Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 5/26/2003 2:26:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/26/2003 2:29:44 AM EDT by Garand1911]
will GW be re-elected? will the economy keep him from a 2nd term? if No, will he try to change the laws and run for a 3rd term ? will Jeb Bush make a run for the Presidency in a few years? what say you ?
Link Posted: 5/26/2003 2:31:48 AM EDT
The economy could be his downfall if something doesn't break soon. I don't see any "third term" law change.
Link Posted: 5/26/2003 2:40:01 AM EDT
He would need an amendment to the constitution to seek a third term.
Link Posted: 5/26/2003 5:09:54 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Garand1911: will GW be re-elected?
View Quote
Yes, if we're lucky.
will the economy keep him from a 2nd term?
View Quote
I hope not.
if No, will he try to change the laws and run for a 3rd term ?
View Quote
No. That's a ridiculous idea. No president would ever try to do it.
will Jeb Bush make a run for the Presidency in a few years?
View Quote
Yes. I think he will be the GOP candidate in 2008.
Link Posted: 5/26/2003 5:21:04 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter: if No, will he try to change the laws and run for a 3rd term ?
View Quote
No. That's a ridiculous idea. No president would ever try to do it.
View Quote
Yeah - And I never thought a President would sign a law like the Patriot Act that allows warrantless searches, seizures, and wiretaps, allows citizens to be jailed without counsel, without being charged, being held incommunicado for indefinite periods of time and a host of other Constitutionally illegal activities. Come to think of it - why would they need to amend the Constitution to go for a third term? .Gov has had no respect for the document for a long time. Just raise the threat level to red, scare the sheeple enough, and they'll buy into anything. Half the people here would probably be all for it.
Link Posted: 5/26/2003 5:51:53 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/26/2003 5:52:16 AM EDT
For me it depends on what happens with the AW Ban. If he signs a new one, I'm sure as hell not voting for him even if he runs against Hillary Clinton. Now will he be re-elected? Its the economy stupid (and maybe the gun issue too, cause if he screws us he is going to lose a lot of support). Let's wait and see. As for a third term, I hope not, because if he does he is probably going to do away with future "elections." As for his brother........ I doubt it. My feeling is that Jeb will run for the Florida Senate in 2006. I doubt that with only 2 years in the Senate that he will turn around and run for President. My bet is that the next Bush to be President will be named Jenna.
Link Posted: 5/26/2003 6:05:44 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Garand1911: will GW be re-elected? will the economy keep him from a 2nd term? if No, will he try to change the laws and run for a 3rd term ? will Jeb Bush make a run for the Presidency in a few years? what say you ?
View Quote
Ok, here's how its going to play out: 1)GW will get re-elected 'cause the Dem's don't have anyone with any balls to beat him. 2)About a year into the next term, Dick is going to 'resign due to health issues. 3)GW is going to appoint his brudda Jeb. 4)Jeb gets the 'nod in '08, and the Dem's still don't have anyone with balls. (Hillary?....Naah!)
Link Posted: 5/26/2003 8:04:58 AM EDT
Originally Posted By CassidyGT:
Originally Posted By RikWriter: if No, will he try to change the laws and run for a 3rd term ?
View Quote
No. That's a ridiculous idea. No president would ever try to do it.
View Quote
Yeah - And I never thought a President would sign a law like the Patriot Act that allows warrantless searches, seizures, and wiretaps, allows citizens to be jailed without counsel, without being charged, being held incommunicado for indefinite periods of time and a host of other Constitutionally illegal activities. Come to think of it - why would they need to amend the Constitution to go for a third term? .Gov has had no respect for the document for a long time. Just raise the threat level to red, scare the sheeple enough, and they'll buy into anything. Half the people here would probably be all for it.
View Quote
Cassidy, just in case no one's told you this today, let me: You're a raving lunatic that should be measured for a jacket that fastens up the back. Really. You're a nutburger. A looney. A crazy man. Seek help.
Link Posted: 5/26/2003 8:46:08 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter:
will Jeb Bush make a run for the Presidency in a few years?
View Quote
Yes. I think he will be the GOP candidate in 2008.
