Speaking to press on Air Force Two yesterday, Vice President Cheney lashed out at critics of the administration’s warrantless domestic spying program. His message was simple: people who don’t support our policies don’t believe terrorism is a threat.
There’s a temptation for people to sit around and say, well, gee, that [9/11] was just a one-off affair, they didn’t really mean it.
Now we’ve gotten to the point where four years beyond the attack, people are saying, well, gee, maybe there’s not a threat here after all.
Either we’re serious about fighting the war on terror or we’re not. Either we believe that there are individuals out there doing everything they can to try to launch more attacks, to try to get ever deadlier weapons to use against, or we don’t.
Here’s the problem. No one in the Bush administration can explain how this program helped America fight terrorists. Under existing law, surveillance can begin immediately. (The government just has to obtain a warrant from the FISA court with 72 hours). The secret program didn’t save time — it just avoided checks on abuse. Cheney’s cartoonish characterization of his critics arguments doesn’t change that.
Our laws gave the Bush administration the power to instantly start surveillance on people suspected of communicating with terrorists. If something in the law prevents us from addressing the threat we should change the law. But everyone, including the President and the Vice President, should follow the law.
Same false choices from Bushco. Remember “Either your with us, or your with the terrorists”, etc, etc.
How about “Either you believe Bush has committed an impeachable offense or you’re happy with the destruction of America.”
December 21st, 2005 at 10:39 amAND YOU ARE A DICTATOR, no we WON’T give you a blank check to rule this country, no go play with your monkey.
December 21st, 2005 at 10:40 amAnd why does Cheney insist that terrorists are trying “to get ever deadlier weapons” when we were attacked with civillian aircraft?
And ALL of the explosions ignited by terrorists in the last oh, I don’t know, 10 years maybe, are makeshift bombs loaded with nails and glass and such (not counting the massive explosions in Bali and other locations which were basically giant explosions of fire).
December 21st, 2005 at 10:40 amIt is all such stupid sloganeering from the Cheney
December 21st, 2005 at 10:41 amadministration.
Sad that it often works.
Perfect.Beautiful post . Mr. Cheney should use all of the judiciary he can get his hands on to prove his case. They thouroughly beleive the Supreme Court had the power to hand them their positions in 2000, how can they argue against having them decide now? This the party that screamed during WJC’s reign “we don’t need more laws, we need the one’s on the books enforced. Get to enforcing gentlemen.
December 21st, 2005 at 10:42 amEvidently, the “either you’re with us or you’re against us” now applies to US citizens as well.
The Revolution will begin now…King George and his Dick must be dethroned…
December 21st, 2005 at 10:42 amTranslation: Child abuser to victim: “If you don’t stop struggling, I will let the Boogeyman have you.”
December 21st, 2005 at 10:45 amAnyone that thinks that the spying on ‘terrorists’ will not include spying on political opponents has no concept of human nature or history. These guys will do anything, including breaking any and all rules, to stay in power.
We can thank Dick for one thing, showing us how easy it is to subvert our country. We must fix this. After the impeachment the checks and balances must be restored so that this does not happen again.
December 21st, 2005 at 10:47 amAll you need to know about how dishonest the Bush cult is can be seen in this canofun video:
http://www.canofun.com/ blog/ videos/ AmericasYouth2.ram
December 21st, 2005 at 10:50 amThanks Jeff … unfortunately, all to often I get the consrvative = evil Nazi line.
I think Congress should investigate the NSA thing … if only for the people to know what actually happened. There’s a ton of accusations swirling (some of the tinfoil hat variety, in my opinion) but I’m inclined to wait and see. I’ve said before, I believe in the legality of Bush’s actions (at this point and given what we know about the NSA actions) but should we find that Bush used the NSA for personal gain, then his statements about Constitutional mandate and Presidential war powers would be null. Then, I’d be on the impeachment band wagon …
December 21st, 2005 at 10:50 amAnyone that thinks that the spying on ‘terrorists’ will not include spying on political opponents has no concept of human nature or history. These guys will do anything, including breaking any and all rules, to stay in power.
Pure idealogical conjecture … I guess the fact that history tends to repeat itself (a true claim) means that you can claim such an occurance is currently happening without actual facts or proof to said claim. Are you psychic … or do you just really want it to be true (and thus for you, it is).
December 21st, 2005 at 10:54 am#11 - I respect your position, but honestly this isn’t about the NSA and all that other cloak-and-dagger crap. Here’s what this is about:
“Amendment IV - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
If he can break that Amendment because of some perpetual, trumped-up, wag-the-dog, war on terra, he can break any of them.
December 21st, 2005 at 10:59 amJudd, don’t ask the Right to make sense.
They operate in fear and fallacy only.
December 21st, 2005 at 10:59 amPuh-lease! Of course they’re spying on their political opponents…otherwise they wouldn’t have had a problem with obtaining a warrant. These people aren’t as stupid as they are evil. If you can spy on someone for up to three days, then go get a warrant to make it legal, what’s the problem…unless who/what/why you’re spying on someone is illegal on it’s face.
December 21st, 2005 at 10:59 amPure conjecture? Are you kidding? Not only is putting themselves above the Constitution part of the stated neocon agenda (I’ll post a summary if you really need it), it is why we have checks and balances in the first place.
I guess you trust this administration? I don’t.
December 21st, 2005 at 10:59 amBetter put - when you direct more anger at President Bush than you do the terrorists, you aren’t serious about terrorism.
When you call the President a liar even though Democrats supported the war in the beginning, you aren’t serious about terrorism.
When you cry about the August 6th memo, but then complain about wiretapping terrorists, you aren’t serious about fighting terrorism.
Judd- wake up buddy. The reactionary left in this country is not serious about fighting terrorism. If you guys fought terrorists the way you fight Bush (and Alito come next year), we might be able to win this war and save America.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:01 amThe ONLY terrorism I see comes FROM cheney and the rest of team bush. When are our ELECTED leaders finally going to wise up and stop these TERRORISTS in the white house from ignoring OUR constitutional rights?
By the way DICK (cheney), if you’re not for US, you’re AGAINST us. AND there’s a hell of a lot more of US than there is of YOU. Remember that DICK.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:03 amBush doesn’t need to spy on his political opponents. He can just pretend he is and their foaming at the mouth will hurt their election chances.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:03 am“9/11, 9/11, 9/11…..aawwkk, cracker time”
December 21st, 2005 at 11:05 am“9/11 changed everything”….hmmm, so far as I know, the CONSTITUTION is still intact/unaltered!
