Legion World Forums LEGION COMPANION The Anywhere Machine Harry Taylor

I haven't seen anybody else post this yet, so here goes.

Who is Harry Taylor?

Harry Taylor is a 61-year-old commercial real estate broker and the man who told off President Bush in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Highlights included--
Bush: "I'm not your favorite guy."
and
Bush: "Go on, what's your question?"
Taylor: "Okay, I don't have a question. What I wanted to say to you is that I—in my lifetime, I have never felt more ashamed of, nor more frightened by my leadership in Washington..."

In the end, it's not what he said (though that was interesting too), it's that he was allowed to say it. One audience member was quoted as telling Taylor, ""I 100% disagree with everything you said, but I'm glad you said it."

For more information visit http://thankyouharrytaylor.org/ and thank Harry Taylor too!

" I—in my lifetime, I have never felt more ashamed of, nor more frightened by my leadership in Washington..."

I agree 100% with that statement.

Haha, well there was more. Just the fact that Harry told off Bush to his face... that takes some major cajones, man.

I completely agree that it took some stones. I completely disagree as to the administration, reserving that for the previous one, at whose feet i lay the current terrorist problems we have experienced.

And i absolutely agree that he has/had/should always have the right to say that.

I do think, however, that this person has missed a few pertinent facts...such as:

A booming economy, as latest figures indicate, that is not predicated on a bubble like the previous administration.

Very good low unemployment.

A decisive, firm leadership that does not stick it's finger into the wind to see which way to go on any policies, but rather one that has a path and attempts to meet it's goals. I may not always agree with those goals (illegal immagration, spending, and others) but at least there are goals.

Ah, but he was distracted by the fact that this administration has placed itself above the law and shows total disregard for the Constitution.

Silly of him, isn't it?

I hope I can afford to fill my gas tank this summer in order to be able to go to work, or I'll be messing up the very good low unemployment figures.

"Ah, but he was distracted by the fact that this administration has placed itself above the law and shows total disregard for the Constitution.

Silly of him, isn't it?"

How, exactly have they placed themselves above the law?

It's not the so-called "domestic spying program", which isn't a domestic program at all. It is an intercept program from suspected terrorists or known terrorists calling cohorts in the US. It's funny how everyone assumes that the ones being called are pro-american.

It's not the Valerie Plame thing, cause there was nothing illegal there. She wasn't undercover nor had she been for the required time. And of course, as president, he can declassify information within his presidential rights.

As for Libby, well, he is not even charged with releasing the name, just avoiding helping the prosecutor rather than pleading the fifth. On that I agree, but honestly, who here thought of Martha Stewart? Same thing. Or good ole' Bill, whom everyone defended for doing the same thing?

Not really trying to start something here, just going for honesty in discourse.

No problem! He has, in fact, placed himself above the law by authorizing domestic wiretapping without warrants. I make no assumptions about the motives of the calls--I simply point out that the administration, not the private citizen, has the burden of proof.

Bush has also issued a "signing statement" declaring his intent to ignore the McCain torture bill, even as he signed it. In other words, he's said, "Sure I'll sign it--but I reserve the right to ignore it, and I'm saying as much." That's placing himself above the law.

Bush has placed himself above the law in the Plame affair as well, since the president DOES have to follow a specific procedure to declassify information, and he did not. Simply saying, "I'm the president, so I can do it" doesn't work.

If you'd like more examples of Bush flouting and ignoring the Constitution he swore to uphold, there's plenty to choose from. Those are just some of his most current crimes.

1) Its not domestic spying, it is foreign intercept. You automatically assume it is calls to american nationals, and that they are innocent of anything. I do not. As for the burden of proof, the cases are needed to be acted upon immediately, not at the press or a judges leisure. And it is reported to high ranking members of congress, democrats amoung them who hide behind the cover of "its classifed, so i can't talk about specifics, but i sure am glad my sorry fat ass isn't being bombed". They conviently leave that out of the reporting. And yet, no one in congress is calling for the end of the program, pushing to legally take it away. They just don't like it and use it to take shots at the administration. Cheap Bullpucky.

2)As for the McCain thing, good for Bush. The bill will put innocent americans at risk to make people feel better about themselves. Who here are you willing to see dead to feel good about yourself. And don't say it wont happen. 9/11. 3000 people murdered, not to mention the people murdered under the previous administration because they would not act in defense of the nation. If bush stating that he will ignore that order puts uncertainty in their minds and breaks them so that we can gather information to save Mllash, perhaps, or maybe Nightcrawler, or you, i say go for it. Read the oath of office. The president is charged with defending the people of this nation as well as the constitution.

