Furor erupts over Web site monitoring of Middle Eastern scholars (America haters whine)

AP ^ | 9-27- | Ron Todt

[Demidog]

But if they did say it, then they were wrong.

Of course. When the CATO institute agrees with you, you're all for using them as a legitimate source. When they don't agree? "They're wrong."

LOL.

CATO's analysis was based on sheer growth of government. Government grew less in the 8 years of Clinton/Gore then it has already in two years of Bush/Cheney.

Clinton was second to Reagan in government Growth. Bush isn't even in the top 5.

Heck, I provided a link above that flatly contradicted your own bizarre claims

No you didn't. You provided a link to an article which agreed with Bush's stance on the ICC. Bush didn't kill the ICC. That is rubbish and you know it. What he did was to say he wouldn't sign it unless they agreed not to prosecute American soldiers for the first few years.

Furthermore, Bush doesn't have the authority to unilaterally sign treaties without first getting Senate aproval.

[Southack]

In addition, Bush ordered Ashcroft and Solicitor General Olsen to inform the Supreme Court that the official U.S. position on the 2nd Amendment was that it protected individual rights rather than the "collective rights" of the Communists on the Left. - Southack

"You are confused. Ashcroft doesn't "notify the supreme court" to do anything. He wrote a letter...it wasn't to the Supreme Court." - Demidog

"Ashcroft's comments to the NRA were bolstered this spring by U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson, who argues the government's side in cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In [written] appellate court filings in two separate cases, Olsen wrote, "The current position of the United States...is that the Second Amendment more broadly protects the rights of individuals, including persons who are not members of any militia or engage in active military service or training, to possess their own firearms.."

Liberty Forum On Bush/Ashcroft/Olsen And 2nd Amendment Rights

[Southack]

Heck, I provided a link above that flatly contradicted your own bizarre claims - Southack

"No you didn't. You provided a link to an article which agreed with Bush's stance on the ICC. Bush didn't kill the ICC. That is rubbish and you know it."

If you will refer back to my post #114, you might be able to comprehend that I said that Bush pulled the U.S. out of the ICC, which he did, and I cited the CATO link to further back that point up, and both of THOSE items combine to flatly debunk your own claim in post #159 that went like this:

Bush pulled the U.S. out of the International (Socialist) Criminal Court, for another. - Southack

"No he didn't." - Demidog

Not that I expect you to admit that you've been proven wrong yet again, but you have been once again proven wrong (with sources - something which you can't manage to produce to support your own wild-eyed rants).

[Demidog]

Good grief. You really are in denial... Source?

Thomas Sowell

In a stunning reversal, California's liberal Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer has come out in favor of allowing airline pilots to carry guns if they wish, while the Bush administration opposes it. Meanwhile, the House of Representatives has passed a bill to permit pilots to carry guns by a vote of 310 to 113.
....... But the Transportation Department remains closed-minded on the issue. When asked by Rep. Don Young, Alaska Republican, "Do you really think that 9/11 would have happened if our pilots had been armed, as they should have been armed?" a spokesman for the Transportation Department replied: "Our position remains unchanged."

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/summaries/reader/0,2061,553764,00.html

The Bush administration opposes a bill to allow commercial pilots to have guns in the cockpit, but it appears that overwhelming bipartisan support could force the government to reverse its position, CNN reported Aug. 26.

Rich Lowery

Not according to Undersecretary of Transportation for Security John Magaw, who recently announced that the Bush administration opposes arming pilots, on the theory that pilots are for flying, not defending, airplanes.

You have none. You are bankrupt. At best, and I mean at BEST, you can show that the media CLAIMED that Bush was against arming pilots. What you can't show (yes, that's right you can't show it because you've either made it up or actually believed some leftists in the press) is that Bush himself opposed arming pilots.

I'd be embarrassed if I were you... Who does John Magaw work for? Did he just take a position in direct violation of Bush's wishes or does Bush have some control over what his cabinet officials say?

[Demidog]

Uhhh....an appellate brief is not informing the supreme court. He wrote a letter to the NRA. He doesn't have communication with the Supreme Court outside of court appearences.