View Quote
Hear, hear! Did you hear the stuff he said at the NRA convention - "the sound of our freedom is the sound of our guns". He might as well be one of us. Dumbya would never say something like that. Jeb for 2004! No more Dumbya!
Link Posted: 5/26/2003 10:43:55 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Originally Posted By CassidyGT:
Originally Posted By RikWriter: if No, will he try to change the laws and run for a 3rd term ?
View Quote
No. That's a ridiculous idea. No president would ever try to do it.
View Quote
Yeah - And I never thought a President would sign a law like the Patriot Act that allows warrantless searches, seizures, and wiretaps, allows citizens to be jailed without counsel, without being charged, being held incommunicado for indefinite periods of time and a host of other Constitutionally illegal activities. Come to think of it - why would they need to amend the Constitution to go for a third term? .Gov has had no respect for the document for a long time. Just raise the threat level to red, scare the sheeple enough, and they'll buy into anything. Half the people here would probably be all for it.
View Quote
Cassidy, just in case no one's told you this today, let me: You're a raving lunatic that should be measured for a jacket that fastens up the back. Really. You're a nutburger. A looney. A crazy man. Seek help.
View Quote
HeHe - You probably right! But I am wondering which part of the post you are having trouble with? The Constitutional violations of the Patriot Act, or my assertion that .Gov has no respect for the Constitution?
Link Posted: 5/26/2003 1:28:18 PM EDT
Originally Posted By CassidyGT: But I am wondering which part of the post you are having trouble with? The Constitutional violations of the Patriot Act, or my assertion that .Gov has no respect for the Constitution?
View Quote
The part where you type your own words. It starts there.
Link Posted: 5/26/2003 2:00:14 PM EDT
I'm pretty sure he'll be re-elected. The Democrats just don't have anyone with the prestige or leadership to mount a serious challenge. There was a survey a while back; I think it said that less then 20% of the population could name a Democrat presidential candidate. Even if something really bad happens like a economic crash or another terrorist attack, I don't think the Democrats have the leadership to challenge him.
Link Posted: 5/26/2003 2:20:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/26/2003 2:21:30 PM EDT by Bearlaker]
RikWriter, CassidyGT, It's not black and white, it's shades of gray.
Link Posted: 5/26/2003 2:32:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By CassidyGT:
Originally Posted By RikWriter: if No, will he try to change the laws and run for a 3rd term ?
View Quote
No. That's a ridiculous idea. No president would ever try to do it.
View Quote
Yeah - And I never thought a President would sign a law like the Patriot Act that allows warrantless searches, seizures, and wiretaps, allows citizens to be jailed without counsel, without being charged, being held incommunicado for indefinite periods of time and a host of other Constitutionally illegal activities. Come to think of it - why would they need to amend the Constitution to go for a third term? .Gov has had no respect for the document for a long time. Just raise the threat level to red, scare the sheeple enough, and they'll buy into anything. Half the people here would probably be all for it.
View Quote
They can call you a lunatic but I see no one refuting your post.
Link Posted: 5/26/2003 2:38:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SeaDweller: They can call you a lunatic but I see no one refuting your post.
View Quote
Arguing with a lunatic is a waste of time.
Link Posted: 5/26/2003 2:49:40 PM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Originally Posted By SeaDweller: They can call you a lunatic but I see no one refuting your post.
View Quote
Arguing with a lunatic is a waste of time.
View Quote
Whatever....
Link Posted: 5/26/2003 2:51:52 PM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Originally Posted By CassidyGT: But I am wondering which part of the post you are having trouble with? The Constitutional violations of the Patriot Act, or my assertion that .Gov has no respect for the Constitution?
View Quote
The part where you type your own words. It starts there.
View Quote
Ahh, good old Rik. Attacking the person instead of the argument. Supporting statism does that to people. Its a fact that GW has violated the Constitution, many times. He is no defender of liberty, only tyranny. He has hurt the US, not helped. Just because he's a Republican doesn't make him any better than the Democrats. In any case, I hope GW doesn't get elected. I don't think he will, especially if the economy stays where it is. And signing the AWB will certainly not help. Who will win? I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary made a run for it.
Link Posted: 5/26/2003 3:09:15 PM EDT
Not if he signs a renewal to the AWB.
