Conservatives usher in era of unprecedented obstructionism.
By on Jul 21st, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Conservatives usher in era of unprecedented obstructionism.
This year, “Senate Republicans are threatening filibusters to block more legislation than ever before.” The pattern of obstructionism is demolishing previous records:
Nearly 1 in 6 roll-call votes in the Senate this year have been cloture votes. If this pace of blocking legislation continues, this 110th Congress will be on track to roughly triple the previous record number of cloture votes — 58 each in the two Congresses from 1999-2002, according to the Senate Historical Office.
McClatchy provides this shocking statistical analysis:
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
This administration has no legal authority to govern.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“Sedition is a term of law to refer to covert conduct such as speech and organization that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often included subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority.”
When Cheney, Rumsfeld and others conspired to carry out the False Flag attacks against the United States, were they not employing “covert conduct such as speech and organization that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order?”
How could this term then be applied to those acting against this rogue government, itself having come to power through false pretense and vote-rigging? Such a government could not be defined as having “lawful authority.”
Absent the “Lawful Authority” of a government, there can be no Sedition.
They, the (s)elected, are in fact “the Outlaws.”
They are the ones subverting the Constitution.
Therefore it is they, the Administration itself, who have committed the act of Sedition.
“Sedition complements treason and martial law: while treason controls primarily the privileged, ecclesiastical opponents, priests, and Jesuits, as well as certain commoners; and martial law frightens commoners, sedition frightens intellectuals.”
The First Amendment clearly states that “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.”
Speak Up.
IMPEACH.
July 21st, 2007 at 2:04 pmTharting the will of the American people will cost these obstructionists next year. I can’t believe they are so politically tone-deaf.
July 21st, 2007 at 2:05 pmThat would be “thwarting.”
July 21st, 2007 at 2:06 pmI can’t believe they are so politically tone-deaf.
Comment by barfly
That’s the problem w/ living in a bubble. Ive seen this up close in the past. When all you listen to is people who agree w/ you, and they all agree ANYONE else who has the nerve to disagree w/ you is wrong, you end up like Bush and the GOOPERs – in deep, deep, sh*t.
Quote of the day –
“Holy Sh*t, where’d all the Indians come from?”
Gen George Armstrong Custer at Little Big Horn, 1876
July 21st, 2007 at 2:11 pmSo why are conservative republicans doing this.?? The short answer is…Because they Can. The voters only recourse is to vote out the obstructionists in the next election. This may well happen. I can see the political ads tying the senators with George Bush.
July 21st, 2007 at 2:19 pmA Parliamentary system like in Britian would be more efficient, but as things are now…a senators major weapon is Stopping Something.
But, but, you Democrats have the majority, don’t you?
July 21st, 2007 at 2:22 pmA Parliamentary system like in Britian would be more efficient, but as things are now…a senators major weapon is Stopping Something.
Comment by Badger
I suspect the Constitution was deliberately written that way. Certain issues are ripe for hoonest debate – to bus or not to bus, bigger govt or smaller?
Playing politics w/ your soldiers’ lives? Disgusting.
Gaming the Justice Dept? Disgusting?
Rampant corruption? Gutting the Constitution? If the proecdural rules are there tath allow tis, so be it. It’s one thing to follow the rules, it’s another to look at the end goal of that behavior is.
July 21st, 2007 at 2:23 pmThis is a brilliant strategy for the Rs. Block everything so nothing gets done & blame the majority Ds. The MSM is on board, if you hadn’t noticed.
July 21st, 2007 at 2:24 pmBut, but, you Democrats have the majority, don’t you?
Comment by michael
Petty and dishonest.
July 21st, 2007 at 2:24 pmMichael, michael, michael . . . surely you’re not naive enough to believe that just because you have a razor thin majority in the Senate you can do whatever you want, are you? That’s what makes the Senate so much fun. You’ve got these little procedures that just tie things up all in knots if you want.
The problems with the Dems in Congress is that, despite all of their faults, they believe for the most part government can do something good for the people it takes money from. The GOP, on the other hand, has basic contempt for government, except when the government is doling out contracts to private corporations owned by their buddies who use to be in the government but now own companies that do things that, well, the government should be doing. It’s all handshakes, luxury suites and trips to the Northern Marianas Islands for some cheap clothes, shoes and hookers.
July 21st, 2007 at 2:27 pm“But, but, you Democrats have the majority, don’t you?”
Comment by michael —
And what did republicans accomplish last session? Anything other than giving Bush a blank check, and shoveling pork to their political contributers?
I didn’t think so.
July 21st, 2007 at 2:27 pmThe constitution allows the minority to do just what it is doing, and as a result, the Repubies are making a very lumpy bed for themselves. They can try to spin these legislative failures, but the vast majority of American voters want most of this legislation to be passed, and they are paying attention to what is happening. Americans will not let the lies/spin/distraction fool them again.
As noted by barfly and the Republic of Stupidity, the R’s have been sold a bill of goods by Rove and their leadership, and it will backfire big time in 08!
July 21st, 2007 at 2:28 pmRemember that “permanent republican majority” that pundits were crowing about a short time ago? What ever happened to that?
Bush road-kill.
July 21st, 2007 at 2:32 pmRemember that “permanent republican majority†that pundits were crowing about a short time ago? What ever happened to that?
Bush road-kill.
Comment by barfly
I do find it funny that one of KKKar’s most obnoxious proclamations – permanent republican majority – is going to come back to bite his a** off so completely. It can’t be any fun being KKKarl these days.
July 21st, 2007 at 2:36 pmComment by The Republic of Stupidity — July 21, 2007 @ 2:36 pm
Yeah, I’m still snickering over “THE Math”. Hehe.
July 21st, 2007 at 2:38 pmBut, but, you Democrats have the majority, don’t you?
Comment by michael
God, don’t be so utterly stupid.
We’re all in this together, you clod, and both parties are destroying the Constitution.
There is no “democracy” anymore and there is no “representative republic” when one’s representatives don’t listen.
Wake up! Come out from that trance you’re in.
July 21st, 2007 at 2:39 pmIt can’t be any fun being KKKarl these days.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — July 21, 2007 @ 2:36 pm
I wonder what he’ll do come Jan 20, 2009, Noon EST (if not sooner), when Bush is finally out of office? Would any politician who wants to have a clean reputation hire him? Speaking of which, he was supposed to be ushering in a “permanent Republican majority” and, instead, lost both Houses of Congress. Why does he still even have a job (at taxpayer expense, no less)?
July 21st, 2007 at 2:39 pmGo ahead and smirk now, michael. You won’t be smirking in November, 2008.
July 21st, 2007 at 2:43 pmSpeaking of which, he was supposed to be ushering in a “permanent Republican majority†and, instead, lost both Houses of Congress. Why does he still even have a job (at taxpayer expense, no less)?
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider
Because the Deicderer values loyalty above all else.
July 21st, 2007 at 2:43 pmI wonder what he’ll do come Jan 20, 2009, Noon EST (if not sooner), when Bush is finally out of office?
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — July 21, 2007 @ 2:39 pm
I hope that doesn’t turn to IF he is out of office>
July 21st, 2007 at 2:44 pmHey gang, I’m off to a fire in Idaho.
July 21st, 2007 at 2:45 pm2 hours notice, gotta run..
Tell Zooey I’ll holler down from the peaks….
So, do any of you wish Frist had gone ahead with the nuclear option?
July 21st, 2007 at 2:48 pmI hope that doesn’t turn to IF he is out of office>
Comment by funkyp — July 21, 2007 @ 2:44 pm
No, it’s “when”. If necessary, I will personally see to that. (And I’m sure I’ll be able to get all the help I need.) :)
July 21st, 2007 at 2:53 pmLesly, my response would be yes, but only because the nuclear option would only have been employed had the Dems actually done something, like actually done something about Roberts and Alito. Instead, they did nothing. And we see where that is getting us.
I guess I’m one of those old fools who’d prefer that, rather than playing games, our elected leaders would begin ordering our Commander in Chief to get to doing something in Iraq. Last I checked, the military in the good ol’ USofA is under civilian (i.e. political) control. Since W is only Commander in Chief, not King (as he might think), I’d like Congress to start telliing him what to do, when to do it, and, if necessary, how to do it. Seems like that’s what our Founding Father’s original intent was at the time, just ask that other George (Washington, I believe his name was).
July 21st, 2007 at 2:55 pmRaven, good luck, be careful, see you later!
July 21st, 2007 at 2:56 pmawwwwk!
July 21st, 2007 at 2:58 pmSeems like that’s what our Founding Father’s original intent was at the time, just ask that other George (Washington, I believe his name was).
Comment by po
What??? Not George Burns???
July 21st, 2007 at 2:58 pmGeorge Burns . . . close and at times like these I truly do believe that ol’ W et al think Mr. Burns may have been a Founding Father. Him, or Laurel and Hardy, as the Spanish-American War couldn’t have happened in any better fashion that Iraq (except of course that we “won” and got to Christianize the Christians — here, we just want to Chritianize the Muslims and take their trinkets full of oil (oops, please don’t take me away for saying that)
July 21st, 2007 at 3:02 pmDemocrats have a razor thin majority in both houses of congress. This is a good thing , because they now control the agenda, and can investigate and hold hearings. But… to fix things…they need to push thru a Progressive agenda…and this will require a filibuster proof Senate. Bush’s disasterous presidency will probably deliver this in 2008.,as well as a democratic president. The stakes are enormous…so the Dems should think long and hard how to NOT BLOW this opportunity.
