Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread >Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: You just thought Bush ignored the Constitution...

Peach Master





Posts: 503
(503 all sites)
Registered: 4/8/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/27/2009 at 02:15 PM
change we can believe in.....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_msTII61hWY

 
Replies:

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8384
(8385 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/27/2009 at 03:50 PM
Did you even watch it Otie?

I know many of his supporters refuse to acknowledge the many gross inconsistencies between his words and actions, but this one's a doozie even by his woeful standards. And while this speech was filled with "wtf?" moments, recent reports have him considering a plan that's even worse than his rhetoric.

In May, as the speech shows, he was talking about a structure with the intention that "our goal is not to avoid a legal framework. In our Constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man." A month later, he's apparently considering just that.... via executive order


quote:
Obama may hold detainees indefinitely

By JOSH GERSTEIN | 6/27/09 9:17 AM EDT

Faced with a gloomy outlook for new congressional authority to detain terror suspects, the Obama administration appears to be considering issuing an executive order to govern the indefinite imprisonment of alleged Al Qaeda operatives, analysts said.

The focus on a unilateral action by President Barack Obama reflects a political dynamic on Capitol Hill that may render legislation on long-term detention unattainable.

On Friday, White House spokesman Ben LaBolt denied a published report that a possible executive order had been drafted. However, he and other officials did not dispute that such an order was one of the options being considered by a task force Obama created to review detention policy. Its recommendations are due next month.

"There is no draft executive order," said LaBolt. "The task force has not finished its work on these issues."

In a joint report published Friday, The Washington Post and a nonprofit investigative journalism group, ProPublica, said three unnamed senior government officials confirmed to them that such an order is being drafted (a step back from when the report was first published, at which point it said the order had already been drafted). The outlets also said some officials were now concerned that Obama would not meet the deadline he set to close Guantanamo by next January.

The report added that the administration "has turned away" from the possibility of pushing Congress to approve legislation to authorize a new national security court to oversee the detention of alleged terrorists who cannot be tried for specific offenses.

In a speech last month, Obama discussed the possibility of a preventive detention system for alleged Al Qaeda operatives. However, he seemed to indicate that he would pursue legislation to achieve that goal.

"My administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution," Obama said in his May 21 speech at the National Archives.

However, since that time Congress has continued to resist aspects of Obama's plan to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay and transfer at least some of those prisoners to the U.S. for trial or prolonged detention. An appropriations bill Obama signed Wednesday contained language requiring advance reports to Congress before any transfers of prisoners to the U.S.

Creating a new civilian court would require legislation. Analysts said Obama officials may have concluded that the events of recent weeks have shown that such a measure could not pass because it would be opposed both by a sizeable group of conservatives who oppose bringing any prisoners to the U.S. and by liberals, particularly in the House, who are philosophically opposed to open-ended detention.

In a speech last month, Obama discussed the possibility of a preventive detention system for alleged Al Qaeda operatives comments that drew fire from civil rights groups, who say the notion of indefinite detention is unconstitutional, because it violates a prisoners right to be tried for a specific offense, and not merely held in perpetuity because of a perceived security risk.

"Since Obama's speech reaction from Congress has been anything but cooperative," said Matthew Waxman, a Columbia law professor and former State Department attorney handling detainee issues. "Congress responded with a series of efforts that could restrict the president even from fulfilling his basic pledge of closing Guantanamo within a year. It may be since that speech the White House has grown more skeptical about its ability to craft a workable solution with Congress. ... There's very little middle ground for consensus in the short term."

Obama could act unilaterally to set up a new military review system abroad at U.S. bases in Afghanistan or other countries. But it's unclear how different that would be from a Bush-era invention, Combatant Status Review Tribunals, which were widely criticized for lacking due process.

The Washington Post/ProPublica report also said an administration official asserted that civil liberties groups had signaled that they would prefer the executive order option to legislation because the presidential order would be viewed as less permanent.

Several civil liberties groups contacted by POLITICO disputed giving any indication to the administration of a preference for an executive order.

"Indefinite detention is unnecessary and unconstitutional," said Jonathan Hafetz of the American Civil Liberties Union. "If it were done by executive order it would be unconstitutional for an additional reason besides due process: as a violation of the separation of powers."

"Prolonged imprisonment without trial is exactly the Guantanamo system that the president promised he would shut down," said Shane Kadidal of the Center for Constitutional Rights. "Whatever form it takes, whether it's authorized by Congress or the president, it's likely to be found unconstitutional by the courts. And it simply encourages practices that produce a tremendous amount of ill will from communities and governments you need to cooperate with you."

