Yes, we do have some crazy people. Senator Sam Brownback scares the crap out of me! He scares the crap out of most people. Most people here don’t like creationism. Our school board voted to disregard anything the State School Board says in regard to “opt-in” sex ed and creationism in science classrooms.

Manhattan may be more ‘liberal’ than the rest of Kansas, but us liberals here are alive and well!

Sam Brownback embarrasses me, and really about 70% of Manhattan. You know he changed a lot since he was elected, and there is not a chance that we will become president in 2008.

The State Board is moderate now, since voters voted them out of office and evolution standards are expected to me restored completely again.

I know there are Demoncrats that just squeal with delight at the mere idea of Marines being ambushed.

I know that these scumbag Demoncrats have been enjoying their freedom of speech right to ridicule the Marines and use the issue as a propaganda tool.

Name them. Name these “Demoncrats” of which you speak. Name them and provide proof that what they said matches your characterization of these alleged remarks, and I’ll believe that you actually care about this country, and aren’t just another hate-filled conservative bent on taking this country back decades.

I know that the people in those buildings did not cooperate.

I know that every civilian in the local area knew there was an IED and several decided to hang around to watch the fireworks.

I know there are Demoncrats that just squeal with delight at the mere idea of Marines being ambushed.

I know that these scumbag Demoncrats have been enjoying their freedom of speech right to ridicule the Marines and use the issue as a propaganda tool.

I know that the news media repeatedly quotes Iraqi terrorists who make derogatory statements about the Marines without adding that their stories conflict as to what occurred (Proof that at least someone is lying)

I say if a forged receipt is proof for all you fools that Iraq was not attempting to buy yellow cake uranium then easily proof that Iraqi terrorists were claiming to be civilians and making up easily provable lies that the Demoncrats preach over and over. Is proof that the Marines are innocent.

Better than that I know that the Marines are innocent until proven guilty. And that there is no way that they can be proven to be guilty of any of the charges against them. “This includes Marine testimony …. if disputed is hearsay”

Our country does not operate under the Code of Hammurabi. We do not believe in an eye for an eye. We believe that our soldiers and diplomats acting in foreign lands on our nation’s behalf are expected to represent the ideals that this country publicly says it supports and, yes, we all know that this president does not do that. Nevertheless, we believe that people accused of a crime are innocent until proven guilty. The Marines facing charges have been accused of a crime and they are going to get their day in court and their chance to answer those charges. And if they are guilty of violating the UCMJ or the law, they will be punished accordingly. And if they are innocent, as conservatives are fo fond of saying, they have nothing to worry about.

You have alreay decided that the people killed were guilty and that the Marines are innocent. Since there seems to be some disagreement on that point, why not let an impartial judge decide who is right and who is wrong? That’s what a “fair trial” is about.

Do have a good day.

FACT CHECK DEMONCRATS DO NOT HAVE TO SUPPORT THEIR COUNTRY

The absurd part is to assume they ever did.

Hell they and their media cohorts are working feverishly to indict innocent Marines for the charge of killing guilty insurgents who either create roadside bombs and their accomplices in an attempt to handicap the troops in hope of putting them in more harms way so that hopefully they can report about more troop deaths.

Demoncrats are a vile disgusting and sick bunch.

From Boyda’s comments I would assume that she would not take a stand on anything that would conflict with this self appointed Presidential authority.

She needs a reality check.

She seems to forget that congress gets to authorize war and the president gets to execute it.

My question is what part of SJ Resolution 23 gave Bush the authorization to invade Iraq. It has been proven by the 911 commision that Iraq had nothing to do with 911 and SJ 23 only allowed military action against those that were responsible for 911.

If congress can authorize what can’t they rescind this authorization.

FACT – no WMD’s. FACT – Bushco knew there were no WMD’s.

FACT – Buscho fixed intelligence.

FACT – Iraq war was planned long before 911.

FACT – Iraq war is about oil.

FACT- Bush is a liar, a theif, a murderer and a traitor!!!

We SANE people should repeat those same 4 FACTS whenever the conversation turns to “Bush”.

We must keep it simple, keep it direct, and keep it in the public mind to counteract the spin that is trying to make us forget those 4 FACTS!

….This Women is in the FRIGGING CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND SHE …..STILL….DOESNT…KNOW…JACK..ABOUT…THE FRIGGING…CONSTITUTION!

