Bill Maher Asks: Why Not Impeachment?

Yes, as a politician, she was speaking to the dumbass voters.

However, Bush said "You are with us, or you are with the terrorists."



Quote from TM_Direct:

that was Hillary after 9-11.....with us or against us she said...
More...
 
April 29, 2000 | GOP presidential hopeful Alan Keyes showed much promise as an orator during the primary season debates but has stumbled (semantically, at least) over Elián. Appearing on Fox News Channel's "Hannity and Colmes," Keyes ignored New York Post columnist John Podhoretz's plea to avoid Holocaust references by comparing Janet Reno's raid on Little Miami to "Gestapo thuggery."

http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2000/04/29/soundbite/index.html

Quote from Pabst:

The Democrats are a party of slogans. "Tax cuts for the rich", "war for oil", "It's the economy stupid"-all simplistic phrases for a simplistic base. Naturally there's an ignorance to little facts like the lowest 38% of wage earners pay ZERO Federal income tax and that not quite VP Lieberman is the best known neo-con in the Nation. I took my Democratic State Rep to task a few years ago for stating in a mailing that he was "fighting conservative extremists who are trying to take away your right to choose." I didn't know pro-life was an extreme position. Nor did I know that those who oppose gay marriage or affirmative action are intolerant.


Even when conservative talk show hosts were in a dander over Reno, I never heard her referred to as Hitler or as leader of the Gestapo. Of course the left has a bigger problem with Islamic extremists being humiliated at Abu Ghraib than with American citizens being burned alive in Waco....

P.S. As I predicted, ZERO outrage from the media over Andrew Young's remarks. But you better never call a man a monkey......
More...
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Ok, I'll bite. Because the judge is some pathetic left wing kook job, appointed by Carter and apparently waiting patiently for the mother ship to return and beam her aboard. Because no other court has ever taken the position she has, and in fact the FIFA court has ruled exactly the oppsite, namely that the President has inherent authority to order warrantless nationalk security wiretaps and searches. In fact, Clinton did it, with Aldrich Ames.

The fact that this moron Maher is regarded as thoughtful by the kook left is yet more proof of why Democrats cannot be trusted with the nation's security. They honestly believe that wiretapping conversations with terrorists overseas without a warrant is illegal and grounds to impeach a president.
More...

There was nothing unreasonable about Judge Taylor's ruling. She merely found that the AUMF does not expressly authorize the President to use "all necessary force" to determine who committed the 911 attacks, but rather that it only permits the President to use all necessary force "after" he determines who committed the terrorist attacks.

This is a completely rational legal finding. The President was empowered to make war on the enemy, not to dump the entire Constitution in order to discover who the enemy is.

This is not to say that the President may not need more authority or that the circumstances do not merit the sort of surveillance that the President has authorized. It only says that the President should be asking for the authority, not simply usurping and then challenging the other branches of government to stop him.

Because, by issuing this tacit challenge, someone, like the ACLU, is bound to use the judicial branch to take the President up on his challenge.

And, so here we are, with a difficult court decision, that half of the country hates and the other half loves. If our President were a little better leader, we would not have the challenge. But, George seems to have self esteem problems which apparently require him to strut his stuff, rather than work with the Congress.

This is a huge waste of taxpayer money and it unnecessarily divides the nation. Bad leadership -- pure and simple. Meanwhile, the enemy continues to evade us in the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
 
Gosh. I'd never known my good friend the Ambassador (and running mate in Illinois) to use such over the top imagery. :D
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

April 29, 2000 | GOP presidential hopeful Alan Keyes showed much promise as an orator during the primary season debates but has stumbled (semantically, at least) over Elián. Appearing on Fox News Channel's "Hannity and Colmes," Keyes ignored New York Post columnist John Podhoretz's plea to avoid Holocaust references by comparing Janet Reno's raid on Little Miami to "Gestapo thuggery."

http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2000/04/29/soundbite/index.html
More...
 
Quote from john dough:

There was nothing unreasonable about Judge Taylor's ruling. She merely found that the AUMF does not expressly authorize the President to use "all necessary force" to determine who committed the 911 attacks, but rather that it only permits the President to use all necessary force "after" he determines who committed the terrorist attacks.

This is a completely rational legal finding. The President was empowered to make war on the enemy, not to dump the entire Constitution in order to discover who the enemy is.

This is not to say that the President may not need more authority or that the circumstances do not merit the sort of surveillance that the President has authorized. It only says that the President should be asking for the authority, not simply usurping and then challenging the other branches of government to stop him.

Because, by issuing this tacit challenge, someone, like the ACLU, is bound to use the judicial branch to take the President up on his challenge.

And, so here we are, with a difficult court decision, that half of the country hates and the other half loves. If our President were a little better leader, we would not have the challenge. But, George seems to have self esteem problems which apparently require him to strut his stuff, rather than work with the Congress.

