Luckovich cartoon changes address!
Mike Luckovich’s cartoon has moved to a new ajc.com address. Click here to view and bookmark.
The new format features a larger version of Mike’s cartoon for the day and allow readers to vote. There are also links to recent Luckovich cartoons and special galleries.
Bloggers who want to comment on issues in the news are invited to blog at any of our four other Opinion blogs:
Home > Opinion > Mike Luckovich > Archives > 2005 > December > 25 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USconservative columnist steve chapman
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Steve Chapman Beyond the imperial presidency
Published December 25, 2005
President Bush is a bundle of paradoxes. He thinks the scope of the federal government should be limited but the powers of the president should not. He wants judges to interpret the Constitution as the framers did, but doesn’t think he should be constrained by their intentions.
He attacked Al Gore for trusting government instead of the people, but he insists anyone who wants to defeat terrorism must put absolute faith in the man at the helm of government.
His conservative allies say Bush is acting to uphold the essential prerogatives of his office. Vice President Cheney says the administration’s secret eavesdropping program is justified because “I believe in a strong, robust executive authority, and I think that the world we live in demands it.”
But the theory boils down to a consistent and self-serving formula: What’s good for George W. Bush is good for America, and anything that weakens his power weakens the nation. To call this an imperial presidency is unfair to emperors.
Even people who should be on Bush’s side are getting queasy. David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, says in his efforts to enlarge executive authority, Bush “has gone too far.”
He’s not the only one who feels that way. Consider the case of Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen arrested in 2002 on suspicion of plotting to set off a “dirty bomb.” For three years, the administration said he posed such a grave threat that it had the right to detain him without trial as an enemy combatant. In September, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit agreed.
But then, rather than risk a review of its policy by the Supreme Court, the administration abandoned its hard-won victory and indicted Padilla on comparatively minor criminal charges. When it asked the 4th Circuit Court for permission to transfer him from military custody to jail, though, the once-cooperative court flatly refused.
In a decision last week, the judges expressed amazement that the administration suddenly would decide Padilla could be treated like a common purse snatcher—a reversal that, they said, comes “at substantial cost to the government’s credibility.” The court’s meaning was plain: Either you were lying to us then, or you are lying to us now.
If that’s not enough to embarrass the president, the opinion was written by conservative darling J. Michael Luttig—who just a couple of months ago was on Bush’s short list for the Supreme Court. For Luttig to question Bush’s use of executive power is like Bill O’Reilly announcing that there’s too much Christ in Christmas.
This is hardly the only example of the president demanding powers he doesn’t need. When American-born Saudi Yasser Hamdi was captured in Afghanistan, the administration also detained him as an enemy combatant rather than entrust him to the criminal justice system.
But when the Supreme Court said he was entitled to a hearing where he could present evidence on his behalf, the administration decided that was way too much trouble. It freed him and put him on a plane back to Saudi Arabia, where he may plot jihad to his heart’s content. Try to follow this logic: Hamdi was too dangerous to put on trial but not too dangerous to release.
The disclosure that the president authorized secret and probably illegal monitoring of communications between people in the United States and people overseas again raises the question: Why?
The government easily could have gotten search warrants to conduct electronic surveillance of anyone with the slightest possible connection to terrorists. The court that handles such requests hardly ever refuses. But Bush bridles at the notion that the president should ever have to ask permission of anyone.
He claims he can ignore the law because Congress granted permission when it authorized him to use force against Al Qaeda. But we know that can’t be true. Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales says the administration didn’t ask for a revision of the law to give the president explicit power to order such wiretaps because Congress—a Republican Congress, mind you—wouldn’t have agreed. So the administration decided: Who needs Congress?
What we have now is not a robust executive but a reckless one. At times like this, it’s apparent that Cheney and Bush want more power not because they need it to protect the nation, but because they want more power. Another paradox: In their conduct of the war on terror, they expect our trust, but they can’t be bothered to earn it.
E-mail: schapman@tribune.com.
You can search for more columns in our archives.
Copyright © 2005, Chicago Tribune
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By finch
December 25, 2005 11:21 AM | Link to this
Plus, Barron’s says the impeachment of President Bush should be seriously considered. That’s Barron’s, the conservative business weekly. It’s a shame their site’s subscription only.
A WHITE HOUSE CAROL
Oh! You better watch out, You better not cry, You better be cleared By the FBI
Bush and friends are checking you out !
He’s making a list, He’s checking it twice, He’s gonna find out With a listening device
Bush and friends are checking you out !
He sees you when you’re sleeping, He knows when you’re awake. He knows if you have read a book And your phone calls are on tape
So…You better watch out, You better not cry You better be cleared By the FBI
Bush and friends are checking you out !
This is at least as good as the other literary endeavors here. And don’t worry, we can make more!
By William Kristol
December 25, 2005 11:26 AM | Link to this
So we are really to believe that President Bush just sat around after 9/11 thinking, “How can I aggrandize my powers?” Or that Gen. Hayden-and his hundreds of nonpolitical subordinates-cheerfully agreed to an obviously crazy, bizarre, and unnecessary project of “domestic spying”?
This is the fever swamp into which American liberalism is on the verge of descending.
Yup. First the Bush administration will listen in to international communications of a few hundred people in America who seem to have been in touch with terrorists abroad … and next thing you know, government hit squads will be killing George W. Bush’s political opponents.
What is one to say about these media—Democratic spokesmen for contemporary American liberalism? That they have embarrassed and discredited themselves. That they cannot be taken seriously as critics. It would be good to have a responsible opposition party in the United States today. It would be good to have a serious mainstream media. Too bad we have neither.
By RW-(the original)
December 25, 2005 11:58 AM | Link to this
I thought we weren’t supposed to read a word of what the “moonies” wrote.
By finch
December 25, 2005 12:35 PM | Link to this
There you go again!
Steve Chapman is a syndicated columnist with the Chicago Tribune, which is definitely NOT a Moonie paper. Here’s his biography from the Tribune’s web site.
It’s not his fault that the Moonie Times slipped and picked him up.
BTW, I liked this Chapman quote:
“Proxmire, after all, had won the seat after the death of red-baiter Joseph McCarthy, whose reckless smears got him censured by the Senate.”
By Jesus
December 25, 2005 12:51 PM | Link to this
IMPEACH BUSH NOW!!!
By RW-(the original)
December 25, 2005 01:03 PM | Link to this
finch,
If you read that from my Washington Times link I think you have to report to some liberal detox center immediately. Maybe Cornell offers an post-grad special.
The Chicago Tribune gets it right sometimes
Every president since FISA’s passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act’s terms. Under President Clinton, deputy Atty. Gen. Jamie Gorelick testified that “the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes.”
By Midori
December 25, 2005 01:57 PM | Link to this
Willima Kristol is not only a lying twit, but he’s a Bush enabler if ever there was one.
Another moron on the Bush payroll.
Pure and simple.
By RW-(the original)
December 25, 2005 02:28 PM | Link to this
Willima?
By Midori
December 25, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this
unfortunately, one can’t edit one’s posts.
I suppose I need to be more vilgilant in the future.
By finch
December 25, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this
RW, that quote is from Chapman. Sorry. Just because it isn’t from your link doesn’t make it a forgery.
I grew up with the Trib. It used to be really right wing under the late Col. Robert McCormick. It’s most famous headline under the Colonel was, of course, Dewey Defeats Truman.
Fortunately, the Trib has evolved into a balanced paper that features liberals, conservatives, and even (gasp!) real conservatives who realize that President Bush isn’t.
That’s as opposed to the Moonie Times.
Merry Christmas!
By RW-(the original)
December 25, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this
finch,
RW, that quote is from Chapman. Sorry. Just because it isn’t from your link doesn’t make it a forgery.
The same quote is in the Washington Times, why would you imply it wasn’t?
For what it’s worth, I like the Trib.
By Midori
December 25, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this
An Amazon reviewer on John Gibson’s “The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought�:
It is hard for me to review this book objectively, because I knew John Gibson personally 15 years ago. To say the least, it was not a positive experience for me or my family. Knowing what I know, it is the height of irony that John Gibson, a man who caused so much pain for me and my family one Christmas, would write a book defending Christmas. In 1989, John Gibson worked as a weekend anchorman at the local television station (KCRA channel 3) that my mother worked at in Sacramento, and she would occasionally invite him to have dinner with us (her, my sister, and me). This happened mayber 5 or 6 times, and then when Christmas came, she invited him to have Christmas dinner with us. He arrived drunk. I remember how he spent our Christmas dinner just railing and yelling about all the people at the TV station he hated, ranting and raving and hitting the table. We ate in silence, hoping he wouldn’t get even angrier. **After dinner, he wanted to watch TV, and insisted that my 14-year-old sister sit right next to him. After about five minutes with his hands all over her, and hugging her, she managed to get away, and my mother suggested that he go home. He got angry and left, but not before smashing a serving plate made of china that our grandmother had left us. Thankfully, that was the last I saw of him in person.** I don’t know if he is the same man today that he was then, though I have heard through professional contacts that he still has an alcohol and temper problem. When I sometimes see him get upset on the air with a guest, I hear the same tone of voice, and the same look in his eye that I remember from that night. He certainly didn’t give us a very nice Christmas, and this book has brought back memories me and my sister would rather forget.http://www.thepoorman.net/2005/12/23/a-very-wanker-christmas
By finch
December 25, 2005 07:05 PM | Link to this
I’m hesitant to take an Amazon book reviewer’s memories of John Gibson the dinner guest at face value, but I wouldn’t be surprised. It’s astounding how many (self)-righteous, moral people in broadcasting have large, ugly skeletons in their closets. I know from personal experience. Too bad, really.
I hope he finds peace on earth someday.
By Daniel Henninger
December 25, 2005 07:29 PM | Link to this
The rank politicizing of foreign policy is unfortunate because functional bipartisanship in this realm once served as ballast to the predictable divisions over domestic policy. Now, with the ballast gone, the two sides of our politics hardly ever touch. Even if the government informs senior Democrats such as Senator Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of a sensitive policy decision like the surveillance of suspected terrorist phone calls, their only comments on the leaked press reports are feigned expressions of denunciation and outrage. America’s enemies and competitors will be popping their champagne corks next weekend in celebration of a Washington whose first response to undeniable threats is to disadvantage the other political party.
By Ed Koch
December 25, 2005 07:37 PM | Link to this
I wish The Times and members of Congress were not so eager to demean the President of the U.S. and his advisers, holding them up to scathing denunciation when we are at war. They should realize that the President feels very strongly his obligation to protect us from terrorists overseas and their supporters in this country — in World War II, such supporters were called Quislings. The critics have short memories. In the 1993 and 9/11 (2001) attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the U.S. suffered nearly 3,000 deaths and more than 1,000 injured.
Now the press and some of those members of Congress by their public revelations have alerted the enemy to the surveillance program. And the media and some members of Congress have forgotten or don’t care that we are at war and their disclosures may have prevented the administration from obtaining information otherwise available that would help military and law enforcement authorities to deter acts of terrorism here and abroad.
The lesson is this: the survival of our country is paramount, but that survival must be achieved without destroying our core values as a society. Our Founding Fathers started a revolution in order to achieve “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.â€? These are not just words. They are our fundamental beliefs and must be protected. To see on the other hand the President as the enemy — which the savage and unfair attacks upon him convey to the world— is harmful to the security of our country and, therefore, injures us all.
