, you admitted that you were wrong here.

I consider that Congress changed the bill within this time.

Thanks for that breaking news update, BernardR!

But, Mr. Hinteler- What about Socrates?

Why no response, Okie?

Inasmuch as Okie has never responded to my post--it must be too solid to rebut--therefore he does not rebut it--he merely asks you about lawyer jokes.

Which one of YOUR posts am I supposed to look at? What am I supposed to answer? I wasn't aware that you posed an argument worthy of recognition or debate. Provide the link to your argument that I allegedly cannot rebut.

Please post a link to the argument that you allegedly won "when we last debated."

He will not respond because I let him know that there is no surcease to the opprubrium that would be heaped on him when it becomes known that he dared question the resident expert on LAW--DEBRA L A W!!

Say it to yourself a few times--Debra L A W. It strikes fear in the heart of anyone who would dare question.

As for myself, I am of the opinion that if the Bush Administration refused to give clearance to DOJ attorneys investigating Bush's illegal( I am surprised that the learned Debra L A W does not state this as an opinion rather than a fact) domestic wire tapping program. I am not a enormously learned legal expert like she is but I have not heard that any legally constituted higher court has ruled that the Bush Administation has been found by an Appelate Court that his "domestic wire tapping program was illegal. Perhaps I missed something. I will, however, not accept left wing analyses appearing in the "Nation"(formerly called Pravda West) Magazine.


And, as for the redoubtable Hillary Rodham Clinton, I do not doubt for one moment that if she had the power to peremptorily shut down free speech. There is good solid evidence that Mrs.Clinton is an extortionist par excellance. There has been, to the best of my knowledge, any logical explanation of how she could have made $100,000 from a $1,000 dollar investment in one year trading in the difficult area of cattle futures. Some have opined that her traders will allied with the Tyson corporation, who needed favorable legislation passed which would benefit their chicken farms. That legislation had to come from the Arkansas Legislature. Bill was, of course, governor at that time. Some have said that the Tyson agents laid money on both sides of the transaction at the same time- Buy and Sell.

That is how Hillary came out with $100,000 in a year from a $1,000 dollar investment.

BernardR losses......again.

losses? losses? I don have no losses! I don have to show you no stinkin losses!

BernardR, How come nobody like you?

There is nobody like me because I am unique!

Oh, there are lots of unique people that are liked and then there are lots of people like you, but not to many if they can help it. I was just asking why nobody likes you?

Me, I have lots of friends.

Nobody likey BernardR.

He no likyble.

The Bush hypocrisy; "Each life is prescious." Vetoed stem cell research funding, because embryos are life.


From the Washington Post:

The Secretive Fight Against Bioterror
The government is building a highly classified facility to research biological weapons, but its closed-door approach has raised concerns.

By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, July 30, 2006; A01




On the grounds of a military base an hour's drive from the capital, the Bush administration is building a massive biodefense laboratory unlike any seen since biological weapons were banned 34 years ago.

The heart of the lab is a cluster of sealed chambers built to contain the world's deadliest bacteria and viruses. There, scientists will spend their days simulating the unthinkable: bioterrorism attacks in the form of lethal anthrax spores rendered as wispy powders that can drift for miles on a summer breeze, or common viruses turned into deadly superbugs that ordinary drugs and vaccines cannot stop.

The work at this new lab, at Fort Detrick, Md., could someday save thousands of lives -- or, some fear, create new risks and place the United States in violation of international treaties. In either case, much of what transpires at the National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center (NBACC) may never be publicly known, because the Bush administration intends to operate the facility largely in secret.

In an unusual arrangement, the building itself will be classified as highly restricted space, from the reception desk to the lab benches to the cages where animals are kept. Few federal facilities, including nuclear labs, operate with such stealth. It is this opacity that some arms-control experts say has become a defining characteristic of U.S. biodefense policy as carried out by the Department of Homeland Security, NBACC's creator.