July 21st, 2007 at 3:04 pmThe Republicans in Congress clearly put loyalty to their party (and to one person) ahead of loyalty to their country. At one time, the House Code of Conduct prohibited that, but I couldn’t find that in any House Rules (when Republicans ran it) after the first one Newt won (by lying.)
July 21st, 2007 at 3:09 pmApparently, they don’t feel their constituents are going to punish them for this sort of thing. And they may largely be right. It’s mostly the Democrats who seem up in arms about it. Do you hear an outcry from conservatives across the country?
July 21st, 2007 at 3:14 pmOne simple way to both punish them for this obstructionism and to ensure that it doesn’t continue is to “clean house of all incumbent Republicans when their term of office expires!”. That’s the simple solution to killing two birds with one stone, so to speak.
Out, Out, Damn Spot!
July 21st, 2007 at 3:15 pmW. Clements: I see we’re of the same mindset and our notes crossed in cyberspace. “punish” them for this, that’s certain by sweeping all of them out of their cushy, corporately owned seats in Congress!! Yahoo!
July 21st, 2007 at 3:16 pmPO:
My response would be yes regardless. There really wasn’t much the Dems could do about Alito/Roberts without a majority. Using the nuclear option would simply mean Republican didn’t have to break up the filibuster with a supermajority, and could vote up or down with 50. That’s the way the cookie crumbles. I would take a Mr. Smith filibuster over failure to invoke cloture any day.
But you’re right, now the Dems are likely regretting it. The only way Dems can cut through this bullshit now is to renege on their good faith and reinstate DeLay-era committee rules that allowed Republicans to ram legislation through without reaching across the isle to bring our boys home.
July 21st, 2007 at 3:17 pmBesides, why would you hear a cry from Republicans who can only think in partisan terms and refuse to see the whole picture. You can be damned certain that the last time the Dems tried a filibuster, the whining Repukes whined their fool a$$es off about it.
Come on now, W. Clements, do you really expect that measly 30% to have suddenly developed a soul?? A conscience?? Or the ability to think for themselves?? This certainly does not describe what’s left of the Republican Party, as pathetic as the GOP is today as it implodes.
July 21st, 2007 at 3:18 pmOne simple way to both punish them for this obstructionism and to ensure that it doesn’t continue is to “clean house of all incumbent Republicans when their term of office expires!â€.
Comment by veritas — July 21, 2007 @ 3:15 p
Let’s not limit that to republicans.
July 21st, 2007 at 3:18 pmThe dems need to end this game playing abruptly by putting Dumb and Dumber’s impeachment ON THE TABLE.
July 21st, 2007 at 3:19 pmOne simple way to both punish them for this obstructionism and to ensure that it doesn’t continue is to “clean house of all incumbent Republicans when their term of office expires!â€.
Comment by veritas — July 21, 2007 @ 3:15 p
Let’s not limit that to republicans.
Comment by funkyp — July 21, 2007 @ 3:18 pm
Give ‘em the bird! Vote for a third!
July 21st, 2007 at 3:20 pm#36 – Agreed wholeheartedly! There are plenty of sycophantic, corporately owned democrats sitting in cushy seats right now as well. Out with every one of them maybe?? If they continue to fail us, that’s what it will be.
The Independents are busy encouraging good people to run against both corrupt Repukes and Dems in 08.
July 21st, 2007 at 3:20 pmHey Wayne: You got it! Give them the bird and out with the turds! Vote for a Third in 08!! Wouldn’t it be sweet if Al Gore would decide to run as an independent later on in the race. Not totally out of the question.
July 21st, 2007 at 3:21 pmAnd I see that, by the numbers, the Independent Party is the fastest growing “non party” in the country – the numbers of registered independents is larger now than the Repukes. The true liberals today (left Dems and Independents) make up a huge portion of the population so it would behoove the media to begin recognizing this group in it’s polls, etc. if they truly want to know the truth.
July 21st, 2007 at 3:23 pmIt would also behoove the group of candidates to begin taking notice of this huge voting bloc as well – and soon.
July 21st, 2007 at 3:24 pm#
#36 – Agreed wholeheartedly! There are plenty of sycophantic, corporately owned democrats sitting in cushy seats right now as well. Out with every one of them maybe?? If they continue to fail us, that’s what it will be.
The Independents are busy encouraging good people to run against both corrupt Repukes and Dems in 08.
Comment by veritas — July 21, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
I live in Fla, and our Democrat, Bill Nelson, has not been a beacon of light for liberals or progressives. I voted for the Libertarian candidate in ‘06 because I considered both Dem and Rep to be corporatists.
July 21st, 2007 at 3:27 pmNelson even voted in favor of the military commissions act of Oct. 2006. I can never forgive that gross error in judgment…only 13 dems supported it.
And I see that, by the numbers, the Independent Party is the fastest growing “non party†in the country – the numbers of registered independents is larger now than the Repukes. The
I prefer the term “Unaffiliated” because there are several political parties that have usurped the word “Independent” (or a variation) into their name. If you’re a member of the “Independent Party”, then you are not “unaffiliated”.
July 21st, 2007 at 3:27 pmAce: Good point regarding sedition in #1 and, as always, you are spot on once again! Thanks for reminding us of the Truth in all of this.
July 21st, 2007 at 3:29 pmWayne: Agreed and was using it for lack of a better term. Your term “unaffiliated” is much better. Our group of independent thinkers or unaffiliated voters could really wreak havoc with the presidential election in 08 if things do not improve. How many days left in Sheehan’s countown? Two?? Pelosi had better get her butt in gear.
Hi to Jane and your furry kids!
July 21st, 2007 at 3:31 pmHi to Jane and your furry kids!
Comment by veritas — July 21, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
Hi, veritas! The little mutants are getting bigger every day, but still, just too cute!
July 21st, 2007 at 3:34 pm“Playing politics w/ your soldiers’ lives? Disgusting.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — July 21, 2007″
You mean like comparing them to Nazis?
You mean like accusing them of terrorizing women and children in the middle of the night?
You mean like accusing them of flushing the koran down the toilet?
You mean like wanting to continue spreading picture from Abu Grhaib across the globe to incite more ragheads?
You mean like exposing our secret prisons where we interrogate suspected terrorists?
Is this what you mean by playing politics with our soldiers lives?
July 21st, 2007 at 3:50 pmMichael:
Interrogators really did “flush” the Koran in Gitmo. I’ve no idea why you’re challenging that.
As for the rest, sorry, but I don’t give a rat’s ass what incites “ragheads”. If Danish newspapers have a right to publish Mohamed cartoons we certainly have a right to publish the truth, and hold our government accountable. The left cares about our soldiers, but we don’t hold their well being hostage so our government can buck the rules.
July 21st, 2007 at 3:56 pmIs this what you mean by playing politics with our soldiers lives?
Comment by michael — July 21, 2007 @ 3:50 pm
Playing politics was … staffing Paul Bremmer’s CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) in the Green Zone with inexperienced and incompetant, but loyal Republican political operatives. Their disasterous misreading of the situation in Iraq after Saddam has lead to the current insurgency.
July 21st, 2007 at 4:04 pmIf one does not wish to bring the light of truth shining on them, one most likely:
Should NOT terrorize women and children, all night, every night, occasionally going so far as to RAPE THEM and/or MURDER THEM…
Should NOT flush religious texts owned by anyone, anywhere, down the toilet…
Should NOT strip prisoners naked, cover them in feces, make them wear women’s clothing, sodomize them, make them eat foods that it is against their religion to eat, force them to make statements denying their deity of choice’s existence (which is against their religion also), waterboard them, electrocute their genitals, perform sensory deprivation (a torture technique proven to permanently destroy a person’s sanity), or otherwise break countless human rights laws…
Should NOT film and photograph all of those human rights abuses…
Should NOT create secret prisons, which are against international law, and torture people in them, which is also against international law, and deny those prisoners the right of habeas corpus, which is against the law of OUR Constitution, which extends those rights to all people, not just American citizens…
Bush and company has played politics with our armed men and women since DAY ONE. Pointing out when they do so is not likewise playing politics with our soldiers.
Enforcing the will of We the People is not playing politics with soldiers.
Pointing out the evil truths one is involved in is not playing politics.
Saying that you will make the soldiers fight on, even without funding or the backing of the American people or the Constitution, and using that statement as a THREAT to legislators is playing politics with the soldiers.
Not allowing wartime images to be displayed, while showing images of coffins draped in flags when it is politically viable for “your team”, or screaming that any soldiers in uniform is a prop while constantly doing so yourself, THAT is playing politics with our soldiers.
“Playing politics” to get our soldiers out of harms way, and fighting the right enemy is a just use of politics. “Playing politics” getting our soldiers into harms way, fighting an enemy who didn’t attack us at the cost of going after those who did, all for profits of you and yours? That is the most vile use of politics one can think of.
July 21st, 2007 at 4:07 pmstaffing Paul Bremmer’s CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) in the Green Zone with inexperienced and incompetant, but loyal Republican political operatives.
Comment by Badger — July 21, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
And you know who did that hiring, don’t you? Kate O’Beirne’s husband, Jim. (Kate the notorious Sunday talk show staple.)
