Bush Claims Sweeping New Powers

“By the way hikerboy, in reference to the "democrat" parts of the Constitution you referred to, you might find it interesting that there was no "democrat" or democratic party when the Constitution was adopted.”

“Why do all the extreme liberals care about privacy of foreign terrorists who are trying to kill Americans in mass on U.S. soil again? Why would anyone want to change the Constitution to grant foreign terrorists engaged in battle overseas the right to jury trials, lawyers, and the right to a O.J. Simpson like trial? Who side are these extreme liberals on?”

“"....privacy of foreign terrorists...."

That is not the concern, rather it is that these powers can and will be used on domestic political enemies.

As far as the foreigners go, its about due process and transparency of the judicial system.”

“I remember a time when conservatives cared about things like limited governmental powers, privacy and liberty.

Now it seems that being a conservative means providing cover for the Bush administration.

Party over principle.”

“BTW - the law already allows the government to open mail without a warrant if it suspects a bomb or other hazardous materials.”

““I remember a time when conservatives cared about things like limited governmental powers, privacy and liberty.

No kidding! Safety is always the first in-roads into the loss of freedoms. I believe the thing that has always made this system of ours so great is the checks and balances. One of the major balances is the warrants.”

“LOL...you know yesterday in Church I was listening to one of the older guys in the church. Turns out he was in one of the units who found the Malmedy Massacre Site. He said a week later they caught up with some of the German units (SS) and he was talking about "Geneva Convention". He said they caught three privates and an officer.
One of the "younger members" asked what they did. The old guy looked around and said, "Our Sgt took one of the privates and cut him up pretty good infront of the others. Then he shot the guy." Apparently this was done without ever asking a question.

Apparently the Greatest Generation had the opinion that once the other side violated the Geneva Convention, it was pretty much fair game for the Americans to do as they wished.

The "younger member" evidenced SHOCK and said "I would have reported that." The old hero looked at him and said,"We did have one whiney butt who did. Poor kid got reassigned to a tank riding unit...was dead two days later."

I guess this whole debate centers around how "feel good" this war has been run. I know we try not to be "billy badass" but I can't help wondering what would have happened if we had used the scortched earth policies of previous wars we won.”

“no wonder xlax is stuck on WWII. even his church preeches about it. did the preacher follow up with a nice sermon about an eye for an eye??? how bout a stem cell for a stem cell?”

“I do not know of a single person who lost a single Constitutional right because of the way the Bush Administration is carrying the fight to the terrorists. No one can show a single instance where the Bush Administration has illegally used the war on terrorism to commit political domestic spying. All of that is false paranoid ramblings of liberals.”

“Scortched earth between the oil rigs, what a concept.”

“"No one can show a single instance where the Bush Administration has illegally used the war on terrorism to commit political domestic spying."

of course not. shrub is pretty good at covering his tracks and silencing opponents

WASHINGTON -- The White House and the Secret Service quietly signed an agreement last spring in the midst of the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal declaring that records identifying visitors to the White House are not open to the public.

The Bush administration didn't reveal the existence of the memorandum until this past fall. The White House is using it to deal with a ruling by a federal judge ordering the production of Secret Service logs identifying visitors to the office of Vice President Dick Cheney.”

“Vile---how was lunch with David Duke last month? (LOL)

500 FBI FILES....remember that?”

“We should be able to see the progress of the war on terror.

When the terrorists are tried in a military tribunal, the media doesn't report on it.

We have know way of knowing how successful the war on terror really is.

I would think that the Bush administration would want all of their successes on the front page of the newspaper.

Of course, maybe there aren't as many successes as they'd like.

That's my major problem with tribunals. They don't allow the real decisionmakers - the voters - to see the reality of the war. So the American people can't make informed decisions in the voting booth.”

“The only measure of how successful the war on terrorism is on the American public is how many Americans are killed in the United States by foreign terrorists.

The Bush Administration has been 100% successful since 9-11 despite a whole lot of trying by foreign terrorists.

I wish the liberal media would report on Bush's successes, like the hundreds of successful convictions the Bush Adminstration has had in the war on terrorism. The fault is in the liberal media bias that grossly under reports Bush's successes.”

“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/11/AR2005061100381.html

...Flanked by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, Bush said that "federal terrorism investigations have resulted in charges against more than 400 suspects, and more than half of those charged have been convicted."

Those statistics have been used repeatedly by Bush and other administration officials, including Gonzales and his predecessor, John D. Ashcroft, to characterize the government's efforts against terrorism.

