Political Crossfire Forums

[Rhoades]

Patriot911 wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: This is interesting. http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nsct/2006/sectionV.html

Quote: The terrorism we confront today springs from:

Subcultures of conspiracy and misinformation. Terrorists recruit more effectively from populations whose information about the world is contaminated by falsehoods and corrupted by conspiracy theories. The distortions keep alive grievances and filter out facts that would challenge popular prejudices and self-serving propaganda.

Do you realize that anyone who believes differently then what the Government is telling them is aiding the terrorist,by the governments definition,and therefore can be deemed an enemy combatant.Every American should be concerned about this.Even the ones "working" for Centcom.Centcom has announced that they have recruited people to go on blogs and whatnot to basically repeat whatever the Government is saying,you know about it,right patriot911?

This is interesting as well.

Quote: Democracy is the antithesis of terrorist tyranny, which is why the terrorists denounce it and are willing to kill the innocent to stop it. Democracy is based on empowerment, while the terrorists’ ideology is based on enslavement. Democracies expand the freedom of their citizens, while the terrorists seek to impose a single set of narrow beliefs. Democracy sees individuals as equal in worth and dignity, having an inherent potential to create, govern themselves, and exercise basic freedoms of speech and conscience. The terrorists see individuals as objects to be exploited, and then to be ruled and oppressed.

Amazing.They actually have the balls to say this when they are doing the exact opposite.

This isn't a conspiracy theory,this is fact now.

Except that once again you contaminate the truth by reading in things that are not said and are not meant. Sorry, but I don't buy your interpretation of what was said.

Lets look at what the government says:

Terrorists are able to recruit more terrorists where there is a lot of misinformation and conspiracy theories floating around.

Is this or is this not a true statement? I believe it IS a true statement.

But you go on to say anyone who misinforms someone or believes a conspiracy theory automatically is designated as a terrorist aide by the government. The only problem is that the government does not say this. It is your INTERPRETATION, and a pretty crappy one at that.

Just another example of your paranoid delusions in thinking that the government is after you and everyone else who believes in conspiracy theories. Can't say I am surprised. Seen any black helicopters lately? ;-)

As for Centcom, yes I am aware of what is going on.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2006/20060302_4370.html

Of course, Centcom contacting bloggers to give them links to more complete information isn't exactly what you are accusing them of, but what the heck. You've been wrong on almost everything else, you might as well lie about Centcom as well.

And last but not least, you accuse the Bush administration of restricting the first amendment rights of citizens. Just goes to show just how much of the koolaid you've actually drank. Why is it you're not arrested and in Guantanamo right now? You've made the claim and fit the description as someone who peddles misinformation and conspiracy theories. Why are you still here? This just proves you don't even believe your own bullsh!t. If you DID actually believe your own BS, you wouldn't be sitting behind your keyboard saying things you know would get you arrested. ;-)

What you write isn't fact now or ever. It is all just made up tripe from a demented, paranoid mind
ok patriot, so what is YOUR interpretation of that quote? It pretty clearly says to me that if you don't agree with the government, you're a terrorist. Then they have the audacity to say what they're doing is "expanding people's freedoms." It's f***ing doublespeak. Jesus christ what is this world coming to.

[Patriot911]

Rhoades wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: This is interesting. http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nsct/2006/sectionV.html

Quote: The terrorism we confront today springs from:

Subcultures of conspiracy and misinformation. Terrorists recruit more effectively from populations whose information about the world is contaminated by falsehoods and corrupted by conspiracy theories. The distortions keep alive grievances and filter out facts that would challenge popular prejudices and self-serving propaganda.

Do you realize that anyone who believes differently then what the Government is telling them is aiding the terrorist,by the governments definition,and therefore can be deemed an enemy combatant.Every American should be concerned about this.Even the ones "working" for Centcom.Centcom has announced that they have recruited people to go on blogs and whatnot to basically repeat whatever the Government is saying,you know about it,right patriot911?

This is interesting as well.