July 21st, 2007 at 4:08 pmComment by Moderation — July 21, 2007 @ 4:07 pm
July 21st, 2007 at 4:12 pmStop it. too many facts. Too much reality. Must change topic.
Does anybody have a breakdown on which bills were filibustered?
July 21st, 2007 at 4:16 pmDid you forget that the Democrats also used the filibuster when they were the minority party?
Hypocrites.
July 21st, 2007 at 4:24 pmI can’t find a complete list right now, but here is a list of bills that enjoy majority support but are being blocked by Republicans (from http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=189):
I do not yet know which other bills they are blocking.
The thing Americans must understand about these Republicans (which makes them so despicable) is that the Republicans are only interested in “winning”, they are not interested in “being right”.
Hope this helps answer your question.
July 21st, 2007 at 4:25 pm“Interrogators really did “flush†the Koran in Gitmo. I’ve no idea why you’re challenging that”
No they didn’t! It was the prisoners themselves that did it and accused their captors. By the way, how the hell do you flush a book down the toilet?
“If Danish newspapers have a right to publish Mohamed cartoons we certainly have a right to publish the truth”
I have no problem with the truth. I do have a problem with releasing information that is broadcast all over the Arab world inciting more hatred. I wonder how many more soldiers lost their lives because of these pictures? Obviously liberals don’t care!
“The left cares about our soldiers”
Ha, ha, ha! Refer to number 48 above?
Comment by Lesly — July 21, 2007
July 21st, 2007 at 4:35 pm“Playing politics was … staffing Paul Bremmer’s CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) in the Green Zone with inexperienced and incompetant, but loyal Republican political operatives.
Comment by Badger — July 21, 2007″
Reread # 48 above?
July 21st, 2007 at 4:37 pmMichael, step out of the spin zone. Please.
July 21st, 2007 at 4:37 pmNo they didn’t! It was the prisoners themselves that did it and accused their captors. By the way, how the hell do you flush a book down the toilet?
Comment by michael — July 21, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
Always with the declarative sentences. Can you substantiate this? Oh and don’t ask me to prove they did. I didn’t make the declaration
July 21st, 2007 at 4:39 pm“I can’t find a complete list right now, but here is a list of bills that enjoy majority support but are being blocked by Republicans (from http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=189):
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — July 21, 2007″
But you have the majority!
July 21st, 2007 at 4:39 pmI clicked post too soon.
The Danish have troops in Afghanistan. Why don’t you criticize the Danes for publishing the cartoons?
July 21st, 2007 at 4:39 pm“Michael, step out of the spin zone. Please.
Comment by Lesly — July 21, 2007″
How so, lesly?
July 21st, 2007 at 4:40 pm“Can you substantiate this? Oh and don’t ask me to prove they did. I didn’t make the declaration
Comment by dbadass — July 21, 2007″
You’re absolutely right! I’ll dig something up!
July 21st, 2007 at 4:41 pm“The Danish have troops in Afghanistan. Why don’t you criticize the Danes for publishing the cartoons?
Comment by Lesly — July 21, 2007″
I have! As funny as it was, it was dumb!
July 21st, 2007 at 4:42 pmWell Michael, I’ll take dumb over safe as long as dumb is truthful and safe leads to abuse of power. /shrug
July 21st, 2007 at 4:44 pmNewsweek: Koran Toilet Story Wrong
James Joyner | Sunday, May 15, 2005
Newsweek now confesses that its report that American soldiers in Guantanimo had flushed a Koran down a toilet as a means of gaining information from hostages–blamed by many for inciting violence that has killed at least nine people–was erroneous.
Mark Whitaker, The Editor’s Desk
Last Friday, a top Pentagon spokesman told us that a review of the probe cited in our story showed that it was never meant to look into charges of Qur’an desecration. The spokesman also said the Pentagon had investigated other desecration charges by detainees and found them “not credible.†Our original source later said he couldn’t be certain about reading of the alleged Qur’an incident in the report we cited, and said it might have been in other investigative documents or drafts. Top administration officials have promised to continue looking into the charges, and so will we. But we regret that we got any part of our story wrong, and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in its midst.
July 21st, 2007 at 4:47 pmI do have a problem with releasing information that is broadcast all over the Arab world inciting more hatred.
Well then Michael…maybe you shouldn’t refer to Arabs as “ragheads” on the internet.
July 21st, 2007 at 4:47 pm“Well Michael, I’ll take dumb over safe as long as dumb is truthful and safe leads to abuse of power. /shrug
Comment by Lesly — July 21, 2007″
Abuse of power? By whom and what? All of a sudden the left endorses the truth? Were you endorsing the truth when you forged fake military records of a sitting President?
July 21st, 2007 at 4:51 pmYeah, Newsweek regretted the report. I wouldn’t have apologized for it. The Koran is not subject to Geneva conventions, ergo we didn’t break the law (in this case). If Muslims can’t or won’t appreciate this fact they can go ahead start riots, riots that they chose to participate in of their own free will. I won’t water our First Amendment rights for anyone’s sake.
July 21st, 2007 at 4:52 pm” Well then Michael…maybe you shouldn’t refer to Arabs as “ragheads†on the internet.
Comment by Badger — July 21, 2007″
I hardly think that the idiots at Al Jazeera are on TP blogging.
July 21st, 2007 at 4:52 pm“The Koran is not subject to Geneva conventions
Comment by Lesly — July 21, 2007″
And neither are enemy combatants!
July 21st, 2007 at 4:54 pmDo you really want to generalize here?
I thought the Dan Rather fiasco was a waste of time. Just like allegations of a young Bush paying for his girlfriend’s illegal abortion was a waste of time. If Bush ever did this I hope he got a good deal on the abortion. That’s the extent of my gossip interest in the Deciderer.
July 21st, 2007 at 4:54 pmThat’s where you’re wrong, m’dear. But I’ve got to get going…
July 21st, 2007 at 4:55 pmThanks Michael, forgive me if I still have some doubts. A holocaust denier once taught me to believe only that which I have seen. In light of the “football hero” and “trailer girl taken hostage after fighting to the bitter end then rescued from her terror by manly dudes” propaganda we have been subjected to, it’s hard to know whats what. How do you spell Hydithah? As to the Abu Garib phtos I think they sort of speak for themselves.
July 21st, 2007 at 4:55 pmYou trolls do know that the reason why people have such low approval of congress is the people who do this sort of thing?
American people aren’t stupid anymore, 2 clicks of a mouse and you can find out if your senators are up to this and I’ll tell you, the American people not going to vote for an ass hat that pulls think kind of shit. I don’t care how much money you spend on your campaign, you’re going to lose with a platform “I’ll block anything and everything, in fact nothing will get done!”
I think I just found the new GOP slogan.
P.S. Just because you can do something it doesn’t make it right, I could punch you all in the face but it doesn’t make it right. Though it would serve you right because I’d make sure to break enough bones to pull your ass into bankruptcy from all the bills you’ll have to pay for it.
Cheers
July 21st, 2007 at 4:56 pm“I wouldn’t have apologized for it
Comment by Lesly — July 21, 2007″
lesly, you can’t have it both ways. In post #66 you said, to the effect, that you subscribe to the truth now you are saying you wouldn’t have apologized for an outright lie? What moral standard to you embrace?
July 21st, 2007 at 4:58 pmWe sent the Repub Congressman “Rubberstamps” back when they were rubberstamping Bush’s extremist agenda.
July 21st, 2007 at 4:59 pmNow we should send them neckbraces for the whiplash they have sustained by going from rubberstampers to obstructionists in light speed.
” As to the Abu Garib phtos I think they sort of speak for themselves.
Comment by dbadass — July 21, 2007″
They do? What do you see in those photos?
July 21st, 2007 at 5:00 pmMichael, quote you reference is inconclusive. There is an investigation, and it’s a few years old. That’s the end of it. I think had Newsweek actually lied they’d have been slapped with an actual malice lawsuit so fast their editors would be shaking tin cans in D.C.
July 21st, 2007 at 5:00 pm“And neither are enemy combatants!”
This was a rather silly comment, since of course they are.
July 21st, 2007 at 5:01 pm“Now we should send them neckbraces for the whiplash they have sustained by going from rubberstampers to obstructionists in light speed.
Comment by OxyCon — July 21, 2007″
But, but, you’re the majority!
July 21st, 2007 at 5:01 pmI’m not sure who is stupider, michael or muckdog.
Let’s call it a tie.
July 21st, 2007 at 5:02 pm“But you have the majority!”
Dear heart, you’ve already been told that this is a foolish comment and you’ve been told why. To mindlessly repeat partisan drivel does not help you nor your cause.
July 21st, 2007 at 5:02 pm“This was a rather silly comment, since of course they are.
Comment by PaulB — July 21, 2007″
No they are not! The Geneva Convention is an agreement between countries. What country are these combatants representing?
July 21st, 2007 at 5:02 pm“I’m not sure who is stupider, michael or muckdog.
Let’s call it a tie.
Comment by mikey r — July 21, 2007″
And of course you can provide an example or two of why you said that?
July 21st, 2007 at 5:03 pm“Did you forget that the Democrats also used the filibuster when they were the minority party?”
