Is it time to stock-up on assault rifles?

[Bertelman]

---

Members do not see this ad.

"We've got to stop them from banning pornography. Once they start banning one form of literature, they will never stop. Next thing you know, they will be burning all the books!"

So you're OK with a ban on pornography?


👎

 

[usnavdoc]

By the way, last time I checked, you don't have to fit a certain political classification or party affiliation to have an opinion in this country.

You are exactly right. Thats why people like me join the military to protect the freedoms for people like you. Even though the first thing you would do is take those same freedoms from people like me.

 

[coprolalia]

I am a liberal who thinks that you should not be allowed to be a parent if you are a sociopath or if you lack the basic skills to provide a safe environment for a child.

Okay, but how do you know this information beforehand?

You are talking about pre-emptive legislation, I believe. What society should do is give the benefit of the doubt, along with free choice, to its individuals. It shouldn't proactively decide who gets to do what.

As for the former, there are plenty of laws on the books, as well as enforcement of those laws, that suffice. Is it perfect? Heck no. But, if you are a sh*tty parent, your kids will get taken away from you. If you beat your children (and I mean beyond regular punishment stuff) to the point of physical injury, you will go to jail. What do you want? Some sort of eugenically pleasing "parent test" beforehand, with requisite state-endorsed birth control for those who fail it? Who administers this test? What are the questions?

It seems you want to make contingencies for things that might occur before they happen. If you don't personally like guns, just say so. If you personally think they are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to be owned by private citizens, just say so. But, recognize that those are your personal beliefs and not necessarily reflective of your neighbor, who also has a right to his or her own beliefs. Just like public prayer. Just like abortion and the debate about when a life actually begins.

And, after you're finished with "Brave New World", go out and rent Minority Report to watch what is an admittedly non-realistic, futuristic version of what you're essentially advocating. There's also a TV mini-series version of "Brave New World" (pretty poorly done, if you ask me) that is probably available to rent if you're not into the whole book thing.

-copro

 

[Arch Guillotti]

You are exactly right. Thats why people like me join the military to protect the freedoms for people like you. Even though the first thing you would do is take those same freedoms from people like me.

I really hate to jump into arguments like this because they always get so ugly but anyways.

The freedoms that I assume you are referring to are those given by the Bill of Rights. You are passionate about the right to bear arms and that is fine and dandy. However to make the blanket statement that persons such as Plank is trying to take away your freedoms is pitiful at best. The Bush administration has trampled ALL OVER the rights that you so passionately speak of.

 

[militarymd]

I really hate to jump into arguments like this because they always get so ugly but anyways.

The freedoms that I assume you are referring to are those given by the Bill of Rights. You are passionate about the right to bear arms and that is fine and dandy. However to make the blanket statement that persons such as Plank is trying to take away your freedoms is pitiful at best. The Bush administration has trampled ALL OVER the Bill of Rights.

Is that right?

 

[Arch Guillotti]

Is that right?

haha you caught me after I edited my statement.

And yes, I believe he and his cronies have and I am just as passionate about it as many of you are about the right to bear unlimited arms.

 

[coprolalia]

The Bush administration has trampled ALL OVER the rights that you so passionately speak of.

Yeah, you're gonna have to justify that one. I agree with you, though, in this: if you can't substantiate a statement, you shouldn't join the conversation. Because, that's all this is at this point: a conversation. Everyone is being civil and making their points. If you, OTOH, want to start an argument, go right ahead.

-copro

 

[Arch Guillotti]

Yeah, you're gonna have to justify that one. I agree with you, though, in this: if you can't substantiate a statement, you shouldn't join the conversation. Because, that's all this is at this point: a conversation. Everyone is being civil and making their points. If you, OTOH, want to start an argument, go right ahead.

-copro

Uh I missed the part where I was starting an argument😎.

Poeple join in conversations all the time with "opinions". "Substantiating" a statment means very little. No matter what "facts" or "substantiation" I post there is little chance that it will change anyones mind.

