Free speech for me but not for thee. ACLU busted!

Joe Notion wrote:

We are Americans. We do not have a king. We do not have a Czar. We do not invest extraordinary powers to any branch, but especially not the Executive Branch.

Poor Joe Notion: He is so ignorant of facts. He is so ignorant that he does not know what happened on October 10thand 11th 2001.

On that date, the legislative branch GAVE authority to President Bush. Thus far the judicial branch has not found that the authority given to President Bush on that day was unconstitutional.

Poor Joe Notion probably flunked Pol. Sci. 101

Here is what Joe Notion does not know:

from "Bush at War" --Bob Woodward--P. 351

quote

On October 10th and 11th the House and Senate OVERWHELMINGLY voted to grant the president FULL AUTHORITY to attack Iraq unilaterally. The vote in the House was 266 to 133 and in the Senate 77 to 23, The Congress gave Bush the FULL GO AHEAD TO USE THE MILITARY AS HE DETERMINES TO BE NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE..."

end of quote

It is a shame that Joe Notion cannot cite evidence and/ or documentation and must depend on mental flatulence in posting nonsense!!!

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Fox, are you being deceptive when you accuse the Democrats of not submitting surveillance bills? You know quite well that they are unable to even get a bill voted upon. Moreover, the Republicans control all of government and can get whatever they want enacted.

If they had submitted any bill to stop the surveillance, they would have been mugging every camera there and in all surrounding cameras expounding on that so they could take credit for it whether or not it ever made it out of committee. Or they would be loudly and publically calling on the GOP majority to introduce a bill to stop it. To their credit, they haven't been doing that. Sure they expound on the Prez overstepping his authority, operating in secret, breaking the law, etc. etc. etc., but when the chips are down they are unwilling to put their money where their mouth is and introduce legislation to stop it. They know how disastrous that would be if it should succeed.

0 Replies

Two quotes from the organization formed by Barr and Shafley which is now working with the ACLU

Quote:

Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances Urges Congress: Investigate Unlawful Spying on Americans

Since revelations in late 2005 that the National Security Administration (NSA) has engaged in surveillance of Americans without cause, the Bush Administration has refused to comply with its requirement under the law to keep Congress fully informed about all electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence. Leaders in Congress have bowed to Administration pressure and refused to answer the call to learn who is being spied upon and what information is being collected.

Congress must conduct a full investigation to understand the scope of the program and how many Americans have had their phone calls and emails monitored by the NSA without a warrant.

Quote:

While Continuing Voice in Patriot Act Debate, PRCB Fights Administration's Warrantless Domestic Spying Program

A Message from Chairman Bob Barr

Although the USA Patriot Act has passed through Congress and been signed into law by President Bush, Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances (PRCB) continues to fight for Americans' freedoms as guaranteed by the Constitution. We will take on any issue that similarly infringes on Americans' rights, including an issue of grave importance today - unlawful federal government spying on Americans.

0 Replies

foxfyre said

Quote:

I was responding to Joe Nation's implied assertion that Phyllis Schaffly and Bob Barr are qualified to draw conclusions on what surveillance is appropriate for the President to use. Neither are in Congress, however, and I rather think those who are in Congress and are privy to security issues not available to the general public are in a much better position to assess and make decisions on those matters.

You seem to have drawn conclusions regarding what is "appropriate".

But "appropriate" isn't the term you ought to be using unless by it you actually mean "legal" and "constitutional" as well as "effective". And that is established by the courts who have now, in a number of key decisions including from the Supreme Court, found that administration policies regarding prisoners of war and regarding the bypass of FISA as both illegal and unconstitutional.

Quote:

As a rule, Schafly does not discredit and disable the president. If she should suceed in stopping surveillance of all international commumications, or making those so difficult that they become useless, she would absolutely be disabling the president in his Constitutional duties on that one issue.

Strawman. You misrespresent what the Barr/Schafley organization and the ACLU are arguing. Shafley maintains that there ought to be "a bright line" between monitoring of American citizens' communications and the communications of non-Americans. I don't agree but that's her position.

No one, as others have said numerous times and which you just refuse to acknowledge, argue for cessation of communications monitoring. Rather that it be done with certain checks...ie FISA warrants and with Congressional knowledge and oversight.

So, with those corrections in place...is Shafley disabling and embarrassing the president?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Strawman. ...