This is a huge waste of taxpayer money and it unnecessarily divides the nation. Bad leadership -- pure and simple. Meanwhile, the enemy continues to evade us in the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
More...

I dispute that "half the country" loves this district court judge's ruling. Most reasonable voters understand that the president has inherent authority to conduct surveillance of foreign terrorists who contact people here. They want the government to do more, not less, to keep us safe.

The Democrats fully understand this, which is why they resorted to the courts. Let some nutcase judge discover some previously unheard of constitutional "right" to talk with terrorists. That way, they can undermine Bush and not have to answer to the voters.
 
There's no difference in Constitutionality if the initiative is mere policy from the Admin or a law passed by Congress. The Supreme Court struck down portions of the enacted Patriot Act. Perhaps a lawyer can pipe in here but I don't see a President asking the court for a preemptive ruling. I'm not even sure if it can be done. A ruling is systematic of a filed complaint. If lawmakers could consult judges and if ALL judges were in legal agreement, then we'd NEVER have an "unconstitutional" law.
Quote from john dough:

There was nothing unreasonable about Judge Taylor's ruling. She merely found that the AUMF does not expressly authorize the President to use "all necessary force" to determine who committed the 911 attacks, but rather that it only permits the President to use all necessary force "after" he determines who committed the terrorist attacks.

This is a completely rational legal finding. The President was empowered to make war on the enemy, not to dump the entire Constitution in order to discover who the enemy is.

This is not to say that the President may not need more authority or that the circumstances do not merit the sort of surveillance that the President has authorized. It only says that the President should be asking for the authority, not simply usurping and then challenging the other branches of government to stop him.

Because, by issuing this tacit challenge, someone, like the ACLU, is bound to use the judicial branch to take the President up on his challenge.

And, so here we are, with a difficult court decision, that half of the country hates and the other half loves. If our President were a little better leader, we would not have the challenge. But, George seems to have self esteem problems which apparently require him to strut his stuff, rather than work with the Congress.

This is a huge waste of taxpayer money and it unnecessarily divides the nation. Bad leadership -- pure and simple. Meanwhile, the enemy continues to evade us in the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
More...
 
Z: Many Republicans are racist, fact.
Z: I said SOME republicans are racist, a simple fact.

TM: In other words...Your now backing off your earlier assertions because they are patently false and misleading
Z: Not at all.


What a tool.
 
Since Z asserts many republicans are racist, I want to know how he defines "many".

What percentage of group is required for the "many" label Z?? Hmmmmmmmmmm??????????
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

I dispute that "half the country" loves this district court judge's ruling. Most reasonable voters understand that the president has inherent authority to conduct surveillance of foreign terrorists who contact people here. They want the government to do more, not less, to keep us safe.

The Democrats fully understand this, which is why they resorted to the courts. Let some nutcase judge discover some previously unheard of constitutional "right" to talk with terrorists. That way, they can undermine Bush and not have to answer to the voters.
More...

Most "reasonable" voters can't balance their checkbook, much less understand a concept like inherent executive authority.

As far as the constitutional right to talk to a terrorist is concerned, constitutional "rights" are not impacted by the ruling. There is a statute, and it expresses certain requirements for a warrantless wiretap related to foreign surveillance, which the President has ignored.

So, the Constitutional issue is not over a right to privacy, but rather it is simply the question of whether or not the President must obey a lawful statute of the United States.

I say that he does. You may say that the President has "inherent authority" to ignore any statute passed by Congress that impairs the President's authority as commander in chief. This is the question that the Supreme Court must now answer: what is the scope of authority in this case? Is it boundless, regardless of the FISA or the AUMF, or is it constrained by those Acts of Congress.

It is well-established that a law, even if later found unconstitutional, must be obeyed until struck down. Under this framework, the President, without express authority under the AUMF to violate the FISA, is in violation of the Act, by wiretapping "United States Persons."

So, if you honor the law of the land, then the President should be indicted for the felony violation, and he can then challenge the law on a motion for declaratory relief, prior to trial.

But, of course, none of this can happen, because it is also well established that the President is immune from criminal or civil prosecution until after he is impeached by the House and removed from office by the Senate.

What is left, then, is for some outside third party to find a judicial means of challenging the President's actions. As usual, the ACLU steps in to fill this niche and tries to find constitutional standing to sue. Judge Taylor found standing and found the President to have violated the law.

Now there will be an appeal and eventually the USSC will issue a decision. Whatever they rule will be the precedent.

NONE of the above, even remotely suggests that the Judge is a "nutcase," and when someone as apparently intelligent as you are, uses this sort of epithet against a sitting judge, you are showing your personal disrespect for for our nation's laws and legal process. You apparently enjoy having a leader who is equally contemptuous of our Constitution.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact. But, neither is it something to wipe one's Presidential ass with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top