Welcome to AikiWeb Aikido Information
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Sections
home
aikido articles
columns

Discussions
forums
aikiblogs

Databases
dojo search
seminars
image gallery
supplies
links directory

Reviews
book reviews
video reviews
dvd reviews
equip. reviews

News
submit
archive

Miscellaneous
newsletter
rss feeds
polls
about

Follow us on



Home > AikiWeb Aikido Forums
Go Back   AikiWeb Aikido Forums > Open Discussions

Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history, humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced features available, you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-21-2005, 06:17 PM   #1
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Impeachment-time

OK, please: someone try and tell me now that Bush isn't a liar.

Bush just admitted, for the first time in history: to an impeachable offence. He admitted to authorizing wiretaps without FISA review. A FISA judge has resigned in protest.

Is there anyone out there who thinks that unwarranted wiretaps are OK? Step on up...if you're out there.

In the meantime: let's take up the call...

IMPEACH!
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2005, 06:48 PM   #2
giriasis
Dojo: Sand Drift Aikikai, Cocoa Florida
Location: Melbourne, Florida
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 824
United_States
Offline
Re: Impeachment-time

One word: Bushpatine

Anne Marie Giri
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2005, 10:53 PM   #3
Joe Bowen
 
Joe Bowen's Avatar
Dojo: Yongsan Aikikai
Location: But now I'm in the UK
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 212
South Korea
Offline
Re: Impeachment-time

Quote:
Anne Marie Giri wrote:
One word: Bushpatine
What does this word mean?
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2005, 10:56 PM   #4
Joe Bowen
 
Joe Bowen's Avatar
Dojo: Yongsan Aikikai
Location: But now I'm in the UK
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 212
South Korea
Offline
Re: Impeachment-time

Never mind, I think I get it....
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2005, 11:13 PM   #5
Don_Modesto
Dojo: Messores Sensei (Largo, Fl.)
Location: Florida
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,267
Offline
Re: Impeachment-time

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
OK, please: someone try and tell me now that Bush isn't a liar.

Bush just admitted, for the first time in history: to an impeachable offence. He admitted to authorizing wiretaps without FISA review. A FISA judge has resigned in protest.

Is there anyone out there who thinks that unwarranted wiretaps are OK? Step on up...if you're out there.

In the meantime: let's take up the call...

IMPEACH!
Man, the warning flags have been up with this guy since he was in college. If the nation has been ignoring them this long, I don't see him going down anytime soon. Domestic spying, torture, malfeasance, incompetence corrution, lying...but no semen stains. We have to adhere to family values, after all.

Mussolini wasn't dragged through the streets until Italy lost the war.

Don J. Modesto
St. Petersburg, Florida
------------------------
http://www.theaikidodojo.com/
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2005, 01:37 AM   #6
Yann Golanski
 
Yann Golanski's Avatar
Dojo: York Shodokan Aikido
Location: York, United Kingdom.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 406
United Kingdom
Offline
Re: Impeachment-time

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2...tml#1135152318

In case anyone wants real information and not propaganda from either side... Oh wait, that'll just be me.
/cynicism

The people who understand, understand prefectly.
yann@york-aikido.org York Shodokan Aikido
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2005, 08:28 AM   #7
Hogan
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 106
Offline
Re: Impeachment-time

Impeachable ? Don't think so....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179318,00.html
"Despite claims to the contrary, President Bush is not the first to assert the executive power to authorize warrantless searches. The National Review notes that President Clinton's deputy attorney general, Jamie Gorelick told the Senate Intelligence Committee in 1994 that an executive order signed by President Reagan provided for warrantless searches against "a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power," saying, "The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179435,00.html
"We told you earlier that President Clinton had defended his executive authority to perform wiretaps and searches of American citizens without a warrant and in fact, in February of 1995, authorized the attorney general "to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information."

Now it turns out that presidents going back to Jimmy Carter have authorized such actions. An executive order signed by President Carter in May of 1979 reads, "The attorney general is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."

