Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
wayne

Thanks Dennis! -Impeach the Bastard!

Recommended Posts

Let me rephrase the question.

 

 

 

No. You said Bush is shredding the constitution. Tell me where, or STFU. I don't give a fuck about what you feel or believe.

 

 

Typical FW. Got stuck at a wall and can’t go forward without changing the direction of the conversation. You can not admit on this site that torture is flat out wrong. Fuck the constitution…..what do YOU think? And what you think does matter…..remember WE ARE THE PEOPLE. I don’t know that the constitution says about holding prisoners outside American soil. I personally think all men and women regardless of whom or where you are from should be treated equally. Republicans apparently don’t share this conviction

 

So…..are you able to share a personal insight?

 

PS I don’t believe I said bush is shredding the constitution. I am not going to go back and look…..but I don’t believe I wrote that in this topic. If I did sorry……

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t know that the constitution says about holding prisoners outside American soil.

 

Sounds like a personal problem. Maybe you should do something about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As far as the media "lying", who do you propose to determine the validity of each and every media report, story, opinion? A government agency? Yea, right. I am still in shock that you support a ban on press freedom and have the gall to claim Bush has shredded the constitution. Every time I ask for specifics you come up lame and then refuse to reply.

 

I believe the last two or three times you brought this up I answered you to say that I'm not sure what the best mechanism would be for effective accountability but I would imagine it would involve both some kind of governmental regulation and civil responsibility. I bet you have no problem with laws that ban indecent material in prime time television or newspapers so why are you so uncomfortable with the idea that out and out lying sold as "news" in these same sources might also be restricted? Oh yes, and these laws against indecency are enforced by that horrendous institution you call the government.

 

Am I correct to observe, then, that you DO agree in there being some limits on freedom of the press? We are just talking about where to draw the lines, and not whether there should be any lines at all -- right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they use this money to convey the ideals of my like-minded colleagues to those in Congress.

 

 

well that sums up the process a little too broadly. what you mean is they buy hookers and blow for politicians in order to buy a seat at the table.

 

NO, I don't. Don't put words in my mouth. That is what YOU believe happens. Lobbyists are an extension of our 1st Amendment-guaranteed rights to petition our government for redress of grievances.

 

sorry guy, that was a failed attempt at humor. so you're saying that lobbyists and their money are what the founding fathers had in mind with the 1st amendment? like i said, i haven't researched it at all, so i'm open to hear some facts here about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they use this money to convey the ideals of my like-minded colleagues to those in Congress.

 

 

well that sums up the process a little too broadly. what you mean is they buy hookers and blow for politicians in order to buy a seat at the table.

 

NO, I don't. Don't put words in my mouth. That is what YOU believe happens. Lobbyists are an extension of our 1st Amendment-guaranteed rights to petition our government for redress of grievances.

 

sorry guy, that was a failed attempt at humor. so you're saying that lobbyists and their money are what the founding fathers had in mind with the 1st amendment? like i said, i haven't researched it at all, so i'm open to hear some facts here about it.

 

I am saying that it is one way to exercise that right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. You said Bush is shredding the constitution. Tell me where. I don't give a fuck about what you feel or believe.

 

Habeus Corpus? What's that?

"Show me the corpse." Please do tell me where it has been suspended under GWB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. You said Bush is shredding the constitution. Tell me where. I don't give a fuck about what you feel or believe.

 

Habeus Corpus? What's that?

"Show me the corpse." Please do tell me where it has been suspended under GWB.

 

Osama Bin Laden?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, given the Abramoff debacle, i don't think it is partisan to have a negative view of the lobbys impact on the process. freedom of speech and petition is one thing, but when you make it a money game, well, we have seen the result. people are bought, and the process as designed is derailed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. You said Bush is shredding the constitution. Tell me where. I don't give a fuck about what you feel or believe.

 

Habeus Corpus? What's that?

"Show me the corpse." Please do tell me where it has been suspended under GWB.

