RonD1120 58
Recommended Posts
Andy9o8 0
RonD1120***
QuoteYou have to be kidding, right. I met many of the Gulf War Warriors in 1991. As far as I was concerned we were just finished the job started then.
Wait, so now it's not retaliation, it's finishing the job? Get your narrative straight.
Or could it be that, like many if not most Americans, you can't tell the difference between Al Qaeda, Iraqis, Afghans, and other scary baddies?
I couldn't in 1991-2011 or thereabouts. I did not start noticing a difference until I started paying attention to Skyrad in the SC.
Ha! You fool.
kallend 1,623
lawrocket[Reply]o be clear, just because I don't fault the administration for using their power under the Patriot Act does not mean I support the Patriot Act. But the reality is that it is law.
A couple of problems:
(1) The administration isn't just using its power, it is really expanding the power.
So what has the administration done that is illegal?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
sfzombie13 307
as stated previously, it's not the legality in question, constitutionality is. and as for precedence, this is what hoover did without the first computer, and it's still wrong. obama made lots of promises to get elected, and actually tried to live up to a few, but then reality set in, and it went just like cheney predicted in 2006.
_________________________________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
kallend 1,623
sfzombie13as stated previously, it's not the legality in question, constitutionality is. and as for precedence, this is what hoover did without the first computer, and it's still wrong. obama made lots of promises to get elected, and actually tried to live up to a few, but then reality set in, and it went just like cheney predicted in 2006.
So the anger should be directed at Congress then, for passing an unConstitutional law, or at the courts for not overturning it.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
ryoder 1,382
kallend
So the anger should be directed at Congress then, for passing an unConstitutional law, or at the courts for not overturning it.
Congress did not pass a law allowing it.
Here is an article about the convoluted legal reasoning used to justify it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-surveillance-architecture-includes-collection-of-revealing-internet-phone-metadata/2013/06/15/e9bf004a-d511-11e2-b05f-3ea3f0e7bb5a_story.html
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.
kallend***[Reply]o be clear, just because I don't fault the administration for using their power under the Patriot Act does not mean I support the Patriot Act. But the reality is that it is law.
A couple of problems:
(1) The administration isn't just using its power, it is really expanding the power.
So what has the administration done that is illegal?
ryoder put this out:
QuoteOK, they are just storing meta-data...oh, unless you are on their "target list", then they also record the call. All w/o any warrant: http://news.cnet.com/...ls-without-warrants/
This appears to be pretty illegal.
We've only scratched the surface.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
kallend***as stated previously, it's not the legality in question, constitutionality is. and as for precedence, this is what hoover did without the first computer, and it's still wrong. obama made lots of promises to get elected, and actually tried to live up to a few, but then reality set in, and it went just like cheney predicted in 2006.
So the anger should be directed at Congress then, for passing an unConstitutional law, or at the courts for not overturning it.
Right. Because this administration has a long track record of either accepting Congressional inaction or of ensuring that laws that are Unconstitutional are zealously defended.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
jcd11235 0
lawrocketA couple of problems:
(1) The administration isn't just using its power, it is really expanding the power. Given an inch and taking several feet. Think of czars and executive orders
(2) Anyone else surprised at the level of cooperation the President has received from from the "Party of No?" I'm not. The GOP likes that power over the people.
(3) It's a fine example of "legal" versus "constitutional."
The president has to deal with issues for which the Patriot Act is the relevant law. It would not be reasonable to not expect the president to seek clarification from the Justice Department regarding what the actual limits of his authorities are in those situations. That's not an expansion of power. That's just understanding what powers Congress actually provided to the Executive, which may or may not be what Congresspersons actually intended when they voted on the law. What matters is not what Congress wishes they had passed, but what they actually passed.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
kallend 1,623
lawrocket******as stated previously, it's not the legality in question, constitutionality is. and as for precedence, this is what hoover did without the first computer, and it's still wrong. obama made lots of promises to get elected, and actually tried to live up to a few, but then reality set in, and it went just like cheney predicted in 2006.
So the anger should be directed at Congress then, for passing an unConstitutional law, or at the courts for not overturning it.
Right. Because this administration has a long track record of either accepting Congressional inaction or of ensuring that laws that are Unconstitutional are zealously defended.
DOMA comes to mind.
Besides, which administrations haven't?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 1,623
jcd11235***A couple of problems:
(1) The administration isn't just using its power, it is really expanding the power. Given an inch and taking several feet. Think of czars and executive orders
(2) Anyone else surprised at the level of cooperation the President has received from from the "Party of No?" I'm not. The GOP likes that power over the people.
(3) It's a fine example of "legal" versus "constitutional."
The president has to deal with issues for which the Patriot Act is the relevant law. It would not be reasonable to not expect the president to seek clarification from the Justice Department regarding what the actual limits of his authorities are in those situations. That's not an expansion of power. That's just understanding what powers Congress actually provided to the Executive, which may or may not be what Congresspersons actually intended when they voted on the law. What matters is not what Congress wishes they had passed, but what they actually passed.
The Law of Unintended Consequences strike again.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Thank you for that concept. I had not made that construction in prior thought processes.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites