Posted on 01/07/2006 4:34:58 AM PST by balch3
Perhaps he should change his name to Brownstain or Yellowback.
Are the judges really leaking, or is the Washington Post lying? The first is, as McCarthy points out, severe judicial misconduct which warrants removal from the bench. The second is business-as-usual.
RINO? I hardly think so. Brownback is far more conservative than President Bush. He is merely making headlines in advance of his run for the Presidential nomination in 2008.
If they don't physically go on private property to perform the test, that's okay with me.
It doesn't.
The suspected sleeper cells should be investigated with a specific warrant under the parameters of USC Amendment IV.
Calling opinions "dumb ones," especially in incomplete sentencens, without explaining why you think they are dumb, is wasting our bandwidth. Do you have any facts to add to your name-calling?
correction:
"sentencens" was intended to be sentences .
You're a bad man. . . or woman.
I sorry. Perhaps I did not make my self clear. Thank you for telling us your feelings on this matter, too bad they are meaningless
My pleasure. Can you explain with facts why you think my statements are meaningless?
Could it be that polls in KS don't support this spying? Cheney has said that spying saves lives. Maybe that could be the GOP mantra: "Spying Saves Live!"
Is this sarcasm?
Not surprisingly, the Conservatives are supporting Ramsey Clark's tactics when these are used by Bush.
No. I'm talking about the "Contract With America" and his handling of the House during his term as speaker, not the later scancals.
He's damaged goods now, but at least he got the liguini-spined Republicans off their butts and got things moving.
I was talking "leadership" and not about his personal life.
That's right CLING to your feelings, ignore the Case History and the Statures. Your feelings define reality the facts are MEANINGINGLESS becuase YOU do not feel them to be correct.
It's amazing what actually reading the Constitution will do for one's understanding of that document, isn't it?
"Senator: Bush's spying raises concerns"
But when Clinton did it, well, that was okay.
Through almost every war there are questions that arise about Constitutional Rights vs. Constitutional Obligations of the Executive. The manner which these conflicts have always been solved is the Judiciary refuses to strip the President of any war time authority and at the same time tells the congress that if they don't like something change the law or make the law more specific. As for the congressional lawyers speaking out, they never said the President broke the law but as representatives for their client, congress, they tell them they have the upper hand the same way the Executive lawyers are telling the Executive they have the upper hand. None the less, all these stories by the LSM are designed to take the attention off of the Slimes and Traitor who gave them the scoop that this was happening and make it a "Whistle-Blowers" case where this type of case can't even remotely exist.
To what feelings do you refer?
I quoted the Constitution. You haven't quoted anything except for your opinion that what I say is meaningless.
Does the Constitution mean anything to you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.