ENEMY COMBATANTS

 

NOTE: THAT CAN INCLUDE US CITIZENS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's one of the many reasons in detail:

 

US President George Bush admitted, in his weekly radio address on December 17, 2005, that he ordered the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct electronic surveillance of US citizens without seeking warrants. The admission followed the publication of the story in the New York Times on December 16 that approximately 500 such warrantless searches were being conducted at any given moment continuously for the last 4 years. The New York Times admitted knowing about the story for "a year," but sat on the story at the request of the Bush Administration.

 

 

The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution says, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." For decades, at least until the Supreme Court ruled the practice illegal (United States v. United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan 407 U.S. 297, 313 (1972)) the NSA routinely violated the Fourth Amendment by conducting warrantless surveillance on US citizens.

 

In 1978, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Despite the law's Orwellian and unconstitutional secret court proceedings, it did codify into law the bedrock principle that warrants are necessary to legally eavesdrop on US citizens.

 

The law included a provision declaring that using the FISA process of obtaining warrants from the FISA courts is the "the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance…may be conducted." Fewer than ten of the over 15,000 requests for warrants to the FISA courts have been denied since 1978.

 

President Bush, in a press conference on December 19, claimed that he ordered the electronic surveillance because, "this is a different era, different war. It's a war where people are changing phone numbers and phone calls, and they're moving quick." Yet, Joshua Marshall's Talking Points Memo of December 17 pointed out, FISA has an "Emergency order" provision allowing a wiretap to proceed immediately in "emergency situations" as long as the Attorney General retroactively applies for a warrant within 72 hours. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell admitted this point on Nightline on December 21.

 

Lawyer Martin Garbus, on Democracy Now, December 19, 2005, said that ordering such wiretaps without warrants, "Is a crime.... it is an impeachable offense." Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office, said, "Eavesdropping on conversations of US citizens and others in the United States without a court order and without complying with the procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is both illegal and unconstitutional. The administration is claiming extraordinary presidential powers at the expense of civil liberties and is putting the president above the law. Congress must investigate this report thoroughly. We also call upon Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to appoint a special prosecutor to independently investigate whether crimes have been committed." A special prosecutor could refer a case to the House for possible impeachment.

 

Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), on WAOK radio on December 20, 2005, reminded listeners that Bush is "Not King, he is president." Since, "He deliberately, systematically violated the law," Lewis recommends proceeding directly to impeachment.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's one of the many reasons in detail:

 

US President George Bush admitted, in his weekly radio address on December 17, 2005, that he ordered the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct electronic surveillance of US citizens without seeking warrants. The admission followed the publication of the story in the New York Times on December 16 that approximately 500 such warrantless searches were being conducted at any given moment continuously for the last 4 years. The New York Times admitted knowing about the story for "a year," but sat on the story at the request of the Bush Administration.

 

Listening in on overseas phone conversations is not unconstitutional, even when one party resides inside our borders.

 

 

The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution says, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." For decades, at least until the Supreme Court ruled the practice illegal (United States v. United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan 407 U.S. 297, 313 (1972)) the NSA routinely violated the Fourth Amendment by conducting warrantless surveillance on US citizens.

 

Surveillance does not equal search and/or seizure. C'mon. "The practice has been going on for 'decades'"? Why are you only now concerned?

 

In 1978, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Despite the law's Orwellian and unconstitutional secret court proceedings, it did codify into law the bedrock principle that warrants are necessary to legally eavesdrop on US citizens.

 

The law included a provision declaring that using the FISA process of obtaining warrants from the FISA courts is the "the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance…may be conducted." Fewer than ten of the over 15,000 requests for warrants to the FISA courts have been denied since 1978.

 

President Bush, in a press conference on December 19, claimed that he ordered the electronic surveillance because, "this is a different era, different war. It's a war where people are changing phone numbers and phone calls, and they're moving quick." Yet, Joshua Marshall's Talking Points Memo of December 17 pointed out, FISA has an "Emergency order" provision allowing a wiretap to proceed immediately in "emergency situations" as long as the Attorney General retroactively applies for a warrant within 72 hours. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell admitted this point on Nightline on December 21.

