P2P-Zone  

Go Back   P2P-Zone > Political Asylum
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Political Asylum Publicly Debate Politics, War, Media.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 13-05-06, 10:38 AM   #21
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default

as the public opinion turns...and make no mistake: only the tip of the spying iceberg has been revealed. watch for more next week...

Quote:
Newsweek Poll: Americans Wary of NSA Spying
Bush’s approval ratings hit new lows as controversy rages.

May 13, 2006 - Has the Bush administration gone too far in expanding the powers of the President to fight terrorism? Yes, say a majority of Americans, following this week’s revelation that the National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone records of U.S. citizens since the September 11 terrorist attacks. According to the latest NEWSWEEK poll, 53 percent of Americans think the NSA’s surveillance program “goes too far in invading people’s privacy,” while 41 percent see it as a necessary tool to combat terrorism...

...Americans think the White House has overstepped its bounds: 57 percent said that in light of the NSA data-mining news and other executive actions, the Bush-Cheney Administration has “gone too far in expanding presidential power.” That compares to 38 percent who think the Administration’s actions are appropriate.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12771821/site/newsweek/
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-05-06, 12:36 PM   #22
Hegemonic
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Funny how you totally disregard the poll I posted, presumably because it's results didn't fit to your pre-concieved opinion, yet this one you whole heartedly believe because it fits your opinion. Funny how that is.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13-05-06, 05:54 PM   #23
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hegemonic
Funny how you totally disregard the poll I posted, presumably because it's results didn't fit to your pre-concieved opinion, yet this one you whole heartedly believe because it fits your opinion. Funny how that is.
no, you don't quite have it right - it's not the poll you posted, it's the fact that you posted it. i pass on most of what you and the other bushbot troll post coz frankly, you're both uninteresting. you two, other hand, follow me around like lost puppies - i've never quite figured out why.
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-05-06, 06:03 PM   #24
albed
flippin 'em off
 
albed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the real world
Posts: 3,231
Default

You're like a fire hydrant and we need to pee.
albed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-05-06, 07:07 PM   #25
Hegemonic
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by theknife
no, you don't quite have it right - it's not the poll you posted, it's the fact that you posted it. i pass on most of what you and the other bushbot troll post coz frankly, you're both uninteresting. you two, other hand, follow me around like lost puppies - i've never quite figured out why.
The need to fact check your daily line of shit overrides my desire to let you be the idiot you love to be. It's a fault, I know.

Nice dodge by the way on your selective use of polls, we'll add it to the list of reasons why we think your a moron with the political acumen of a disease infected retard.
  Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-06, 01:27 AM   #26
multi
Thanks for being with arse
 
multi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The other side of the world
Posts: 10,343
Default

Bush Administration moving secretly to squash AT&T vs EFF lawsuit
__________________

i beat the internet
- the end boss is hard
multi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-08-06, 04:59 PM   #27
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default

Quote:
Judge Orders Halt to Domestic Spying

A federal judge in Detroit ruled today that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and must be stopped immediately.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor held that the wiretapping program violated the 1st and 4th Amendments to the Constitution, which protect free speech and prohibit unlawful searches. She also held that the surveillance program, run by the National Security Agency, violates the federal Administrative Procedures Act and the Separation of Powers doctrine.
...

“The Government appears to argue here that, pursuant to the penumbra of Constitutional language in Article II, and particularly because the President is designated Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, he has been granted the inherent power to violate not only the laws of the Congress but the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution itself.

“We must first note that the Office of the Chief Executive has itself been created, with its powers, by the Constitution. There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution. So all ‘inherent powers’ must derive from that Constitution.
one of my favorite kooky, far-left-of-most-Americans views: the President and the administration should be required to obey the law and abide by the Constitution.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/lo...-top-headlines
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-08-06, 01:37 AM   #28
daddydirt
even the losers
 
daddydirt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,090
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by theknife
one of my favorite kooky, far-left-of-most-Americans views: the President and the administration should be required to obey the law and abide by the Constitution.
http://newsbusters.org/node/7045

"on CNN's The Situation Room, legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin conveyed that "this was a very liberal judge" who "almost exclusively cites other liberal judges." Toobin informed viewers that the case was likely to be overturned as he was "certain that other courts will see this differently."