As a tactical matter, civil liberties groups would probably stand a better chance of winning a court challenge against an executive order, rather than legislation. Courts generally are more deferential to legislation passed by Congress and signed by the president than to acts the president takes unilaterally.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24278.html


 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4220
(4218 all sites)
Registered: 8/26/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/27/2009 at 03:56 PM
I'm firmly against holding anyone indefinitely without a trial. It is wrong, and Obama knows it's wrong. But, I'm not sure what can be done about it. But, for those about to jump all over Obama for this, what would you suggest? Releasing the prisoners back into the US? You would be jumping all over Obama if he did that. This is another problem that Obama inherited that has no good solution. I would love to hear some of your proposed solutions Obama haters. Let's hear them.
 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 27533
(27822 all sites)
Registered: 2/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/27/2009 at 04:10 PM
I'm not supporting nor am I condemning what Obama suggests because the situation presents a real conundrum, however to use an analogy, he was handed the rope to a tiger. If he lets it go and someone gets hurt, the crowd calls for his head.....if he hangs on to the tiger a different crowd calls for his head. Point is.....who handed him the rope and what is he supposed to do with it now?

 

____________________
Sometimes we can't choose the music life gives us - but we damn sure can choose how we dance!


 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8384
(8385 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/27/2009 at 05:31 PM
quote:
quote:
I'm firmly against holding anyone indefinitely without a trial. It is wrong, and Obama knows it's wrong. But, I'm not sure what can be done about it. But, for those about to jump all over Obama for this, what would you suggest? Releasing the prisoners back into the US? You would be jumping all over Obama if he did that. This is another problem that Obama inherited that has no good solution. I would love to hear some of your proposed solutions Obama haters. Let's hear them.


That's the problem. He inherited a mess and the people who defended Bush for it are now condemning Obama for not doing anything with a situation that has no answer. As bad as Bush was and as naieve as Obama has been about his plans, the people who play that partisan politics game (condemn Obama for what they praised Bush for doing) are as much of a problem as anything. If they had any balls they would admit that Obama's hands are tied somewhat. But that would mean they might have to admit they were wrong. They would lose their Bible thumping I'm better than you are conservative membership card.
Poor little naive Barrack. He's run all over the US and the world telling every audience he could how he was against Bush's policies on these prisoners, condemning the past administration's actions in every way possible, and promising to close Guantanamo in speech after speech after speech. But we shouldn't hold him accountable for his words because he's JUST NOW realizing the conundrum of this situation? A situation that has been known, debated, attacked, and fully public FOR SEVEN YEARS, since prisoners were placed there starting in 2002.

Apparently its just fine to make endless claims when you have no idea how to achieve them. That must be the "hope" part of his agenda. As the title of a book points out: "Hope Is Not A Strategy".



[Edited on 6/27/2009 by Fujirich]

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5451
(5450 all sites)
Registered: 4/18/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/27/2009 at 07:53 PM
quote:
Oh good, Youtube. The news source for people who can't think.


I still don't think he's watched the video.

OTF, It's your girlfriend Rachel Maddow in an eight minute segment from MSNBC, who sometimes compares the "new" policy with the "old" ones, and likens the ones B.H. Obama wants put into place as very much like the ones depicted in the movie "Minority Report".

Just how is B.H. Obama going to find out who will commit "future crimes"?

 

____________________
All photos posted of family, friends, and places, including those of historic ABB value, by this poster are copyrighted by the poster, or posted by permission of the copywriter.
None of those photos may be reproduced for commercial gain.

 

Peach Master



Karma:
Posts: 898
(898 all sites)
Registered: 8/17/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/27/2009 at 08:36 PM
This joker is such an empty suit I don't think he can recall all the bull **** he's feeding us.
 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11437
(11442 all sites)
Registered: 8/21/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/27/2009 at 08:52 PM
quote:
I'm firmly against holding anyone indefinitely without a trial. It is wrong, and Obama knows it's wrong. But, I'm not sure what can be done about it. But, for those about to jump all over Obama for this, what would you suggest? Releasing the prisoners back into the US? You would be jumping all over Obama if he did that. This is another problem that Obama inherited that has no good solution. I would love to hear some of your proposed solutions Obama haters. Let's hear them.


Well put.

I always have a difficult time understanding this line of attack from the anti-Obama crowd. They seem to want to complain for those who actually voted for the man.

