OT: Bush quote

Page 2 of 4  


Name rings a bell, but I can't place it. This happened a couple of years ago, so the names of the principals didn't stick. Commissioners were Sharon Bronson, Ann Day, Dan Eckstrom, and Ray Carroll. This was organized by a bunch of "we got to Tucson first and developed our places, we don't want anybody else to do that to theirs" crowd. It had some feel-good name like "Citizens to Protect our Mountains" or something of that sort. The details stuck, one of which was that these people went someplace and basically, anything they could view from that location as on a hill fell into the realm of this protection act.
I got surprised one morning driving out my driveway to find a sign at the end with a notice of proposed zoning change for my property. To say I was PO'd would be to say that cats and dogs have a small problem with interracting with one another.
When I say that they only partially one, the commissioners chose to implement 3 levels of protection:     Level 1, Applied to 23 peaks and ridges and created no build zones. To grade or build in those areas requires special use permit from the board of supervisors.     Level 2, applied to 46 peaks and ridges and requires viewshed mitigation standards (which extends down to the emmissivity of the paint one can use on one's home or fences).     Level 3 was applied to 31 peaks for which no protection was extended.
    My home fell into level 3.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark and Juanita wrote: My home fell into level 3.
Ahh, Tucson Mountain Association.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yep, that's it!
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

This is a rank misrepresentation of what I said and the actual issue. Bush's defenses don't answer to the scope of the charge, and the charge has been substantiated.
Can't argue with your other concerns, echelon and immenent domain. But upholding eminent domain (to benefit "friends of the city" under the guise of "economic benefit") was a judgment by the supreme court, iirc.

er
--
email not valid

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/25/2006 12:38 AM Mark & Juanita mumbled something about the following:

Let's see, the ESA was passed by Nixon, eminent domain was upheld by the supreme court. You might want to check your facts before you start blaming the left.
--
Odinn
RCOS #7 SENS BS ???
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The OSHA act passed and enacted by Nixon hardly qualifies as conservative. Nixon didn't necessarily quality as a conservative, but was much closer to a statist. OTOH, he was the lesser of the evils available at the time. You seem to miss the point that those actions and the EPA actions are actions that have consistently been supported by the left and statists. The fact that Nixon appeased the left doesn't make that any less a leftist cause.
You might want to check your reading comprehension before accusing others of missing facts. WHO on the supreme court voted in favor of the eminent domain case? As I indicated above, it was those viewed to be on the "left" side of the court along with that perenniel fence sitter, Sandra Day O'Connor. Note again, it was NOT the so-called conservative judges Scalia, Thomas, or Rehnquist -- those people accused of chomping at the bit to take away rights from citizens.
You further miss the point that this whole flap over what is essentially an activity protecting the country from further attack, monitoring communications from OUTSIDE the US to persons inside the US from countries known to harbor terrorists is laughable in terms of the hysteria regarding the "chilling" effect upon US citizens' civil rights compared to the activities that I cited.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Florida continues to show itself as a major problem to freedom and liberty in the good ole USofA. Now the adminstration has apparently identified it (Flroida) as a foreign country and Quakers and some Catholic group as terrorists.
Yessiree.
Renata
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 22:38:50 -0700, Mark & Juanita
-snip-

-snip-
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, let's see, maybe they need to find out who those dangerous people in the US are. People in the US receiving and making calls to people outside of the US who have ties to Al Queada might perhaps be one indication of that, ya think? So perhaps by finding out who those folks from outside the US are contacting, just maybe they are finding out who and where those dangerous people in the US are located so that they can take those actions you are advocating (getting them out of the US). Nah, that's too simple -- they already know by clairavoyance who the dangerous people are and they just want to have the fun of monitoring phone calls so they can revel in the thrill of doing something illegal.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

You and I do not and should not have access to the information needed to confirm or deny your speculation above. That is why there is a FISA court.