_______________________
Impeachable offense is lying under oath, which Clinton was impeached for.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2005, 10:45 AM   #8
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Impeachment-time

Quote:
John Hogan wrote:
Impeachable ? Don't think so....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179318,00.html
"Despite claims to the contrary, President Bush is not the first to assert the executive power to authorize warrantless searches. The National Review notes that President Clinton's deputy attorney general, Jamie Gorelick told the Senate Intelligence Committee in 1994 that an executive order signed by President Reagan provided for warrantless searches against "a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power," saying, "The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes."
Sorry, Jamie Gorelick was contending that Clinton had the authority to conduct warrantless searches: not admitting that he did it. Apples and oranges.

Quote:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179435,00.html
"We told you earlier that President Clinton had defended his executive authority to perform wiretaps and searches of American citizens without a warrant and in fact, in February of 1995, authorized the attorney general "to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information."
He's defending his authority to conduct these searches: not admitting to conducting them.

Quote:
Now it turns out that presidents going back to Jimmy Carter have authorized such actions. An executive order signed by President Carter in May of 1979 reads, "The attorney general is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."
And you think that simply because others did it in the past, this makes it OK??? I know: attempting to make permanent the Patriot Act; indefinite jailings and demands for increased, kinglike powers to the President means nothing to you...BushCo isn't trying to consolidate power and dramatically transform this democracy into something else....it's all just the latest act in the "war on terror!"

Quote:
Impeachable offense is lying under oath, which Clinton was impeached for.
Impeachable offences are "high crimes and misdemeanors," which includes felonious offences. Bush committed a felony: ergo, he's impeachable. Matters not, how many felonious Presidents preceeded him (if your source is true, which: considering its record, is debatable).

Sad, that I find you here, erroneously defending the lawbreaking Bush, to the end.

Sad: but not unsurprising.

Last edited by Neil Mick : 12-22-2005 at 10:59 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2005, 11:03 AM   #9
Hogan
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 106
Offline
Re: Impeachment-time

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
Sorry, but even IF your questionable source is true: BushCo has been spying on American's in this country. Apples and oranges.
...who happens to be talking to foreign suspects / terrorists. Too bad we didn't do this when Atta and his crew called Pakistan one last time before 9/11 - maybe that couldv'e been avoided.



Quote:
And if this is true: he ought to have been impeached. A previous wrong, doth not a right, make.
Not illegal = not impeachable



Quote:
And you think that simply because others did it in the past, this makes it OK???
Not OK in your mind does not = illegal.

Quote:
Impeachable offences are "high crimes and misdemeanors," which includes felonious offences. Bush committed a felony: ..
No, sorry. LEGAL. And if you don't believe the sourse, go look at the docs. Prove them wrong.

Quote:
...Sad, that I find you here, erroneously defending the lawbreaking Bush, to the end.
No law has been broken.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2005, 11:18 AM   #10
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Impeachment-time

Quote:
John Hogan wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179435,00.html
Now it turns out that presidents going back to Jimmy Carter have authorized such actions. An executive order signed by President Carter in May of 1979 reads, "The attorney general is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."
Darn these timeouts, anyway!

So, here we have another trick of miswording, courtesy of Fox (who, of course: caught the whiff of the echo-chamber, from Drudge).

Quote:
What Drudge says:

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."

What Carter's executive order actually says:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.
What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain "the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party." So again: the difference btw Carter's order and Bush's confession is the restriction from bugging US citizens.

Gotta love these Conservative double-talking blogger's: they'll twist everything.

Also, regarding Gorelick: in 1995 the law was amended to include physical searches. Neither Gorelick or the Clinton administration ever argued that president's inherent "authority" allowed him to ignore FISA.

The difference btw Clinton and Bush? Clinton wasn't arguing that he could ignore the law, and FISA: Bush is.

So, once again: FoxNews attempts to twist the facts out of context to reflect favorably on W.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2005, 11:20 AM   #11
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Impeachment-time

Quote:
John Hogan wrote:
...who happens to be talking to foreign suspects / terrorists. Too bad we didn't do this when Atta and his crew called Pakistan one last time before 9/11 - maybe that couldv'e been avoided.
And you know whom, exactly: BushCo is tapping, how?? I know, I know: Bush is Our Last, Best Hope for Democracy.

We have nothing to worry about: because W wouldn't DARE violate the right to privacy of an innocent!