Sorry to interrupt, but I have to comment on this "Strawman" business. If I ever hear one more liberal use this term, "Strawman," I am going to be seriously ill. You guys must all drink the same koolaid. Every time you encounter an argument, you shout "strawman." Kind of like watching someone eat, when they lift the fork, their mouth flies open. Every time you make an argument, you always begin with "Strawman."

I realize this is no comment on the argument here, but just an observation concerning the debating ability of various political types. Carry on. And please Blatham, can you please come up with something a bit more inventive than "Strawman." It is getting old.

0 Replies

There was no widespread use of computers and certainly no use of easily portable computers connected to an internet, no overnight mail, and no cell phones, much less disposable cell phones, when FISA was enacted. There had been no 9/11 and there was no perceived threat from organized terrorist groups. What random acts of violence did occur seemed to be committed by rogue criminals and/or were localized with a single rogue nation. Authorities had at least a few hours time to obtain a bench warrant before an opportunity was lost.

It is a very different world with very different dangers and very different circumstances. The President has been assured by his Attorney General and the vast majority of congressional representatives that he is operating within the law and he has thoroughly explained why it is necessary to do surveillance in the way they are doing it. They should be able to operate covertly, expediently, and as necessary 24/7 and anywhere they need to do that.

The way it has been explained is that they have no idea who to order the warrant against until they make an intercept and once there is an intercept, they have to deal with it that moment. Even a scant few minutes later the opportunity is lost and by the time they even look up the judge's phone number, the offending phone no longer exists. It would be stupid for them to put their methods in the Congressional record or worse, in the newspapers or on the internet. No patriot would ask them to reveal these.

FISA is fine for normal domestic surveillance. It is not practical for protecting the American public and its allies against organized international terrorists who are capable of doing just about anything.

In my opinion Bob Barr and Phyllis Scahfly are wrong on this one and, if they prevail, will greatly weaken the Preisdent's abiltiy to exercise his constitutional responsibility to defend us against terorism.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

blatham wrote:

Strawman. ...

Sorry to interrupt, but I have to comment on this "Strawman" business. If I ever hear one more liberal use this term, "Strawman," I am going to be seriously ill. You guys must all drink the same koolaid. Every time you encounter an argument, you shout "strawman." Kind of like watching someone eat, when they lift the fork, their mouth flies open. Every time you make an argument, you always begin with "Strawman."

I realize this is no comment on the argument here, but just an observation concerning the debating ability of various political types. Carry on. And please Blatham, can you please come up with something a bit more inventive than "Strawman." It is getting old.

okie

You'll recall that earlier I recommended you sign up with a local college for a correspondence course in first year logic. That suggestion wasn't made as an insult but rather to encourage a furtherance of your education (a good thing for any of us).

Using the term 'strawman' or drawing attention to a 'strawman argument' isn't a 'liberal' thing. It's a logical thing. Unfortunately, it's also very common in uncareful discussions.

Person A says, "As a traditional Republican, I believe that government ought to be kept small."

Person B responds, "That unrealistic turkey named Person A wants to totally get rid of government and that is just nuts and irresponsible."

That's a strawman. Person B has set up a false or inaccurate copy of what Person A has said. Then he argues against the false copy rather than the real statement/argument.

If you go back and look, that's what foxfyre did regarding Schafley's statement.

0 Replies

Mysteryman: This is what you wrote:

Quote:

Once Congress declares war,it is the President,as C in C,that makes the decisions about everything else regarding the war and our military.
The Congress has no Constitutional mandate to second guess the CinC,or to overrule his decisions.

And the Judiciary has no role in the process at all.
They are kept totally out of the process,including concerning national security decisions during wartime.

You're just wrong about this.

For example, in the current conflict the joint resolution passed by Congress (and, please note, there is no Declaration of War as defined by the Constitution but there is the joint resolution,) there is this section:

Quote:

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) <<NOTE>> Reports.--The President shall, at least
once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant
to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the
exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning
for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are
completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq
Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

Congress has a particular and well-defined role in war making, please be assured that the various committees on Foreign Relations, the House Armed Services Committee and others peruse, debate and take action on every aspect of this and all other wars. No President can act without the oversight of the People's Representatives, thus shall it ever be, unless we turn this nation into some kind of dictatorship.

Joe(I try to be accurate and fair, let me know if I fail to be either)Nation

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

okie

You'll recall that earlier I recommended you sign up with a local college for a correspondence course in first year logic. That suggestion wasn't made as an insult but rather to encourage a furtherance of your education (a good thing for any of us).

