IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Yeah, right.
I, for one, do not believe that those presidential memoranda have the legal force that Bush wants us to believe.

Bush is president of a Republic, he is not (yet) officially emperor. And there is still hope that someday the people will realize that that piece of paper being trampled under foot is the Constitution, and it is important.

(One hopes.)
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
New the purpose of a presidential finding is to cover
the operatives ass, not the presidents. It just makes him/the office responsible for the action taken. No denialbility allowed.
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
New Your point is the most valid
He can write all the Presidential memos he wants. They are NOT laws and they cannot promote the violation of laws.

So, he has given someone "authority" to do something he doesn't have the authority to do.

It won't he upheld by any Judge...not even the right wing supreme court ;-)
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
     So USA Today is full of it, I guess? - (bepatient) - (30)
         Or 2 of 3 carriers are. -NT - (Silverlock)
         Definitely calls for an investigation - (Simon_Jester) - (22)
             its fear of lawsuits, their denials are very carefully - (boxley) - (21)
                 I did notice that.... ( && Nacchio) - (Simon_Jester) - (4)
                     Non-denial denials anyone? - (Silverlock) - (3)
                         Lawyers bill by the minute.... You expected a quick answer? -NT - (jbrabeck) - (1)
                             These lawyers are probably internal counsel or on retainer - (drewk)
                         Lawyers bill by the minute.... You expected a quick answer? -NT - (jbrabeck)
                 So you think there is a legal distinction - (bepatient) - (15)
                     Sure, leave it to the lawyers to have one. - (a6l6e6x) - (14)
                         you think they want to defend that - (bepatient) - (13)
                             I wouldn't either, but IANAL. - (a6l6e6x) - (2)
                                 s/and/in/ -NT - (CRConrad) - (1)
                                     Thanks! You are right. -NT - (a6l6e6x)
                             Well, those comments wouldn't go before a Jury, would they? - (Simon_Jester) - (1)
                                 The EFF v. AT&T case? That was filed on 1/31/2006. - (Another Scott)
                             They won't need to defend anything - (Silverlock) - (7)
                                 "If the president does it, it's not illegal" - (GBert) - (2)
                                     Nice segue to Tom Toles 5/18/2006 cartoon. 27 kB .img - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                         awesome, i hadn't seen that ! -NT - (GBert)
                                 permits no violations of securities law, does not - (boxley)
                                 Yeah, right. - (ben_tilly) - (2)
                                     the purpose of a presidential finding is to cover - (boxley)
                                     Your point is the most valid - (bepatient)
         One other possibility... - (jb4) - (3)
             Huh? I was under the impression, this IS "Carnivore". DYMV? -NT - (CRConrad) - (2)
                 Not supposed to be... - (jb4)
                 No, Carnivore is Dead... *BUT*... - (folkert)
         Now Wired is into the act.... - (Simon_Jester) - (1)
             CCCP redux. -NT - (mmoffitt)

I'm sure everyone who made this game is dead by now.
51 ms