Link Posted: 5/26/2003 3:09:45 PM EDT
i think Bill Frist will be the nominee in '08
Link Posted: 5/26/2003 3:12:04 PM EDT
Originally Posted By libertyof76:
Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Originally Posted By CassidyGT: But I am wondering which part of the post you are having trouble with? The Constitutional violations of the Patriot Act, or my assertion that .Gov has no respect for the Constitution?
View Quote
The part where you type your own words. It starts there.
View Quote
Ahh, good old Rik. Attacking the person instead of the argument. Supporting statism does that to people. Its a fact that GW has violated the Constitution, many times. He is no defender of liberty, only tyranny. He has hurt the US, not helped. Just because he's a Republican doesn't make him any better than the Democrats. In any case, I hope GW doesn't get elected. I don't think he will, especially if the economy stays where it is. And signing the AWB will certainly not help. Who will win? I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary made a run for it.
View Quote
Funny, If I had FACTS to rebut cassidys statement, I'd post links to the FACTS, just to watch cassidy walk away with crow feathers in his mouth....... Anyone?? [snoopy]
Link Posted: 5/26/2003 3:18:47 PM EDT
the dumbocrats keep saying stupid stuff that Americans dont like in tmes of war.
Link Posted: 5/26/2003 8:22:52 PM EDT
Originally Posted By liberty86: Funny, If I had FACTS to rebut cassidys statement, I'd post links to the FACTS, just to watch cassidy walk away with crow feathers in his mouth.......
View Quote
That's been done before. It does nothing to discourage nutballs like Cassidy and liberty76, so why go to the effort? They believe what they want to believe and don't let facts get in their way.
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 5:09:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/27/2003 5:11:42 AM EDT by CassidyGT]
Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Originally Posted By liberty86: Funny, If I had FACTS to rebut cassidys statement, I'd post links to the FACTS, just to watch cassidy walk away with crow feathers in his mouth.......
View Quote
That's been done before. It does nothing to discourage nutballs like Cassidy and liberty76, so why go to the effort? They believe what they want to believe and don't let facts get in their way.
View Quote
Well go ahead smarty pants. Refute that the Patriot Act does not do the things I outlined above. Refute that the US Govt. does not regularly violate the Constitution and enforce the Patriot Act. You can feed yourself whatever nonsense you want to believe, and that is your right. But denying reality is the definition of insanity. You can go right on believing that .Gov is fount from which all goodness flows and that they would never abuse their powers. I think people like that were once called 'loyalists'. Where the heck do you think FISA came from anyway!?!
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 5:28:11 AM EDT
Originally Posted By CassidyGT: Where the heck do you think FISA came from anyway!?!
View Quote
Do you have an issue with the FISA?
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 5:36:59 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:
Originally Posted By CassidyGT: Where the heck do you think FISA came from anyway!?!
View Quote
Do you have an issue with the FISA?
View Quote
No, I was referring to how FISA came into being. Because .Gov was illegally abusing their powers - Congress saw fit to try to rein their asses in! .Gov WILL abuse their powers if given ANY opportunity - hence the BOR, the Constitution, separation of powers etc. I hope this all rings a bell with some out there.
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 5:49:30 AM EDT
Originally Posted By CassidyGT:
Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:
Originally Posted By CassidyGT: Where the heck do you think FISA came from anyway!?!
View Quote
Do you have an issue with the FISA?
View Quote
No, I was referring to how FISA came into being. Because .Gov was illegally abusing their powers - Congress saw fit to try to rein their asses in! .Gov WILL abuse their powers if given ANY opportunity - hence the BOR, the Constitution, separation of powers etc. I hope this all rings a bell with some out there.
View Quote
Okay - gotcha. Wasn't sure which way you were going with that. I had some experience with FISA and from what I saw, you had to have a pretty damned good reason to step in front of the judge and request one of these.
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 5:53:16 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:
Originally Posted By CassidyGT:
Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:
Originally Posted By CassidyGT: Where the heck do you think FISA came from anyway!?!
View Quote
Do you have an issue with the FISA?
