Reply With Quote
It must suck being gay, gaytownspur.
Me thinking was not the problem,
You ing stray dogs was..
Keep it in perspective phsyco.
Glory Glory Allelujah.
It must suck being gay, gaytownspur.
It must suck being gay, gaytownspur.
You must be speaking for yourself,
who am i to judge?
It must suck being gay, gaytownspur.
You seemed to put alot of emphasis on (suck), no wonder you're Mr Dio's biggest .
Hey gay boy, get it right, I'm Cheney's .
Your justa .
God Bless America
Actually Gaytown, your mom has that honor.
Here is what Mr. Thomas Sowell has to say about this "so called" story. You all
might want to read it instead of talking about all the stuff.
Two crises
By Thomas Sowell
Feb 14, 2006
This nation is facing two crises -- one phony and one real. Both in the media and in politics, the phony crisis is getting virtually all the attention.
Like the French official in "Casablanca," politicians and much of the media are shocked, shocked, to discover that the government has been listening in on calls involving international terrorist networks. Congressional leaders of both parties have in fact known this for years without saying a word.
Only after the New York Times published the news and made a big noise about it have politicians begun to declare their shock.
That is not the only thing that makes this big uproar phony. The same people who are going ballistic over what they spin as "domestic spying" never went ballistic over one of the most gross examples of genuine domestic spying during the Clinton years.
Hundreds of raw FBI files on Republicans were sent to the Clinton White House, in violation of laws and for no higher purpose than having enough dirt on enough people to intimidate political opponents. But domestic spying against Republicans did not shock nearly as many people as intercepting phone calls from terrorists.
The current hue and cry that is being whipped up into a media crisis is part of a whole pattern of short-sighted political obstruction and a futile venting of spleen.
What could have been more short-sighted and petty than the Congressional Democrats holding up the official electoral college vote last year confirming the re-election of President Bush? It was the first time such a challenge was made since 1877.
Democrats knew from the outset that they had no chance of preventing Bush's re-election from being confirmed in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. Moreover, since he was already President, they could not even delay his taking office. It was obstruction for the sake of obstruction -- and to "do something" to appeal to the Bush-hatred of their political base. It was the same thing when the Democrats obstructed and delayed the confirmation vote on Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State and later the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.
They knew from the outset that these were just futile temper tantrums that would not affect the outcome in the slightest.
One of the ugliest examples of the same mindset was painfully visible at the recent funeral of Coretta Scott King, where a solemn occasion was turned into a series of political cheap shots against a President who had come to honor the memory of Mrs. King.
The truly dangerous aspect of this temper tantrum politics is its undermining the government of the United States in its dealings with foreign powers and international terrorist networks.
There are nations and movements that respect only force or the threat of force. Regardless of anyone's politics, the President of the United States is the only one who can launch that force.
In the early days of the Iraq war, when it was clear to all that American military force would be unleashed against our enemies, Libya suddenly agreed to abandon its nuclear program and other countries backed off their hostile stances.
But when our domestic obstructionists began undermining the President and dividing the country, they were undermining the credibility of American power. North Korea's government-controlled media gave big play to Senator John Kerry's speeches against the U.S. hard line on the development of North Korean nuclear weapons.
Obviously this all-out attempt to damage the President at all costs makes any threat of the use of military force less credible with the country divided.
Whether President Bush will in fact use military force as a last resort to prevent an unending nightmare of nuclear weapons in the hands of Iranian fanatics and international terrorists is something only the future will tell.
It would be far better if the threat of force were credible enough that actual force would not have to be used. But divisive politics have undermined the credibility of any such threat. That can narrow the choices to killing people in Iran or leaving ourselves and our posterity at the mercy of hate-filled and suicidal fanatics with nukes.
That is the real crisis that is being overshadowed by the phony political crisis.
Thomas Sowell is the prolific author of books such as Black Rednecks and White Liberals and Applied Economics.
Copyright © 2006 Townhall.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Find this story at: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu...14/186296.html
You're right, we must agree with all that the President does so as to have a "united front" for the rest of the world to see....
THe only way my mom would you is if she was the one with the strap on and you were taking it.
Are you suggesting that the Supreme Court provides no check on Article II power? I can't fathom that notion, since executive branch actions are certainly subject to review in that Court and other federal courts. While most of what the Supreme Court does is assess the cons utionality of legislative enactments, that is by no means the only review that it undertakes.
No, I'm saying the principle of judicial review arises from the Supreme Court's self-claimed control on the legislative process.