Quote: Democracy is the antithesis of terrorist tyranny, which is why the terrorists denounce it and are willing to kill the innocent to stop it. Democracy is based on empowerment, while the terrorists’ ideology is based on enslavement. Democracies expand the freedom of their citizens, while the terrorists seek to impose a single set of narrow beliefs. Democracy sees individuals as equal in worth and dignity, having an inherent potential to create, govern themselves, and exercise basic freedoms of speech and conscience. The terrorists see individuals as objects to be exploited, and then to be ruled and oppressed.

Amazing.They actually have the balls to say this when they are doing the exact opposite.

This isn't a conspiracy theory,this is fact now.

Except that once again you contaminate the truth by reading in things that are not said and are not meant. Sorry, but I don't buy your interpretation of what was said.

Lets look at what the government says:

Terrorists are able to recruit more terrorists where there is a lot of misinformation and conspiracy theories floating around.

Is this or is this not a true statement? I believe it IS a true statement.

But you go on to say anyone who misinforms someone or believes a conspiracy theory automatically is designated as a terrorist aide by the government. The only problem is that the government does not say this. It is your INTERPRETATION, and a pretty crappy one at that.

Just another example of your paranoid delusions in thinking that the government is after you and everyone else who believes in conspiracy theories. Can't say I am surprised. Seen any black helicopters lately? ;-)

As for Centcom, yes I am aware of what is going on.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2006/20060302_4370.html

Of course, Centcom contacting bloggers to give them links to more complete information isn't exactly what you are accusing them of, but what the heck. You've been wrong on almost everything else, you might as well lie about Centcom as well.

And last but not least, you accuse the Bush administration of restricting the first amendment rights of citizens. Just goes to show just how much of the koolaid you've actually drank. Why is it you're not arrested and in Guantanamo right now? You've made the claim and fit the description as someone who peddles misinformation and conspiracy theories. Why are you still here? This just proves you don't even believe your own bullsh!t. If you DID actually believe your own BS, you wouldn't be sitting behind your keyboard saying things you know would get you arrested. ;-)

What you write isn't fact now or ever. It is all just made up tripe from a demented, paranoid mind
ok patriot, so what is YOUR interpretation of that quote? It pretty clearly says to me that if you don't agree with the government, you're a terrorist. Then they have the audacity to say what they're doing is "expanding people's freedoms." It's f***ing doublespeak. Jesus christ what is this world coming to.

Rhoades, go back to school, learn how to read and come back and re-read this thread. I've stated several times exactly what I believe. If you can't comprehend simple English and believe it says if you don't agree with the government then you're a terrorist, then there is very little hope of you ever understanding much. You're as bad as Mighty Oak. You have to add so much to what was written that what was written is not even recognizable in any form in your "translated" version. :roll:

I agree with you. What is this world coming to when people get all paranoid by reading a statement, adding a buttload of new meaning to it, freak out about it, and then expect everyone else to just believe their twisted and f'ed up lies.

[Patriot911]

Mighty Oak wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: Quote: That would be a mighty hard thing to prove and similar cases have been tried before and upheld by the supreme court. You can't blame the actions of others on the words of another. Now if they had proof that the conspiracy theorists received payment from the terrorists and the like, then that is a different story. They can't be arrested just for conspiracy theories. For the last time,I hope,the government does not need to prove or even charge you with anything.All that needs to be done is the Prez. to say that you are an enemy combatant.There is no court for you then,no nothing,just incarceration or death....oh yea and torture.

I know it is useless to ask you this, but I will anyway. Can you prove this? Don't take the **** way out and just point at the patriot act. I've read it. I've read the military one too. There is oversight. The president can't just claim someone is an enemy combatant without providing some proof and be done with it. You act as if I'm making this up when you damn well know that I am far from alone on this position.You know all about this yet you claim ignorance. Olbermann: The Day Habeas Corpus Died

Crooks & Liars | October 18 2006

Today, 135 years to the day after the last American President (Ulysses S. Grant) suspended habeas corpus, President Bush signed into law the Military Commissions Act of 2006. At its worst, the legislation allows President Bush or Donald Rumsfeld to declare anyone — US citizen or not — an enemy combatant, lock them up and throw away the key without a chance to prove their innocence in a court of law. In other words, every thing the Founding Fathers fought the British empire to free themselves of was reversed and nullified with the stroke of a pen, all under the guise of the War on Terror.

