Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Bush may have signed it into law but it was voted on in 2001 by a Majority Republican controlled Congress.
And then it was voted on again Patriot Act II by a Majority Democratically controlled Congress.
So how has Bush taken away our Freedoms? Isn't it really the Congress, and both parties at that?
The Congress with the lowest approval rating of any in the History of this Country 18%, lower than Bushes approval rating at 28%
godspeed,
freedom
freedom,
I think you first have to realize that even though we do currently have a Democratically controlled Congress, it is by such a narrow margin that the Republican Party only needs but a handful of Democratic members of Congress to reach across the aisle and support something. Lest we not forget that we call it a Democratically controlled Congress because there are currently two Independent senators that tend to favor on the Democratic side - Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont.
So, while the approval rating of the "Democratically Controlled" Congress may very well be low, you also have to keep in mind that they do not hold a filibuster proof majority - in other words - enough to overturn a veto. It's no secret that Bush has vetoed a number of "Democratic" bills and the Congress has been insufficient in overturning the veto because of how un-bipartisan Washington is. While, all the blame does not rest on the shoulders of the Republicans as surely the Democratically Controlled Congress has some greater influence, Congress as a whole has not produced anything because of the deeply divided party lines - and that goes on both sides. And so, when things are torn as much as they are, it becomes difficult for any progress to be made. And why do you think Congress is so torn right now? Perhaps it's the raunchy figurehead of the GOP currently running this country that has created such deep divides? Nah...
In case you don't know, and for the sake of talking about this election, the candidates are running on platforms that they would like to see enacted. These aren't guarantees. Neither candidate can just sit on his first day at the Oval Office and start implementing change after change without the approval of Congress.
Nevertheless, as far as the Patriot Act goes and keeping in context what I previously mentioned in the above paragraphs, the Patriot Act was resigned into legislature in 2006 after numerous alterations and modifications of previous acts and that tried to uphold better civil liberties - this was a concern on both the Republican and Democratic side and still many of the concerns have not yet been thoroughly satiated in the minds of many voters and members of Congress.
However, this still does not negate the fact that the initial Patriot Act that Bush signed into office had parts that dove far beyond the realm of constitutional as was brought to the attention by a Federal magistrate -
One of the main things that was struck down by said Federal magistrate was the U.S. governments banal and forthright ability to use wiretaps as well as initiate search warrants without the need for probable cause - this, my friend, violates my Constitutional right of search and seizure in the utmost.
So, how did George Bush violate my freedoms? He signed into action a plan that violates my Constitutional rights and he initially did so under a Republican controlled Congress. If one impinges on my Constitutional rights I would say I have every right to claim that said person has also impinged on my freedoms!
P.S. - Oh, and by the way, the "second" Patriot Act was voted into legislation by George W. Bush on March 9, 2006. The "Democratically Controlled" Congress that you allege was responsible for this did not first convene until Jan. 4th, 2007.
I think you first have to realize that even though we do currently have a Democratically controlled Congress, it is by such a narrow margin that the Republican Party only needs but a handful of Democratic members of Congress to reach across the aisle and support something. Lest we not forget that we call it a Democratically controlled Congress because there are currently two Independent senators that tend to favor on the Democratic side - Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont.
So, while the approval rating of the "Democratically Controlled" Congress may very well be low, you also have to keep in mind that they do not hold a filibuster proof majority - in other words - enough to overturn a veto. It's no secret that Bush has vetoed a number of "Democratic" bills and the Congress has been insufficient in overturning the veto because of how un-bipartisan Washington is. While, all the blame does not rest on the shoulders of the Republicans as surely the Democratically Controlled Congress has some greater influence, Congress as a whole has not produced anything because of the deeply divided party lines - and that goes on both sides. And so, when things are torn as much as they are, it becomes difficult for any progress to be made. And why do you think Congress is so torn right now? Perhaps it's the raunchy figurehead of the GOP currently running this country that has created such deep divides? Nah...
