Those who continue to whine that their rights are being eroded have never supplied any evidence. Also be sure and show where this administration authorized torture.
When you pony up that information, we can look at this subject again, but until then… It sounds like so much of the ignorant chit chat that has bedeviled limited minds first with the “stolen” Florida election and all the whispering about rigged voting machines in Ohio. Conspiracy theories like these only underline, underscore and reveal in staggering clarity the comprehensive intellectual feebleness of those who engage in them.
Sign me underwhelmed with the staggering loss of rights that I have personally experienced or have seen occur.
[quote=“fred smith”]Those who continue to whine that their rights are being eroded have never supplied any evidence. Also be sure and show where this administration authorized torture.
When you pony up that information, we can look at this subject again, but until then… It sounds like so much of the ignorant chit chat that has bedeviled limited minds first with the “stolen” Florida election and all the whispering about rigged voting machines in Ohio. Conspiracy theories like these only underline, underscore and reveal in staggering clarity the comprehensive intellectual feebleness of those who engage in them.
Sign me underwhelmed with the staggering loss of rights that I have personally experienced or have seen occur.[/quote]
In terms of torture I seem to remember a dispute over the interpretation the White House was taking with the military lawyers - This is before getting into whether this is smart from a tactical or strategis sense.
Rigged voting machines is BS. But…I do not like how this administration has strengthened the executive branch through liberal use of signing statements. Rather than veto laws passed by Congress, Bush is using his signing statements to effectively nullify them as they relate to the executive branch…what is the count so far? Is it 5 or 6 hundred by now?
Yes, there was a discussion of “terms” most of which would have involved practices that are standard interrogation methods used by most intelligence and police forces. The only really legitimate issue was the one involving use of waterboarding and this was used only on selected individuals in a very few cases. It fell through the cracks but when this was determined to be unacceptable, the US administration ceased using it and even banned it as an acceptable practice. I challenge anyone however to find where the US government had officially condoned the use of torture. THAT debate was far more advanced in Germany. Most Germans, however, are blissfully unaware. Convenient that.
I am not sure what you are talking about. Liberal use of “signing statements.” Okay. Whatever. But all apparently very very very legal, eh? So what are we discussing again?
But I know what I learned from watching CNN. And CNN is a show on TV! Don’t try to ignore the fact that millions of people watch TV everyday.[/quote] :bravo:
I like the way you think Groo! Hope that you will be posting a lot more here on the IP forum. The earnest lefties provide an endless stream of invective that is so easy to lampoon. I hope that you don’t mind shooting ducks in a barrel, though. These voices of concern are not after all the leading bright lights in any respect. Facts are a difficult digest for most of them.
So that “concern” was manifested how? And are the courts completely empty regarding discussion of legal and constitutional matters? Or were they until Bush came into office? Is there not a valid right or interest in discussing the exact parameters of what interrogation methods should be allowed? And where does it say that the US President is first and foremost obligated to protect the citizens of other nations especially those of enemy nations during war? Or don’t you think that we are at war? Please do share.
But then you must ask yourself, “Who gives a rat ass?” The US troups might as welll rape and pillage while they’re at it. And Bush should join in on the fun and get his picture of holding guns to the head of a US soldier and to the head of an Iraqi civilian with a big smile on his face in the newspaper.
I don’t really think of George W. Bush as a president. I see him more as the leader of a coup d’etat. I mean, how can someone who obviously regards democratic elections and the other two branches of governments as mere ‘old America’ distractions be regarded as a ‘president’ in the true traditional sense?
Legislative branch pass a new law that doesn’t quite sit right? Why, a quick “signing statement” or two will dispose of that problem. The Supreme Court throw up a roadblock unexpectedly? Why, we’ll think about whether we’re going to care or not. After all, we’re on a divine strake that gives us carte blanche to do just about whatever we think is right and the rest of you can go blow for all we really care.
If that’s not a de facto coup d’etat I don’t know what is.
So for me the real question is, on a scale of one to ten, how does George Bush rate as the leader of a coup d’etat?
[quote=“spook”]I don’t really think of George W. Bush as a president. I see him more as the leader of a coup d’etat. I mean, how can someone who obviously regards democratic elections and the other two branches of governments as mere ‘old America’ distractions be regarded as a ‘president’ in the true traditional sense?
Legislative branch pass a new law that doesn’t quite sit right? Why, a quick “signing statement” or two will dispose of that problem. The Supreme Court throw up a roadblock unexpectedly? Why, we’ll think about whether we’re going to care or not. After all, we’re on a divine strake that gives us carte blanche to do just about whatever we think is right and the rest of you can go blow for all we really care.
If that’s not a de facto coup d’etat I don’t know what is.
