Bush Killed America

[Gold9472]

Senate confirms Alito to high court

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060131/ts_nm/court_alito_vote_dc

http://home.comcast.net/~gold9472/coathanger.gif

6 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A sharply divided U.S. Senate on Tuesday confirmed Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, backing a second conservative nominated by President George W. Bush in his effort to move the nation's highest court to the right.

The near party-line vote to replace the more moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor with Alito, a federal appeals judge since 1990, came four months after the Senate approved Bush's first Supreme Court nominee, John Roberts, as U.S. chief justice.

Alito is expected to align himself with the court's solidly conservative bloc and could affect the outcome of votes on key social issues such as abortion and civil rights.

[PhilosophyGenius]

James Carville hit the nail on the head when he said that the problem with Alito is that he always sides with big corporations and big government. This is the very last thing we need in these times.

Holla!

[jschurchin]

Ladies, Your body no longer belong's to you. Thank's to our moronic leader President Nimrod. :headsmash

[jetsetlemming]

Wow, Gold, my hat's off to you for that fair minded thread title. Congrats!

[Gold9472]

Wow, Gold, my hat's off to you for that fair minded thread title. Congrats!

Feel free to tell me I'm wrong.

[jetsetlemming]

America isn't dead. There, did it.

[Gold9472]

America isn't dead. There, did it.

Is the Constitution of the United States currently being followed TO THE LETTER?

[jetsetlemming]

Hold on, let me break out the copy I keep in my back pocket and check. Hmmm, I see a loit of stuff that's changed, and I can think of a lot that isn't covered by the constitution. Give me a clue, Gold, which particular letters do you have a problem with?

[Gold9472]

Hold on, let me break out the copy I keep in my back pocket and check. Hmmm, I see a loit of stuff that's changed, and I can think of a lot that isn't covered by the constitution. Give me a clue, Gold, which particular letters do you have a problem with?

I don't like the fact that my President can take anyone he wants, and take them to some remote location to torture them as he sees fit. I don't like the fact that my President can listen in on my telelphone conversations any time he chooses. I don't like the fact that my Government can now come into my home without a warrant. I don't like the fact that we are involved in a war of choice. I don't like the fact that my President can murder 3000 innocent American civilians, and not pay a price for it.

[jetsetlemming]

Does it have anytihng to do with this?
Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

There is that whole unreasonable part defending the wire taps, as well as the defence that one's conversation doesn't count as among their persons, houses, papers, or effects, and that placing a bug isn't searching or siezing.

[jetsetlemming]

You can't prove the things about torture and 9/11 (yet, I'm not close-minded, after all), and wars of choice aren't unconstitutional. Oh, and the government doesn't need to enter your home to bug you.

[Gold9472]

Oh, and I don't like the fact that our Government's three branches are all controlled by the Republican party.

[Gold9472]

You can't prove the things about torture and 9/11 (yet, I'm not close-minded, after all), and wars of choice aren't unconstitutional. Oh, and the government doesn't need to enter your home to bug you.

I can't? I have on several occasions. Wars of choice are UNETHICAL. You're right, they don't need to enter my home, but I was comfortable with the knowledge that they required a warrant in the past, and now they don't.

[jetsetlemming]

Unethical isn't unconstitutional, and you've got evidence, about the same amount for your idea as there is against. It isn't a resolved matter except by those who completely believe what you don't.

[Gold9472]

Unethical isn't unconstitutional, and you've got evidence, about the same amount for your idea as there is against. It isn't a resolved matter except by those who completely believe what you don't.

Except "my" evidence isn't based on lies, or created by those who would be considered a suspect.

[jetsetlemming]

You can't prove the evidence against your claim is baised on lies. Yes, they were put forth by those considered a suspect in your theory, but that doesn't automatically prove them wrong.

[Gold9472]

You can't prove the evidence against your claim is baised on lies. Yes, they were put forth by those considered a suspect in your theory, but that doesn't automatically prove them wrong.

Yes I can, and have. They were put forth by those considered a suspect, period.

Tell me, who controls the United States military? The Executive Branch. Who is responsible for the security of our skies? The United States Military. The United States Military has standard operating procedures that gets a plane in the air between 9 and 16 minutes. It took 83 minutes to get a plane in the air on 9/11. Only the Executive Branch could make the United States Military not follow stand operating procedures. Therefore, they are suspect.

[jetsetlemming]

That is EVIDENCE, Gold, not proof. It sets up the government's ability to enact 9/11, it doesn't show that they actually did. I didn't argue that they weren't suspect in their actions. A suspect is not a convict, we here in America are innocent until proven guilty.

[Gold9472]

That is EVIDENCE, Gold, not proof. It sets up the government's ability to enact 9/11, it doesn't show that they actually did. I didn't argue that they weren't suspect in their actions. A suspect is not a convict, we here in America are innocent until proven guilty.

It proves that the alleged "hijackers" did NOT work alone, and points to the Bush Administration. They had the means, motive, and opportunity to pull off 9/11, and in any court in the land, they would most assuredly be found guilty.

[jetsetlemming]

It doesn't prove the hijackers had help besides anything other than luck at most. It's evidence, it points a certain way, but it is not that incriminating, it's not enough to even call Bush a suspect. Most of the rest of the world has decided that that Islamic terrorists who hate America commited 9/11 is a fact. This stuff isn't all that damning to everyone else, Gold. You need more than circumstance and ability.

[Gold9472]

It doesn't prove the hijackers had help besides anything other than luck at most. It's evidence, it points a certain way, but it is not that incriminating, it's not enough to even call Bush a suspect. Most of the rest of the world has decided that that Islamic terrorists who hate America commited 9/11 is a fact. This stuff isn't all that damning to everyone else, Gold. You need more than circumstance and ability.

Ok... so the hijackers managed to blow up buildings in NYC? The hijackers managed to stand down the military? Get off it.

[amman254]

A suspect is not a convict, we here in America are innocent until proven guilty

i bet the people in quantanamo, and in several other nice little camps, would be glad to see that one put into practice....



Most of the rest of the world has decided that that Islamic terrorists who hate America commited 9/11 is a fact


here in germany, allready over a year and a half ago, more that 30% of the people in a taken poll, were convinced that the US government was in some way involved in the atrocities of 911.....


Oh, and the government doesn't need to enter your home to bug you.

great...really great...because the founding fathers that attempted to set down some humanitarian rights...like "all men created equal" and so on, had not been in there time machine, and seen that some day in the future, my home could be invaded not only from some tapped wires but from a heat seaking camera from orbit....that means this is not referred to in our law. the intruding is not defined through the art of entrance, but through the destroying my own private sphere, wether through a crow bar, or a high tech instrument.
it is mine and your rights to privacy, jetsetlemming, that are at issue here...not the form of entrance.

and since i mentioned it above..."all men are created equal"...even supposed "terrorist's"...?????? well, i quess we don't want to go that far do we......

[jetsetlemming]

Oh, I won't argue the legal system is full of holes and problems, but I never found much sypathy in criminals. As far as I'm concerned, "convict rights" should by an oxymoron. Yeah, there's stuff that should be outlawed that the founding fathers couldn't, but that why we have current legislators. The constitution says americans have a right to a speedy trial, but most end up waiting months before seeing a judge. The section of the constitution regarding spying and search and seizure technically allows warrantless searches if they aren't "unreasonable". Look at the wording of that part I pasted earlier in this thread.