I simply stated an opinion which I would be happy to quantify when I have a little more time.

 

[Josh L.Ac.]

So you're OK with a ban on pornography?


👎

Absolutely not.


That would be un-Amerikan.

 

[Arch Guillotti]

conversation. Everyone is being civil and making their points. If you, OTOH, want to start an argument, go right ahead.
-copro

Please explain to me how I am not being civil.😕

 

[usnavdoc]

I really hate to jump into arguments like this because they always get so ugly but anyways.

The freedoms that I assume you are referring to are those given by the Bill of Rights. You are passionate about the right to bear arms and that is fine and dandy. However to make the blanket statement that persons such as Plank is trying to take away your freedoms is pitiful at best. The Bush administration has trampled ALL OVER the rights that you so passionately speak of.

This has nothing to do with the bush administration or any other. You have no idea of my political ideas so dont assume you do. I am passionate about ALL the freedoms that americans enjoy not just the second ammedment.

I am simply responding to what plank has said. Its not a "pitiful" statement thats just more inflammatory verbage that you and plank like to throw around.

 

[Arch Guillotti]

This has nothing to do with the bush administration or any other. You have no idea of my political ideas so dont assume you do. I am passionate about ALL the freedoms that americans enjoy not just the second ammedment.

Well we disagree on the Bush administration then becuase I think that it has everything in the world to do with the Bush administration. Our individual understanding of which these freedoms represent obviously differs.

 

[Arch Guillotti]

thats just more inflammatory verbage that you and plank like to throw around.

LOL.

Both sides sling equally around here😎.

 

[coprolalia]

Arch,

If you are speaking of George Bush "trampling all over the bill of rights" (which you initially said, before you edited), you are going to start an argument. No one, to this point, provocatively and in an inflammatory manner named an individual responsible for anything. We were talking theoretically about Law and it's role in society. You slung mud, right or wrong and agreeably or not, at an individual - and you did not substantiate it.

That has the makings of an argument, not a discussion. And, the reality is that the discussion has been civil to this point. Now, if you want to interject a specific political figure, without specifically substantiating how, into the discussion in an accusatory manner, it will rapidly devolve into something uncivil.

In other words, there was no need for you to post at all in a "drive by" manner if you weren't ready to either (a) back-up what you say or (b) have a point germane to this thread. You either should've chosen not to post, or to have been prepared to have the discussion.

That was my point.

-copro

 

[usnavdoc]

Well we disagree on the Bush administration then becuase I think that it has everything in the world to do with the Bush administration. Our individual understanding of which these freedoms represent obviously differs.

I am saying the conversation that was at hand before you stepped in has nothing to do with the administration. You are just trying to steer it there.

 

[coprolalia]

I am saying the conversation that was at hand before you stepped in has nothing to do with the administration. You are just trying to steer it there.

Yes.

-copro

 

[coprolalia]

First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Third Amendment: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Fourth Amendment: 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.

Fifth Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Sixth Amendment: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Seventh Amendment: In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Eigth Amendment: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Have at it, Arch. You tipped your hand. We know what you were thinking. Now we want you to justify your statments. In fact, justify them with any "rights" you feel have been trampled upon.

I think you've quaffed the KoolAid so deeply that you don't even question your own rhetoric anymore...

-copro

 

[geogil]

Quote:
First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Third Amendment: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Fourth Amendment: 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.

Fifth Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Sixth Amendment: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Seventh Amendment: In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Eigth Amendment: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Have at it, Arch. You tipped your hand. We know what you were thinking. Now we want you to justify your statments. In fact, justify them with any "rights" you feel have been trampled upon.


-copro

Patriot act?

 

[usnavdoc]

Patriot act?

Actually the Patriot act does not infringe on the 4th ammendment. The ammendment itself does not set forth what specifics are necessary in order for search warrants to be issued it only lists things in generalities. In the 60s and 70s restrictions were enacted in response to abuses of government power associated with Watergate, anti–Vietnam War protesters, civil-rights groups, and the like. The Patriot act removed some of these restrictions. There still has been abuses no one is going to deny that.

