Perhaps there is a God....

Watermark said:
Well, Runyon, I may not hate Hitler personally, but I do think the world was better off with him dead due to his policies.
Click to expand...

Not going to disagree with that, however the comparisons with GW, Murtha, and other US politicos falls way short of that type of standard, don't you think?
 
Runyon said:
And the fact that the Democrats will likely control at least 2 of the 3 branches of the federal government is punishment as well? LOL! For claiming the right is too 'religious' it seems there are suddenly many on the left finding God.

I'm not really into 'hate.' Never wished harm to Tim Johnson, I'm glad to hear his recovery is going well. On another messageboard I remember some on the right doing what has been with with Cheney, Roberts, etc., with Johnson. I was appalled then, am now. And yes, I said so.

It's like this Ted Stevens thing, so many on the left think that the right is going to be screaming, my only thought, 'couldn't happen to a more deserving guy.'
Click to expand...

I think that the Justice's party should have NOTHING to do with the Judicial Branch, where as the Senate and the Congress IS SET up that way, to accommodate the minority, whoever they are... but the Justices, as soon as appointed, SHOULD BE NEUTRAL, NO POLITICAL PARTY allegience and allegience only to the Constitution imho!

The Judicial System IS NOT SET UP in any way, shape or form, as a "political" branch of our government and it NEVER should be....we no longer would have "justice" in my opinion.

Care
 
Care4all said:
I think that the Justice's party should have NOTHING to do with the Juditial Branch, where as the Senate and the Congress IS SET up that way, to accommodate the minority, whoever they are... but the Justices, as soon as appointed, SHOULD BE NEUTRAL, NO POLITICAL PARTY allegience and allegience only to the Constitution imho!

The Judicial System IS NOT SET UP in any way, shape or form, as a "political" branch of our government and it NEVER should be....we no longer would have "justice" in my opinion.

Care
Click to expand...

Where did I say differently? Perhaps I had some weird partisan moment I've blacked out?
 
Runyon said:
Where did I say differently? Perhaps I had some weird partisan moment I've blacked out?
Click to expand...


hahahahahaha! that was funny Runyon! I don't know, I thought that is what you implied?

I'm laughing because I have had a few of those partisan/blackout moments myself a couple of times over the years.... lol

Care
 
To me uscit's post, implies that for THOSE OF US THAT BELIEVE IN GOD, (Since he doesn't necessarily believe in such) God helped John roberts not be harmed further than he was.... And I did say out loud when I heard of the accident, "oh thank God, he didn't get hurt further, from the 5 foot fall"

Uscit, was making fun of us (believers), imo, and in his sarcastic way of doing most everything! :)

Not wishing death upon John Roberts in my opinion and from what I know he's like...

Care

p.s.
I think people have been very, very quick to accuse him of wishing the death of John Roberts just by the heading of his post.
 
Runyon said:
As Darla noted, our 'leaders' were ignoring their base, it did take agitation, but there is no doubt in my mind, the leaders are trying to figure how to get around that. I doubt yours are different.
Click to expand...

Another case?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR2007080101514.html

Democrats Propose Compromise to Expand Government Surveillance

By Ellen Nakashima and Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, August 1, 2007; 5:24 PM

Congressional Democrats, under pressure from the Bush administration, today proposed a six-month compromise that would expand the government's authority to conduct electronic surveillance of overseas communications in search of terrorists.

The proposal, according to House and Senate Democrats, would permit a secret court to issue a single broad order approving eavesdropping of communications involving suspects overseas and other people, who may be in the United States. That order "need not be individualized," according to a Democratic aide.

But granting the government authority to intercept calls with a broad warrant, some civil liberties advocates charge, could allow a large number of phone calls and e-mails of U.S. persons and companies to be intercepted as well.

A Democratic aide said that a bill likely would pass the House this week.

At issue is the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which requires the government to obtain an order from a secret court to conduct electronic surveillance of terrorist or intelligence suspects in the United States. After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, President Bush authorized a secret warrantless wiretapping program that allowed the National Security Agency to intercept communications between individuals in the United States and others overseas when at least one party is suspected of links to terrorism.

That full extent of that program has never been disclosed. In January, it was put under the oversight of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, though officials have never made public the precise terms of the court's oversight.

In recent weeks, the administration has warned that the United States is under a heightened threat of another terrorist attack. It is seeking broadened authority in order to step up surveillance, but for now, Democrats do not want to provide that power indefinitely.

On Friday, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell submitted a proposal to Congress that asked for the authority to intercept without a court order any international phone call or e-mail between a surveillance target outside the United States and any person in the United States.

The administration's proposal also would grant the attorney general sole authority to order the interception of communications for as long as one year, if he certified that the surveillance was directed at a person outside the United States.

The Democrats' proposal would ensure that the FISA court, not just the attorney general, has an oversight role when surveillance of foreign targets touches on individuals inside the United States, according to a statement from Sen. John D. Rockefeller (D-W Va.), chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

The Democrats' proposal also would affirm that no court order is needed to eavesdrop on communications that begin and end outside the United States, even if they are routed through the United States.

...
Click to expand...
 
The Democrats' proposal also would affirm that no court order is needed to eavesdrop on communications that begin and end outside the United States, even if they are routed through the United States.
//

That is the key isn't it, if no one in the us is on the call it does not tread on our privacy does it ?

A bit watered down from what the Repubs want.
 
uscitizen said:
The Democrats' proposal also would affirm that no court order is needed to eavesdrop on communications that begin and end outside the United States, even if they are routed through the United States.
//

That is the key isn't it, if no one in the us is on the call it does not tread on our privacy does it ?

A bit watered down from what the Repubs want.
Click to expand...

Granted, but not as watered down as what they were saying during the hoopla.
 
Runyon said:
Granted, but not as watered down as what they were saying during the hoopla.
Click to expand...

yep that is politics, all hoopla. The important thing is the results.

Never believe anything a politician says, just what they do or have done.
Posturing and deal making are rampant and a foundation of politics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top