Librarians turned snitch?

wendybeth · 12-20-2005, 06:46 PM

Oh, I don't know, Scrooge- it's entirely possible that Bush asked for their blessings prior to authorizing these actions.

This is what happens when you have a President who thinks he's on a mission from God. He is above the law of the land, and he's only doing this for our own good. Forget the Constitutional scholars and legal experts- he knows what is best for us. So many people are willing to give up their freedom because of fear, and the sad thing is nothing is really being done to protect us.

scaeagles · 12-20-2005, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wendybeth

Oh, I don't know, Scrooge- it's entirely possible that Bush asked for their blessings prior to authorizing these actions.

They'd have no reason to lie, would they? I'm sure I'm about as likely to take Reid, Pelosi, and Daschle at their word as you are to take the word of Bush.

Just for fun....found this little executive order......

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

What! This type of thing happening before Bush?!?! And from someone who so highly values our civil rights?!?!

I would believe his legal team probably told him the same thing.....that it was legal.

wendybeth · 12-20-2005, 07:58 PM

Whether or not it was legal remains to be seen. Ignorance is not a defense, even for George. Minutes of the meetings can prove or disprove what the others say, and should this go to court then we will find out. Most of all, just because others have done it does not make it legal or right. You're constantly bringing that up makes me cranky in a way that my kid does when she says "Well, Katie's mom let's her do it!"

scaeagles · 12-20-2005, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wendybeth

Most of all, just because others have done it does not make it legal or right. You're constantly bringing that up makes me cranky in a way that my kid does when she says "Well, Katie's mom let's her do it!"

If you'll reread the thread, I have clearly said I think it's wrong. What I find amazing, though, and have also said, is that this is being portrayed as "new". It isn't new. That's why I don't get the whole attitude of shock, particularly by members of congress. Well, actually I do get it - it isn't that they are shocked, and they know it's been happening forever, they are simply trying to play shocked for the political value of it.

I could make you really mad and link an executive order from Carter authorizing the same thing. Again, wrong. Again, not new.

wendybeth · 12-20-2005, 09:42 PM

Show me ONE post that says that a precedent has been set by this action- it could very well be that I missed that, and if so I apologise. In the absence of such a post, your finger-pointing is a trifle....irritating. I know this kind of crap has happened in the past, and will continue to happen, but it's the sort of thing that has brought down politicians throughout our history- I don't know if he'll slide by on this one. Bush was elected on a backlash against perceived corruption- something he and his handlers used to their advantage. He painted himself as a moral, incorruptable man and he is simply not so. Saying that's just the way of the world and we should accept it (not saying you are- just the pundits on his side) does not make it right.

12-20-2005, 06:46 PM	#1
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	Oh, I don't know, Scrooge- it's entirely possible that Bush asked for their blessings prior to authorizing these actions. This is what happens when you have a President who thinks he's on a mission from God. He is above the law of the land, and he's only doing this for our own good. Forget the Constitutional scholars and legal experts- he knows what is best for us. So many people are willing to give up their freedom because of fear, and the sad thing is nothing is really being done to protect us. __________________
	Submit to Quotes

12-20-2005, 07:58 PM	#3
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	Whether or not it was legal remains to be seen. Ignorance is not a defense, even for George. Minutes of the meetings can prove or disprove what the others say, and should this go to court then we will find out. Most of all, just because others have done it does not make it legal or right. You're constantly bringing that up makes me cranky in a way that my kid does when she says "Well, Katie's mom let's her do it!" __________________
	Submit to Quotes

12-20-2005, 09:42 PM	#5
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	Show me ONE post that says that a precedent has been set by this action- it could very well be that I missed that, and if so I apologise. In the absence of such a post, your finger-pointing is a trifle....irritating. I know this kind of crap has happened in the past, and will continue to happen, but it's the sort of thing that has brought down politicians throughout our history- I don't know if he'll slide by on this one. Bush was elected on a backlash against perceived corruption- something he and his handlers used to their advantage. He painted himself as a moral, incorruptable man and he is simply not so. Saying that's just the way of the world and we should accept it (not saying you are- just the pundits on his side) does not make it right. __________________ Last edited by wendybeth : 12-21-2005 at 01:27 AM.
	Submit to Quotes