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

Herb Parsons hparsons at parsonsys.com
Mon May 5 19:07:33 EDT 2008


Hank,

Yet you failed to recognize that I was...

Hank wrote:
> 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
>>
>>     
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>
>
>
>   


More information about the Rhodes22-list mailing list