Using the term 'strawman' or drawing attention to a 'strawman argument' isn't a 'liberal' thing. It's a logical thing. Unfortunately, it's also very common in uncareful discussions.

Person A says, "As a traditional Republican, I believe that government ought to be kept small."

Person B responds, "That unrealistic turkey named Person A wants to totally get rid of government and that is just nuts and irresponsible."

That's a strawman. Person B has set up a false or inaccurate copy of what Person A has said. Then he argues against the false copy rather than the real statement/argument.

If you go back and look, that's what foxfyre did regarding Schafley's statement.

Blatham, I understand perfectly the definition. And I realize debaters of all stripes use it. I just think it is overused, and in fact the use of it is often a "strawman," because it is a way of confronting a valid argument by claiming the argument is not applicable, and thus avoiding the argument. I mean these comments half serious, half humorous. I am just kind of tired of the term. I think it is overused and worn out.

Have you ever played pickup basketball, blatham? One on one, two on two, or whatever. Often if you begin to get the best of the opposition, they begin to call fouls constantly, especially if they miss a shot, even if you barely touch them. Every time you turn around, they cry "foul, foul" Kind of like "strawman, strawman."

0 Replies

Free speech isn't simply a euphemism for being able to lie with impunity. These repuglicans just never quit.

Quote:

0 Replies

Main Entry: straw man
Function: noun
1 : a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted
2 : a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction
--Merriam-Webster

It is a perfectly valid word. Moreover, Bernard would be out of business if he were unable to make strawman arguments.

Bush said that warrants are needed for wiretapping. Are you guys on the right now saying that Bush was wrong?

I will say that it is an open question on whether warrants are needed when there is no wiretapping, but just recording where traffic comes and goes. More information and study on this is needed.

0 Replies

okie wrote

Quote:

Blatham, I understand perfectly the definition. And I realize debaters of all stripes use it. I just think it is overused, and in fact the use of it is often a "strawman," because it is a way of confronting a valid argument by claiming the argument is not applicable, and thus avoiding the argument. I mean these comments half serious, half humorous. I am just kind of tired of the term. I think it is overused and worn out.

Have you ever played pickup basketball, blatham? One on one, two on two, or whatever. Often if you begin to get the best of the opposition, they begin to call fouls constantly, especially if they miss a shot, even if you barely touch them. Every time you turn around, they cry "foul, foul" Kind of like "strawman, strawman."

Imagine a defence lawyer saying to a judge, "Your Honor, you point once again to the twenty eye-witnesses who say they clearly saw my client hit the victim with a two by four and you say that my client is not credible in his claim that he was visiting the Pope that Wednesday afternoon. Surely "credibility" is a much over-used term."

That is the sort of argument that you've just used, okie.

And note please that you've brought in a sport or game analogy where the activity is concerned entirely with win or lose. Truth or accuracy aren't at stake. When you go to a doctor, do you choose the doctor who is taller or a better ballplayer or one who better understands medicine and your ailment?

If what you are doing here at a2k is merely trying to win an argument, rather than try to get to the truth of things, then discussion with you will be like a basketball game. Truth or accuracy or reality or best policy become quite irrelevant. Doesn't that seem a rather shallow and counter-productive way for citizens to consider matters?

It's not mere coincidence that the rules of logic were first studied where democracy began, in Athens. Where we set to the task of governing ourselves (rather than being governed by a dictator or tyrant or monarch) it becomes absolutely critical that we learn to spot logical errors in our political discussions and that we treat them in the same manner that we treat deceits and lies.

0 Replies

blatham, if you are true to your claims of wanting the truth, we can agree 100%. Unfortunately, logic is affected by emotional mindsets much of the time. I consider myself to be based in logic just as much as you apparently believe you are.

In your example of the man visiting the Pope, you surely realize in a court, the credibility of his testimony might matter slightly, but the facts matter more, such that if the Pope and the Pope's assistants testify to the fact that he indeed was there, contrary to your 20 witnesses, your witnesses might turn out to be bogus. I am no lawyer, but seems I've heard that prior prejudice as to the credibility of this person or that person as related to other cases is sometimes not ruled pertinent. It needs to relate to the case at hand.

