kapkomet

QUOTE(Balance @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 10:42 PM) SouthSide- See Post 157. And the thing is, you really believe this "Nazi" s***, don't you? Just like you believe Ann Coulter was serious with her comments. It's ABSOLUTELY why this country can never find a common ground, and it's beyond f***ed up.

QUOTE(Balance @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 10:22 PM) And if it's illegal, don't we have to at least consider impeachment? After all, if what Dubya did was illegal, it would seem that it violated his oath to uphold the Constitution, right? Or that it's a "high crime [or] misdemeanor?" ABSOLUTELY! HANG HIS ASS! TREASONOUS BASTARD! If he thought this were illegal, they would be hiding larger then life. That tells me, somewhere along the line, they're 100% sure it's not.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 09:47 PM) Let's ask a different question...what was the variety of shoes commonly thrown at Mr. Bush's opponent during the 2004 election? Since you're one for "details" - the threat of the veto was on a 3 month extension. This one is six. So, no veto necessary. And yes, this answer is as lame as some of yours.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 09:27 PM) Wow....just....wow. Yea, because he was told that they would kill it. What would you do?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 09:40 PM) The Iraqi judge in the Saddam case says there is "no evidence" to support these allegations. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4551656.stm He's lying. We torture everyone in our captivity.

QUOTE(Mercy! @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 08:17 PM) Well, just don't tell Tex. Then I'd have to start sending the photos to you instead of to him. You could send them to both of us... (and forget to send them to Tex, mysteriously...)

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 08:12 PM) Yes, but you're totally ignoring the single most relevant point...the law of the United States has changed since this happened. At the time, there was no statute covering teh exact behavior Clinton did. There is now. There is also a statute that covers GWB's exact behavior. Bill Clinton did that search when there was no statute, and he later signed into law a bill which made that exact act illegal. George W. Bush's act was in direct defiance of an extant statute. Bill Clinton's act was not covered by any statute at the time. It is now. Right now, it would be just as illegal for Clinton to order that search as Bush's executive orders were. Well, therein lies the problem, because the legal teams for Bush, including the AG, thinks that there is legal justification. And Bush came right out and said, "yep, we've done this"... if he didn't think they could, they would have lied their asses off to cover it up, or said "no comment"... neither of which happened. The bottom line is was it illegal? No one here can answer that. And the sooner this gets vetted, the sooner we can correct the actions, one way or the other.

QUOTE(Mercy! @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 07:58 PM) YEAH BABY! My, my... what's this world coming to?

QUOTE(Balance @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 07:56 PM) Be honest- did you support the calls for Clinton's impeachment? I did, actually, but NOT on the charges he was brought up on. I think he did far more serious things in office, but the one that stuck was lying about the "devil with the blue dress on..." which was VERY unfortunate. (nice song tie in...)

QUOTE(Mercy! @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 07:54 PM) Assuming you believe in democracy, he deserves to be tried first and administered just punishment afterward. Somewhere in the world, there are people who think you should be beheaded simply because of who and what your are (or aren't). That's why we're better. Holy s***... the world is coming to an end, apparantly. That's two posts in a row I agree with Mercy. /faints

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 07:43 PM) Not in the least. Gorelick's testimony covered only those searches which were not dealt with under the original FISA. Go read the Testimony...there's links at the page there. The searches she was discussing were done before the law was changed. OF COURSE this is different. Bulls***. The intent is the exact same damn thing. And if one is illegal, the other one is as well. Clinton used this WITHOUT A WARRANT to get this man. Period. He did it by his "inherent powers granted by the Constitution". How can this ignore FISA? Because it wasn't relevant in this case. But the intent is the same. Gain evidence without a warrant on a subject (a US Citizen!) that is aiding an enemy of the United States.

QUOTE(Mercy! @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 07:40 PM) I think that times may have changed, and no one bothered to do the legal/legislative work required to bring our laws into the reality of the feds needing to domestically utilize x terabytes of data per second coming down off our spy satellites versus some guy putting a couple of alligator clips on a line down at the central office. However, it’s been over 4 years since Bush claims our world changed such that he could pick and choose which laws he obeyed and which he didn’t. He has NO excuse for not coming to Congress over this. No one would have batted an eye if he had done what he’s done and then requested modifications to applicable laws. It is not giving aid and comfort to the enemy to have a national dialogue on the generalities of this subject. Bush has totally blown it. And he is continuing to misread the country's mood on this. Get ready... I pretty much agree with this. This is not an easy issue. But my points are that the law allows certain things to take place, and all presidents bend it to fit the needs of the day. This case is no different. Whether Clinton, Carter, Bush I, or Bush II has done it, I don't like it. Let's find out what the right way to do this is, and get it done. I do, however, think the bashing of Bush for taking something out of the law that he really believes is the right thing to do, and admitting it, with that as a pretext, the "IMPEACH HIM" cries need to go the hell away.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 07:22 PM) Everything stated there is correct, the President has the right to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. FISA specifies this. However, the key detail that they so conveniently leave out is that FISA gives the President the right only to do this against Foreign targets. It specifically denies the President the right to do this against U.S. Citizens. There were foreign operatives on the other end of the intercepts. Not one of these, at least my understanding, was 100% domestic. And what about the lack of warrants against a US citizen? Oh, those don't matter, because there was "justification" for Clinton's AG to do it. It's the same damn thing.

