Register :: Log in :: Profile :: Mail   
Government now can open our mail

Home // Government Watch



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Author Message
TrespassersW
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 988
Location: North Carolina, USA

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
My point is that there's no sense in attacking EITHER. If that's what motivates you, I'm not interested.
Back to top
Toxic
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1514

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
There's no sense in it to you because you don't have a problem with it. I think it's despicable and because I have an opinion and am able to voice it I do so.
Back to top
TrespassersW
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 988
Location: North Carolina, USA

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Toxic wrote:
There's no sense in it to you because you don't have a problem with it. I think it's despicable and because I have an opinion and am able to voice it I do so.

So far the only thing I have a problem with is your seeming lack of real knowledge about this issue, and your desire to sideline the discussion with straw man arguments.

The issue (as I see it) is whether this signing statement by Bush is based on real law or an attempt to do an end around the law. My admittedly limited knowledge of the issue suggests that--whether good or bad--it appears that Bush has a good faith belief that the legal authority for these searches exists; that belief being based on standing legal precedent from the Clinton years (and perhaps earlier).

I completely understand not liking the idea of warrantless searches, but to complain about Bush writing this signing statement misses the point and really just shows how little the person complaining about it knows about this issue.
Back to top
Toxic
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1514

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
I completely understand not liking the idea of warrantless searches, but to complain about Bush writing this signing statement misses the point and really just shows how little the person complaining about it knows about this issue.


You accuse me of not understanding the issue (though you admit you don't understand it either) and also accuse me of straw man arguments, which I haven't actually created. I'm pissed about the issue at hand and have pointed it out and voiced that fact. I demand responsibility from the people responsible. What are you expecting me to say or argue, exactly?
Back to top
TrespassersW
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 988
Location: North Carolina, USA

PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Toxic wrote:
Quote:
I completely understand not liking the idea of warrantless searches, but to complain about Bush writing this signing statement misses the point and really just shows how little the person complaining about it knows about this issue.

You accuse me of not understanding the issue (though you admit you don't understand it either) and also accuse me of straw man arguments, which I haven't actually created. I'm pissed about the issue at hand and have pointed it out and voiced that fact. I demand responsibility from the people responsible. What are you expecting me to say or argue, exactly?

You're perfectly welcome to be pissed about the issue, it's just that your anger might be more meaningful to me if it were based on facts, not just your belief that this is Bush being bad. This signing statement appears to be a case of Bush acting in his capacity as chief executive and defending existing executive power against erosion by loosely worded legislation. The separation of powers only work when each branch defends its powers against encroachment by the other branches. The law being signed might have been construed to overturn this specific power of the executive branch, and it seems reasonable for Bush to state that the executive branch retains that power after this law goes into effect.

That you may not like that power really has nothing to do with this signing; the signing didn't create the power, neither did Bush. It appears that you did not know that, and now you do. So if you really want to know what I'm expecting you to say or argue, I'm expecting you to complain that warrantless searches are a bad idea, to explain why you think they are bad, to suggest what you think should happen to change that... anything but the same old tired, "Bush sucks... look what he did now!"

On the upside, if the court's decision to uphold this executive power was flawed when decided under Clinton, Bush's signing statement might draw enough attention to it to get a court to take another look and perhaps rule differently; after all, it's the courts that provide the checks and balances on the executive branch, not the legislature.
Back to top
Toxic
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1514

PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Where did I ever play the "Bush is bad" game? I just called you on trying to shift blame to an entity which didn't begin and isn't continuing this mess.

Do you have any idea what you're actually arguing with me over?
Back to top
TrespassersW
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 988
Location: North Carolina, USA

PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 7:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Toxic wrote:
Where did I ever play the "Bush is bad" game?

You played it from the start and still are.

Toxic wrote:
I just called you on trying to shift blame to an entity which didn't begin and isn't continuing this mess.

I shifted nothing; I corrected your misstatements, noted facts, and supported them with citations... all of which you don't seem willing to simply acknowledge. I blamed no one; that's your game.

Toxic wrote:
Do you have any idea what you're actually arguing with me over?

At the moment it seems to be your unwillingness to acknowledge facts when someone shows them to you, but I have a quick remedy for that. Cool
Back to top
Toxic
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1514

PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 8:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
You played it from the start and still are.


No, because when you say the "Bush is bad game", you are talking about the little political game where hard-core liberals in the public spotlight blame Bush for everything without reason. I've stated specifically why I dislike him in this situation and, when you mentioned that Clinton also did it, I mentioned that he fits into the "dislike" category as well.

I'm voicing an opinion, not trying to prove something. That's where you're confused on this. They're assholes for doing it and that's my opinion. Deal with it.

Quote:
At the moment it seems to be your unwillingness to acknowledge facts when someone shows them to you, but I have a quick remedy for that.


Are we reading the same topic? You haven't provided any "facts" about anything other than to say that it wasn't Bush's signing statement which carried this out, which I never argued, and that Clinton also did it, which I've accepted and mentioned. Other than that, every argument you've made on the subject of wiretapping involves all sorts of "if"s, which I don't take to be much of an argument at all. So if you want to barrage me with attacks for not providing any arguments, perhaps you should start yourself?
Back to top
Lester
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650

PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 1:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The point is that laws should be written so that there is no way someones rights can be subverted, this law doesn't do that.
Back to top
Turk
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 3310

PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 1:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lester wrote:
The point is that laws should be written so that there is no way someones rights can be subverted, this law doesn't do that.

Well people can use the law to subvert the law that has been happening for quite some time now
Back to top
TrespassersW
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 988
Location: North Carolina, USA

PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 5:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lester wrote:
The point is that laws should be written so that there is no way someones rights can be subverted, this law doesn't do that.

I thought the point was that the legislature cannot simply take power from the executive branch by writing laws prohibiting that which the executive has legitimate Constitutional power to do.
Back to top
Turk
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 3310

PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 10:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
TrespassersW wrote:
Lester wrote:
The point is that laws should be written so that there is no way someones rights can be subverted, this law doesn't do that.

I thought the point was that the legislature cannot simply take power from the executive branch by writing laws prohibiting that which the executive has legitimate Constitutional power to do.
And its not the executives job to make laws
or executive privilages, or signing statements to interpret the law as he wants it to be
Back to top
Lester
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 4:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
TrespassersW wrote:
Lester wrote:
The point is that laws should be written so that there is no way someones rights can be subverted, this law doesn't do that.

I thought the point was that the legislature cannot simply take power from the executive branch by writing laws prohibiting that which the executive has legitimate Constitutional power to do.


It's not taking power, this is adding power?
Back to top
TrespassersW
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 988
Location: North Carolina, USA

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Turk wrote:
TrespassersW wrote:
Lester wrote:
The point is that laws should be written so that there is no way someones rights can be subverted, this law doesn't do that.

I thought the point was that the legislature cannot simply take power from the executive branch by writing laws prohibiting that which the executive has legitimate Constitutional power to do.
And its not the executives job to make laws
or executive privilages, or signing statements to interpret the law as he wants it to be

You really seem incapable of understanding what others write here. Bush made no law, nor did he create any authority here, nor did he negate any act of the legislature. What he did was to point out that the law he was signing did not--because Constitutionally it can't--take from the executive branch powers the courts have upheld that branch as having.
Back to top


Post new topic   Reply to topic   Quick Reply    LVC Home // Government Watch All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4

 

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

Add to My Yahoo! Add to Google

Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites Politics Blogs Politics
Politics blogs Politics blogs Article Directory Political Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory Top Blog Sites