Jonathan Turley joined Keith to talk about the law that Senator Feingold said would be seen as "a stain on our nation's history."

Turley: "People have no idea how significant this is. Really a time of shame this is for the American system.—The strange thing is that we have become sort of constitutional couch potatoes. The Congress just gave the President despotic powers and you could hear the yawn across the country as people turned to Dancing With the Stars. It's otherworldly..People clearly don't realize what a fundamental change it is about who we are as a country. What happened today changed us. And I'm not too sure we're gonna change back anytime soon."

http://infowars.com/articles/ps/military_commissions_olbermann_day_habeas_corpus_died.htm

I'll grant you that this is an op-ed piece,but you know where to find the source.As you know I am far from alone.

I take it back. You are right. You didn't make it up. I apologize. Alex Jones made it up and you believed him. Not sure which is worse.....

[Mighty Oak]

Patriot911 wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: Quote: That would be a mighty hard thing to prove and similar cases have been tried before and upheld by the supreme court. You can't blame the actions of others on the words of another. Now if they had proof that the conspiracy theorists received payment from the terrorists and the like, then that is a different story. They can't be arrested just for conspiracy theories. For the last time,I hope,the government does not need to prove or even charge you with anything.All that needs to be done is the Prez. to say that you are an enemy combatant.There is no court for you then,no nothing,just incarceration or death....oh yea and torture.

I know it is useless to ask you this, but I will anyway. Can you prove this? Don't take the **** way out and just point at the patriot act. I've read it. I've read the military one too. There is oversight. The president can't just claim someone is an enemy combatant without providing some proof and be done with it. You act as if I'm making this up when you damn well know that I am far from alone on this position.You know all about this yet you claim ignorance. Olbermann: The Day Habeas Corpus Died

Crooks & Liars | October 18 2006

Today, 135 years to the day after the last American President (Ulysses S. Grant) suspended habeas corpus, President Bush signed into law the Military Commissions Act of 2006. At its worst, the legislation allows President Bush or Donald Rumsfeld to declare anyone — US citizen or not — an enemy combatant, lock them up and throw away the key without a chance to prove their innocence in a court of law. In other words, every thing the Founding Fathers fought the British empire to free themselves of was reversed and nullified with the stroke of a pen, all under the guise of the War on Terror.

Jonathan Turley joined Keith to talk about the law that Senator Feingold said would be seen as "a stain on our nation's history."

Turley: "People have no idea how significant this is. Really a time of shame this is for the American system.—The strange thing is that we have become sort of constitutional couch potatoes. The Congress just gave the President despotic powers and you could hear the yawn across the country as people turned to Dancing With the Stars. It's otherworldly..People clearly don't realize what a fundamental change it is about who we are as a country. What happened today changed us. And I'm not too sure we're gonna change back anytime soon."

http://infowars.com/articles/ps/military_commissions_olbermann_day_habeas_corpus_died.htm

I'll grant you that this is an op-ed piece,but you know where to find the source.As you know I am far from alone.

I take it back. You are right. You didn't make it up. I apologize. Alex Jones made it up and you believed him. Not sure which is worse..... You saw a "infowars" link and you ASSUMED it was AJ's op.. :lol:
Professor Turley has served as counsel in a variety of national security and terrorism cases, and has been ranked as one of the top ten lawyers handling military cases. He has served as a consultant on homeland security and constitutional issues, and is a frequent witness before the House and Senate on constitutional and statutory issues as well as tort reform legislation. He is also a nationally recognized legal commentator; he ranked 38th in the top 100 most cited ‘public intellectuals’ in a recent study by Judge Richard Posner and was found to be the second most cited law professor in the country. I'd say his credentials are pretty good.

[Patriot911]

Mighty Oak wrote: You saw a "infowars" link and you ASSUMED it was AJ's op.. :lol:
Professor Turley has served as counsel in a variety of national security and terrorism cases, and has been ranked as one of the top ten lawyers handling military cases. He has served as a consultant on homeland security and constitutional issues, and is a frequent witness before the House and Senate on constitutional and statutory issues as well as tort reform legislation. He is also a nationally recognized legal commentator; he ranked 38th in the top 100 most cited ‘public intellectuals’ in a recent study by Judge Richard Posner and was found to be the second most cited law professor in the country. I'd say his credentials are pretty good.

