A king is crowned? Bush says he does not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act's powers being used

[imported_Aelius]

And it is the responsibility of the citizens of democratic nations with Jury Nullification in their Constitutions and Bill of Rights to nullify laws that they deem unlawful or immoral in the eyes of even a single citizen on a jury.

It is not only my right but my duty to lawfully, continually and without hesitation at any meaningful opportunity, such as in this thread, to inform people of their right to nullify any law that has been ever written if they deem it to be unlawful or immoral as jurors.

It is also the lawful duty of said citizens sitting as jurors to disobey at any cost the direction of anyone in court, including the presiding judge, if directed to only listen to the facts of a case as directed by them as directions from any judge is in fact unlawful and beyond their power (read up on Jury Nullification). It is also the lawful duty of jurors to disobey anyone in court, including the presiding judge, when directed to stop speaking about or informing fellow jurors on Jury Nullification even if threatened with or actually held in contempt. In fact such threats or actions allows the jury to no longer recognize the presiding judge and lawfully remove them.

I know my rights. Do you?

"If a juror accepts as the law that which the judge states then that juror has accepted the exercise of absolute authority of a government employee and has surrendered a power and right that once was the citizen's safeguard of liberty." (1788) (2 Elliots Debates, 94, Bancroft, History of the Constitution, 267)

EDIT: included quote to clarify

 

[WHAMPOM]

I am concerned that most of the STATES' Army Reserve Personal are now stranded in a Hell Hole, an ocean and a continent away. While Haliburton & CO has been contracted to build holding (concentration?)camps in the U.S.A. Do you consider it paranoid to expect traffic, when crossing a high-way?

 

[Reckoner]

In the end, we only have ourselves to blame for voting this clown into office.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Bush continues to to marginalize the Congress, nullify the courts, and intimidate other nations with military threat. All hail the Supreme Commander of the planet, annointed by God.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats
In the end, we only have ourselves to blame for voting this clown into office.

We could blame Diebold. If we can't verify the voter results, then how do we know we really actually voted for this clown?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats
In the end, we only have ourselves to blame for voting this clown into office.

We could blame Diebold. If we can't verify the voter results, then how do we know we really actually voted for this clown?

I would hope that the Democrats would take some self-responsibility and finally begin to look inward at what actually went wrong instead of subscribing to conspiracy theories. If not, we're gonna have another Republican clown in office in 2009, and that would really piss me off.

Here's my tip: Clinton was moderate centrist who appealed even to people on the right side of the spectrum. Dems will always vote Dem, Pubs will always vote Pub. The votes in the middle are the ones that win elections.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats
In the end, we only have ourselves to blame for voting this clown into office.

We could blame Diebold. If we can't verify the voter results, then how do we know we really actually voted for this clown?

I would hope that the Democrats would take some self-responsibility and finally begin to look inward at what actually went wrong instead of subscribing to conspiracy theories. If not, we're gonna have another Republican clown in office in 2009, and that would really piss me off.

Here's my tip: Clinton was moderate centrist who appealed even to people on the right side of the spectrum. Dems will always vote Dem, Pubs will always vote Pub. The votes in the middle are the ones that win elections.

Your line about conspiracy theories regarding diebold is what pisses me off. I have yet to see anyone debunk this. All I ever see is people arguing against valid points with circular arguments that don't even come close to addressing those points.

You belong to this same crowed or do you actually have some legit arguments to counter the arguments against diebold?

 

[Jhhnn]

Observations as to political strategy are moot if the electoral process itself can be compromised. It really doesn't matter what you've done right, wrong, or indifferent if the outcome is predetermined. The current crop of electronic voting machines demonstrably allow for that to happen. Which is not to say that it has, but to say that honest people of all political persuasions can agree that it must not be that way. We haven't seen that from Repub politicians at all, which reinforces the idea that they're on the winning end of chicanery.

