Indefinite Dictatorial Power

[Bunyon]

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

If Bush had sex with a 19 yo in our oval office and played dirty games with a cigar. If he lied about it refering to "that woman" and if he went so far as to put the vice president and the Sec. of State on the camera to lie to the whole nation, I would hound him out of office. You can take that to the bank.

 

[NiteShift]

Originally posted by Daisy:
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

Oh yes, I did forget to include those.

Actually there are Bush/Nazi accusations all over the net. And every anti-war/anti-Bush demonstration includes at least one giant poster of Bush with a Hitler mustache.

I'm not really up on the distinction between 'haters' and 'despisers' though I'm sure there must be some difference. It all looks the same though.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Daisy:
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).

President Bush has been called about everything, some unprintable. I do recall that Turbin Durbin, Senator from Illinois, called the American soldiers in Iraq Nazi/Storm Troopers and Swift Boat Kerry-Heinz, junior Senator from Mass. with presidental aspirations, called the American troops in Iraq terrorists. But what can one expect from a democrat?

 

[OldRegular]

Communism, Nazism, and Facism are all totalitarian so what is the difference?

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by NiteShift:
Actually there are Bush/Nazi accusations all over the net.

Oh ok, I thought you meant here specifically.

And every anti-war/anti-Bush demonstration includes at least one giant poster of Bush with a Hitler mustache.

I haven't paid much attention to those - next time I hear of one, I'll look.

I'm not really up on the distinction between 'haters' and 'despisers' though I'm sure there must be some difference. It all looks the same though.

Offhand I think the haters think Bush knows what he is doing, including the consequences, the despisers are convinced that he does not.

What's really sad is how much even Republicans are turning against him. I work in a room full of Republicans, yet the other day I was left to defend him against their unfair attacks. Is the worm turning?

 

[The Galatian]

Maybe a Democrat-controlled Congress come 2007 will put a constitutional leash on the power of the executive branch.

Did tossing out the democrats do it? We need to have a citizen-controlled Congress. To do that, we need to stop voting for the incumbent just because he is the incumbent.

 

[fromtheright]

A couple of words of defense here:

1. First of all, I disagree with Ken and others on this one but I would add, as he has stated better than I, he is not a Bush hater. In fact, I think he has defended Bush more often than not. We who both defend Bush on this issue and who treasure the Constitution, to be honest, must at least concede this is a valid concern. FISA and the PATRIOT Act were set up with safeguards and the President apparently (I say apparently because I'm not well read on this current debate) has violated those safeguards. I would also recommend that Ken and others (I include myself) would do well to read the Yoo memo cited in article. It can be found in pdf format at THIS LINK. . I am currently reading Yoo's The Powers of War and Peace (shown HERE at Amazon) in which he makes what I believe is a strong historical and Constitutional case for broader Presidential powers.

2. I think it wise to not automatically lump him and others such as BiR and Daisy into a category of Bush haters. They are both decidedly liberal but I think that their posts show them to be very reasonable, and willing to fairly debate, on this and any issue.

 

[Bunyon]

"What's really sad is how much even Republicans are turning against him. I work in a room full of Republicans, yet the other day I was left to defend him against their unfair attacks. Is the worm turning?"---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is because every one is afraid that the call to their mistress was recorded or the visit to the internet porno web site will be discovered. We are an amoral lot, so we have elevated "privacy" to divine status.

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by fromtheright:
2. I think it wise to not automatically lump him and others such as BiR and Daisy into a category of Bush haters.

I demand a retraction! I think I've made it clear that I'm a Bush-despiser, not a Bush-hater.

They are both decidedly liberal but I think that their posts show them to be very reasonable, and willing to fairly debate, on this and any issue.

Wotta cheap trick, using civility on us!

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by fromtheright:
as he has stated better than I, he is not a Bush hater.

Thank you, ftr. A problem we have on this board it that instead of sticking to debating the subject matter we end up debating about the posters.

 

[Bunyon]

"Wotta cheap trick, using civility on us!"-------------------------------------------------------

I vote for Daisy for favorite Baptist Board liberal! Or "most likely to become a conservative". Or prom queen. I just like Daisy, well 99 percent of the time anyhow.

