kapkomet

Congress, nor the courts, have say so in the executive branch when it comes to conduct of war. Now I'll get the "war wasn't formally declared" cry. Baloney. By the use of force, if necessary, gives the President rights to conduct battlefield operations, and the intercepts of these communications ON THE BATTLEFIELD ("war on terror".) Congress, nor the courts, have ZERO right to stop this according to any said law. I think that's the heart of the argument that is being made. If these people are talking to people in the US, that's an intercept of cumminications during wartime operations, as provided to the executive branch according to the Constitution. Now, if they don't like it, Congress can stop funding of the military for these actions. I don't hear anything being said about that from the Dems.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 06:43 PM) I won't even waste my time reading her crap, agree with her or not. I don't normally, but the title grabbed me (Say no to Hillary).

And the most interesting part, IMO, is she is saying that the current "leaders" of the Democratic party cannot and will not get it done. Bravo! Get a leader, see him/her win.

You know what, though? This column hits right on the point. If the MAJORITY of Americans believe in something, STAND UP FOR IT. I TOTALLY disagree with Molly on just about every issue, but this column is DEAD ON. Say no to Hillary If this happened, at least the debate would be about issues. And that's what it is about.

And I'll also say this again. I have not heard ONE Democrat for the program to be stopped. Only that it's "wrong". Leahy today: (paraphrasing)... "how many have been arrested as a result of this program?" Senator, no one. Because these people are probably DEAD. Score one for the good guys.

QUOTE(SoxFanForever @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 05:36 PM) He is just screwin around Yas. I think it is just that a lot of us are tired of newer posters coming in and making bad/repetitive topics. For every one you correct or help about 5 more roll in with equally bad topic ideas. And that's what happens when you grow. Help them out. Some may turn out to be very good posters in the future. Many won't. Such as life with the "big forum".

And Artest just killed the Pacers, AGAIN. What an assbag. And that's being nice.

QUOTE(mreye @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 04:39 PM) But the Sox didn't win a "World" title and they're going. They never did play Bobby Valentine's Japanese team. That's why Bobby Valentine is in Japan. Because he SUCKS.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 01:55 PM) Now the Soviet Union had a great system. The government ran the media, so you knew you were getting the truth and only the stuff that was fit to print and wouldn't compromise any missions. Isn't that what the RNC wants to get to? A White House controlled media? Conversation over.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 04:32 PM) But is there a limit? How about a sports heroes day and have them all show up? If you win a professional world title, or a national championship (D-One) then you should get to go.

QUOTE(mreye @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 04:28 PM) Just think of how much heat the President would get if he stopped this tradition. Of either party. I think it's a great tradition.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 04:20 PM) I love those ironies when the parties switch sides and don't even blush. Bush 1 vs. Clinton: GOP-Clinton's lack of military service is a problem, Dem-no it isn't. Bush 2 vs. McCain and later Kerry: Dem-Bush's lack of military service is a problem, GOP-no it isn't. The business of politics is just so wrong, so often. I can't believe some of the crap is slung without blushing. Exactly.

Ben was a smart man. I'm sure he's rolling in his grave. :rolly Again, for those who are so quick to say "he broke the law", etc. That's not been proven, nor do we know all the facts. You can take pieces of this and come to the wrong conclusions. I said this about 25 pages ago in this thread (I think, and I'm too lazy to re-read the whole thing) that on the surface, this is a potentially horrible program, but until we KNOW what really happened, I'll reserve judgement. Most people on here have totally made up their mind, and that's pretty obvious.

QUOTE(mwolfson @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 12:26 AM) Aaron will be there... Everyone will be there. It's a tradition and as much as I don't agree poltically with President Bush its something everyone on the White Sox will attend. Except maybe Ozzie because of his relationship with Hugo Chavez, one of Bush's harshest critics (for good reason in my opinion). The off-season is way too long. I want the season to start already I'm not meaning to pick on this poster in particular, but please refrain from stating your policital opinions in this thread. You WILL be suspended, no questions asked. This is your only warning. We have a whole forum for this stuff, go state your opinions there, and let's leave this thread in good taste, no matter what your thoughts are on 'political debate'. I, and some others, would really appreciate that. Everyone involved will be classy, and we should do the same.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 03:22 AM) I agree with you, but you aren't usually the hard core "all media can't be trusted because they are biased". If someone wants to build a case that some of the articles, op-ed pieces, etc are poorly written, I'd agree in a heartbeat. If you want to blame it on bias and not just not being good writers, then I will disagree on some of them. If it is critical of the President, it is biased by the definition I keep hearing around here. The first reaction is the biased media is making a big deal out of nothing, then they point to something Clinton did and it goes on and on and on . . . That's what I object to the most. The reason for that is, if Bush does something, it's usually evil and has 'power trip and ego' written all over it. Clinton could do the same thing, and it was 'presidential perogative'. It shouldn't be that way.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 04:13 AM) Oh, no no no -- just a suggestion. What's one possibility? I can think of a couple. Time was of the essence, and there are also some things that they might not have wanted to get out AT ALL. Even the FISA judges have talked to the media, as was proven when the story broke.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 02:23 AM) You will never be able to read a single article and not find it positive or negative to someone. With a two party system, any positive article to one party is a negative to the other party. That is simply not true. There's plenty of articles and op-ed pieces that are written that are critical of the president that are right on the money and tactfully done. Mostly, it's because they stick to issues instead of launching into "this president did this and this and this and this wrong and screw him"...