Since the department's founding in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, its officials have dramatically expanded the government's ability to conduct realistic tests of the pathogens and tactics that might be used in a bioterrorism attack. Some of the research falls within what many arms-control experts say is a legal gray zone, skirting the edges of an international treaty outlawing the production of even small amounts of biological weapons.

The administration dismisses these concerns, however, insisting that the work of NBACC is purely defensive and thus fully legal. It has rejected calls for oversight by independent observers outside the department's network of government scientists and contractors. And it defends the secrecy as necessary to protect Americans.

Bush is a dangerous sociopath.

If you have nothing to offer the discussion other than distraction via your insincere irrelevancies, why do you bother?

Okie was claiming that LIBERALS hate free speech -- and [gasp] if a liberal won the presidency -- he/she (in your example, you used Hillary Clinton, who is NOT a liberal, but rather a moderate) would immediately act to silence political pundits like Rush Limbaugh.

ROFL

Even though Okie's contention is absurd, it demonstrates the hypocrisy of those who claim to be conservative (and thus, the willfully blind sheeple who worship Bush).

Despite Okie's irrational fear that liberals will suppress Rush's speech if they come into power (ROFL), if Okie truly wants to discuss the actual suppression of First Amendment guarantees (rather than the imaginery suppression that he allegedly fears), Okie need not look further than the Bush Administration.

The Bush Administration is seeking to chill our First Amendment guarantees (including the freedom of the press wherein the press acts as a vital check against government abuses of power) by granting security clearances to DOJ lawyers/investigators to investigate leaks to the press and punish those who would dare to leak information to the press about government abuses of power. The protection of alleged "state secrets" isn't so important to the Bush Administration when it acts to chill rights secured by the First Amendment.

On the other hand, with respect to the Bush Administration's abuse of power itself, the Bush Administration refuses to grant security clearances to DOJ lawyers/investigators to investigate. All of a sudden, no security clearances are given because the protection of "state secrets" is vital to our national security.

The fact that both you and Okie refuse to address and rebut this glaring example of hypocrisy, in your own words, means that you can't. Instead, you delve into your usual distractions and irrelevancies.




This is an INCOMPLETE sentence. IF the Bush Administration refused to grant security clearances to investigate the allegations that his domestic wire tapping program is illegal then WHAT?

You haven't made an argument. You simply wrote an incomplete sentence.




Putting the cart before the horse doesn't constitute a logical argument. There is no requirement that a court of law must FIRST rule that Bush's domestic spying program is illegal BEFORE DOJ investigators are allowed to investigate whether it is illegal.

In the normal course of a federal criminal prosecution (and it is a crime to wiretap in violation of FISA), the DOJ investigates first, determines if it has a case, and if so, files charges. THEN the matter will be before the Court. If the investigation is thwarted by the Bush Administration, how can we get a court ruling? The Bush Administration's refusal to grant security clearances to DOJ investigators (in this instance, but not in the other instance discussed above) is ample evidence that the Bush Administration's motive for thwarting the investigation has nothing to do with "state secrets" or "national security," but has everything to do with avoiding the customary checks and balances that would rein in his abuse of power.





Another incomplete sentence. If Mrs. Clinton had the power to suppress free speech . . . WHAT?





Are you accusing Mrs. Clinton of the crime of extortion?

On one hand, when some posters allege that Bush violated FISA and his domestic spying program is illegal, you claim there is no court ruling that says Bush's program is illegal.

On the other hand, you apparently think calling Mrs. Clinton an extortionist is okay, but I am unaware of any court ruling that labels her to be an extortionist.

So . . . what's the rule, Mortbat? According to you, people who allege Bush's domestic spying program is illegal (and it is illegal based on his own admissions and the application of FISA) shouldn't do so unless a court finds his program to be illegal---but people (like you) who allege that Hillary Clinton is an extortionist are entitled to do so even in the absence of a court ruling.

IMO, this is the typical double-speak hypocrisy of those who worship at the altar of the Big Brother Bush's Administration.