state of the union...What do you think?????

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: spidey07
Bowfinger,

I just want people to take care of themselves and take responsibility for their lives, because if I can after all I've been through then so can everybody else.

That being said, the Bush administration is one of the most fiscally extravagant of any in history. I don't see how President Bush fits into the mold of a fiscal conservative.

he doesn't AFAIK. probably the most "socially liberal" republican in quite a while.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Bowfinger,

I just want people to take care of themselves and take responsibility for their lives, because if I can after all I've been through then so can everybody else.

I 100% agree with the first half of your sentence; 100% disagree with the second. There are many people who cannot take care of themselves for one or more of hundreds of different reasons, some their fault, some not. I think that as one of the most prosperous countries in the history of the world, we not only can help those who cannot help themselves, we have a moral obligation to do so. I do agree we should do all we can to make people self-sufficient, but I don't begrudge those who cannot.

Cheers,

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: spidey07
Bowfinger,

I just want people to take care of themselves and take responsibility for their lives, because if I can after all I've been through then so can everybody else.

That being said, the Bush administration is one of the most fiscally extravagant of any in history. I don't see how President Bush fits into the mold of a fiscal conservative.

It doesn't.

Oh how I yearn for a fiscally conservative & socially liberal party to form.

 

[spidey07]

Bowfinger,

And that is what it comes down to. Is it up to the people to help each other or government?

Yes we (the people) do have a moral obligation to do so IMHO, and I do my part to help others.

 

[virtueixi]

Bush's secret police is taking down your names. Be careful what you say.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: virtueixi
Bush's secret police is taking down your names. Be careful what you say.

That's what they said under Lincoln, FDR, Nixon, etc. When your man isn't in power, people are more vary of being "spyed" on.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: virtueixi
Bush's secret police is taking down your names. Be careful what you say.

That's what they said under Lincoln, FDR, Nixon, etc. When your man isn't in power, people are more vary of being "spyed" on.

Except this is actually the case with the NSA.

 

[totalcommand]

I give Bush a 3/10 for the speech, a 9/10 for the reduction on foreign oil. But I have zero confidence that he will implement that seeing as how HE is addicted to oil funds.

 

[shadow9d9]

Guys guys guys.. FIRST we use the oil industry to become elected and give them tax breaks and help Exxon break record profits in U.S. history while invading a country with oil to spread "democracy".... THEN we turn around the next day and say we need to rely on oil less! This is all veeeeery logical when you think about it...

 

[Reckoner]

These speeches are BS and a waste of time.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: virtueixi
Bush's secret police is taking down your names. Be careful what you say.

That's what they said under Lincoln, FDR, Nixon, etc. When your man isn't in power, people are more vary of being "spyed" on.

Yeah, Bush admits to spying on U.S. citizens.. this is very much compareable to the admitted spying on americans that Lincoln and FDR did...wait a sec... when did lincoln and FDR admit to spying without warrants on americans? Must have missed that...

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: spidey07
Bowfinger,

I just want people to take care of themselves and take responsibility for their lives, because if I can after all I've been through then so can everybody else.

That being said, the Bush administration is one of the most fiscally extravagant of any in history. I don't see how President Bush fits into the mold of a fiscal conservative.

Easy, traditionaly political style. Cut taxes, give the money back to the people.

Everyone in this thread has already said taht neither side is really completely right, well with that in mind, why give them our money. WHy cant we decide where our money goes. Not to say that we should have no taxes by anymeans, but raising taxes is certainly not the answer.

Bush is trying to implement "Reaganomics". However, he hasn't completely succeeded.

Finally, why in the world would Bush not want to get away from Fossile Fuels. Ok, he has investments, it doesn't push him into poverty if the oil industry goes away, or at least is converted into something else. I dont think a lot of you understand the scope of what that involves.
[*]Revamp ENTIRE infrastructure including every single gas station
[*]prevent the alienation of older vehicles
[*]make sure the economy doesn't go completely crazy over the lack of an oil industry
[*]Actually release products that use these new fuels in sufficient numbers at realistic prices.

This isn't an overnight thing, hell this isn't a 4-8 year thing. This is closer to a 20 year thing.

-Kevin

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Meuge
Actually, my hole is one of the top medical research facilities in the world, and my bleeding heart is quite healthy thank you. As for a "tough day", I think I got much bigger worries then "Big B" making a fool of himself in front of the entire world.

Sounding more like a frustrated liberal with every post.

Hmm - let's analyze your post. If that made me sound like a frustrated liberal, then I guess you equate liberalism with (in order):

- intelligence
- success
- health
- real-life tasks that are more important then politics

... that's a pretty self-defeating attitude on your part.

You forgot
Arrogant
Big egoed
Pompous
Hater
Narcisist
blowhard
whiners
over confident
know it all
fancy pants
anti-family
kid-killers

sorry I coun't help it. Some people need Humble pie more than others.


Parts of speach I heard was borrish and well just the same old stuff. Going to bed good part about a boring speach is it makes you sleepy. :moon:

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: virtueixi
Bush's secret police is taking down your names. Be careful what you say.