It is a hard balance to try and prevent acts of terrorism as devestating as 9/11 while protecting the civil liberties of americans. I dont pretend to have the answers.

 

[coprolalia]

Yes, the Patriot Act is bad legislation. I disagree with it. It should sunset and not be renewed.

But, who passed the Patriot Act? Not, who supported it. (I'll give you a head start... it got 98 "Yea" votes in the Senate... full bipartisan support...)

Remember, Arch was talking about Bush trampling on rights, as well as what the definition of "unreasonable" is. Personally, I think it's crappy legislation and is unreasonable, especially if it is directed domestically for purposes other than sniffing out terrorists (which would not be really the "spirit" of the bill).

-copro

 

[Bertelman]

I think you've quaffed the KoolAid so deeply that you don't even question your own rhetoric anymore...

I really do believe that phrase has run its course in these forums.

Kudos for appropriate capitalization, though you missed the hyphen.

[YOUTUBE]LjacMS7Siqw[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Planktonmd]

Okay, but how do you know this information beforehand?

You are talking about pre-emptive legislation, I believe. What society should do is give the benefit of the doubt, along with free choice, to its individuals. It shouldn't proactively decide who gets to do what.

As for the former, there are plenty of laws on the books, as well as enforcement of those laws, that suffice. Is it perfect? Heck no. But, if you are a sh*tty parent, your kids will get taken away from you. If you beat your children (and I mean beyond regular punishment stuff) to the point of physical injury, you will go to jail. What do you want? Some sort of eugenically pleasing "parent test" beforehand, with requisite state-endorsed birth control for those who fail it? Who administers this test? What are the questions?

It seems you want to make contingencies for things that might occur before they happen. If you don't personally like guns, just say so. If you personally think they are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to be owned by private citizens, just say so. But, recognize that those are your personal beliefs and not necessarily reflective of your neighbor, who also has a right to his or her own beliefs. Just like public prayer. Just like abortion and the debate about when a life actually begins.

And, after you're finished with "Brave New World", go out and rent Minority Report to watch what is an admittedly non-realistic, futuristic version of what you're essentially advocating. There's also a TV mini-series version of "Brave New World" (pretty poorly done, if you ask me) that is probably available to rent if you're not into the whole book thing.

-copro

It seems to me that you are basing your view of the future on fantasy and science fiction movies.
This whole post has nothing to do with my original question to you:
I asked you if you think that the majority of your patients can be trusted to handle deadly weapons and it seems to me that your answer was yes!
I think this answer is actually BS.
How can you come here and tell us that the majority of patients you see in a university hospital in some inner city are actually responsible adults who could be trusted with other people's lives???
How can you say that with a straight face and expect us to buy it??
Man, you are giving me heart burn!

 

[Planktonmd]

Concerning the Bush administration argument:
Here is one little example: What do you call leaking the name of a CIA operative to the media because her husband didn't play nice??
I can think of a few rights that have been violated here and this is just one example and there are hundreds.
Anyway, this argument is pointless, this is the past, we can't change it so let's concentrate on the future.

 

[militarymd]

Concerning the Bush administration argument:
Here is one little example: What do you call leaking the name of a CIA operative to the media because her husband didn't play nice??
I can think of a few rights that have been violated here and this is just one example and there are hundreds.
Anyway, this argument is pointless, this is the past, we can't change it so let's concentrate on the future.

so....Is that what we call CIA secretaries these days?????

That Kool Aid is some powerful stuff.

 

[coprolalia]

I asked you if you think that the majority of your patients can be trusted to handle deadly weapons and it seems to me that your answer was yes!
I think this answer is actually BS.

Plank, again you are confusing legal gun ownership with illegal gun ownership.

There are plenty of people who are precluded by current laws in owning firearms who own them. The answer to that problem is not banning legal gun ownership.