3) As to the Plame thing, what happened to the right of the people to know that is touted so highly? And again, he did not authorize the leaking of her open secret name. But hey, her husband sure did like the media coverage of the two of them on the magazine cover, didn't he. I call that two-faced bullpucky. Actually, i call it something a little more honest, but i am being clean on these boards.

4) And the president has always had leeway. Even the disasterous previous admin. I just love how the selective enforcement is much more stringent now when the press is out of sorts, and the dems are out of power. They would sell their mother on the corner to get back into power and they will use any dirty trick means to accomplish it.

But, thats just how i see it.

So arguments #1 and #2 boil down to "So what if it's illegal, it's for National Security." The President is charged with defending the nation--but he doesn't have the power to ignore the law in doing so.

And the others boil down to "But the people complaining about it are evil hypocrites," which has no effect on the facts whatsoever. His actions, regardless of how much you despise the people who point them out, are STILL illegal.

What you're getting at is an attitude of "If the President does it, it's not illegal," which has been tried before. And thankfully, we didn't fall for it then or now.

Absolutely not.

On 1 and 2. You are trying to build a case on the semantics of language. I find that about as relevant as high tea on Jupiter. And you are still trying to fob off "its illegal domestic wiretaping". Again, false. As for two, again, when has bush done it? Cause saying you will ignore it means just that until action is taken. But i notice you didn't mention who you are willing to sacrifice to feel good here. Nor did you respond to my statement that Bush saying he will ignore it to put doubt into the minds of terrorists. Again, cherry picking your arguement.

As for 3...Yes, i do disagree with your presumption that they are illegal. He authorized telling the american people what was going on, as is fully within his powers as president. If he hadn't, you would be crying "its the new cover-up, the next ...-gate" and you know it. It was not illegal to mention Plames name, though i wouldn't have done it. She had not met the criteria to be considered at risk, and her own husband whored the two of them out for publicity, of which she was complicit. Again, try truth in arguements.

Any fact can be twisted to suit any purposes. Republicans can be just as dirty as dems. The real problem i have with repubs is the lack of spheres once the were sent to washington, and actually giving a damn about the mainstream media instead of doing what they were sent there to do.

But again, who are you willing to see die from this board to feel good about yourself and be considered nice by murdering terrorists?

What you're actually asking is "Whose lives am I willing to risk for the sake of upholding the Constitution?" Answer: All of them. That's how important America is to me... I won't even allow the President to break the law in order to keep me safe. Especially not just to make me FEEL safe, which is all he's really doing.

Back to the original arguments: Domestic wiretapping is, in fact, exactly what's going on. Without warrants. The administration hasn't even tried to deny that; instead, they've gone for their usual arrogant response, which is "It's for security, duh; so we can do whatever we want."

#2 is a very simple situation: Bush has declared his intent to ignore a law passed by Congress. That's illegal; his reasons for doing so are speculative, but also irrelevant. Read it again: he has, in fact, declared himself above the law.

And it's not the only time he's done so--remember the silliness of the "Unitary Executive" theory? Or the notion that a Congressional resolution authorizing military force against Iraq somehow magically becomes "permission to ignore the Bill of Rights within our borders?"

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say "The President can feel free to ignore any or all of this in the process of defending country (or even CLAIMING to defend the country." But Bush seems to think that such permission exists. It doesn't. Nor does it say that the President is exempt from having to follow proper procedure for those things that ARE within his power... although, again, he and his team seem to think that they have the right to do what they want, however they want.

---

Back to "whose lives I'm willing to risk"... you know, I could've SWORN you said you wanted to focus on the facts, not histrionics and fearmongering. So let's get some basic principles laid out right up front:

*Fighting terrorism within the bounds of law, the Bill of Rights, and the Geneva Conventions is harder and less "effective" than ignoring them. So what?

*Holding the government accountable for its actions (including illegal ones) in a "time of war" makes their job harder, and could conceivably encourage our enemies. Again, so what?

*The constraints of the Constitution--the accountability, the balance of powers, the existence of a media watchdog element--result in greater freedom for all, including terrorists and their allies, at the expense of making us all less safe. It increases the odds that innocent people will die in a terrorist attack.

And I'm fine with all of that. Any American worthy of the title SHOULD be fine with all of that--unless he's been successfully terrorized into giving up his freedoms in exchange for a promise (even a FAILED promise) of safety.

So whose lives am I willing to risk to "feel good" about upholding our freedoms and keeping the President accountable for his actions? Everyone's. How about you?

As myself, everyone. As president, i have a sworn duty to keep the people of the united states safe. You may not feel safer, but have you been bombed since 9/11? No.

As for the constitution, yes, it is a very important document. So important, in fact, that Lincoln suspended habius corpus in the civil war. So important, in fact, that thousands of Japanese were interned by a democrat in WWII.