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015041.php

"John, who is on vacation, has delegated to Scott and me the task of "dissecting" the district court opinion that strikes down the NSA's intercept program as unconstitutional. In a sense, however, there isn't much to dissect. The opinion is almost devoid of analysis on the key constitutional provisions it relies upon (the court more or less ducks the issue of whether the intercept program is consistent with FISA and completely dodges the issue of whether the president has the inherent power to authorize the intercepts; it reasons that the Constitution trumps the statute and that the president lacks the inherent power to violate specific constitutional provisions). It is part of my job as a litigator (and has been for more than 30 years) to read and understand judicial opinions. Off hand, I cannot recall reading an opinion as conclusory and content free as the key portions of this opinion.
daddydirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-08-06, 04:22 AM   #29
Malk-a-mite
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 7
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by daddydirt
"this was a very liberal judge"
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-hominem.html
__________________
Malk-a-mite
===================
Insert clever .sig file here
===================
Malk-a-mite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-08-06, 04:40 AM   #30
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by daddydirt
http://newsbusters.org/node/7045

"on CNN's The Situation Room, legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin conveyed that "this was a very liberal judge" who "almost exclusively cites other liberal judges." Toobin informed viewers that the case was likely to be overturned as he was "certain that other courts will see this differently."

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015041.php

"John, who is on vacation, has delegated to Scott and me the task of "dissecting" the district court opinion that strikes down the NSA's intercept program as unconstitutional. In a sense, however, there isn't much to dissect. The opinion is almost devoid of analysis on the key constitutional provisions it relies upon (the court more or less ducks the issue of whether the intercept program is consistent with FISA and completely dodges the issue of whether the president has the inherent power to authorize the intercepts; it reasons that the Constitution trumps the statute and that the president lacks the inherent power to violate specific constitutional provisions). It is part of my job as a litigator (and has been for more than 30 years) to read and understand judicial opinions. Off hand, I cannot recall reading an opinion as conclusory and content free as the key portions of this opinion.
c'mon - powerline as a source? hindraker et al are as far out there as the crew at dailykos. and the court did directly address the FISA issue:
Quote:
"The president of the United States, a creature of the same Constitution which gave us these amendments, has undisputedly violated the Fourth in failing to produce judicial orders as required by FISA.
this is the key point, in my untrained opinion.

but yup, it may well be overturned on appeal, but that doesn't mean it's not worth noting.
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-08-06, 07:04 AM   #31
daddydirt
even the losers
 
daddydirt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,090
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malk-a-mite
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-hominem.html

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
Is Jeffrey Toobin Person B?

I don't think he was attacking the judge or her ruling, just pointing out the fact that hers is a liberal interpretation of the law.
daddydirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-08-06, 07:36 PM   #32
Nicobie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 5,522
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by albed
You're like a fire hydrant and we need to pee.
hehe

Now THAT's funny.
__________________
May your tote always stay tight and your edge eversharp :wink:
Nicobie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-08-06, 12:23 PM   #33
Sinner
--------------------
 
Sinner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,379
Default

Judicial Watch argues that Judge Anna Diggs Taylor had a conflict of interest in the NSA surveillance case because (1) one of the plaintiffs was the ACLU, (2) Judge Taylor is a Trustee of an organization that donated tens of thousands of dollars to the ACLU, and (3) the organization states that its donations are approved by its Trustees, thus indicating that Judge Taylor was personally involved in directing resources to the very advocacy group that came before her.


Even a NYT liberal legal ethics scholar Stephen Gillers concedes.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/23/wa...erland&emc=rss
__________________
The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend
Sinner is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump






All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© www.p2p-zone.com - Napsterites - 2000 - 2024 (Contact grm1@iinet.net.au for all admin enquiries)