No, you assume I thought it was Alex Jones' OP. What I know is that infowars is owned and run by Alex Jones, and that Alex Jones has a long and glorious history of lying, spreading misinformation and spinning. I also know it is a source for where you get your information. Alex Jones has made the same assertion you did; that the President can claim anyone is an unlawful combatant with no checks. He then posted an OP piece he HOPED would prove his point but doesn't.

[Mighty Oak]

Patriot911 wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: You saw a "infowars" link and you ASSUMED it was AJ's op.. :lol:
Professor Turley has served as counsel in a variety of national security and terrorism cases, and has been ranked as one of the top ten lawyers handling military cases. He has served as a consultant on homeland security and constitutional issues, and is a frequent witness before the House and Senate on constitutional and statutory issues as well as tort reform legislation. He is also a nationally recognized legal commentator; he ranked 38th in the top 100 most cited ‘public intellectuals’ in a recent study by Judge Richard Posner and was found to be the second most cited law professor in the country. I'd say his credentials are pretty good.

No, you assume I thought it was Alex Jones' OP. What I know is that infowars is owned and run by Alex Jones, and that Alex Jones has a long and glorious history of lying, spreading misinformation and spinning. I also know it is a source for where you get your information. Alex Jones has made the same assertion you did; that the President can claim anyone is an unlawful combatant with no checks. He then posted an OP piece he HOPED would prove his point but doesn't. Wha?huh?wha?huh? Quote: I take it back. You are right. You didn't make it up. I apologize. Alex Jones made it up and you believed him. Clearly you are misrepresenting AGAIN.He has served as a consultant on homeland security and constitutional issues, and is a frequent witness before the House and Senate on constitutional and statutory issues as well as tort reform legislation. This professor knows a thing or two about laws and their meaning.Go ahead and keep putting your foot into your mouth. :lol:

[Patriot911]

Mighty Oak wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: You saw a "infowars" link and you ASSUMED it was AJ's op.. :lol:
Professor Turley has served as counsel in a variety of national security and terrorism cases, and has been ranked as one of the top ten lawyers handling military cases. He has served as a consultant on homeland security and constitutional issues, and is a frequent witness before the House and Senate on constitutional and statutory issues as well as tort reform legislation. He is also a nationally recognized legal commentator; he ranked 38th in the top 100 most cited ‘public intellectuals’ in a recent study by Judge Richard Posner and was found to be the second most cited law professor in the country. I'd say his credentials are pretty good.

No, you assume I thought it was Alex Jones' OP. What I know is that infowars is owned and run by Alex Jones, and that Alex Jones has a long and glorious history of lying, spreading misinformation and spinning. I also know it is a source for where you get your information. Alex Jones has made the same assertion you did; that the President can claim anyone is an unlawful combatant with no checks. He then posted an OP piece he HOPED would prove his point but doesn't. Wha?huh?wha?huh? Quote: I take it back. You are right. You didn't make it up. I apologize. Alex Jones made it up and you believed him. Clearly you are misrepresenting AGAIN.He has served as a consultant on homeland security and constitutional issues, and is a frequent witness before the House and Senate on constitutional and statutory issues as well as tort reform legislation. This professor knows a thing or two about laws and their meaning.Go ahead and keep putting your foot into your mouth. :lol:

Wow. When you are wrong, you really are wrong. Turly didn't write the article. He was quoted in the article, and didn't make the claim you did, which is that the President could claim anyone anywhere is an unlawful combatant and whisk them away. That claim was made by Olbermann, an MSNBC commentator who has a serious anti Bush fetish. That claim has been echoed repeatedly on all of Alex Jones' web sites which you visit.

Let me state this again. You are putting forth as fact of law the opinions of those who are not qualified to give these opinions. Only makes you look like a fool.