By Ricky
December 25, 2005 07:52 PM | Link to this
I love how ml finds one column from a conservative writer critizing President Bush and posts it for all to see. Gee Lucko don’t Dems disagree sometimes. Oh wait it was only weeks ago that Nancy Pelosi said, we don’t have a single strategy on the war in Iraq, we have many different ones. I wonder why Lucko didn’t pust the article that Joe Lieberman wrote when he returned from Iraq. Would that be because you didn’t agree with it Lucko? You are a joke. I have gotten used to the personal attack cartoon’s you draw and in reality I come here for the debate that is sometimes interesting and informative, not for your bad cartoons. So if one conservative columnist says it, it must be true. I guess than everything Louis Freeh says in his book about Clinton and his lack of interest in the safety of America must be true also. Or the next time a liberal disagrees with Reid or Pelosi, they must be right too. This is almost laughable. And the AJC wonders why it is losing money.
By finch
December 25, 2005 10:24 PM | Link to this
Ricky, you’re absolutely right about Joe Liebermann. I thought his column was great, but I was able to read it only because I subscribe to the WSJ, and most people don’t, and that paper’s kind of possessive. Other papers didn’t print it because the WSJ wouldn’t let them.
Newspapers aren’t losing money, though. Far from it
“The average 2004 operating margin of publicly owned newspapers — that’s the profit margin before such items as taxes, interest and depreciation — was 20.5%, according to the industry analyst John Morton. That’s roughly double the average margin of the Standard & Poor’s 500.”
And a hell of a lot better than WalMart or Microsoft, too.
Newspapers are spending time and money on maintaining and improving product, including developing websites they hope will equal or better any news site that Google, Yahoo, or other primarily internet outfits can put together.
A great example of this is the Washington Post. It’s site now includes up to 20 real-time chats every weekday with reporters, columnists, newsmakers, and celebrities. It’s not uncommon to see 5 or 6 chats happening simultaneously.
Newspapers, like all news sources… TV, radio, cable, satellite, Internet will live or die by content. Maybe Fox and the WSJ will triumph. Maybe the AJC and WP will. Nobody knows yet.
Happy New Year!
By TrueConservative
December 26, 2005 01:33 AM | Link to this
Personally I think this particular article points out to all of the regulars in here how questioning your leaders isnt a Liberal idea- its and American idea. I could spend hours linking every article showing how this administration has screwed the poor, poisoned the land screwed our economy or abridged the Bill of Rights. I could link every Conservative and Liberal columnist who is terrified of Emperor Bush but educating you isnt my responsibility and as an American I would gladly bleed for your right to think whatever you want. Every time I come here I read some post about our beloved soldiers that denounces the freedoms they fight for -it makes me sick. Somebody always talks about how anyone who questions Bush hates those soldiers as though they were one entity, as though all soldiers agree with him, as if relaxing in Crawford is anything like watching your friends get blown up in a war zone.
This is a democracy- you know government by the people. If you dont like to hear opinions that are different from yours I suggest you find another country. Our soldiers in Iraq fight side by side regardless of politics and we should honor them by doing the same, so I hope this post encourages a meaningful debate even if you dont agree.
But as for my opinion- The right to dissent and cast out those leaders who lie and cheat you(regardless of pollitical party or platform) is the basis of democracy. The Military exists to protect us from terrorists- and God bless them for that, but The Bill of Rights exists to protect us from Tyrants, and today in America a Tyrant who sells our country to the highest bidder and can listen in on your phone calls and have the CIA make you dissapear if he doesnt like what you have to say is much more of a threat to our way of life than some zealot with a few sticks of dynamite. Maybe it hasnt gone that far yet… but absolute power corrupts absolutely and I dont trust anyone with that kind of power to not abuse it. So do what you want this is America! but I’m not waiting around to see how corrupt this administration gets. I say Impeach Him Now!… we have impeached better men for less.
By TrueConservative
December 26, 2005 01:36 AM | Link to this
Merry Christmas!! Happy New Year!! Happy Hanukkah!! Happy Kwanzaa!! Happy Yule!! Happy Solstice!! Happy Festivus!! haha
what a great country!
By Jay
December 26, 2005 02:09 AM | Link to this
Lucko, and now one from the dem’s Pinko
By Liberal Texas Democrat
December 26, 2005 06:17 AM | Link to this
Impeach Bush Now
By Andy
December 26, 2005 06:36 AM | Link to this
Chicago Tribune’s “Conservative” Steve Chapman Goes After Bush and Cheney on Iraq
Looks like we have another “TrueConservative.” With “Conservatives” like this, America doesn’t need enemies.
By Andy
December 26, 2005 06:39 AM | Link to this
Steve Chapman Of The Chicago Tribune Says Drug Czar “shows no capacity to learn from his mistakes.”
He’s a Libertarian too!
By Andy
December 26, 2005 07:11 AM | Link to this
Powell OK with NSA Eavesdropping
BBC-Colin Powell was regarded as a moderate voice on several issues, notably on Iraq.
But now he’s a wingnut. Welcome aboard, Colin.
By finch
December 26, 2005 07:39 AM | Link to this
Mr. Powell still has serious reservations about the tactics the Bush administration used to wiretap:
“My own judgment is that it didn’t seem to me, anyway, that it would have been that hard to go get the warrants. And even in the case of an emergency, you go and do it.”
And that, in a nutshell, may be Bush’s sin. He couldn’t be bothered to obtain warrants that were his for the asking.
What do we do with Presidents who ignore the law and the Constitution? Traditionally, we impeach them.
Thank you, Colin Powell for stating the obvious.
Happy New Year!
By Andy
December 26, 2005 07:59 AM | Link to this
Appearing on ABC’s “This Week” Powell said he sees “absolutely nothing wrong with the president authorizing these kinds of actions” to protect the nation.
Why most those on the left resort to distortion on all of their ideas?
By finch
December 26, 2005 08:59 AM | Link to this
That’s just the point. For the President to legally authorize these wiretaps, he would have needed either a court or a Congressional committee’s approval.
Why must those on the right resort to a distorton of all of their ideals?
Surely, if we can question a President who lies about oral entertainment, we can question a President who, apparently, so casually ignores the law and the Constitution.
Happy New Year.
By Andy
December 26, 2005 09:14 AM | Link to this
Hypothetical situation, if the left is going to hide behind ignorance then allow me to project: Let’s say the Feds were spying on some dude in the US who was talking to Zarqawi in Iraq. During this surveillance, he overheard rushncap doing the nasty with his friends dog Ingi. Since this Fed was also a member of PETA, he busts rushncap.
The pinko scenario, awash in paranoid ignorance: Dick Cheney, having scant time to deal with a punka-ss like rushncap, foregoes the torture and beheads him.
The Conservative scenario: The Judge says case dismissed, illegal search and seizure.
By Objective Observer
December 26, 2005 10:06 AM | Link to this
Real life situation: Hot summer, dead deer laying in elderly lady’s yard, bloated and smelly. She calls appropriate county department for removal. No can do, county regulations don’t allow employees on private property. Elderly lady contacts Commissioner’s Office to complain.
Enter me! I tell elderly lady to have neighborhood boy drag deer to right-of-way, 3 feet, I then contact appropriate department and tell them to pick up dead deer. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
Kinda like that? Sometimes, it is more efficient to ask for foregivness than to ask for permission. I know what’s coming!!!
By Beverly
December 26, 2005 10:07 AM | Link to this
Midori,
Jesus not only saves us, he changes us! When you have accepted Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, and SEEK the Kingdom and his Righteousness, your life changes, your thinking changes and your behavior changes. Not all believers in Christ SEEK his righteousness. Therefore, their behavior does not change. Obviously, John Gibson is SEEKING the Kingdom; therefore he is not the same person he was 15 years ago.
By Brian Curtis
December 26, 2005 10:09 AM | Link to this
It seems the modern take on “conservatism” is that the president should be above the law… as long as he’s a Republican president, of course.
After all, in a “time of war” we can’t be bothered with niceties like the Constitution, eh? King George will save us all, if we only quit questioning him and trying to get in his way as he does what’s necessary (defined as “whatever the hell he feels like, and how dare you un-American traitors question him”).
Meanwhile, the rest of us will be over here on the side of America. Feel free to join us when you get tired of licking Bush’s shoes.
By Objective Observer
December 26, 2005 10:28 AM | Link to this
Brian: I absolutely encourage citizens to question their government, it is not only a right but a responsibility that we do so. Many do so, and none of them have been jailed.
On a previous site, there was alot of conflict over how many Republicans vs. Democrats were guilty in the Abramoff scandal. Ricky asked why nobody was concerned that the pie chart was there due to the practice of lobbyists influence on our elected officials. No one responded. That type of failure to discern wrong-doing leaves me perplexed. It seems as though we exercise our right only along party lines.
By Andy
December 26, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this
Brian Curtis: Let’s just say your paranoid kook delusion was correct and Bush was trying to listen in on the phone conversations of 280,000,000 people (snicker.) So what’s his motivation for this massive undertaking? (Don’t lecture me on the workings of Echolon, it looks for terrorists, not pinkos.) What is he trying to gain in your looney little world?
By Objective Observer
December 26, 2005 11:55 AM | Link to this
Jesus: You have grounds for plagiarism against “Liberal Texas Democrat”.
By Dusty
December 26, 2005 12:22 PM | Link to this
For some reason, when I read the liberal leanings on this blog, I get the impression that the President of the United States should sit in his office all day and smile at his copy of the Constitution. Nothing more.
Meanwhile, terrorists in the United States should be able to communicate with each other about which city to attack next (like New York), which Marine barracks to blow up next (like the one in Lebanon) or which American to behead next (like Berg).
For some reason, that does not appeal to me. Let the president protect the citizens of this country. He is trying even as Liberals fight him. We are at war and should protect our country instead of playing partisan politics.
By finch
December 26, 2005 12:27 PM | Link to this
Andy…
“The Conservative scenario: The Judge says case dismissed, illegal search and seizure.”
Great. Who pays for the legal bills, time off from work, damaged personal, professional reputation, etc.. hmmmm? Woldn’t it have been better if, right at the start, a judge, when asked for approval, had said, “Drop this sucker, you idiot! Go back and protect us against REAL terrorism!”
Explaining BushCo’s embrace of widespread wiretaps? How to rationalize this “massive undertaking”? To borrow your words, he’s suffering from a “paranoid kook delusion”.
Happy Boxing Day!
By RW-(the original)
December 26, 2005 12:34 PM | Link to this
Dusty,
To be fair, moonbats like finch and Brian Curtis would be all for prosecution after the next attack. Although it’s up in the air whether they would want to prosecute the attackers or the President.
My guess is they would want to reconvene the Clinton Cover-up Commission to blame President Bush for not doing enough to prevent the attack.
By Objective Observer
December 26, 2005 12:43 PM | Link to this
R.W.: My apologies. Purely speculation, but surname passed on appears to be Finch, while given name may be Ira-nic. Similarities are too many to ignore. Sorry!
By Andy
December 26, 2005 12:49 PM | Link to this
wench: You fell into my trap quite nicely. The surveillance in my scenario was approved by the FISA court. They still heard rushncap because he enter the house through the doggie door and inadvertently became part of the operation. The courts would have protected his rights even though he was a pervert in need of punishment.