Yes, I try to win arguments here on A2K, I am not unique in that, and I try to do it by having better evidence to back up my argument. I don't pick arguments by happenstance, or because it is trendy to take a certain position, I pick them because I believe the arguments to be the most valid and the most correct arguments. I look at the information behind a story, for example, Democrats claim Republicans are giving tax breaks to the rich and none to the poor. Many people believe that on an emotional level. I do not. I look at the facts and make judgements, which reveals to me that the claim is nothing more than demagoguery. I do not wish to argue about that now, but there are often emotional opinions vs factual opinions. I try to pick the factual opinions. Obviously, I am not always correct, but you are not either, and nobody is.

I apologize for throwing the use of the term, "strawman," complaint into the mix here. I do not wish to interrupt the debate.

0 Replies

okie wrote

Quote:

Obviously, I am not always correct, but you are not either, and nobody is.

I apologize for throwing the use of the term, "strawman," complaint into the mix here. I do not wish to interrupt the debate.

Yes, I can get things wrong too.

No need to apologize for the 'strawman' thing. It's not uncommon (nor improper) to sometimes move away from data or opinions and look at how we go about discussion and to look at the terms we use. Often, we really must take those detours.

My point re 'credibility' was merely to show that even when a term might be used often, that doesn't make it an unthinking cliche nor an empty or 'faddish' element.

0 Replies

Okie- Please--Don't belabor the man!! He, like my brother had a very bad heart attack. The description of his complete unconsiousness and subsequent insertion of stents is on these threads. As I told you, my brother was never the same after his heart attack..His doctor told him that insufficient blood went to his brain after his attack and that his period of unconsciousness affected his reasoning powers.
Be merciful-Okie!!!

0 Replies

Okie- Pay no attention to the Ignorant Advocate when he uses the word "strawman".

As you can see, he? she?is clueless and does not post evidence or documentation. He? she? could never rebut an argument after you made it with evidence or documentation behind it since he? she? does not know how to post evidence or documentation to rebut ANYTHING.

His? her? use of the word "strawman" is a common ploy among the left. They try to say--'YOUR ARGUMENT IS A STRAWMAN DESIGNED TO DIVERT US FROM THE REAL ISSUES"

First of all, they have to show what the REAL issues are. They can't do it with blah blah blah. They need evidence to determine what the "real" issues are. The "real" issues for the left are the "issues" they define.. As soon as you cram some evidence down their throats, they cry--"Strawman' Strawman"..It is a ploy designed to disguise people who can't debate, can't post evidence and are truly ignorant about the issues.

In the meantime, Okie, be merciful to Mr. Blatham. He mustn't get too excited, you know!!!!

0 Replies

Joe Notion wrote:

Congress has a particular and well-defined role in war making, please be assured that the various committees on Foreign Relations, the House Armed Services Committee and others peruse, debate and take action on every aspect of this and all other wars. No President can act without the oversight of the People's Representatives, thus shall it ever be, unless we turn this nation into some kind of dictatorship.
end of quote
DICTATORSHIP--BALONEY--AND THE LEFT WING WILL PROABABLY SAY THE MATERIAL BELOW IS A "STRAWMAN"

IT ANSWERS THE BALONEY ABOVE DIRECTLY-

Of course Congress has a particular and well defined role in war making--and the crap about No president can act without the foresight of the People's Representatives is just laughable and shows how ignorant Joe Notion really is---

Quote

Bob Woodward--

Bush at War--P. 351

quote

"On October 10th and 11th the House and the Senate OVERWHELMINGLY VOTED TO GRANT THE PRESIDENT F U L L A U T H O R I T Y TO ATTACK IRAQ UNILATERALLY> The vote in the House was 296 to 133 and in the Senate 77 to 23. The Congress gave Bush the FULL GO-AHEAD TO USE THE MILITARY AS HE DETERMINES TO BE NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE TO DEFEND AGAINST THE THREAT OF IRAQ"

END OF QUOTE

That almost sounds as if the House and the Senate gave Bush full authority to attack Iraq and to use the military as he detemined to be necessary and appropriate to defend against the threat of war!

Does the House of Representatives have the power of the purse strings?

Of course--They can, along with the Senate, VOTE NOT TO FUND THE WAR IN IRAQ.

It's so easy--All they have to do is to turn down the President's request for more funds for the war in Iraq.

I wonder why they have not done it yet?

Since Joe Notion is massively ignorant( Does he read about the many meetings the Congressional Committees have had in the last five years and the number of times they have gathered to discuss actions to be taken with regard to Iraq) he will continue to show his ignorance!!

0 Replies

Joe Notion thinks that Congress is not directly involved and that the US is suffering under a dictatorship?

