Bush's latest signing statement allows government to open your mail

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tleonhar @ Jan 5 2007, 10:06 AM) [snapback]371288[/snapback]</div>

Mean elevation of CA=2900feet

Mean elevation of FL=98feet

Divide those numbers by 10 and you get the average IQ in each state!

The weight of the water which will eventually cover Florida will tilt the western states up, and California will finally break off and become an island which will become an independent nation with a moat surrounding it thereby keeping out the barbarians. It'll become a nation of peace, love and hippies with great organic restaurants, clean air, fantastic music and art. Everyone will have similar reasonable political beliefs and we'll all live happily ever after due to our fake breasts, lips, enlarged penises, and run our cars on the biofuel made from left over residue of liposuction. Did I mention we'll all be smart and beautiful?

Floridians will all grow gills and scales and constantly battle for higher ground.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 5 2007, 01:21 PM) [snapback]371388[/snapback]</div>

David,

You really need to reasearch things a little more. First the amateur terrorist, one was captured here in MN in July of 01. You see he wanted to learn how to fly a 747, no takoffs or landings, just straight flights and a few turns, hmmm. Collen Rowley, the FBI agent who arrested him was prevented by her bosses in DC from investigating further. Evidence that was later uncovered (after 9/11) could have prevented the events of that day. Oh yea, Missoui is now serving life at solitary confinement, no chance of parole. And for agent Rowley, she has left the bureau, ran for congress (in my district ) as a Democrat, and was met with the full force of the GOP fear and smear tactics.

Your second statement however, you of all people should be aware of what an unchecked fascist state can do. I know, and I'll wager you as well know people with that tatoo on their forearm, very likely some are directly related to you.



Peace...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tleonhar @ Jan 5 2007, 04:05 PM) [snapback]371481[/snapback]</div>

only through strength, vigilance, and deterance.

 

Note to self: all contraban to be shipped via FedEx...or UPs...or Purolator...or DHL...

Actually, this is SOP; it's always such a hassle when the Post Office misdelivers a painstakingly manufactured batch of IED's.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Jan 5 2007, 03:38 PM) [snapback]371499[/snapback]</div>

Actually, you might want to rethink that... my sister has been studying abroad, and oddly enough customs seems to hold up anything shipped by fedex, ups, etc, but anything sent through the USPS goes straight through to her!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jan 5 2007, 02:04 PM) [snapback]371369[/snapback]</div>

Niiiiice~
Maybe we should all post Presidential quotes from all the Dem Presidents.... Hmm how quickly they forget.

Good one Kow!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Jan 5 2007, 01:20 PM) [snapback]371490[/snapback]</div>

It depends. Does that mean the DHS is an agency made up of lazy m'f**k**s or imperious boobs?
Sorry, Can't have it both ways. <_<
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Jan 5 2007, 01:20 PM) [snapback]371490[/snapback]</div>

That was pre-9/11, this is now! Stop living in the past. Much has changed since then.

Opening the hijackers' mail, taping their phones, or reading their email would have been wrong pre-9/11. (?)
What magical system would YOU have used to catch them? [oops, don't go there JackDodge . . . you may infringe on someones imaginary rights and all hell will break out here in FHOP . . . and you may even be called a neocon. ]

No wonder the federal government wasn't able to catch the hijackers in the planning stage. Their hands were tied behind their backs. They weren't even allowed to share information between the different intelligence agencies. Now we have the DHS . . new laws, new rules, and a much less hospitable climate for terrorists to ply their trade within the States.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Jan 5 2007, 04:43 PM) [snapback]371505[/snapback]</div>

No question about it, there are some aspects of Clinton's administation which I can only hope to forget.

Gosh, I have this image of you two doing a high five, like football players...
...just don't go touching each other on the butt, or we might get the wrong idea!
[laughing]

Manly hugs *are* permitted, however...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Jan 5 2007, 05:24 PM) [snapback]371524[/snapback]</div>

Actually, I think the DHS's performance is inconsistent enough to provide a resounding "yes" to both questions.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Jan 5 2007, 05:43 PM) [snapback]371505[/snapback]</div>

Posting real quotes or quotes in context would be better. For example

REAL QUOTES

1."You know the one thing that's wrong with this country? Everyone gets a chance to have their fair say." -- President Bill Clinton
Full quote: "The plan cuts the deficit by $500 billion, cuts a quarter of a trillion dollars in Government spending, asks the wealthy who can best afford to pay their fair share, invests in education and jobs, and rewards work instead of welfare.
[At this point, audience members interrupted the President's remarks. ]
Let me tell you something—wait a minute. You know one thing that's wrong with this country? Everybody gets a chance to have their fair say. My budget did more to fight AIDS than any in history, and we're having to put up with this. Tell them to let me talk. If you want to give a speech, go out there and raise your own crowd. We'll be glad to listen to you.
So there were those—I'll make you a deal. I'll ignore them if you will.