I see you're posting already Balta, (no surprise), before I get the "the law was changed arguement"... really it wasn't when dealing with foreign enemies of state. Period.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20...22610-7772r.htm Where's all the impeachment talk about Carter and Clinton for doing the EXACT same thing? I know, I know... it's BUSH... it HAS to be different and evil.

What's messed up about this whole thing for all you Bush haters out there re: the Patriot Act. The law originated after the Oklahoma City bombing and was originally signed into law by one President Clinton. So, it was ok then, but now that EVILLLLLLLLLL George W. Bush is in the White House, he's pissing all over the constituion. Furthermore, how often is this even used? Not very often. In fact, almost zero - but it's there in case it's needed, or to scream bloody f***ing murder that our president is nothing but a power grabbing douchebag.

People, give it a rest and have a little class. Wait for the results before bashing the family, mmmmkay?

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 05:06 PM) Wow. Now we are paying British newspapers to print positive stories? Let me correct that for you. Wow. Now we are paying American newspapers to print negative stories?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 05:05 PM) I had this post 95% complete last night...and my damn computer crashed! Arrghhhhh! Here we go again. ... Drilling in ANWR has become almost a self-fulfilling prophecy. The Republicans at this point seem like they want to drill there almost solely because they don't want to let the environmentalists win, and the environmentalists don't want drilling up there because they don't want to let the Republicans win. The people hear this, aren't told anything about the actual conditions, and you wind up with 1/2 of the population thinking that those oil fields will mean that we can put Saudi Arabia totally out of business, and you wind up with the other half of the population thinking that ANWR is the most beautiful place on Earth. Neither is true. Good post.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 05:03 PM) Global Warming is a Myth. Oh yeah, and We Don't Torture. Now Get Back in Line. Or, WE TORTURE, STFU AND GET BACK IN LINE NOW BEFORE I SHOVE THIS CARBON DIOXIDE DOWN YOUR THROAT!!!

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 04:51 PM) Or we could just look at what happened to the airlines, automakers, and steel industry in the US as to what happens when you can't control your costs. I am sure the people of places like Gary would tell you that less benefits or lower pay is better than a bankruptcy filing and no jobs at all. Actually, I bet they wouldn't. They live and die (foolishly I might add) by their union. When I worked for the airline, we had a lot of old Eastern Airlines pilots working for us. They were PROUD that the brotherhood took down Eastern. They GLOATED about it. That mentality just amazes me.

Blasphemy. They HATE us.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 03:47 PM) This is one thing that bugs me. The ultimate motivation of America is self determination. People are supposed to be able to get as much of what they want, or as little of what they want to the best of their ability. Corporate America was never intended to be any different than anything else. Corporate America AND the federal government where never intended to be our babysitters. Corporations do give back to their employees, its called a paycheck. The great majority of them go way beyond that and give their employees benefits. Last I read the average price of the benefits ends up costing the company about another yearly salary of that particular employee. This was never intended to be a socialist society where you work the same government job until your retirement age, and then you live off of a fat government pension. Basically everyone has the choices that they can make to improve their lifestyle. They can move, they can go back to school, they can stay in school, they can train for a higher position, they can not have as many kids etc. They don't have to work for Wal-Mart or anywhere else, nor do they have to shop there. *GASP* PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!!!!!!! What the eff is *THAT*? Where's MY HANDOUT?!?!?!?

I watched most of the third period. Undisciplined. Terrible. This is on the coach. I said this two months ago when they played Nashville the first time, and nothing's changed in two months. All of the information I had said that Trent Yawney was a good hockey mind, and a good coach. There's NOTHING that has indicated to me that this guy is worth a damn. They have a lot more talent then the level of play that they are currently at, even taking into account the injuries.

You know, it's funny when you start talking about charitable causes. I know that the Wal Mart in my local community has given 10's of thousands of dollars for many local causes. The stores are incentivized to do so.