Only a left winger ignorant of what really goes on in the Congress would say that-

quote--
Senate rejects Iraq withdrawal plans
By Vicki Allen | June 22, 2006

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Republican-led Senate on Thursday rejected Democratic plans to start a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq .

The votes capped two weeks of bitter debate in Congress over the conflict that has caused 2,511 U.S. military deaths, as Republicans accused Democrats of a "cut and run" strategy and Democrats retorted that Republicans were blindly following Bush's open-ended commitment.

A nonbinding resolution broadly backed by Senate Democrats that urged Bush to start withdrawing troops this year and left it up to him to set the schedule to implement the pullout failed 60-39. Six Democrats and one Republican crossed party lines on the vote.

Another amendment to put into law a plan to start withdrawing combat forces immediately and complete the process by next July failed 86-13.

Those 13 Democrats who voted for the measure pushed by Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Russell Feingold of Wisconsin then voted for the nonbinding resolution. It was cast as the Democratic consensus position that called for a plan to start withdrawing troops, but without a deadline that many senators feared would leave Iraq in a full-scale civil war.

After the Iraq votes were done, the Senate unanimously passed the underlying bill authorizing $517.7 billion in defense programs for next fiscal year starting in October, including $50 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

At a Pentagon briefing, Army Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, spoke out against a deadline for troop withdrawal, saying it would limit his flexibility and "give the enemy a fixed timetable." Casey also said it would "send a terrible signal to a new government of national unity in Iraq that's trying to stand up and get its legs underneath it."

The Republican-led House of Representatives last week passed a resolution that wrapped the Iraq conflict into the war on terrorism and rejected a deadline for troop withdrawal after two days of debate that sometimes turned harshly personal.

In the Senate, Republicans and Democrats accused each other of exploiting the war for political gain.

After the votes, Democrats dismissed the defections in their ranks and claimed a political win, saying they were largely united behind a position supported by most Americans who want a policy to end the war.

"Eighty percent of us voted that way. It is a strong consensus statement by Democrats," said Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, a key sponsor of the withdrawal without a deadline measure.

Senate Republican leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said that although "Democrats proposed multiple and confusing strategies for withdrawal, it's clear that the Senate has rejected their plans for surrender and cut and run."

In debate geared toward November, Republicans depicted Iraq as central to the war on terrorism and branded Democrats as divided and weak on the issue.

"Withdrawal is not an option, surrender is not a solution," Frist said. "This senator does not want to be complicit in that decision that could reverse the success we have achieved since 9-11 in keeping terrorism off our shores."

end of quote

THE ABOVE 'STRAWMAN' WHICH ANSWERS DIRECTLY THE BALONEY ISSUING FROM JOE NOTION THAT OUR COUNTRY IS BECOMING A DICTATORSHIP SINCE CONGRESS IS ALLEGEDLY NOT PARTICIPATING IN DECISIONS---CLEARLY SHOWS---THAT THE US CONGRESS VOTED 60-39 A G A I N S T THE PRESIDENT WITHDRAWING TROOPS FROM IRAQ THIS YEAR>

************************************************************

I do hope Joe Notion will begin reading the newspapers- There is so much is apparently ignorant about!!!

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

His? her? use of the word "strawman" is a common ploy among the left. They try to say--'YOUR ARGUMENT IS A STRAWMAN DESIGNED TO DIVERT US FROM THE REAL ISSUES"

So I at least have one person that backs up my suspicion on this "strawman" nonsense. Thanks Bernard.

Blatham, if you have suffered a heart attack, I have not heard the details, but my sympathies to you, and I hope your health rebounds and you enjoy good health. No matter how much any of us disagree, I bear no ill will toward any person whatsoever. We need liberal views expressed here that at least have some reasoning attempted. There are so many that end up deserving Ticomaya's black helicopter graphic, so it is refreshing to actually see some reasoning attempted. Even if the reasoning is flawed, at least you get an A for effort, blatham! Smile

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

Okie- Please--Don't belabor the man!! He, like my brother had a very bad heart attack. The description of his complete unconsiousness and subsequent insertion of stents is on these threads. As I told you, my brother was never the same after his heart attack..His doctor told him that insufficient blood went to his brain after his attack and that his period of unconsciousness affected his reasoning powers.
Be merciful-Okie!!!

Is this supposed to be funny? Or just obnoxious? It's hard to tell with you, Bernard.

0 Replies

Free speech for me but not for thee. ACLU busted!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know