In case you don't know, and for the sake of talking about this election, the candidates are running on platforms that they would like to see enacted. These aren't guarantees. Neither candidate can just sit on his first day at the Oval Office and start implementing change after change without the approval of Congress.
Nevertheless, as far as the Patriot Act goes and keeping in context what I previously mentioned in the above paragraphs, the Patriot Act was resigned into legislature in 2006 after numerous alterations and modifications of previous acts and that tried to uphold better civil liberties - this was a concern on both the Republican and Democratic side and still many of the concerns have not yet been thoroughly satiated in the minds of many voters and members of Congress.
However, this still does not negate the fact that the initial Patriot Act that Bush signed into office had parts that dove far beyond the realm of constitutional as was brought to the attention by a Federal magistrate -
One of the main things that was struck down by said Federal magistrate was the U.S. governments banal and forthright ability to use wiretaps as well as initiate search warrants without the need for probable cause - this, my friend, violates my Constitutional right of search and seizure in the utmost.
So, how did George Bush violate my freedoms? He signed into action a plan that violates my Constitutional rights and he initially did so under a Republican controlled Congress. If one impinges on my Constitutional rights I would say I have every right to claim that said person has also impinged on my freedoms!
P.S. - Oh, and by the way, the "second" Patriot Act was voted into legislation by George W. Bush on March 9, 2006. The "Democratically Controlled" Congress that you allege was responsible for this did not first convene until Jan. 4th, 2007.
You can't put all the blame on the Administrative for legislative acts...
Our system is set up so that all the blame can't be put on the Administration.
You can't put all the blame on the Administrative for legislative acts...
Our system is set up so that all the blame can't be put on the Administration.
godspeed,
freedom
Why not, freedom?
Let me get this straight. President Bush appointed several of the Supreme Court Justices that we currently have. The head of the GOP, Heir Bush himself, also had a Republican controlled Congress for the first 5 active years of his failed Presidency.
So, when the head of the GOP wants a particular bill passed or a legislation written he confers with his Congress and he makes suggestions. That's what Obama will do and that's what John McCain will do if either of them will get elected. They will make suggestions as the head of the GOP to their Congress on what they want to get done.
So, when George Bush reached out to his filibuster-proof Republican Congress for the first five years of his Presidency, he was rarely denied anything that he wanted. The Republicans weren't going to argue with their GOP leader and his Supreme Court Justices were the only thing stopping him from making the bill legal.
So I will blame the Bush Administration. That's the Administration that sought to get us into Iraq. That's the Administration that as recently as 2006 organized a speech for George W. Bush to talk about how outsourcing jobs overseas is a good thing for economic growth and any other ridiculous thing this Administration has done. It's all been done on the nickel and dime of George W. Bush's Administration.
While all three branches deserve a serious wake-up call (the judicial much less so than the executive and legislative in my opinion) the Bush Administration is the culprit in all of this.
Let me get this straight. President Bush appointed several of the Supreme Court Justices that we currently have. The head of the GOP, Heir Bush himself, also had a Republican controlled Congress for the first 5 active years of his failed Presidency.
So, when the head of the GOP wants a particular bill passed or a legislation written he confers with his Congress and he makes suggestions. That's what Obama will do and that's what John McCain will do if either of them will get elected. They will make suggestions as the head of the GOP to their Congress on what they want to get done.
So, when George Bush reached out to his filibuster-proof Republican Congress for the first five years of his Presidency, he was rarely denied anything that he wanted. The Republicans weren't going to argue with their GOP leader and his Supreme Court Justices were the only thing stopping him from making the bill legal.
So I will blame the Bush Administration. That's the Administration that sought to get us into Iraq. That's the Administration that as recently as 2006 organized a speech for George W. Bush to talk about how outsourcing jobs overseas is a good thing for economic growth and any other ridiculous thing this Administration has done. It's all been done on the nickel and dime of George W. Bush's Administration.
While all three branches deserve a serious wake-up call (the judicial much less so than the executive and legislative in my opinion) the Bush Administration is the culprit in all of this.
So you are still willing to blame one man for the woes of the world based on his suggestions to the legislative body.
A body which consist of hundreds of people that supposedly represents millions of people....
The blame is on those that pull the strings of our appointed leaders, the American people, for APATHY, and the greedy money lovers around the world. The world bank and IMF.
To just say Bush sucks and did all this to us is not representive of your abilities regarding a given subject, and talent to form a more accurate conclusion.
I'll give you a pass, maybe you were just reducing the whole world powers system down to one fall guy in the name of expediency.
So you are still willing to blame one man for the woes of the world based on his suggestions to the legislative body.
A body which consist of hundreds of people that supposedly represents millions of people....
The blame is on those that pull the strings of our appointed leaders, the American people, for APATHY, and the greedy money lovers around the world. The world bank and IMF.
To just say Bush sucks and did all this to us is not representive of your abilities regarding a given subject, and talent to form a more accurate conclusion.
I'll give you a pass, maybe you were just reducing the whole world powers system down to one fall guy in the name of expediency.
godspeed,
freedom
freedom,
On Tuesday, it's sort of hard to dispute the fact that we will be calling Barrack Obama President Barrack Obama and he will more than likely (although less surely) have a true Democratically controlled Congress at his disposal. Also, if I'm not mistaken, he will be appointing three (I think it's three?) Supreme Court Justices of his liking to the judicial branch.
Now, if you want to play the angle you're playing and let's say that things don't turn around. Let's say that everything goes to hell in a handbasket even further than we can imagine. Who will you blame? Because it's not just the three branches of government that are at fault it's also those who advise the President on matters such as national security, the environment, the economy, energy, and a vast array of other Cabinet members that are all appointed by the administration figurehead. President Bush has surrounded himself and repeatedly shown that he has picked poor advisers and heads of leadership within his own administration. Donald Rumsfeld ring a bell?
The President does not have absolute power. But, a lot can be determined of one's administration especially when his party controls Congress because those within the party tend not to alienate themselves from their GOP leader. This is, in part, why Obama's campaign has been so successful. When Barrack Obama talks about John McCain siding with President Bush over 90% of the time it shows that perhaps John McCain may have disagreed with Bush on some things but that he agreed with him 90% of the time. I don't see how he can stand up on a podium and say that he reaches across party lines and is a "maverick" when he has sided with the party that runs the administration 90% of the time.
This shows, in part, that even if John McCain disagreed with President Bush how difficult it is to actually go against the head of your party - especially when he's the President.
So, yes, there are an enormous amount of checks and balances within the government as well as people who are nominated by the President himself to advise him on all sorts of matters. This Administration has shown how particularly inept and ill-advised it has been from the get go and that reflects directly on Herr Bush.
On Tuesday, it's sort of hard to dispute the fact that we will be calling Barrack Obama President Barrack Obama and he will more than likely (although less surely) have a true Democratically controlled Congress at his disposal. Also, if I'm not mistaken, he will be appointing three (I think it's three?) Supreme Court Justices of his liking to the judicial branch.
Sadly your dreaming if you think Obama will have any power over the Legislative majority, and that he will last long enough to appoint a secretary of state, let alone 3 justices...
Quote:
Now, if you want to play the angle you're playing and let's say that things don't turn around. Let's say that everything goes to hell in a handbasket even further than we can imagine. Who will you blame?
Who puts who in power? And who controls those in Power... that is the only blame that can be put anywhere.
Quote:
Because it's not just the three branches of government that are at fault it's also those who advise the President on matters such as national security, the environment, the economy, energy, and a vast array of other Cabinet members that are all appointed by the administration figurehead. President Bush has surrounded himself and repeatedly shown that he has picked poor advisers and heads of leadership within his own administration. Donald Rumsfeld ring a bell?