Yes, at 1/3 the pace that the Republican Party is now using it. And the Republican Party at the time was so horrified at the “misuse” of the filibuster that they were bent on passing the “nuclear option” to prevent it.
“Hypocrites.”
Yup, but not the Democrats. The Democrats are fine with the filibuster; they just want it to be known who’s blocking the legislation — you know, asking the Republican Party to take personal responsibility for their own actions? The hypocrisy is all on the Republican Party’s side.
July 21st, 2007 at 5:04 pmmichael’s post in #82 makes me think he’s the stupider of the two.
In a thread about Senate Republicans obstructionist tactics, his response is to point out that Democrats have the majority.
Brilliant.
Do you know how the Senate works, michael? Do you know what a “filibuster” is? Or “cloture”?
Where does the Troll Academy get these scholars?
July 21st, 2007 at 5:05 pm“To mindlessly repeat partisan drivel does not help you nor your cause.
Comment by PaulB — July 21, 2007″
But you have the majority! Obviously, they don’t know how to handle it! Nothing will get done in the next year and a quarter after all their bluster in 2006. There will be a Democrat blood bath in 2008!
July 21st, 2007 at 5:06 pmWhat country are these combatants representing?
Comment by michael — July 21, 2007 @ 5:02 pm
So fighting for principles doesn’t qualify for rights? Not that I agree with the principles. To be human is to warrant human rights hense the pharase
July 21st, 2007 at 5:08 pm“Do you know how the Senate works, michael?
Comment by mikey r — July 21, 2007″
Of course I do! And now the Republicans will do what they can to get even with the dems.
July 21st, 2007 at 5:09 pmAnn Coulter is an acerebralist. Just like her “admirers” (which include herself.) She really isn’t worth our time.
July 21st, 2007 at 5:10 pm“So fighting for principles doesn’t qualify for rights? Not that I agree with the principles. To be human is to warrant human rights hense the pharase
Comment by dbadass — July 21, 2007″
You need to be more careful in choosing your words. I never said they weren’t entitled to rights, did I? I said they weren’t entitled to rights provided under the Geneva Convention.
July 21st, 2007 at 5:11 pmShall I try one more time to explain this relatively simple concept?
michael: in the Senate, if the minority party (in this case, Republicans) wants to obstruct legislation, they have the right to keep debate going indefinitely, thus preventing from taking place a vote they are sure to lose.
In order to cut off debate and stage that vote, the majority party (in the case — yes, the Democrats, very good, michael) must achieve sixty votes. Are you with me so far?
The current Republicans in the Senate, as the graph shows, are employing this tactic at a rate roughly three times the rate employed by Democrats in the last two Congresses. Yet when they were in the majority, Republicans were so offended by the filibuster that they threatened to do away with it entirely. Can you explain this reversal of principle?
I bet they’re glad now that they didn’t light the fuse on the “nuclear option”.
July 21st, 2007 at 5:12 pm“She really isn’t worth our time.
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — July 21, 2007″
This is Wayne’s way of throwing his hands in the air because he can’t deal with me!
July 21st, 2007 at 5:13 pmThanks Wayne.
July 21st, 2007 at 5:13 pmGet even with the Dems? What is this a government of/by/for the people or the shirts vs the skins? Wow I think I may have spelled everything correctly other than the “vs” part of course
July 21st, 2007 at 5:13 pm“Can you explain this reversal of principle?
Comment by mikey r — July 21, 2007″
Politics!
July 21st, 2007 at 5:14 pmIndeed. Politics; not truth.
Okay, now I’m really out.
July 21st, 2007 at 5:15 pmnow the Republicans will do what they can to get even with the dems.
Comment by michael — July 21, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
Here’s the problem with Congress in a nutshell. The Right loks at this as a battle between Right and Left, and the American people don’t factor into the equation.
Any manuever looks good to Republicans, if it will stick it to or get back at Democrats. Doesn’t matter if it helps the nation economically, or helps it fight terrorism intelligently or helps secure its borders. If Democrats would get credit for a good bill, that’s reason enough to kill it.
And michael thinks this tactic is going to win them back control of Congress. Good luck with that, michael.
July 21st, 2007 at 5:15 pm“Can you explain this reversal of principle?
Comment by mikey r — July 21, 2007″
Politics!
Comment by michael — July 21, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
Thank you, michael, for admitting that Republicans hold no principle above “getting our way”.
Pretty mature.
July 21st, 2007 at 5:17 pm“Michael, quote you reference is inconclusive. There is an investigation, and it’s a few years old. That’s the end of it. I think had Newsweek actually lied they’d have been slapped with an actual malice lawsuit so fast their editors would be shaking tin cans in D.C.
Comment by Lesly — July 21, 2007″
Oh please. What investigation are you referring to and who is heading it up? Never said Newsweek lied but they did print a story they couldn’t and didn’t validate. CBS did the same thing with the forged military records of the President. Never said either of them lied what they did do was take the word of someone else with little investigative reporting because the stories were embarrassing to this administration. Plain and simple!
July 21st, 2007 at 5:21 pmI hardly think that the idiots at Al Jazeera are on TP blogging.
Comment by michael — July 21, 2007 @ 4:52 pm
Just so you know, I’ve already notified Al Jazeera about your post.
July 21st, 2007 at 5:22 pmThis is Wayne’s way of throwing his hands in the air because he can’t deal with me!
Comment by michael — July 21, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
No, I’m just sick and tired of your moronic “debating style”. You’re as bad as Ann Coulter herself (or yourself, as the case may be.) You twist what people say and when you get nailed on it, you change the subject. You insist that when YOU assert a fact you can’t back up, that WE prove you wrong. You’re like the protagonist in “Thank You For Smoking” who insists that the way to “win” an argument is to raise even the slightest doubt about what the other person said (even if it’s just a technicality, unrelated to the issue as a whole.) You rarely, if ever, provide proof of your claims, and when you do, it’s often hours, if not days, later. In short, you are a terrible debater. Just like your hero, Ann Coulter.
(Who I still think you really are.)
So, for future reference, I will ignore any comments you make directed at me even if it’s in response to something I post meant to refute one of your claims. When you can prove that you are operating in the reality-based community, then you might be worthy of anyone’s attention. Right now you are not.
So good day to you, sir or madam.
July 21st, 2007 at 5:23 pm” I’ve already notified Al Jazeera about your post.
Comment by Egreggious — July 21, 2007″
I’m shaking in my boots!
July 21st, 2007 at 5:23 pm“Thank you, michael, for admitting that Republicans hold no principle above “getting our wayâ€.
Pretty mature.
Comment by mikey r — July 21, 2007″
And the dems don’t? Please……………
July 21st, 2007 at 5:25 pmNo they didn’t! It was the prisoners themselves that did it and accused their captors. [...]
Comment by michael — July 21, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
still can’t substantiate this claim…
#67 didn’t cover that part of your lie…
imagine that…
July 21st, 2007 at 5:28 pmMichael,
You are a bootlicking, ass kissing, knuckle dragging, moron for supporting the anti-American way of life. You support thugs and fascists who would step on your worthless troll ass. Get a life, shit for brains.
July 21st, 2007 at 5:29 pmYou twist what people say and when you get nailed on it, you change the subject.
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — July 21, 2007″
And of course you can provide some examples? Wayne’s silence will be deafening. By the way Wayne, why did it take kerry over 5 years to get his Honorable Discharge? If you have trouble answering that question, maybe zooey can help you!
July 21st, 2007 at 5:29 pmThe Fourth Geneva Convention is what protects these unlawful enemy combatants. They are still civilians in some country or another. They may be a part of an organization, but they are not a part of the military of a State. Thus, they are civilians. Just because BushCo deciderered to make up a new classification of persons during times of war, doesn’t make it so on the international level.
You might as well say the Geneva Conventions don’t apply to representatives of an arms corporation, because they are representatives of an international organization that is involved in wartime activities. Thus, they can be viewed as “enemy combatants”, for they are DIRECTLY aiding and abetting “the enemy”. But that is quite simply not the case. These terrorists are civilians involved in organized acts of guerrilla.
If they were part of the military might of a State, these terrorists would instead be covered by the First, Second, or Third Geneva Convention. Do you really believe that the Geneva Conventions were designed with the idea that any group of people is to be excluded from their protections? Seriously?
Unlawful enemy combatants are still covered by the FOURTH Geneva Convention.
Saying something over and over does not make it true. Granted, it may very well make certain people believe it is true, but that still DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE!
July 21st, 2007 at 5:29 pm“You are a bootlicking, ass kissing, knuckle dragging, moron for supporting the anti-American way of life. You support thugs and fascists who would step on your worthless troll ass. Get a life, shit for brains.
Comment by kasinca — July 21, 2007″
Wow! Did you pick up this talent in “Polishing My Debating Skills 101″?
July 21st, 2007 at 5:31 pmNote, please, that Bush didn’t make up the distinction of “unlwaful enemy combatant”, he has simply tried to assert that they are not covered by the first the Geneva Conventions, which international law completely agrees with, but the international law community does NOT acknowledge the assertion that these combatants also do not fall under the protections of the Fourth Geneva Convention. That is preposterous. Mercenaries are covered by the Fourth GC, but not the first three. “Terrorists” are just another form of militia, like mercs. The international law community has time and again stood by the principle that the Fourth GC covers everyone not covered by the first three.