IMPEACH.
Here is a great little insight to how they are thinking over at PNAC, from Josh Marshall. Enjoy
December 21st, 2005 at 11:05 amEnjoy.
Sorry I am a doofus when it comes to this link thing. sorry http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007290.php
December 21st, 2005 at 11:06 amBush doesn’t need to spy on his political opponents. He can just pretend he is and their foaming at the mouth will hurt their election chances.
You mean in the same way all your foaming at the mouth has hurt conservatives over the last 30 years? Sorry, try again.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:06 amThe real danger with Cheney’s line is that he, and many others in power, too often accuse their political opponents of siding with enemy. Or if not siding with, then aiding and abetting the terrorists.
Personally, I think the Iraq war has been the thing that has offered Islamic terrorists the most help. In Iraq ‘Islamofacists’ get live-fire practice on real American troops, not mention pretty much everyone else. And clearly their bomb-making ability is improving, not declining.
However, I don’t doubt that Cheney believes in the rightness of what he’s doing, and that’s what really scary. I think he really does believe that domestic dissent is an enemy. Without checks and balances, which Cheney also considers an enemy, what steps will he feel are necessary to ‘protect the nation?’ Certainly curtails on free speech, on governmental oversight, on legal restrtictions of the executive have already been identified as legitimate targets.
By logical extentsion, free elections that lead to the the wrong outcome could be perceived as a threat to national security, and the Presdient, as Commander in Chief, would need to intervene to make sure the war isn’t undermined.
After all, if the President truly does have ‘Plenary’ power to conduct the war, there is no legal limit on what he does.
I know it’s an extreme position to assert that the Administration would subvert democracy, and I don’t know that they would. But we can’t know that they wouldn’t either. Basically the Cheney, on behalf of the President, is demanding the right to do anything, in secret, without any oversight whatsoever. The only check on Presidential power is the personal morality of the President.
How many Founding Fathers turning in their graves?
December 21st, 2005 at 11:06 amPuh-lease! Of course they’re spying on their political opponents…otherwise they wouldn’t have had a problem with obtaining a warrant.
I think it’s so … therefore it’s so. I’ll throw in the word “of course” to make it more stronger better. I need some proof people … not general sentiment.
I respect your position, but honestly this isn’t about the NSA and all that other cloak-and-dagger crap. Here’s what this is about:
In addition to what you wrote … it’s also about.
1) The US Constitution in Article II, Section 2 says … The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States … this, they claim, gives the President extremely broad powers to wage war.
2) The FISA act, at the end, states that no measure or provision contained herein shall usurp the Constitution and the powers entitled therein (or something to that effect).
3) Congress endorsed a “war against terrorism†in the wake of 9/11 attacks via the authorization of force resolution (S.J.Res. 23) approved by both chambers and signed into law on September 18, 2001. This mandate stated that the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
ALL THREE of these items IN CONJUNCTION is what, they claim, allows the NSA activities.
For those of you wondering how he says it’s legal ……. this is it.
The President is not so much limited by the Constitution as he is by politics. It is common for ALL Presidents to use a wide interpretation of the powers given to them by the Constitution … where those powers “upper-most†end is mostly where political restraints (and citizen sentiment) say they end.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:08 amIMPEACH! IMPEACH! IMPEACH!
December 21st, 2005 at 11:08 am#23 - conservatives control every branch of govt. When we foam at the mouth, at least there’s a point. AND a winning one, usually.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:09 amSome people need to read the actual Democratic agenda to safeguard our country. The Dems seem to me to have a better idea of how to protect our country than the “fear now, fear later” crowd in “power” whose stated goal is total world domination. I know it sounds crazy, but it happens to be true.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:10 am#17 NQ, What part of the federal government is controlled by the Radical left? Which Party has preached to be the Party of the rule of law? So the party in controll can’t do things by the laws that they put above all other principles? And an impotent opposition is to be blamed with the crybaby whine of Your team couldn’t do any better! I’m confused with your logic. Could please explain?
December 21st, 2005 at 11:11 am#23 YOU’RE foaming at the mouth is generally a sign of severe MENTAL ILLNESS. Maybe you and your assclown president can be cell mates. I bet you make a good looking couple (of idiots)
December 21st, 2005 at 11:13 am#23 - conservatives control every branch of govt. When we foam at the mouth, at least there’s a point. AND a winning one, usually.
So there’s no point to our anger, but yours is righteous and justified. I see now. How stupid I’ve been all these years. Ann Coulter wants to put me in a concentration camp for my own good - and the good of America!
And yes, you do control every branch of government. And YOU’RE STILL MAD. Not at the government of course, but at us damn liberals. If only we’d go away life would be peachy, and Tom Delay and W would usher in a golden age for the great white race of the United States of Christika.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:13 amIt’s another KKKarl Rove “New Yorkers want to give terrorists therapy” blunder.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:14 amThese guys want to go down looking like patriots, that’s all. They know noone takes them seriously anymore.
Don’t misquote Ann. The truth is, if people like you were at the helm during WW2, we all would have been gased. You don’t have the stomach for war. AND you don’t love America the way most of us do. You probably sit around and b*tch about everythign America has done wrong. I know the type.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:16 amThe President is not so much limited by the Constitution
You are insane. Go away. We’ll see you in November next year, when you can come in here and whine about the real threat you and the GOP are concerned about, paying your fair share in taxes. Ryan was right. You are a waste of time and the best part of you ran down the crack of your mother’s ass.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:16 amNot serious about fighting terrorism? This from the administration that ignored a security memo reading “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.”
December 21st, 2005 at 11:17 amGiacomo taking the high road today…
December 21st, 2005 at 11:17 amThat’s quite a task to undertake, dude.
#32 - yeah, and everyone is taking liberals seriously. With Arianna in charge, the left is a real player in the scheme of things. Puh-leeze. It doesn’t matter if Cheney isn’t taken seriously anymore - he’s VP and you don’t have the votes to change that for at least three years.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:18 ameither you’re fer us, or agin us!
me, I’m a Guinness man…
December 21st, 2005 at 11:19 amThe truth is, if people like you were at the helm during WW2, we all would have been gased. You don’t have the stomach for war.
FDR = Democrat. You know, the New Deal welfare state that you all hate. Idiot.
Screw off, you loser. I thought you maybe wanted to engage in a real discussion, but you’re just another troll.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:19 am#35 - oh, the memo. Had Bush tried to stop 9/11, you would have been crying about terrorist’s civil rights. Do liberals even hear themselves anymore?