And there is no way that we can determine with our limited access to all the intelligence what is right or wrong to do in a given foreign affairs matter, all we get is the Media spin... remember it took a Democratic majority to agree to everything that this administration does and did.
Quote:
The President does not have absolute power. But, a lot can be determined of one's administration especially when his party controls Congress because those within the party tend not to alienate themselves from their GOP leader.
It took Democrats to get any legislation through.
Quote:
This is, in part, why Obama's campaign has been so successful. When Barrack Obama talks about John McCain siding with President Bush over 90% of the time it shows that perhaps John McCain may have disagreed with Bush on some things but that he agreed with him 90% of the time.
What does that even mean sided with Bush 90%... Bush doesn't have a vote, he doesn't write the legislation. You mean that McCain voted along with the rest of the Senate in 90% of things that Bush thought were good ideas?
Well then so did the whole Senate that were part of passing the given legislation that Bush wanted.... including Democrats....
Quote:
I don't see how he can stand up on a podium and say that he reaches across party lines and is a "maverick" when he has sided with the party that runs the administration 90% of the time.
Because 10% blocks a whole lot of garbage in a legislative body.
Quote:
This shows, in part, that even if John McCain disagreed with President Bush how difficult it is to actually go against the head of your party - especially when he's the President.
Look at his record... he went against many things...how the war was handled....after nearly everyone in congress agreed to the war.
How the campaign finance was structured, how pork spending was rampant, earmarks out of control.... corruption of leaders was not being properly prosecuted... Not enough banking regulations and a free wheeling fannie and freddie system that the Dems. wanted to continue unchecked...
Quote:
So, yes, there are an enormous amount of checks and balances within the government as well as people who are nominated by the President himself to advise him on all sorts of matters. This Administration has shown how particularly inept and ill-advised it has been from the get go and that reflects directly on Herr Bush.
You certainly are free to your opinion, but i think that its pretty impressive that Iraq is democratic, Afghani women have freedom to learn and not be shot for learning, Al-Qaeda is stuck in a vacuum of cave dwelling... and we have permanent bases in Iraq that will serve us well in WWIII with Iran and Russia...
Sadly your dreaming if you think Obama will have any power over the Legislative majority, and that he will last long enough to appoint a secretary of state, let alone 3 justices...
What does this mean? He will last long enough??? The term is for four years. That's plenty of time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freedom
Who puts who in power? And who controls those in Power... that is the only blame that can be put anywhere.
You're talking about two different things, freedom. The voters are responsible for picking their elected officials. There's no doubt about that. But, based on those votes, we expect our elected officials to perform in a certain capacity just as those who voted for Herr Bush expected him to perform in a certain capacity. He's proven time and again to be an absolute imbecile incapable of making even the most fundamentally sound of good decisions - and his approval rating shows it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freedom
And there is no way that we can determine with our limited access to all the intelligence what is right or wrong to do in a given foreign affairs matter, all we get is the Media spin... remember it took a Democratic majority to agree to everything that this administration does and did.
No, it didn't. It needed a Democratic "handful", freedom.
And perhaps all you get is media spin because all you probably watch is Fox News. How many books on foreign affairs, national security, the economy, etc... have you actually read, freedom? Because I've got a bookshelf full of them and I've probably donated triple that amount to my local library and I make every exerted effort to try and pick the most non-biased books available. What you won't find on my bookshelf is any book that starts out with a slanderous title in the name. Most of them are written by journalists (who certainly have their own points of view) who are more or less experts in a related field and explain certain situations. Many of them are former CIA case officers and/or journalists that have been embedded within a certain focal point for a very long time. They don't really harp against one party or another, they simply explain what happened given a particular case in time and I make every effort to be as fluent as I possibly can with those issues so that I'm not just fed the poison apple of the mass media.
