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

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:

 

Now, now. We all know you secretly want a R's dick up your scrawny pathetic little queer asshole. That's why you're so obsessed with LC, and R's in general.

 

Go back to your little room, and spank away, little boy.

 

 

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.

 

You haven't been paying attention. The Supreme Court ruled that free speech is not unconstrained under the Constitution. You should be, if you're not, aware of the quote regarding yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Likewise there have been numerous cases on the public's need to know vs state secrets. And porno - what?Like you've never heard of the Larry Flint case or the Ohio museum case? For someone always wrapping themselves in the flag you seem to be woefully ignorant of how this all works or even of recent case history. Try Goggles on the Internets. :rolleyes:

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?

 

 

 

History of The Fairness Doctrine:

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

 

"In 1984, the Supreme Court decided that the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine did not apply to expanding communications technologies, and that the doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate (FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364)[6]. The Court's majority decision by William J. Brennan, Jr. noted concerns that the Fairness Doctrine was "chilling speech," and added that the Supreme Court would be "forced" to revisit the constitutionality of the doctrine if it did have "the net effect of reducing rather than enhancing speech."

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.

 

You haven't been paying attention. The Supreme Court ruled that free speech is not unconstrained under the Constitution. You should be, if you're not, aware of the quote regarding yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Likewise there have been numerous cases on the public's need to know vs state secrets. And porno - what?Like you've never heard of the Larry Flint case or the Ohio museum case? For someone always wrapping themselves in the flag you seem to be woefully ignorant of how this all works or even of recent case history. Try Goggles on the Internets. :rolleyes:

 

You aren't comprehending the issue and are now trying to mix political speech and press freedom debates with local standards. For someone who marches with communists (World Can't Wait :rolleyes:) you sure seem concerned about censorship. (Wait...now it all makes sense!) Wrapping myself in the flag? Fuck off little man. I support your right to burn it.

Edited by Fairweather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dems are all talk...

 

Republicans, seeing a chance to force Democrats into an embarrassing debate, voted to bring up the resolution. Democrats countered by pushing through a motion to scuttle the bill from the floor.

 

link

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those last two posts work together quite well. The dems come out with a whole lot of hollering and posturing and the Repubs just kinda go along with it. Until an antiquated grenade goes off and blows the whole preposterous charade off the table.

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.

 

 

 

Spot on. FW how can you argue with this?

 

 

Hopefully GWB will be tried for war crimes once out of office. It is clear that he broke the law. Too bad all of the senate is corrupt. I don’t see how this and all of Dennis’ allegations can be ignored. Don’t the Republicans want to discredit the allegations? The reason they hold suck a tight noose around the dems is because they know the President is a criminal. Nancy Pelosi is a coward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those last two posts work together quite well. The dems come out with a whole lot of hollering and posturing and the Repubs just kinda go along with it.

 

True enough. What would you do if the dems actually grew some balls?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I keep saying,the two party system is a good thing. No matter what goes wrong there is someone to point at.

In this case it is campaign finance reform that is at the heart of the issues we are argueing over.

Lobbiests are a part of the system. Funding tens of millions of dollars worth of ploitical ads adn campaigns is propoganda.

 

At least Obama raised his over the internet in smaller doses but the issue of huge spending on marketing campaigns is still the problem.

 

I like McCain's idea of joint Town Hall meetings.

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."

 

Huey - here is the reply from Bug. (I wish you two would speak directly to one another.)

 

"My darling Hubert, it should be easy for you to deduce simply by looking at my flaccid avatar that the days of tickling your tonsils have long passed. Even the little blue pill I take now hasn't allowed me the daily self-gratification I once so enjoyed while PM'ing you on this very website. While I hope to regain my fully erect four and one-quarter inches with therapy, I'll now just have to settle for giving anonymous hand jobs in local Seattle restrooms and looking at pictures of livestock. Toodles, Bug"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From FW;

"Dear Mr. President,

 

I have a blue dress exactly like Monica's and I am willing to fly to DC at your beck and call.

Oh, and I have that coke you ordered.

 

Yours amorously,

Fairweather"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FW. Are you disputing that GWB has broken the law in regards to wire tapping?

 

Based on what has been publicly disclosed; yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FW. Are you disputing that GWB has broken the law in regards to wire tapping?

 

Based on what has been publicly disclosed; yes.

 

He admitted to ILLEGAL wiretapping and you still dispute. Conservatism is a mental disorder.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FW. Are you disputing that GWB has broken the law in regards to wire tapping?

 

Based on what has been publicly disclosed; yes.

 

He admitted to ILLEGAL wiretapping and you still dispute. Conservatism is a mental disorder.

 

 

Really? Show me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? Show me.

 

 

Pretty hard to show someone something when ignorance is there guide.......but I will try.

 

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

:lmao::lmao: Let me see if I have this right...

 

Bush admits to wiretapping AlQueda suspect's overseas phone calls. Libtards call those wiretaps illegal. Kevbone is now free to claim that "Bush has admitted to illegal wiretaps!" :rolleyes:

 

Kev, I've rarely wasted time with you and now I remember why. There are sophisticated/educated libs, and there are mentally lacking libs like you who, unfortunately, make up the bulk of the Democrat voting base. There doesn't seem to be much in between.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mmmmm…….why is it that the government pushed to have all telecom companies immune from prosecution? Because they did something illegal? Just maybe? mmmm who ordered the telecom compaines to do this illegal act? mmmmmm????

 

 

Put that in your pipe and smoke it……

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mmmmm…….why is it that the government pushed to have all telecom companies immune from prosecution? Because they did something illegal. Put that in your pipe and smoke it……

 

you need to do a little less smoking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mmmmm…….why is it that the government pushed to have all telecom companies immune from prosecution? Because they did something illegal? Just maybe? mmmm who ordered the telecom compaines to do this illegal act? mmmmmm????

 

 

Put that in your pipe and smoke it……

 

Telecom companies were (rightfully) worried about civil lawsuits from America-hater groups. Don't shoot the messenger/good legislation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ America-hater groups.

 

 

What or who is an American hater group?

 

Someone who does not agree with you? I tend to feel if you don’t hold this administration accountable for it dealings…..it will open itself up for dictatorship in the future. If this administration has done nothing wrong than they should not be afraid of an inquisition…..right?

 

 

 

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  

×