Sami al Arian just might disagree with you...

Sorry, but the law is quite specific. No domestic spying of American's. See my post above.

Quote:
Not illegal = not impeachable
But, illegal IS impeachable, which W did.

Quote:
No, sorry. LEGAL. And if you don't believe the sourse, go look at the docs. Prove them wrong.
Oh, I just did. At least, I disproved the doubletalking and out of context quotes you provided.

Quote:
No law has been broken.
Wanna bet?

Last edited by Neil Mick : 12-22-2005 at 11:26 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2005, 12:07 PM   #12
makuchg
 
makuchg's Avatar
Dojo: FL Aikido Center
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 84
United_States
Offline
Re: Impeachment-time

Really the EO that you should be examining is EO 12333 signed by Ronald Reagan in 1981. This order outlines intelligence activities and what is permitted and what is not.

<quote>2.4 COLLECTION TECHNIQUES

Agencies within the Intelligence Community shall use the least
intrusive collection techniques feasible within the United States
or directed against United States persons abroad. Agencies are not
authorized to use such techniques as electronic surveillance,
unconsented physical search, mail surveillance, physical
surveillance, or monitoring devices unless they are in accordance
with procedures established by the head of the agency concerned and
approved by the Attorney General. Such procedures shall protect
constitutional and other legal rights and limit use of such
information to lawful governmental purposes. These procedures
shall not authorize:

(a) The CIA to engage in electronic surveillance within the
United States except for the purpose of training, testing, or
conducting countermeasures to hostile electronic surveillance;

(b) Unconsented physical searches in the United States by
agencies other than the FBI, except for:

(1) Searches by counterintelligence elements of the military
services directed against military personnel within the United
States or abroad for intelligence purposes, when authorized by a
military commander empowered to approve physical searches for law
enforcement purposes, based upon a finding of probable cause to
believe that such persons are acting as agents of foreign powers;
and

(2) Searches by CIA of personal property of non-United States
persons lawfully in its possession.

(c) Physical surveillance of a United States person in the United
States by agencies other than the FBI, except for:

(1) Physical surveillance of present or former employees, present
or former intelligence agency contractors or their present or
former employees, or applicants for any such employment or
contracting; and

(2) Physical surveillance of a military person employed by a
nonintelligence element of a military service.

(d) Physical surveillance of a United States person abroad to
collect foreign intelligence, except to obtain significant
information that cannot reasonably be acquired by other means.
</quote>

I believe if you look at this EO (http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12333.htm) you will find that the surveillance of US persons is so highly regulated that the wiretapping of a US person by any agency other than the FBI is expressly prohibited. Even if the wiretap was authorized, the use of any agency other than the FBI within the confines of the US (unless it was a military member then the DoD can investigate), especially the NSA justifies a breach of EO 12333. Further more, EO 12333 expressly prohibits any action which would violate existing US laws and the Constitution:

<quote> 2.8 CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER LAWS

Nothing in this Order shall be construed to authorize any
activity in violation of the Constitution or statutes of the United
States.
</quote>

How can we now say his actions were even remotely legal?

Gregory Makuch
Wandering Ronin
Spring Hill, FL
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2005, 12:11 PM   #13
Hogan
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 106
Offline
Re: Impeachment-time

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
"The attorney general is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."

"...the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section."
Means the same thing, dude. Authorization by the AG = certification by the AG.

No trick at all. See even the 1st part of the sentence is word for word.

I see you like to find the section with my words, then accuse it of misquoting when they just leave the end of the sentence off, then say something else without providing source.

What the act ACTUALLY says is, is that the AG has to certify that:

"...(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party..."

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...2----000-.html

That means that the AG simply has to say the there is "no substantial likelihood". Now, if some US "citizens" were listend in on (and that is up for debate), it wasn't INTENDED; that what they did will NOT in all likelihood catch US "citizens", but is intedned to listent o others, but some US folks may be. See how simple that is ? They follow the law - simple as that.

Whew ! Talk about leaving words out, Neil - those were the best part.. seems like "[you']ll twist everything"...


