Bush defies Congress, says he has right to change Homeland Security bills

This just had to devolve into an argument about the war, didn't it.

Look, it isn't fight them there or fight them here. We get rid of our oil addiction, and those jackasses will go back to riding camels across the desert like it should be. It's expensive to strike America in the way these terrorists do. And we are talking about countries that have no concept of free markets and laws are whatever the local strongman says.

We do create enemies by being in the Middle East, but things would be alright if we could just wean ourselves off oil. (Oh, and yes, it is that simple). Then, their feelings towards us and our culture, and "freedom" would be irrelevant.

By the way, it is King George. I've said before the Patriot Act was named for the people it will eventually target. And the main problem with Bush's actions is that they set a precedent which a Democrat can and easily will use to turn the noose on folks like us. Imagine Hillary with signing statements? Can you?
Can you?
 
We get rid of our oil addiction, and those jackasses will go back to riding camels across the desert like it should be.
Click to expand...


What the hell makes anyone believe that our efforts to come up with technology to free ourselves from arab oil themselves will not be subject to islamofascist terror attacks??

Do you really think they will lie down and let us, unmolested, go about freeing ourselves from a dependency that gives them untold wealth?! :rolleyes:


-azurefly
 
Imagine Hillary with signing statements? Can you?
Click to expand...


Well, do you think that Hillary or any other dem will use them in exactly the way that they now criticize Bush for doing?

We'd have a field day.

What better way to attack someone and destroy their credibility than by having them prove themselves a huge hypocrite?


-azurefly
 
To azurefly...

What the hell makes anyone believe that our efforts to come up with technology to free ourselves from arab oil themselves will not be subject to islamofascist terror attacks??

Do you really think they will lie down and let us, unmolested, go about freeing ourselves from a dependency that gives them untold wealth?!
Click to expand...

Here's the other HUGE thing that's the problem with the Middle East... we stick our nose into that region way too much, Israel's problem is not America's problem. Most of these terrorists don't want American in the Middle East, and that includes Israel.


Epyon
 
What I'm saying is, if we found alternative power and switched to it, and could utterly pull out of the middle east, would that solve the problem of them hating us and coming after us?

I think that, for one, we would still have to keep spies and forces over there because they will be continuing to hate us, and more importantly continuing to attempt to amass or develop weapons with which to destroy us.

Let us NOT forget that arabs are the best in the world at holding GRUDGES. (It's the freakin' reason they have been blowing EACH OTHER up over there for thousands of years!)

Now, imagine we develop our alternative energy source and can pull out of there -- at least economically, if not in every way shape and form. They are left sitting on useless desert land, with useless oil under it, no means of producing much of anything else useful to the world, penniless and hungry.

WTF do you think, they won't come around trying to hold the western world hostage to their demands all over again?! :mad: Yeah, right!

I think they'd keep on with the terrorism, and this time the demands might be, "Buy our freakin' oil and make us rich again, or we will keep beheading your people and blowing ourselves up in your cities!" :barf:


-azurefly
 
They're just forewarning us that their criticism is strictly partisan, because it is a criticism of an action they themselves plan to take. (Oh, but when they do it, it'll be okay, because it's the second wrong that makes the right.)
Click to expand...

Nope. They'll do it, and they'll be perfectly justified in legislating (or vetoing via signing statement) whatever they friggin' well want to. If anybody says it's wrong, they'll say, "Hey, it was just fine when Reagan and BOTH Bushes were doing it, so it MUST be okay fo rus to do as well..."

So Republicans better start being vocal on this issue NOW. If it's okay for the President to create whatever law he wants, with a signing statement, be prepared for what President Clinton (the 2nd) signs into law...
 
Yes, and then we can say, "Well, I guess then you were full of $#1* back when you were criticizing Bush for it. Either it's wrong and no one should do it, or you were just pissed that Clinton hadn't thought of it before Bush did it."


These predictions that the democrats will do what they say now that they despise just mean you figure they're willing to be tremendous hypocrites.

That does not surprise me in the least.


-azurefly
 
You don't have a balance of powers when the same party controls the Legislative and Executive branches.
Click to expand...

Wow.

The balance of powers between the separate branches of the Federal government is defined by the Constitution.

It has to do with the powers and responsibilities given to each branch by the Constitution.

It has absolutely nothing to do with political parties. Nothing.

If you think that a Congress with a controlling number of one party and a President of the same party automatically get along just because of common political affiliation, take a look at some history or the newspaper.
 
Well I'd like to say...