QUOTE(Mplssoxfan @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 11:05 PM) I must admit, it is very convenient to be able to define the very group you are bashing. If I were to define "mainstream media", I would certainly include CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, The New York Times and The Washington Post (among other "liberal" sources) in the list. I would also include Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times and Rush Limbaugh (among other "conservative" sources). I think you have to include Rush because of his vast listener base. Perhaps I'm wrong there. Wouldn't be the first time. Or is "mainstream" just some kind of code for "liberal"? IMO, it's my opinion that you cannot simply equate the two. Having said that, the tendencies are certainly there of the media streams you speak of.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 11:10 PM) I don't think that's the truth of the matter at all, but back to the main issue -- what is one good reason for the WH to need to ignore FISA? We don't know the answer to that, but there has to be one. You just don't do this "just because".

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 10:45 PM) No, elections just aren't that simple. The Dems haven't done a very good job picking candidates, that's for damn sure. A very interesting argument -- If the Dems had any positions, they would be elected. Since they weren't elected, they must not have any positions. Therefore as long as they aren't in power they should just shut up and accept that they don't believe anything, since any statements are merely criticisms of Bush. I wouldn't argue that the GOP is doing much resonating itself now, given the approval numbers. The truth of the matter is that NEITHER party has it right, but the Republican message resonates more with people (not by much, mind you) when that lever is pulled in the voting booth. And truthfully, the Dems have not had a message since they got 'side-swiped' in the 2000 election. They've pretty much been bitter ever since. I wish that something from their party would rise up so that there could be better debate of the issues. This is absolutely CLEARLY why I wish we had an alternative, something that the middle folks could relate to. Both parties are hijacked by their fringes, because that's where most of the money comes from. And it's SICK.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 10:17 PM) I don't think the media is liberal. I don't think the media is conservative. I think the media is opportunistic and lazy. Period. Now that's 100% true. Re: Monica. It was the sex. Otherwise, that story had no legs. Pun not intended.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 10:13 PM) That, plus the fact that they don't have the slimmest chance in hell of being passed by a Republican Congress and Republican President. Why would the news report on that? But go to almost any Dem congressperson's page, and you'll find some number of bills sponsored, though usually defeated. And in so far as civility is concerned, the GOP should be LAST to b****. Look at how Murtha was treated when he suggested that the troops should come home. (For the record, I disagree with Murtha, and I thought he sounded terrible, but that's neither here nor there.) The WH loves to shut down all discussion by calling its opponents terrorists and cowards, and then claim that the lack of discussion is the fault of Democrats. That's total BS. If the message resonated with the American people, come election time every two years, the Republicans would get shoved out faster then you can say "Bush sucks."

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 06:39 PM) f*** no. I've taken part in this discussion, and I've been critical of Bush, and I think Flaxx's argument was pretty damn straightforward. So I can only conclude I'm included in your blanket statement. Question the President -- 'Why do you hate George?' Question the war -- 'Why do you want to help the terrorists?' Question tax cuts -- 'Why do you want class warfare?' Oppose id -- 'Why do you hate God?' I'm tired of the bs strawmen set up by the right instead of addressing the ACTUAL f***ING ISSUES. So, we're ruling by 'playing on your fears' (thanks Algore)? Question the President. Ok. Fiscal policy sucks. Plays games with the budgeting process. Immagration and border problems are being ignored. It will bite us in the rear end. Question the war. Well, I can't argue this one, because I think we have to support what we started. I also think the policy is bigger then 'Iraq'. But as long as we focus on 'no WMDs' we've lost sight of the bigger picture. Question tax cuts. So, let's just tax the crap out of everything, have no free enterprise, and give everything we have to our government. I love socialism. I'm not sure on your 'oppose id' what you're getting at. I think our president is EXTREMELY misguided on the 'gay marriage amendment'. The government needs to stay out of our personal lives. He can be morally opposed to it, but not for an amendment to our constituion. It's not the issues and the different spectrums I have an issue with. I have an issue with the constant whining, b****ing, pissing, and moaning about how the country is ran, and yet, there is nothing out there in terms of new ideas to make anything change. If you're a Dem, stand up and say, we need to raise taxes in order to do x,y, and z. Stand up and say that you're not for military action and use 'diplomacy' with the 'terrorists'. Stand up and say that you're for government control of our healthcare system to ensure a 'level playing field'. CONVINCE America that these are the RIGHT THINGS TO DO, and all of a sudden, if they are wht America wants, you'll get elected and can run things how you all see fit again. But I don't see any Dem standing up and saying these things, because they can't get elected on these issues. So, it's 'anything but Bush'.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 07:17 PM) They claim that they were entitled to bypass the courts by the "necessary and appropriate force" language of the 2001 resolution. But they haven't made it clear why their actions were "necessary", since they had recourse to the secret FISA courts anyway. That's what demands explanation. Now that much I can agree with... and I think that there has to be some explanation of that.

YASNY went down the direction I was thinking, sort of. I don't know all the answers. But if this really were as gross of a violation of the law as has been interpreted, Bush would already be impeached. That's the disconnect that I can't see. Congress WAS briefed about the program, contrary to early reports. No one raised a big stink about it until the NYSlimes went public with the story. Furthermore, after people (ie FISA court) are briefed, all of a sudden, we don't hear from these people anymore about how wrong it is. Maybe it's because they were told to shut up until the facts are out, I don't know. The whole point behind my entire argument here is all these 'suppositions' about how it all stinks might not be all they are cracked up to be. There's probably more to this story then we know.