July 21st, 2007 at 5:34 pmWow! Did you pick up this talent in “Polishing My Debating Skills 101″?
Comment by michael — July 21, 2007 @ 5:31 pm
And the pot scores a point! calls the kettle “black”!
July 21st, 2007 at 5:34 pmYou twist what people say and when you get nailed on it, you change the subject.
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — July 21, 2007″
And of course you can provide some examples? Wayne’s silence will be deafening. By the way Wayne, why did it take kerry over 5 years to get his Honorable Discharge? If you have trouble answering that question, maybe zooey can help you!
Comment by michael — July 21, 2007 @ 5:29 pm
Just sayin’….
July 21st, 2007 at 5:35 pm“Do you really believe that the Geneva Conventions were designed with the idea that any group of people is to be excluded from their protections? Seriously?”
When the Geneva Convention was designed we didn’t have a terrorist problem in the world so there, to the best of my knowledge, is no clause in it to protect combatants who are captured in their pursuit to overthrow a legitimate country
“Unlawful enemy combatants are still covered by the FOURTH Geneva Convention”
Point us to it?
“Saying something over and over does not make it true”
You mean like Bush lied, Bush lied, Bush lied, Bush lied!
Comment by Moderation — July 21, 2007
July 21st, 2007 at 5:37 pm“Thank you, michael, for admitting that Republicans hold no principle above “getting our wayâ€.
Pretty mature.
Comment by mikey r — July 21, 2007″
And the dems don’t? Please……………
Comment by michael — July 21, 2007 @ 5:25 pm
The difference, michael, is you’ve just provided an example of the Republicans advocating a structural change in the way the Senate conducts business for a purely political motive.
Can you offer a comparable example of Democrats doing the same thing?
Because otherwise, all you’ve got is your subjective claim that “Democrats do it too.” Which, I think you’ll agree, is very, very weak.
July 21st, 2007 at 5:37 pm*crickets*
July 21st, 2007 at 5:41 pmSo much for the GOP’s one-time favorite sound bite, “Up or Down Vote.”
July 21st, 2007 at 5:45 pmPot, Kettle, Black!
Has someone forgotten the attempted Alito filibuster?
July 21st, 2007 at 5:47 pmAnd by the way, michael, you may think that Wayne’s silence is “deafening” but it’s actually a very sound response to your blithering idiocy.
Your posts on this thread alone provide plenty of examples of changing the subject:
By the way Wayne, why did it take kerry over 5 years to get his Honorable Discharge? If you have trouble answering that question, maybe zooey can help you!
Comment by michael — July 21, 2007 @ 5:29 pm
twisting people’s words:
lesly, you can’t have it both ways. In post #66 you said, to the effect, that you subscribe to the truth now you are saying you wouldn’t have apologized for an outright lie? What moral standard to you embrace?
Comment by michael — July 21, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
Wayne is one of the most intelligent contributors to this forum and he doesn’t shy away from a tough argument. What you have to offer is not that.
All you have to offer is childish attempts at “gotcha!” points followed by repeated dodges or untruths. That’s a waste of time for anyone who appreciates a good debate, like Wayne. Actualy, it’s a waste of time for just about everyone but you. And I’m not sure why it’s even rewarding to you.
July 21st, 2007 at 5:48 pmThe Democrats can deal with the Republicans obstructionist tactics easily but the simply do not have the “balls” to do it!
If Republicans do not want to vote to stop debate on a bill, simply make the stay on the floor and make them perform the ACTUAL act of debating the bill that they want to keep debating!
Reid simply does not submit any other bills for debate until an up or down vote is made on the Iraq withdrawal bill, and presto problem solved!
But of course Democrats are simply Republican “light” so they will simply keep caving in like the spineless jellyfish they are.
July 21st, 2007 at 5:49 pm“The difference, michael, is you’ve just provided an example of the Republicans advocating a structural change in the way the Senate conducts business
Comment by mikey r — July 21, 2007″
No they’re not. The rules are there and the Republicans are not advocating a change to them. Get over it!
July 21st, 2007 at 5:49 pmInterrogators really did “flush†the Koran in Gitmo. I’ve no idea why you’re challenging that.
Oh noez!
July 21st, 2007 at 5:50 pm“Your posts on this thread alone provide plenty of examples of changing the subject
Comment by mikey r — July 21, 2007″
Give me one example?
July 21st, 2007 at 5:51 pmUnlawful enemy combatants are still covered by the FOURTH Geneva Convention.
Prove it!
July 21st, 2007 at 5:52 pmPot, Kettle, Black!
Has someone forgotten the attempted Alito filibuster?
Comment by I’m12 — July 21, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
And He’s 12 shows up to try to swipe a line that’s already been used and flip it, and he fails!
First of all, there was no Alito filibuster.
Second of all, what is your point? Democrats are not threatening to alter the rules of the Senate just so they can accomplish political goals, which the Republicans did.
Democrats recognize the rules and try to play by them. The fact that Republicans are using the filibuster three times more frequently than any other Congress ever has says a lot about their willingness to work with the majority. Really, it says a lot about their UNwillingness to work with the majority.
July 21st, 2007 at 5:53 pm” Interrogators really did “flush†the Koran in Gitmo. I’ve no idea why you’re challenging that.
Comment by m12 — July 21, 2007″
Because it’s not true. Read the report about Newsweek retracting their claim. Finally, how do you flush a book down a toilet?
July 21st, 2007 at 5:54 pm“Your posts on this thread alone provide plenty of examples of changing the subject
Comment by mikey r — July 21, 2007″
Give me one example?
Comment by michael — July 21, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
Oh my god, are you THAT dense? I followed that statement with a very good, very recent example of you changing the subject. Unless you think that “why did it take kerry over 5 years to get his Honorable Discharge?” has anything to do with Senate filibusters.
Now that I think about, it, I guess maybe you ARE that dense. It would explain a lot about your “debating” style.
July 21st, 2007 at 5:56 pmDemocrats recognize the rules and try to play by them. The fact that Republicans are using the filibuster three times more frequently than any other Congress ever has says a lot about their willingness to work with the majority. Really, it says a lot about their UNwillingness to work with the majority.
Ah, so how many filibusters do you need to make before they are ‘against the rules’? 20? 100?
July 21st, 2007 at 5:56 pm“Really, it says a lot about their UNwillingness to work with the majority.
Comment by mikey r — July 21, 2007″
And I applaud them for doing it. The majority does not have the best interests of the American people in mind! With them it all politics also! It’s all about the White House in 2008!
July 21st, 2007 at 5:57 pm“The difference, michael, is you’ve just provided an example of the Republicans advocating a structural change in the way the Senate conducts business
Comment by mikey r — July 21, 2007″
No they’re not. The rules are there and the Republicans are not advocating a change to them. Get over it!
Comment by michael — July 21, 2007 @ 5:49 pm
What do you call the “Nuclear Option” if it’s not advocating a structural change in the way the Senate does business?
Or are you going to argue that Democrats were pushing that tactic?
Maybe you can just say, “But — but — but you have the majority!” That ought to take care of it.
July 21st, 2007 at 5:58 pmAh, so how many filibusters do you need to make before they are ‘against the rules’? 20? 100?
Comment by m12 — July 21, 2007 @ 5:56 pm
Please point to where I said any number of filibusters would be “against the rules”?
Oh, I didn’t say that? Then STFU.
July 21st, 2007 at 5:59 pmAnd I applaud them for doing it. The majority does not have the best interests of the American people in mind! With them it all politics also! It’s all about the White House in 2008!
Comment by michael — July 21, 2007 @ 5:57 pm
Having suggested I choose my words more wisely. Are you saying what it looks like you are? If not maybe you should clarify before someone other than I calls you a fascist, totalitarian, regimented, nonthinker…
July 21st, 2007 at 6:00 pmPeople on this thread must be realllly bored if they’re willing to engage the michael troll in a “debate.” It’s a typical troll, unable to listen, unwilling to learn, and thoroughly dishonest. Why bother to do anything but ignore its bleating?
July 21st, 2007 at 6:00 pmPlease point to where I said any number of filibusters would be “against the rules�
So Republicans are playing by the rules?
July 21st, 2007 at 6:00 pmAnd I applaud them for doing it. The majority does not have the best interests of the American people in mind! With them it all politics also! It’s all about the White House in 2008!
Comment by michael — July 21, 2007 @ 5:57 pm
Why do you hate democracy, michael? You know democracy? The “majority rules” principle?
You can’t claim that the Republicans have the best interests of the American people in mind, because you already said their most important principle is politics.
July 21st, 2007 at 6:01 pm“Oh my god, are you THAT dense? I followed that statement with a very good, very recent example of you changing the subject. Unless you think that “why did it take kerry over 5 years to get his Honorable Discharge?†has anything to do with Senate filibusters.
Now that I think about, it, I guess maybe you ARE that dense. It would explain a lot about your “debating†style.
Comment by mikey r — July 21, 2007″
For your information there is a running debate between myself and wayne about just that issue. Of course it has nothing to do with this thread. Anytime wayne takes his toys and goes home as a parting shot I always ask him “why did it take kerry over 5 years to get his Honorable Discharge?” Which he has never been able to provide an answer to! So, how about another example?
July 21st, 2007 at 6:01 pmThank you, egreggious, and thank you mikey r.
