• MadameSosostris said on Aug 04, 2006....

  Oh most sincere Bloc, he is doomed, this president of yours, count on it most exceedingly. But he is where he is because of fortune and fortune alone. I will be my 99.9 previous lives on it. He will despair. He will fall. He will pay. But the time of doom will remain many more years, I'm afraid.

• ALIENated said on Aug 04, 2006....

  I really do not know much about the case, but, if what you just said is all true, then that is definitely wrong. And I know exactly how you feel. You probably feel about the same way I felt when Clinton was telling all his whoppers while looking us all right in the eye. We should join Alec Baldwin and leave the country. He did leave the country like he promised, did he not? Now, where can we go ...

• bloc said on Aug 04, 2006....

  Why do righties always bring up clinton for no reason, and then you had the audacity to tag this post about clinton. Ya'lls obsession with him is bordering on the insane. What does clinton have to do with Bush and the constitution? Since you brought him up, I think there is a huge difference between lying about a bj and undermining the very foundation of our society. Yes they are both wrong, but the significance of the two is not even comparable.

• bloc said on Aug 04, 2006....

  the "sour grapes" tag, which is obviously from alienated, says a lot about you alien. You care more about allegiance to a party than the ideals of our founding fathers. kind of scary actually.

• GrapeKoolaid said on Aug 04, 2006....

  Well, I can tell you, when it comes to the current administration, this Grape is plenty sour. I don't really want to hijack this string and take it where it's not meant to go, so I'll be brief on this topic. I just wanted to point out that Padilla is not the only instance that this administration has seemed less than honest. GTMO is another example of this abuse of power coming from the executive branch. When the only thing that's apparent about the government is the fact that they're trying actively to hide information, it gives credence and weight to all of these crazy "conspiracy theories". By their lack of clarity and transparency, they invite criticism.

• bloc said on Aug 04, 2006....

  grape, I agree, but I think the padilla case is far different from things like gitmo in that 99.9% of americans know that americans have a right to due process. They know that it's in the constitution. It's one of those cases where bush is so clearly wrong that no one can really defend it without sounding like a nutjob. I don't like gitmo, but there can be sane coherent defenses of it. The padilla is an example of the Bush admin saying very clearly that they dont' think the constitution applies to them in such a way that every american can understand and see it.

• hunter_boyce_chandler said on Aug 04, 2006....

  I think bloc is right. We can not pretend to be righteous while doing unrightous things.

• ALIENated said on Aug 04, 2006....

  You said stand up. Did you mean shut up? First, I apologize for the tags. That was rude. I wish SoulCast would eliminate tags from comments altogether and give the blog host sole control of their tags. Righties bring up Clinton just as lefties will bring up Bush in the future when righties are complaining about the democratic president, if there ever is another one. That is just the way it works. Righties think Clinton was a smuck and partly to blame for the situation we are in now. He was getting that bj instead of capturing Osama bin Laden. Bush may prove to be a smuck, but so far I just do not have that opinion of him. I think the liberal media is doing their usual job of coloring everything that happens to favor the left. Political correctness is fun when we have nothing better to do, but we are in a war with terrorists right now. We do not have time for political correctness. Lives are at stake. Democrats and the liberal media want to be in control again so badly they will do anything or say anything to make the president and his administration look bad. Even if it means undermining our efforts in the Middle East and selling out Israel and our troups. We should be vigilant against abuses, but we should not be calling our president a Nazi or our troups Nazis. Men like George Bush defeated the Nazis, not men like Bill Clinton. IMHO

• bloc said on Aug 04, 2006....

  Men like Bush dodged combat. "He was getting that bj instead of capturing Osama bin Laden." He isn't the one that went on VACATION after getting a PDB titles "bin laded determined to attack inside the u.s." However I want to make a serious point. Bush arrested an american citizen and asserted that this american citizen did not have the right to due process. That he as prez could simply label someone an "enemy combatant" and throw them in prison for as long as he likes without due process. Is this not unconstitutional to the extreme? alienated, please tell me how you can act as if this is not a bid deal? Complaining about the media doesn't change the fact that what bush did to this american and still asserts that he can do is fundamentally opposed to the principles our country was founded on.

• ALIENated said on Aug 05, 2006....

  I am trying to remember which branch of the service Clinton was in and I am having some trouble understanding that VACATION sentence. The government views Padilla as a militant who planned attacks on the United States, including with a dirty bomb radiological device, and has said he received weapons and explosives training from members of al-Qaeda. See ||{1}|| This in not your regular John Q. Public US citizen. He is a terrorist, an enemy combatant, a designation that allows indefinite detention without charges for al-Qaeda suspects and their associates. This is a matter of law. That is why the courts are not eager to mess with it. When I hear that someone is being held like that because they spat in Bushes direction or ran a red light, then I will get upset. I cannot get upset over slimeballs like Padilla. I would agree that he should probably be charged with something, tried, and freed or put in regular prison. How would you treat terrorists if you were president and terrorists did what they did on 9/11?

• bloc said on Aug 05, 2006....