That's what they said under Lincoln, FDR, Nixon, etc. When your man isn't in power, people are more vary of being "spyed" on.

Yeah, Bush admits to spying on U.S. citizens.. this is very much compareable to the admitted spying on americans that Lincoln and FDR did...wait a sec... when did lincoln and FDR admit to spying without warrants on americans? Must have missed that...

Last i checked national calling is not monitored at all. Hell, international calling isn't even monitored. It is when you call someone who is suspected to have even remote ties to terrorism. I dont know about you but i certainly dont plan on doing anything like that.

Additionally, it isn't a bunch of NSA operatives sitting in front of a computer all day reading phone messages. (Im guessing now) Its a computer that flags certain international conversations based on the people talking, and the words they are saying. If you are talking to someone with ties to terrorists, or talking internationally and you say bomb, US (etc...) they are going to flag it for a human to look at.

Unless you have something to hide this shouldn't be an issue.

-Kevin

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: virtueixi
Bush's secret police is taking down your names. Be careful what you say.

That's what they said under Lincoln, FDR, Nixon, etc. When your man isn't in power, people are more vary of being "spyed" on.

Yeah, Bush admits to spying on U.S. citizens.. this is very much compareable to the admitted spying on americans that Lincoln and FDR did...wait a sec... when did lincoln and FDR admit to spying without warrants on americans? Must have missed that...

Last i checked national calling is not monitored at all. Hell, international calling isn't even monitored. It is when you call someone who is suspected to have even remote ties to terrorism. I dont know about you but i certainly dont plan on doing anything like that.

Additionally, it isn't a bunch of NSA operatives sitting in front of a computer all day reading phone messages. (Im guessing now) Its a computer that flags certain international conversations based on the people talking, and the words they are saying. If you are talking to someone with ties to terrorists, or talking internationally and you say bomb, US (etc...) they are going to flag it for a human to look at.

Unless you have something to hide this shouldn't be an issue.

-Kevin

It's not that it is a "if you have nothing to hide" issue. It is more of a: There was a court system in place to rubber stamp warrants. Bush went around this. He could have easliy gone to the court and received warrants for these actions. I want checks and balances, in particular someone looking at the executive branch's doings.

 

[jlmadyson]

Rudy G is on fire tonight.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: virtueixi
Bush's secret police is taking down your names. Be careful what you say.

That's what they said under Lincoln, FDR, Nixon, etc. When your man isn't in power, people are more vary of being "spyed" on.

Yeah, Bush admits to spying on U.S. citizens.. this is very much compareable to the admitted spying on americans that Lincoln and FDR did...wait a sec... when did lincoln and FDR admit to spying without warrants on americans? Must have missed that...

Last i checked national calling is not monitored at all. Hell, international calling isn't even monitored. It is when you call someone who is suspected to have even remote ties to terrorism. I dont know about you but i certainly dont plan on doing anything like that.

Additionally, it isn't a bunch of NSA operatives sitting in front of a computer all day reading phone messages. (Im guessing now) Its a computer that flags certain international conversations based on the people talking, and the words they are saying. If you are talking to someone with ties to terrorists, or talking internationally and you say bomb, US (etc...) they are going to flag it for a human to look at.

Unless you have something to hide this shouldn't be an issue.

-Kevin

Another American willing to give up one of his rights... Long live America!

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

See that "BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE, SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION" part? Yeah... you need warrants... if you don't like the Bill of Rights, you should probably go search out a country where you won't be bothered by such freedoms inherent in U.S. society... You probably will not have such problems in some of these suggested places: Nazi Germany, USSR, Iran, North Korea.

 

[Gamingphreek]

BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE,

Well i would call communicating with a known terrorist probable cause to have a conversation flagged.

Another American willing to give up one of his rights... Long live America!

Way to argue there. Did you ever manage to pass an english class.... seems to me that that is an "ad populum" or arguably "ad hominem" logic fallacy.

It's not that it is a "if you have nothing to hide" issue. It is more of a: There was a court system in place to rubber stamp warrants. Bush went around this. He could have easliy gone to the court and received warrants for these actions. I want checks and balances, in particular someone looking at the executive branch's doings.

Fair enough. However, dont a few select Senators get to see some of the conversations that are flagged. I can definitely see letting a few VERY TRUSTED people see some of these documents, but announcing it to the senate or something is out of the question. You might as well just tell them how we get our inteligence these days. Not only that what about all 435 members of the house!? To reiterate, i can see telling a few select people (possibly sworn to secrecy unless sub poena'd or something) but announcing it to everyone is not the way to go about things.

The problem with obtaining a warrant is that it isn't good on a blanket group of events from my understanding. You would need to get a warrant for each and every single conversation flagged or monitored, which is more than likely, impossible. Not to say that this who plan should continue without ANYONES approval of knowledge of happenings, but to suggest that everything must be discussed in a commitee is ludicrous.

-Kevin

 

[jumpr]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
The problem with obtaining a warrant is that it isn't good on a blanket group of events from my understanding. You would need to get a warrant for each and every single conversation flagged or monitored, which is more than likely, impossible. Not to say that this who plan should continue without ANYONES approval of knowledge of happenings, but to suggest that everything must be discussed in a commitee is ludicrous.