Now, if you think that limiting the influx of legal guns that ultimately end-up in the hands of those who shouldn't have them, I'd counter that with the reality that there are already inumberable statutes and laws on the books that deal with that scenario. Don't confuse failed enforcement of existing laws with creation of new laws that will only deny access to those who are not trouble-makers and do nothing against those who are.

We don't need new laws. We need better enforcement of ones already on the books.

I'm not anti-law. I'm anti-bad-law.

-copro

 

[Planktonmd]

so....Is that what we call CIA secretaries these days?????

That Kool Aid is some powerful stuff.

Here is what wikipedia says about Valerie Plame:
resumed travel overseas in 2001, 2002, and 2003 as part of her cover job. She met with workers the nuclear industry, cultivated sources, and managed spies.[28] Part of her work involved ensuring that Iran did not acquire nuclear weapons.[29]

Here is the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame
It seems to me that she was more than a secretary.

 

[coprolalia]

What do you call leaking the name of a CIA operative to the media because her husband didn't play nice??

(1) I don't call that a "right" that was violated.

(2) I do call the details of what transpired a crime, and the person responsible, Scooter Libby, was indicted on Federal obstruction of justice and perjury charges, was convicted and ordered to serve thirty months in prison and fined $250,000 , and subsequently had his jail sentence commuted by President Bush.

Now, the latter part of (2) is a huge bone of contention with me, namely the executive power to pardon and commute sentences, but it is a privilege that no sitting president has passed up in a long time. Just ask "Slick Willy", who pardonned Cisneros.

-copro

 

[Planktonmd]

(1) I don't call that a "right" that was violated.

(2) I do call the details of what transpired a crime, and the person responsible, Scooter Libby, was indicted on Federal obstruction of justice and perjury charges, was convicted and ordered to serve thirty months in prison and fined $250,000 , and subsequently had his jail sentence commuted by President Bush.

Now, the latter part of (2) is a huge bone of contention with me, namely the executive power to pardon and commute sentences, but it is a privilege that no sitting president has passed up in a long time. Just ask "Slick Willy", who pardonned Cisneros.

-copro

Right!
Scooter did it by himself!
No one told him to do it.
😀

 

[coprolalia]

Right!
Scooter did it by himself!
No one told him to do it.
😀

Your attempted off-topic derailment, again, duly noted.

In summary:

(1) Bush, acting individually, has not violated anyone's "rights" anymore than any other sitting president.

(2) There are plenty of gun laws already on the books. We need these to be enforced. We don't need new ones.

(3) Many people on this forum really enjoy the KoolAid, and gulp it down like a wandering adventurer lost deep in the Sahara. They seem to believe that the best laws are pre-emptive ones, and that everyone else, besides themselves, are just not quite as smart as they are and can't decide what's right and wrong in advance without the government telling them.

(4) I have answered all your questions and challenges. In response to this exchange:

I am a liberal who thinks that you should not be allowed to be a parent if you are a sociopath or if you lack the basic skills to provide a safe environment for a child.

... you avoided my question...

What do you want? Some sort of eugenically pleasing "parent test" beforehand, with requisite state-endorsed birth control for those who fail it? Who administers this test? What are the questions?

Care to answer it now?

(5) We have enough laws. Too many. Let's enforce the ones we have before we make new ones, which only create more loopholes and contingencies and make criminals out of otherwise decent people...

... BUT, the good news is you still have a week left to drop your kids of in Nebraska if you don't want them anymore. Hurry. I hear they are even accepting children from other states.



(It scares me that so many of you trust the government at the level you do to know what's best for everyone and always do what's right.)

-copro

 

[Planktonmd]

Your attempted off-topic derailment, again, duly noted.

In summary:

(1) Bush, acting individually, has not violated anyone's "rights" anymore than any other sitting president.

(2) There are plenty of gun laws already on the books. We need these to be enforced. We don't need new ones.

