[Rhodes22-list] political: CNN Poll Finds Rhodes 22 Owner As #1Political Irritant

[Hank]

Herb,

Come on, even I recognize that he was talking "tongue-in-cheek".  Relax,
take your meds.

Hank

On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 6:58 PM, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com> wrote:

> Robert,
>
> I personally find your views that the constitution is "just a piece of
> paper" to be disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself.
>
> Robert Skinner wrote:
> > Now, Pete.  You know that "The constitution is
> > just a piece of paper," and we must all back the
> > President without reservation, or foreign terrorists
> > will question our will to lay down our lives,
> > liberties, and happiness in support of the
> > military-industrial complex that keeps us free.
> >
> > We must be thankful that someone has taken on the
> > burden of deciding what is right and wrong.  It
> > is abundantly clear that privacy and the right to
> > be free of arbitrary arrest and detention are
> > intolerable impediments in our death struggle with
> > those foreigners who threaten our exercise of our
> > freedoms.
> >
> > I hope this helps you get back on the right track.
> > You need to stop challenging those who have a
> > perfectly clear picture of that way things should be.
> > Your questions could weaken the resolve of citizens
> > to support our war with global terrorism, wherever it
> > is, and however our leadership chooses to define it.
> >
> > Where did you get this idea that we could or
> > would actually impeach a sitting president?
> > Or even prosecute after him leaving office?
> >
> > Presidents do not commit crimes.  They may be a bit
> > overzealous in pursuit of the national interest,
> > which naturally coincides with their own, but they
> > are not criminals, no matter what they do.  They are
> > national father figures, and are automatically
> > pardoned so that their actions do not embarrass or
> > divide the nation.
> >
> > And remember, our leadership has decided that the
> > old namby-pamby restrictions on interrogation methods
> > do not apply to terrorists.  If you are not for our
> > leadership, you are against it -- and could be
> > declared a terrorist.
> >
> > Remember that.
> >
> > /Robert (cum grano salis)
> >
> > petelargo wrote:
> >
> >> Just got back from 3 day cruise in the florida keys. It was awesome.
> Then,
> >> Herb, I saw your posts. You ask me for my sources (verbally denigrating
> me
> >> and doubting that I even have them). Then when I give them to you, you
> don't
> >> like them or go "so what". It seems as if you are just going to hide
> behind
> >> the 3 monkeys rule and regurgitate your views (while acting like you
> are the
> >> only one without an agenda-laughable by itself).
> >>
> >> I don;t know what it means that the troops supported Ron Paul as their
> >> number one candidate. I just thought  it was interesting that they did.
> >> Don't you think it's interesting that they supported a fringe candidate
> like
> >> him? It's open for discussion. But it's true as I said it was. Why,
> why,
> >> why.
> >>
> >> When ANY politician hides their past records it is a red flag for
> concern.
> >> Lack of transparency in politics is the road to ALL evils. And again it
> is a
> >> fact that Bush made his service records confidential. Why, why why.
> >>
> >> You are not up to date on the illegality of Bushes DOMESTIC
> wiretapping.  Or
> >> again you are hiding behind the 3 monkeys rule (see no..hear no.. speak
> no..
> >> about Bush). And yes I am doing something about it as a supporting
> member of
> >> IMPEACHBUSH.ORG. However, I have made it clear that if Bush is caught
> in a
> >> proper sex scandal I will immediately drop my membership.
> >>
> >> data for all your illegal domestic wiretapping reading needs:
> >> http://thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/house_nsabrief_docs_012006.html
> >>
> >> 1) "Now, I want to be absolutely clear. What the President ordered in
> this
> >> case was a crime.... and we have to deal with that as citizens and,
> >> unfortunately, You have to deal with that as Members of
> Congress....Now,
> >> Members that stay silent are making a choice.  Very few Members have
> faced
> >> this type of test of Faith.  But You are facing it now, and as Citizens