Rather than rejecting the appearance of impropriety, they've embraced it at every level, Bush's "signing statements" wrt this legislation and anti-torture statutes being glaring examples. The rightful course of action for any President is to veto legislation if they believe it doesn't serve the interests of the Nation.

I very strongly suspect that the reasons for rejecting congressional oversight is that it would reveal a great deal of purely domestic snooping by the Admin, far beyond what has been revealed by leaked information. If true, it would mean they've been knowingly running a criminal enterprise, and that revealing it would amount to self-incrimination...

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Observations as to political strategy are moot if the electoral process itself can be compromised. It really doesn't matter what you've done right, wrong, or indifferent if the outcome is predetermined. The current crop of electronic voting machines demonstrably allow for that to happen. Which is not to say that it has, but to say that honest people of all political persuasions can agree that it must not be that way. We haven't seen that from Repub politicians at all, which reinforces the idea that they're on the winning end of chicanery.

Rather than rejecting the appearance of impropriety, they've embraced it at every level, Bush's "signing statements" wrt this legislation and anti-torture statutes being glaring examples. The rightful course of action for any President is to veto legislation if they believe it doesn't serve the interests of the Nation.

I very strongly suspect that the reasons for rejecting congressional oversight is that it would reveal a great deal of purely domestic snooping by the Admin, far beyond what has been revealed by leaked information. If true, it would mean they've been knowingly running a criminal enterprise, and that revealing it would amount to self-incrimination...

Except that it is a criminal enterprise run by God so it has to be good.

 

[Loki726]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: K1052
Congress has many ways (once a course of action is decided) to bend the Executive branch to it's will. If Congress really wants all the oversight they can certainly obtain it.

But how? This is in effect saying there is nothing congress can do.

Originally posted by: K1052
As far as the "coop up the whole lot of anyone from congress and send them to gitmo" statement, please put down the bong Steep.

That is a strong statement but he wouldnt even have to say he was doing it for national security, he wouldn't need a explaination except for (maybe) PR. here, lets not say "bush" ok, a (future) president could.
Please explain how this is not handing the keys over in a sense.

Let's assume here that bush is 100% doing this for the war on terror, but what if a few presidents down the line someone doesent have such good intentions?
It is opening a door to unlimited executive power imo.
The reality is democratic governments fall prey to dictators often, look at the past 10 or so years of how many former democratic governments get eaten up by some warlord/dictator type.
I welcome a explaination how it is not a very dangerous bypassing of our constitution checks and balances to keep us from ever having a tyrant take over, there is no excuse for this war or not.

Dude you just said Bush and good intentions in the same post. I need to sit down. I'm feeling a little dizzy...

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Loki726

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: K1052
Congress has many ways (once a course of action is decided) to bend the Executive branch to it's will. If Congress really wants all the oversight they can certainly obtain it.

But how? This is in effect saying there is nothing congress can do.

Originally posted by: K1052
As far as the "coop up the whole lot of anyone from congress and send them to gitmo" statement, please put down the bong Steep.

That is a strong statement but he wouldnt even have to say he was doing it for national security, he wouldn't need a explaination except for (maybe) PR. here, lets not say "bush" ok, a (future) president could.
Please explain how this is not handing the keys over in a sense.

Let's assume here that bush is 100% doing this for the war on terror, but what if a few presidents down the line someone doesent have such good intentions?
It is opening a door to unlimited executive power imo.
The reality is democratic governments fall prey to dictators often, look at the past 10 or so years of how many former democratic governments get eaten up by some warlord/dictator type.
I welcome a explaination how it is not a very dangerous bypassing of our constitution checks and balances to keep us from ever having a tyrant take over, there is no excuse for this war or not.

Dude you just said Bush and good intentions in the same post. I need to sit down. I'm feeling a little dizzy...

It was a scenerio, granted a pretty far fetched one.

 

[smack Down]

And it is the responsibility of the citizens of democratic nations with Jury Nullification in their Constitutions and Bill of Rights to nullify laws that they deem unlawful or immoral in the eyes of even a single citizen on a jury.

Bush knows this that is why everything is secret. You can only use Jury Nullification if there is a trail.

 

[1EZduzit]

It's a full fledged melt down of the Repug's. Time to vote in a real liberal and send them scattering. The first thing I would do is TAX THE RICH!! They're the bastards who caused these problems and by GOD they can pay to fix them!!

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats
In the end, we only have ourselves to blame for voting this clown into office.

We could blame Diebold. If we can't verify the voter results, then how do we know we really actually voted for this clown?

I would hope that the Democrats would take some self-responsibility and finally begin to look inward at what actually went wrong instead of subscribing to conspiracy theories. If not, we're gonna have another Republican clown in office in 2009, and that would really piss me off.

Here's my tip: Clinton was moderate centrist who appealed even to people on the right side of the spectrum. Dems will always vote Dem, Pubs will always vote Pub. The votes in the middle are the ones that win elections.

Your line about conspiracy theories regarding diebold is what pisses me off. I have yet to see anyone debunk this. All I ever see is people arguing against valid points with circular arguments that don't even come close to addressing those points.

You belong to this same crowed or do you actually have some legit arguments to counter the arguments against diebold?

I don't require them. I'm giving political advice, and politics rarely exists in reality. What happened or not is unimportant. What is important is that the Dems don't get mud on their faces fighting a battle they cannot possibly win. Go back to the center, Dems. If you don't, and if you continue to cater to the extremist left, your party will be dead by 2012.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats
In the end, we only have ourselves to blame for voting this clown into office.

We could blame Diebold. If we can't verify the voter results, then how do we know we really actually voted for this clown?

I would hope that the Democrats would take some self-responsibility and finally begin to look inward at what actually went wrong instead of subscribing to conspiracy theories. If not, we're gonna have another Republican clown in office in 2009, and that would really piss me off.

Here's my tip: Clinton was moderate centrist who appealed even to people on the right side of the spectrum. Dems will always vote Dem, Pubs will always vote Pub. The votes in the middle are the ones that win elections.

Your line about conspiracy theories regarding diebold is what pisses me off. I have yet to see anyone debunk this. All I ever see is people arguing against valid points with circular arguments that don't even come close to addressing those points.

You belong to this same crowed or do you actually have some legit arguments to counter the arguments against diebold?

I don't require them. I'm giving political advice, and politics rarely exists in reality. What happened or not is unimportant. What is important is that the Dems don't get mud on their faces fighting a battle they cannot possibly win. Go back to the center, Dems. If you don't, and if you continue to cater to the extremist left, your party will be dead by 2012.

Good luck with the advice angle, they don't want to hear it. I for one hope they run another far leftist in '08. Someone like Dean who caters to the most extreme parts of the leftwing of America's politics. Come on Dems, take a stand. Show Americans just where you stand and what ideas you believe in. Don't sugar coat it with moderation or just to play to the middle. Stand up and "fight the power" :laugh:
Maybe get someone from the Sheen family. :laugh:

 

[Vic]

Meh. I actually hate both parties. I just think that the 2 party system is the last check and balance we have left.

 

[Jhhnn]

So, uhh, if Dems are catering to the "extremist left", then there must be specific issues involved- what are they?

Or have liberal and centrist points of view merely been conveniently characterized as "extreme left"? Witness Shades' characterization of Dean, above...

There is no "Left" in American politics, near as I can tell- nobody with any credibility is calling for the dictatorship of the proletariat...

The extreme Right, otoh, seems to be alive and well, attempting to represent themselves as centrist when they're anything but... with the Bush Admin leading the charge.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
So, uhh, if Dems are catering to the "extremist left", then there must be specific issues involved- what are they?