President William Clinton addressing the people of Philadelphia, May 28, 1993 in the Courtyard, City Hall, Philadelphia, PA.

2. "We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans." -- President Bill Clinton
Full quote: "I think -- you know, we can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles -- it's something I strongly support -- we can't be so fixated on that that we are unable to think about the reality of life that millions of Americans face on streets that are unsafe, under conditions that no other nation -- no other nations -- has permitted to exist."-- Remarks and a Question-and-Answer Session at the Adult Learning Center in New Brunswick, New Jersey, March 1st, 1993

FAKE QUOTES
You can read the transcripts of his MTV interviews on http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ search his speeches (by keyword, by phrase) and guess what? You won't find him saying either of these.

3. The purpose of government is to rein in the rights of the people" -- President Bill Clinton
Not a real quote. Attributed to Clinton on MTV in 1993 or 1994. FAKE

4. "If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees." -- President Bill Clinton
attributed to an august 12, 1993 speech FAKE

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Jan 5 2007, 06:04 PM) [snapback]371542[/snapback]</div>

Thanks for debunking these. They keep floating around a lot, and I usually just ignore them, since bringing up Clinton in a discussion of our current situation is like so six years ago.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Jan 5 2007, 04:24 PM) [snapback]371524[/snapback]</div>

Imaginary rights, does that mean we have an imaginary constitution also? Our right to privacy is as strong as the right to bear arms (possibly referring to militias, not individuals), but there's no group like the NRA focused on the 4th amendment, so this administration has been trampling it badly. We are going into a police state by our own will more than any terrorist could have done. They may not be killing Americans but they took away our liberties that our ancestors fought for.

Fourth amendment "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."

This decree signed by President Bush is ambiguous, and may or may not be sidestepping the above. The big question is if he intends it to be used without a warrant, like his eavesdropping program does.

 

To all those who think Bush should be allowed to open your mail, or have other powers beyond the law, in the name of security. How do you feel about giving those same powers to Hillary? Because if she wins in 2008, she'll have all those same powers.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Jan 5 2007, 05:04 PM) [snapback]371542[/snapback]</div>

You focused on Bill Clinton, here's a couple quotes by Bush, during the second debate with Gore in 2000:

"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow the dictator when it's in our best interests. But in this case it was a nation-building exercise, and same with Haiti. I wouldn't have supported either."

"Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation building core from America? Absolutely not. Our military is meant to fight and win war. That's what it's meant to do. And when it gets overextended, morale drops. I strongly believe we need to have a military presence in the peninsula, not only to keep the peace in the peninsula, but to keep regional stability. And I strongly believe we need to keep a presence in NATO, but I'm going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the extra [exit?] strategy obvious."

It was good to look these up, because I always thought he said he wasn't going to do any nation-building, but he didn't quite state it that way. Of course, that's how it's turned out, intentionally or not...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nerfer @ Jan 5 2007, 03:43 PM) [snapback]371558[/snapback]</div>

The ACLU is pretty vigilant in going after First and Fourth Amendments violations.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 5 2007, 02:17 PM) [snapback]371381[/snapback]</div>

Hoover's FBI was conducting illegal surveillance for decades. So just when did this start bothering you? If a professional is intercepting your mail you won't even know it. Maybe all the stuff that gets "lost in the mail" is actually confiscated by the FBI, CIA, or NSA.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jan 5 2007, 07:51 AM) [snapback]371242[/snapback]</div>

Doesn't the signing statement start the process of judicial review by the Courts?

If the "clarifying" statement is not in accord with the intent of the Congress, it should sue the Executive and force the issue into the courts for clarification. After the court decisions are final, only the Congress can (in effect) override them by additional, clarifying legislation.

For the most part, I don't like the increasing power of the Executive Branch since the Civil War, but that's modern life in America. We were never intended to have kings, but Lincoln started something that has just gotten larger and larger.

The Legislative branch was considered the most important by our founders, and most closely represented the will of the people in their view. And they arranged it so the Legislative branch could be renewed every two years.