 

[fromtheright]

Amen, Ken. There are a couple of posters at BB who are certainly debatable but it is definitely better to debate the topic at hand. BB is a discussion board, not an attack board.

 

[WHYME]

I must confess that I have nearly given up watching Rush in favor of reading the BB, It is much more entertaining when it comes to "Attack The Messenger Rather Then The Message"

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by fromtheright:
A couple of words of defense here:

1. First of all, I disagree with Ken and others on this one but I would add, as he has stated better than I, he is not a Bush hater. In fact, I think he has defended Bush more often than not. We who both defend Bush on this issue and who treasure the Constitution, to be honest, must at least concede this is a valid concern. FISA and the PATRIOT Act were set up with safeguards and the President apparently (I say apparently because I'm not well read on this current debate) has violated those safeguards. I would also recommend that Ken and others (I include myself) would do well to read the Yoo memo cited in article. It can be found in pdf format at THIS LINK. . I am currently reading Yoo's The Powers of War and Peace (shown HERE at Amazon) in which he makes what I believe is a strong historical and Constitutional case for broader Presidential powers.

2. I think it wise to not automatically lump him and others such as BiR and Daisy into a category of Bush haters. They are both decidedly liberal but I think that their posts show them to be very reasonable, and willing to fairly debate, on this and any issue.

Repeating a post on another related thread:

The New York Times, which first disclosed the existence of the NSA program last week, also cited unnamed sources who said the administration used two other opinions to justify its actions. One was embedded in a public Justice Department brief from 2002 and another was in a 2002 opinion issued by the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review that oversees the secretive court that usually deals with terror-related wiretap requests.

In 2002, that FISA review court upheld the president's warrantless search powers, referencing a 1980 Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision. That court held that "the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the president’s constitutional power," wrote the court.

"The Foreign Intelligence Court of Review, which is the highest court that's looked at these questions, has said that the president has the inherent constitutional authority to use electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence and Congress cannot take away that constitutional authority. That's a pretty good argument," Bryan Cunningham, former National Security Council legal adviser, told FOX News.

More at:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179323,00.html

 

[Bunyon]

Case closed!

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by OldRegular:
has said that the president has the inherent constitutional authority to use electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence

The debate is not over the surveillance of foreigners. That is clearly allowed. The debate is over the surveillance of U.S. citizens without a warrant - either beforehand or afterward.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by KenH:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by OldRegular:
has said that the president has the inherent constitutional authority to use electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence

The debate is not over the surveillance of foreigners. That is clearly allowed. The debate is over the surveillance of U.S. citizens without a warrant - either beforehand or afterward. </font>[/QUOTE]The surveillance was of conversations between foreign terrorists and so-called U. S. Citizens.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

OR,

The first post on this page pretty much sums up the attitude of the anti-Bush crowd on this issue. They don't care about the next terrorist attack as much as they do about protecting the privacy rights of terrorists and those who consult with them. They don't care, that is, until the next attack happens and they can use it as a political issue to say that Bush didn't do all he could to stop it like they did on 9-11. This is why these people should be ignored on this issue until we see some real proof that the president did anything wrong besides pure speculation from unidentified sources through the liberal, anti-Bush New York Times. They are playing politics with our national security.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
OR,

The first post on this page pretty much sums up the attitude of the anti-Bush crowd on this issue. They don't care about the next terrorist attack as much as they do about protecting the privacy rights of terrorists and those who consult with them. They don't care, that is, until the next attack happens and they can use it as a political issue to say that Bush didn't do all he could to stop it like they did on 9-11. This is why these people should be ignored on this issue until we see some real proof that the president did anything wrong besides pure speculation from unidentified sources through the liberal, anti-Bush New York Times. They are playing politics with our national security.

Joseph Botwinick

I whole heartedly agree.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by NiteShift:
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.

Two points worth noting:
1. I asked an honest question, and did not make any observation that you mention above.
2. You didn't answer my question, despite the fact that I did not make any observation that you mention above.

Regards anyway - hope you had a Merry Christmas,
BiR