December 21st, 2005 at 11:19 amDecember 21st, 2005 1:45 am
Bolivia’s Morales brands Bush a “terrorist”
DUBAI (Reuters) - Evo Morales, the winner of Bolivia’s presidential election, branded U.S. President George W. Bush a “terrorist”, in an interview with Arabic satellite television on Tuesday.
“The only terrorist in this world that I know of is Bush. His military intervention, such as the one in Iraq, that is state terrorism,” he told Al Jazeera television.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:19 amThe Fact is, Nobody in their right mind are against fighting terror. Fighting Terror Bush and Cheneys Way is Ineffective. Bush and Cheney Know Absolutely NOTHING Of Fighting Terror. If you REALLY Want to Fight Terror. Hire Some REAL Terrorists.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:19 amP.S. Bush and Cheney Declared War and they are still losing.
Its time to put a real Military or Terror Hunter in Charge.
Impeach Bush and get Wesley Clark and John Kerry up there.
Not Quite,
December 21st, 2005 at 11:19 amPlease…yawn. Noone likes admitted liars and criminals.
#39 - yes, but you people are NOT FDR Democrats. George McGovern and John Kerry Democrats would better describe the folks at Think Progress.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:20 am#41 - that’s a mainstream point if I ever saw one.
I should get some popcorn for 2006 - the left is sure to put on a great show shooting themselves in the foot again.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:21 amNot quite,
December 21st, 2005 at 11:23 amYour tired schtick just showcases your ideology that being complicit in the crimes makes you above it. You’re detached from reality.
If Cheney was so serious about terrorism, why did they waste time, money, and personnel on Iraq? The guy’s incompetent, that’s why he has to lash out at critics. Cheney was only competent when he was a staffer or secretary under people who were smarter than he was. That’s how he gained a reputation - the smarter people told him what to do. In past administrations, he was kept out of the decision making process, and obviously for good reasons. He’s an incompetent leader and makes incompetent decisions.
http://www.editorialpaintings.com
December 21st, 2005 at 11:24 am#46 - I am alot of things, detached from reality is not one of them. It’s the left who is denial that 9/11 ever even happened. Or better put - it was Bush who did it.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:25 amYou are insane. Go away. We’ll see you in November next year, when you can come in here and whine about the real threat you and the GOP are concerned about, paying your fair share in taxes. Ryan was right. You are a waste of time and the best part of you ran down the crack of your mother’s ass.
Feel free to say “I disagree” KillCon. I don’t think you understand what I’m saying though. The Constitution doesn’t include every step that the President should or can take part and parcel. As such, ALL Presidents use this fact (and their Constitutional attorneys) in a way that widens their powers (for truthfully, who would say … the Constitutions ambiguous here … let’s go with the most restricitive interpretation then). This goes for both parties and isn’t really in debate. Given that, often what dictates how much leeway the President can take (again, in situations where the Constitution ISN’T specific enough) is the “political” ramifications of the action or decisions. Again, this has happened countless times. The Constitution gives the Executive Branch the most leeway (some say purposefully) … we don’t know exactly why. I’m not saying anything inflamatory and am repeating what Constitutional experts have said for a while (not just with this issue). Calm down and look at it in that light and I think you’ll understand the implications of this phenomenon in this case (you don’t have to agree with them though).
December 21st, 2005 at 11:26 am#39 - yes, but you people are NOT FDR Democrats. George McGovern and John Kerry Democrats would better describe the folks at Think Progress.
But you’re real Reagan conservatives, right? Whatever.
Augh… I have to get back to work, unlike you apparently. So I don’t have time to marvel at how John Kerry the war hero doesn’t have the stomach to fight a war while Bush and Cheney the rich draft-dodgers do. Your cognitive dissonance is astounding. I wish we could have this conversation face-to-face so I could bring it down to a level you’d understand.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:26 am#47 - Cheney is lashing out because he has no choice. He has to deal with a 24/7 barrage of hate from Pelosi, Dingy Harry, unAmerican Murtha, Dean, Helen Thomas, liar Russert - the list is endless. The left has been after Cheney’s throat for sometime. Why can’t you take him down? Because you’re not that smart.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:26 am#50 - John Kerry was not a war hero. He was a war criminal and he aided the enemy in a 1971 meeting in France and that is why he won’t release all of his military records.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:28 amJohn Kerry was not a war hero. He was a war criminal and he aided the enemy in a 1971 meeting in France and that is why he won’t release all of his military records.
Please go get a girlfriend (or boyfriend). You have way too much time on your hands.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:29 am#53 - apparently, so do you.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:30 am#40. So, you’re saying Bush did nothing to try to stop 9/11? I agree.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:31 amNOT QUITE is a good screen name for this idiot. NOT QUITE all there. NOT QUITE a human being. NOT QUITE intelligent to wipe his own butt. NOT QUITE AN AMERICAN.
IMPEACH! IMPEACH! IMPEACH!
December 21st, 2005 at 11:32 am#53 - apparently, so do you.
You can’t get one, can you?
December 21st, 2005 at 11:32 am“John Kerry was not a war hero. He was a war criminal and he aided the enemy in a 1971 meeting in France and that is why he won’t release all of his military records.”
Comment by Not Quite — December 21, 2005 @ 11:28 am
Is that the best you can do little troll? That one has already been debunked - more than a year ago. Where have you been since then, in a hole? It must really suck to have to support traitorous scum because you can’t stand to be proven wrong.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:32 amNot Quite — 9/11 happened. I watched it on TV. My wife can recount just about every thing we did, every word we said that day. Just thinking about that day pisses me off. The people who did that to us must pay. Unfortunately, they have not paid, nor are they likely to, because the incompetent bumblers making up this presidential administration has used nearly all their resources in the wrong country. No matter what Cheney says, the fact is that he is not fighting terrorism. Therefore, everyone who is against him is for fighting terrorism.
Giacomo, both Republican and Democratic members of Congress have publically stated that the resolution you referenced did not give Bush the authorization to disregard FISA. Therefore, what he did was against the law.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:33 amHey nut quite, I’ll ask you this question that I have asked retards like you for the last couple of years and have NOT gotten an answer.
What has bush done that was GOOD for this country?
December 21st, 2005 at 11:34 amScrew it. The little fella just wants attention while his mommy changes his sheets for him.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:35 amMy question is this: Who among the crowd of reporters who accompanied the VPOTUS actually questioned his logic and his facts instead of just going along for the ride and reporting his propoganda. Where is their reporting?