I'm surprised I wasn't flamed for my big rant first off. Secondly to azurefly, I think if we left the Middle East it would mean that the terrorists would be less likely to attack America, because if we were attacked in order to buy oil from any country guess what that means? A JUSTIFIED war. This group doesn't give a crap about oil as much as it does religion. I'm pretty sure if the "infidels" left their reigions it wouldn't cause the place to be such a breeding group ::cough:: Iraq, Afghanistan, and currently Pakistan ::cough::


To Clanky,

It has absolutely nothing to do with political parties. Nothing.
Click to expand...

Really now? Then why is it that when those branches are allowed to pass blatantly un-Constitutional laws for "security" it's more likely to be allowed faster than if it's something more important and socially progressive like, stem cell research on fetuses about to be thrown away anyway? Or gay marriges? Or end the wasteful war on drugs? How convenient that Congress and the president agree to pass bills that hinder our rights quicker, than to pass bills that ALLOW more freedoms? Washington once warned of politcal parties and maintaining neutrality globally, well I guess he's doing cartwheels in his grave at this point. How absurd that the majority power base at this point is fueled by religion and greedy corporatism. The Democrats are no better either, they are also funded by greedy corporatism, and also lack any consciousness to help push for better changes rapidly. Isn't it convenient that big government take its sweet time GIVING FREEDOMS to people, whereas it's QUICK TO HINDER FREEDOM IN A HEARTBEAT? It took a few hundred years for slavery to end when other countries already attained it, it also took a few hundred years for women to be equal, and another few hundred for people of ALL ethnicities and races to be considered equal among the populace. 9/11 occurs and all of a sudden people are in a panic and don't mind laws that violate the Constituion, and Congress and the president STILL continue to even pass more bills to consider signing into law. What a dangerous mix, so political parties are not involved? I beg to differ. This two party back scratching system will just further destroy the country. The reality is, both parties are for the most part an oligarchy pretending to not agree with each other, when in fact their goal together is to take away more rights for "the good of the people" they both take turns in office shifting power between the two. Don't forget when one party leaves office the next guy retains power given by the previous, this is how things slowly become tyrannical. (Their goal is either directly or indirectly, but the point is that power is always being shifted from the people to the government, which is the antithesis of what this country should be.)


Epyon
 
Most of these terrorists don't want American in the Middle East, and that includes Israel.
Click to expand...
So we should abandon our allies because a group of 14th century thirdworlders don't like our relationship with them?
 
Look, the only thing which makes the Muslim world a hotbed for terrorist actions are the stupid things the West does concerning evil Middle Eastern Dictators.

We depend on their oil which the wealthy rulers hoard the profits of sales on, and then when none of the small guys get that money, the rich tell them it's the American's fault.

Of course the fault lies directly at the feet of these men who refuse to acknowledge private property rights, basic human rights, and market forces in economies.

We take away oil, the people will quickly see the Emperor is wearing no clothes, and massive rebellions will occur. But unless the people replace the old systems with market economies, and grant some basic human freedoms you will still have the same problems. But, if the replacement governments do that, the people won't want to fight us, they'll be too busy trading with us.

As for the signing statements, and the whole Bush conflagration, I've said before, BUsh really thinks he is helping the country. And I would bet for the most part, things have been okay in terms of civil liberties violations. That being said, we don't know. And the powers the "unitary Executive" has are too powerfull for any one branch of government to have in a Republic.

If allowed to continue we will either see the death of our land as we know it, or a civil war to reestablish a free country. That is why we need a turn around on these laws now to avoid those possibilities.
 
Last edited:
"the only thing which makes the Muslim world a hotbed for terrorist actions are the stupid things the West does concerning evil Middle Eastern Dictators."

How does that explain the terror in the Middle East prior to the formation of the U.S. of A.?

They've been killing their own countrymen and their neighbors for centuries and you're going to oversimplify it and claim it's all the fault of the USA?

John
 
The Constitution DIRECTS the President, if he does not agree with a Bill, to return it unsigned to the House in which it originated, there to be reconsidered, and if the House majority votes to adopt it, then it shall become law "as if the President had signed it."

It doesn't say, sign it into law, but attach things to it which claim to null certain portions of that law, as if a line item veto were Constitutional.

The fact that the President is subverting the Constitution is not what has halted terrorist attacks within the United States. Military action in the Middle East, is what has concentrated the battle there.

The Congress voted for allowing military action in the Middle East. (Even though they all deny it now that the elections are nearing, but that is the simple fact) Bush arbitrarily saying some portion of law is law, and some is not, is simply not Constitutional, and is indefensible.

To say that it is okay to suspend the Constitution because "we haven't been attacked again" is about like saying "Let's suspend the Constitution, so we won't be attacked in the future."
 
Epyon,

The concept of a Balance of Powers was supposed by the framers and public men of the time to be a consequence of the jealous guarding of the powers given each Branch, with each branch fulfilling their constitutional duties with respect to making and enforcing the Law of the Land. It was precisely to safeguard against one constituency gaining control of the government that the concept was written into our form of government. The concept of a separation of powers is sound. It was considered a safeguard against one party gaining complete control of government and the SCOTUS is standing ground, you might notice.