So for me the real question is, on a scale of one to ten, how does George Bush rate as the leader of a coup d’etat?[/quote]
[quote=“spook”]I don’t really think of George W. Bush as a president. I see him more as the leader of a coup d’etat. I mean, how can someone who obviously regards democratic elections and the other two branches of governments as mere ‘old America’ distractions be regarded as a ‘president’ in the true traditional sense?
Legislative branch pass a new law that doesn’t quite sit right? Why, a quick “signing statement” or two will dispose of that problem. The Supreme Court throw up a roadblock unexpectedly? Why, we’ll think about whether we’re going to care or not. After all, we’re on a divine strake that gives us carte blanche to do just about whatever we think is right and the rest of you can go blow for all we really care.
If that’s not a de facto coup d’etat I don’t know what is.
So for me the real question is, on a scale of one to ten, how does George Bush rate as the leader of a coup d’etat?[/quote]
What color is the sun in your world spook?
Here’s a quarter…start saving for your tuition…maybe there’s hope for you.
Too bad genetic screening wasn’t available to your mom, isn’t it?[/quote]
As insults go, Doctor Evil, those need some work. Maybe you and Tainan Cowboy should put your heads together and see what you can come up with. Kind of like a Coalition of the Farcical. Two suggestions though. Lose the mom thing. You’ve worked that one to death by now. And don’t put TC in charge of the spelling.
Obviously though you don’t think there’s much to my theory that Bush is more a coup leader than a real president. Consider this though. The citizens of the United States threw out everyone even remotely connected with his policies in the recent congressional elections and George Bush and Dick Cheney’s apparent reaction was something along the lines of ‘what does that have to do with us?’
Does this sort of reaction really strike you as old-school presidential in nature or really indicative of an entirely new attitude about the democratic process?
[quote=“TainanCowboy”][quote=“spook”]I don’t really think of George W. Bush as a president. I see him more as the leader of a coup d’etat. I mean, how can someone who obviously regards democratic elections and the other two branches of governments as mere ‘old America’ distractions be regarded as a ‘president’ in the true traditional sense?
Legislative branch pass a new law that doesn’t quite sit right? Why, a quick “signing statement” or two will dispose of that problem. The Supreme Court throw up a roadblock unexpectedly? Why, we’ll think about whether we’re going to care or not. After all, we’re on a divine [color=red]strake[/color] that gives us carte [color=red]blanche[/color] to do just about whatever we think is right and the rest of you can go blow for all we really care.
If that’s not a de facto coup d’etat I don’t know what is.
So for me the real question is, on a scale of one to ten, how does George Bush rate as the leader of a coup d’etat?[/quote]What color is the sun in your world spook?[/quote]
I like the way you think Groo! Hope that you will be posting a lot more here on the IP forum. The earnest lefties provide an endless stream of invective that is so easy to lampoon. I hope that you don’t mind shooting ducks in a barrel, though. These voices of concern are not after all the leading bright lights in any respect. Facts are a difficult digest for most of them.[/quote]
Fred Smith, I was giddy at the chance to leap in and join the groupthink catharsis caused by excessive harmonizing around a hateful delusion. Keep your facts and history and reality to yourself. The completely unbiased question in the title of this topic says it all. And yes it’s true there were no wars before Darth Bushvader (Ha! I just thought of that cool demonizing name) took office and everyone used to love Americans and eat only low-fat ice cream. That was until the day he took office. Don’t try to stop the mob!
[quote=“TainanCowboy”][quote=“TainanCowboy”][quote=“spook”]I don’t really think of George W. Bush as a president. I see him more as the leader of a coup d’etat. I mean, how can someone who obviously regards democratic elections and the other two branches of governments as mere ‘old America’ distractions be regarded as a ‘president’ in the true traditional sense?
Legislative branch pass a new law that doesn’t quite sit right? Why, a quick “signing statement” or two will dispose of that problem. The Supreme Court throw up a roadblock unexpectedly? Why, we’ll think about whether we’re going to care or not. After all, we’re on a divine [color=red]strake[/color] that gives us carte [color=red]blanche[/color] to do just about whatever we think is right and the rest of you can go blow for all we really care.
If that’s not a de facto coup d’etat I don’t know what is.
So for me the real question is, on a scale of one to ten, how does George Bush rate as the leader of a coup d’etat?[/quote]What color is the sun in your world spook?[/quote]
What was that about spelling…eh?[/quote]
Spelling, indeed. You make me feel like a bully, TC.
"carte blanche
One entry found for carte blanche.
Main Entry: carte blanche
Pronunciation: 'kärt-'blänsh, -'blänch
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural cartes blanches /'kärt(s)-/
Etymology: French, literally, blank document
: full discretionary power "
:bravo: 