(3) Many people on this forum really enjoy the KoolAid, and gulp it down like a wandering adventurer lost deep in the Sahara. They seem to believe that the best laws are pre-emptive ones, and that everyone else, besides themselves, are just not quite as smart as they are and can't decide what's right and wrong in advance without the government telling them.

(4) I have answered all your questions and challenges. In response to this exchange:



... you avoided my question...



Care to answer it now?

(5) We have enough laws. Too many. Let's enforce the ones we have before we make new ones, which only create more loopholes and contingencies and make criminals out of otherwise decent people...

... BUT, the good news is you still have a week left to drop your kids of in Nebraska if you don't want them anymore. Hurry. I hear they are even accepting children from other states.



(It scares me that so many of you trust the government at the level you do to know what's best for everyone and always do what's right.)

-copro

I think if I continue this discussion with you I will definitely develop an ulcer.
This is equivalent to trying to convince Sarah Palin that Africa is a continent not a country and that the vice president does not run the senate.

 

[militarymd]

and we all know how accurate wikipedia is.

Here is what wikipedia says about Valerie Plame:
resumed travel overseas in 2001, 2002, and 2003 as part of her cover job. She met with workers the nuclear industry, cultivated sources, and managed spies.[28] Part of her work involved ensuring that Iran did not acquire nuclear weapons.[29]

Here is the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame
It seems to me that she was more than a secretary.

 

[coprolalia]

I think if I continue this discussion with you I will definitely develop an ulcer.
This is equivalent to trying to convince Sarah Palin that Africa is a continent not a country and that the vice president does not run the senate.

Yes, I agree. You are much like Sarah Palin in that regard.

And, again, evasion duly noted.

-copro

 

[Bertelman]

This is equivalent to trying to convince Sarah Palin that Africa is a continent...

FWIW, that's a myth.

It was among the juicier post-election recriminations: Fox News Channel quoted an unnamed McCain campaign figure as saying that Sarah Palin did not know that Africa was a continent.

Who would say such a thing? On Monday the answer popped up on a blog and popped out of the mouth of David Shuster, an MSNBC anchor. "Turns out it was Martin Eisenstadt, a McCain policy adviser, who has come forward today to identify himself as the source of the leaks," Mr. Shuster said.

Trouble is, Martin Eisenstadt doesn't exist. His blog does, but it's a put-on. The think tank where he is a senior fellow — the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy — is just a Web site. The TV clips of him on YouTube are fakes.

And the claim of credit for the Africa anecdote is just the latest ruse by Eisenstadt, who turns out to be a very elaborate hoax that has been going on for months. MSNBC, which quickly corrected the mistake, has plenty of company in being taken in by an Eisenstadt hoax, including The New Republic and The Los Angeles Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/a...cp=1&sq=sarah palin africa&st=cse&oref=slogin

 

[BADMD]

(1) Bush, acting individually, has not violated anyone's "rights" anymore than any other sitting president.

Jose Pedilla

He is an American citizen and arrested inside the United States. By a stroke of luck he was not denied access to a Lawyer, before being designated an enemy combatant by President Bush and held without charges for 3 and 1/2 years before being transfered to civilian courts. He was only actually transfered and charged and the courts were coming down hard on government's actions.

This is the single most frightening that the government can do to us. Bush supported the process and had to certify Pedilla's status.

And Bush's "signing statements" are also a bit on the scary side.

 

[coprolalia]

This is the single most frightening that the government can do to us. Bush supported the process and had to certify Pedilla's status.

Following September 11, Bush and Congress adopted sweeping antiterror policies that critics say in many cases undermine the civil liberties of Americans.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/04/27/detainees/

Again, the USA PATRIOT Act is a bad law (see above). It violates at least three of the ten Bill of Rights. (Now I'm just repeating myself.)

This was not, however, the act of Bush individually violating someone's rights. It was one of a bad law and a bad system. And, just for the record, Pedilla is far from a "nice guy" as well. To me, the bigger Constitutional question is whether or not they should be operating under martial law with cases such as these, which the Patriot act (wrongfully) helps circumnavigate.