  "The government views Padilla as a militant who planned attacks on the United States, including with a dirty bomb radiological device, and has said he received weapons and explosives training from members of al-Qaeda." That's what they said when they were holding him without a trial. They gave absolutely no proof of this. Funny thing is that when they finally did decide to charge him with a crime, right before the supreme court was going to rule if they could hold him with a trial, they [b]did not charge him with any of that[/b]. As Glenn Greenwald said "The fact that the Bush administration suspects someone of being a "terrorist" or accuses them of being one doesn't mean that they actually are guilty." I just want to be clear on this. The constitution is very clear that all americans have the right to due process. Are you saying that this right given by the founding fathers isn't very important? Do you not see that these laws were carefully thought of to ensure that america was not like a monarchy where a king could say "this person is a criminal, kill them" without ever giving any proof that they actually are a criminal? Do you really believe the president should have this power and that ignoring the constituion isn't a big deal? If you read the link in my original post you would have seen this: "With much fanfare, the U.S. government charged Jose Padilla last fall in a South Florida terror-conspiracy indictment. He was brought to Miami in January under heavy guard, shackled hand and foot, helicopters flying overhead. But now a federal judge says the case against him appears "very light on facts."" Please answer my question and let me know if you think that the constitution isn't very important and that due process shouldn't be a right. I would love for the republican party to come out in this upcoming election and tell the american people that they no longer believe due process is a right americans should have. Would you support that? Do you support it now? Is it important at all or just some trivial thing? Would you want President Clinton to have the power to arrest anyone without ever having to proove that they did anything?

• ALIENated said on Aug 05, 2006....

  *** Error *** *** Error *** Infinite loop entered. Terminating program.

• schreist said on Aug 05, 2006....

  I'd like to believe that any person who makes it to the highest office in our country, is highly intelligent, thoughtfull, wise, and authentic. But reality is challenging my sense of hope. It's proabably safe to say that every person who has filled the position of president has had character traits and personality flaws. With the way the media works these days we get more information about those in the spot light than ever before. Some of the info is bs and some of it is accurate. I can't say I like Bush, nor can I say I was happy with Clinton, or Bush Sr., Regan, Carter, or Ford. Each of them did thigns that made no sense to my circle of people. Some of them did do things to help our country or people in other places on the planet, but many of those accomplishments fade into history and are all but forgotten. In my mind I would like to believe that the person who is president is himself and is not controlled by others. But I think we are all learning that the position of president is not always filled by people who have the capacity to lead in that manner. It makes me sad to see the country of my birth earn a reputation globally as an evil empire that is not to be trusted and primarily works towards only helping itself. I'm ashamed to be tagged as American on many levels. Add being white to that and it's a deep, internal shame at times. I cannot control Bush, heck I can't even control my dog. All I can do is step forward and make what positive impact I can on the people around me. I find sometimes I wish I had been born a dolphin and never had to be "blessed" with an awareness of humanity.

• bloc said on Aug 06, 2006....

  Alienated, I think the error is that you don't want to admit that Bush is doing some very bad things. This isn't a liberal vs conservative issue. As much as I disagreed with Bush 1 he did not do any of these sorts of things. Subverting the constitution is a very serious thing and I don't understand how you brush it off so easily when the person doing it has the label "conservative" attached to their name. It's not a loop we're in because you haven't really answered my question yet.

• ALIENated said on Aug 07, 2006....

  Yes, I no longer beat my wife.

• bloc said on Aug 07, 2006....

  let me guess, she was a traitorous lefty, but no longer is ;)

• anonyme said on Aug 11, 2006....

  Hmm kinda sounds a bit like Nazi Germany. Scary shit.

• anonymous said on Aug 23, 2006....

  spam removed

• Paladin7 said on Nov 15, 2006....

  Bloc, your lack of understanding of the justice system is immense. Go to your local court house and ask any prosecutor or defense attorney they will tell you how the game is played. If the man is charged with all the crimes in the beginning they have to show proof of those crimes in open court. You think this is a good thing, and for the most part it is. But when you are dealing with classified material you do almost anything to avoid bringing that information into open court to avoid giving away methods to the enemy. The smart thing to do is to charge him with something that will not get your information source killed. Why do you think that is? Well some big mouth printed in the papers that we were tracking Ben Laden through his cell phone. He stopped using it. Then it was printed that we were tracking his sat phone. He stopped using that. Then it was printed that we were tracing him through his internet use. He now only uses runners to pass on information. Each time we were within 24 to 48 hours of closing the door on him and some big mouth warned him how we were tracking him down. Open court is public record, anyone can get a hold of what transpired and pass on the information to people that should not have it. Just like the Lawyer that defended a terrorist passed on secrets to our enemy. So keeping this information as close as possible is what the mean old government is trying to do to protect the poor dumb slob risking his life to pass on information. Or do you suggest it is ok to get people killed so numb nuts gets his day in court? Do you really think that they just picked his name out of a hat and decided to make his life a living hell for no reason? If so then Mr. Bush should be put in jail for life. So far the President has not lied to us about the war on terror so I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

• bloc said on Nov 15, 2006....

  "Each time we were within 24 to 48 hours of closing the door on him and some big mouth warned him how we were tracking him down."
  
  This is fantasy and naive to the extreme. Feel free to live with your eyes closed. I don't have time to try and show you the proof. You'll just repeat some BS you heard on fox news.
  

Comment on "Will a Bush supporter please stand up"

Currently tagged	bush politics sour grapes dishonesty presidents the constitution doom despair fear karma Clinton Lied do you know the law on this (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment