Roberts Appoints Conservative Ex-Starr Deputy to Surveillance Court
Roberts Appoints Conservative Ex-Starr Deputy to Surveillance Court
According to a new report by the Federation of American Scientists, Chief Justice John Roberts has appointed Judge John Bates to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Bates is replacing Judge James Robertson, who resigned last December to protest President Bush’s illegal domestic wiretapping program.
Bates has a “distinctly conservative cast to his resume.” From 1995 to 1997, he served as Ken Starr’s deputy in the Whitewater investigation, a glorified political witch-hunt that never managed to turn up evidence of wrongdoing by the Clintons.
In 2001, Bates was appointed to district court by President Bush, where he was assigned the lawsuit seeking details about Vice President Cheney’s secret energy taskforce. In a widely criticized ruling, Bates dismissed the case:
The third Starr retread currently wielding a gavel, District Judge John Bates, played a major role in stymieing a more substantive investigation than the one he pursued under Starr. The General Accounting Office (GAO) brought the first lawsuit in its 80-plus-year existence after Dick Cheney stonewalled its attempt to obtain information about the veep’s 2001 energy task force. Bates, who provided the rationale for subpoenaing any woman to whom Clinton may have talked dirty about Whitewater, dismissed the GAO’s effort to learn with whom Cheney’s task force conferred.
Now, on the FISA court, one can only hope Bates will care as much about the privacy of ordinary Americans as he did for Dick Cheney, Ken Lay, and Big Oil executives.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
128 Responses to “Roberts Appoints Conservative Ex-Starr Deputy to Surveillance Court”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Oh, bother. Abandon hope, all ye that enter here. I'm guessing "does not care". He's got that kind of face.
March 24th, 2006 at 1:24 pmNow that's funny, but you should have put a sarcasm warning as
March 24th, 2006 at 1:24 pmsome readers may actually expect fairness from this guy.
This is to be expected now that there's a chance that the Bush Administration will actually have to follow the law and go throughFISA for warrants etc. Of couse they'll stock it with neo-con cronies.
http://www.lcoliberal.blogspot.com
Full list of Veep Cheney's Hotel Requirements and Most Ridiculous Story of the Day:
Right Now on LCL.
http://www.sunstateactivist.org
March 24th, 2006 at 1:27 pmFull ist of Progressive news and events:
More incestuous appointment .Power corrupts , absolute power corrupts absolutely .
March 24th, 2006 at 1:32 pmWhere do they get these pasty faced, neo cons.? Gees, more shit, diffrent day.....Blessings
March 24th, 2006 at 1:41 pmDid they keep this picture from the whiny, loser kids turn into conservatives story?
March 24th, 2006 at 1:44 pm#5 - Sharon, that's what happens when you won't let a gay man touch your hair.
-Blatantly stolen from Jon Stewart, Daily Show.
March 24th, 2006 at 1:45 pmOk, I'll say it. Chief Justice Roberts has appointed Judge Norman Bates to the FISA court. He and his lovely mother should be arriving in Washington...
March 24th, 2006 at 1:47 pmWho else here thinks that a secret court is a good idea?
I don't know, but it seems to me that the whole idea of FISA goes so against the grain of why this country broke away from England to begin with.
Let's dump the whole concept. Make requests go through regular Federal Benches.
March 24th, 2006 at 1:59 pmI know...I know... Roberts SHOULD have tapped a "progressive"....
March 24th, 2006 at 1:59 pmgiven that the FISA court almost always rubber stamps the warrants anyway, appointing this turd will probably not make much of a difference.
And MA I know your knee jerk reaction is to attack us, and defend Bush and his cronies, but the point to this post, is this guy has already helped cover up the misdeeds of the white house, and will continue to do so. Not that a progressive judge should have been appointed.
March 24th, 2006 at 2:09 pmElections matter
March 24th, 2006 at 2:09 pmThank's Zookeeper, I saw that on Stuart show to. Your right! I'm sure sick of these pasty faced, most with no necks, lilly white soft hand, radical war amonging, never served, bible thumping, neo cons running and stealing our country I could scream......Time to go hug a tree while there is still one standing....Blessings
March 24th, 2006 at 2:19 pmHe will issue his first ruling tomorrow, He wil declare the FISA Law to mean anything the president wants it to mean.
March 24th, 2006 at 2:21 pm#10 - seriously. Roberts is an excellent judge and I am sure he is picking someone who is qualified.
You can be good judge and not work for the ACLU.
March 24th, 2006 at 2:24 pm"Bates is replacing Judge James Robertson, who resigned last December to protest President Bush’s domestic wiretapping program that liberals claim is illegal."
"a glorified political witch-hunt that never managed to turn up evidence of wrongdoing by the Clintons, except for lying under oath to a grand jury"
seeking details about Vice President Cheney’s secret energy taskforce. In a widely criticized, "by liberals, ruling Bates dismissed the case"
There we go, fixed up the major issues in TP's article, and to think, they were just blasting Fox news for having bad information in an article yesterday, yet have no problem doing it themselves, ah, hypocracy, TP is your name.
March 24th, 2006 at 2:36 pm#13 - Well said as always, Sharon. Hug a tree for me, will ya?
March 24th, 2006 at 2:36 pmExcept Clinton would never have lied under oath if it hadn't been for the special prosecutor. And one has to wonder why Bush never had to testify under oath at the 9/11 hearings. you know the ones that he and cheney tried to put a stop too. When are you going to face that Clintons crimes in no way match what the current admin has been up too?
March 24th, 2006 at 2:44 pmIt isn't like we didn't see this coming! Stacking the courts with "favored status" judges.
March 24th, 2006 at 2:45 pmHorrible! Is there any way a future administration get rid of these fascists?
March 24th, 2006 at 2:47 pm#18.When are you going to face that Clintons crimes in no way match what the current admin has been up too?
When are you going to face that Bush has yet to be found doing anything criminal?
March 24th, 2006 at 2:47 pmThis country is fucked. All corrupt. Its all about the party and nobody cares about the constitution. Republicans, especially are worse than terrorists in many many respects.
March 24th, 2006 at 2:53 pmIs that Bud Cort?
March 24th, 2006 at 2:54 pm"When are you going to face that Bush has yet to be found doing anything criminal?
Comment by squegeeboo "
Wow, another republican psychopath in denial. How about because he's already ADMITTED to warrantless spying, and has asked the laws be changed to 'make it legal'. If it weren't 'illegal', why would the laws need to be changed? DUH?
And then there's the downing street memos, meetings with Abramoff, etc., etc., etc.
'denile' isn't just a river in egypt, it's a lifestyle among fascist reichwingers like yourself.
March 24th, 2006 at 3:01 pm#21
Ahhh...the old answering a question with another question. Krazny asked you first.
Otherwise, seeing as how the Republican-controlled Congress refuses to hold any meaningful hearings on the Bush administration's questionable actions regarding the use of pre-war intelligence (where is that *&*^% Phase II report that Sen. Pat Roberts promised? Hmmmm???) and the NSA domestic wiretapping deal, short of a Democratic majority in either chamber come November, your question is moot.
March 24th, 2006 at 3:03 pm#24 It hasn't been proven that the wiretaps are illegal, its still a liberal talking point at this stage.
March 24th, 2006 at 3:07 pmNothing illegal about the memo or meeting with Abramoff from our current information either.
Just because you want Bush to be a criminal dosn't make it happen.
Now repeat that last line to yourself a few hundred times a day, and maybe you'll figure out how to rejoin the rest of us back in reality, where wishs don't come true just because Al Franken has them too.
#21 Bush has nto been found guilty of anything becauuse the REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED HOUSE and REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED SENATE will never investiagte him for anything ever. He could be caught on film eating a baby and tyhey would make it legal. He could be caught on the record sayign the constitution means whatever I say it means and they will swallow it. If they actually exercised their over sight function, which by the way he says he is nto subject to, they would find more dirt on him than they would find on a midwestern farm.
March 24th, 2006 at 3:10 pmZookeeper, hope a big fat cedar was o.k. by you, it's a done deal, even in the wind I prefere pets and trees to most people. Hay #21 name one good thing that your leader, Bush has done for the good of our country.? In answer to your question, Bush created the Iraq war, killing thousands, wiretapping american citizens, largest debt in history, ignored for 4 days the needs of u.s citizens in the south. Is selling off our parks and wilderness and dismanteling all necessary funds for the safety and maintainance of our country. Seeking to sell off our ports and air lines. I could add ton's more but have a garden to attend to. You are part of the problem, by enabling and backing a drunken, druggie full of arrogance and insanity. Lead, follow or get the hell off the progressive posts. Troll. This goes for the rest of the trolls like MA and R also..............Blessings
March 24th, 2006 at 3:10 pm#15 the just trust them (conservatives) to do the right thing no longer works as we have trusted them and they continually betray that trust.
March 24th, 2006 at 3:11 pm#25 Ahhh…the old answering a question with another question. Krazny asked you first.
Bush has not been found guilty of a crime, so there is nothing for me to face.
March 24th, 2006 at 3:11 pmI think Squegegboo might almost see the light. He is saying that Bush has not been found guilty of any crimes yet. Notice the yet? It means that they fully expect Bush to be found guilty of crimes and put away.
March 24th, 2006 at 3:12 pm"It hasn’t been proven that the wiretaps are illegal, its still a liberal talking point at this stage.
Nothing illegal about the memo or meeting with Abramoff from our current information either.
Just because you want Bush to be a criminal dosn’t make it happen. Comment by squegeeboo "
What kind of retard WANTS their president to be a criminal - oh wait, let me guess, it was YOU and clinton.
And yes it HAS been proven, several republican senators have alreadly called for 'fixing' the laws to make his actions legal. And virtually ever legal scholar worth their salt say what happened was illegal. It has been proven, the only thing not done is consequences pressed against the president. That would require authentic and patriot republicans who care to defend the constitution - and you guys are rarer then hens teeth.
And as for the 'talking points', when you learn to deliver something other than talking points - come back to the blog. At this point you sound even more BORING ZZZzzz and stupid than Mighty Aphrodite the Drag queen moron.
And back to the topic of the judge - the morons like mighty morons will just LOVE this brilliant piece of logic
Now what did John Bates have as 'proof' that he would make such a POLITICAL STATEMENT? HYPOCRITES!
March 24th, 2006 at 3:13 pm#18
Let's not forget Linda Tripp's part in that. Nothing would do her but to bring down Clinton. And poor Paula Jones, a victim who cried on national television because of what Clinton supposedly did to her and then proceeded to get a nose job and new hair style and then show her breasts to the world in Playboy magazine. And let's not forget that she attended one of the annual national press club events, smiling widely as I recall...not a tear in sight...where Clinton was also in attendance...this from a woman who, as I recall, had previously announced that she could not stand the sight of the man.
March 24th, 2006 at 3:15 pm#26 Denial. I suppose a couple of hours ago you were giving Ben the benefit of the doubt too. Get used to reality. So why would he have to ask to make it legal? I mean, if it already is, which it clearly is NOT. You go ahead and give up whatever freedom and privacy you want, but I will not and neither will America. We are founded on certain freedoms and they will survive no matter how many groups try to blow us to hell and back.
See, we are bigger than terrorists. We gave up a king long ago and we aren't ready for another. Like most will say, you can give up whatever freedoms America gives if you want, but the core of this nation must "stay on course" to use the vernacular. We hold these truths to be self evident. Apparently not to all though.
March 24th, 2006 at 3:16 pm"I think Squegegboo might almost see the light. He is saying that Bush has not been found guilty of any crimes yet. Notice the yet? Krazny"
Like any dictator, how can he be found guilty when he claims imperial power? After all, he argues that anything he does in the 'pursuit of war' is legal? Of course the constitution disagrees, but since when did that stop a dictator.
And lets not forget the matter that only Congress has the power to actually indict (impeach) and remove the president. Even if he stands and shoots someone on camera with a gun, or kidnaps and murders detainees, or commits torture, or warrantless searches, or illegal wiretapping, or uses the IRS to politically harass groups, or declares political opposition groups as 'terrorist organizations', or fabricate evidence for requesting the imperial war powers to begin with, or be involved in Crony/Corrupt business deals, or to take 'bribes' from Abramoff. And bush has done all of those things except the shoot someone directly on camera.
But without Congress willing to uphold constitutional, trolls could always say he wasn't 'proven' (in a legal sense) even though it is proven. It's a legal technicality of a typical ganster criminal mentality - a sort of reichwing gansta ghetto mentality if you will. Might makes right according to fascism - and SP isn't moral, or even decent. (s)he's just self serving, selfish and stupid.
March 24th, 2006 at 3:19 pm#28 It hurts you would call me a troll. All I bring are facts and logic to the situation, I come here to get an informed liberal view point, , as opposed to Rightwing blogs, where there is no liberal view point represented. This way I can learn both sides of an issue, and not follow my party line blindly.
Selling off ports? That part of their operation was already owned by a foreign company
March 24th, 2006 at 3:21 pmAirlines? Havent heard of it, but I was under the impression they are private companies.
Parks and wilderness? Don't really care, but maybe if you guys let him drill ANWR you can get him to promise to not sell any other areas
Iraq War? Nothing like dealing with problems before they become big problems, Neville Chamberlin anyone?
Ignoring post-katrina? If the dems in control of the city and state hadn't F'ed up so badly, it wouldn't have been an issue.
Debt? Any real conservative is just as pissed as you guys about that one
Dismantling Funds for the future? Thats every politician, which is why we shouldn't be giving them so much money to begin with.
"Now, on the FISA court, one can only hope Bates will care as much about the privacy of ordinary Americans as he did for Dick Cheney, Ken Lay, and Big Oil executives."
Better yet one can only hope Bates will not care a whit about the privacy of not so ordinary Americans that are talking smack with terrorists or belong to subversive organizations like Move On, CAIR, ACLU and the Democratic Party, to name a few.
March 24th, 2006 at 3:27 pm#30
So are you going to answer Krazny's question?
What about Ryan's #32 post? Why should senators make such an effort to make the domestic wiretapping legal if it already is unquestionably legal, as Bush says?
And regarding meaningful hearings into the domestic wiretapping issue, if it is perfectly legal, if it's a slam-dunk case, then what does Bush and the administration fear by having an honest investigation?
March 24th, 2006 at 3:29 pmIt isn’t like we didn’t see this coming! Stacking the courts with “favored status†judges.
Comment by Marie
You haven't seen anything yet. We have 50 years of liberal stacking to unstack.
March 24th, 2006 at 3:30 pm#38 If you read post #30 you would see my answer, the last line, I even made sure it ended in a period so you wouldn't think its a question again.
But here it is again, just for you.
March 24th, 2006 at 3:31 pmBush has not been found guilty of a crime, so there is nothing for me to face.
True the ports were owned by a foreign company, a British company, not an Arab company. And I would like to point out the most of the screaming and yelling on that issue came from the right not the left.
The airlines, frankly have made their own bed.
Since Drilling in ANWR will do little to solve the oil issue, we should not be destroying our national parks. I was under the impression that conservatives conserve, not spend like drunken frat boys at a titty bar.
Equating Iraq with WWII is a huge logical fallicy. Sadaam was never the threat Hitler represented. He had no WMD's, he had no ties with Al-Quiada, and did not order the 9/11 attack. I would like to point out that somthing like 90% of this country agreed to his course of action in invading Afganistan to locate Bin Laden. Too bad he has since dropped the ball.
Funny the last president to reduce the debt was Clinton. Republicans like to spend.
I don't think we need to give less money, I think we need better oversight on how that money is spent, starting with congressman, senators, presidents, and cabinet officials getting minimum wage.
March 24th, 2006 at 3:32 pmUhh actually a majority of judges in this country are conservative, I wonder how that happened.
March 24th, 2006 at 3:36 pmHay #36 Troll, where's the answer to my question. one good thing Bush has done. ???????Get the answers and precise quotes to all your statements listed above before filling up space with more of you reich wing crap. I will respond to one quote only. Selling off our ports and air lines to a foreign country not a foreign owned company. Get real, not stupid....Geesss to bad stupid isn't painful or curable.....Read ,get informed. watch c-span. cnn, listen to npr radio and then start posting would you please...An excelent bunch of books are available, do you read books....?
March 24th, 2006 at 3:37 pmYou haven’t seen anything yet. We have 50 years of liberal stacking to unstack.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — March 24, 2006 @ 3:30 pm
Better stack faster; they'll be packing their bags in november. Have you packed your long woolies? I here it gets cold in the wilderness.
March 24th, 2006 at 3:40 pm#41. Equating Iraq with WWII is a huge logical fallicy. Sadaam was never the threat Hitler represented.
I would say he was pretty close to the threat of Hitler around 1934ish, right when he was consildating control of Germany. And look what he was able to do within a decade. If France or GB had the backbone back in 34, Hitler would have never been the threat he became, but we would all wonder now if it was necissary or not. I'd much rather have to wonder, then find out I was wrong if we do nothing.
Clinton did it by extremly weaking the military, which is part of the reason why you hear about troops with out armor, and over-extension today. Republicans mistake was thinking we could co-op the liberal position of more funding for social issues(Education, medicare, etc.) instead the liberals just starting asking for even more, hopefully they will realise they can't win on that issue and go back to calling for decreased spending to match decreased taxes.
If you paid those positions minimum wage, you would attract people with minimum wage skill sets, which would give us even worse leadership. And seeing how as lib's seem to hate the current administration, picture them, but stupid.
March 24th, 2006 at 3:42 pmGiven that Bush has basically rendered the FISA court irrelevant he has effectively rendered Judge John Bates irrelevant...
March 24th, 2006 at 3:45 pmSadaam was not even close to Hitler in 34. Sadaam was contained, the world at large and US in paticular had already dealt him a serious blow, that he would never recover from. You may think he was a threat equal to hitler, but most of people do not. You are right that Europe allowed Hitler to grow into a powerful threat. You ignore some of the root causes why (WWI, and its aftermath primarly). The and I would like to point out that Neville chamberlian paid the price for his incompotence.
Clinton weakened the military is a common right wing fallicy. If the military was so weak why did Baghdad fall so quickly? I am unsure why social programs are such a bugaboo for the republicans. Frankly I would rather my tax dollars went to helping my countryman, instead of bombing Iraq.
I don't need to picture the current admin as any stupider. they do fine just by themselves.
March 24th, 2006 at 3:48 pmYou know when people leave and their excuse is spend more time with their family (translation: I'm about to be indicted), I think the exuse resigned to protest also has a different meaning but I'm not sure what yet.
When people resign, the administration jumps up and down. Oh boy, now we can politize the position and hire some crony who may or may not have any real skills for the particular job (i.e. Brown, Iraq coalition authority), but that isn't the point is it.
I don't recall in recent history, where so many people have resigned for either one of these excuses
March 24th, 2006 at 4:00 pmJack,
I don't want to sound as though I am defending Bush, but I think that appointments in past presidencys have not gotten the same amount of attention as they do now.
March 24th, 2006 at 4:05 pmYou haven’t seen anything yet. We have 50 years of liberal stacking to unstack.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I
Yeah. Well, good luck on that one, IRI. Better have Pat Robertson and the Religious Right pray for God to kill more of them again.
Correct me if I'm wrong, RIGHT, but look at John Bates picture. Talk about a piece of queer bait. Doesn't he look just like the kind of guy you know who is always getting busted for certain acts that take place in the men's room at the bus station?
March 24th, 2006 at 4:17 pm#49
Good point. With the Internet, we have so much more information available at our fingertips now. What takes 3 minutes to locate now would take probably a week at best, 10 years ago, and that is if we spent 8 hours a day combing through newspapers and magazines and videotapes and other archives.
March 24th, 2006 at 4:23 pmsqudgiboo - President Clinton RAISED DOD spending 6 of his 8 years. He LOWERED DOD spending his first 2 years in conjunction with the planning that Bush41 (Darth Cheney wrote) put forth.
It sure is nice to be able to blame Clinton for everything. Unfortunately for you, some of us here actually READ from many sources. You sir, are a fraud.
March 24th, 2006 at 4:23 pm#47 Saddam was contained, but it seems like if we hadn't invaded the containment was failing as Foreign business interests began to regrow in Iraq. Maybe he would have stayed weak, maybe not, but that debate can't really go anywhere, to many what ifs and could of/should of type situtations, and yes, I did oversimplify the Germany comparision.
Baghdad fell so quickly because we dealt with Iraq before it had the chance to grow in power again.
Social programs, to me at least, are bugaboo because I don't feel the gov't should even have them, let alone spend money on them. Thats what charities/private orginizations are for. I would rather my tax dollars stayed in my pocket, so I could then distribute them to different areas, as opposed to the gov't taking them and spending them how they see fit.
March 24th, 2006 at 4:24 pm#52 got a link? The stuff I'm finding claims that the defense budget didn't start going up until '99, and mentions things like several shortfall or how to avoid a DoD train wreck. Here's one of the links http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Pentagon_military/MilitaryBudget_CDI.html
March 24th, 2006 at 4:40 pmoops, severe shortfall, not several, heres anouther link now that it's a new post:
March 24th, 2006 at 4:43 pmhttp://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/EM467.cfm
#40
I think I see your point. And that is, until Bush is charged AND convicted, it appears that you will not even consider, or question, anything that he has done, and not even consider that anything he has done is illegal. In other words, he can do anything he wants, but as long as he has not been convicted, none of it is criminal in nature and no one has the right to question him.
Using that logic, I can drive 70 mph in a 55 mph zone, I can admit in this public forum that I did so all last week, but unless I am caught and fined, I've not broken the law and nobody has any right to question my actions or accuse me of an illegal act.
Now, back to Bush. Let's see now...the law requires a warrant to wiretap (past 72 hours), Bush admits publically that he purposely bypassed this law, and continues to do so. Hmmm...seems to me there is a pretty strong question as to whether a law has been broken.
And you are right in one aspect...Bush's actions regarding domestic wiretapping have not yet been proven illegal.
By the same token, they haven't been proven legal, either. But a few senators are working on that, now aren't they? Which leads to the other 2 questions I posed in post #38, which you so far have refused to address.
March 24th, 2006 at 4:43 pm#56 I think I see your point. And that is, until Bush is charged AND convicted, it appears that you will not even consider, or question, anything that he has done, and not even consider that anything he has done is illegal.
I don't think he is saying he won't question, But there are a whole lot of people on here calling him guilty when it has not been proven.
Using that logic, I can drive 70 mph in a 55 mph zone, I can admit in this public forum that I did so all last week, but unless I am caught and fined, I’ve not broken the law and nobody has any right to question my actions or accuse me of an illegal act.
Where did Bush admit it was illegal? I have not seen that and cannot prove a negative. I do know that he has defended his right to do it at all points (Rather he is right or not I have not read a quote from him saying it was illegal)
And you are right in one aspect…Bush’s actions regarding domestic wiretapping have not yet been proven illegal.
If it hasn't been proven when would any politician ever admit to doing anything illegal?
By the same token, they haven’t been proven legal
With Law if it's not illegal it is legal. Where is it written that it is legal for you sit in a chair?
Why should senators make such an effort to make the domestic wiretapping legal if it already is unquestionably legal, as Bush says?
March 24th, 2006 at 4:55 pmHas he admitted it is legal or not? I am getting conflicting information from you guys
See Chief Justice John Roberts is a proven Bush stooge by appointing Bates to the FISA court position! The GOP is making a mockery of our justice system! When they have pushed Americans against the wall, with zero rights, then Americans will rebel and perhaps overthrow the entire DC government?!
March 24th, 2006 at 4:57 pm#57, Tundra interesting perspective, but the difference from your analogy is that Bush WAS caught first, and then he admitted it was true. The problem is that only congress can TRY him for the crime, and they're unwilling to for political reasons.
March 24th, 2006 at 4:58 pm"And you are right in one aspect…Bush’s actions regarding domestic wiretapping have not yet been proven illegal. Tundra"
Sure it has, otherwise republicans wouldn't be calling to 'fix' the law to make Bush's actions legal. Only the intellectually dishonest and politically apologetic say it isn't illegal. The constitution trumps FISA - and the Supreme court has already upheld this ruling. Sorry, it is illegal, as much as Perjury is illegal. Republicans who claim otherwise are just debating the meaning of 'is'.
March 24th, 2006 at 5:01 pm#56 Heres your answers, I figured they were retorical and didn't require a response.
And regarding meaningful hearings into the domestic wiretapping issue, if it is perfectly legal, if it’s a slam-dunk case, then what does Bush and the administration fear by having an honest investigation?
why waste tax payer money on an investigation for something thats legal. If it's such a slam-dunk don't bother having it.
Why should senators make such an effort to make the domestic wiretapping legal if it already is unquestionably legal, as Bush says?
March 24th, 2006 at 5:05 pmBecause its good political grand standing for a congressman from a red state. They can be seen supporting the war on terror and defending the Republican president against a liberal attack.
Tundra, here you go:
Sorry, but it was a crime, and Bush admitting to committing it, and his own attornies told him it was a crime. The arguments about 'times of war' crap are nonsense, as the founding fathers put forth the 'warrant' as a response to british treatment of americans 'during war'. To argue this point, and believe this train of thought is undemocratic, unamerican, and a breach of all sacred american values. It identifies those who make at as unamerican fascists - pure and simple.
March 24th, 2006 at 5:06 pmRepublicans loathe facts.
March 24th, 2006 at 5:07 pmAlso, is there any troll out there who can respond to the substance of the original post?
March 24th, 2006 at 5:09 pmSqueegeepoop is making the 'I'm innocent so why investigate' argument. I seem to recall Al Capone used the same argument.
Anyone that claims that level of 'arrogance' knows their guilty - making squeegeepoop the new troll with the least honor and most unamerican values.
And if it's 'unquestionably' legal, why did a dozen of the most respected legal scholars in the country send a formal letter saying it was illegal?
DUHH... Squeegepoop has crap for brains like all of the fascist retards.
March 24th, 2006 at 5:09 pmChisholm,
Facts prove reichwingers wrong, that's why the avoid them. The whole point of 'conservatism' is the belief that you know the answer, and therefore why question, review, think or analyze the situation. As squeegeepoop demonstrates, they believe they know the answer before the question is asked.
It's kind of like the 'fixing of intelligence', that the administration did. They already 'knew' ahead of time the answer they wanted to believe, so they disregarded all of the facts on the way to their blunder.
It's the same 'retardation' that squeegeepoop demonstrates quite clearly here.
After all, what kind of RETARD says something is 'unquestionable', when in fact the EXPERTS ALMOST TO A (WO)MAN question his conclusion? It's because he's stupid, and crazy - and facts prove it ;)
March 24th, 2006 at 5:12 pm#64 Theres nothing to respond to for the substance of the original post. Roberts appointed a conservative Judge....and?
#62 Accordingly the program appears on its face to violate existing law.
So when did he admit it? He said at face value, it looks that way, but theres other parts we can't show you for security reasons. That means there could be a part that can't be shown that allows it, which makes sense when you look at his word choice to include "on its face".
If it's so illegal congress should call an investigation, have they? No.
If a dozen sent in a letter against it, how many others don't think its illegal? What legal profession are they in, do they know this portion of law? Otherwise it sounds like more liberals attacking Bush, again.
March 24th, 2006 at 5:19 pm#66
Facts prove reichwingers wrong, that’s why the avoid them.