Care to answer my second question, since you seem to be the voice of the enemy this morning? What does Bush stand to gain by listening to the phone conversations of 280,000,000 people?
By blogger
December 26, 2005 12:59 PM | Link to this
Andy, what does Bush stand to gain by getting a Constitutional ban on gay marriage passed? Nothing, other than denying certain benefits to same-sex couples.
The answer to your question is pointless, because there are plenty of things from which he stands nothing to gain. Doesn’t make it right.
By Washington State
December 26, 2005 01:09 PM | Link to this
Who said “Give me liberty or give me death?” Seems from reading these threads that many on the right want to turn that around completely. They should move to Russia or China if they want a totalitarian government that has no respect for the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.
By blogger
December 26, 2005 01:11 PM | Link to this
Andy, are you a lawyer or judge? Do you know the legal standards regarding the scope of warrants and can you cite them? How do you know whether a court would have “protected his rights?” Please educate us if you are so qualified instead of making unsourced legal conclusions. I’m happy to accept your conclusions about your hypothetical situation if you would provide supporting legal evidence and citations to controlling caselaw and statutory authority.
By Dusty
December 26, 2005 01:28 PM | Link to this
Washington State, I have just as much right to say how I think this country should be protected as you do. If you don’t like it, too bad. If you want a Fundamentalist Islamic government take-over, why don’t YOU move to Iran? The president is trying to protect our country so we can REMAIN free.
By Andy
December 26, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this
blogger: rushncap doing the nasty with his friends dog Ingi would not fall under the FISA statutes or the President’s War Powers, granted by Congress, thus there would be no case for prosecution because it would be illegal search and seizure. That help?
It’s not Bush that stands to gain anything for denying same sex marriage, it is the future of America. If we encourage people to not make new taxpayers, we will wind up in the same boat as the French with their 1.2 replacement birth rate. It’s like demanding a tax rebate when you have paid no taxes. It’s a pinko thing.
Washington State: I know that no one said I will commit suicide to keep my civil liberties.
By Andy
December 26, 2005 01:39 PM | Link to this
The question still stands: What does Bush stand to gain from the massive undertaking of eavesdropping on 280,000,000 people?
By Midori
December 26, 2005 01:40 PM | Link to this
er, thanks Beverly.
I’ll try to remember that.
NOT.
I’ve found the most un-Christian like people are those who are always quoting the scriptures.
By Midori
December 26, 2005 01:42 PM | Link to this
The question still stands: What does Bush stand to gain from the massive undertaking of eavesdropping on 280,000,000 people?
um. Maybe that’s how he gets off?
By Andy
December 26, 2005 01:48 PM | Link to this
Midori: um. Maybe that’s how he gets off?- Are you speaking from experience with this?
By Dusty
December 26, 2005 02:09 PM | Link to this
RW,
I appoint you Sheriff of Lucko County. Anyone plagiarizing, lying, pasting, drinking & drugging & posting, calling names and burning neocons at the stake shoud be immediately excommunicated. No hangings. Bullet proof vest included. Congratulations!
By blogger
December 26, 2005 02:09 PM | Link to this
Andy, your true ignorance has been revealed if you think the tax code encourages people to become gay. Nothing you can say has any credibility. I guess that’s a Christian/Taliban Fundamentalist thing.
And you still haven’t addressed my questions regarding the Constitutional scope of search and seizure. But I guess since you’re pretty ignorant, you won’t bother to do the research regarding my question and continue with your ignorant beliefs regarding your hypothetical. Notice I didn’t say that it was wrong because I don’t know, but ignorant, because you’re not bothering to do any legal research regarding the scope of a legitimate search and seizure under the Constitution, and you’re not bothering to cite any authority which substantiates your position.
By blogger
December 26, 2005 02:11 PM | Link to this
I meant to say “tax code would encourage people to become gay…”
By blogger
December 26, 2005 02:16 PM | Link to this
The question still stands: What does Bush stand to gain from the massive undertaking of eavesdropping on 280,000,000 people?
the ability to do so would give him massive, unchecked power with no oversight from the judiciary. Or in other words, dictator-like powers, even if he did not choose to exercise them malevolently.
By RW-(the original)
December 26, 2005 02:17 PM | Link to this
Dusty,
If nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve. attributed to many, as well as myself with respect to your proposal.
By Washington State
December 26, 2005 02:17 PM | Link to this
It is astounding how many still see the war in Iraq as a war on terrorism. Wolfowitz is my favorite administration official. When asked why we were attacking Iraq instead of North Korea, he replied “Because North Korea is not sitting on a sea of oil.” I guess he was too honest for Bush’s taste. They have him shuffling papers over at the World Bank now. September 11 is being used as an excuse for everything from the total fiasco in New Orleans to unconstitutional eavesdropping. Congress has decided to take Bush on on this one. Noone, not even the president, is above the law.
By Andy
December 26, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this
blogger: Yeah, go ahead and completely change the subject, I won’t notice.
We were talking about gay marriage. I was answering your question- Andy, what does Bush stand to gain by getting a Constitutional ban on gay marriage passed?
The Constitution of the United States of America is written in plain English. I thought it was written so that even the most uneducated sap could understand it, you have proven me wrong on this point. Anyway, the fourth amendment makes it pretty clear that illegal search and seizure are just that; illegal. You have to have cause.
By Washington State
December 26, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this
Andy, The president has always had more access to information than he could process. Didn’t you read the report from the September 11th commission? We had all the information we needed to know that an attack on American using hijacked airlines was imminent. We even had reports of suspicious people training to fly those airlines. The problem was that Bush was so focused on Iraq that he ignored the warnings. It is not more information we need, it is more competent people to analyze and act on that information. There is no reason to go outside the law to gather even more information to analyze improperly.
By blogger
December 26, 2005 02:31 PM | Link to this
If we encourage people to not make new taxpayers, we will wind up in the same boat as the French with their 1.2 replacement birth rate.
You think that a Constitutional ban on gay marriage would somehow prevent this, or that the lack of such a ban would encourage gay couples. Pretty on topic, actually.
What if the police are pursuing a fleeing criminal suspect on foot who happens to run across Andy’s property and into his front door? While pursuing him into Andy’s home, they come across Andy’s child porn collection. Can they confiscate it and prosecute Andy for possessing child porn?
By RW-(the original)
December 26, 2005 02:33 PM | Link to this
Washington State,
Didn’t you read the report from the September 11th commission? We had all the information we needed to know that an attack on American using hijacked airlines was imminent.
Since that implies you have read the CCC report I’m sure you wouldn’t mind pointing out where that statement of yours is neatly wrapped up as a true conclusion. I linked the entire report at 12:34 for you, so this should be a simple project.
Thank you, in advance.
By Dusty
December 26, 2005 02:36 PM | Link to this
RW,
I am so disappointed. ‘Specially since I had the biggest, brightest brass badge ever sold at Big Lots —just for you.
Oh well, I like quotations too. “Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!” Who said that? John Paul Jones, Admiral Perry or George W. Bush?
By Andy
December 26, 2005 02:37 PM | Link to this
Washington State: Let’s all hope that you are never called upon to analyze information in our defense- The problem was that Bush was so focused on Iraq that he ignored the warnings- So Bush was focused on Iraq before 9/11?
This is all about 9/11. I, for one, would rather not see a repeat. I saw the civil liberties of those people violated as they were jumping hand and hand from the 80th floor. When everybody thinks like I do, instead of “uh, duh, impeach Shrub” then our lives as well as our liberties will be protected.
By Beverly
December 26, 2005 02:38 PM | Link to this
Midori -
That’s why its so important to for Christians to be “doers of the Word.” The World is watching us and the unbelievers are just waiting to point fingers and say “AHA!” Fact is, we are ALL sinners and fall short of the Glory of God. The reason Jesus died for us - so we can be forgiven for ALL our sins.
God bless you
By RW-(the original)
December 26, 2005 02:38 PM | Link to this
Objective Observer,
You did make a good observation, but I think you had the wrong victim.
By buff
December 26, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this
Dusty, Admiral Perry quote, wasn’t it?
By Washington State
December 26, 2005 02:47 PM | Link to this
Beverly, You truly live in a dream world. Do a search on The New American Century and see what the folks behind Bush were thinking before Bush was even elected. The Heritage Foundation is a prominent conservative think tank whose members include many of the present administration’s officials and advisors.
By Andy
December 26, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this
blogger: No, they would not. They could go to a judge and get a search warrant specific to the child porn as probable cause. The judge might reject it or he might not.
78% of Americans voted against gay marriage based on morality as well as tax consideration issues. Bush really has nothing to do with it. If you would seek professional help with the Bush paranoia, you would probably be able to see that on your own.
By RW-(the original)
December 26, 2005 02:53 PM | Link to this
In the Christmas spirit I would like to offer some help here, especially to “Washington State” and “blogger”.
You may not be as well protected as you think
By Washington State
December 26, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this
RW, That was a neat trick. I like the link too. How did you get that to come out in the subject line?
By Dusty
December 26, 2005 03:02 PM | Link to this
Buff,
come to think of it, I believe Ad. David Farragut said “Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead.”
But George W. Bush could say it. And we know who is sending the torpedoes against our ship of state this time. Reading these blogs gives us a clue.
By blogger
December 26, 2005 03:08 PM | Link to this
The President has nothing to do with it? Wow, you truly are ignorant. Take your head out of the sand, idiot.
Andy, look up the exceptions to the warrant requirement recognized by the Supreme Court. You may want to at least put your disgusting child porn collection in a closet or under a blanket. Otherwise, you may be going to prison for a long, long, time if that criminal suspect flees into your house. The hot pursuit exception and plain view doctrine may get your child porn-loving self into trouble. Again, if you’re a lawyer or a judge or have the requisite training to intelligently discuss this issue (which I doubt), please do. Otherwise, your opinions those of a layman and lack any more credibility than the next average Joe.
By blogger
December 26, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this
RW, if you support unchecked, dictator-like powers of this type granted to the President with no judicial oversight, then that is fine. Just call it what it is: unchecked, dictator-like powers
This is not calling the President a dictator, just the powers that he seeks to be dictator-like.
By Washington State
December 26, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this
RW, I think the most relevant part of the Commission Report you so kindly linked was this: “The missed opportunities to thwart the 9/11 plot were also symptoms of a broader inability to adapt the way government manages problems to the new challenges of the twenty-first century. Action officers should have been able to draw on all available knowledge about al Qaeda in the government. Management should have ensured that information was shared and duties were clearly assigned across agencies, and across the foreign-domestic divide.” In other words, the need wasn’t for more information, it was for a better way of handling the information we already had. Judging from the HSA response to Katrina, we haven’t made a lot of progress in that department. I think you are the one wearing the aluminum hat if you think that what Bush is doing is protecting us from terrorism. I can speak from first hand knowledge and tell you that federal funds to prepare for disasters of any kind have dried up the local level. Ports and nuclear plants are unprotected. Health Departments across the country have had funding slashed, leaving us even more vulnerable to terrorist attacks than we were before Bush took office.
By finch
December 26, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this
Uh oh. Call Dr. Bob.