[Southack]

"I'd be embarrassed if I were you... Who does John Magaw work for? Did he just take a position in direct violation of Bush's wishes or does Bush have some control over what his cabinet officials say?" - Demidog

You are amazing. You clearly don't know what has been happening in America.

To wit: Bush FIRED Magaw and then signed the second pro-gun pilot-arming bill into law.

So to answer your question about who Magaw works for, the answer is: Not Bush.

Likewise, as I stated earlier, the BEST that you could do would be to show that the MEDIA, not Bush himself, claimed that Bush opposed arming pilots.

Magaw found that out the hard way, and now I've managed to get an additional chuckle from the whole thing (as clearly you don't know what it is that you are rambling about).

"Who does John Magaw work for?" - Demidog

Oh, that's just too rich!

[Southack]

"Uhhh....an appellate brief is not informing the supreme court. He wrote a letter to the NRA. He doesn't have communication with the Supreme Court outside of court appearences."

Uhhh... The Supreme Court reads all appellate briefs on cases which they are considering.

If you want to communicate to the SCOTUS, the appellate brief is a certain way to be read.

[Demidog]

You keep harping over the Cato article. It was an opinion that doesn't prove much. Are you or are you not aware that the Senate is the body which deals with treaties?

http://www.fcnl.org/issues/int/sup/icc-president41102.htm

Today, April 11, 2002, the sixtieth ratification of the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court (ICC) will be recorded in a ceremony at the United Nations in New York. This is a day for the world community to celebrate an historic achievement in the long struggle to advance human rights and to end genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

Yet, we at Friends Committee on National Legislation are troubled that the United States will not be among the sixty ratifying countries, and we are concerned further to hear reports that you are considering removing the U.S. signature from the statute.

You have so little understanding of the issues you argue that you have once again been hoisted by your own petard. The ICC has not been affected other than the fact that the US has not agreed to the "Rome Statute."

In fact, this could change later as I stated. The Bush administration had good reasons for reversing the signature. But that doesn't change the fact that the ICC still wil exist, that Bush could still reverse himself and that the Cato piece was not proof of anything other than the Rand faction of the libertarian movement (if you can call Randians libertarians at all) agreed with Bush. Heck, the LP probably applauded his actions too.

On the other hand, in repudiating the Rome Statute, Bush gave legitimacy to the UN Security counsel. Do you disagree that the UN is communist world government?

[Demidog]

Uhhh... The Supreme Court reads all appellate briefs on cases which they are considering

Good God.....

Not unless they have granted a writ of Certiori and the appellate court has made a ruling. Give up.

If you want to communicate to the SCOTUS, the appellate brief is a certain way to be read.

Yeah...if the court rules against you and the Supreme Court agrees to hear the appeal. Otherwise there is no "informing" of the Supreme Court about anything at all.

[Southack]

"The Bush administration had good reasons for reversing the signature. But that doesn't change the fact that the ICC still wil exist..." - Demidog

How embarassing for you. The ICC exists because other nations likewise retain their sovereign rights to sign treaties. The ICC is chartered by those treaties and valid on the sovereign soil of those signatory nations.

As a nation that respects national sovereignty, clearly there is nothing that we would want to do to change the rights of other nations to involve themselves in their own mutual treaties.

But the U.S. is NOT a part of the ICC due to Bush (contrary to your claims), and not only that, but Bush has convinced other nations to even grant exceptions to the ICC (for Americans - e.g. soldiers vacationing) for Americans while we are visiting those sovereign soils on which ICC treaties are valid.

Sure, the ICC exists, but it isn't valid in America and Bush has furthermore obtained exemptions for Americans even while in those countries which have signed onto the ICC treaties.

[Demidog]

To wit: Bush FIRED Magaw and then signed the second pro-gun pilot-arming bill into law.

LOL...Could you be any more disengenuous? Magaw was not fired for misrepresenting Bush on the gun issue. He was fired because he wasn't making his deadlines.

John Magaw Fired

Washington, DC. The Bush administration fired John Magaw, head of the Transportation Security Administration today (18-Jul-2002) amid an escalating series of conflicts between the new agency and the airline industry reports The Wall Street Journal.