BTW, the first time I noticed that “michael”’s name linked to Ann Coulter’s website, I asked why and the response was “Because I’m a great admirer of hers”. I then asked if it was because “michael” really was Ann Coulter, the response was “You caught me.” Ever since then, whenever I’ve outright accused “michael” of being Ann Coulter, there has been neither confirmation nor denial. Of course, now that I’ve brought this up again I’m sure we’ll get a denial. Proves nothing since we all know that Ann Coulter has no problem with lying to make her point. It’s as if you told someone ,”You’re lying,” and their only response was “No I’m not,” but not with any proof of the assertion they made.
Ann/Michael’s whole John Kerry fixation is predicated on its unsubstantiated claim that Kerry was originally given a Less Than Honorable Discharge. I have asked for confirmation of this but have received nothing but the usual “Why can’t you answer my question?” responses. Of course, as anyone with an IQ in the three-digit range would know, there is no answer to a question not founded in reality-based facts. If and when I see some (I’m not holding my breath), then I’ll consider responding. Until then, it’s all been Swift Boat-type lies.
And thank you both for your support.
July 21st, 2007 at 6:04 pmSo Republicans are playing by the rules?
Comment by m12 — July 21, 2007 @ 6:00 pm
Of course they’re playing by the rules. No one said any different.
What their tactics show is their lack of interest in working with the majority to advance legislation to serve the American people. That’s not “against the rules”, but it certainly isn’t fulfilling their role in the bicameral legislature as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
July 21st, 2007 at 6:04 pmOf course they’re playing by the rules. No one said any different.
What their tactics show is their lack of interest in working with the majority to advance legislation to serve the American people. That’s not “against the rulesâ€, but it certainly isn’t fulfilling their role in the bicameral legislature as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
You mean similar to how Kerry and Kennedy tried to prevent the US Supreme Court from full functionality?
July 21st, 2007 at 6:06 pm“You can’t claim that the Republicans have the best interests of the American people in mind, because you already said their most important principle is politics.
Comment by mikey r — July 21, 2007″
Yes of course it’s politics with them also but at the same time I trust only the Republicans to provide security against worldwide terrorism. They understand that the only way to defeat them is to kill them. The dems on the other hand want to run from them just like you did in Viet Nam. You are even electing muslims to Congress. Ellison supports CAIR which we now know supports Hamas. Good going democrats! And now you want to make one the President of The United States!
July 21st, 2007 at 6:08 pmSaying something over and over does not make it true. Granted, it may very well make certain people believe it is true, but that still DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE!
Comment by Moderation — July 21, 2007 @ 5:29 pm
See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.
July 21st, 2007 at 6:08 pmComment by G.W. Bush
When the Geneva Convention was designed we didn’t have a terrorist problem in the world so there, to the best of my knowledge, is no clause in it to protect combatants who are captured in their pursuit to overthrow a legitimate country.
Comment by michael — July 21, 2007 @ 5:37 pm
Whaaaaa? You are saying that there weren’t problems with mercenaries, guerrillas and armed insurgents before WWII? Wow, you’re really going to go with that argument? Seriously, I’m not going to link you to the literally countless examples of people committing acts directly comparable to those we now designat as “terrorists” or as “illegal enemy combatants” that occurred pre-WWII.
As for pointing out the international laws, how about I just quote you the Geneva Conventions themselves?
Protocol I
Article 45.3
Any person who has taken part in hostilities, who is not entitled to prisoner‑of‑war status and who does not benefit from more favourable treatment in accordance with the Fourth Convention shall have the right at all times to the protection of Article 75 of this Protocol.
Article 75
Fundamental guarantees
1. In so far as they are affected by a situation referred to in Article 1 of this Protocol, persons who are in the power of a Party to the conflict and who do not benefit from more favourable treatment under the Conventions or under this Protocol shall be treated humanely in all circumstances and shall enjoy, as a minimum, the protection provided by this Article without any adverse distinction based upon race, colour, sex, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national or social origin, wealth, birth or other status, or on any other similar criteria. Each Party shall respect the person, honour, convictions and religious practices of all such persons.
2. The following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever, whether committed by civilian or by military agents:
(a) violence to the life, health, or physical or mental well-being of persons, in particular:
(i) murder;
(ii) torture of all kinds, whether physical or mental;
(iii) corporal punishment; and
(iv) mutilation;
(b) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, enforced prostitution and any form of indecent assault;
(c) the taking of hostages;
(d) collective punishments; and
(e) threats to commit any of the foregoing acts.
3. Any person arrested, detained or interned for actions related to the armed conflict shall be informed promptly, in a language he understands, of the reasons why these measures have been taken. Except in cases of arrest or detention for penal offences, such persons shall be released with the minimum delay possible and in any event as soon as the circumstances justifying the arrest, detention or internment have ceased to exist.
4. No sentence may be passed and no penalty may be executed on a person found guilty of a penal offence related to the armed conflict except pursuant to a conviction pronounced by an impartial and regularly constituted court respecting the generally recognized principles of regular judicial procedure, which include the following:
(a) the procedure shall provide for an accused to be informed without delay of the particulars of the offence alleged against him and shall afford the accused before and during his trial all necessary rights and means of defence;
(b) no one shall be convicted of an offence except on the basis of individual penal responsibility;
(c) no one shall be accused or convicted of a criminal offence on account or any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under the national or international law to which he was subject at the time when it was committed; nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than that which was applicable at the time when the criminal offence was committed; if, after the commission of the offence, provision is made by law for the imposition of a lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby;
(d) anyone charged with an offence is presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law;
(e) anyone charged with an offence shall have the right to be tried in his presence;
(f) no one shall be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt;
(g) anyone charged with an offence shall have the right to examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
(h) no one shall be prosecuted or punished by the same Party for an offence in respect of which a final judgement acquitting or convicting that person has been previously pronounced under the same law and judicial procedure;
(i) anyone prosecuted for an offence shall have the right to have the judgement pronounced publicly; and
(j) a convicted person shall be advised on conviction or his judicial and other remedies and of the time-limits within which they may be exercised.
5. Women whose liberty has been restricted for reasons related to the armed conflict shall be held in quarters separated from men’s quarters. They shall be under the immediate supervision of women. Nevertheless, in cases where families are detained or interned, they shall, whenever possible, be held in the same place and accommodated as family units.
6. Persons who are arrested, detained or interned for reasons related to the armed conflict shall enjoy the protection provided by this Article until their final release, repatriation or re-establishment, even after the end of the armed conflict.
7. In order to avoid any doubt concerning the prosecution and trial of persons accused of war crimes or crimes against humanity, the following principles shall apply:
(a) persons who are accused or such crimes should be submitted for the purpose of prosecution and trial in accordance with the applicable rules of international law; and
(b) any such persons who do not benefit from more favourable treatment under the Conventions or this Protocol shall be accorded the treatment provided by this Article, whether or not the crimes of which they are accused constitute grave breaches of the Conventions or of this Protocol.
8. No provision of this Article may be construed as limiting or infringing any other more favourable provision granting greater protection, under any applicable rules of international law, to persons covered by paragraph 1
Those are the WORST protections allowed under international law. What I just printed above is the WORST you are allowed to treat another human being. Those are the LEAST rights accorded to a person.
July 21st, 2007 at 6:11 pmPeople on this thread must be realllly bored if they’re willing to engage the michael troll in a “debate.†It’s a typical troll, unable to listen, unwilling to learn, and thoroughly dishonest. Why bother to do anything but ignore its bleating?
Comment by gummitch — July 21, 2007 @ 6:00 pm
You’re absolutely right, gummitch. I’m guilty. And I’ve had enough of trying to communicate with trolls too invested in some stupid “game” to actually listen.
Wayne is right. I don’t know if michael knows he presents a stupid image on this board, or if he thinks he’s being clever. But his arguments make sense only to him — and I’m not even sure that they make sense to him.
It’s like trying to pose a Stretch Armstrong doll. You can pull and stretch and bend and pose, but it’s just gonna snap back the way it was when you started. These trolls just cannot learn. They’re exactly the same when they log off as when they logged in that morning.
I’m done. I’ve got some car work to get to.
July 21st, 2007 at 6:14 pmAs for pointing out the international laws, how about I just quote you the Geneva Conventions themselves?
Those are the WORST protections allowed under international law. What I just printed above is the WORST you are allowed to treat another human being. Those are the LEAST rights accorded to a person.
Comment by Moderation
Careful, Moderation, you don’t want to overwhelm him , or her, w/ “facts” and “information”. His/her head is liable to explode.
July 21st, 2007 at 6:15 pmCareful, Moderation, you don’t want to overwhelm him , or her, w/ “facts†and “informationâ€. His/her head is liable to explode.
Comment by The republic of Stupidity — July 21, 2007 @ 6:15 pm
Then by all means, Moderation, load him/her/it up on facts and information! :)
July 21st, 2007 at 6:20 pm“I then asked if it was because “michael†really was Ann Coulter”
And as I have responded in the past wayne, thank you! I’m flattered! I really am!
“Ann/Michael’s whole John Kerry fixation is predicated on its unsubstantiated claim that Kerry was originally given a Less Than Honorable Discharge”
And in the past I NEVER said this was a fact because I don’t have the documents to prove it. Based on all existing information available, which I won’t roll out here, I am assuming that’s what happened.