F. O. B. (Friends of Bush) are planning an intervention. He’s slipped!
By RW-(the original)
December 26, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this
Washington State,
That’s a far cry from your categorical statement that President Bush knew that an attack by hijacked airliners on American soil was imminent.
As for your ridiculous assertion that President Bush has slashed funding, would you point me to the spending bill that the President has vetoed?
By RW-(the original)
December 26, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this
blogger,
Alaska was the 49th state.
By blogger
December 26, 2005 03:26 PM | Link to this
RW, I’m not sure about Washington State’s assertions, but each year the President submits a budget proposal to Congress, so he doesn’t have to veto a spending bill in order to slash federal funding of a state health department.
By blogger
December 26, 2005 03:29 PM | Link to this
RW, Thanks, it seems also that despite your best efforts, you’re completely unfunny. Wow, you have an amazing amalgamation of (non)skills.
By Washington State
December 26, 2005 03:31 PM | Link to this
RW, I am not going to get into an argument about what specifically George Bush knew or didn’t know. The point is that all the pieces were there to pick up and some FBI field agents were doing everything they could to get the attention of higher ups. As for vetoes, who needs them when you have congress and the senate in your pocket. I work closely with our local health department on first response issues and can tell you first hand that since Bush took office, funding has dried up. In the meantime, can you come off your high horse long enough to tell me how you got a link on the subject line of your posting?
By RW-(the original)
December 26, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this
Washington State,
I’m sorry I thought you were joking about that subject line thing, I’m not really sure what you mean. The hat link?
By Andy
December 26, 2005 03:35 PM | Link to this
blogger: So when did this pass into law?- President Calls for Constitutional Amendment Protecting Marriage- Boy, that old Bush sure had alot to do with that issue.
Look, if you want to perform oral sex on your boy friend go right ahead.
Any one can study case law, it’s public record. You might want to accept the offer. It would help ease your paranioa, at least until you got back to democratunderground.
By blogger
December 26, 2005 03:36 PM | Link to this
Washington State, right above the “comments” window it tells you how to post a link. Is that what you mean?
By Washington State
December 26, 2005 03:36 PM | Link to this
RW, Yes, the hat link. It actually came out as the last line of your subject in the latest posts part of the forum.
By AntiRadical
December 26, 2005 03:37 PM | Link to this
Bush Logic: If crime fighters fight crime and fire fighters fight fire; what do freedom fighters fight?
Well now that the President has gotten himself into hot water with civil liberties violations and increasing unrest regarding the Iraq “war”; he now makes the token decision that we can start pulling out troops (what very convenient timing). I knew all along that this “hero” would fold whenever the heat started. America shouldn’t start “wars” that it doesn’t have the stomach or means to properly finish; elsewise, we just continue to make ourselves look imperious, stupid, and cowardly.
By Washington State
December 26, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this
blogger, i was curious how he got the link to come out where it did rather than in the body of the post.
By Andy
December 26, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this
Anybody want to attempt a translation of this- unchecked, dictator-like powers- would this be like Saddam Hussein? No, hold up, the pinkos think he was harmless. How about Fidel Castro? No, they think he’s cool. I give up. What does this mean in kook?
By RW-(the original)
December 26, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this
Washington State,
Ok, that was just a coincidence. In that latest comment box it has your screen name below your comment and if the post length is short enough and the link is the last thing in the post, it will just look that way.
Sorry if that answer got in the way of “blogger’s” latest interruption.
By Andy
December 26, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this
Anti Radical: Maybe we won?
By AntiRadical
December 26, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this
“W” stands for “Wimp”.
By blogger
December 26, 2005 03:42 PM | Link to this
Andy, I never said it passed into law, but thanks for your non-response. I take it you’ve given up trying to make any sense.
Thanks also for your non-response on the warrant issue. You were the one who started making legal conclusions without any supporting evidence. I guess you really are too lazy or just intellectually unable to research an issue before posting your nonsense.
Thanks for the discussion, idiot.
By Washington State
December 26, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this
RW, It came out just right. It was actually a line below the opening two lines that are usually posted in the “latest posts” section, so I thought you had done it on purpose. Funny link. I am putting it in my favorites to see what else they come up with.
By blogger
December 26, 2005 03:46 PM | Link to this
Andy, I’ve never posted my opinion on Iraq or Sadaam Hussein, nor do I advocate that we live under a system of government and civil rights as they existed in Iraq. Good job changing the subject, you ignorant, child-porn-lover.
By RW-(the original)
December 26, 2005 03:47 PM | Link to this
Washington State,
The reason it looked like that is that I did put multiple spaces between the body of the post and the link which keeps it from compressing, but if the post was any longer the link wouldn’t have shown in the latest comment box.
By Dusty
December 26, 2005 03:56 PM | Link to this
Anti-Radical,
You are right about one thing. You make yourself look imperious, stupid and cowardly. Your statement”I knew all along that this ‘hero’ would fold whenever the heat started” is far from the truth and the facts. Do you ever read any news from Iraq or do you just dream them up? President Bush will be the last one to fold, even with ignorant ones like you trying to drag him and the country down. Give it a rest, HERO, and stop cringing.
By Andy
December 26, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this
This “blogger” has the debating skills of a small mentally impaired child. I should go easy on him.
O.K. blogger, I’ll play your little game. Since I’m not studied in the Fourth Amendment and therefore, by your rules, can’t talk about it, than you need to quit bringing up homosexual issues. Unless, of course, you are an expert in them.
Look, you little sissy, you called George Bush, and I quote you, unchecked, dictator-like powers. This taken at face value is bizarre. Have you heard of the 3 branches of government? Or do you allow facts to intrude on your paranoid little fantasy life?
If the Constitutional amendment against gay marriage is not a law, then why would you say that Bush has affected the issue. Is it because he bothers you? That’s good enough in kookville to lay the blame at his feet?
By blogger
December 26, 2005 04:05 PM | Link to this
Andy, nice try, but you’re still making no sense. I never called him anything, I just responded to your ignorant question of what he may have to gain. Unchecked, dictator-like powers is what he has to gain. Are you forgetting your own asinine statements posted above? I guess you’re an ignorant, child-porn-loving, senile, idiot.
By Andy
December 26, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this
Look, junior, what would Bush be if he wielded unchecked, dictator-like powers, an unchecked dictator, maybe? If I were you I would try to duck this statement too because it sounds like it would come from a goofy loser, someone who runs around with their panties all in a wad over nothing.
Does being afraid of Bush excite you little pinko perverts? Do you get your jollies thinking of him listening to your mealy mouthed putrid little phone conversations. Is this where your gay marriage kick is originating from?
By blogger
December 26, 2005 04:24 PM | Link to this
Andy, I’m not ducking anything. If Bush believes he is granted the power to infringe on the 4th Amendment rights of American citizens without judicial review, then that is an unchecked, dictator-like power. If the judiciary cannot rule on whether an abridgement of 4th Amendment rights is proper, then that is unchecked. Can you name another Constitutional right that the President can abridge without the citizen’s benefit of judicial review or point to the Constitutional language that affords him this power? I don’t think you could, because you’re an ignorant, child-porn-loving, senile, idiot.
By Andy
December 26, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this
blogger: What branch of government does the Attorney General belong to?
By blogger
December 26, 2005 04:32 PM | Link to this
Andy, why don’t you do some research for once if you don’t know?
By Andy
December 26, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this
The Judiciary. Bush had the Attorney General review his actions. Bill Clinton had Jamie Gorelick, his deputy Attorney General review his wiretapping surveillance. Why do you say that it hasn’t been reviewed for legality by the Judicial Branch if it has been? Are you just going with the impeach Bush line, like some silly sap?
By blogger
December 26, 2005 04:49 PM | Link to this
Andy, gee, I always thought that the Attorney General is a member of the President’s cabinet who serves at the pleasure of the President, and is a member of the Executive Branch of government? Did you just say that the Attorney General is a member of the Judicial Branch of government???????
By Andy
December 26, 2005 05:00 PM | Link to this
It figures, I’m dealing with a lightweight, a hysterical one at that.
The Attorney General compromises the Justice Department, specifically- the Attorney General was to be “learned in the law” with the duty “to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned, and to give his advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the President of the United States in other words a member of the Judiciary.
It should have been easy for you when I tipped Bill Clinton’s use of Jamie Gorelick to review the legality of his surveillance activities. You must not be capable of complex reasoning. Do you get all your ideas from Michael Moore? Why am I discussing this with you and not him? Wouldn’t it save time?
By Midori
December 26, 2005 05:05 PM | Link to this
http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/36872.html
By Janet Hook Los Angeles Times | December 26, 2005
WASHINGTON — For the White House and the Republican-controlled Congress, the tumult of 2005 has been an object lesson in the political risks of thinking big.
Bush began the year with grand ambitions to overhaul the sacrosanct Social Security program, rewrite the entire tax code, retain expanded law-enforcement powers to fight terrorism and bring stability to war-torn Iraq — and fell far short, dividing his own party and taking a beating in the polls.
Chastened by the experience and eager to play it safe in an election year, Republicans now are preparing for a new year of thinking small…
“This is an exhausted administration,â€? said Michael Tanner, an analyst with the libertarian Cato Institute who has worked with the White House to promote the failed Social Security plan. “It’s going to be very hard for this administration to come out with a big new initiative.â€?…
By blogger
December 26, 2005 05:10 PM | Link to this
Andy, I can’t believe how completely stupid you are. Take a few minutes to familiarize yourself with the organizational chart of our federal government. You’ll see that under “Executive Branch” is the “Department of Justice,” which the Attorney General heads. Also, if you would happen to read a little further into your own link you would see that the Department of Justice is “an executive department of the government of the United States” with the Attorney General as its head, or in other words, the Executive Branch. You’re a moron, Andy. You are utterly stupid, and a complete waste of time.
By Midori
December 26, 2005 05:11 PM | Link to this
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_di…
Bush Pressed Papers to Kill Scoops on Domestic Spying, Secret Prisons
NEW YORK President George W. Bush and senior administration officials have met with top editors of The New York Times and The Washington Post in recent months to try to dissuade the papers from publishing what the administration considers to be articles harmful to its persecution of the war on terror.
The administration’s efforts ultimately failed, although sensitive details likely were removed from the articles that eventually ran. The latest revelations show just how serious the Bush White House views the media’s reporting on its anti-terror tactics, and how it would prefer to conduct much of the war on terror in secret.
In his Media Notes column today, Washington Post media writer Howard Kurtz wrote that Washington Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr., met with White House officials on multiple occasions to discuss the paper’s Nov. 2 article by Dana Priest disclosing the existence of secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe where terrorism suspects are interrogated.
…
But Alter concluded that because the Bush administration could not point to any specific details in the Times story that would compromise national security, the real reason “Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important story” was “because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker.”
By Andy
December 26, 2005 05:11 PM | Link to this
Overheads take up to 1/3 of tsunami funds
NEW YORK, Dec. 23 (UPI) — Up to about a third of the $590 million U.N. fund spent for the Indian Ocean tsunami relief may have gone to pay for overhead.
The Financial Times says its two-month investigation showed the money appears to have been spent on administration, staff and related costs. The $590 million was part of the United Nation’s $1.1 billion disaster flash appeal.
The newspaper also found several U.N. agencies continue to refuse to disclose details of their relief expenditure in spite of earlier pledges of transparency by senior officials.
I’ll bet Koffi knows nothing about it…
By blogger
December 26, 2005 05:15 PM | Link to this
I’ll bet Andy knows nothing about basic elementary school civics.
By blogger
December 26, 2005 05:19 PM | Link to this
Andy, do you still think that the Attorney General is “in other words a member of the Judiciary?” Is this what you call “complex reasoning,” to completely change the structure of the federal government in that pea-brained head of yours?
By blogger
December 26, 2005 05:25 PM | Link to this
Andy, if the Attorney General is “in other words a member of the Judiciary,” does that make whoever holds that position judge, jury and executioner? Is the Attorney General also a member of the “executioner branch” of your fantasy version of government bouncing around in your empty head?
By Andy
December 26, 2005 05:27 PM | Link to this
The Attorney Generals job is judicial review with regards to legality. He is a full Constitutional Officer able to interpret the nation’s laws. I was wrong about that office being a part of the Judiciary but I am not wrong about the proper review of the wiretap surveillance.
I’m so proud of you blogger, you graduated from being a paranoid psychotic to an Andy error catcher, well no, you’re still a paranoid psychotic.
By blogger
December 26, 2005 05:39 PM | Link to this
Andy, your moronic posts reveal your fundamental misunderstandings of the way the law, our government and our Constitution work. Hell, a park ranger can interpret the nation’s laws and give his opinion to the President if he wants. He/she works for the President. You are completely wrong about the “proper review of wiretap surveillance.” You are wrong because you think the Attorney General’s opinion constitutes independent judicial review. You have no absolutely idea what you’re talking about.
Your opinions are worthless because you have no ability to think. You have no original ideas. Nice try, Andy, but you still haven’t found a clue to stick in that empty head of yours.
By blogger
December 26, 2005 05:43 PM | Link to this
switch “no” and “absolutely”
By RW-(the original)
December 26, 2005 05:46 PM | Link to this
Per “blogger’s” request:
Your opinions are worthless because you have absolutely ability to think. You have absolutely original ideas.
Glad to help.
By blogger
December 26, 2005 05:48 PM | Link to this
RW, good job distracting from the discussion. Do you also think the Attorney General is a member of the Judiciary? I’m guessing you probably do, considering your weak attemps at humor. Try again.
By blogger
December 26, 2005 05:56 PM | Link to this
Well, I’m heading down to the Thrashers game, otherwise, I’d love to see how Andy spins the revelation of his mental incompetence. But here it is if you need to catch up.
By RW-(the original)
December 26, 2005 06:05 PM | Link to this
blogger or pinko or whatever you change your name to when you return,
Try not to get hit by another puck, you’re barely coherent as it is.
By Andy
December 26, 2005 06:05 PM | Link to this
By Andy
December 26, 2005 06:10 PM | Link to this
Anybody else get the feeling that blogger will probably jack off tonight thinking of how he, with his shallow, empty existence, caught The Andy in a mistake? I’m sort of honored to give the little paranoid freak something to live for.
By Brian Curtis
December 26, 2005 06:24 PM | Link to this
Anyone who can’t believe how stupid Andy is hasn’t been reading his posts for long. He honestly think the President should be above the law if it will somehow “save America.”
And no, he doesn’t see the irony in that either. Ladies and gentlemen: the classic Bush voter! Turn off your brain, cower on command, and do whatever the nice government man tells you… as long as he’s a Republican, that is.
By Andy
December 26, 2005 06:36 PM | Link to this
Brian Curtis: Don’t let me upset your little pinko fantasy but I’m still waiting for you to tell me what Bush will gain from listening to the phone conversations of 280,000,000 people? Is this a hard question? Hasn’t Michael Moore posted any talking points yet?
Isn’t it funny how the typical pinko won’t answer because their brain is turned off and they cower on command because Bush is WATCHING them?
By RW-(the original)
December 26, 2005 07:22 PM | Link to this
Andy,
I bet you are shocked, shocked that “Brian Curtis” hasn’t responded.
Maybe it’s because the “documentarian” isn’t giving him much to work with.
From Michael Moore’s web site.
My highest honor both here in the States and in Europe now is meeting with the families of children murdered in George Bush’s War of Terror against the world. Mama Moonbat
and,
December 26th, 2005 UMass Punk Lied
Pretty harsh for Michael Moore to be calling out a lib for lying.
By Andy
December 26, 2005 07:41 PM | Link to this
RW: Brian Curtis might be waiting to see if the FBI comes and picks him up because of his last post. I figure he’ll give it 24 hours and then try another slightly more dangerous post. Or maybe Bush did come and get him…
By finch
December 26, 2005 09:06 PM | Link to this
What a hilarious afternoon I’ve missed!
Andy giving the Attorney General his “new assignment” in the Judiciary was certainly worth the wait. That’s not just a slip. That’s a fundamental misunderstanding of our government! How DID he ever pass high school civics??
And for all the usual suspects poking eachother in the ribs and joking about Bush “listening to the conversations of 280 million people”, you completely, totally miss the point.
Our dear Founding Fathers had a reason for protecting freedom of speech, communication and association. Cast a wide enough net and potentially you can trap everyone for something. What’s so difficult about the concept of searches conducted only with warrants obtained after presentation of probable cause?
The Bush administration could have conducted every single one of the wiretaps and email intercepts it wanted to, without raising anything more than a puff of minor distracting complaints, if it had just followed the law.
It didn’t.
Now, it’s not just Democrats demanding answers. It’s old fashioned conservatives who want to know why the Bush administration ignored two pillars of US government. The rule of law and the right to peaceably assemble and communicate.
This is going to be SO much more interesting than hounding a President about his sex life.
It could be even more interesting than investigating the persistent reports of a certain President’s chronic drinking problem.
Happy Boxing Day!
By RW-(the original)
December 26, 2005 09:16 PM | Link to this
finch,
Glad to see your side getting serious.
December 26, 2005 — THE Democrats are determined to win the war and will stop at nothing to vanquish the enemy.
oops, never mind.
FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley documented her fellow FBI agents’ frustration when they were unable to get a search warrant in August 2001 to examine the computer of Zacarias Moussaoui — the man who would have been the 20th hijacker had he not been taken into custody a month before the attack. The whole plot might have fallen apart had the FBI been able to gain access to the information on Moussaoui’s hard drive.
Wasn’t she Time magazine person of the year for pointing out how sometimes you couldn’t get a warrant?
We wouldn’t want to risk Moussaoui’s civil liberties.
By Andy
December 26, 2005 09:17 PM | Link to this
wench: What good are 3 branches of government when Al Qaeda nukes Washington, D.C.? Just a thought.
“The Department of Justice believes—and the case law supports—that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general,� Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick said in 1994 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. That same authority, she added, pertains to electronic surveillance such as wiretaps.
Let’s get Bubba while we’re on the witch hunt.
By RW-(the original)
December 26, 2005 09:39 PM | Link to this
The finch, Brian Curtis, blogger strategy:
1) Bar law enforcement at all levels from taking race, ethnicity, national origin and religion into account when assessing radical Islamic terror threats. (But continue to allow the use of those factors to ensure “diversity” in public-college admissions, contracting, and police- and fire-department hiring.)
2) Institute the “Eenie meenie miny moe” random-search program at all subways, railways and bus stations.
3) Open the borders, sabotage all immigration enforcement efforts and scream “Racist” at any law-abiding American who protests.
4) Sue. Sue. Sue.
5) Yell “Connect the dots!” — while rebuilding and strengthening the walls that prevent information-sharing between the CIA, State Department, Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security and other key government agencies.
6) Hang the white flag and declare victory.
7) Sit back and wait to blame the president for failing to take aggressive, preventative measures when the next terrorist attack hits.
Repeat.
Be still my heart
By Semper Fi
December 26, 2005 09:43 PM | Link to this
Right on RW. That pretty much nails them.
By RW-(the original)
December 26, 2005 09:50 PM | Link to this
Semper Fi,
I agree, but so there is no confusion the link takes you to the Michelle Malkin article where that is written.
We have a lesser class of moonbats here. Ours get hung up on a any hint of an attribution slight or somebody misplacing someone on an org chart even when it doesn’t change the substance of the argument.
By Semper Fi
December 26, 2005 10:00 PM | Link to this
RW, I know. When I saw Andy’s post, I knew what he was thinking and way. I am also sure he knows the org chart but quickly made his connection in error. Minor mistake, which he readily admitted. I knew they would be like dogs with a bone. What else do they have? They’ve lost the Congress, Senate, White House and soon the Supreme Court. Andy is probably glad to give them a bone.
By Washington State
December 26, 2005 11:07 PM | Link to this
It is interesting to see the workings of the conservative mind. Banning assault weapons is the beginning of a slippery slope that will lead to the loss of all weapons. Ignoring constitutional protections to make it more convenient to eavesdrop on suspected terrorists will not be a problem. Can someone explain the logic here? Even some formerly staunch supporters of the Republican party are having problems with this one.
By Dusty
December 26, 2005 11:15 PM | Link to this
When liberals get all excited, I can be sure they are off on the wrong track again. I’m not worried about Andy because he knows what is going on quite well. The president conferred with the Attorney General and top members of both parties in Congress. If he is lying, then the others are lying too. If eavesdropping on possible terrorists in this country is illegal during wartime, then we are in big trouble. Let us see how this works out before making accusations.
Then we have Finch trying to start up the old propaganda mill. Oh yes, crank up that rumor about the drunk president. That one is about as cute as Sheehan’s statements about the soldiers the president is killing in Iraq. And these jerks want to be called patriotic. That is the biggest fabrication of all.
By RW-(the original)
December 26, 2005 11:28 PM | Link to this
Washington State,
When John Kerry was arguing for the renewal of the “assault weapons” ban he used an example from the Presidential campaign. Like all John Kerry stories this may be complete bs, but the story he told was that of a drug bust that had happened in 2004.
His story was that the cops brought him in and showed him the drugs they found and the AK-47’s they confiscated. This was his reason that the ban needed to be extended.
Only in the mind of a liberal could proof that a law doesn’t work be evidence that it needs to be continued.
By Dusty
December 26, 2005 11:34 PM | Link to this
RW,
I understand that Washington state is very foggy. You have to make a few exceptions on that account.
By Danielle
December 26, 2005 11:54 PM | Link to this
A few months ago you asked the question WHY with the soilders names, well perhaps you should veiw my respone. Here it is It is all the solders names also. I believe many people were appalled at your WHY, And to let you know, I am still in High School, and I was appalled.
By RW-(the original)
December 27, 2005 12:11 AM | Link to this
Danielle,
Excellent!
By RW-(the original)
December 27, 2005 12:19 AM | Link to this
Dusty,
While Washington state is indeed foggy, the poster “Washington State” might be alright. He/She/Other usually only posts late at night and doesn’t interact, today h/s/o did an seems nice enough for a very misguided liberal.
By Andy
December 27, 2005 07:09 AM | Link to this
Danielle: If you consider selling copies of Freedom I want 2 of them, one for me and one for cartoon boy. Seriously, you should start a website with these for sale, if you can, word will spread and you could sell quite a few.
By Andy
December 27, 2005 07:16 AM | Link to this
So where’s the new cartoon at? You’re going to tell me that this cartoon boy spent the whole entire month of December ragging Christians as neanderthals and cave dwellers, but when Christmas arrives he’s the first one to haul a-ss away from work? Do these pinkos have any humility?
By getalife
December 27, 2005 07:29 AM | Link to this
Attention all bloggers, please read this disclaimer before starting to blog.
By Brian Curtis
December 27, 2005 07:32 AM | Link to this
I keep waiting for one of Andy’s hysterically-imagined “pinkos” to show up, but I doubt he’d recognize one anyway.
But hey—I’m sure it beats thinking, or Andy wouldn’t love chanting it so much.
By Andy
December 27, 2005 07:46 AM | Link to this
By Brian Curtis
December 27, 2005 07:32 AM | Link to this
I keep waiting for one of Andy’s hysterically-imagined “pinkos� to show up, but I doubt he’d recognize one anyway.
But hey—I’m sure it beats thinking, or Andy wouldn’t love chanting it so much.
Say what?
By getalife
December 27, 2005 07:53 AM | Link to this
So, conservatives are finally waking up. After Katrina, how can anyone trust the government to do the right thing? The freedom scribble should read civil war because after all the lives lost, liberties lost and money spent, we will get another Iran. Let freedom ring. Happy New Year! (Do conservatives want to change this too?)
By blogger
December 27, 2005 08:09 AM | Link to this
Want to see how idiotic Andy and his rantings are? He thinks the Attorney General is a judge. He claims he made a typo in one post, but then he continues with his nonsenical rant. I wonder if Bush thinks the same way and justifies his behavior thusly. I give our President the benefit of the doubt, but you’re a ignorant tool, Andy.
By blogger
December 27, 2005 08:19 AM | Link to this
RW also seems to agree with Andy’s nonsense. RW, can you tell us how many Senators represent each state in Congress? Maybe we should start with this easier question instead of discussing the role of the Attorney General.
By Andy
December 27, 2005 08:21 AM | Link to this
blogger: I give our President the benefit of the doubt When did this start?
By blogger
December 27, 2005 08:26 AM | Link to this
I give him the benefit of the doubt as it pertains to being an ignorant tool. Having trouble reading now, Andy?
By Andy
December 27, 2005 08:28 AM | Link to this
blogger: An ignorant tool of what?
By blogger
December 27, 2005 08:37 AM | Link to this
*By Andy
December 26, 2005 05:00 PM | Link to this
It figures, I’m dealing with a lightweight, a hysterical one at that.
The Attorney General compromises the Justice Department, specifically- the Attorney General was to be “learned in the law� with the duty “to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned, and to give his advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the President of the United States in other words a member of the Judiciary.
It should have been easy for you when I tipped Bill Clinton’s use of Jamie Gorelick to review the legality of his surveillance activities. You must not be capable of complex reasoning. Do you get all your ideas from Michael Moore? Why am I discussing this with you and not him? Wouldn’t it save time?*
Andy -> What an idiot.
By blogger
December 27, 2005 08:38 AM | Link to this
Andy, If I become more learned with the law, can I automatically become a federal judge, too? Can I skip the whole Senate confirmation process?
By Andy
December 27, 2005 08:39 AM | Link to this
Speaking of the Justice Department:
From a Nov. 4, 1998, Justice Department indictment charging Osama bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa:
4. Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq.
See, I gave Bubba Clinton the benefit of the doubt on this one.
By blogger
December 27, 2005 08:45 AM | Link to this
Andy, have you given up trying to post your original thoughts seeing as how completely nonsensical they are?
By Andy
December 27, 2005 08:46 AM | Link to this
While “blogger” parades around the room with the first trophy he’s apparently ever won in his whole entire empty pinko life, which has given him to change the subject when ever he gets in over his head, let’s take a close look at his knowledge of government:
By blogger
December 26, 2005 02:16 PM | Link to this
The question still stands: What does Bush stand to gain from the massive undertaking of eavesdropping on 280,000,000 people?
the ability to do so would give him massive, unchecked power with no oversight from the judiciary. Or in other words, dictator-like powers, even if he did not choose to exercise them malevolently.
So, Mr. Constitutional Genius, would you like to explain how this is even possible with our three separate branches of government?
By getalife
December 27, 2005 08:47 AM | Link to this
WTH This would be something Bubba Clinton would do. Is Bush trying to upset the wingnuts?
By RW-(the original)
December 27, 2005 08:47 AM | Link to this
blogger,
Ever since the passage of the 17th amendment you could make a case that no Senator represents the interests of a state.
By Andy
December 27, 2005 08:49 AM | Link to this
Oh, and by the way, since I haven’t gotten a rational answer yet, the question still stands. Let’s hear the kook paranoid theories:
What does Bush stand to gain from the massive undertaking of eavesdropping on 280,000,000 people?
By Andy
December 27, 2005 08:51 AM | Link to this
getalife: Bush is exercising some of his unchecked, dictator like powers whatever the hell they are.
By Andy
December 27, 2005 08:53 AM | Link to this
blogger: I’m not going to forget, what is Bush an “ignorant tool of?”
By getalife
December 27, 2005 08:53 AM | Link to this
Oh, oh /arm up waving. He could listen in on Anna’s conversations and hear she wants the President. Also, listen to his critics and get dirt on them and tell them to bring it on.
By Objective Observer
December 27, 2005 08:54 AM | Link to this
Getalife: Read your link. Ain’t it grand that they now have the right to protest without fear of retribution. I hope that they don’t blow the opportunity they’ve been given. That would be the greatest shame.
Late in the the article, the Iraqi News Sources are predicting that when all is said and done, balance of power will be accomplished. Can I be an optimist?
“Happy New Year” to “Promising & Successful New Year”?
By Andy
December 27, 2005 08:56 AM | Link to this
getalife: I agree that he could reasonably associate many democratic senators with Al Qaeda, considering how many times they have spoken for them, is this what you mean?
By RW-(the original)
December 27, 2005 08:56 AM | Link to this
horshak er.. getalife,
The Bush administration’s filings in the case are technical. Without getting into the details of the family squabble, Solicitor General Paul Clement said that the justices should protect federal court jurisdiction in disputes.
WTH indeed, I thought President Bush just wanted to use his unchecked dictatorial powers.
By blogger
December 27, 2005 08:59 AM | Link to this
Andy, since you clearly have no idea how out government works, you should really go take a high school civics class, as someone above mentioned. If the President can infringe your 4th Amendment rights without judicial review, then that is unchecked. Congress cannot avoid the 4th Amendment by simply passing a law; it requires a Constitutional Amendment. That’s why the law they did pass (FISA) has a warrant requirement and evidently complies with the 4th Amendment. What is the point of the judicial branch if citizens cannot appeal to this branch a perceived infringement of their Constitutional rights?
Now, some classic quote from our resident genius Andy is below.
*By Andy
December 26, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this
blogger: What branch of government does the Attorney General belong to?
By Andy
December 26, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this
The Judiciary. Bush had the Attorney General review his actions. Bill Clinton had Jamie Gorelick, his deputy Attorney General review his wiretapping surveillance. Why do you say that it hasn’t been reviewed for legality by the Judicial Branch if it has been? Are you just going with the impeach Bush line, like some silly sap? *
By getalife
December 27, 2005 09:02 AM | Link to this
Okay, I finally found a pro Bush cartoon Mike can do. Bush calling Clinton to tell Wild Bill what Anna said on her phone
By Andy
December 27, 2005 09:04 AM | Link to this
blogger: So we have a dictator in the Executive Branch now?
Bush followed precedent by having his Attorney General review for legality of his actions, just like Clinton did. I know you are a Constitutional Genius, why do I have to tell you this?
Again, Bush is an “ignorant tool of what?”
By blogger
December 27, 2005 09:08 AM | Link to this
Andy, learn to read, idiot.
*By blogger
December 27, 2005 08:26 AM | Link to this
I give him the benefit of the doubt as it pertains to being an ignorant tool. Having trouble reading now, Andy?*
You are an ignorant tool. I never called the President an ignorant tool. I said I give him the benefit of the doubt. An alternate definition of “tool” is someone who is being manipulated without their knowledge, or someone who is naive and ignorant, in other words, you.
By RW-(the original)
December 27, 2005 09:10 AM | Link to this
blogger,
Now, some classic quote from our resident genius Andy is below.
Did you happen to go to school in Searchlight?
‘We Didn’t Have English Class’
Fourth item, but good reading along the way.
By Andy
December 27, 2005 09:11 AM | Link to this
blogger, if you need me to cut you some slack, let me know. I don’t want to totally embarras you, I enjoy making a fool of you:
By blogger
December 27, 2005 08:26 AM | Link to this
I give him the benefit of the doubt as it pertains to being an ignorant tool. Having trouble reading now, Andy?
By snippy
December 27, 2005 09:11 AM | Link to this
This thread frightens me, and I truely am an objective observer as I’m not American and generally despise the political process in general. A few observations however:
Andy - you’re an idiot.
Danielle - sweetie, one day when you grow up, you will realize that this war had nothing to do with freedom and democracy!
I hope you all had a Merry Christmas!
By blogger
December 27, 2005 09:11 AM | Link to this
Andy, you have no idea what you’re talking about, idiot.
*By Andy
December 26, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this
blogger: What branch of government does the Attorney General belong to?
By Andy
December 26, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this
The Judiciary.*
By blogger
December 27, 2005 09:14 AM | Link to this
Andy, can you cite a Supreme Court case or a federal court case, or binding precedent that Bush followed?
By blogger
December 27, 2005 09:17 AM | Link to this
RW, you’re grasping at straws. At least my “typos” don’t upend the structure of our federal government like your best friend Andy’s do.
By finch
December 27, 2005 09:17 AM | Link to this
RW, Michelle Malkin is such a hysterical windbag. You mind-melding with her is like me mind-melding with Michael Moore or Cindy Sheehan. Which aint gonna happen, because they’re windbags too.
Examples: I support profiling. No problem. I oppose quotas. No problem.
Bush wants to open the borders, not me. His proposed “guest worker” program proves that. Want to halt illegals? Try jailing the employers who hire them. Nah, too many Republicans.
BushBots gleefully trash the 9/11 Commission, which Bush opposed from the start, which strongly reccommended shared intellegence among FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. I detect an inconsistency here.
And it’s so sad to see so-called “conservatives” abandon principles like personal rights and the rule of law. It was bad enough when they threw their abhorrence of budget deficits, big government and nation building out the window.
“The president has no right to ignore the rule of law as if it were a mere nuisance.”
And Andy, I guess blogger is gloating. But who can blame him? Your outrageously funny transfer of the Justice Department from the Executive Branch to the Judiciary was by itself priceless. Your defense of it is beyond the pale! To quote J. Danforth, “A mind is a terrible thing to have, or not to have a mind, how true that is… “
Happy New Year!
By M.S.
December 27, 2005 09:18 AM | Link to this
What is it with you people? These folks being spied on were calling phone numbers LINKED TO AL QAEDA! Does anyone realy give a rip if the people trying to protect us got permission from the courts(and we know they always make great decisions)to do thier damn job? I know our rights have to be protected but could we draw the line somewhere else? How about some outrage for the fact that these people are ploting to kill as many people as possible,not that every i wasn’t dotted in the attempt to catch them.
