Indefinite Dictatorial Power

Your source starts with this sentence:

"This past Thursday, the New York Times exposed the most significant violation of federal surveillance law in the post-Watergate era."

Setting up his column with a lie doesn't lend credence to the rest of his opinion.

 

They are not illegal acts...at least it has not been proven to be illegal yet.

Joseph Botwinick

 

No court has ever ruled that FISA strips the President of his constitutional or statutory powers.

Until they do, no one can establish that his actions are illegal.

BTW There is a statutory exception to FISA. Maybe we should get familiar with it.

 

Why would they want to do that?

 

BULL!

 

I am curious and have two honest questions to the usual cast of characters who support the Administration on every issue every time:

What would it take for you to criticize this President? What transgression would cross the line, in your minds?

Those are two honest questions. If you feel compelled to give a caustic answer of offer contumely, please feel free to ignore these questions.

Regards,
BiR

 

I would say that if the Bush-Haters, and there are many of them here, stopped pointing to every statement or event as evidence that Bush is either (choose one):
A Nazi
The Anti-Christ
A Fake Christian
A Liar
A Dictator
A Fascist

then we who support him would not feel compelled to circle the wagons, and could honestly debate President Bush's policies and actions. I don't expect to see that anytime soon.

 

A better question might be: When will Bush Haters stop posting the lies of the leftist democrats on this Forum?

 

This is just another example of the democrats tossing another accusation against the wall, hoping it'll stick. The Pres. is/was completely in the clear legally and they all know it. It is just business as usual.

 

And I see nothing in the federal constitution that makes the president into a king or a dictator.

</font>[/QUOTE]You're over reaching, Ken.

A king would not have informed Congress and the head if the FISA court at all. A king would not have consulted attorneys to get an opinion on the legality of his actions.

 

Excellent post.

 

NiteShift forgot
</font>

• A Moron</font>
• A Puppet</font>
• An Incompetent Thief</font>
• A Kitten-Eater & Puppy-Stomper</font>

but perhaps it's not the Bush-haters who imply that, merely the Bush-despisers.

When has anyone called Bush a Nazi? It's not A Dictator, but A Wannabe Dictator (he said his job would be easier then).

 

I don't think the man is a moron and puppet somehow doesn't fit either, a puppet is unable to give concent to being manipulated by the puppeteer. It's pretty apparent he is able to give his concent.

Bush isn't a nazi. Fascist?

SOURCE

What was the question again?

 

Well stated, but as you can tell from this board, they aren't interested in facts, just demonization.

See what I mean?

 

No, but I see that you can't tell humorous exaggeration when you read it.

Facts would be very nice if you would only use them instead of demonizing those who disagree with you. BIR ( ) asked politely and, I believe, seriously what if anything would the president have to do to lose your support. Most the replies were nothing but demonizing the Democrats, no facts at all, just silly assertions.

 

Excellent post.


Thank you Bro Curtis. We all disagree with at least some of Pres Bush's policies or statements. But when the opposition gets so outrageous, well just gotta defend the old boy.