[Mighty Oak]

Patriot911 wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: You saw a "infowars" link and you ASSUMED it was AJ's op.. :lol:
Professor Turley has served as counsel in a variety of national security and terrorism cases, and has been ranked as one of the top ten lawyers handling military cases. He has served as a consultant on homeland security and constitutional issues, and is a frequent witness before the House and Senate on constitutional and statutory issues as well as tort reform legislation. He is also a nationally recognized legal commentator; he ranked 38th in the top 100 most cited ‘public intellectuals’ in a recent study by Judge Richard Posner and was found to be the second most cited law professor in the country. I'd say his credentials are pretty good.

No, you assume I thought it was Alex Jones' OP. What I know is that infowars is owned and run by Alex Jones, and that Alex Jones has a long and glorious history of lying, spreading misinformation and spinning. I also know it is a source for where you get your information. Alex Jones has made the same assertion you did; that the President can claim anyone is an unlawful combatant with no checks. He then posted an OP piece he HOPED would prove his point but doesn't. Wha?huh?wha?huh? Quote: I take it back. You are right. You didn't make it up. I apologize. Alex Jones made it up and you believed him. Clearly you are misrepresenting AGAIN.He has served as a consultant on homeland security and constitutional issues, and is a frequent witness before the House and Senate on constitutional and statutory issues as well as tort reform legislation. This professor knows a thing or two about laws and their meaning.Go ahead and keep putting your foot into your mouth. :lol:

Wow. When you are wrong, you really are wrong. Turly didn't write the article. He was quoted in the article, and didn't make the claim you did, which is that the President could claim anyone anywhere is an unlawful combatant and whisk them away. That claim was made by Olbermann, an MSNBC commentator who has a serious anti Bush fetish. That claim has been echoed repeatedly on all of Alex Jones' web sites which you visit.

Let me state this again. You are putting forth as fact of law the opinions of those who are not qualified to give these opinions. Only makes you look like a fool. I take it you don't understand the meanig of "despotic powers" then.Not to worry,I'll help you.A despot is a ruler with absolute power and authority,a person exercising power tyrannically.I hope this helps you,I get embarassed for people when they make fools of themselves. :!oops:

[Todd D.]

Mighty Oak wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: You saw a "infowars" link and you ASSUMED it was AJ's op.. :lol:
Professor Turley has served as counsel in a variety of national security and terrorism cases, and has been ranked as one of the top ten lawyers handling military cases. He has served as a consultant on homeland security and constitutional issues, and is a frequent witness before the House and Senate on constitutional and statutory issues as well as tort reform legislation. He is also a nationally recognized legal commentator; he ranked 38th in the top 100 most cited ‘public intellectuals’ in a recent study by Judge Richard Posner and was found to be the second most cited law professor in the country. I'd say his credentials are pretty good.

No, you assume I thought it was Alex Jones' OP. What I know is that infowars is owned and run by Alex Jones, and that Alex Jones has a long and glorious history of lying, spreading misinformation and spinning. I also know it is a source for where you get your information. Alex Jones has made the same assertion you did; that the President can claim anyone is an unlawful combatant with no checks. He then posted an OP piece he HOPED would prove his point but doesn't. Wha?huh?wha?huh? Quote: I take it back. You are right. You didn't make it up. I apologize. Alex Jones made it up and you believed him. Clearly you are misrepresenting AGAIN.He has served as a consultant on homeland security and constitutional issues, and is a frequent witness before the House and Senate on constitutional and statutory issues as well as tort reform legislation. This professor knows a thing or two about laws and their meaning.Go ahead and keep putting your foot into your mouth. :lol:

Wow. When you are wrong, you really are wrong. Turly didn't write the article. He was quoted in the article, and didn't make the claim you did, which is that the President could claim anyone anywhere is an unlawful combatant and whisk them away. That claim was made by Olbermann, an MSNBC commentator who has a serious anti Bush fetish. That claim has been echoed repeatedly on all of Alex Jones' web sites which you visit.