But the numbers are misleading at best.

An analysis of the Justice Department's own list of terrorism prosecutions by The Washington Post shows that 39 people -- not 200, as officials have implied -- were convicted of crimes related to terrorism or national security...

insted of under reporting it sounds like someone is doing a little OVER REPORTING”

“Its 200 when you realize that the terrorists were convicted of other charges. Happens all the time. I plead out many criminals for the sentence they deserved but on the charges they would plead to. It makes more sense to take a sure conviciton, and a sure sentence they deserve, and negotiate on the charges that will be plead to.

The only alternative, is to let the terrorist carry out their plots to fruition, and they could prosecute and convict for a headline grabbing multiple homicide and huge sentences. Not the goal of the criminal justice system to do it that way.

Whether it was 39 or 200, that is sure a whole lot of trying by terrorists. And Bush is still 100% successful in keeping terrorists from killing Americans on U.S. soil despite at least 39 attempts in a couple of years, and probably hundreds more.”

“"The only alternative..."

Oh come on, there are more than just two ways to do it.”

“"Oh come on, there are more than just two ways to do it.”
mARKo"

Of course there is. Bifurcation is a favorite fallacy used to support a claim by the Righties. That's why I have given no response the invalid argument presented.”

“Red state-Blue state
bifurcation
Coke-Pepsi
slit our nation.”

“Yea, I'll be sure to believe anything posted by someone that feels the need to have 'Truth' as part of their troll name, Reverend Truth V Wicked.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!”

“WHo TF you callin' an invalid, LaQ?”

“You know when you discuss freedom I think the biggest freedom is the RIGHT to do what you want with What you have acquired. Land, speech, property etc. Well the other day the good libbie Socialist managed to take a chunk out of YOUR freedom, by passing a proceedural change which will allow them to pass tax increases with ..now a simple majority rather than the 3/5ths that was required before.

Anyone ever notice that for the libbies on here freedom is "the right to be a criminal and not get caught (unless you are a total idiot or REALLY unlucky)" or the "right to steal from another person for your own activities"

But it has NOTHING to do with what Freedom was enumerated in the Constitution, namely the protection from government interference in your legal activities or intrusion in to you practicing those actions that we gain from GOD.
Each of the protections in the Constitution was to protect us from unlawful control by a Central Government. Today Libbies like to input "results" for opportunity.”

“"Well the other day the good libbie Socialist managed to take a chunk out of YOUR freedom, by passing a proceedural change which will allow them to pass tax increases with ..now a simple majority rather than the 3/5ths that was required before."


Just what in hell is this guy talking about now?”

“Laq you blithering twit...it is called the NEWS you oughta look into it sometime.


One of the first key procedural votes in the Democrat-controlled House last week established legislative rules that Republicans say will make it easier to raise taxes by a simple majority vote.
The straight party-line vote received little attention Thursday as Rep. Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, was elected speaker of the House. But Republican leaders and conservative tax-cut advocates said it opened up a huge loophole in a Republican-imposed rule drawn from the Republicans' 1994 Contract with America, which requires a supermajority, or three-fifths vote, to raise taxes.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070106-115506-5182r.htm”

“I have never once been subject to an illegal search by the government.

But every day, the government digs deep into my pockets without my permission and takes a good chunck of my hard earned money in the form of taxes. The tax-spend-and waste Democrats are going to try to put their hand in my pocket and remove more of MY money to pay for failed programs to support their constituency. The real danger from the government is not a paranoid fear they will conduct illegal searches, but a real fear they will take more and more of your hard earned money.”

“3/5 is hardly a big problem....”

“Of course there is. Bifurcation is a favorite fallacy used to support a claim by the Righties. That's why I have given no response the invalid argument presented.”
laqtis
12:02:49 PM
1/08/07

Can you be a little more specific about bifurcation? I'm not real sure what you're referring to. Were you talking about routine criminal trials vs. military tribunals?

The only bifurcation I'm familiar with in a judicial proceeding is when the trial phase and sentencing phase are two separate events in a criminal case. Or in a civil case it would be separate liability and damages phases.”

“Um 3/5ths is tougher than a simple majority to decide on Government Supported Robbery.”

“If Laqtis could think of a reasonable third choice, he would of suggested it. Since he can't, he misapplies the terminology.”

“To the victors go the spoils.

Why would anyone in Washington give away power without bargaining?

The Founding Fathers set up the system so that in most cases, 50% plus one rules.

That extra 10% is negotiating power. When the #&%!$ hits the fan, they'll have 10% more leverage.