View Quote
No, I was referring to how FISA came into being. Because .Gov was illegally abusing their powers - Congress saw fit to try to rein their asses in! .Gov WILL abuse their powers if given ANY opportunity - hence the BOR, the Constitution, separation of powers etc. I hope this all rings a bell with some out there.
View Quote
Okay - gotcha. Wasn't sure which way you were going with that. I had some experience with FISA and from what I saw, you had to have a pretty damned good reason to step in front of the judge and request one of these.
View Quote
Exactly, and now they are making FISA warrants alot easier to come by.
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 5:57:45 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Originally Posted By liberty86: Funny, If I had FACTS to rebut cassidys statement, I'd post links to the FACTS, just to watch cassidy walk away with crow feathers in his mouth.......
View Quote
That's been done before. It does nothing to discourage nutballs like Cassidy and liberty76, so why go to the effort? They believe what they want to believe and don't let facts get in their way.
View Quote
You forget there are other people reading this who do have open minds. I for one would like to hear your side because right as it stands they have made a point that you have not refuted. While it is unlikely you will change their mind, you might change others who are reading this.
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 6:04:51 AM EDT
Originally Posted By CassidyGT:
Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:
Originally Posted By CassidyGT:
Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:
Originally Posted By CassidyGT: Where the heck do you think FISA came from anyway!?!
View Quote
Do you have an issue with the FISA?
View Quote
No, I was referring to how FISA came into being. Because .Gov was illegally abusing their powers - Congress saw fit to try to rein their asses in! .Gov WILL abuse their powers if given ANY opportunity - hence the BOR, the Constitution, separation of powers etc. I hope this all rings a bell with some out there.
View Quote
Okay - gotcha. Wasn't sure which way you were going with that. I had some experience with FISA and from what I saw, you had to have a pretty damned good reason to step in front of the judge and request one of these.
View Quote
Exactly, and now they are making FISA warrants alot easier to come by.
View Quote
Considering the current climate, I don't have a problem with that. Muhammed Atta and his ilk showed us what can happen if you don't keep an eye on those that wish to do us harm. Now, for your concern as to abuses. Will they occur - I'm pretty sure it will happen on occasion. Will it be widespread and rampant? I don't think so. I liken it to an argument as to whether police are a good thing. We all know (with the exception of a few here) that if it weren't for police, there would be anarchy. But will there be abuses by police? Of course, there will be. At the end of the day, you can't guarantee that you will have a perfect society, but I think we're doing a good (and FAIR) job of the way we are currently doing business and handing the terrorist threat. Wait, I take that back. We need to tighten up the borders. They're leaking like a sieve.
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 6:17:07 AM EDT
Originally Posted By jfrush: You forget there are other people reading this who do have open minds. I for one would like to hear your side because right as it stands they have made a point that you have not refuted. While it is unlikely you will change their mind, you might change others who are reading this.
View Quote
This has all been discussed before, but here's just one instance where Cassidy was lying: the Patriot Act does NOT allow phone taps without a warrant. All it does is make warrants good for INDIVIDUALS rather than for specific lines so if the feds are listening in on a suspect's landline with a warrant, if he switches to a cell phone they can listen to that too without having to go back and get a separate warrant.
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 6:37:54 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Originally Posted By jfrush: You forget there are other people reading this who do have open minds. I for one would like to hear your side because right as it stands they have made a point that you have not refuted. While it is unlikely you will change their mind, you might change others who are reading this.
View Quote
This has all been discussed before, but here's just one instance where Cassidy was lying: the Patriot Act does NOT allow phone taps without a warrant. All it does is make warrants good for INDIVIDUALS rather than for specific lines so if the feds are listening in on a suspect's landline with a warrant, if he switches to a cell phone they can listen to that too without having to go back and get a separate warrant.
View Quote
So if someone that has one of these 'magic' warrants against them uses my phone a couple of times, then essentially my phone is tapped without a warrant. So in practice, they are warrantless phone taps. The whole thing is ripe for being grossly abused. And it will be if history is any guide. Hey Rik - if you believe everything is all fine with the Patriot Act and the further encroachment of Federal power over your life, that's great for you. I just happen to disagree. I think that history teaches us that .Gov is a necessary evil and should be given very limited powers. You may feel differently.
