NCAAbbs

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?...0616b.html



Just read the crap. He doesn't want the judges to look at the case and how it compares with the constitution. Instead he wants them to rule not within the words of the most well written document in the history of civilization, but instead with a bleeding heart.

dfarr:
We're in big trouble if he wins.

Just wait till Hillary is appointed as a Supreme.

Don't make me puke.

Dude, just think about it. She doesn't have to be elected, the job is hers till she dies or resigns, and her word becomes the law of the land. It's the perfect job for Hillary!

Now if Obama will just appoint John Edwards Attorney General...

[Mr. Burns] Excellent! [/Mr. Burns]

First off, let me clarify. I am supporting Mccain and will not even consider a vote for Obama, but I am interested to see what's gonna happen when Obama wins( and he will win). As a history major, I can't help but look at everything through a historical viewpoint. I truly believe that in the next 4 years our country will go 1 of 2 ways. We will become either a country of "shared prosperity" under the guise of freedom and equality (just like Europe). Or people will get a whiff of what "shared prosperity" really means and reject it. And I mean really reject it. Either way I believe we are going to witness a fundamental shift in American policies and politics that could last for a long time.

Nothing like an ambulance chaser as the Attorney General. Then we'll really see health care prices go up.

No one realizes this but we have never voted the "right" person as President. We are always voting for someone we think will fix the things that go wrong but we do not understand that if we did vote the right man in, we will never learn anything. We have to have something go wrong in order to learn anything. It is never intended that we vote the "right" person in. Life intends for us to face all the things that go wrong.

+1. I agree with what you said. I just can't help but look at how this will be viewed 100+ years from now.

I would venture to say we've had some presidents that were right. Washington, Jefferson come to mind. Plus a few that should have been president (Franklin, specifically)

It is hard to know how things will be viewed 100+ years from now but, if it is of any consolation to you, look at history and notice that we have stopped dragging women across the ground by their hairs as we did during the caveman era. Obviously, we have learned quite a lot through time. We will continue to improve. Let's give ourselves another 500 years and I think we'll be well please with what we will have done.

Speak for yourself. They really do love it, I swear.

No matter who is elected President, he will still have to deal with Congress to get things (including various appointed jobs) done. The President has the advantage of the "Bully pulpit" as T.R. said since he is the only one elected nationally while Congress comes from one state or one district in a state.
There have been many questionable persons elected at all levels of government, so the idea that there have been poor choices for President is hardly remarkable. Add to that the record of the American citizens generally to not want to be told "Inconvenient truths" when they aren't ready to deal with them until a Pearl Harbor, Sputnik, or 9/11 brings them face to face with a harsh reality, and you have a recipe for problems becoming very serious before being addressed.

It's odd how conservatives obsess over the Constitution when it comes to the Supreme Court. Where was this concern during this observably reckless Republican presidency?

I disagree with many of this Presidents policies, but
if your assertion is this President has violated the laws and Constitution of USA,
the assertion does not withstand the test of our Constitution and the laws of our Country. It is nothing more than 'talking points'.

Where were you when this was discussed on Blazertalk here: http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=300017

If you don't want to read each post, then read these
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act
http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/379
http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/terroris...23.es.html
http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

to quote myself from that thread:

'like it or not
agree or not
Bush is playing the hand given [to him] by our elected representatives.

When one cuts through all the rhetoric and talking points,

1) the bills originated in Congress and passed both houses by majority vote.
2) Bush signed them into law.
3) Until/unless the courts overturn them, these ARE law'.

As for the original point of this thread,
if BHO win the Presidency, he will have Constitutional authority to nominate whomever he desires to the Supreme Court of the US.
It will be up to Congress to confirm the nominee(s).

Presenting articles of impeachment go beyond that of mere 'talking points':

Dennis Kucinich. Now THAT's funny.

His car won't even make right turns.

Kucinich presented 'talking points' AS his resolution of impeachment. I've always known where he stands in regards to Bush.
Let's see what support DK will garner from within his own party, much less the balance of the Judiciary Committee and Congress.
This will be decided by the nature of the evidence, not the charges presented.

No it won't. The Dems will make no effort to impeach, even on things where there is prima facie evidence of lawbreaking. They'd rather leave the Republicans hung with their wrongdoing and incompetence while not taking the political heat that pressing an impeachment case would bring. They're ahead and they don't want to muddy the water.

I'm just wondering where getting a blowjob is worse than violating no less than 4 provisions of the US Constitution. I guess I'm just a romantic

You forgot that whole lying under oath thing. Don't leave out that pesky little detail.

Oh right, Bill wasn't smart enough to ignore Congress and the courts and let himself get sworn in. Should have just refused to testify and then he could do whatever he wanted.

Should I bother to point out how many times Bush administration officials under oath have said "I don't remember, I can't recall, etc."? Alberto Gonzales didn't seem to be able to remember anything that happened after he became Attorney General.

It approaches certainty that a philandering husband's first instinct when caught is to lie. Presidents included.

Bill should have gone for the testimony that Rove is offering Congress... "I'll testify if it is in private, I'm not sworn in, and there is no written record of what I say." I'm guessing he didn't think anyone would be stupid enough to go for that one.

+1

Fixed that for you.

JK... mostly.