-Kevin

So you're saying that if the law is too inconvenient, you should just disobey it?

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: jumpr

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
The problem with obtaining a warrant is that it isn't good on a blanket group of events from my understanding. You would need to get a warrant for each and every single conversation flagged or monitored, which is more than likely, impossible. Not to say that this who plan should continue without ANYONES approval of knowledge of happenings, but to suggest that everything must be discussed in a commitee is ludicrous.

-Kevin

So you're saying that if the law is too inconvenient, you should just disobey it?

No i never said nor implied that. More or less i said that it is impractical to obtain a warrant for every single conversation every monitored by a computer in the United States. You know as well as i do, that that is impossible.

I also said, that warrants should be issued if a human must research and look over the case rather than a computer simply monitoring calls. Never did i say that if some law (in this case arguably the bill of rights) is inconvenient that you should disobey it.

-Kevin

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: jumpr

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
The problem with obtaining a warrant is that it isn't good on a blanket group of events from my understanding. You would need to get a warrant for each and every single conversation flagged or monitored, which is more than likely, impossible. Not to say that this who plan should continue without ANYONES approval of knowledge of happenings, but to suggest that everything must be discussed in a commitee is ludicrous.

-Kevin

So you're saying that if the law is too inconvenient, you should just disobey it?

No i never said nor implied that. More or less i said that it is impractical to obtain a warrant for every single conversation every monitored by a computer in the United States. You know as well as i do, that that is impossible.

I also said, that warrants should be issued if a human must research and look over the case rather than a computer simply monitoring calls. Never did i say that if some law (in this case arguably the bill of rights) is inconvenient that you should disobey it.

-Kevin

You don't get warrants for individual conversations, you get them for specific people or phone lines. Also contrary to your earlier suggestion, FISA warrant applications are not reviewed by Congress. They are reviewed by the secret FISA court.

 

[virtueixi]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: jumpr

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
The problem with obtaining a warrant is that it isn't good on a blanket group of events from my understanding. You would need to get a warrant for each and every single conversation flagged or monitored, which is more than likely, impossible. Not to say that this who plan should continue without ANYONES approval of knowledge of happenings, but to suggest that everything must be discussed in a commitee is ludicrous.

-Kevin

So you're saying that if the law is too inconvenient, you should just disobey it?

No i never said nor implied that. More or less i said that it is impractical to obtain a warrant for every single conversation every monitored by a computer in the United States. You know as well as i do, that that is impossible.

I also said, that warrants should be issued if a human must research and look over the case rather than a computer simply monitoring calls. Never did i say that if some law (in this case arguably the bill of rights) is inconvenient that you should disobey it.

-Kevin

Yes, but that isn't the way the system worked. He broke the law and got away with it.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: virtueixi

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: jumpr

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
The problem with obtaining a warrant is that it isn't good on a blanket group of events from my understanding. You would need to get a warrant for each and every single conversation flagged or monitored, which is more than likely, impossible. Not to say that this who plan should continue without ANYONES approval of knowledge of happenings, but to suggest that everything must be discussed in a commitee is ludicrous.

-Kevin

So you're saying that if the law is too inconvenient, you should just disobey it?

No i never said nor implied that. More or less i said that it is impractical to obtain a warrant for every single conversation every monitored by a computer in the United States. You know as well as i do, that that is impossible.

I also said, that warrants should be issued if a human must research and look over the case rather than a computer simply monitoring calls. Never did i say that if some law (in this case arguably the bill of rights) is inconvenient that you should disobey it.

-Kevin

Yes, but that isn't the way the system worked. He broke the law and got away with it.

NO, after the attack on the WTC's Congress gave him permission to use any means necessary to "smoke out" the terrorists. Only after he tried to make the changes permanent did this whole fiasco start.

Also while this discussion is focused on Bush you make him out to be the only president who has done questionable things in office. FDR passed hundreds of laws without the approval of congress, sometimes with their disapproval.

The law should be ratified by Congress before it becomes permanent, however, he most certainly didn't break the law. I dont recall ever hearing about Bush standing trial in the court and being told he will not continue to do such things.

You don't get warrants for individual conversations, you get them for specific people or phone lines. Also contrary to your earlier suggestion, FISA warrant applications are not reviewed by Congress. They are reviewed by the secret FISA court.

Yeah, like i said, i wasn't quite sure about the specifics. Ok he should have gotten warrants before running background checks and actually watching conversations take place. However, IMO a warrant should only be issued if the said conversation has been flagged and must be evaluated further and more indepth; or perhaps if there needs to be a record of a specific conversation. Other than that, it should be fair game.

-Kevin

 

[Patrick Wolf]

Ahhhh, what does it all matter anyways? We're all going to destroy ourselves within 500 years when we finally realize there is no God and the Bible is fiction. God bless America my ass. :laugh:

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Bush is trying to implement "Reaganomics". However, he hasn't completely succeeded.

Trying to but forgetting a big part of Reaganomics was reduction in size and scope of the federal government. Bush is just another version of Clinton.