 

Lawyer Martin Garbus, on Democracy Now, December 19, 2005, said that ordering such wiretaps without warrants, "Is a crime.... it is an impeachable offense." Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office, said, "Eavesdropping on conversations of US citizens and others in the United States without a court order and without complying with the procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is both illegal and unconstitutional. The administration is claiming extraordinary presidential powers at the expense of civil liberties and is putting the president above the law. Congress must investigate this report thoroughly. We also call upon Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to appoint a special prosecutor to independently investigate whether crimes have been committed." A special prosecutor could refer a case to the House for possible impeachment.

 

Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), on WAOK radio on December 20, 2005, reminded listeners that Bush is "Not King, he is president." Since, "He deliberately, systematically violated the law," Lewis recommends proceeding directly to impeachment.

 

 

So now politicians and activist organizations get to decide what's constitutional? They said it, so you believe it? Careful; MattP wants to silence lies like this.

 

You've demonstrated absolutely zip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Careful; MattP wants to silence lies like this.

 

Why are you dragging me into this separate discussion in what you intend as a derogatory fashion? Just to be rude or is this your idea of being playful? And by the way: you haven't answered my last post -- the third time I have offered more or less the same reply to your taunt.

 

And double by the way: what is logical about this idea that spying on US citizens when they are making foreign phone calls is more constitutional then when they are phoning somebody next door? Or that surveillance is not the kind of thing intended to be addressed by the 4th amendment? Now the President and his cabinet get to decide what is Constitutional? He said it, you believe it? Careful: the next President may be a Democrat.

Edited by mattp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Relax Matt.

FW does not beleive in the two party system.

If you disagree with George, you ARE a criminal.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you dragging me into this separate discussion in what you intend as a derogatory fashion? Just to be rude or is this your idea of being playful? And by the way: you haven't answered my last post -- the third time I have offered more or less the same reply to your taunt.

 

 

I'm not sure which question you are talking about. You stated that you think the government would be qualified to censor the media, but failed to state how that would work--or how it's constitutional. I think that's a discussion ender right there. You haven't answered my questions about border screening and how it would be carried out in a manner liberals would find palatable and effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Message from HughConway that he asked me to pass along:

 

"Dear Bug, would you mind too terribly changing your avatar image? It's making me salivate and triggering a gag reflex that I am presently having difficulty controlling. Sincerely, your really, really good friend, Huey."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fairweather-

I only crave closeted Republican cock like yours!

-yearning for your asshole

 

You want Republican cock! You can't handle Republican cock...

truth-05-2008.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. . . if he wasn't just a chickenshit Keyboard Commando. :wave:

 

hey, you're missing important information on the Larry Craig front! Get back to your investigations into the recent developments in his case - and be sure to have lots of tissue handy.

 

Oh, and fuck off, you pencil-necked fuckwad. :wave:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure which question you are talking about. You stated that you think the government would be qualified to censor the media, but failed to state how that would work--or how it's constitutional. I think that's a discussion ender right there. You haven't answered my questions about border screening and how it would be carried out in a manner liberals would find palatable and effective.

 

You are asking me to design the enforcement program in order to suggest an issue that should be addressed? Can you design an effective or fair or justifiable war on drugs? I think not.

 

Do you or do you not believe that censorship for decency or for "state secrets" is justifiable and constitutional? (And does outing a secret agent count?) What do you think of the "equal time" rule, that goes back to maybe the 1920's?

 

Border screening? What is your question?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hey, you're missing important information on the Larry Craig front! Get back to your investigations into the recent developments in his case - and be sure to have lots of tissue handy.

 

Oh, and fuck off, you pencil-necked fuckwad. :wave:

 

Looks like someone is still pissed off that he didn't get that Summer Internship. :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×