Listen, I'm sure we could go through each President over the past 100 years and make point-by-point arguments about things that happened during their administration that were less than ideal situations. The detainment into what were effectively "concentration camps" of Japanese Americans during WWII immediately comes to mind as a parallel to this situation.

Fact is, many of you people have a deep hatred for Bush. I think Bush has been a terrible and ineffetive President, but I don't hate him. I also don't hate Obama... or Sarah Palin... or Joe Biden... or John McCain... or any other political figure. I'm just not that emotionally involved in the process.

This is supposed to be, as John Adams famously said, "a government of laws, not of men." Bad laws should be tested and thrown out. This is part of the process. It seems lately that Americans expect it to be a government of men and the government to always get it right... that somehow a President can and should have all the answers. As I've always said, the more bad and concrete laws you have the more problems you create. We hate the idea that judges might actually use greater discretion and vast ability to interpret laws in individual circumstances.

The healthcare system is trying to do the same thing to you as a doctor, by the way.

What I do stand for, and have always stood for, is a government that trusts its citizens to do the right thing. I'm for, and always have been for, a system that equitably and justly removes their ability to continue to exercise that freedom when they do the wrong thing.

Why is that so hard for people (like Plank) to understand?

-copro

 

[coprolalia]

I think if I continue this discussion with you I will definitely develop an ulcer.

I think that's because you are confusing who is the teacher and who is the student here. 😉

-copro

 

[BADMD]

This was not, however, the act of Bush individually violating someone's rights.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/padillabush60902det.pdf

Actually, Bush did, individually, certify Pedilla as an enemy combatant. You can argue that a staffer or someone else wrote it, but Bush had to sign it or allow it to be signed in his name. That is about as individual as you can get and be president.

 

[Planktonmd]

I think that's because you are confusing who is the teacher and who is the student here. 😉

-copro

You are definitely a teacher when it comes to right wing rotten ideology based on the joe six pack doctrine.
Or is it Joe the plumber??
I just find it sad that in a time where the whole world is going forward we can find people like you who want to drag this country back to the middle ages, and the worst part is that we can find you in the medical profession.
I find this extremely depressing.
Now why don't you go buy some rifles.

 

[coprolalia]

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/padillabush60902det.pdfActually, Bush did, individually, certify Pedilla as an enemy combatant. You can argue that a staffer or someone else wrote it, but Bush had to sign it or allow it to be signed in his name. That is about as individual as you can get and be president.

I think you are confusing signing a writ and being individually responsible. There are a lot of things presidents sign. Things that they would be not upholding the duty of the office (failure to uphold the duties of the office) if they didn't. Now, I'm sure Bush could pardon Pedilla if he wanted to. But, why? Pedilla is a dirtbag. Not saying that he shouldn't have his day in court, but clearly a dirtbag.

I don't want the executive branch to intepret the law. I want them to carry out the law, good or bad, and let the courts decide whether or not the law is constitutional. We should work to get the USA PATRIOT Act sunsetted or overturned for its clear breaches of the Constitution, not blame an individual for carrying out the duties of his office under that Law. But, much like a really bad backdoor computer virus, it has so many safety stipulations against legal challenge that it makes it hard for that to happen. That's what makes it scary.

Furthermore, I'm also for more severely limiting the executive branch's power to conduct proactive military campaigns without the approval of Congress. This fits squarely with the right for the American people to know what its government is doing on a macro level, as well as allow a check-and-balance for securing appropriations for such activities. The President (as an officer running the executive branch, not necesarily the individual), I'm not arguing against this, clearly has WAY too much power these days. But, rarely - rarely - does he act alone, and certainly does not by himself have the power to "trample on people's rights" as an individual.

Don't expect much change, though, with Obama. I'm just not that optimistic that things are going to be all that different over the next four years.

-copro

 

[Surfer]

(1) I don't call that a "right" that was violated.