In recent weeks, Magaw's agency has been under attack from airport directors who say they've been left out of decisions on how to meet a 31-Dec-2002 deadline for deploying bomb-detection machines at all commercial airports, and from airline execs unhappy about random screening of passengers.

You show me a quote where Bush tells any reporter that Magaw's position was in opposition to his. Hurry.

[Southack]

"Yeah...if the court rules against you and the Supreme Court agrees to hear the appeal."

Precisely. As I said (contrary to your above rants), the Supreme Court WILL read those appellate briefs.

And that's just where Olson/Ashcroft placed Bush's "individual rights" message to the SCOTUS.

[Demidog]

The ICC exists because other nations likewise retain their sovereign rights to sign treaties.

And? Bush didn't kill it. Did he?

But the U.S. is NOT a part of the ICC due to Bush (contrary to your claims),

Good grief. I never claimed the US was part of the ICC. I said that Bush didn't kill the ICC. Can you read?

[Demidog]

Precisely. As I said (contrary to your above rants), the Supreme Court WILL read those appellate briefs.

No...you said that Ashcroft was told to inform the Supreme Court....blah blah blah.

If the appellate court rules for the plaintiff and against the government (hint: this would affirm the plaintiff's second amendment rights) Then presumably, the government would NOT appeal the ruling and the Supreme Court wouldn't need to hear the case.

You were wrong before and you're wrong now because you are arguing from a position of ignorance. You're making it up as you go.

[Southack]

"LOL...Could you be any more disengenuous? Magaw was not fired for misrepresenting Bush on the gun issue. He was fired because he wasn't making his deadlines."

So now that I've told you about Magaw, you've decided to learn how to use Google? Well, it's a start. Remember, you were the clueless one who was asking who Magaw worked for.

Now you know. Magaw doesn't work for Bush after he voiced his "Bush opposition" hypothesis.

And funny, but after Magaw was fired the supposed hostility by the Bush administration to arming pilots sure went away rather fast (grin!).

You crack me up!

Like I said, you would NEVER be able to show that Bush said that he was opposed to arming pilots (which makes sense, since Bush signed TWO pro-gun arming pilots bills into law).

Keep trying. The truth might just set you free after all!

[Demidog]

So now that I've told you about Magaw

No...you lied about Magaw. You implied that he was fired for disagreeing with Bush. Post your source.

[Southack]

But the U.S. is NOT a part of the ICC due to Bush (contrary to your claims) - Southack

"Good grief. I never claimed the US was part of the ICC. I said that Bush didn't kill the ICC. Can you read?"
193 posted on 9/30/02 11:41 PM Central by Demidog

---

Bush pulled the U.S. out of the International (Socialist) Criminal Court, for another. - Southack

"No he didn't."
159 posted on 9/30/02 4:36 PM Central by Demidog

[Southack]

Precisely. As I said (contrary to your above rants), the Supreme Court WILL read those appellate briefs. - Southack

"No...you said that Ashcroft was told to inform the Supreme Court..." - Demidog

On the contrary, Ashcroft DID inform the Supreme Court, via Olson's appellate briefs, which even YOU admitted that the Supreme Court reads.

[Southack]

"No...you lied about Magaw. You implied that he was fired for disagreeing with Bush. Post your source."

Nonsense. It's YOUR bizarre claim that needs a source. You claimed that Bush opposed arming pilots. You cited Magaw as saying that Bush opposed arming them, then had the gall to ask who Magaw worked for. Well, Bush fired Magaw AND signed two pro-gun pilot-arming bills.

That's hardly the stuff that would support your wild-eyed claim that Bush opposed arming pilots!

Ergo, it is YOU who needs to post a source to substantiate your claim, and you can't do it.

[Demidog]

Ashcroft DID inform the Supreme Court, via Olson's appellate briefs, which even YOU admitted that the Supreme Court reads.

No. I said that the Supreme Court reads them only if they grant a writ of Certiori on an appeal of the decision. Grasping at straws.....