December 21st, 2005 at 11:35 amScrew it. The little fella just wants attention while his mommy changes his sheets for him.
Even when he has those “special dreams” where he’s a prisoner in Abu Ghraib and George Bush comes to interrogate him.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:37 amAnd where is Dick’s approval rating? Like 19 percent?
December 21st, 2005 at 11:37 amHis credibility matches his military service, none.
As I’ve noted before: Dick Cheney is a war criminal and should not be consulted on matters of National Security.
Very possibly the most disgusting human being I’ve ever laid eyes on. I’m in hopes that kool-aid pump he calls a heart fails soon.
Let the treason be exposed, prepare the guillotine.
Oh, don’t bother to sharpen the blade.
#60 - appointed John Roberts to the Supreme Court, cut taxes which expanded the economy as seen in today’s GDP number, fights the war on terror in the face of ridiculous and relentless criticism, the list goes on….
December 21st, 2005 at 11:38 am#60 - appointed John Roberts to the Supreme Court, cut taxes which expanded the economy as seen in today’s GDP number, fights the war on terror in the face of ridiculous and relentless criticism, the list goes on….
Plus, he’s your special, manly, jet pilot love god, right?
December 21st, 2005 at 11:39 amI KNEW you couldn’t come up with anything. TYPICAL.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:40 am“I’m not saying anything inflamatory and am repeating what Constitutional experts have said for a while (not just with this issue). Calm down and look at it in that light and I think you’ll understand the implications of this phenomenon in this case (you don’t have to agree with them though).”
Comment by Giacomo — December 21, 2005 @
Would those”constitutional experts” be from Heritage, and the American Enterprise Institute? If you’re using them as you authority, perhaps I should warn you; they are conservative outlets that can be depended upon to advance policies that promote conservatism - not truth. Please post the links so that we can decide for ourselves if you honestly believe what you say, or if you’re just telling half the story. Nothing personal, but conservatives seem to have that habit of late.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:41 amWhere was Cheney and these guys BEFORE 9/11!
9/11 changed nothing other than to give this administration an excuse to do whatever they want, whenever they want. Bush wasn’t kidding when he said it would be easier if he were dictator. News flash: the world was a dangerous place on 9/10, just as much as on 9/12, and we all assumed, certainly based on the percentage of the GDP that was and is spent on defense, that our Representatives were doing their jobs and protecting us. What did that August 6th PDB memo say again? Oh, Bin Laden determined to attack inside the US. I believe our administration was where, oh, on vacation.
Anyone that reads a major newspaper, and looks outside into the world, knew it was a dangerous place. After all, every couple of years or so something was getting blown up: 1993 WTC, 1995 Oklahoma (was McVeigh a terrorists?), 1998 embassy bombed, 2000 Cole was bombed.
1972 Olympics where Palestinian’s killed Israeli athletes - the same event that Steven Spielberg’s movie, Munich, is about. Let’s not forget the hostage crisis in 1979.
And does this administration hire skilled experienced people to fill critical roles? No, they hire Mike Brown types. Because Rove, Cheney, Rumfeld, Bush, Wolfowitz politicize everything.
If this administration came into the White House not thinking the world was a danagerous place and with their smug arrogance let things slide, then we were in danger from day 1 of this administration’s lack of reality based leadership, and they as much allowed 9/11 to happen. So now Cheney runs his mouth off and says asinine things like he usually does to threaten and scare us into submission, but God forbid they actually would implement the recommendations of the 9/11 committee to keep us safe. Cheney will say or do anything, use anyone or anything, to implement their agenda, and then run off to a bunker. Cheney will tell us he believes the insurgency is in their last throes, that we’ll be greated as liberators… if we look back at what this VP has said over the last 5+ years, either he is stupid, evil, not right in the head, or incompetent. But to them it is all politics, and they’ll manipulate anything.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:41 am#64 - most disgusting human being in this country is Cindy Sheehan followed closely by Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Howard Dean.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:42 amThe “war” on terror. Now THAT’S funny! bush and his minions CREATED the “war” on terror.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:42 amBush ratings have dropped steadily since 911. A super majority of poeple believe the administration lied to go to war and want troop withdrawal. and Cheney decides he wants to stay with the KKKarl Rove divide and conquer strategy? After NOT being able to provide a single cogent explanation for breaking the law?
December 21st, 2005 at 11:43 amNot Quite, you’re detached from reality. Yawn…
#64 - most disgusting human being in this country is Cindy Sheehan followed closely by Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Howard Dean.
What, no Hillary? Careful, you’re slipping!
December 21st, 2005 at 11:43 am#66 - it’s ok. John Kerry did admit to killing women and children in Vietnam. That should cheer you up.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:44 amBTW, Harry Reid could beat the crap out of Not Quite’s dad.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:44 am#73 - believe or not, conservatives are done trashing Hillary. She’ll never be President because her own is turning on her. We have more important problems like those mentioned.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:45 am“most disgusting human being in this country is Cindy Sheehan followed closely by Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Howard Dean”
Oh, I think every time you touch a keyboard, you put THOSE pikers to shame.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:46 am#66 - it’s ok. John Kerry did admit to killing women and children in Vietnam. That should cheer you up.
John Kerry could beat up Bush and Cheney. Could beat your dumb ass too.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:46 am#74 Oh? And the 30,000+ that died in Iraq for your presidents lies must cheer YOU up.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:46 am#66 - it’s ok. John Kerry did admit to killing women and children in Vietnam. That should cheer you up.
John Kerry could whoop up on Bush and Cheney. Could beat your dumb ass too.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:46 am#80 - Oops! Double post. Sorry.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:47 amI’m so glad you brought up Cindy Sheehan, Not Quite.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:48 amAlong with Rove calling New Yorkers terrorist sympathizers, another HUGE piece of the crumbling Bush foundation was refusing to see Cindy Sheehan. Even if he didn’t want to it could have put out a pestering fire. Bush is an idiot. You’re an idiot.
Think Bush would like a do-over? The feeble-minded, soft Cindy got the best of Bush in yet another PR blunder.
Cheney: If You Don’t Support Everything I Do, You Aren’t Serious About Terrorism .
Dear Mr Cheney.
Please, What are You doing About Terrorism?
Cheney: SHUT UP Im BUSY SPYING ON AMERICAN NONSUPPORTERS/
December 21st, 2005 at 11:48 amCheney: If You Don’t Support Everything I Do, You Aren’t Serious About Terrorism .