Here's the deal, if you change your position in reliance on a campaign promise given (say like voting for him), then you have a right to complain about that promise being broken. Otherwise, you already rejected the inducement at the voting booth.

It's fine to complain about the President's policies themselves no matter who you voted for. So if one objects to this prolonged detention, then say so. And offer an alternative. The only other option is to say you like the policy, and maybe acknowledge that you happen to agree with the President this one time. I won't tell Limbaugh you said so.

As one who did vote for Obama, this policy may be my greatest disappointment in him to date. I really expected him to afford the detainees something that at least resembled due process. Does that mean I regret my vote? Absolutely not.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 27533
(27822 all sites)
Registered: 2/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/27/2009 at 09:13 PM
I don't regret my vote either. I just couldn't support McCain, especially with Palin on the ticket, and Obama was the better of the two choices. I don't agree with everything he's doing, I can't pretend to understand his decisions, but I'm still willing to give him longer than six months to see what is going to happen.

 

____________________
Sometimes we can't choose the music life gives us - but we damn sure can choose how we dance!


 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8384
(8385 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/27/2009 at 10:53 PM
quote:
I always have a difficult time understanding this line of attack from the anti-Obama crowd. They seem to want to complain for those who actually voted for the man.

Here's the deal, if you change your position in reliance on a campaign promise given (say like voting for him), then you have a right to complain about that promise being broken. Otherwise, you already rejected the inducement at the voting booth.
Just trying to understand the logic here - no attack intended. So you're saying that someone running for President, using this issue as a cornerstone to differentiate himself from the past administration and his opposition, should receive no scrutiny on a reversal from anyone who didn't vote for him? Anyone who didn't agree enough to vote for him shouldn't hold him to his word because, in effect, he didn't make that promise to them in the first place.

Under such a construction, his supporters are unlikely to point out his incongruities, and his opponents are discredited from comment automatically. A very convenient arrangement. Or did I misinterpret?

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11437
(11442 all sites)
Registered: 8/21/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/28/2009 at 07:03 AM
quote:
quote:
I always have a difficult time understanding this line of attack from the anti-Obama crowd. They seem to want to complain for those who actually voted for the man.

Here's the deal, if you change your position in reliance on a campaign promise given (say like voting for him), then you have a right to complain about that promise being broken. Otherwise, you already rejected the inducement at the voting booth.
Just trying to understand the logic here - no attack intended. So you're saying that someone running for President, using this issue as a cornerstone to differentiate himself from the past administration and his opposition, should receive no scrutiny on a reversal from anyone who didn't vote for him? Anyone who didn't agree enough to vote for him shouldn't hold him to his word because, in effect, he didn't make that promise to them in the first place.

Under such a construction, his supporters are unlikely to point out his incongruities, and his opponents are discredited from comment automatically. A very convenient arrangement. Or did I misinterpret?


No offense taken Rich. The '04 vintage flip-flopper argument is just not a very powerful one. Anyone who expects every campaign promise to be fully met is setting himself up for disappointment.

People change their mind all the time, and politicians are people too! Circumstances and available information may cause a responsible official to alter course, and I prefer that to someone who continues to stick to a policy faced w/ changed facts. Contrast Pres Bush who was steadfast on Iraq policies for too long. Consistency for its own sake can sometimes look like insanity.

Here we have a President who finds himself faced w/ economic challenges of which we were all unaware when the promise was made during the campaign. Couple that w/ an uncooperative Senate and a significant portion of the population who have an unreasonable fear of the detainees, and I can see why Obama may feel the political need to change his priorities.

Obama's supporters will however challenge him on decisions he makes. Notice that the video was from Dr Maddow, not exactly a right-winger. And I too think he should spend some political capital here and at least try to do what he promised.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16174
(16174 all sites)
Registered: 10/6/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/28/2009 at 08:12 AM
quote:
As one who did vote for Obama, this policy may be my greatest disappointment in him to date. I really expected him to afford the detainees something that at least resembled due process. Does that mean I regret my vote? Absolutely not.


Thats the thing no one is talking about... he HAS stated that they will be offering far more in due process than Bush did. Hell, even I dont have a problem holding people as long as you give them due process. Otherwise you arent any better than some 3rd rate regime tossing people in the clink.

 

____________________
Missing- 245 spines. If found, please send one to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and the rest to the Capitol building care of the Democratic Party.

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4772
(4786 all sites)
Registered: 12/5/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/28/2009 at 10:09 AM
quote:
This joker is such an empty suit I don't think he can recall all the bull **** he's feeding us.