By Andy
December 27, 2005 09:19 AM | Link to this
blogger: The precedent was based on the actions of the previous Administration coupled with the fact that they didn’t have a bunch of paranoid little pervert pinkos threatening them, Clinton, with impeachment for it. Why are you worried about it now but not then? Or is this even about civil liberties?
Ignorant tool of what?
By Andy
December 27, 2005 09:24 AM | Link to this
Look at these pinkos: They can say the most silly ridiculous paranoid pervert things and when somebody calls them on it they just change the subject or totally ignore you. At least when I made a distracted mistake, I’ll admit that bloggers infantile posts were boring me and was hardly paying attention to his childish a-ss, I’m man enough to admit it. These little paranoid pervert pinkos just go right on being immature like no one even heard them. Hypocrisy, anyone?
By AntiRadical
December 27, 2005 09:26 AM | Link to this
MS: Don’t know about anybody else but I would definitely trust Al-Qaeda (crazy but honest) before I would an American court of “justice”.
By Andy
December 27, 2005 09:27 AM | Link to this
wench: These chances to gloat don’t come very often, in fact this is the first one, so enjoy it while you can.
Since you are speaking up for the perverts, why didn’t wiretapping matter when Clinton was doing it but it does when Bush is?
By blogger
December 27, 2005 09:27 AM | Link to this
Andy, An alternate definition of “tool� is someone who is being manipulated without their knowledge, or someone who is naive and ignorant, or in other words, you.
By getalife
December 27, 2005 09:28 AM | Link to this
Well, at least there is hope for next year.
By Andy
December 27, 2005 09:30 AM | Link to this
O.K. blogger, that’s great. At least we have started down the road to your recovery. Ignorant tool of what? Somebody, or thing, has to use that tool. What were you talking about? Do you even remember 8:30 this morning or is that just gone into thin air?
By Dusty
December 27, 2005 09:32 AM | Link to this
blogger,
you don’t have to keep repeating posts over and over. We can read, thank you. We get the point. Your vanity is unsurpassed. Are you naturally obnoxious or did you learn that in civics class?
By blogger
December 27, 2005 09:33 AM | Link to this
Andy, your mistake wasn’t a “distracted” one. The scary part is that it was an attempted well thought out argument that happened to be completely wrong, which seems to be your modus operandi. You thought that you were going to somehow trap me with your nonexistent wit. You call the following “distracted?” Look at how much you wrote on your “distracted mistake.”
By Andy
December 26, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this
blogger: What branch of government does the Attorney General belong to?
By Andy
December 26, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this
The Judiciary. Bush had the Attorney General review his actions. Bill Clinton had Jamie Gorelick, his deputy Attorney General review his wiretapping surveillance. Why do you say that it hasn’t been reviewed for legality by the Judicial Branch if it has been? Are you just going with the impeach Bush line, like some silly sap?
By Andy
December 26, 2005 05:00 PM | Link to this
It figures, I’m dealing with a lightweight, a hysterical one at that.
The Attorney General compromises the Justice Department, specifically- the Attorney General was to be “learned in the law� with the duty “to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned, and to give his advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the President of the United States in other words a member of the Judiciary.
It should have been easy for you when I tipped Bill Clinton’s use of Jamie Gorelick to review the legality of his surveillance activities. You must not be capable of complex reasoning. Do you get all your ideas from Michael Moore? Why am I discussing this with you and not him? Wouldn’t it save time?
By AntiRadical
December 27, 2005 09:33 AM | Link to this
Andy: Surrepititious wiretapping did matter then. Clinton was either more devious (my thought) or smarter than Bush and didn’t get caught that time. Two peas in a pod.
By RW-(the original)
December 27, 2005 09:36 AM | Link to this
finch,
If you ever get around to making that list of people whose lives were destroyed by Joe McCarthy, maybe you can work on a list of approved authors
Why do “free speech loving” moonbats always want to shut down opposing views? Could it be the weakness of their own positions?
By Andy
December 27, 2005 09:36 AM | Link to this
Anybody want to translate this for me?
The scary part is that it was an attempted well thought out argument that happened to be completely wrong, which seems to be your modus operandi
I’m man enough to correct my mistakes but unfortunately I have no idea what this paranoid putrid little pervert, that won’t own up to his own, is trying to say.
By getalife
December 27, 2005 09:38 AM | Link to this
Bill Clinton was getting pointers from the other Bill.
By RW-(the original)
December 27, 2005 09:40 AM | Link to this
Andy,
I think “blogger” is trying to say she’s the smartest girl in the bordello.
By blogger
December 27, 2005 09:43 AM | Link to this
RW, no just that Andy is the dumbest.
By Dusty
December 27, 2005 09:46 AM | Link to this
AntiRadical,
Al-Qaeda has a few job openings for suicide bombers. Wouldn’t you like to go over and help them mete out their liberty and justice for all?
By Andy
December 27, 2005 09:50 AM | Link to this
Look blogger, I have to step out for the next several hours, this should give you time enough to pull together an argument for all of the goofy paranoid accusations that you have been making. Go to Michael Moore’s website, maybe inquire of Cindy Sheehan, you know, use the vast intellectual database of pinko knowledge. It’s far better for the debate to make crazy a-ss accusations then it is to make one silly distracted mistake.
By M.S.
December 27, 2005 09:53 AM | Link to this
antiradical your phone is likly tapped,Andy damn right!
By blogger
December 27, 2005 09:54 AM | Link to this
I don’t have to make any accusations. I can just post your own idiotic words:
By Andy
December 26, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this
blogger: What branch of government does the Attorney General belong to?
By Andy
December 26, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this
The Judiciary. Bush had the Attorney General review his actions. Bill Clinton had Jamie Gorelick, his deputy Attorney General review his wiretapping surveillance. Why do you say that it hasn’t been reviewed for legality by the Judicial Branch if it has been? Are you just going with the impeach Bush line, like some silly sap?
By Andy
December 26, 2005 05:00 PM | Link to this
It figures, I’m dealing with a lightweight, a hysterical one at that.
The Attorney General compromises the Justice Department, specifically- the Attorney General was to be “learned in the law� with the duty “to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned, and to give his advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the President of the United States in other words a member of the Judiciary.
It should have been easy for you when I tipped Bill Clinton’s use of Jamie Gorelick to review the legality of his surveillance activities. You must not be capable of complex reasoning. Do you get all your ideas from Michael Moore? Why am I discussing this with you and not him? Wouldn’t it save time?
By getalife
December 27, 2005 10:14 AM | Link to this
Like Marshall, President Bush was a Texas oil man. Both attended Yale. Both held government positions in Washington.
By Objective Observer
December 27, 2005 10:36 AM | Link to this
Getalife: Are you linking to that topic for the text or the pictures? It has been noted that you do have a thing for blondes with large assets. Visually transfixed on Pamela Anderson if I recall. I remember that picture as being “very revealing” on the right side. I can see you now, going back for a closer look!
By getalife
December 27, 2005 10:41 AM | Link to this
OO, guilty as charged. I find it highly unusual to back a gold digging, ex stripper to the Supreme Court. This has to upset some wingnuts, but I do not see any problem with it.
By Objective Observer
December 27, 2005 10:56 AM | Link to this
Getalife: You’re a funny guy. We actually have alot in common. There is no wiggle-room for me when it comes to national security, but I’m open on some social issues. I am disheartened by the unintended consequences resulting from otherwise good intentions. The consequences can only be attributed to the flaws in mankind. What to do? What to do?
By getalife
December 27, 2005 11:04 AM | Link to this
OO, Yes, we are only human and have many flaws. The only thing we can do is voice our opinion and vote for the right person for the job. Right now, I am leaning towards John McCain because I think he is willing to do the right thing.
By Dusty
December 27, 2005 11:23 AM | Link to this
Getalife, sorry but finch already has dibs on John McCain. Remember? They lived next doot to each other in Washington and finch has been famous ever since. Maybe he’ll run for vice-president. But you know more about vice than he does.
Must be time for “blogger” to repeat Andy’s words again. Never saw anybody so appreciative of Andy’s posts.
By Objective Observer
December 27, 2005 11:30 AM | Link to this
Getalife: If you haven’t already read “Napkin Notes: On The Art of Living” by Gary Michael Durst, Ph.D., it is worth your time. Very funny and enlightening view into mankind and his existence in the grand scheme…..
By getalife
December 27, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this
Thats right, finch did mention that a few times. I thought finch was a democrat but if McCain is the right person for the job, parties should not matter. Thanks OO, I will.
By finch
December 27, 2005 11:55 AM | Link to this
RW, McCarthy destroyed lives. Families, careers, reputations. Lives. You’ve seen the lists here. Either show me how the lives of people on said lists weren’t trashed in the least, or give it up. The ball is in your court.
I’m not going to bother clicking on any more Malkin links. She’s a one trick pony. Kind of like Michael Moore.
Dusty, McCain was my neighbor, but I just drop that to get a laugh. Heck, Ann Coulter was my Cornell classmate and that’s downright hysterical! Oh, the stories…
I’m partial to Virginia Democratic Governor Mark Warner, myself. He used to be my governor when I was McCain’s neighbor, but I never met him. Darn. Lost bragging rights.
Happy New Year!
By getalife
December 27, 2005 11:57 AM | Link to this
Yes, Ann Coulter stories please.
By finch
December 27, 2005 12:00 PM | Link to this
Andy, I’ve never said that wiretapping didn’t matter when Clinton was doing it.
I’m amused that by your logic. Since Clinton was doing something illegal, it’s okay for Bush to do the same illegal thing.
“But Billy did it toooooo!!” That’s so 3rd grade.
Happy New Year.
By RW-(the original)
December 27, 2005 12:10 PM | Link to this
finch,
The lists you refer to don’t list a single person affected by McCarthy. He may well have destroyed lives, he certainly destroyed his own in the bottom of a bottle.
I’m surprised that you can’t name even one, though. Is that what we should use as a guideline for the veracity of your arguments?
By gadem
December 27, 2005 12:20 PM | Link to this
RW, I have read the list the finch has supplied to you, why must you try to change the rules in the middle of the game.
By Andy
December 27, 2005 12:25 PM | Link to this
Dusty: I know, isn’t it funny. It tells you how shallow and bizarre the argument of the pinkos is when they have to make me the issue. I am the center of their lives; they hang on every word I say. If I were to mistakenly say that Iraq was a province of Canada we would never hear another peep from them about WMD. From this day forward it would be- ANDY LIED! CHILDREN DIED! I’m humbled by the honor, knowing that I have so many pinkos waiting for me to speak.
By Paula Thompson
December 27, 2005 12:26 PM | Link to this
Thanks for the terrific “monkey’s uncle” cartoon—it’s on my biology classroom bulletin board now.
By RW-(the original)
December 27, 2005 12:26 PM | Link to this
gadem,
Please refer me to it as finch has steadfastly refused to supply any list.
If you were even the least bit honest and had followed this debate you would clearly see that I am not the one changing the rules.
By Andy
December 27, 2005 12:34 PM | Link to this
wench: So we should ignore the Supreme Court precedence and strike down Roe V. Wade? Hey, this has to be another first, you and I agreeing.