Dear Mr Cheney.
Please, What is Your noble cause for War? How are You Defeating Terror?
Dear Mr Cheney Please in your Defining Terror, Who Terrorises you most?
December 21st, 2005 at 11:52 am#82 - whatever. Cindy Sheehan is disgusting and exposed the left and the MSM for the anti-American hate mongers they are. Also, the right-wing base HATES her and has had many of laughs at her expense. As for hurting Bush - gimme a break. In this current political environment, she poses a threat to people like Hillary and Mark Warner, NOT Republicans. The GOP is united against morons like Cindy Sheehan and the shameless media that exploits her.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:53 amCheney: If You Don’t Support Everything I Do, You Aren’t Serious About Terrorism .
Dear Mr Cheney.
Who is terrorizing You?
December 21st, 2005 at 11:53 amRemember, Not Quite-
December 21st, 2005 at 11:54 amIt doesn’t take Imperial Hubris to bring ‘em down. Just repeated PR mishaps. Over and over and over and over again. And teleprompter guy doesn’t have the wherewithal to stop the bleeding because every time he opens his mouth he loses more and more of his dwindling base…yawn.
#87 - who’s down. Bush is up 10 points since November. So no, I don’t get what you’re saying.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:56 amNot Quite, You are talking about a Mother who lost a son fighting for YOUR Freedoms, Do you seriously believe you are entitled to spew your hatred like that?
December 21st, 2005 at 11:56 amNot quite,
December 21st, 2005 at 11:56 amThe GOP is slowly being trimmed down to the 42% who believe ID should be taught in skool. Look at the baseline. Use your eyeballs. It’s unsustainable.
The GOP is united against morons like Cindy Sheehan and the shameless media that exploits her.Also, the right-wing base HATES her and has had many of laughs at her expense.
Quit talking like you’re part of the GOP. You’re just some loser in his mother’s basement with a cheeto addiction. You don’t work campaigns or donate money. You cold never run for office. The GOP wouldn’t be caught dead with a loser like you. You’re a booty call that they make once every two years. Get over yourself. You’re like a nerdy football fan who thinks he plays on the damn team.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:57 amNot Quite Deserves NO Freedoms. Lock Not Quiet up with the other treasonists.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:58 am#89 - there you go again! She is exploiting her son’s death for self-gain and that is beyond the pale.
#90 - Actually, 63% of Americans beleive some form of ID should be taught in school so using that baseline I would say the GOP stands to gain. The culture war is killing Democrats - you can’t burn bibles anymore and get away with it. Conservatives have moblized the way liberals did in the 60s and 70s. YOU LOSE.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:00 pmsohei # 91.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:01 pmDoes The GOP Really Do That?
You’re a booty call that they make once every two years.
#92 - interesting, you want silence those who do not think like you. We call that fascism.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:02 pmConservatives have moblized the way liberals did in the 60s and 70s.
Oh no! It’ll be terrible! Waves a fat sweaty white guys marching on Washington, raising their cheeto-stained fists in anger! No doubt they’ll be joined by legions of ugly, crones in pant suits and American flag sweaters bearing pamphlets about abstinence! The horror!
December 21st, 2005 at 12:03 pm#93. sounds to me you are the one trying to exploit your stupidity.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:04 pmSelf Gain? what kind of propaganda is that?
#92 - interesting, you want silence those who do not think like you. We call that fascism.
I’d be happy with just silencing those who do not think. Especially on this blog.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:06 pm#95. not quuiet is seeking Self Esteem.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:06 pmI’ve tired of this. The defendants in the Dover case won’t even try for a federal appeal. They know ID will NEVER be in a science class. Only 42% want ID in a science class. Hell, I believe ID on any given day. But not in science class. Not Quite, you can’t hoodwink everyday people. Stop trying. It SO HARD to watch.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:06 pmI’ve tired of this. The defendants in the Dover case won’t even try for a federal appeal. They know ID will NEVER be in a science class.
Actually, they aren’t appealing because the original 10 morons on the school board that started this ID crap got voted out of office.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:08 pmGiacomo - you offer that the prez can claim “wartime powers”. Well, if Congress had actually declared “war”, I would not argue. But this is America - you know, representative democracy and all that - and no one man can command our country to war (i myself have issue with the whole police action thing - which is what this is, and NOT a “war”, but that is another matter entirely). If one man commands the country to war, he is a dictator. Even most (not all) republicansd and conservatives don’t agree with that, and don’t really want King George.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:09 pmNo war = no wartime powers. Period.
Congress did not, and CAN NOT, give the president the power to simply declare war. Never. They supported police action, WITH THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF BRINGING THE 9/11 PERPETRATORS TO JUSTICE, WHICH THEY HAVE NOT DONE.
#96 - that’s funny. NO, instead of making fools of ourselves at protests, we mobilize in a more effective way.
Take the judicial filibusters that Democrats used in Bush’s first term. We targeted and defeated Tom Daschle and kept the issue alive causing Democrats to lose every seat in the south. Admittedly, after Alito is seated and Bush names Ginsbrug and Stevens replacement, the GOP loses a big issue. But they won’t need it - we’ll have the Court so liberals will have to legislate at the polls, not on the bench.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:12 pm#96 - that’s funny. NO, instead of making fools of ourselves at protests, we mobilize in a more effective way.
You keep telling yourself that. We know you’re just a lazy coward without a life.
And there you go with that “we” crap again. What do you do? Annoy liberals on blogs? Eat Big Macs for Bush? Damn, you’re a veritable Grover Norquist!
December 21st, 2005 at 12:14 pm#104 - I am here to mock you. You people are consumed with hatred and it’s funny.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:16 pm“Alito is against race based preferences like affirmative action - like most of America is. That is a good thing.â€
“Bush can appoint Condi to VP and try to “heal†the country. The first female and black VP - major achievementâ€
-Not Quite
Your stench betrays you.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:16 pmmysticagent — I couldn,t have said it better myself. Thank You.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:18 pm#104 - I am here to mock you. You people are consumed with hatred and it’s funny.
Do I sound consumed with hatred to you? And it sounds like you’re the one being mocked. It’s fun for me to mock you, because you’re just a wimpy little nobody.
And you still haven’t answered the question? What do you do for the conservative movement? Are you even registered to vote?
December 21st, 2005 at 12:19 pmAnd Not Quite is in the big political game! He is a part of the team! Woo Hoo! Go team, go team! There are no great stakes here, its all just a sports game. Our team versus yours (…aren’t there more than two ‘teams’ ?…). Yay! He’s got a flag and one of those inflatable clappers! Hoozah! Go team neo-con. Team NeoCon is going for the goals…. Woo hoo!! We’ll win the trophy! Yay! I’m not really IN the ‘game’, but I think I am part of the team! Yay!
Wow. Not Quite’s mind is a disturbing place….
December 21st, 2005 at 12:19 pm# 105. Not Quite —Also, the right-wing base HATES her #85.
#105#104 - I am here to mock you. You people are consumed with hatred and it’s funny.
Comment by Not Quite
December 21st, 2005 at 12:21 pmSounds as if YOU Are the one Hating.
Thanks, nofreedom, though there are som grammatical ambiguities (such as the last statement). But i think a reasonable person gets what I am trying to say there.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:21 pmTeam NeoCon is going for the goals…. Woo hoo!! We’ll win the trophy! Yay! I’m not really IN the ‘game’, but I think I am part of the team! Yay!
And while the players on team Neocon walk away with the girls, the gold, and the fame, poor little Not Quite can only sob quietly under his sheets while reading Soldier of Fortune.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:22 pmgrammatical ambiguities are obsolete while in the fight.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:23 pmthis is a no rules fight.
Not quite may have a Soldier of Fortune mag under the sheets with him, but I don’t think he’s reading it…
December 21st, 2005 at 12:24 pm#47 Yes, and if Cheney was so serious about terrorism and ridding the world of Saddam why did Halliburton do business with him and other terrorist regimes when he was CEO?
Under Cheney, Halliburton Helped Saddam Hussein Siphon Billions from UN Oil-for-Food Program
Dick Cheney’s Illegal Oil Deals with Saddam Hussein
December 21st, 2005 at 12:24 pm#111 mysticagent. GOP Made it that way.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:25 pmNot quite may have a Soldier of Fortune mag under the sheets with him, but I don’t think he’s reading it…
Hey, he only reads it for the articles! :)
December 21st, 2005 at 12:25 pmCheney is a spoiled rotten Dealer fearing that he might be Put Out of Office. Plain and simple.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:27 pmCheney dosnt know how to play fair.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:27 pmNot quite may have a Soldier of Fortune mag under the sheets with him, but I don’t think he’s reading it… wacking under the bedsheets? typical little boy.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:28 pm113 nofreedom - While the admin stated something about the gloves coming off, or some other mach tripe, that is simply not true. There is no “no-rules” fight if you wish to maintain honor. One must fight honorably (and there IS a bit of flexibility in the limits of honor - some) to win a moral and honorable victory. There is no room for dishonorable activity in any battle or conflict. For example, if it were the stated intention of the admin and or its apologists that this is a different kind of conflict and that the rules and laws by which we have always judged ourselves (and most others have as well) as being righteous and moral and decent and just and fair and honorable are all obsolete, and that the only way to confront this enemy is by using methods that one might normally call dishonorable or immoral (etc.), then the admin and its apologists are without moral or honor. You cannot maintain honor while acting dishonorably. If you have to resort to killing, maiming, and torturing children (how many underage children held at Gitmo and Abdu G?), then you are without honor. One need not resort to the tactics of a monster in order to fight a monster.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:31 pmI love slaying Trolls. I declare we have achieved total victory in the “Global War Against Extremist Poster ‘Not Quite’ on Liberal Blogs that Allow Anonymous Comments! (GWAEPNQLBAAC)”
December 21st, 2005 at 12:34 pmAwwww… he’s done? I was just starting to have fun with that one. He’s a tad better than wwallace, not quite as thoughtful as Giacomo, and about as evil as IRI and Migty A. But still an idiot.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:44 pmOn topic - so, the admin defence here is, “You either agree with whatever we do or you are an enemy.” How uniting. How patriotic (attacking American citizens expressing their freedom of speech - which relates more to people talking politics and criticizing government more than it realtes to the press). How reasonable.
“Is this illegal?”
response, “If you are not with us, you are against us.”
that is a non-argument, and even an admission of guilt through the refusal to address the issue.
Not Quite = NED
She’s really messed up, that one. She doesn’t understand that separation of church and state is a constitutional restriction, and an american value. UNIntelligentDesign is just religious dogma very poorly described as science.
Hey Not Quite, what did you think of the ‘conservative judge’, calling all of the ID ‘christians’ on the carpet for continually lying? Hypocrisy, thy name is conservatism…
As for your little rant about ‘fascism’, actually fascism is a ‘rightwing’ political stance, and you perfectly reflect its values. Why don’t you add to that collection of bibles a dictionary, a copy of the constitution and a history book. You clearly would benefit more from those items.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:51 pmWell she does go by the name “not quite”…
There’s a plethora of free on-line dictionaries for the trolls too… http://www.dictionary.com (of course they’d need to be able to SPELL dictionary correctly, and like that will happen…) Maybe we can donate dictionaries to trolls?
December 21st, 2005 at 12:58 pmIf republicans were ’serious’ about terrorism, they would have put the necessary troops into afghanistan to catch bin laden. Afghanistan was ‘responsible’ for attacking us, yet we fielded only a fraction of troops for that battle, than Iraq. Why? That’s irrational, irresponsible, and impossible to justify unless you don’t actually want to catch the guy. That’s about the only ‘rational’ argument for such mismanagement, other than the ‘mike brown’ defense of ineptitude, which certainly could apply to this crew.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:03 pmWould thoseâ€constitutional experts†be from Heritage, and the American Enterprise Institute? If you’re using them as you authority, perhaps I should warn you; they are conservative outlets that can be depended upon to advance policies that promote conservatism - not truth. Please post the links so that we can decide for ourselves if you honestly believe what you say, or if you’re just telling half the story. Nothing personal, but conservatives seem to have that habit of late.
No they’re not from Heritage or its ilk. My comments aren’t particularly based upon research on THIS issue but some reading I’ve done over the last 10 years on the Constitution (Yes, I’m a bit of a geek, I know) and the Presidency. Most of what I said here today about the nature of Presidential powers as they derive from the Constitution I learned while Clinton was in power (and the articles referred to Clinton, Bush I, and Reagan) and thus were rather benign when I first read them … more of a “that’s curious” moment back then, than a defense of Bush’s activities here and now. I did hear a Constitutional attorney (from Georgetowne) say much of the same yesterday, but it was a sentiment/theory that I knew of previously.
Giacomo - you offer that the prez can claim “wartime powersâ€. Well, if Congress had actually declared “warâ€, I would not argue. But this is America - you know, representative democracy and all that - and no one man can command our country to war (i myself have issue with the whole police action thing - which is what this is, and NOT a “warâ€, but that is another matter entirely). If one man commands the country to war, he is a dictator.
You’re right … we are not officially “at war” because Congress never declared it, but to say that the Constitution doesn’t allow the President to act in protection of the nation without a formal declaration would be incorrect. In addition read the authorization of force resolution (S.J.Res. 23) that Congress passed in 2001.
the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
This is quite a broad and non-specific statement (perhaps the democrats wish the verbage was a tad more restrictive now, but hindsight is 20/20) … I mean “all necessary and appropriate FORCE” and “those nations, organizations or persons HE determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks” … wicked broad. I think this is where the “wartime powers” comments are derived … even though “formal war” (that’s an odd grouping of words) is not being waged.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:20 pmWhy would Bush want to catch his family friends? OBL is Bush’s buddy. Besides, Bush’s “wartime powers” (that he claims to have) might end (at least as far as Congress is concerned) if OBL is caught. He would, at least, need to get further authorization from congress to continue his “war on terror”, and that might not actually fly at this point. Well, that is assuming that some “terrorist” strike does not occur again within our borders. One important note on that, though - considering all the rhetoric that has been spewed by these nutz for these last few years, should another attack occur on American soil, the blame will lie squarely at the feet of those who: 1) claim to have made America ’safer’ 2) claimto be the only ones capable of protecting America (lots of trolls repeat that one) 3) claim to have improved our security (despite the 9/11 report stating the contrary) (list could go on… but why).
December 21st, 2005 at 1:24 pmAnd you rightwing loser trolls - not a single American wants another attack to come to our soil. Rational Americans want the traitorous bastards out of our government (Bushco, that is), hopefully very soon. It can’t be soon enough. Oh, Mr. Fitz, some of us hope that your sights are set very high…
#123 mysticagent — Who was that addressed to ? referring to ,Awwww… he’s done? Not Quite?
December 21st, 2005 at 1:25 pmby the way, I sorta understood your #121 . BUt, How else will you Fight BIG Gvt?
How did David in the story of David and Goliath, Fight?
Was his fight a no holds barred fight? I believe so.
Republicans gave up on fair fight. I believe its time Dems did the same, give up on fair fighting and come out fists flying.
UNIntelligentDesign is just religious dogma very poorly described as science.
While I don’t agree with Ryan’s re-word, ID is, in my opinion, bad science … especially given the fact that they (those who postulate ID) began with the end in mind and sought to find a theory that met that end. Bad science. Science goes where it wants to go, not where we want it to.
I have no problem with evolution (although I do believe in God and that he is the uncaused cause from whom all “effects” are derived, although maybe not directly). I’m not Deist, but I don’t think God is manipulating each “event” of creation … In my opinion, ID is an attempt to “save the children” from evolution when they don’t need saving. If God is truth and science directs us toward truth … then science is from God and fundamentalists need to chill … again, my Christian opinion.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:27 pmIf Republicans could care less How the War is Won, then that is where, SOMEONE(Not necessarily Dems) has to say “ENOUGH ALLREADY!).
December 21st, 2005 at 1:27 pmThe Line Must be Drawn, Thats a better way of putting it.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:29 pmHow the west was Won? Though War. and Gun ownership Rights.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:31 pmWhat did the West win? Look no futher than Viva Las Vegas.
and SIN City.
Not Quite:
Defeating Daschle was the best thing that’s happened to the Democrats. He was a weak leader. Reid is much, much more effective.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again - there are far too many personal attacks against the wingnuts on this board. Not mild ones, but incendiary ones. It also goes the other way, of course. It encourages them to continue their troll behavior and keep TP on RSS.
It would appear that they have a list of RNC talking points for every issue - probably some program that has it loaded:) While they aren’t all, obviously, I would suspect some are GOP operatives. ‘Cheeto eating’ and living in mom’s ‘basement’ aren’t helpful.
I think it’s helpful that the wingnuts are on the site simply to debunk their belief that 1. they are persecuted by liberals 2. there is a liberal conspiracy against them 3. TP is part of that vast conspiracy 4. liberals are ALL weak on national security 5. the president enjoys vast powers 6. etc.
What isn’t helpful is engaging them by stooping to their level. If it’s witty, nice, if it’s just a stupid, offensive attack - please don’t do it.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:31 pmFreedom is won through Wars, True or False?
December 21st, 2005 at 1:32 pmFreedom is Not peaceful, True or False?
December 21st, 2005 at 1:33 pmJames? dare to take my test above?
December 21st, 2005 at 1:36 pmI’ll expand on #143.
If you stoop to ‘their’ level you make yourself (and consequently ‘our’ community) as intolerant as they are. I believe that is their ultimate goal and is a turn off to potential ‘new’ posters who wish to engage in debate.
I realize all of us make important, intellectual points. Some of us engage in personal attacks. Let’s try to seperate the two.
Attracting new posters who are interested in issues is good. Attracting leftish trolls is not.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:36 pmhmm, #134. Don’t know how that happened.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:36 pmCheney is pure evil. The Devil has possesed our government.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:37 pmAttracting leftish trolls is not.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:38 pmwhat are leftish and rightish trolls? please define.
And you rightwing loser trolls - not a single American wants another attack to come to our soil.
Wouldn’t begin to believe that you do …
Rational Americans want the traitorous bastards out of our government (Bushco, that is), hopefully very soon.
I would prefer you qualify with “rational liberals” rather than “rational Americans” as one can be Conservative, American, and rational.
One important note on that, though - considering all the rhetoric that has been spewed by these nutz for these last few years, should another attack occur on American soil, the blame will lie squarely at the feet of those who: 1) claim to have made America ’safer’ 2) claim to be the only ones capable of protecting America (lots of trolls repeat that one) 3) claim to have improved our security (despite the 9/11 report stating the contrary) (list could go on… but why).
I think most people would agree with this … if one wants the “buck ” to stop with them, then they can’t pass said “buck” if something horrible occurs. You’d likely hear the comment “we were hamstrung by the Democrats” if such an event were to occur … a charge that may have 5% truth to it (given that most Democrats, up until recently, were as hawkish as the Republicans). Lastly, don’t equate what “trolls” say (ie. the Republicans are the only ones who can keep the country safe) for what all Conservatives believe … I do believe we are safer than we were (Heck, at least we know the terrorists are out there now … most Americans were blissfully ignorant about this prior to 9/11) but concede that Iraq puts more zealots in “play”. I would like the 9/11 commissions recommendations to be put into “ludicrous speed”.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:39 pmGiacomo - the resolution was intended, implicitly, to bring the 9/11 perpetrators to justice. That has absolutelty nothing to do with removing Hussein from power, nation building in Iraq, policies of torture, or abridging the rights of Americans as granted by the Constitution (again, pertaining to surveilance of American citizens see amandment IV). The prez himself has said that a warrant is required to spy on Americans who are not affiliated with known terriorists. The Quaker group I am pretty sure has no such connections (in fact, the admin has presented no evidence to the contrary, which would be the best defence - and no crap about “ongoing surveilance”, because if even one of them were tied to terrorists they are ALREADY tipped off to being watched, and will react as they will. The gov’t pointing it out will not change the fact that IF one or more were terrorists they ALREADY KNOW THEY ARE BEING WATCHED). So, why circumvent a system that, in 2001, was already augmented to make it even easier to LEGALLY go about this business of domestic spying (a useful tool, when directed against ACTUAL threats to America). While you are correct in saying that we need to see the list, that does NOT mean we should just sit by complicitly and trust the admin. They have proven, repeatedly, that they are NOT trustworthy, and it is clear in EVERY SINGLE thing that they do that is is ENTIRELY partisan (what they love to accuse others of being): they act for the benefit of thier political party, and of their special interests, but NOT with any consideration for the Americans that they swore to serve. We are also NEVER going to see the list if we just “sit down and shut up and wait”. No, if everyone did that, this administartion would take that as a sign of acceptance, and drop the issue (which is what they want). We need to see the list, and every American should scream for it. If the list has nothing wrong in it - if it is simply a list of those linked to terrorism, then fine - and it would be an ENORMOUS bolster for the admin. All Bush supporters should be screaming for the list , too (because all of you believe that this admin is moral, and that thus the list has on it only terrorist related people, and not dissenters and political enemies… right?). I’ll even allow that a bipartisan panel review the list first (because actual people with actual links to terrorism on the list may, in some cases, need to remain secret - but that secrecy does not mean that senior politicians can’t review it… that is WHY we have security classifications… if you have the clearance you SHOULD be allowed to see the material).
December 21st, 2005 at 1:42 pmAnd the language its not all that broad - it authorizes the use of police action against: “those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons…” That is actually pretty specific - link to 9/11 equals valid target. No link to 9/11 equals NO CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY TO USE FORCE under this statute. Pretty clear. Where is the Iraq link? And how does the nation building in Iraq fall under this, rather specific guideline? I don’t see it, son. I just don’t see it in there.
No Freedom. Your ‘test’ is in absolute terms. The west was ‘won’ through a variety of ways. One effective way was through disease wiping out large numbers of ‘Indians’.
The ‘indians’ were also a rather noneffective fighting force in terms of military technology - it was only a matter of time before they ‘lost’ (although I would say the won in a limited sense, some, not all, of the rezs have lucrative operations).
Freedom can be ‘won’ through both civil and military/resistance operations. In the current case it’s not going to be necessary to wipe out the wingnuts. And I am certainly not advocating that. Your freedom could only be achieved by wiping out the liberals. we coexist.
Freedom means many things.
“Freedom is not peaceful”. I am assuming you really mean obtaining freedom. If not, you’re making yourself look rather stupid. Exercising your freedom, under the constitution and USSC, should be peaceful.
If you mean obtaining freedom it’s the same as your first test. Please move on.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:42 pm‘Real American’ ‘wwallace’ are right wing trolls. A number of us are left wing trolls.
Does that satisfy your need for a TP specific ‘definition’?
December 21st, 2005 at 1:43 pm“How the west was Won? Though War. and Gun ownership Rights.
What did the West win? Look no futher than Viva Las Vegas.
and SIN City.”
I missed that one. The settlers could have moved in at a later date. The west was ‘won’ by the US Army defeating the ‘Indian’ forces. Gun ownership ‘rights’ simply allowed settlers to move in more quickly. It also allowed them to have some meat.
And who said I am against gun ownership ‘rights’. It’s a privelage, not absolute, and I am not against it.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:46 pmSee, ‘liberals’ do not hold the same positions on all issues. In fact, I am socially liberal and economically a classical liberal. If you aren’t aware what a classical liberal is, it means I am economically orthodox in my beliefs. As a side note I am a MS econ candidate.
You’d call such believes ‘libertarian’.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:49 pmyes, ‘beliefs’ not ‘believes’. I am aware.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:50 pmCheney’s quotes are also complete strawmen. Find me one quote by anyone other than a bush administration apologist that says the things that Cheney claims here.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:51 pmYes, it is time to get on to my ‘real life’. Notably leaf blowing in the great, frigid outdoors, Xmas gift wrapping, animal feeding, socializing, and then reading. Perhaps followed by drinking. That’s my ‘normal’ life. Enjoy the day.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:51 pmWhat did the West win? You missed this one?.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:55 pm#129 nofreedom - that “awww” post refered to “NotQuite”. Hey, “coming out fists flying” is not dishonorable. There IS such a thing as “honorable combat”, and it pretty much boils down to NOT using any and all means. If your means are immoral, then it is dishonorable. I am pacifist in that that is the only adult, civilized, intelligent, (etc.) manner to resolve any issue. But I am militant in that if you (not you personally :)) are going to put me in a corner and force me to fight, then it is ‘game on’. I volunteered for the military because it was right, and served as a front line soldier because it was right. I do not believe that violence solves anything, except by killing an opponent who then can’t be an opponent because they are dead. That line of thinking is the same as a wild dog’s.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:57 pmBut, speaking politically, by all means - come out with fists swinging (metaphorically), but it would be dishonorable to use unethical approaches - even if it is their weaponry: say, diebold. Because they stole elections does not mean it becomes o.k. to do the same to them. It is still wrong. Many repugs don’t get this (anyone who uses a “Clinton did it” argument is in this category). Their lies and criminal activity are enough to focus on.
#130
Giacomo, let me ask you a question then. Where did your god come from? Who created him if creation is the premise?
December 21st, 2005 at 1:57 pmmysticagent. thanks for the explainations. I too was Military(U.S.Army 76-97).( Just a cook).
December 21st, 2005 at 2:03 pmIts hard to fight the knowledge people posess and the lack of wisdom they have. then of course, alot of people never get outside their perimeters unless they feel threatened.
weird.
mysticagent </