After all, what kind of RETARD says something is ‘unquestionable’, when in fact the EXPERTS ALMOST TO A (WO)MAN question his conclusion? It’s because he’s stupid, and crazy - and facts prove it ;)
Somehow you making a statement doesn't fit the definition of fact, I have yet to see you list any facts yet, and your one link is only your interpretation of his statement, interpretations also arn't facts.
Seems like you have the beleif that you know the answer, and therefore why question, review, think or analyze the situation.
Caps lock still has issues I see, still waiting on that check?
March 24th, 2006 at 5:26 pmIt sure does seem like a strange strategy on the part of the Senate minority, to not confront the President on this matter.
So now we're to have a 'packed' FISA Court, so as to ultimately "acquiesce" the circumvention of that court.
Good strategy on the part of the lawbreakers; as for the lawmakers?
Makes sense to somebody I guess, to not confont the President on this matter...
...to not confront him on behalf of the Constitution and the American People for whom it was written.
March 24th, 2006 at 5:26 pm"Somehow you making a statement doesn’t fit the definition of fact, I have yet to see you list any facts yet, and your one link is only your interpretation of his statement, interpretations also arn’t facts. squeegeepoop"
You say that the law is 'unquestionable', I prove to you that major legal scholars 'question' it. That's a fact, you're wrong, you're an idiot - end of discussion, and you're welcome for my effort to help you correct your ignorance. Even though it's clear you're a lost cause that doesn't deserve it.
"Seems like you have the beleif that you know the answer, and therefore why question, review, think or analyze the situation.
Caps lock still has issues I see, still waiting on that check?
Comment by squegeepoop"
Yep, still waiting - and you are the one that stated a 'belief' that the legality was 'unquestionable', so you're welcome in me pointing out your retarded hypocrisy. It must be difficult for someone with your shortbus degree of functioning to even type, no wonder you don't yet understanding what capslocks are used for.
March 24th, 2006 at 5:42 pm"If it’s so illegal congress should call an investigation, have they? No. squeegepoop"
That's just because they're unamerican fascist cowards like you. Just because you guys protect criminals instead of prosecute doesn't change the fact they're criminals, but it makes all of you accomplices. Little 'eichmans' as it were.
March 24th, 2006 at 5:44 pm"So when did he admit it? He said at face value, it looks that way, but theres other parts we can’t show you for security reasons. squeegeepoop"
A government that hires the chinese to scan for nuclear cargo can't use the security reasons argument. Sorry, that's a no hunt dog. There is no 'secret' part of the program that could possibly trump the constitution you retard.
March 24th, 2006 at 5:48 pm“So when did he admit it? squeegeepoopâ€
As a NEW troll, I'll ignore the fact that this is very common knowledge, and was previously documented on multiple sites including this one.
Do the trolls just keep getting dumber, or are they just more desperate? What MORONS.
March 24th, 2006 at 5:51 pm#73
So when did he admit it? Thats just more of you guys claiming its illegal, the TP article even says "Bush claimed it was consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution. " Since when have US Law and the Consititution been illegal? Becuase if this is more of your 'proof' that he admitted it, all he does is say its legal, so if its legal, then the whole system must be illegal, or at least thats the best I can do with your logic.
Your not a criminal until proven guilty, maybe you should try a country that dosn't have that nastly little innocent until proven guilty issue, then, maybe then Bush could be called a criminal.
#70
The first use of Unquestionable in this post was by you, everytime I used it was either a direct copy of your statement, or a paraphrase of it, so your point fails in that regard, secondly, its a fact that some liberals, including lawyers think it is illegal, however that does not make it a fact that it is illegal, so still waiting on any proof from your side.
But instead, stick with the personal attacks, really helps you get a point across.
March 24th, 2006 at 6:43 pm#37 I-R-I sez......"Better yet one can only hope Bates will not care a whit about the privacy of not so ordinary Americans that are talking smack with terrorists or belong to subversive organizations like Move On, CAIR, ACLU and the Democratic Party, to name a few."
goes to show that you don't have to travel far to find someone who hates us for our freedoms
March 24th, 2006 at 6:51 pm"#73
So when did he admit it? Thats just more of you guys claiming its illegal, the TP article even says “Bush claimed it was consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution. †squeegeepoop"
He admitted doing the act, but claims it's legal is like al capone admitting he killed people, but claiming it's legal. The 'admission of guilt' is still there, he's just saying he ignores people that says he doesn't have a right to violate the law. It doesn't change the fact that he admitted to DOING the act.
He's like every other petty criminal who claims that their crime is 'OK'. The two kids who murdered matthew shephard said virtually the same thing - I believe their quote was "but he was queer, so it wasn't really murder".
"Your not a criminal until proven guilty squeegeepoop"
Unless you admit you committed an act that's known to be a crime, at which point you'd be tried for the crime if you were anyone other than Bush. Admission to guilt waives the right, as you've already confessed to the crime. Sorry, but that's the real world child.
So once again, you lose sucker.
March 24th, 2006 at 6:58 pm"The first use of Unquestionable in this post was by you, everytime I used it was either a direct copy of your statement, or a paraphrase of it - squeegeepoop"
So now it's the 'plagarism' defense - figures.
March 24th, 2006 at 6:59 pmMy Dear Progs - Let's cut to the chase - you are hoping to return the House and Senate back to the Dems in the fall. The only way that can be done is to shift opinion district by district. Why not DEMAND three or four nationally televised, prime time debates??? Demonstrate to the American people what your party, REALLY stands for.
March 24th, 2006 at 7:07 pm#37 I-R-I sez……â€Better yet one can only hope Bates will not care a whit about the privacy of not so ordinary Americans that are talking smack with terrorists or belong to subversive organizations like Move On, CAIR, ACLU and the Democratic Party, to name a few.â€
think we should vote republican MA?
March 24th, 2006 at 7:12 pmJust because you want Bush to be a criminal dosn’t make it happen.
In the same way that clapping your hands over your ears, and screaming, "Bush is a good president, who never lies," doesn't make it so. But, I imagine that would be lost on you.
Hell, I wish he wasn't a criminal, but I am faced with entirely too much evidence to the contrary.
March 24th, 2006 at 7:14 pm"My Dear Progs - Let’s cut to the chase - you are hoping to return the House and Senate back to the Dems in the fall. Mighty Moron"
My Dear Retarded Reichwingers. Lets cut to the chase. Reichwingers are fearful that democrats will return to the house and senate, impeach your president, and take down the entire network of cronyism, bribes, corruption, scandals, conspiracies and failures of republicans for the last 5 years.
It's a valid fear, and I don't blame you for being afraid.
And now, why again do you believe that Reichwingers deserve to rule, when you refuse to track down Osama, attack countries who aren't attacking us, and hand over port security to the VERY SAME chinese country you whackos were complaining to us about a couple of weeks ago?
Oh wait, that's right, because republicans are corrupt, greedy morons - much like yourself. Yeah, a debate sounds good, will your candidates be wearing wires again so you can pay for cyrano/rove to whisper propaganda into their ears?
March 24th, 2006 at 7:16 pm#5- "Correct me if I’m wrong, RIGHT, but look at John Bates picture. Talk about a piece of queer bait. Doesn’t he look just like the kind of guy you know who is always getting busted for certain acts that take place in the men’s room at the bus station?"
-"comment by SixA$$ Joe
*****You must be the sick knd of guy who follows men into lonely restrooms...
Stick to the half truths you and "that other one" love to post....
March 24th, 2006 at 7:23 pm#37 I-R-I sez……â€Better yet one can only hope Bates will not care a whit about the privacy of not so ordinary Americans that are talking smack with terrorists or belong to subversive organizations like Move On, CAIR, ACLU and the Democratic Party, to name a few.â€
howcum republican spokesperson I-R-I hates us for our freedoms MA?
March 24th, 2006 at 7:25 pm"*****You must be the sick knd of guy who follows men into lonely restrooms…
Stick to the half truths you and “that other one†love to post….
Comment by mighty aphrodite "
You always give such good advice, unfortunately you're also the one who always needs that advice the most. Psychiatry teaches us that the 'unenlightened' can only see themselves - which explains why you always see your obvious flaws in others.
After all, it was YOU that posted the 'half truth' in the thread next to this one, including the broken link, and false information that everyone READILY corrected you on.
You sure are persistent, considering how little you have to offer. Stupid is, as stupid does, and you prove that daily.
March 24th, 2006 at 7:26 pmDEMAND the NSA surveillance debate Dems/progs/Bush-haters....Show the country YOUR plan....TRUST the American people to choose....
Tee-hee-heeee
March 24th, 2006 at 7:26 pm#37 I-R-I sez……â€Better yet one can only hope Bates will not care a whit about the privacy of not so ordinary Americans that are talking smack with terrorists or belong to subversive organizations like Move On, CAIR, ACLU and the Democratic Party, to name a few.â€
this is your plan MA?
March 24th, 2006 at 7:28 pm"*****You must be the sick knd of guy who follows men into lonely restrooms… mighty man troll"
Anyone else wonder how a 'woman' is so familiar with this?
Mighty Moron yet again proves his 'gender confusion', and that he's really a guy.
Not that anyone needed any proof - Mizz 34 year old with 12 years of military service, college, law school, 4 children and private practice all in 15 years. Yeah, sure you're who you say you are - hehehe, RETARD.
March 24th, 2006 at 7:28 pmI would say he was pretty close to the threat of Hitler around 1934ish,
Clinton did it by extremly weaking the military, which is part of the reason why you hear about troops with out armor, and over-extension today.
We have now entered winger history revision 101 territory. Try learining a little actual before making yourself look ignorant, oops, too late. Sorry.
This is why home schooling doesn't work.
March 24th, 2006 at 7:31 pmRyan- Cant even stick to your own points? Thats to bad
first you have comments about him admitting its legal:
As a NEW troll, I’ll ignore the fact that this is very common knowledge,
Sorry, but it was a crime, and Bush admitting to committing it
yet know your saying he claims it legal?
He admitted doing the act, but claims it’s legal
Oh No!! It sounds like even you realise your house of cards is collapsing in around you? What ever happened to your facts? Still waiting on even one of those about it being illegal, or Bush admitting its illegal.
So he's admitted to doing something that isn't illegal? Oh Snap, how could he, that traitor.
So now it’s the ‘plagarism’ defense - figures.
Do you remeber your previous posts, or once you've said it you forget? When I did a direct copy it was to post your line so I could respond to it, just like in this post, when I did a paraphrase it was to coach my answer in your language, nothing wrong with that either.
So your argument still stands at:
1. You hate republicans
2. Escpically Bush
3. You think he did something illegal, even though you can't prove what he did was illegal
4. .......
5. Using #4 you claim victory
Your like the underwear gnomes from South Park, good initial and final, missing the actual process to get there
March 24th, 2006 at 7:31 pm#26 - Squeegeeboi,
I saw someone (not sure if it was you or just one of your ilk) state that the Whitewater investigation found that Clinton violated the trust of the Congress and the American people. You state that there is NO proof that GW Bush is guilty of anything. How about the same thing Clinton was nailed for?
"When we talk about wiretapping, we are talking about...we are always talking about getting a warrant first."
President GW Bush, 2004
We now know that this was a LIE! The reality (if you would open your eyes and turn off Faux news & Limbaugh for a while) is that President Bush wouldn't know how to find (or tell) the truth if we drew him a map! In point of fact, this entire administration has done nothing but lie to the American people from the beginning. From the VP's secret energy meetings (wherein, I believe, they began apportioning Iraq's oil), to the pre-war intelligence (remember the infamous 16 words???), to the possible outcome of the war ("We will be greeted as liberators"), to the Abramhoff scandal ("Jack who?") this ENTIRE misadministration has dissembled ("that means to not tell the truth." as opposed to "dissassemble" which means to take apart) and flat out LIED every time they have told the American people anything! President Clinton was impeached for not telling the whole truth (an outcome I supported I may add). Why should this bunch get a pass just because they pay you to come spout bile here?
March 24th, 2006 at 7:34 pm#37 I-R-I sez……â€Better yet one can only hope Bates will not care a whit about the privacy of not so ordinary Americans that are talking smack with terrorists or belong to subversive organizations like Move On, CAIR, ACLU and the Democratic Party, to name a few.â€
squegeeboo.....do you think republican spokesperson I-R-I is on the right track?
March 24th, 2006 at 7:35 pm74- What part of FISA do you not understand? The part that inconveniently makes the President's eavesdropping illegal?
March 24th, 2006 at 7:36 pm"Ryan- Cant even stick to your own points? Thats to bad
first you have comments about him admitting its legal squeegeepoop"
Actually the comments admit he did the action, his claim that these actions should be 'legal' are just standard criminal justifications for their crime. It doesn't change the fact that he admitted to the crime.
Your inability to recognize such a 'simple' concept proves you're a retarded moron - thanks for playing fool.
March 24th, 2006 at 7:36 pm#79 - No Walter, I think we should vote for the party that wants to protect the people in our country who are planning and conspiring with our enemy. I know that's the party that will earn your vote!!!
March 24th, 2006 at 7:36 pmEveryone remember: I'ts OKay If You Are Republican (IOKIYAR) and it's only partisan if it's a Democrat or a liberal.
Obviously words like hypocrisy are meaningless.
March 24th, 2006 at 7:39 pm"1. You hate republicans - squeegeepoop"
You mean you hate democrats - projection is the mark of a reichwing moron. I hate reichwingers - not all republicans match that. I disagree with many things 'Tundra' posts, but he's a republican and not a complete moron - but you are.
"2. Escpically Bush - squeegeepoop"
I don't 'hate' anyone I haven't met - that's a stupid premise. However I can identify ineptitude, corruption and criminal behavior. Bush represents all of those negative traits - and he's unfit to be president.
"3. You think he did something illegal, even though you can’t prove what he did was illegal - squeegeepoop"
Actually I KNOW he did something illegal. He admitted it. He CLAIMED his actions are legal, but FISA, the constitution and constitutional scholars disagree - as do I.
"4. ……. squeegeepoop"
This is the part where you ignore that bush admitted to actions that are unconstitutional, while claiming 'imperial power' to implement this - and how you as a typical 'fascist' just roll over like a passive fool. I believe in the constitution, and I know enough of my rights to realize Bush is a criminal. You however appear to know nothing, while simply giving up your constitutional rights. You're undeserving of your citizenship - and you're welcome for me protecting you from your own ignorance.
"5. Using #4 you claim victory - squeegeepoop"
That's because I won the debate - your ignorance and stupidity doesn't change that - fool.
"Your like the underwear gnomes from South Park, good initial and final, missing the actual process to get there - squeegeepoop"
That's really funny coming from the 'talking tvrd'.
March 24th, 2006 at 7:43 pm"No Walter, I think we should vote for the party that wants to protect the people in our country who are planning and conspiring with our enemy. I know that’s the party that will earn your vote!!!
Comment by mighty aphrodite"
Then you definitely are encouraging people to vote as Democrats - good for you! Republicans seem more concerned to conspire with Al Queda companies and countries in Saudi Arabia and Dubai - and to hand over the safety and security of our ports to Chinese controlled Hutchison. All the while saying Bin Laden isn't a priority.
Oh, and lets not forget the part where the Republican Reichwingers TRAINED, FUNDED AND ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR AL QUEDA! Oh mighty moron, security is the LAST thing republicans have legs on. The public is on to you mighty moron, the ship is sinking, and only the fools like you still hold the faith. You're the DUMBEST OF THE DUMB - congrats!
March 24th, 2006 at 7:47 pmRyan
Ah, I made one semantic slip, oh so sorry. Still dosn't change the fact that you have no leg to stand on.
It doesn’t change the fact that he admitted to the crime.
What Crime?
Once again, you claiming something is illegal dosn't make it illegal. You have yet to show that it is illegal. So that means Bush admitted to a legal activity.
So just stick with the personal attacks, and the semantics, maybe even use my grammer against me, because you have made it painfully apparent that you can't prove your point.
March 24th, 2006 at 7:50 pm"It doesn’t change the fact that he admitted to the crime.
What Crime? squeegeepoop"
Warrantless spying on american soil is a CRIME - bush admitted it, he's therefore guilty. He claims he has the right to perform this illegal act, like most caught criminals.
It's a crime - pure and simple.
And you're welcome for my efforts to protect you from your own ignorance.
March 24th, 2006 at 7:56 pmAnd Squeegeepoop, just because you're too retarded to follow a link, don't make that everyone else's fault. It makes you look like Mike Brown and the rest of the IneptiCONs.
March 24th, 2006 at 7:57 pm"So that means Bush admitted to a legal activity. squeegeepoop"
No it means he admits to a CRIME that he says he shouldn't be charged for. Your 'SPIN' is as retarded as your inability hold political figures accountable for criminal activities. You make a perfect Reichwing Nazi - Hitler would be proud of his heirs, if not their ineffectiveness.
March 24th, 2006 at 7:59 pmNo Walter, I think we should vote for the party that wants to protect the people in our country who are planning and conspiring with our enemy. I know that’s the party that will earn your vote!!!
Comment by mighty aphrodite
aphrodite, you silly girl. You and squeezetoy are really a pair tonight. Also your post about me did not go unnoticed.
You must be the sick knd of guy who follows men into lonely restrooms…
Stick to the half truths you and “that other one†love to post….
Comment by mighty aphrodite
That was a nasty crack and if I wasn't a typical rightwing redneck kind of conservative I would probably be offended. Still, I'm more of a man than most of the harmless panty sniffers you are used to, hon. Now for a beer.
March 24th, 2006 at 8:12 pmJoe Sixpack,
Now that was humor - you're a funny, funny, FUNNY person!
March 24th, 2006 at 8:19 pmsquegeeboo - you'll come to love the progs here .... in the same way they love us.
Tips for Conservative trolls and trollettes:
a.) Remember - the love they project on the campaign trail is just that - an illusion.
***there are 2 or 3 progs here who are sweet - the rest are like snakes - venomous and not alot of spine.
b.) This site should be called Think Partial - rarely does the entire story get told and they'll swear your links are poorly posted. They believe if they repeat their bull$h*t enough, others will believe it - thank that public school education! Half truths are posted as Gospel - sorry atheists - and the concept of sarcasm, wit, etc. is a foreign concept. They take themselves VERY, VERY seriously. Tangental "arguments" are common as diversion is their best "weapon". Just remember, they don't shoot straight.
c.) they are the most kind and sensitive inhabitors of the Earth (or Planet) until you disagree with them. At that point, they sensitively question your gender, sexuality, sexual proclivities, your religion, your region, your appearance, etc. Of course, if you discussed any of these issues with a transgendered lesbian extraterrestrial monk - you are immediately labelled "insensitive". Damn that hurts!!! tee-hee!!!!
March 24th, 2006 at 8:23 pm#102 - Joe - I guess you are more of a man - when compared to a neutered squirrel.
March 24th, 2006 at 8:24 pm#60
Ryan...the quote you used was from my post, not Tundra's. My statement was basically to confirm that in the eyes of squegeeboo, as far as a court of law goes, and from the point of Republicans in Congress actually getting off their asses and having a meaningful investigation, Bush's actions have not been proven illegal. That is his point that I think I see (and I may be wrong...haven't read the rest of the posts yet...), and apparently that is what it's going to take for Bush lovers in this country to be convinced of his wrongdoing.
March 24th, 2006 at 9:07 pm"Joe - I guess you are more of a man - when compared to a neutered squirrel.
Comment by mighty aphrodite "
And now we all know more about mighty aphrodite's sex life than any of us want to - YUCK.
March 24th, 2006 at 9:18 pm#61...
And regarding meaningful hearings into the domestic wiretapping issue, if it is perfectly legal, if it’s a slam-dunk case, then what does Bush and the administration fear by having an honest investigation? [Comment by WC]
why waste tax payer money on an investigation for something thats legal. If it’s such a slam-dunk don’t bother having it. [Reply by squegeeboo]
Why should senators make such an effort to make the domestic wiretapping legal if it already is unquestionably legal, as Bush says? [Comment by WC]
Because its good political grand standing for a congressman from a red state. They can be seen supporting the war on terror and defending the Republican president against a liberal attack. [Reply by squegeeboo]
Comment by squegeeboo — March 24, 2006 @ 5:05 pm
You still did not answer the questions. In the first one, again, tell us why you think the Bush administration lobbied hard against an investigation by the Senate Intelligence Committee? The wasting of taxpayer money, as I recall, was not one of their concerns.
And as far as the second question, again, why create a new set of rules for a program already deemed legal by the administration? Political grandstanding? Ha! Whatever. It's a good bet that a majority of the consituents of the red state most likely already supported Bush's little adventure.
March 24th, 2006 at 10:30 pmsquegeeboo - use a bit of caution as some of the "independently wealthy" types like to try to figure out the schedules and lives of some trolls. They don't read too well - one fool is convinced that my discussion with a couple of colleagues affiliated with the ACLU translated into "a case aagainst the ACLU" - you get the picture....This same angry little "person" obviously knows nothing about court schedules, depositions, motions, appeals, continuances, lap tops, etc. - - but why expect something from absolutely nothing. Good night!
March 24th, 2006 at 10:43 pm#37 I-R-I sez……â€Better yet one can only hope Bates will not care a whit about the privacy of not so ordinary Americans that are talking smack with terrorists or belong to subversive organizations like Move On, CAIR, ACLU and the Democratic Party, to name a few.â€
so MA, you support I-R-I's statement?
March 24th, 2006 at 11:15 pmI-R-I being republican and all
March 24th, 2006 at 11:18 pm#109 Ryan Neat sez....."And Mighty Moron, how many clients did you ‘cheat’ today."
isn't that some kind of lawyer joke? That's like Christine Johnson billing the Stark County (Ohio) Family Court for 30 hours work for a single day.
March 24th, 2006 at 11:23 pm#106 Yes, that is my point, many of you are claiming Bush is guilty of illegal activities, but in this nation you are innocent until proven guilty, and he has not been found guilty. A simple concept that some of you just can't grasp.
#110 About the grand standing, that was my point, if their state supports Bush's actions, they gain free points for the next election by making sure it is legal, so they can claim they defended Bush against a liberal attack, this way their constitiuants in the Red State will be even more likely to vote them back in.
Mighty-Thanks for the warnings but after just one or two posts with Ryan I've already seen all the slander they can come up with, hopefully I'll learn to ignore useless comments like his and just stick with meaningful debate with the intelligent liberals on the site.
March 25th, 2006 at 1:36 amI know…I know… Roberts SHOULD have tapped a “progressiveâ€â€¦.
Comment by mighty aphrodite —
To Mighty Hypocrite,
March 25th, 2006 at 6:02 amI believe there are still some judges of a conservative bent a la Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor who believe in that the public has a right to know things like what people were on Cheney's energy task force. If you really have four children, as you claim, I would think you might be a bit concerned about the global environment they are going to inherit. And to paraphrase what you reichwingers say about our concerns related to warrantless wiretapping, if Cheney has nothing to fear, why should he hide the names of the people he asked to work on the US's energy policy--a matter that will greatly influence the global environment for years to come?
And don't bother going into a big diatribe accusing Justices Kennedy and O'Connor of not being good conservatives. Aside from the fact that they were both appointed by a Republican president, if it weren't for their votes in Bush vs. Gore in 2000, we wouldn't have your darling Dumbya as president.
Dear Lora - You probably think Justice Earl Warren was a conservative. He was appointed by President Eisenhower, afterall....
March 25th, 2006 at 10:46 amsince when do Supreme Court justices have any role in appointing other judges? that's the job of the legislative and executive branch!
am i lost or something?
signed,
March 25th, 2006 at 11:01 amLaw Student
#37 I-R-I sez……â€Better yet one can only hope Bates will not care a whit about the privacy of not so ordinary Americans that are talking smack with terrorists or belong to subversive organizations like Move On, CAIR, ACLU and the Democratic Party, to name a few.â€
some would think that I-R-I was a conservative.......what do you think MA...I-R-I a conservative?
March 25th, 2006 at 1:24 pm"Dear Lora - You probably think Justice Earl Warren was a conservative. He was appointed by President Eisenhower, afterall….
Comment by mighty aphrodite "
Dear mighty aphrodite, you probably think you're a conservative, after all Hitler thought he was a conservative as well.
March 25th, 2006 at 2:24 pm#115
Making sure it is legal? Do you realize what you typed? Gosh. That seems to indicate that it may not be 100% sure-fire within the law. In other words, it raises questions. Questions that don't need to be answered with a wave of the wand in the form of new legislation to make sure it is legal.
March 25th, 2006 at 2:48 pmIf Bush has the Constitution backing him up on this, if he has Congress' authorization of force backing him up on this, then we don't need to make sure it is legal, now do we?
March 25th, 2006 at 2:51 pmA bit off-topic, but when I tried to post my note above, I was taken to a page that had this:
Kind-a-Captcha
Please type the code below in the input field and click on Submit (characters can only be letters from A to F and digits from 0 to 9).
It then had black box with a code such as 09C3 in it. Is this something new with TP?
I didn't submit it (leery of something appearing out of the ordinary), but hit the back button and hit Post again, and got the message that I'd already posted. Hit refresh and my note posted OK.
March 25th, 2006 at 3:15 pmAnybody catch this on Crooksandliars.com? It was posted today. I'm posting highlights as cut down on the size of the post.
On March 14, [Common Cause President Chellie] Pingree participated on a panel on open government sponsored by the League of Women Voters...A week after the panel, an FBI agent contacted the local League president, Susan Gilbert, to raise questions about Pingree’s published remarks at the panel...According to Gilbert, FBI agent Al Dibrito said that Pingree’s comments on the USA PATRIOT Act were “way off base,†and that the League should have invited someone from the federal government to be on the panel and to respond. DiBrito then told Gilbert that she would be contacted by someone from the assistant U.S. attorney’s office in Grand Rapids to give her the real story on the Patriot Act.
So this is one more bit of evidence that not only is the government monitoring and criticizing anything negative about this administration, and those who say it, they are trying to "educate" the troublemakers as well.
Given this, and my previous post that indicates Bush can do whatever the hell he wants to, is it really that much of a stretch to imagine Bush using the NSA to eavesdrop on anyone he so chooses, enemy or supporter, to see what they are up to?
March 25th, 2006 at 3:36 pmYou probably think Justice Earl Warren was a conservative. He was appointed by President Eisenhower, afterall….
Comment by mighty aphrodite —
MIghty Hypocrite,
March 25th, 2006 at 5:02 pmNo, as a matter of fact, I don't regard Earl Warren as a conservative. He started off that way apparently and as governor of California and, in fact, approved the racial profiling of putting Japanese-Americans into internment camps during World War II--a mistake for which a later Republican president issued a formal apology and compensation. However, unlike you, his politics really did evolve towards the better.
WHAT A DORK.
HE'S BOUND TO BE EVIL.
HE MUST HAVE A LOT OF HIGH-SCHOOL SWIRLIES TO AVENGE.
JUST LIKE ALITO.
March 25th, 2006 at 9:19 pmI can't wait for the midterm elections ! Put Democrats in the majority and stop the madness !
March 27th, 2006 at 12:36 amanother asshole appoinment by the rethugs.
May 6th, 2006 at 5:01 amfascinating stuff.
November 21st, 2006 at 1:10 pmHave you called Congress today?
I have 3 times.
We have to raise HELL until this is reversed.
BTW Have you marched in the streets yet?
WHY NOT!!!!!
We would do well to MARCH AND STAY OUT UNTIL THEY ARE IMPEACHED.
ALL OF THEM.
January 19th, 2007 at 11:21 pm