Or maybe they have some other reason not related to national security.
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Was watching a news conference with some general and this was one of the topics. He was on the recieving end of some pretty aggressive questioning and I came away with the notion that the main reason for bypassing the FISA court is to lower the requirement from "probable" cause to "reasonable" cause. Not sure of the acurracy her... just repeating what I heard.
After the general wrapped up the news conference and was leaving, someone shouted out something like "Isn't it true that the Bush administration is using these warrantless wiretaps to eavesdrop on the Democrats?" To which the general just kept going. If we assume it's a load of bunk, then ignoring the question is probably a good way to let it remain a non issue. But there's a part of me that wonders. There's a line from Lawrence of Arabia... "big things have small beginnings". I worry that this little bit of warrantless eavesdropping is a small beginning to a big thing.
Joe Barta
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Joe, there are so many more things that are "big things" related to revoking our freedoms and liberties than the possibility that someone is listening to you share Aunt Sally's chile recipe. Which, by the way, is a red herring, that is not what is at issue anyway, laws preventing that are clearly defined and were not the object of the investigations that were illegally leaked to the press. The issue is communications into and out of this country, even members of the other party have argued for the right of the president to eavesdrop when national security is at stake (example, Jamie Gurelik arguing this point before Congress). Most of the real infringements on our freedoms were and are supported by those who have liberal leanings rather than conservative leanings (note to those who are going to whine about not knowing what is meant by liberal or conservative or that this is too simplistic a dichotomy -- tough. You know what is meant here. Clue: Ted Kennedy, Kerry, Souder, and Ginsberg don't qualify as conservative and each support some or all of the various infringements discussed as follows). Examples include the fact that any one of us could have our homes or lands condemned by eminent domain so that a developer can use that property for a purpose with higher property tax return for the community. A farmer loses the right to work his farm because some enviros have decided that a supposedly endangered kangaroo rat might be harmed by his doing working the land he has purchased and for which he has paid taxes. Another example is the alleged use of the IRS by a former administration to intimidate its enemies. This is a story the details of which we may not fully learn, since the same people in Congress fighting for full disclosure of a classified national security program are fighting to prevent the full disclosure of a special prosecutor's investigation into the abuse of IRS powers. Numerous other examples abound -- these are real examples that affect real US citizens on a daily basis. *Those* are the revocations of liberties and rights we should be fighting to overturn -- they are much more real and pernicious.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
If you support Bush administration activities, of which eavesdropping on phone conversations without bothering to get a warrant (i.e. illegal search, which the Constitution constrains the government to avoid), ask yourself if you would have supported that same activity by President Clinton. Even better, looking ahead, would you support that same activity by a future President Hillary Clinton. If you would not, then you know it is not a desirable activity. The main purpose of the Constitution is to limit the government's ability to do just such a thing. It further enumerates a number of functions and responsibilities, but the FF could not anticipate every advance in the power of the government to infringe the rights and freedom of the citizens.
Steve, who passed Civics
wrote:

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The above response, and your other subsequent ad hominems, are a perfect example of why one should not argue with a fool. Thus, you will get no response from me.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

He he. You just did.
Reminds me of something one sees in government reports. Some pages nothint other than the following text:
"This page intentionally left blank."
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There is a good case to be made that during a period of wartime, the president has the inherent constitutional authority to conduct cross-border surveillance. If that's the case, then Congress can enact all the FISA laws they want and they won't mean bupkis. It might get sorted out in the courts, but I don't think the Dems really want it to go there.
todd
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and head to Washington. The address is 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
todd
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hell, a president who really had dictatorial leanings might round up everyone who even _looked_ like the "enemy" and put 'em in concentration camps ....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
todd wrote:

False. See Article I.
You might find it helpful to read the Constitution before interpreting it.
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm not interpreting it. I'm not a constitutional lawyer (somehow, I bet you aren't either). I'm saying a case can be made and that case may be decided in the courts.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
todd wrote:

But aren't you at least literate? Can't you at least read the Constitution to see if the case being made actually has a factual basis?
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.