I guess your definition of empty suit is different then mine. Empty suits don't take on 20 major issues at once. If anything he's trying to take on too much at once, which is my only complaint at this time.

Maybe 8 years of watching Bush do nothing and refuse to take responsibility for anything lowered my expectations of what is achievable.

 

____________________
"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all". John Maynard Keynes

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 27533
(27822 all sites)
Registered: 2/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/28/2009 at 11:32 AM
As I've said before...Bush proved not only can anyone grow up to be president but that some people shouldn't!! He spent eight years putting the Constitution through a paper shredder.....it's going to take some time to piece it back together.

 

____________________
Sometimes we can't choose the music life gives us - but we damn sure can choose how we dance!


 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8384
(8385 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/28/2009 at 12:29 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
I always have a difficult time understanding this line of attack from the anti-Obama crowd. They seem to want to complain for those who actually voted for the man.

Here's the deal, if you change your position in reliance on a campaign promise given (say like voting for him), then you have a right to complain about that promise being broken. Otherwise, you already rejected the inducement at the voting booth.
Just trying to understand the logic here - no attack intended. So you're saying that someone running for President, using this issue as a cornerstone to differentiate himself from the past administration and his opposition, should receive no scrutiny on a reversal from anyone who didn't vote for him? Anyone who didn't agree enough to vote for him shouldn't hold him to his word because, in effect, he didn't make that promise to them in the first place.

Under such a construction, his supporters are unlikely to point out his incongruities, and his opponents are discredited from comment automatically. A very convenient arrangement. Or did I misinterpret?


No offense taken Rich. The '04 vintage flip-flopper argument is just not a very powerful one. Anyone who expects every campaign promise to be fully met is setting himself up for disappointment.

People change their mind all the time, and politicians are people too! Circumstances and available information may cause a responsible official to alter course, and I prefer that to someone who continues to stick to a policy faced w/ changed facts. Contrast Pres Bush who was steadfast on Iraq policies for too long. Consistency for its own sake can sometimes look like insanity.

Here we have a President who finds himself faced w/ economic challenges of which we were all unaware when the promise was made during the campaign. Couple that w/ an uncooperative Senate and a significant portion of the population who have an unreasonable fear of the detainees, and I can see why Obama may feel the political need to change his priorities.

Obama's supporters will however challenge him on decisions he makes. Notice that the video was from Dr Maddow, not exactly a right-winger. And I too think he should spend some political capital here and at least try to do what he promised.
Thanks Brock! I think your statement about an uncooperative Senate might be the key factor not well gauged by him on this issue.

On the one hand, he did spend four years in the Senate during a period of great debate on this, so you'd think he'd know the feelings of his peers. On the other hand, they never had a real hope of bringing it to a vote during that period, so they were free to say whatever they would without much fear of standing behind their words.

However, you'd think someone running for President, with the background of being a Senator and a lawyer, using this issue as a key talking point with endless repeatition, would have formulated more of a plan.

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 1534
(5132 all sites)
Registered: 9/3/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/28/2009 at 07:54 PM
lots of good points made here...
i only wish people would read them with an open mind

 

____________________
There ain't no Good Guy, There ain't no Bad Guy. There's only you and me and we just disagree

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 9082
(9082 all sites)
Registered: 2/25/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/29/2009 at 04:04 PM
quote:
Here we have a President who finds himself faced w/ economic challenges of which we were all unaware when the promise was made during the campaign.


Maybe because I work in finance and read about it everyday, but I find this hard to believe. We were unaware of the gravity of this? The economy was going into freefall during the campaign. Everyone knew about this (even Joe the Plumber). Bush was the one who put TARP in place and a massive stimulus. Forclosures were spiking, banks were failing, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Citi, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs,, etc went out of business or were on the ropes. This was all happening during Bush's term. How could we not know what there was something drastically wrong? This country must have its collective head in the sand. This is why people voted for President Obama.

quote:
If he lets it go and someone gets hurt, the crowd calls for his head.....if he hangs on to the tiger a different crowd calls for his head


And now we know what the previous administration dealt with......but they were evil!!




 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 46737
(46738 all sites)
Registered: 7/8/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/29/2009 at 04:08 PM
quote:
This country must have its collective head in the sand. This is why people voted for President Obama.



If having my head in the sand is what prevented me from voting for McCain/Palin, then my head feels quite comfortable.