“I have asked for confirmation of this but have received nothing but the usual “Why can’t you answer my question?â€
I have presented facts to you in the past which you tried to refute unsuccessfully.
“it’s all been Swift Boat-type lies”
Another example of the desperate left using an honorable organization like the Swifties to equate to lies. wayne, I think in the past I’ve asked you to produce 1 of those lies? I don’t believe I ever got a response!
And thank you both for your support.
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — July 21, 2007
July 21st, 2007 at 6:20 pmCareful, Moderation, you don’t want to overwhelm him…
Comment by The republic of Stupidity — July 21, 2007 @ 6:15 pm
Then by all means, Moderation, load him/her/it up…
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — July 21, 2007 @ 6:20 pm
if juggling between laptops posting as m/m12/etal doesn’t do it,
July 21st, 2007 at 6:22 pmthat should…
Has anyone noticed the fascist media bends the truth, lies…The fact the republicans obstruct business is not getting out there. Instead it is: See the Democrats are in power and nothing gets done.
Some how, some way the truth needs to make its way to the masses.
July 21st, 2007 at 6:26 pm“Those are the WORST protections allowed under international law. What I just printed above is the WORST you are allowed to treat another human being. Those are the LEAST rights accorded to a person.
Comment by Moderation — July 21, 2007″
The Fourth Geneva Convention applies to civilians not combatants!
July 21st, 2007 at 6:30 pmThe Fourth Geneva Convention (or GCIV) relates to the protection of civilians during times of war “in the hands” of an enemy and under any occupation by a foreign power. This should not be confused with the better known Third Geneva Convention, which deals with the treatment of prisoners of war. The convention was published on August 12, 1949, at the end of a conference held in Geneva from April 21 to August 12, 1949. The convention entered into force on October 21, 1950.
July 21st, 2007 at 6:32 pm“Some how, some way the truth needs to make its way to the masses.
Comment by had enough — July 21, 2007 ”
See, the democrats are in power and NOTHING gets done!
July 21st, 2007 at 6:33 pmProtocol I
Article 45.3
Any person who has taken part in hostilities, who is not entitled to prisoner‑of‑war status and who does not benefit from more favourable treatment in accordance with the Fourth Convention shall have the right at all times to the protection of Article 75 of this Protocol.
July 21st, 2007 at 6:33 pm“Ann/Michael’s whole John Kerry fixation is predicated on its unsubstantiated claim that Kerry was originally given a Less Than Honorable Dischargeâ€
And in the past I NEVER said this was a fact because I don’t have the documents to prove it. Based on all existing information available, which I won’t roll out here, I am assuming that’s what happened.
From the previous http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/20/clinton-kerry-redeployment/#comments thread, comment #277 (on myscreen).
It sure sounds like it was stated as fact to me. But if it wasn’t a fact, then why should anyone answer a stupid follow-up? And if it couldn’t be proven, why not say so? At least I have some basis for claiming that you are the real Ann Coulter: You admitted it. Unless, of course, that was yet another lie.
Ann, you are as terrible a debater here on these threads as you are on TV. If you could operate in the reality-based community, there might be a chance for a worthwhile discussion. But since you’re off in la-la land and I’m here on Earth, I don’t see how that’s possible right now.
July 21st, 2007 at 6:34 pm“Any person who has taken part in hostilities, who is not entitled to prisoner‑of‑war status and who does not benefit from more favourable treatment in accordance with the Fourth Convention shall have the right at all times to the protection of Article 75 of this Protocol.
Comment by Moderation — July 21, 2007″
I agree for civilians but not for combatants!
July 21st, 2007 at 6:36 pmThe Fourth Geneva Convention applies to civilians not combatants!
Comment by michael — July 21, 2007 @ 6:30 pm
So how do you tell if someone is a civilian ( innocent bystander turned in by liars for the bounty money ) or a combatant..????…HABEUS CORPUS
July 21st, 2007 at 6:37 pm“It sure sounds like it was stated as fact to me.
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — July 21, 2007″
Really? Did you happen to gloss over my word “suggesting”? Suggesting does not = fact!
July 21st, 2007 at 6:40 pminnocent bystander turned in by liars for the bounty money
Comment by Badger — July 21, 2007″
Who are you referring to? Do you know of anyone at Gitmo who are innocent bystanders?
July 21st, 2007 at 6:42 pmSee, the democrats are in power and NOTHING gets done!
Comment by michael
very sad… and do not call yourself an American.
July 21st, 2007 at 6:43 pmDo you know of anyone at Gitmo who are innocent bystanders?
Comment by michael — July 21, 2007 @ 6:42 pm
Oh I don’t know ???? how about the hundreds of people already RELEASED!
July 21st, 2007 at 6:44 pmDo you know of anyone at Gitmo who are innocent bystanders?
Comment by michael
Well, seeing as Bru$chCo won’t even let the individuals its holding down there toalk to lawyers or show them the evidence it wants to convict them on, it’s a little hard to know what is going on down there.
Which is a nice way of saying, NEITHER DO YOU. You s/b more worried about this, little boy. What goes around comes around.
July 21st, 2007 at 6:45 pm“Oh I don’t know ???? how about the hundreds of people already RELEASED!
Comment by Badger — July 21, 2007″
And you are saying that all these people were turned in by their neighbors for money?
July 21st, 2007 at 6:46 pm“very sad… and do not call yourself an American.
Comment by had enough — July 21, 2007″
Yes I do! I know that any bill passed by the democrats is bad for this country.
July 21st, 2007 at 6:48 pmDo you know of anyone at Gitmo who are innocent bystanders?
Comment by michael
Is it the cubans?
July 21st, 2007 at 6:48 pmComment by michael — July 21, 2007 @ 6:46 pm
STRAW MAN. I NEVER said ALL. Clearly there are SOME Dangerous terrorists at Gitmo. My point was that we need HABEUS CORPUS to sort this out. You’re not in favor of innocent people being held in prison, are you???
July 21st, 2007 at 6:51 pmYes I do! I know that any bill passed by the democrats is bad for this country.
Comment by michael — July 21, 2007 @ 6:48 pm
I believe I have already advised you on the stupidity of declarative sentences. How about we take a new approach. Please list the top 5 things which “your” ideal legislative branch should execute.
July 21st, 2007 at 6:52 pm“Well, seeing as Bru$chCo won’t even let the individuals its holding down there toalk to lawyers”
They’re not entitled to lawyers.
“You s/b more worried about this, little boy. What goes around comes around”
Meaning? At least we are not chopping off their heads. It’s amazing how you liberals show so much compassion for a group of disgusting animals that want to kill you and your families. Do I know the status of those captives and why they are there? No! But In the mean time I am giving the benefit of the doubt to the military.
Comment by The republic of Stupidity — July 21, 2007
July 21st, 2007 at 6:53 pmmichael
by participating with the republicans int he big lie – hiding the fact republicans obstruct bills therefore putting false blame on Dems for getting nothing done is not American… and those like you that put your party and parties lies before the good of our country do not belong here.
July 21st, 2007 at 6:53 pmIs it the cubans?
Comment by dbadass
Shhhh… they don’t count. they’re all a bunch Commie wimps who get what they deserve, huh, Michael? I answered your questions over on the Military thread. Boy, talk about a cry for help!
July 21st, 2007 at 6:54 pm“Please list the top 5 things which “your†ideal legislative branch should execute.
Comment by dbadass — July 21, 2007″
Secure the borders.
July 21st, 2007 at 6:57 pmEnforce existing immigration laws
Execute this war with all the might we can deliver
Don’t even consider Kyoto
Privatize Social Security
Meaning? At least we are not chopping off their heads. It’s amazing how you liberals show so much compassion for a group of disgusting animals that want to kill you and your families. Do I know the status of those captives and why they are there? No! But In the mean time I am giving the benefit of the doubt to the military.
Comment by The republic of Stupidity — July 21, 2007
Comment by michael
But michael, we even feel a little bit of compassion for you. It can’t be easy to live in the state of confusion you seem to exist in.
In your own words, you just said you don’t know who those individuals are. Ennough said. Anymore, and you’re clearly talking nonsense.
Time to STFU, nitiwit.
July 21st, 2007 at 6:57 pm“your party and parties lies before the good of our country do not belong here.
Comment by had enough — July 21, 2007″
What lies are you referring to?
July 21st, 2007 at 6:58 pmExecute this war with all the might we can deliver
Comment by michael
“Execute this war w/ all the might we can deliver.”
I love you guys that talk so tough about htings you don’t have to do.
Enlist, m’boy, enlist! Serve your country, or are you a coward?
July 21st, 2007 at 6:59 pm“your party and parties lies before the good of our country do not belong here.
Comment by had enough
You do realize this twit talks in circles endlessly.
July 21st, 2007 at 7:00 pmSecure the borders.
Enforce existing immigration laws
Execute this war with all the might we can deliver
Don’t even consider Kyoto
Privatize Social Security
Comment by michael — July 21, 2007 @ 6:57 pm
Interesting list. Now please list one longterm pro and two longterm cons for each of your ideas. Sorry about the two but people tend not to want to look critically at the ideas the feel comfortable with.
July 21st, 2007 at 7:00 pm“It can’t be easy to live in the state of confusion you seem to exist in.
In your own words, you just said you don’t know who those individuals are. Ennough said. Anymore, and you’re clearly talking nonsense.
