Patriot Act and our President

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FirstFreedom

Moderator
CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) -- President Bush Friday signed legislation extending key provisions of the anti-terrorism USA Patriot Act until February 3, despite earlier objecting to anything short of a permanent renewal.
Click to expand...

He threatens veto of it if the whole unconstitutional shebang is not passed as a permanent measure, but then (shocker) caves and fails to veto. Where's his spine? Where's his principles? If he thinks the Patriot Act is really what we need permanently, why didn't he stick to his guns? He's a pathetic, mindless jellyfish. I am glad the Pat Act wasn't renewed permanently, but clearly its defenders have some explaining to do, as to why their fearless leader caved on this 'crucial' measure to 'fight terrorism'.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/30/bush.patriot.reut/index.html?section=cnn_latest
 
Too Bad Our Pres cannot take no for an answer. Guaranteed that all who oppose will be labeled disloyal traitors. In the past his attitude has been called TYRANT.
 
The Presidents record shows that he is a man of principles, and that he does what he believes he should do under the circumstances.
He does not operate according to polls. Spineless he is not.

I think he is one of the better presidents in my lifetime.
Jerry
 
The Presidents record shows that he is a man of principles

His record shows more clearly that he is an egotistical hip shooter who has not the courage to reconsider.
He will and has gone down in history as possibly the worst president this country has ever had. From preemptive war under questionable pretence to "coudling" a possible real traitor, and every thing inbetween, including illegally spying on citicens and failing to secure the borders of this country.
 
(yawn)

The current President is always "the worst president this country has ever had." It's the nature of things. Check back in 25-50 years for a revised opinion.
 
Bigjack is right on every issue. Have ANYONE of you read the wHOLE Patriot Act? It's disgusting! Many of our rights go in the garbage can with this act.
 
The President's record shows he's a man of principles.
Click to expand...

Yes, maybe so, but what about the next administration that will surely follow?
Do you trust Hillary's principles?

I'm not concerned about safeguarding laws from abuse with the current administration. I'm worried about the next one that may use poorly written legislation to label gun owners terrorists.
 
The Presidents record shows that he is a man of principles, and that he does what he believes he should do under the circumstances.
He does not operate according to polls. Spineless he is not.

I think he is one of the better presidents in my lifetime.
Click to expand...

H-OOOO-L-Y smoke! People who believe stuff like that will go out of their way to NOT read the patriot act.

Yes, maybe so, but what about the next administration that will surely follow?
Do you trust Hillary's principles?
Click to expand...

Thank you. That is the MAIN piece of the puzzle the bush luvers totally refuse to consider. It upsets the deep denial they are in. They refuse to look to either the constitution, OR the future to what an even more abusive administration will (not might) do.

Have ANYONE of you read the wHOLE Patriot Act? It's disgusting! Many of our rights go in the garbage can with this act.
Click to expand...

In my experience, the bush luvers put their fingers in their ears and yell "la la la" when you ask them this (that is of course, after they've called you a liberal :barf: ). Finding one who has read even a little of it is like finding a virgin at Hefner's mansion.

As a little aside, as far as bush not being spineless, how much "spine" does it take to publicly say "bring it on" and then have other people's kids die in that fight?

I think the book in this pic has a spine:

mypetgoat9zd.jpg


As a humorous aside, as far as bush not being spineless, he calls himself a "windshield cowboy" and people close to him have said he's afraid of horses and that is why there are none on his "ranch." :rolleyes:

cowboybush0aa.jpg
 
Bush has cajones...What we need in a war-time Prez...

Think of the alternative...Scary, and pathetic

got_your_back.jpg


d-day_democrats.jpg


if_it_happened_today.jpg
 
Nice one Weeg!

Some folks forget, we're in a WAR. Considering what other presidents have done during wartime, like FDR and Lincoln, what Bush is doing is quite mild. Maybe too much so, with all the political correctness holding us back from a full effort, the war will last longer then it had to.
 
BIGJACK: From preemptive war under questionable pretence
Click to expand...


This is what the lefties always point to. "The first time in history the US has attacked preemptively".

What about:

WW2? FDR a democrat attacked Germany. Germany didn't attack the US Japan did.

Korea? Harry S Truman a democrat attacked Korea, Korea didn't attack the US

Vietnam? JFK a democrat took the US to Vietnam, Vietnam didn't attack the US.

Bosnia? Clinton a democrat ordered numerous air strikes on parts of Bosnia, Bosnia didn't attack the US.

Let's be done with the worn-out argument that the US has never preemptively attacked prior to Iraq.:rolleyes:
 
pipoman, ???? you got it all wrong, we never preempted in any of the cases you sited. The United States was ASK by the beseiged peoples to help them, except for the Germans of course and in this case the english had been tring to get our help for sometimes and as I recall the Japanese were allies of germany, right. NO COMPARISON.
 
by BIGJACK:
NO COMPARISON.
Click to expand...
The only reason there is no comparison is because you do not wish to see any similarities that might erode your argument.

Argue case-by-case specifics of defense treaty obligations or coming to the defense of allies, but simply dismissing pipoman's points does not add credibility to your position.
 
Some folks forget, we're in a WAR. Considering what other presidents have done during wartime
Click to expand...

There's nothing Republicans love more than a nice, wholesome, family oriented war. Ain't it fun?
 
By Redworm

There's nothing Republicans love more than a nice, wholesome, family oriented war. Ain't it fun?
Click to expand...

Ignoring the facts of which party has gotten the US into more wars over the last 100 years is another trick of the Democrats on the ignorant.
 
pipoman, ???? you got it all wrong, we never preempted in any of the cases you sited. The United States was ASK by the beseiged peoples to help them, except for the Germans of course and in this case the english had been tring to get our help for sometimes and as I recall the Japanese were allies of germany, right. NO COMPARISON.
Click to expand...


Of the wars I listed there are arguably few which can be COMPARED to each other.

Each action had its own justification, Iraq is no different. The question is do you support the action based on the justification? (in each instance WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War 1, Afghanistan, Iraq)

Oh and what was that little hair pullin' match provoked by Jimmie Carter?:D
 
The fact that pipomans point being that all those other "wars" were preemptive,:confused: as was the war in Iraq, justifies the preemptive strike on Iraq for reasons all found to be false, makes his point creditable,:eek: hu gc70????????

Which one was preemptive and how so??????:confused:
 
My question is how the heck can a prior war involving different countries over totally different issues somehow justify a war decades later? I mean, fer cryin out loud already.....

And 'nother thing - just what the HECK does any other presidential candidate/prior president have to do with the issue of whether G-dub is a "good" president or not?

The "At least he isn't/wasn't as bad as (insert favorite name here)" is just party BS. You may despise the other guy but that still don't make YOUR GUY any better than the cheap, dirty, doubledealing, lying, cheating, scum sucking (edited) he is.

Sometimes this "mine is bigger than yours" political contest is totally amazingly stupid. The guy's a jerk and comparing him to some other JERK won't make it any less so.
 
I vote with you "G.W. is a great President" guys...you know, those of you who've actually written cogent sentences in this thread. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top