Why give that away on the first day?”

“But I suppose after the Democrats implemented earmark reform, the Republicans needed something to jack off on.”

“The tax-spend-and waste Democrats are going to try to put their hand in my pocket and remove more of MY money to pay for failed programs to support their constituency.

[stepping away to avoid the lightning.] LOL! Joking.

Bush has been on a spending spree like a drunken liberal sailor. This much must be admitted.


*EDIT*

On second thought this was wrong of me. Simply busting on the liberals does not mean you are saying Bush doesn't do it too or you are just trying to support Bush. I never like it when others do this to me so disregard this post.
last edited: 1/08/07 6:45:26 PM”

“Presumably there are some Republican Congressmen out there who were elected on a promise to keep taxes low.

That is something that they will bargain for.

Democrats want certain things - sane policy in Iraq, health care reform, open government...

Democrats will bargain for these things.

Why give the Republicans exactly what they want on the first day? Why not wait and try to use tax policy as a carrot to get some Democrat initiatives through the Congress?

That is the way the system works. Use political capital however you can get it.”

“"Can you be a little more specific about bifurcation?"

Sure. Bifurcation is a fallacy. Often termed as "False Dilemma" and "False Dichotomy" as well. Bifurcation presents only two choices; thereby trying to "force" an agreement by the readers by offering one choice (which is commonly the desired action the author champions), contrasted by a negative choice, or outcome if the desired action is not followed, or one that the reader cannot/would not agree to.

The classic bifurcation of today is "either you are with us, or against us". Bifurcation is used to bully a response of agreement with the author for his championed call to action.

"I'm not real sure what you're referring to. Were you talking about routine criminal trials vs. military tribunals?"

No, I was pointing out Ed's use of Bifurcation fallacy in his call to action here:

"It makes more sense to take a sure conviciton, and a sure sentence they deserve, and negotiate on the charges that will be plead to.

The only alternative, is to let the terrorist carry out their plots to fruition, and they could prosecute and convict for a headline grabbing multiple homicide and huge sentences."

Classic false dichotomy.

"If Laqtis could think of a reasonable third choice, he would of suggested it. Since he can't, he misapplies the terminology"

That again, is another fallacy (Affirmation of the consequent, possible Argumentum ad Ignorantiam as well). What Ed leaves out is that because he uses a fallacy to support his claim, it reduces his claim to invalid status. A fallacy is an argument that appears to be valid, but it not. The burden is not on myself to offer a rebuttal to a claim that uses a fallacy as support to a claim, because it is not a valid argument in the first place. The burden is on the author to form a proper premise, with proper support which does not lean on fallacy to come to the conclusion.

Let me know if I can be of any help in the future, stick.”

“A fallacy is an argument that appears to be valid, but it not. The burden is not on myself to offer a rebuttal to a claim that uses a fallacy as support to a claim, because it is not a valid argument in the first place. The burden is on the author to form a proper premise, with proper support which does not lean on fallacy to come to the conclusion.

That much I knew, but I wasn't familiar with the term bifurcation as you used it. False dilemma was what I knew it as.


Good clear explanation laqtis. I had a little debate experience in college (very little--one semester, and it was only intramural), but not enough to know all the alternate names for the common fallacies.”

“"That much I knew, but I wasn't familiar with the term bifurcation as you used it. False dilemma was what I knew it as."

I'm partial to "False Dilemma", actually. Bifurcation doesn't get a lot of "play", so I'm trying to give it some face time.

"Good clear explanation laqtis. I had a little debate experience in college (very little--one semester, and it was only intramural), but not enough to know all the alternate names for the common fallacies."

Thanks.”

“Good clear explaination Laqtis.

Too bad it doesn't fit.

After being challenged, you can't find, after thinking about it all day, a third REASONABLE alternative that you could defend.”

“Laq...pulling the $3.00 words....LOL..Hey laq...where were you when the Government began violating the 10th Amendment?????”

“"Too bad it doesn't fit."

I disagree, even more so with out a clear defense of your statement. Simply claiming "it" doesn't fit, does not make it so and is in fact, a failed rebuttal. Going one further, by your metric you not defending your statement means it is incorrect, as your present claim implies.

"After being challenged, you can't find, after thinking about it all day, a third REASONABLE alternative that you could defend."

First of all, this exchange was the furthest thing from my mind yesterday and I prolly devoted all of about 5 minutes to it. Sorry, your statement and claim are simply not that important to me when the claim has already be reduced to the status of invalid. Perhaps if you restrained from the use of fallacy in you claims, I would give them more time. As it stands, I have better things to do in my life than to get all wrapped up in an invalid argument.