 

____________________
"Live every week like it's Shark Week." - Tracy Jordan

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 9082
(9082 all sites)
Registered: 2/25/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/29/2009 at 04:12 PM
quote:
If having my head in the sand is what prevented me from voting for McCain/Palin, then my head feels quite comfortable.


Perhaps I used the wrong analogy. People voted for Obama for a number of reasons, the main one being the economy. How can we sit here and say we didn't know the economy was THAT bad in light everything that was unfolding during the campaign?

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 46737
(46738 all sites)
Registered: 7/8/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/29/2009 at 04:21 PM
quote:
quote:
If having my head in the sand is what prevented me from voting for McCain/Palin, then my head feels quite comfortable.


Perhaps I used the wrong analogy. People voted for Obama for a number of reasons, the main one being the economy. How can we sit here and say we didn't know the economy was THAT bad in light everything that was unfolding during the campaign?


Just this weekend I spoke to a guy who is absolutely convinced that the economy tanked as soon as Obama was sworn in. To most, finance is boring, and most of the attention ond perspective around it has not been how to fix it, it's who is to blame, and everyone has played that card. The people that take umbrance to Obama placing any responsibility whatsoever on the previous Administration are the exact same people that blame every economic woe since WWII on Barney Frank.

 

____________________
"Live every week like it's Shark Week." - Tracy Jordan

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 9082
(9082 all sites)
Registered: 2/25/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/29/2009 at 04:30 PM
quote:
Did you grasp the irony of this? I would think not because if you did, you never would have posted it.


Touche!!

However, there were plenty of other people outside of finance who knew too....like all the folks in Washington who campaigned on the mess, many small businesses who couldn't get loans knew, people losing their jobs knew, people losing their homes knew, etc. This was no secret...particulalrly to those of us who work in finance!

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5768
(6034 all sites)
Registered: 2/5/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/29/2009 at 04:50 PM
Obama has ignored the Constitution more than every other President combined using his 'executive privilege'. Impeach Obama.

 

____________________
Lovin my Duane Allman music....everyday jamin' for Duane.

 
E-Mail User

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 1751
(1751 all sites)
Registered: 10/14/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/29/2009 at 05:08 PM
quote:
quote:
Obama has ignored the Constitution more than every other President combined using his 'executive privilege'. Impeach Obama.


Hey I have an idea. Why don't you read what the thread is about and what other people have to say? Then maybe, just maybe, you won't look so stupid.


It would take a lot more than that.

 

____________________
we are not here to create or cling to beliefs. we are here to pay attention.

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11437
(11442 all sites)
Registered: 8/21/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/29/2009 at 05:16 PM
quote:
quote:
Here we have a President who finds himself faced w/ economic challenges of which we were all unaware when the promise was made during the campaign.


Maybe because I work in finance and read about it everyday, but I find this hard to believe. We were unaware of the gravity of this? The economy was going into freefall during the campaign. Everyone knew about this (even Joe the Plumber). Bush was the one who put TARP in place and a massive stimulus. Forclosures were spiking, banks were failing, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Citi, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs,, etc went out of business or were on the ropes. This was all happening during Bush's term. How could we not know what there was something drastically wrong? This country must have its collective head in the sand. This is why people voted for President Obama.

quote:
If he lets it go and someone gets hurt, the crowd calls for his head.....if he hangs on to the tiger a different crowd calls for his head


And now we know what the previous administration dealt with......but they were evil!!



I think Obama was talking about major changes re Guantanamo and the detainees for quite some time during his run. Certainly before the first bailouts in Aug. Perhaps I should have said something like "when first promised." But yeah, when McCain suspended his campaign in Sept. to deal with the stimulus, the meltdown was well known.


 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 25201
(25201 all sites)
Registered: 9/7/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 6/30/2009 at 01:34 AM
quote:
quote:
quote:
If having my head in the sand is what prevented me from voting for McCain/Palin, then my head feels quite comfortable.


Perhaps I used the wrong analogy. People voted for Obama for a number of reasons, the main one being the economy. How can we sit here and say we didn't know the economy was THAT bad in light everything that was unfolding during the campaign?


It was right around the election that this was really mushrooming. I don't think the full impact was realized until after the election.


enough pain to throw out the republicans

i don't regret my vote for nader. I said before the election obama would
not be much different that a republican. Again I feel I was correct on this issue.

 

____________________
Keep on Smiling


 
 


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software

Privacy | Terms of Service | Report Infringement | Personal Data Management | Contact Us
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com