Or have liberal and centrist points of view merely been conveniently characterized as "extreme left"? Witness Shades' characterization of Dean, above...

There is no "Left" in American politics, near as I can tell- nobody with any credibility is calling for the dictatorship of the proletariat...

The extreme Right, otoh, seems to be alive and well, attempting to represent themselves as centrist when they're anything but... with the Bush Admin leading the charge.

Try getting back "in touch" first. See reality, not your beliefs. Here's your first tip: if Bush was a Democrat, he would be their wet dream President.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
So, uhh, if Dems are catering to the "extremist left", then there must be specific issues involved- what are they?

Or have liberal and centrist points of view merely been conveniently characterized as "extreme left"? Witness Shades' characterization of Dean, above...

There is no "Left" in American politics, near as I can tell- nobody with any credibility is calling for the dictatorship of the proletariat...

The extreme Right, otoh, seems to be alive and well, attempting to represent themselves as centrist when they're anything but... with the Bush Admin leading the charge.

Try getting back "in touch" first. See reality, not your beliefs. Here's your first tip: if Bush was a Democrat, he would be their wet dream President.

How are dems not in touch? they got about as many votes as reps, and the other good chunk of people could care less about either, for the dems to go further right is plain stupid idea. Of course the right's propaganda machine will cry about dems being too far left, what way to finally basiclly break a tie but to beat them at what they do best, being right.

If anything it is LONG past time for the dems to represent a left point of view and be a real opposition party.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
So, uhh, if Dems are catering to the "extremist left", then there must be specific issues involved- what are they?

Or have liberal and centrist points of view merely been conveniently characterized as "extreme left"? Witness Shades' characterization of Dean, above...

There is no "Left" in American politics, near as I can tell- nobody with any credibility is calling for the dictatorship of the proletariat...

The extreme Right, otoh, seems to be alive and well, attempting to represent themselves as centrist when they're anything but... with the Bush Admin leading the charge.

Try getting back "in touch" first. See reality, not your beliefs. Here's your first tip: if Bush was a Democrat, he would be their wet dream President.

How are dems not in touch? they got about as many votes as reps, and the other good chunk of people could care less about either, for the dems to go further right is plain stupid idea. Of course the right's propaganda machine will cry about dems being too far left, what way to finally basiclly break a tie but to beat them at what they do best, being right.

The first thing you should do, rot, is realize that "right" and "left" and "Democrat" and "Republican" are terms and ideas invented to control you. Like a Christian being born again, as soon as you accepted the ideology of the party, you sacrificed all need and desire to think for yourself again.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
So, uhh, if Dems are catering to the "extremist left", then there must be specific issues involved- what are they?

Or have liberal and centrist points of view merely been conveniently characterized as "extreme left"? Witness Shades' characterization of Dean, above...

There is no "Left" in American politics, near as I can tell- nobody with any credibility is calling for the dictatorship of the proletariat...

The extreme Right, otoh, seems to be alive and well, attempting to represent themselves as centrist when they're anything but... with the Bush Admin leading the charge.

Read much? What I said was: "Someone like Dean who caters to the most extreme parts of the leftwing of America's politics."
This is an accurate characterization of Dean. He did cater to the far left. Both he and Kucinich did.
Now to your absurd notion that "There is no "Left" in American politics". IF you really believe that then you are part of the far left in American politics. I am a Conservative, yet I know there are people who are further to the right of me in American politics and I don't try to pretend that I am somehow the fulcrum of American politics like so many of you on the left seem to do.
Your denial of there being "left" in this statement: "liberal and centrist points of view merely been conveniently characterized as "extreme left"?" shows just how out of touch you and yours are with reality. You still think your "message" is the middle and something people embrace but somehow it is just being viewed wrong by people or you aren't getting your message out well enough. Here is a clue - it isn't that you need to get your message out - it's that your message has been heard and is being rejected. You are not the middle, you are left and people have chosen to reject that.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
If anything it is LONG past time for the dems to represent a left point of view and be a real opposition party.