(2) I do call the details of what transpired a crime, and the person responsible, Scooter Libby, was indicted on Federal obstruction of justice and perjury charges, was convicted and ordered to serve thirty months in prison and fined $250,000 , and subsequently had his jail sentence commuted by President Bush.

Now, the latter part of (2) is a huge bone of contention with me, namely the executive power to pardon and commute sentences, but it is a privilege that no sitting president has passed up in a long time. Just ask "Slick Willy", who pardonned Cisneros.

-copro

It wasn't scooter libby that leaked the name. it wasn't bush or any of his people. it was ARMITAGE!! Get your facts straight people, this had NOTHING to do with Bush, Cheney, Rove, or Libby.

Libby went to jail for perjury regarding a timeframe he testified he had spoken with somebody and in fact, that time frame was off. the conversation was irrelevent however the prosecutor needed a fall guy so he got one.

how come clinton isn't in prison for his perjury?

 

[coprolalia]

You are definitely a teacher when it comes to right wing rotten ideology based on the joe six pack doctrine.
Or is it Joe the plumber??

First off, you haven't been paying attention. I voted for Bob Barr. So, if you're going to sling mud, at least get your facts straight. Or, maybe this is just more intellectual laziness rearing its ugly head...

I just find it sad that in a time where the whole world is going forward...

Going forward? What the hell does that mean? Stock market continuing to fall after Obama being elected. Democratic majority control of the White House which will inevitably mean more "big brother" mandating what you can and cannot do. Talk of large plans to reform government and be more inclusive of people who don't pay their way in society, the so-called "representation without taxation" class. And, a new order of "consensus based" thinking that will kill ingenuity in this country.

Yeah, we're moving forward alright. Right back to 1917 Communist Russia.

... we can find people like you who want to drag this country back to the middle ages, and the worst part is that we can find you in the medical profession.
I find this extremely depressing.
Now why don't you go buy some rifles.

Ad hominem. Plank, you really need to pay more close attention. I'm all for individual responsibility. I'm for allowing people the right to choose what's best for themselves. I'm for less bad laws, less government, less interference, less handouts, and more requirement that Americans stand up and take responsibility for themselves.

The way this entire bailout has been handled should have you worried - very worried. If we don't allow anyone in this country to fail - and learn an important lesson in the process - we will continue this "government will always save us" entitlement culture that is ruining our country. Yes, ruining our country.

If you think that I believe Bush was a great president, I invite you to go back and read all of my posts and point out where I once said that. I invite you to re-read closely what I've written on this very thread.

The theme - the biggest theme of all - is that if you give someone something, they won't appreciate it. And, if you, conversely, try to take something away from somebody, they are going to covet it even more.

The fact that you (and many like you who call themselves "doctors") don't get that, indeed, has me worried for our profession. It's incredible the amount of time, money, and effort we waste on a daily basis coddling "consensus thinkers" like yourself.

-copro

 

[coprolalia]

It wasn't scooter libby that leaked the name. it wasn't bush or any of his people. it was ARMITAGE!! Get your facts straight people, this had NOTHING to do with Bush, Cheney, Rove, or Libby.

Libby went to jail for perjury regarding a timeframe he testified he had spoken with somebody and in fact, that time frame was off. the conversation was irrelevent however the prosecutor needed a fall guy so he got one.

Well, Karl Rove certainly confirmed for Novac that Plame, Wilson's husband, was a CIA operative. But...

While no one has been indicted for actually leaking Plame's identity, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, has been charged with perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators for allegedly giving false information about his discussions with journalists about Plame.

Fall guy, or not. Scooter shouldn't have lied about what he knew.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/08/leak.armitage/index.html

-copro

 

[BADMD]

I think you are confusing signing a writ and being individually responsible. There are a lot of things presidents sign. Things that they would be not upholding the duty of the office (failure to uphold the duties of the office) if they didn't.

Using that line of reasoning, Bush isn't responsible for anything. He is just the rubber stamp on a great the machine that is the US government. He is nothing more than a cog. Sorry, but I don't buy it.