By gadem
December 27, 2005 12:42 PM | Link to this
RW he supplied two list that I know of, and the first list you said was inadequate because you said this was done after McCarthy. The next list supplied by finch was again labled as inadequate by you….I have followed this back and forth between finch and yourself. Being honest, I will admit that finch has done his job in refuting your argument that McCarthy did not harm or slander anyone. Your argument is not without a foundation RW.
By TrueConservative
December 27, 2005 12:43 PM | Link to this
There are 2 political parties in this country- the winners and the losers. The winners are divided into democrats and republicans, and the losers are the people.
I read most of what goes on in here and I must say that people on the left of the fence seem to undrestand this more than the people on the right. The right is staunchly pro-Republican and any argument against the GOP is viewed as pro-Democrat. The views represented by the left in this blog are rarely pro-Democrat but rather anti-Republican. It is as they say- the enemy of my enemy is my friend… for now. Do you really think half of the voting public voted for John Kerry? or was it because most of the left would rather have Nixon than Bush? Most Americans have never voted FOR anyone… they have always voted against. I’d love to vote FOR someone-wouldnt that be great!
By RW-(the original)
December 27, 2005 12:48 PM | Link to this
Andy,
Don’t you know the Constitution is a living, breathing document? I’ve found the moonbat defense of the 4th amendment hilarious over the last few days.
By Dusty
December 27, 2005 12:55 PM | Link to this
finch
You are partial to John Warner? Is there any other Democrat left of any kind who might deserve your partiality? Kerry—ahhee! Edwards—ambulance chaser. Pelosi, Boxer, Shumer,Reid—total losers. Hillary—better than Monica. Durban—fortune teller. The list gets pretty slim. You might have to vote for a Republican.
By RW-(the original)
December 27, 2005 12:57 PM | Link to this
gadem,
Let me make this easy for you. Ira supplied a list of people that appeared before the House Committee on Un-American activities.
I think my justification in pointing out that this was not McCarthy is well founded. (Hint-the House and Senate are separate chambers)
Then Ira came back with a list of Hollywood celebrities that claim they were victims of McCarthyism.
They never appeared before McCarthy either, so that doesn’t satisfy the claim made by “finch” that he knew of many people that had been personally destroyed by Joesph McCarthy.
I have never made the claim that McCarthy didn’t harm or slander anyone. I won’t even make the claim that he didn’t destroy anyone.
Would you like to continue or would you like to back out of this debate quietly?
By getalife
December 27, 2005 01:08 PM | Link to this
If Ann likes him, he has to be okay.
By gadem
December 27, 2005 01:18 PM | Link to this
Uh no…I am just stating what I have seen. You start with an argument by drawing a line in the sand, and then you erase the line and move it back further. In most cases discussing with you is a no win situation. Although you are more cordial than Andy, you both are in the same boat of hardly ever admitting faults when you are wrong.
By Al Davis
December 27, 2005 01:24 PM | Link to this
Several of you here…and you know who you are, are so easily duped into giving up your civil liberties and blindly believing in a president who would take every freedom that you possess, that you would make damn good Cubans. You are like sheep being led to slaughter.
By Washington State
December 27, 2005 01:25 PM | Link to this
RW, Back to my posting on banning assault rifles. You are taking things off on a tangent. The issue is not whether the idea of banning assault weapons is a good one or not, but why the slippery slope argument the conservatives use for so many issues shouldn’t apply to the erosion of constitutionally guaranteed rights we have seen since September 11th. Does that make more sense to you?
By RW-(the original)
December 27, 2005 01:29 PM | Link to this
gadem,
Actually what you are stating is what you think about what you have seen.
I am recapping what is actually written. This is where it begins, you will be hard pressed to find me changing the parameters of my request or making any of the arguments that you ascribe to me
By RW-(the original)
December 27, 2005 01:42 PM | Link to this
Washington State,
And to think I said such nice things about you here last night.
I am not convinced anyone has lost any constitutionally guaranteed rights, so it’s hard to see a “slippery slope” argument. I never heard anyone use the “slippery slope” argument with respect to assault rifles so I don’t see any correlation between the two.
By Dusty
December 27, 2005 01:48 PM | Link to this
Yes, Al Davis, Conservatives are a bit strange. For some reason Conservatives don’t like terrorists running around America talking to each other about which city to bomb, which plane to blast, and how to demolish Washington. I know. You don’t care. Just us “sheep” care.
Oh, Al, that Cuba thing is pretty stale. How about a little originality? Maybe Venezuela or Bolivia for a change.
By getalife
December 27, 2005 02:00 PM | Link to this
This is the new Dem talking point: “You are just saying that so your communication will not be tapped.” BTW, bypassing government to get cheaper energy prices from Venezuela seems to be the new trend on getting something done. I want Cuban cigars, so I will have to set up a deal with Castro.
By getalife
December 27, 2005 02:05 PM | Link to this
Dear Fidel, Since your buddy in Venezuela is selling us gas, how about selling us some of your fine cigars.
Sincerly,
getalife
By Washington State
December 27, 2005 02:15 PM | Link to this
RW That has been the main argument against any attempt to limit arms sales from the right for the last decade. I find it hard to believe you haven’t heard it. As to the loss of constitutional rights, I think you will live to eat those words when congress reconvenes. Seems this is becoming a bipartisan issue. One of the few in Washington these days.
By RW-(the original)
December 27, 2005 02:18 PM | Link to this
getalife,
Here you go
By RW-(the original)
December 27, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this
Washington State,
I can’t listen to 280,000,000 people at once. Who do you think I am, the President?
As for Congress passing a law that says I have to eat my words, that sounds like one of those slippery slope deals.
By getalife
December 27, 2005 02:24 PM | Link to this
Dear getalife,
Go to Toronto instead of Belize you Bush loving American.
Sincerly,
Fidel
By getalife
December 27, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this
Well, I tried. Lets invade and get my cigars! You hear that Bush!
By RW-(the original)
December 27, 2005 02:31 PM | Link to this
getalife,
When you get to Vegas you can go to the Montecito and look up Ed Deline, I think he wound up with a box of Cubans.
You might want to take in the sites
By Washington State
December 27, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this
RW, The laws are already there. Congress is just getting set to call Bush out on his interpretation of them.
By getalife
December 27, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this
RW, Good show, they had an ad in the Vegas paper advertising for extras for the new Rocky movie. I will be the guy in the getalife t-shirt.
By RW-(the original)
December 27, 2005 02:36 PM | Link to this
Washington State,
OK, can we at least wait for that instead of just declaring you right?
By Objective Observer
December 27, 2005 02:36 PM | Link to this
Speaking of The Carribean…how many of you have seen the rum commercials where the cyclist gets stuck behind the only bus on the island and declares “gridlock”. Simple pleasures for simple minds. I’ll take them where I can find them.
By RW-(the original)
December 27, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this
getalife,
Maybe you can parlay your Rocky extra fame and host the Academy Awards next year, since everybody has turned them down so far.
By getalife
December 27, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this
OO just gave me an idea for a t-shirt : Simple pleasures for simple minds. I’ll take them where I can find them
Maybe, Robin Williams will do the oscars.
By Midori
December 27, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this
One wonders if Osama bin Laden didn’t win after all. He ruined the America that existed on 9/11. But he had help.
If, back in 2001, anyone had told me that four years after bin Laden’s attack our president would admit that he broke U.S. law against domestic spying and ignored the Constitution — and then expect the American people to congratulate him for it — I would have presumed the girders of our very Republic had crumbled.
Had anyone said our president would invade a country and kill 30,000 of its people claiming a threat that never, in fact, existed, then admit he would have invaded even if he had known there was no threat — and expect America to be pleased by this — I would have thought our nation’s sensibilities and honor had been eviscerated.
If I had been informed that our nation’s leaders would embrace torture as a legitimate tool of warfare, hold prisoners for years without charges and operate secret prisons overseas — and call such procedures necessary for the nation’s security — I would have laughed at the folly of protecting human rights by destroying them.
If someone had predicted the president’s staff would out a CIA agent as revenge against a critic, defy a law against domestic propaganda by bankrolling supposedly independent journalists and commentators, and ridicule a 37-year Marie Corps veteran for questioning U.S. military policy — and that the populace would be more interested in whether Angelina is about to make Brad a daddy — I would have called the prediction an absurd fantasy.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/columnists/13…
By RW-(the original)
December 27, 2005 02:48 PM | Link to this
Objective Observer,
CARIBBEAN GRID LOCK
House specialty glass, chilled
Pour ingredients into blender canister
3/4 oz. Appleton V/X Jamaican Rum
3/4 oz. Bacardi Light Rum
3/4 oz. Mount Gay Eclipse Rum
3/4 oz. Rose’s Lime Juice
2 oz. sweet ‘n’ sour
2 oz. orange juice
Blend ingredients with ice
Float 3/4 oz. Gosling’s Black Seal Rum
Orange, lime and lemon wheel garnish
And others
By Dusty
December 27, 2005 02:48 PM | Link to this
getalife, sorry your cigar plan didn’t work out. Amnesty International should know about the torture of cigar deprivation. I’ll be glad to send you a ham sandwich (we ate all the turkey) if that would help. Down with Fidel and other infidels!
By Dusty
December 27, 2005 02:53 PM | Link to this
RW
The truth will out. You were a bartender in a previous life.
By getalife
December 27, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this
Dusty, No more ham and no more rum. BTW, there is a new thread, ml is doing an interview on NPR.
By RW-(the original)
December 27, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this
Dusty,
At the risk of sounding like “finch”, I do know a little about bartending form personal experience.
You see there was this little neighborhood bar right next to John McCain’s condo…..
By getalife
December 27, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this
RW, Mike posted another thread and I will let you tell him ,in your oh so gentle way, that Midori already posted the story.
By RW-(the original)
December 27, 2005 03:22 PM | Link to this
getalife,
Done.
By Objective Observer
December 27, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this
Sounds like that Carribean “Grid Lock” would result in simple pleasures which I might not be able to recall the next day.
By gadem
December 27, 2005 03:24 PM | Link to this
Get, that is a good story that Midori linked. Who would have thought that so many would be willing to condemn those that question those that have been elected…I for one refuse to be a sheep, or to be manipulated.
By getalife
December 27, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this
RW, Andy will be proud.
OO, When is Chritmas?
gadem,
Angelina is about to make Brad a daddy.I for one refuse to be a sheep, or to be manipulated. Me too.
By RW-(the original)
December 27, 2005 03:32 PM | Link to this
gadem,
It’s a completely true and unbiased story too, isn’t it?
If you answer yes I will assume you’ve been into the Caribbean Grid Locks.
Objective Observer,
When I was spacing that recipe out I had to keep double checking it. Rum;Rum;Rum;other stuff;Rum. I bet BigDaddy has already fixed one.
By gadem
December 27, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this
RW…True yes, just look around at how things are. Unbiased…I have my doubts, but if you read that and say that things are not that way….give me some of what you are smoking.
By RW-(the original)
December 27, 2005 03:42 PM | Link to this
gadem,
I just saw a clip of some people in Columbia burning 7 tons of chronic, open your South facing windows.
By articles
December 28, 2005 05:09 AM | Link to this
ML,
keep up the article posts, they are a great addition to the site!
By god
December 28, 2005 06:01 AM | Link to this
Andy,
No, actually, you’re America’s greatest enemy. And you’re an idiot.
Love, God