Again, you are wrong on 1. 2 has not been proven, and a statement of intent is not the action. I could say that i intend to light up the empire state building with 1 million red pointers, but until i do, i havent done a damn thing. And McCain is a Napoleanic fool with a temper problem, so even if congress was stupid enough to go along with that, the president should show civil disobediance to a stupid, assanine, and possibly disasterous piece of legislation.

As for the notion that the US is should be some pristine, perfect place on earth, grow up. It's nice to have dreams, they are needed, but in the real world, there are people out there with one purpose, to kill, maim, hurt, destroy, rape, bomb, cut, BEHEAD and they are not going to play nice while you sit there and say "can't we all just get along". I live in the real world, the pragmatic world, the world where things get done not by the dreamers, but by those that actually take action.

One more thing, then you can have the last word. What do you think the constituition is? I mean, it has been weakened left and right, broken and bloodied by the aforementioned lincoln, abused and used to rub the american people's faces in the ineptitude of the previous administration that led to this predicament. And for all that, it is nothing more than paper and ink. To me, the constituition is nothing more than the will of the american people made manifest. And dispite the lofty idealism of people like Franklin and Jefferson, there have been times when it has been trampled on, but it emerges stronger than ever...not because of government, but because of the people.

If the american people are broken, the constituition means nothing.

In defending the constitution, the president is defending the people. That means from harm in all facets, not just trumped up socialism that the mainstream is pumping out right now to garner favor.

So, when the president says to get the word out on what is being done, that is defending the people. When some fool of a politician gathers enough other weakminded fools to weaken the will of the people, the president is tasked with still defending them as best he can.

Laws are made to be broken, but that hasn't happened as far as i know.

Now, you can have the last word. It seems to mean a lot to you.

There are a lot of circumstantial evidences that cause people to actively hate our president.

There's the fact that he is the scion of one of the richest, most privileged, most powerful political families in the country.

There's the fact that he won the electoral vote in his first election, yet did not win a majority of the popular vote.

There's the unpopularity of the war in Iraq.

And of course, related to that, there's the failure of our national intelligence to fully comprehend the fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction (and Bush has gone on record saying that our intelligence was faulty prior to the war, so let's please not debate that.)

Added to this is the whole FEMA /Homeland Security/ Katrina thing.

However, is it anyone's fault that they were born into privilege? Is it his fault that in his first election, he was elected in accordance with the Constitution, even if he didn't win the popular vote? Is it his fault that the intelligence community let him down? And is it his fault that the Katrina response was so hopelessly bungled?

These are questions that people have to answer for themselves, but I would submit that the president is not directly responsible for any of the events I laid out (save the war in Iraq, which obviously WAS his choice, but let's be honest with ourselves... regime change in Iraq has been our government's policy since Bush Sr. If we're to start blaming people for the war in Iraq, there's a LOT of blame to go around...)

I think Bush, like any other president, gets a lot of ire for events beyond his personal control.

And there is always a price to be paid for missteps in government. We'll see what happens come November. Any political leader has a line of credit he might or might not max out with his people. Look at Chirac.

I'm not going to waste anyone's time by making specious comparisons to other times in history that I'm sure anyone can see for themselves, but as far as national security vs. one's way of life, once a people gives up said people's way of life in the name of national security, the enemy, whoever that is, has already won.

Because land is just land, resources just resources, wealth just wealth, and we will all be dead in 100 years. But our way of life is what truly lasts, and if it is good, it should be cherished beyond the value of individual lives, property, or wealth. Let's let our legacy be a good one.

Sorry, Rick, but you're wrong. The President does NOT have a 'sworn duty to keep us safe,' except indirectly. What he IS sworn to do is uphold the Constitution--nothing more, nothing less.

Presidents have ignored and violated the Constitution before, true--and they were proven wrong to do so. Every single time. Even FDR (in my opinion, the best president of the 20th century) made that mistake. It doesn't change the severity of Bush's mistake to point out that other presidents have done it too... a point that seems lost on a lot of Bushdrones who can't finish a sentence without chanting "But--but CLINTON!"

Again, YOU are wrong on #1. The Bush administration has made no attempt to deny that they approved warrantless, domestic wiretapping; instead, they've simply claimed they somehow have the right to do this. This is a lie, of course, but they don't care. They simply point to National Security as their catchall excuse for any abuse of power.

And #2 was in answer to your original question: "How has Bush declared himself above the law?" I pointed out how he has done exactly that, and you immediately shifted over to trying to defend it, or claim that "it's not that bad, and it's to keep us safe." But your INITIAL question was whether Bush declared himself above the law. As I've pointed out, he did. Do you concede the point?

If the president defends the Constitution, he's doing his job. If he violates it--even in the name of "defending the people," let alone whether he can prove that--he's not doing his job. Period. If you'd like to consider that the "last word," do so; we could do a lot worse.