I agree! FIGHT THE POWER!

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats
In the end, we only have ourselves to blame for voting this clown into office.

We could blame Diebold. If we can't verify the voter results, then how do we know we really actually voted for this clown?

I would hope that the Democrats would take some self-responsibility and finally begin to look inward at what actually went wrong instead of subscribing to conspiracy theories. If not, we're gonna have another Republican clown in office in 2009, and that would really piss me off.

Here's my tip: Clinton was moderate centrist who appealed even to people on the right side of the spectrum. Dems will always vote Dem, Pubs will always vote Pub. The votes in the middle are the ones that win elections.

Your line about conspiracy theories regarding diebold is what pisses me off. I have yet to see anyone debunk this. All I ever see is people arguing against valid points with circular arguments that don't even come close to addressing those points.

You belong to this same crowed or do you actually have some legit arguments to counter the arguments against diebold?

I don't require them. I'm giving political advice, and politics rarely exists in reality. What happened or not is unimportant. What is important is that the Dems don't get mud on their faces fighting a battle they cannot possibly win. Go back to the center, Dems. If you don't, and if you continue to cater to the extremist left, your party will be dead by 2012.

Hope you realize I'm not a Liberal.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats
In the end, we only have ourselves to blame for voting this clown into office.

We could blame Diebold. If we can't verify the voter results, then how do we know we really actually voted for this clown?

I would hope that the Democrats would take some self-responsibility and finally begin to look inward at what actually went wrong instead of subscribing to conspiracy theories. If not, we're gonna have another Republican clown in office in 2009, and that would really piss me off.

Here's my tip: Clinton was moderate centrist who appealed even to people on the right side of the spectrum. Dems will always vote Dem, Pubs will always vote Pub. The votes in the middle are the ones that win elections.

Your line about conspiracy theories regarding diebold is what pisses me off. I have yet to see anyone debunk this. All I ever see is people arguing against valid points with circular arguments that don't even come close to addressing those points.

You belong to this same crowed or do you actually have some legit arguments to counter the arguments against diebold?

I don't require them. I'm giving political advice, and politics rarely exists in reality. What happened or not is unimportant. What is important is that the Dems don't get mud on their faces fighting a battle they cannot possibly win. Go back to the center, Dems. If you don't, and if you continue to cater to the extremist left, your party will be dead by 2012.

Hope you realize I'm not a Liberal.

Do this mean that I have been accused of being a liberal and a conservative in the same thread? Heh, like that would be a first!

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: PaulNEPats
In the end, we only have ourselves to blame for voting this clown into office.

We could blame Diebold. If we can't verify the voter results, then how do we know we really actually voted for this clown?

I would hope that the Democrats would take some self-responsibility and finally begin to look inward at what actually went wrong instead of subscribing to conspiracy theories. If not, we're gonna have another Republican clown in office in 2009, and that would really piss me off.

Here's my tip: Clinton was moderate centrist who appealed even to people on the right side of the spectrum. Dems will always vote Dem, Pubs will always vote Pub. The votes in the middle are the ones that win elections.

Your line about conspiracy theories regarding diebold is what pisses me off. I have yet to see anyone debunk this. All I ever see is people arguing against valid points with circular arguments that don't even come close to addressing those points.

You belong to this same crowed or do you actually have some legit arguments to counter the arguments against diebold?

I don't require them. I'm giving political advice, and politics rarely exists in reality. What happened or not is unimportant. What is important is that the Dems don't get mud on their faces fighting a battle they cannot possibly win. Go back to the center, Dems. If you don't, and if you continue to cater to the extremist left, your party will be dead by 2012.

Hope you realize I'm not a Liberal.

Do this mean that I have been accused of being a liberal and a conservative in the same thread? Heh, like that would be a first!

Sorry you lost me. I just commented that I'm not a Liberal.