Current Events » in reply to Please tell me that you understand that's the administration's position

The whole thread (35 posts)

• A new King George? - Chris Vancil - 12/21/2005 4:06:19 PM
  • Time to talk seriously - McFly - 12/21/2005 6:20:39 PM
    • Like father, like son - Lindy - 12/22/2005 4:59:00 AM
    • should have said... - McFly - 12/21/2005 6:28:47 PM
      • What the law says... - Larry J - 12/22/2005 3:19:58 AM
        • re: Yes well it's a load of BS. He was required to go thru FISA courts and chose not to. - Chris Vancil - 12/22/2005 8:38:16 AM
          • The law says otherwise - Larry J - 12/22/2005 2:41:07 PM
            • re: Simple question for you ALL. Why do we have a FISA court? - Chris Vancil - 12/22/2005 10:20:13 PM
              • Here's a little reading assignment... - Larry J - 12/23/2005 12:07:27 AM
                • re: No Larry and other question. Who are called the LAW makers here in the old USA? - Chris Vancil - 12/23/2005 12:57:15 AM
                • So that's the administration's position... - alcaray - 12/23/2005 12:25:35 AM
                  • You can read what a Clinton Administration Assistant Attorney General wrote on the same subject... - Larry J - 12/23/2005 12:55:20 AM
                    • re: Why is it that every time Bush does wrong you folks drag out a "Clinton Administration" hack? You think it makes your BS more tasty? - Chris Vancil - 12/23/2005 8:51:23 AM
                      • Nice try. - Tom Brosz - 12/23/2005 8:26:57 PM
                        • re:Yes on your part! It is simply a tired and stupid plan to cite Clinton era "experts" every time Bush step in it!. - Chris Vancil - 12/23/2005 10:02:30 PM
                    • No, that really is the Bush administration's position. - alcaray - 12/23/2005 6:16:29 AM
            • It is helpful to differentiate a legal opinion from THE LAW - alcaray - 12/22/2005 4:06:51 PM
              • re: THE LAW - Tom Brosz - 12/23/2005 5:44:55 AM
                • Please tell me that you understand that's the administration's position (n/t) - alcaray - 12/23/2005 6:17:27 AM
                  • That's not going to work. - Tom Brosz - 12/23/2005 7:19:12 AM
                    • We'd never have anything to talk about if that held true...:-) (n/t) - Tony - 12/23/2005 4:15:51 PM
                    • But that's my position that you just articulated - alcaray - 12/23/2005 3:51:30 PM
            • Federal Judge quits in Protest of Bush's New Law - Lindy - 12/22/2005 3:57:35 PM
        • Larry, nobody cares. - Tom Brosz - 12/22/2005 6:19:52 AM
          • Your next fact on this will be your first... (n/t) - Tony - 12/22/2005 5:27:15 PM
          • re: Larry, nobody cares. - Scott Evil - 12/22/2005 2:43:50 PM
          • re: Not for more repub spin! - Chris Vancil - 12/22/2005 8:46:22 AM
            • So, is citing the law spin? - Larry J - 12/22/2005 2:42:11 PM
              • re: When you start citing applicable law I will listen...never the less we need to seriously start an investigation into ALL of Bush's amoral behavior not just this BS. (n/t) - Chris Vancil - 12/22/2005 9:59:56 PM
              • Who's pulling what from where now? - tony - 12/22/2005 3:34:17 PM
                • As everyone keeps telling me, what the hell do bloggers know? - Tom Brosz - 12/23/2005 5:23:30 AM
      • Well, my understanding is that a large number of leakers have stepped forward - alcaray - 12/21/2005 10:56:54 PM
      • re: should have said...Down with King George! - Chris Vancil - 12/21/2005 8:30:48 PM
        • "The bending and contorting of the Constitution to justify a grasping, irresponsible Administration under the banner of “national security” are an outrage" - US Senator Robert C. Byrd - 12/22/2005 5:32:29 AM
      • Mark Twain: "History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes" - Fox - 12/21/2005 6:47:59 PM