Let me state this again. You are putting forth as fact of law the opinions of those who are not qualified to give these opinions. Only makes you look like a fool. I take it you don't understand the meanig of "despotic powers" then.Not to worry,I'll help you.A despot is a ruler with absolute power and authority,a person exercising power tyrannically.I hope this helps you,I get embarassed for people when they make fools of themselves. :!oops:
Dude, are you seriously suggesting that Bush, a man who couldn't even get a Social Security agenda passed, has "Despotic Powers"?

[Patriot911]

Mighty Oak wrote: I hope this helps you,I get embarassed for people when they make fools of themselves.
Wow. You must embarass yourself a hell of a lot then! :shock:

You made specific claims as to the President's powers. You are now down to an interpretation of a single word from one guy giving his opinion. My point stands as well founded and right on the money. You are entitled to your opinion as to just how "despotic" Bush is, but when you start making bullsh!t claims as to the extent of his power, you shouldn't go off the opinions of others and instead use the letter of the law and the interpretation of the SCOTUS be your guide. Otherwise you are going to be embarassed for yourself and by yourself for years and years to come. ;-)

[Mighty Oak]

Todd D. wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: You saw a "infowars" link and you ASSUMED it was AJ's op.. :lol:
Professor Turley has served as counsel in a variety of national security and terrorism cases, and has been ranked as one of the top ten lawyers handling military cases. He has served as a consultant on homeland security and constitutional issues, and is a frequent witness before the House and Senate on constitutional and statutory issues as well as tort reform legislation. He is also a nationally recognized legal commentator; he ranked 38th in the top 100 most cited ‘public intellectuals’ in a recent study by Judge Richard Posner and was found to be the second most cited law professor in the country. I'd say his credentials are pretty good.

No, you assume I thought it was Alex Jones' OP. What I know is that infowars is owned and run by Alex Jones, and that Alex Jones has a long and glorious history of lying, spreading misinformation and spinning. I also know it is a source for where you get your information. Alex Jones has made the same assertion you did; that the President can claim anyone is an unlawful combatant with no checks. He then posted an OP piece he HOPED would prove his point but doesn't. Wha?huh?wha?huh? Quote: I take it back. You are right. You didn't make it up. I apologize. Alex Jones made it up and you believed him. Clearly you are misrepresenting AGAIN.He has served as a consultant on homeland security and constitutional issues, and is a frequent witness before the House and Senate on constitutional and statutory issues as well as tort reform legislation. This professor knows a thing or two about laws and their meaning.Go ahead and keep putting your foot into your mouth. :lol:

Wow. When you are wrong, you really are wrong. Turly didn't write the article. He was quoted in the article, and didn't make the claim you did, which is that the President could claim anyone anywhere is an unlawful combatant and whisk them away. That claim was made by Olbermann, an MSNBC commentator who has a serious anti Bush fetish. That claim has been echoed repeatedly on all of Alex Jones' web sites which you visit.

Let me state this again. You are putting forth as fact of law the opinions of those who are not qualified to give these opinions. Only makes you look like a fool. I take it you don't understand the meanig of "despotic powers" then.Not to worry,I'll help you.A despot is a ruler with absolute power and authority,a person exercising power tyrannically.I hope this helps you,I get embarassed for people when they make fools of themselves. :!oops:
Dude, are you seriously suggesting that Bush, a man who couldn't even get a Social Security agenda passed, has "Despotic Powers"? Dude,what I am saying is that this law,Military Commissions Act of 2006,gives the President despotic powers.

[Todd D.]

Oh, that's what you are saying. Ok. "Despotic Powers" being defined as "absolute power", which Bush clearly doesn't have, so you amended the definition to "Power over a limited area of government operations absolutely".

You're still wrong, but whatever.

[Patriot911]

Mighty Oak wrote: Dude,what I am saying is that this law,Military Commissions Act of 2006,gives the President despotic powers.

What YOU said was that Bush could declare anyone an enemy combatant with no proof and without due process. What has been repeatedly pointed out is that this is a baseless claim and you got suckered in by Alex Jones..... AGAIN. NOW you're claiming Bush is a despot because you've been shown to be wrong on everything else and some guy said he now has despotic powers. :roll: So why isn't he arresting all the Democrats in congress, installing his own Republicans and claiming himself dictator? It would seem the first thing a person with despotic powers would do is to make sure these powers can't be removed and that he remains in power. You keep making claims that the facts just don't back up. Embarassed for yourself yet? ;-)

[psholtz]

Todd D. wrote: Oh, that's what you are saying. Ok. "Despotic Powers" being defined as "absolute power", which Bush clearly doesn't have, so you amended the definition to "Power over a limited area of government operations absolutely".

You're still wrong, but whatever.
No ruler has "absolute, total, complete" power.. and if that's what you're sitting around and waiting for, before you're going to get up off your hind end and do something about it, then may God have mercy on your Soul.

Bush clearly *is* breaking the law.. that should be enough.

[Patriot911]

psholtz wrote: Todd D. wrote: Oh, that's what you are saying. Ok. "Despotic Powers" being defined as "absolute power", which Bush clearly doesn't have, so you amended the definition to "Power over a limited area of government operations absolutely".

You're still wrong, but whatever.
No ruler has "absolute, total, complete" power.. and if that's what you're sitting around and waiting for, before you're going to get up off your hind end and do something about it, then may God have mercy on your Soul.

Bush clearly *is* breaking the law.. that should be enough.

That is your opinion, but if it were anywhere near as "clear" as you claim it to be, he would be under arrest or in the middle of impeachment hearings. I am active in politics and do my best to see that those people who best serve my interests get in office. But I am not going to listen to the rantings of a conspiracy theorist with a track record of lies and exaggerations as a "call to action". You make chicken little look good by comparison.

[psholtz]

Patriot911 wrote: I am active in politics and do my best to see that those people who best serve my interests get in office.
That people like you are *active* in politics probably says more about why things are so messed up in our country than anything else.. :lol:

First take the blinders off.. then you might be qualified to do something about politics... The Master once said something about removing the log in your own eye, before worrying about the speck in your neighbors eye.

[Medius]

Patriot911 wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: Dude,what I am saying is that this law,Military Commissions Act of 2006,gives the President despotic powers.

What YOU said was that Bush could declare anyone an enemy combatant with no proof and without due process. What has been repeatedly pointed out is that this is a baseless claim and you got suckered in by Alex Jones..... AGAIN. NOW you're claiming Bush is a despot because you've been shown to be wrong on everything else and some guy said he now has despotic powers. :roll: So why isn't he arresting all the Democrats in congress, installing his own Republicans and claiming himself dictator? It would seem the first thing a person with despotic powers would do is to make sure these powers can't be removed and that he remains in power. You keep making claims that the facts just don't back up. Embarassed for yourself yet? ;-)

Here, if the fact that it happened to be posted on an Alex Jones site, even though it was not in anyway affiliated with him bothers you so much, go here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlWbcvBN3cU&mode=related&search=

If the fact that Professor Turley is on Kieth Olbermann, even though he is there as an expert in constitutional law, bothers you so much, hit pause and wait till it loads to 2:32, skip there and hit play.

It is clear that Professor Turley believes that this law can be interpreted to include US Citizens.

If you want to attack Turley, do it directly. Alex Jones and Kieth Olbermann didn't have anything to do with his own personal assessment of the legal implications of this new law.

[Patriot911]

Medius wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: Dude,what I am saying is that this law,Military Commissions Act of 2006,gives the President despotic powers.

What YOU said was that Bush could declare anyone an enemy combatant with no proof and without due process. What has been repeatedly pointed out is that this is a baseless claim and you got suckered in by Alex Jones..... AGAIN. NOW you're claiming Bush is a despot because you've been shown to be wrong on everything else and some guy said he now has despotic powers. :roll: So why isn't he arresting all the Democrats in congress, installing his own Republicans and claiming himself dictator? It would seem the first thing a person with despotic powers would do is to make sure these powers can't be removed and that he remains in power. You keep making claims that the facts just don't back up. Embarassed for yourself yet? ;-)

Here, if the fact that it happened to be posted on an Alex Jones site, even though it was not in anyway affiliated with him bothers you so much, go here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlWbcvBN3cU&mode=related&search=

If the fact that Professor Turley is on Kieth Olbermann, even though he is there as an expert in constitutional law, bothers you so much, hit pause and wait till it loads to 2:32, skip there and hit play.