"So, once again [Neil Mick] attempts to twist the facts out of context to reflect [horribly] on W."
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2005, 12:20 PM   #14
Hogan
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 106
Offline
Re: Impeachment-time

Quote:
Gregory Makuch wrote:
....<quote>2.4 COLLECTION TECHNIQUES
Agencies within the Intelligence Community shall use the least
intrusive collection techniques feasible within the United States
or directed against United States persons abroad. Agencies are not
authorized to use such techniques as electronic surveillance,
unconsented physical search, mail surveillance, physical
surveillance, or monitoring devices unless they are in accordance
with procedures established by the head of the agency concerned and
approved by the Attorney General
...
Hmmm...OK, seems so far so good for the AG. He can approve it or the head of an agency. Nothing that Bush did was wrong so far...

Quote:
"...shall not authorize (a) The CIA to engage in electronic surveillance within the
United States except for the purpose of training, testing, or
conducting countermeasures to hostile electronic surveillance;
OK.... Who said Bush used CIA ?

Quote:
(b) Unconsented physical searches in the United States by agencies other than the FBI, except for:
(1) Searches by counterintelligence elements of the military
services directed against military personnel within the United
States or abroad for intelligence purposes, when authorized by a
military commander empowered to approve physical searches for law enforcement purposes, based upon a finding of probable cause to believe that such persons are acting as agents of foreign powers;
and
(2) Searches by CIA of personal property of non-United States
persons lawfully in its possession.
(c) Physical surveillance of a United States person in the United
States by agencies other than the FBI, except for:
(1) Physical surveillance of present or former employees, present or former intelligence agency contractors or their present or
former employees, or applicants for any such employment or
contracting; and
(2) Physical surveillance of a military person employed by a
nonintelligence element of a military service.
(d) Physical surveillance of a United States person abroad to
collect foreign intelligence, except to obtain significant
information that cannot reasonably be acquired by other means.
</quote>
OK ! Listening in on the phone or net is NOT 'physical' surveillance. Thanks Greg ! You made the case... And if it WAS physical, everyone of the ones listed above provide an exception.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2005, 01:47 PM   #15
makuchg
 
makuchg's Avatar
Dojo: FL Aikido Center
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 84
United_States
Offline
Re: Impeachment-time

John,

Bush used the NSA for the wire taps which EO 12333 expressly disapproves of. If you read the entire EO, not just the points I quoted you'll see the use of the NSA for domestic surveillence requires coordination with the FBI who holds investigative authority in the US. The NSA cannot tap US lines simply because the President says so.

Gregory Makuch
Wandering Ronin
Spring Hill, FL
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2005, 02:03 PM   #16
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Impeachment-time

Quote:
John Hogan wrote:
Means the same thing, dude. Authorization by the AG = certification by the AG.

No trick at all. See even the 1st part of the sentence is word for word.
You're right: it's not a trick, if we all see under the curtain.

YOU see the first part of the sentence, "word for word:"

Quote:
What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain "the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party." So again: the difference btw Carter's order and Bush's confession is the restriction from bugging US citizens.
The emphasis is on WHOM the Pres chooses to bug; NOT who certifies it.


Quote:
I see you like to find the section with my words, then accuse it of misquoting when they just leave the end of the sentence off, then say something else without providing source.
Yes, it's called "quoting out of context." Mayhap you've heard of it?

Quote:
What the act ACTUALLY says is, is that the AG has to certify that:

"...(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party..."

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...2----000-.html

That means that the AG simply has to say the there is "no substantial likelihood". Now, if some US "citizens" were listend in on (and that is up for debate), it wasn't INTENDED; that what they did will NOT in all likelihood catch US "citizens", but is intedned to listent o others, but some US folks may be. See how simple that is ? They follow the law - simple as that.
Right. It IS simple. But that's not relevant to the argument. Bush is claiming that he IS allowed to bug US citizens, WHETHER HE "INTENDS" TO BUG US CITIZENS, or not. And, he just lied about not bugging US citizens, last week.

Totally predictable, that you choose to ignore his near-daily lies, and tortures of the truth.

Quote:
Whew ! Talk about leaving words out, Neil - those were the best part.. seems like "[you']ll twist everything"...
Whew! Talk about dropping the concept, ball, John...you'll attempt ANYTHING to misdirect the topic...what next? Seals juggling on beach-balls?