I pick up headlines from the mass media, freedom. I get a sense of different things going on but I mostly do my research with books. Perhaps you should think about that when you're watching Bill O'Reilly's "No Spin Zone" tonight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freedom
What does that even mean sided with Bush 90%... Bush doesn't have a vote, he doesn't write the legislation. You mean that McCain voted along with the rest of the Senate in 90% of things that Bush thought were good ideas?
Well then so did the whole Senate that were part of passing the given legislation that Bush wanted.... including Democrats....
See my previous post on how the President proposes legislation to the House and Senate. The President, by the way, is very often very quick to let the House and Senate know what his plans are should a certain bill get passed. Usually, and I'd say the majority of the time, Congress already knows whether it's going to be vetoed or not. It's a big cat and mouse game. That's the problem with Washington. They'll spend more time legislating a bill just to prove something about the other side rather than actually fix anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freedom
Because 10% blocks a whole lot of garbage in a legislative body.
Ummmm... That's kind of like saying you'd rather be 10% constipated as opposed to having 90% of a bowel movement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freedom
Look at his record... he went against many things...how the war was handled....after nearly everyone in congress agreed to the war.
How the campaign finance was structured, how pork spending was rampant, earmarks out of control.... corruption of leaders was not being properly prosecuted... Not enough banking regulations and a free wheeling fannie and freddie system that the Dems. wanted to continue unchecked...
What the hell are you talking about, freedom? ESPECIALLY in regards to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?! The whole point of a "free market" economy that John McCain stands for is to back big business away from regulation. Deregulate, deregulate, deregulate! That's what they want! They want big businesses to be able to have free reign of the market and that's the banner under which the McCain campaign sets his economic sights. Therein, by allowing big businesses a true "free market" enterprise they will pump more money back into the system. And, I'm sorry, it doesn't work. The less legislation and government we enact on them, the more they keep sending jobs overseas, reclaiming pensions that are owed to employees, and backing away from their commitments to the American people. That's what a "free market" has given us! How freaking blind do you have to be to see that this "trickle down" free market economy just DOESN'T work. The whole problem in the first place is that these massive banks were not REGULATED enough to begin with. And I can give you a massive lecture on why oil prices are the way they are if you'd like and the importance of regulating certain commodities.
Get your facts straight, read a book or two, and might I suggest YOU stop watching the mass media. It's nothing but spin on both sides, freedom. The news is as untrustworthy as a convicted pedophile at a children's birthday party. Read a book.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freedom
You certainly are free to your opinion, but i think that its pretty impressive that Iraq is democratic, Afghani women have freedom to learn and not be shot for learning, Al-Qaeda is stuck in a vacuum of cave dwelling... and we have permanent bases in Iraq that will serve us well in WWIII with Iran and Russia...
I have less of a problem with Afghanistan than I do Iraq although I have serious issues with the way Afghanistan has been handled by the military Commander-In-Chief.
Permanent bases in Iraq... Funny... I seem to remember being told that we'd all be home in six months...
Sadly your dreaming if you think Obama will have any power over the Legislative majority, and that he will last long enough to appoint a secretary of state
Every President has the power to select their choice for Secretary of State although the nomination has to be confirmed by the Senate. The Secretary of State is a member of the President's cabinet so I'm totally confused by your statement. How could a President not last long enough to appoint one, that's one of the first things that he'll do? I get the feeling that you might be confused about how a Secretary of State gets their job and maybe you're thinking it's a lifetime position like a member of The Supreme Court. It isn't.
Every President has the power to select their choice for Secretary of State although the nomination has to be confirmed by the Senate. The Secretary of State is a member of the President's cabinet so I'm totally confused by your statement. How could a President not last long enough to appoint one, that's one of the first things that he'll do? I get the feeling that you might be confused about how a Secretary of State gets their job and maybe you're thinking it's a lifetime position like a member of The Supreme Court. It isn't.
Im only scared of her if my kid is playing against her kids hockey team.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