It is clear that Professor Turley believes that this law can be interpreted to include US Citizens.

If you want to attack Turley, do it directly. Alex Jones and Kieth Olbermann didn't have anything to do with his own personal assessment of the legal implications of this new law.

Where did I say it couldn't include US citizens? I clearly stated it could. What I am saying is that Bush can't arrest people just by declaring them unlawful combatants with nothing to back it up. Others here disagree and say he can.

So where do you stand? Do you agree with Psholtz and Mighty Oak that the President now has the power to order someone arrested just by claiming he or she is an unlawful combatant?

I don't disagree with Turley. I think we have to be careful whenever we grant the government power. However, I am NOT willing to go off half cocked like others here and start reading WAY more into it than is there. This is the whole reason we have checks and balances in our government. Congress writes the laws, the President signs them into law and the SCOTUS makes sure the laws follow the constitution.

[Patriot911]

psholtz wrote: Patriot911 wrote: I am active in politics and do my best to see that those people who best serve my interests get in office.
That people like you are *active* in politics probably says more about why things are so messed up in our country than anything else.. :lol:

First take the blinders off.. then you might be qualified to do something about politics... The Master once said something about removing the log in your own eye, before worrying about the speck in your neighbors eye.

:roll: Nice personal attack Psholtz. Is that all you have left? Wow. How sad for you.

[Medius]

Patriot911 wrote: Medius wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: Dude,what I am saying is that this law,Military Commissions Act of 2006,gives the President despotic powers.

What YOU said was that Bush could declare anyone an enemy combatant with no proof and without due process. What has been repeatedly pointed out is that this is a baseless claim and you got suckered in by Alex Jones..... AGAIN. NOW you're claiming Bush is a despot because you've been shown to be wrong on everything else and some guy said he now has despotic powers. :roll: So why isn't he arresting all the Democrats in congress, installing his own Republicans and claiming himself dictator? It would seem the first thing a person with despotic powers would do is to make sure these powers can't be removed and that he remains in power. You keep making claims that the facts just don't back up. Embarassed for yourself yet? ;-)

Here, if the fact that it happened to be posted on an Alex Jones site, even though it was not in anyway affiliated with him bothers you so much, go here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlWbcvBN3cU&mode=related&search=

If the fact that Professor Turley is on Kieth Olbermann, even though he is there as an expert in constitutional law, bothers you so much, hit pause and wait till it loads to 2:32, skip there and hit play.

It is clear that Professor Turley believes that this law can be interpreted to include US Citizens.

If you want to attack Turley, do it directly. Alex Jones and Kieth Olbermann didn't have anything to do with his own personal assessment of the legal implications of this new law.

Where did I say it couldn't include US citizens? I clearly stated it could. What I am saying is that Bush can't arrest people just by declaring them unlawful combatants with nothing to back it up. Others here disagree and say he can.

So where do you stand? Do you agree with Psholtz and Mighty Oak that the President now has the power to order someone arrested just by claiming he or she is an unlawful combatant?

I don't disagree with Turley. I think we have to be careful whenever we grant the government power. However, I am NOT willing to go off half cocked like others here and start reading WAY more into it than is there. This is the whole reason we have checks and balances in our government. Congress writes the laws, the President signs them into law and the SCOTUS makes sure the laws follow the constitution.

Once a person is declared an enemy combatant they may be held indefinately and secretly and without Habaeus Corpus, they have no recourse. These individuals may then be tortured up to the point of death until a confession is given.

Now where exactly is the restriction here? Why would they need to have reasons when they can just torture them out of you, legally?

I do agree that this can be used on citizens. I'm not saying that it will be done immediately, but if we don't get rid of this law, it will be done eventually. There is certainly such a thing as being too paranoid but there is also such a thing as being too complacent. I fear what this law will do to future generations. Psholtz fears what it may do tomorrow. You trust that things will work themselves out through the system.

I'll take ending it today or tomorrow rather than waiting until people are falsely imprisoned and possibly executed. So yeah, I definately agree with Pschultz on this one. This is an immediate concern and is something that the people should never have allowed to happen.