Oh yeah! I almost forgot. The number one myth about the "illegal" NSA Program?
THAT IT IS ILLEGAL!
Unreal. How can they control something that they can be overuled by? Doesn't congress have the power to change the cons ution?
Anyone noticing that rationalization already being spread by the NeoCon media shills? What is the last resort? Who determines that anyway? John Bolton? Shotgun Cheney?Whether President Bush will in fact use military force as a last resort to prevent an unending nightmare of nuclear weapons in the hands of Iranian fanatics and international terrorists is something only the future will tell.
uh, no.
Unreal. How can they control something that they can be overuled by? Doesn't congress have the power to change the cons ution?
That must be ratified by the states.
No, that is short answer. They can pass an amendment but it must be
Unreal. How can they control something that they can be overuled by? Doesn't congress have the power to change the cons ution?
ratified by the states. (Cant remember off hand how many states it takes,
but it a bunch).
Sorry Yoni, didn't notice your post until I submitted mine.
No problem...and, the answer is three-fourths must vote to ratify.
Last edited by Yonivore; 02-15-2006 at 10:44 AM.
The guy gives you a reasoned argument with footnotes and do entation, and you can only come back with bad spelling and insults.
Weak.
What was reasonable about his argument? That the courts are the better executors of military powers?
please.
Most people pick the first. BUT, courts have taken it upon themselves to
make law. Bend the Cons ution the their way of thinking. Not apply
the rule of law against the Cons ution.
Courts do not have the authority to legislate, just as the executive branch
doesn't. But they executive branch does have the authority to issue
executive orders which carry almost the same weight. And the yes, the
Cons ution does give the authority and responsibility to the President
for the protection of the country. The wartime powers of the President
are awesome and the courts can make rulings but have no power of
enforcement:
In The Federalist Papers 78, Alexander Hamilton described the federal judiciary as "beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments" of government. Hamilton wrote of the "natural feebleness of the judiciary" with neither the power of the purse nor of the sword, but he made an argument for the necessity of the federal courts' interpreting the Cons ution. From its position of weakness, the judiciary would merely have sufficient strength to keep the legislative and executive branches within their assigned limits, thereby ensuring cons utional supremacy. As if to live up to Hamilton's prophecy, the Supreme Court was far from powerful in its early years.
(Lifted from) http://fp.okstate.edu/vestal/RecentS...n_and_now1.htm
Abe Lincoln told them to stuff it in one their rulings. He said, I believe,
something to effect: "it is their ruling, let them enforce it".
Hopefully we will get back to a court that only rules as it should and
not use foreign laws/thoughts/ideas and read things into the Cons ution
that aren't there.
:rofl
Illegal search and seizure is not a "military power".
I've never bought that "foreign thoughts" bullpuckey.
Democracy was a greek idea. Does that mean it's "foreign"?
The Enlightenment didn't happen in the Western hemisphere, should we reject THAT too?
Finally,
Our courts must be the ultimate arbiter of what is cons utional because we need SOMEBODY to do it.
Simple fact is that reality is more complicated than our cons ution and sur- ing-prise!! the world has changed since the cons ution was written.
If you don't like the way a rational human being has interpreted the cons ution, then you get a bunch of yer buddies together and change it. If it is that far off base, then you should have no problem doing that.
You say: "Our courts must be the ultimate arbiter of what is cons utional because we need SOMEBODY to do it."
Maybe you want nine unelected people being the 'ultimate arbiter', but I
sure don't. That is why we have elected representatives, who must
answer to the people. Those nine people appointed for life do not
have to answer to anyone except Congress who can, but wont/cant,
impeach them. Even when they know they are wrong.
You say: "Democracy was a greek idea. Does that mean it's "foreign"?"
We do not live in a democracy, we live in a Republic. We only use the
election to elect our "representatives". They govern by being our
representatives, which a Republic is: Representative Government.
You say: "Simple fact is that reality is more complicated than our cons ution and sur- ing-prise!! the world has changed since the cons ution was written".
What a dumb statement. "reality is more complicated than our Cons uion".
You live in a dream world, friend. The Cons ution is just as relavent today
as the day it was written. It is not a "living' do ent as some like
to say. It is 'static' and so it should be. If not the Justices, Congress
or the President would be able to violate it or twist it the way they want
it. Lawyers, Supremes and other courts have read things into it that
are not there at all. Abortion is one of them, but that is a topic for another
day. A judge in Colorado raised taxes, now he had authority to do that,
didn't he?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