What has happened to this country?

I have been interested in reading your comments, particularly since they come from someone who knows this Congresswomen personally. I agree with you that she, as well as Heath Shuler, shouldn’t be dumped on at such an early stage. And, in any case, they are certainly preferrable to the Republicans they replaced. (Ex-Rep. Charles Taylor of North Carolina was on an environmentalist group’s “dirty dozen” list.)

The Constitution is included in 8th Grade Content Standards. For the past two years, my students have averaged over 90% on the school’s Constitution Test. They’ll learn it, if you let them understand why it’s important they know it.

Some of my students are legal immigrants. It’s a hellova note to have to tell them that they just lost the protections of the Constitution, thanks to the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

The 110th Congress doesn’t get to vote on whether or not Bush decides to send more troops to Iraq. He’ll call for a surge of troops as commander-in-chief because it’s an Executive policy decision.

What the 110th Congress does get to vote on is funding the war. More importantly, what the 110th Congress can also do is oversight.

Boyda’s office also told me that Ike Skelton (D-MO), Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, has announced (or will announce) that Gates will be called in front of the Committee and asked to justify the surge in troop levels.

***
Here’s my take, Nancy’s not real savvy in front of the cameras right now. After speaking with her office, I think what she meant to convey was encapsulated by her when she said, He is the commander in chief, Charlie. We don’t get that choice. Congress doesn’t make that decision. In otherwords, Bush, as commander-in-chief, decides to deploy troops and Congress can’t stop him. What Congress can do is exercise its appropriations and oversight functions. So, if Bush does send the troops she will vote to fund them.

Look at the question that Gibson asked her: would you vote in favor of money to support another 20,000 to 40,000 troops in Iraq? He did not ask her if she was in favor of the surge. Instead, basically he was asking her to assume there were an additional 20-40K troops on the ground in Iraq and if she would vote to appropriate money to support them. If she had said, “no” than people would be jumping on her for not supporting the troops. It was a question like “are you still beating your wife.”

Additionally, what Nancy said, is in line with what the other two said in Gibson’s interview. According to the thinkprogress website,

Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA), an Iraq war veteran, came out strongly in opposition to escalation, saying, “We need to listen to the military experts, people like Gen. Colin Powell, Gen. Abizaid, that say, ‘Listen, the surge isn’t going to work.’” Another newly elected member, Rep. Health Shuler (D-NC) was more circumspect. Shuler said he didn’t think escalation was “the solution” but would consider it if “that’s what our military leaders said.”

From their answers, I don’t think they were asked the same question Nancy was, i.e., Would you vote in favor of money to support another 20,000 to 40,000 troops in Iraq?. Murphy’s answer sounds like it is in response to a direct question about whether the surge is necessary. Shuler’s answer sounds like it is in response to a question about whether the surge is a solution to the problems in Iraq and he doesn’t dismiss it. Then, it appears it is Boyda’s turn. From what I can tell there is a progression in Gibson’s line of questioning. Gibson has gone from “is the surge necessary” with Murphy to assuming the surge has taken place and asks Nancy if she would fund them. What’s she going to say? No, let them starve? get blown to bits?

When Gibson asks her whether Bush will get a troop surge if he wants it, she correctly points out that he’s the commander-in-chief. He has the ability to call up troops, not Congress. Congress can provide oversight. Remember that Nancy is now a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Perhaps we should reserve finally judgment on whether we’ve been sold down the river. I want to see how Nancy handles Gates when he testifies in front of the Armed Services Committee.

Oh yeah, as for that last bit about the voting in 2000 and 2004, I think she’s saying that Bush was s/elected as commander-in-chief of our military, and basically, the American people are getting what they voted for. It wasn’t really politic of her but I don’t think it has the meaning that is being advocated.

As others have suggested, Boyda is a newbie, who represents a very republican district. Do you all want the likes of a Jim Ryun (R-KS) back? If you aren’t tolerant enough for some mod-D’s, I’m afraid you have to give the keys to the Congress back to the R’s.

Most, 99.9999% of the voting decisions voters make have NOTHING to do with knowledge of the Constitution.

What we need is a law requiring a good faith effort by news media — including cable and satellite services — to report the truth. Lack of knowledge is one thing — false knowledge supplied by propaganda is another entirely.