Quote:
"So, once again [Neil Mick] attempts to twist the facts out of context to reflect [horribly] on W."
"So, once again [John Hogan] attempts misdirection, and fails in mid-dance-step, like a Republican attempting a smile for his big mug-shot."
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2005, 02:20 PM   #17
Hogan
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 106
Offline
Re: Impeachment-time

Quote:
Gregory Makuch wrote:
John,

Bush used the NSA for the wire taps which EO 12333 expressly disapproves of. If you read the entire EO, not just the points I quoted you'll see the use of the NSA for domestic surveillence requires coordination with the FBI who holds investigative authority in the US. The NSA cannot tap US lines simply because the President says so.
Crap... now I got to read things in their entirety !?
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2005, 02:31 PM   #18
Hogan
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 106
Offline
Re: Impeachment-time

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
You're right: it's not a trick, if we all see under the curtain.

YOU see the first part of the sentence, "word for word:"
Ahahha.... c'mon dude - it's like comparing these sentences:

1) Neil Mick walks forward.

2) Neil Mick walks forward, by placing one foot in front of the other...


See ? Same thing !


Say after me...

"BUSH is MY PRESIDENT. There aren't many like it, but this one is mine.

My president is my best friend. He is my life.

My country, without Bush, is useless. Without my President, I am useless.

My President and myself know that what counts in this war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, nor the smoke we make. We know that it is the hits that count.

My President is human, even as I, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weaknesses, its strength, its parts, its accessories, its sights and its mind. I will ever guard it against the ravages of terrorism and criticism as I will ever guard my legs, my arms, my eyes and my heart against damage. I will keep my President clean and ready. We will become part of each other.

Before God, I swear this creed. My President and myself are the defenders of my country. We are the masters of our enemy. We
are the saviors of my life.

So be it, until victory is America's and there is no enemy, but peace".

p.s. (Bush gets to appoint even more supreme court justices).
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2005, 03:18 PM   #19
aikigirl10
Dojo: Aikido of Ashland
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 395
United_States
Offline
Re: Impeachment-time

Quote:
Anne Marie Giri wrote:
One word: Bushpatine
I still dont get it .. whats it mean?
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2005, 03:24 PM   #20
James Davis
 
James Davis's Avatar
Dojo: Ft. Myers School of Aikido
Location: Ft. Myers, FL.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 716
United_States
Offline
Re: Impeachment-time

Quote:
Paige Frazier wrote:
I still dont get it .. whats it mean?
Play on the name of Emperor Palpatine in Star Wars.

"The only difference between Congress and drunken sailors is that drunken sailors spend their own money." -Tom Feeney, representative from Florida
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2005, 03:26 PM   #21
James Davis
 
James Davis's Avatar
Dojo: Ft. Myers School of Aikido
Location: Ft. Myers, FL.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 716
United_States
Offline
Re: Impeachment-time

Quote:
John Hogan wrote:
p.s. (Bush gets to appoint even more supreme court justices).
Whoa, John. Way to twist the knife! What a mean guy you are!

"The only difference between Congress and drunken sailors is that drunken sailors spend their own money." -Tom Feeney, representative from Florida
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2005, 07:26 PM   #22
aikigirl10
Dojo: Aikido of Ashland
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 395
United_States
Offline
Re: Impeachment-time

Quote:
James Davis, Jr. wrote:
Play on the name of Emperor Palpatine in Star Wars.
Ah i see... not a huge star wars fan.. thats the problem...

But thanks for filling me in

Last edited by aikigirl10 : 12-22-2005 at 07:26 PM. Reason: add
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2005, 02:30 AM   #23
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Impeachment-time

Quote:
John Hogan wrote:
Say after me...

"BUSH is MY PRESIDENT. There aren't many like it, but this one is mine.

My president is my best friend. He is my life.

My country, without Bush, is useless. Without my President, I am useless.
whoah.

After this: what subtle barbs and snide asides could I possibly pull?

Thank you, John: I am humbled by your honesty. It is certainly rare that an ideologue (no insult intended, really) should convey himself so clearly. Good for you.