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 6:48:51 AM EDT
Originally Posted By CassidyGT: So if someone that has one of these 'magic' warrants against them uses my phone a couple of times, then essentially my phone is tapped without a warrant. So in practice, they are warrantless phone taps.
View Quote
No, that would be another inaccuracy from you. Your phone is tapped ONLY for those conversations that are conducted by the individual for which there is a warrant. They can't just keep listening to your conversations. But why let facts get in the way of your paranoid rant?
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 6:56:12 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Originally Posted By CassidyGT: So if someone that has one of these 'magic' warrants against them uses my phone a couple of times, then essentially my phone is tapped without a warrant. So in practice, they are warrantless phone taps.
View Quote
No, that would be another inaccuracy from you. Your phone is tapped ONLY for those conversations that are conducted by the individual for which there is a warrant. They can't just keep listening to your conversations. But why let facts get in the way of your paranoid rant?
View Quote
So do you still believe in Santa Claus too?
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 8:25:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/27/2003 8:28:15 AM EDT by Johnny_Reno]
Originally Posted By CassidyGT:
Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Originally Posted By CassidyGT: So if someone that has one of these 'magic' warrants against them uses my phone a couple of times, then essentially my phone is tapped without a warrant. So in practice, they are warrantless phone taps.
View Quote
No, that would be another inaccuracy from you. Your phone is tapped ONLY for those conversations that are conducted by the individual for which there is a warrant. They can't just keep listening to your conversations. But why let facts get in the way of your paranoid rant?
View Quote
So do you still believe in Santa Claus too?
View Quote
Do you have any evidence or proof that RikWriter's statement is incorrect?
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 8:39:16 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:
Originally Posted By CassidyGT:
Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Originally Posted By CassidyGT: So if someone that has one of these 'magic' warrants against them uses my phone a couple of times, then essentially my phone is tapped without a warrant. So in practice, they are warrantless phone taps.
View Quote
No, that would be another inaccuracy from you. Your phone is tapped ONLY for those conversations that are conducted by the individual for which there is a warrant. They can't just keep listening to your conversations. But why let facts get in the way of your paranoid rant?
View Quote
So do you still believe in Santa Claus too?
View Quote
Do you have any evidence or proof that RikWriter's statement is incorrect?
View Quote
No, I wasn't addressing his statement of 'fact'. I was addressing his contention that only those who are on the warrant will be listened to regardless of whose phone it is and who is talking. Pure fantasy.
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 8:46:42 AM EDT
Patriot Act Support for the AWB Homeland Security Office of Information Awareness Rumored VAT tax on the way Come on. Who else are you gonna vote for but the [b]republican[/b]! [rolleyes] Scott
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 10:35:40 AM EDT
Originally Posted By CassidyGT:
Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:
Originally Posted By CassidyGT:
Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Originally Posted By CassidyGT: So if someone that has one of these 'magic' warrants against them uses my phone a couple of times, then essentially my phone is tapped without a warrant. So in practice, they are warrantless phone taps.
View Quote
No, that would be another inaccuracy from you. Your phone is tapped ONLY for those conversations that are conducted by the individual for which there is a warrant. They can't just keep listening to your conversations. But why let facts get in the way of your paranoid rant?
View Quote
So do you still believe in Santa Claus too?
View Quote
Do you have any evidence or proof that RikWriter's statement is incorrect?
View Quote
No, I wasn't addressing his statement of 'fact'. I was addressing his contention that only those who are on the warrant will be listened to regardless of whose phone it is and who is talking. Pure fantasy.
View Quote
Perhaps I worded my original question poorly. Do you have any proof that the new wiretap law put into effect (which allows monitoring of a specific individual's communications as opposed to a device owned by said individual) will be used to listen to others than who the original "warrant" allows? Do you have any examples of abuse or are you just speculating that you believe that they will occur?
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 10:46:44 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Scottman: Patriot Act Support for the AWB Homeland Security Office of Information Awareness Rumored VAT tax on the way Come on. Who else are you gonna vote for but the [b]republican[/b]! [rolleyes] Scott
View Quote
Of course there is really nothing inherently bad about the Patriot Act or Homeland Security or the Office of Information Awareness, and the VAT is RUMORED, not real.
Top Top