There is no reason that Bush had to certify an American citizen, arrested inside the United States, as an enemy combatant, and held by military authorities. There was no precedent for it and as the executive, part of what is supposed to do is defend the Constitution of the US. The Patriot Act may have given him that power, a power he asked for, but it was up to him to use it.

Letting the courts work in a standard fashion could never have been considered "not upholding the duty of the office." There is no way around it. HE did it and HE didn't have to.

Don't forget there was his authorization of wiretaps, ignoring FISA. No congressional authorization on this one until after the fact. And his demands that all the telecoms who complied (illegally) have immunity from civil suits. Yes, he alone wasn't responsible. Trying to argue that he isn't responsible is just disingenuous. He pushed and demanded for the changes. He tried to shroud wrong doing in the cloak of "secrecy." He demanded these powers and then he used them (and sometimes the other way around).

HE is responsible. Personally. The only way around it is to create such a narrow definition of personal responsibility as to cause the phrase to lose meaning.

 

[BADMD]

certainly does not by himself have the power to "trample on people's rights" as an individual

Sure he does. He just has to sign a piece of paper that says you are an enemy combatant. No charges need be filed. And if you don't already have a lawyer, you might not get to see a court room, ever.

 

[coprolalia]

HE is responsible. Personally. The only way around it is to create such a narrow definition of personal responsibility as to cause the phrase to lose meaning.

It doesn't have any meaning here. He is upholding a law. Presidents do this all the time. And, your implicit suggestion is that this was done aribitrarily, and without any evidence, and that the USA PATRIOT Act was violated is not upheld by the facts. If the president signed such an order without such a factual basis, that would be abuse of power... and that's a whole separate matter. This is a crucial distinction. This is not the issue of an individual, the president, trampling on someone's rights. In signing, he is upholding the law - no matter how bad that law is.

Now, if you want to discuss "Executive privilege", that's an entirely different matter not covered in what you're asserting above.

-copro

 

[coprolalia]

Sure he does. He just has to sign a piece of paper that says you are an enemy combatant. No charges need be filed. And if you don't already have a lawyer, you might not get to see a court room, ever.

H-E I-S U-P-H-O-L-D-I-N-G T-H-E L-A-W. THAT'S HIS JOB! (Sheesh, how many times do I have to say it?!??!)

-copro

 

[Planktonmd]

First off, you haven't been paying attention. I voted for Bob Barr. So, if you're going to sling mud, at least get your facts straight. Or, maybe this is just more intellectual laziness rearing its ugly head...
-copro

Sorry, I can't keep track of your constantly changing political identity.
It doesn't matter who you voted for though, you are still following the Joe six pack doctrine.

Going forward? What the hell does that mean? Stock market continuing to fall after Obama being elected. Democratic majority control of the White House which will inevitably mean more "big brother" mandating what you can and cannot do. Talk of large plans to reform government and be more inclusive of people who don't pay their way in society, the so-called "representation without taxation" class. And, a new order of "consensus based" thinking that will kill ingenuity in this country.

Yeah, we're moving forward alright. Right back to 1917 Communist Russia.


-copro

The world is moving forward, you don't see it because you are limited by your rotten backward mentality.
Look around you, read things other than right wing propaganda and science fiction.

 

[BADMD]

H-E I-S U-P-H-O-L-D-I-N-G T-H-E L-A-W. THAT'S HIS JOB! (Sheesh, how many times do I have to say it?!??!)

-copro

Sorry. You are never going to convince me of that he isn't culpable. He did abuse his power and trampled on the Constitution in the process. Arguing that he is just Upholding The Law is a ridiculous simplification that borders on denying reality.

 

[proman]

I'm confused. Specifically, what right have I lost because of the Patriot Act?

 

[coprolalia]

I'm confused. Specifically, what right have I lost because of the Patriot Act?

Large portions of the Patriot Act violate the 4th, 5th, 6th, and possibly the 8th Amendment.

-copro