But for the rest of us: Bush is an elected leader. He is not our best friend; he is NOT our life.

Please! ANYONE out there, reading my post!! PLEASE pipe in if I'm wrong (no, not you: John).

DOES ANYONE HERE THINK OF THE PRESIDENT AS THEIR LIFE?

How about...The country is "useless" without the President??

No takers??? Aww....come onnnnn...

Quote:
My President and myself know that what counts in this war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, nor the smoke we make. We know that it is the hits that count.
Yes...Bush sure hit a "home-run" with Katrina. didn't he?

And, he's wow'in' 'em over in Congress with his snake-oil Samedi-dance of "we don't DO torture;" while pushing for greater and greater Presidential powers; indefinite detentions; and extroadinary rendition...yeah, this guy is puuure gold, all right...yepper, no scandals from THIS administration...nope, it's all clean as a whistle....

Quote:
My President is human, even as I, because it is my life.
Gosh, is Bush human? Hmmm.....

Is this a trick question?

Quote:
Thus, I will learn it as a brother.
I bet you're one of those Promis-Keeper types, aren't you?

Quote:
I will learn its weaknesses, its strength, its parts, its accessories, its sights and its mind. I will ever guard it against the ravages of terrorism and criticism as I will ever guard my legs, my arms, my eyes and my heart against damage. I will keep my President clean and ready. We will become part of each other.
Is this some kind of pseudo-Freudian fantasy wierdness??

ooooh....scary......

Quote:
Before God, I swear this creed. My President and myself are the defenders of my country. We are the masters of our enemy. We
are the saviors of my life.
Please....come on...tell me that you're just havin' me on, and this is some attempt to psyche me out.....

I worry about you, John....are you OK??

Please, just because you are shown up for your sources, doesn't mean that you have to go all ideological on me....

Quote:
p.s. (Bush gets to appoint even more supreme court justices).
Yeah, well...you got me there...

Last edited by Neil Mick : 12-23-2005 at 02:33 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2005, 07:55 AM   #24
Hogan
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 106
Offline
Re: Impeachment-time

ahaha.... I guess the spoof went over your head...

And bested on sources ? AAAAAAAAAHAHAH !!! Thanks for the laugh this christmas...
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2005, 10:30 AM   #25
bkedelen
 
bkedelen's Avatar
Dojo: Boulder Aikikai
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 450
United_States
Offline
Re: Impeachment-time

It is kinda fun to watch the pro bush squad drown in slow motion. International laws are often broken by presidents acting as the commander and chief of the US Armed Forces. There are often no repercussions for these indiscretions because the United States does not choose to follow the rulings of the world court, which has convicted the US multiple times, and has ruled to apply sanctions against the US which were not enforceable (since we provide the world court's enforcement). Enforcing sanctions against known instances of presidents breaking US law is a different matter. The difference between Clinton breaking the law (which he did), and Bush breaking the law (which he did), is that when Clinton was president, he had a Republican congress gunning for him at all times, whereas Bush has a Republican congress trying to cover his ass. This does not mean that what Clinton did is right. Of course if Bush had a Democratic congress to contend with, he would have been impeached multiple times. The only argument that Bush supporters can think of to defend Bush's actions is that other presidents may have done something similar and gotten away with it at some time in the past. Any student of logic understands that that is not a cogent argument, and has no defensive value. Until a better argument is put forth to defend Bush's failure to abide by US law, he is certainly impeachable. Hopefully at least one of the numerous parallel investigations into almost every aspect of his presidency will yield a direct link between his decision making and the terrible and at times illegal mismanagement of this nation.
  Reply With Quote

Please visit our sponsor:

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!



Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Now what? JJF Testing 25 10-16-2013 12:02 PM
Taigi, Ki, and Time Mike Sigman General 7 06-06-2005 08:54 AM
Spending a little too much time on here! ChrisHein Humor 22 05-16-2005 10:41 AM
Less discipline with time? Unregistered Anonymous 38 11-09-2002 03:57 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:37 AM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2018 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2018 AikiWeb and its Authors, All Rights Reserved.
----------
For questions and comments about this website:
Send E-mail
plainlaid-picaresque outchasing-protistan explicantia-altarage seaford-stellionate