If you care to discuss the matter, I would have no problem with it. Perhaps you would like to try again, only this time leaving the fallacies at home.”

“"Laq...pulling the $3.00 words....LOL..Hey laq...where were you when the Government began violating the 10th Amendment?????"

YAWWWWWN.”

“What Q lacks in reasoning power, he makes up for with volume and quantity. LOL”

“Laqtose gotta go with Rights of the Criminals rather than real rights enumerated in the Constitution.

Must be busy today...learning whether to use brass or silver screws to hold the sign above the broken pottery no one looks at.


HEY FOUND A LETTER on the internet...you sending stuff to the Smithsonian there Laqtouse???


Paleoanthropology Division
Smithsonian Institute
207 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20078

Dear Sir:

Thank you for your latest submission to the Institute, labeled "211-D, layer seven, next to the clothesline post. Hominid skull." We have given this specimen a careful and detailed examination, and regret to inform you that we disagree with your theory that it represents "conclusive proof of the presence of Early Man in Charleston County two million years ago." Rather, it appears that what you have found is the head of a Barbie doll, of the variety one of our staff, who has small children, believes to be the "Malibu Barbie". It is evident that you have given a great deal of thought to the analysis of this specimen, and you may be quite certain that those of us who are familiar with your prior work in the field were loathe to come to contradiction with your findings. However, we do feel that there are a number of physical attributes of the specimen which might have tipped you off to it's modern origin:

1. The material is molded plastic. Ancient hominid remains are typically fossilized bone.

2. The cranial capacity of the specimen is approximately 9 cubic centimeters, well below the threshold of even the earliest identified proto-hominids.

3. The dentition pattern evident on the "skull" is more consistent with the common domesticated dog than it is with the "ravenous man-eating Pliocene clams" you speculate roamed the wetlands during that time. This latter finding is certainly one of the most intriguing hypotheses you have submitted in your history with this institution, but the evidence seems to weigh rather heavily against it. Without going into too much detail, let us say that:

A. The specimen looks like the head of a Barbie doll that a dog has chewed on.

B. Clams don't have teeth.

It is with feelings tinged with melancholy that we must deny your request to have the specimen carbon dated. This is partially due to the heavy load our lab must bear in it's normal operation, and partly due to carbon dating's notorious inaccuracy in fossils of recent geologic record. To the best of our knowledge, no Barbie dolls were produced prior to 1956 AD, and carbon dating is likely to produce wildly inaccurate results. Sadly, we must also deny your request that we approach the National Science Foundation's Phylogeny Department with the concept of assigning your specimen the scientific name "Australopithecus spiff-arino." Speaking personally, I, for one, fought tenaciously for the acceptance of your proposed taxonomy, but was ultimately voted down because the species name you selected was hyphenated, and didn't really sound like it might be Latin.

However, we gladly accept your generous donation of this fascinating specimen to the museum. While it is undoubtedly not a hominid fossil, it is, nonetheless, yet another riveting example of the great body of work you seem to accumulate here so effortlessly. You should know that our Director has reserved a special shelf in his own office for the display of the specimens you have previously submitted to the Institution, and the entire staff speculates daily on what you will happen upon next in your digs at the site you have discovered in your back yard. We eagerly anticipate your trip to our nation's capital that you proposed in your last letter, and several of us are pressing the Director to pay for it. We are particularly interested in hearing you expand on your theories surrounding the "trans-positating fillifitation of ferrous ions in a structural matrix" that makes the excellent juvenile Tyrannosaurus rex femur you recently discovered take on the deceptive appearance of a rusty 9-mm Sears Craftsman automotive crescent wrench.

Yours in Science,
Harvey Rowe
Curator, Antiquities ”

“Are we all in jail yet, due to our evil mail???
LOL”

“Um the dems gotta get Shrillery elected to take that freedom away...although they did a great job limiting Speech with Mc Cain Feingold.”

“Please Mrs. Speaker let use have another 100 billion for drugs and we'll promise within 6 months to a year we'll have victory in this 'war on drugs',”

“sale I agree....end the drug war, legalize it, tax it, tax it HARD. Use the money to help rehab people. Give em three free shots at rehab...then they are on their own.
Hell, MJ is the top US cash crop, if we can use other dangerous stuff lets let the drugs be legal...cover it like other forms of intoxication. If someone has it in their bloodstream...hook them up.”

“Oh sorry, that drug thing was to be oil , I think?”