Will Hillary or Obama have right to imprison you?

wvpeach · #31 (**permalink**) 04-08-2008, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George O Well

>>>I've got stuff to hide. I should probably learn to love George Bush and stop saying nasty things about him. I could wake up in some Bulgarian prison.

You and me George . I would tell the man to his face.

I feel sorry for you Mr. Bush you have the blood of innocent men, women and children on your hands. Not a good way to be when you stand in judgment .

Thats all I would say to him. But I would and do say it.

God himself would have to tell me to throw some water on the man if he was on fire. Otherwise considering we have water shortages in some parts of the country I would think there was better uses for the water. He is a waste of air on this planet as far as I am concerned. Now that he has killed all those people, no point in wasting resources on him.

I am sure he can think of some reason that makes me a terrorist.

nathanbforrest45 · #32 (**permalink**) 04-08-2008, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heckler

Oh PUHLEAZE.

"terrorist?"

That's just fucking ridiculous.

Its an attempt to disrupt our economy, what else would you call it?

Heckler · #33 (**permalink**) 04-08-2008, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nathanbforrest45

Its an attempt to disrupt our economy, what else would you call it?

No its not. Not everyone thinks lousy fair works. You know that.

Calling people "terrorists" for promoting ideas one doesn't like is just stupid, and trivializes the death and destruction wrought by real terrorists.

Bonzo'sCostar · #34 (**permalink**) 04-08-2008, 11:11 AM

Heckler:

Anyone who who would disrupt a business' right to dump sewage in a river, prohibit loggers from clearing an uninterrupted view in Yosemite, or stop Keating from ripping off old ladies with an S&L is a muslim communist.

Dom1 · #35 (**permalink**) 04-08-2008, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wvpeach

I am sure he can think of some reason that makes me a terrorist.

Terrorist? No.

Possible deranged cult leader/follower? YES.

But really, you have no need to worry, you are totally irrelevant.

wow · #36 (**permalink**) 04-08-2008, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dom1

He signed an EO which allowed for warrantless searches . . . . this is all on record and people like pjwky didn't say a word - therefore making this a partisan issue to them.

Absolutely!

Uncensored2008 · #37 (**permalink**) 04-08-2008, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wvpeach

Certainly any president now has the right to imprison anybody with out charges . Bush saw to that.

Lying again, Peach?

mean, you want to do what Jesus would do, so you lie, right? You're not just lying because you have no integrity, you lie to serve Jesus. Jesus would lie for Obama.

dab11999 · #38 (**permalink**) 04-08-2008, 02:36 PM

It's true. The executive powers were given in the Homeland Security Act. As long as the Homeland Security Act is renewed, those powers will remain.
Does that make you afraid?

dab11999 · #39 (**permalink**) 04-08-2008, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mulp

According to John McCain, citing Supreme Court rulings from the US Supreme Court in cases against the Bush administration, a president Obama or President Hillary Clinton will have the unitary authority to deem any American citizen a threat and order them imprisoned without any access to US Courts.

Do you believe that the US Supreme Court was correct in its ruling, and is John McCain correct in his interpretation of the US Supreme Court decisions?

If President Obama or President Clinton orders you to be swept up, sent to a secret location, and then tortured, as President Bush argues is the right of the US president, will you confess to being a terrorist, or will you claim that you are being held contrary to your rights?

If you are being held contrary to your rights, which rights are you claiming?

Certainly you would not claim the US Constitution gives you rights, unless you believe the conservative, strict constructionist, non-judicial activist, justices are wrong, and the liberal justices are correct.

The Constitution gives us the right to a system of checks and balances. The Homeland Security Act takes away those checks and balances. I would say that makes The Homeland Security Act un-Constitutional. The question is, who put this Act into legislation? Those who do not believe in a democracy of checks and balances? A President who has no faith in our judicial system? Why then was he re-elected? Why did those who put the Act into legislation voted for? Does anyone remember? Or are they too busy watching Survivor to take notice? That would be the real problem in America today.

Uncensored2008 · #40 (**permalink**) 04-08-2008, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dab11999

The Constitution gives us the right to a system of checks and balances. The Homeland Security Act takes away those checks and balances. I would say that makes The Homeland Security Act un-Constitutional.

Which checks and or balances did the patriot act take away? Specifically?

Quote:

The question is, who put this Act into legislation?

Well maybe that's the checks and balances it removed. Are you going to tell use that Dubya and Cheney just decided that the Patriot Act was law one day?

Quote:

Those who do not believe in a democracy of checks and balances? A President who has no faith in our judicial system?

Good point. After all, in World War II, each and every Japanese soldier was brought to the USA and given a trial in front of US courts. Every single German soldier was given Johnnie Cocrain to show the glove didn't fit as he had his day in front of the American bench at taxpayer expense.

Then that rotten bastard Bush came along and wrote the patriot act all by himself.

Wow, you leftists have this all figured out, doncha?