> and
> >> as Members, it's now up to us.  We are called to account to the many
> >> benefits that we have gotten from this system. We are called to account
> to
> >> do something, and not to remain silent."
> >> Jonathan Turley
> >> Professor of Constitutional Law,
> >> George Washington University
> >>
> >> 2) "...so indiscriminate and sweeping a scheme of domestic intrusion
> into
> >> the private communications of American citizens, predicated entirely on
> the
> >> unchecked judgment of the Executive Branch, violates the Fourth
> Amendment
> >> 'right of the people to be secure . . . against unreasonable searches
> and
> >> seizures' even if it otherwise represents an exercise of constitutional
> >> power entrusted to the President by Article II or delegated to the
> President
> >> by Congress in exercising its powers under Article I......the argument
> >> goes... Invasion of that citizenâEUR^(TM)s privacy was, alas, but one
> of warâEUR^(TM)s sad
> >> side effects âEUR" a species of collateral damage. The technical legal
> term for
> >> that, I believe, is poppycock. âEUR?
> >>
> >> Laurence H. Tribe
> >> Professor of Constitutional Law
> >> Harvard University
> >>
> >> 3) "...it is not simply a claim that the President has the sole power
> to
> >> decide which laws to violate and when to go outside the judicial power,
> but
> >> that he has the power to do so in secret....until the New York Times
> >> reviewed this program, he withheld the fact from the American people
> that
> >> his view was that FISA did not limit his powers.  He secretly believed
> that
> >> he had broader authority than was laid out in the public statutes, but
> he
> >> withheld and misled the American people about that view of his own
> >> powers......examine what kind of misleading statements, if not
> deception,
> >> were put before the Congress in connection with thisâEUR?
> >> Kate Martin
> >> Director
> >> Center for National Security Studies
> >>
> >> 4) "...when Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
> in
> >> 1978, it expressly rejected the PresidentâEUR^(TM)s claim of inherent
> authority to
> >> conduct warrantless wiretaps. It then went further and made it a crime
> to
> >> conduct such wiretaps. The President has acted contrary to the express
> will
> >> of the Congress. The Supreme Court has never approved a claim of
> >> presidential authority to authorize acts outlawed by the Congress.âEUR?
> >>
> >> Kate Martin
> >> Director
> >> Center for National Security Studies
> >>
> >> 5) "...under his interpretation ... he could suspend the writ of habeas
> >> corpus, ... saying: This authorization enabled me to do anything in
> >> furtherance of the war effort. I can suspend the writ of habeas corpus
> >> unilaterally even though Congress hasn't ...He could authorize breaking
> and
> >> entering of homes in order to secure intelligence to fight the war
> against
> >> terrorism, despite the fact that there is an authorized procedure in an
> >> amendment to FISA that governs physical searches......the principle
> that the
> >> President has established here, if gone unchecked, will, as Justice
> Robert
> >> Jackson said, lie around like a loaded gun and be utilized by any
> future
> >> incumbent who claims a need. And the history of power teaches us one
> thing,
> >> that if it's unchecked, it will be abused.âEUR?
> >>
> >> Bruce Fein
> >> Deputy Assistant Attorney General
> >> Reagan Administration
> >>
> >> 6) "In each case the presidentâEUR^(TM)s answer has been the same ...
> Courts and
> >> Congress have little or no place to question his decisions....it is
> >> nonetheless a dangerous path for our nation. Our laws provide ample
> tools
> >> for fighting terrorism without eroding basic liberties. No one, not
> even a
> >> wartime president, is above the lawâEUR?
> >> Michael S. Greco
> >> President,  American Bar Association
> >>
> >> --
> >> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/political%3A-CNN-Poll-Finds-Rhodes-22-Owner-As--1-Political-Irritant-tp17068794p17068794.html
> >> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >>
> >> __________________________________________________
> >> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >>
> >
> >
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>