The Executive branch has a long history of applying pressure to the other two branches in a constant quest for more authority, constitutional or otherwise. It's not named the Executive Branch for nothing. The Congress is the most conspicuous of the three branches in it's dereliction of duty and the SCOTUS has gained some notoriety most recently with it's Globalist theme in decision making.

However, the practice of subverting the concept did not start with the Republican Party gaining control of two branches in this decade (or even the last). It has only become more noticeable because of the more direct and apparent threats to our liberties.

For some of us, the perceived collusion (ideological agreement) between the SCOTUS and the Legislative Branch during the 60s, 70s and 80s was as great an internal threat as the one we see now. And make no mistake, I agree with the existing threat to our civil liberties with this new spate of laws intended to make us safer.

Many on the right are speaking out. But I say to you that the hesitancy to do so is driven in part by the distaste we find at being on the same side of this as those that would do the same to our liberties, had they the chance. It is a natural repulsion, since we do not believe the clatter and whine of constitutionalism from the other side. We had thirty plus years to watch their concept of government in action. They, the Liberal Socialists as I like to call them, fought the constitution in the courts of this land packed with ideological cohorts in robes, every step of the way. We now have penumbras emanating from the causation of two or more previous decisions. Decisions made by ideologs. Venn diagrams of jurisprudence.

One cannot discount the tendency of good men to rise to the occasion. The present administration does not seem to have the slickness we are used to seeing. I believe it belies their belief that they are doing what is right. Their stumbling is in the open for all to see. That is the way it should be. History is being writ large these days. With their faults, and they are there for all to see, I thank my maker that the last two elections in this country went the way they did.

That said, it is our duty to oppose any misdirected government effort to turn this great country into a day care center. For that direction, I thank the aformentioned indoctrination of people and children that occurred during the 60s, 70s and 80s.

At one point, years ago, I asked my self, "What of this Republic will remain to be defended if we continue down this road?" At that time, I answered, "Oh, that's right. I forgot my indoctrination lessons ... we'll finally be a real democracy." :barf: This time, the answer to that question is different. You don't get many chances at this.

[Edit: Last paragraph rewritten. 9:29 PM]
 
This group doesn't give a crap about oil as much as it does religion. I'm pretty sure if the "infidels" left their reigions it wouldn't cause the place to be such a breeding group ::cough:: Iraq, Afghanistan, and currently Pakistan ::cough::
Click to expand...

You left out other breeding grounds, like Great Britain, Indonesia, the Phillipines, Malaysia, France, and the United States. Or did you forget that as part of their religion, they are coming to those nations and others and spreading their particular views . . . inclunding the idea that infidels in those countries must convert or die. And many of the nations in which those groups are engaging in their terrorist activities (directly or indirectly) are not involved in the Middle East and/or not supporting the War on Terror.

It's not about religion ultimately; it's about using religion to obtain power. And the power they want is to establish the Caliphate.
 
Yes, and then we can say,
Click to expand...

That's nice. You're right, we'll have a great zinger of a platform.

Meanwhile, bad things will happen anyway and there's not a whole lot that calling them on being hypocrites will do about it.
 
Look, the only thing which makes the Muslim world a hotbed for terrorist actions are the stupid things the West does concerning evil Middle Eastern Dictators
Click to expand...

Well, no.

The Islamo-fascists hate the West, not for what we do "concerning evil Middle Eastern Dictators" but for our very existence, our ideals, our freedom, our diversity, our tolerance. This is about two utterly different systems of thought about who we are as human beings, what rights we have, how we should live, and what are the ultimate demands upon us.

We believe in freedom. They believe in lockstep conformity to Wahhabi fundamentalist Islam, and no matter how well we behave in playing in the sandbox, no matter how nice we are, no matter how accomodating to what they'd like us to do or not do, they will still be utterly committed to our destruction.

Now, that still doesn't mean that Bush has the right to go tromping on the Constitution. If we become less than what we are, they win. If we become less free so that we can theoretically become more secure, they win. Even if we are never conquered, they have won, because they have struck at the essence of our system and changed it.

Springmom
 
Mom, I was about to pick apart your first statement about why Islamo-fascists hate the west but then I realized, you're right. My problem is that people here tend to believe that EVERYONE over there is an Islamo-fascist.

And what is an Islamo-fascist anyway? A devout muslim in policital position with extreme corporate ties? And isn't anyone worried about Christo-fascists? There seem to be more of those around these parts and they seem to be more poised to do more damage to more people than any Islamo-fascists I know off the top of my head.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top