the executive order Bush signed last week is getting some attention

Warren said:
I did spend a fascinating few minutes reading up on Prescott Bushes NAZI connections though, lol.

Time to dive in again...
Click to expand...
yeah that was always good bedtime reading ;)

but to the bushies your heritage does not matter unless you are a Kennedy.
 
Battleborne said:
Looks as if the members of the ACLU and Code Pink along with a few others are in big trouble!:cof1:
Click to expand...


You voted twice for a man who refuses to go after al qaeda, refuses to go after the people who attacked us, and diverted our resources towards a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 or al qaeda.

In short, that makes you a traitor, who undermines the interests of our country. Go join al qaeda, you treasonous scum.
 
Desh I've been meaning to ask you something. Everytime you mispost a link, it always leads to a conspiracy website. Do you just have a collection of thousands of these websites stored on file somewhere on your computer?

Also, is your issue with this EO that it could be used for a partisan purpose? Scanning through it, the applicability seems to be limited to cases where there is an agreement between the Secs of Def, State, and Treasury that a person is going to commit an act of violence to destablize Iraq, or someone financially aiding such persons. It's a little broad, but it could be worse. Bushco would have to really dance to stretch it to apply to war protestors. The whole EO seems somewhat superfluous though. Strange.
 
Battleborne said:
maybe ya better do a little soul searching!
Click to expand...

Oh yes, you are a dirty traitor to your country. You do not believe in the freedom to associate, the freedom to assemble, freedom of speech, or the right to dissent.

The founding father's would have had you hanged. That's what they did with your kind then.
 
cawacko said:
How do you figure the Supreme Court is Bush stacked? 2 out of 9 = stacked? So Clinton stacked the Supreme Court by your definition?
Click to expand...

The two Bush appointed had far more of an effect on the court than the two Clinton appointed. Clinton's appointees really didn't change the direction of the court. Both of Bush's appointees are big-government conservatives.
 
Basically it looks like another tool for them to use to freeze assets of persons acting on behalf of terrorists. I don't see how it could be applied to war protests, but if it somehow could then it would certainly be unconstitutional.
 
This is 2007..........

Darla said:
Oh yes, you are a dirty traitor to your country. You do not believe in the freedom to associate, the freedom to assemble, freedom of speech, or the right to dissent.

The founding father's would have had you hanged. That's what they did with your kind then.
Click to expand...



and the same rules and laws apply to traitors...you darla are the traitor...this has nothing to do with free speech...aiding and abeting the enemy is what this law is all about...like I said a little soul searching is do on your part!
 
Warren said:
I have my doubts. But the Court has been greatly weakened as a branch of govt in the last hundred years though, and has assumed a more servile role than the founders perhaps intended. Ever since FDR rode roughshod over the Constitution with the New Deal, the Supreme Court has been less and less dilligent about striking down unconstitutional legislation. Just because something sounds like a good idea does not mean that we should do it, or that the Constitution provides the authority for it to be done.

America is a diverse cultural melting pot. It doesn't matter if you are Hispanic, black, or Asian, you are welcome in the country nonetheless. It always bothers me when people want members of a certain race or adherents of a certain creed to "get out of America". Everyone, regardless of their color or creed, should be welcome in America. I define only one critical criterion for "true citizenship" and it has nothing to do with your color or ideology.

If you do not support the Constitution, you should move. It is the thread that binds together the fabric of American society. A loss of respect for this document unweaves the only thing that binds us together, our common belief that government should be of the people, for the people, and by the people.
Click to expand...

How was the new deal unconstitutional?

Honestly, some of it WAS unconstitutional, but that was struck down by the courts. The federal government has the right to regulate interstate commerce and use funds in its reserves for the promotion of the general welfare.
 
That's where the federal government gets most of its power, actually. I mean, without that, we basically wouldn't have a federal government. It'd be a frightening time for me, at least, coming under the complete control of the conservative imbociles around me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top