Time to STFU, nitiwit.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — July 21, 2007″
Frustrated that you can’t get the best of me? Now you are even stooping to zooey’s level by cursing!
July 21st, 2007 at 7:00 pm“You do realize this twit talks in circles endlessly.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — July 21, 2007″
And you do know that you can’t provide an example?
July 21st, 2007 at 7:01 pmThe 2008 election results will take care of this problem…
July 21st, 2007 at 7:01 pmThe Republic of Stupidity
How well do I know….
July 21st, 2007 at 7:02 pmWhat I posted was NOT the Fourth Geneva Convention, Michael!!! It was Article 75 of Protocol I. The Protocols are amendments to the Geneva Conventions. What I posted was, literally, not figuratively, the WORST treatment ANYONE can get, REGARDLESS of status under the Geneva Conventions. If they were, as with mercenaries and most other forms of militia, etc, covered by the Fourth Geneva Convention, as the hugely vast majority of people not protected by the first three are in international courts (including, *gasp* terrorists), they’d instead be protected by the full weight of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Again, Article 75 above is not from the Fourth Convention. It is from Protocol I, which would be more like the first amendment to the GC.
Under international law, however, virtually everybody, be they mercenary, guerrilla fighter, militia, armed civilian insurgent, etc, has been found to be protected by the much more thorough protections outlined in the 4th GC.
July 21st, 2007 at 7:02 pm“Now please list one longterm pro and two longterm cons for each of your ideas. Sorry about the two but people tend not to want to look critically at the ideas the feel comfortable with.
Comment by dbadass — July 21, 2007″
What is this a test? Read the list and assume I want them interpreted literally.
July 21st, 2007 at 7:03 pmAside from the fact that this thread is about conservatives blocking the will of the American people, I have enjoyed the attempts at educating the troll. But none is so blind as he who cannot see.
July 21st, 2007 at 7:04 pmTo try and make a case for brutal and inhumane treatment of human beings under any circumstances, tells me all I need to know about the poster of such hatred.
In every conflict the U.S. gets involved in, part of the strategy is to convince the population that the other side is evil, dirty, subhuman, inhumane, smelly or whatever. How could they convince you to go and kill them if they just followed, oh I don’t know, maybe Jesus’ teachings.
I’m old enough to remember movies where the Indians were ALWAYS the bad guys, and cowboys always the good guys.
And, I’m not THAT old. My point is, the Indians were not always, or even usually, the bad guys. They rightfully resisted the invasion and occupation of their lands by the European white devils who believed it was their manifest destiny to take this country. Usually because God told them to.
I’m told Jesus taught in parables.
Anyway, here’s the simple version for those too thick headed to get it. I am not thinking of any particular person, I’m just saying that history shows that the heathens are not always all they are portrayed to be.
Indians are Iraqis, the white devils, well, they’re us. If you were an Iraqi would you fight, or would you fall on your knees and accept Jesus (with your hands bound behind your back)?
And as for the prisoners at Guantanamo, if we had any evidence of guilt (not torture induced guilt, actual I saw what you just did guilt)
then they could have been tried and judged. Bush did not want that. He wanted kangaroo court trial, where evidence against you cannot be refuted etc.
So let me get this straight. You are okay with torture as long as they are not white people or Christians or conservative republicans?
“Again, Article 75 above is not from the Fourth Convention. It is from Protocol I,
Comment by Moderation — July 21, 2007″
Ok, I’ll read it.
July 21st, 2007 at 7:04 pmOh yeah, Michael can you also indicate how those 5 items would be done as they are all sort of euphemistic and vague. What specifically does “securing the borders” mean. Specifics?
July 21st, 2007 at 7:05 pmNo it is not a test. More like the Socratic method…
July 21st, 2007 at 7:06 pm“So let me get this straight. You are okay with torture?
Comment by funkyp — July 21, 2007″
If it saves 1 American life even yours, you bet!
July 21st, 2007 at 7:07 pm“What I posted was NOT the Fourth Geneva Convention, Michael!!! It was Article 75 of Protocol I”
Your just not having much luck here! Want to take another shot?
“The First Geneva Convention is one of several Geneva Conventions. It is more formally known as the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field, 1864. It covers the treatment of battlefield casualties and was adopted in 1864 as part of the establishment of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.”
July 21st, 2007 at 7:12 pmWhat specifically does “securing the borders†mean. Specifics?
Comment by dbadass
Michael never has specifics, debadass. That’s the beauty of it all… just wave your arms in the air, scream “Islamofascist, Islamofascist”, then run off when it doesn’t work.
July 21st, 2007 at 7:13 pmIf it saves 1 American life even yours, you bet!
Comment by michael — July 21, 2007 @ 7:07 pm
How many innocent nonAmericans lives = 1 American life? Would you torture your mother to save that one American life. Beware the declarative…
July 21st, 2007 at 7:13 pm“What specifically does “securing the borders†mean. Specifics?
Comment by dbadass — July 21, 2007″
It could mean a lot of things like building a fence, hiring thousands more border patrols, imprisoning and returning those caught. Just for starters.
July 21st, 2007 at 7:14 pm“Would you torture your mother to save that one American life. Beware the declarative…
Comment by dbadass — July 21, 2007″
My mother would never cut off someone’s head!
July 21st, 2007 at 7:15 pm“Michael never has specifics, debadass. That’s the beauty of it all… just wave your arms in the air, scream “Islamofascist, Islamofascistâ€, then run off when it doesn’t work.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — July 21, 2007″
Really? Maybe you better go back and read some of my posts. When a liberal posts something like you just did with nothing but accusations and stupid rhetoric it’s time you took a break!
July 21st, 2007 at 7:18 pm“So let me get this straight. You are okay with torture?
Comment by funkyp — July 21, 2007″
If it saves 1 American life even yours, you bet!
Comment by michael — July 21, 2007 @ 7:07 pm
July 21st, 2007 at 7:18 pmWe are not talking about the extreme case here. I am talking about torture as policy, because we know that information gleaned from torture is not particularly reliable. The torturee has a vested interest in stopping the torture and might say whatever the interrogator wants them to say. Just to make it stop.
I am asking if you support torture as a policy.
In the old days they could give you a shot of ‘truth serum’ or sodium pentathol. I hear ecstasy would do the same thing. Or get them drunk, they would talk and talk. But that’s just not as much fun.
But, following your logic, I would think we could save many lives if we could somehow “convince” Cheney to tell us everything he knows. That dude is hiding everything!
I know she wouldn’t, she’s a sweet lady just like all those moms raising their children in Iraq and elsewhere. The question was would you torture your mom if it was in the US interest?
July 21st, 2007 at 7:19 pmOk losers! Enough for now but I’ll probably be back later looking for zooey and wayne!
July 21st, 2007 at 7:20 pmReally? Maybe you better go back and read some of my posts. When a liberal posts something like you just did with nothing but accusations and stupid rhetoric it’s time you took a break!
Comment by michael
Micahel, I’ve been answering your questions all day and getting nothing but garbage back.
July 21st, 2007 at 7:20 pmReally? Maybe you better go back and read some of my posts. When a liberal posts something like you just did with nothing but accusations and stupid rhetoric it’s time you took a break!
Comment by michael — July 21, 2007 @ 7:18 pm
Cool then you wouldn’t mind giving the specifics I asked for? 1 pro/2 cons. The quality of your cons will show your depth of thought
July 21st, 2007 at 7:21 pmIt could mean a lot of things like building a fence, hiring thousands more border patrols, imprisoning and returning those caught. Just for starters.
Comment by michael — July 21, 2007 @ 7:14 pm
And the ramifications of this would be? By the way M12 is gonna be pissed. He has this thing about taxation.
July 21st, 2007 at 7:25 pmSo let’s see, Michael is gone, and…
…Ann Coulter suddenly appears on Fox!
Just kiddin’
July 21st, 2007 at 7:31 pmSo let’s see, Michael is gone,
Quick, while the adults can talk…
July 21st, 2007 at 7:33 pmForce the GOP to just that.
Make them talk until they are hoarse. Let them simply say “I Object” is not a filibuster.
Force to do it the old fashion way.
Talk us to death or else!
July 21st, 2007 at 7:42 pmHello, I’m Ronald Reagan, former president and Iran/Contra TRAITOR.
Now, I’m DEAD and BURNING IN HELL, and YOU CAN, TOO!
It’s EASY!!
Just continue to support the policies of the BIGGEST TRAITOR to AMERICA EVER, George W. Bush, the Saudi OIL-WHOREBAG!!
Treasonously yours from the pits of hell,
Traitor Ronnie and my Master Satan…
July 21st, 2007 at 7:43 pmSo let’s see, Michael is gone, and…
…Ann Coulter suddenly appears on Fox!
Just kiddin’
Comment by Egreggious — July 21, 2007 @ 7:31 pm
If we could document an incident where she was on live television at the same time “michael” was posting, then I’ll be convinced it’s not really her. Not all FOx shows are live. (O’Reilly isn’t.)
BTW, anyone who advocates building fences on our borders to keep people out had better mean both the border with Mexico AND the border with Canada.
July 21st, 2007 at 7:46 pmRonald Reagan and his Master Satan
Shockingly progressive!
July 21st, 2007 at 8:28 pm… AND the border with Canada.
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider
And what have the Canucks ever done to you? Or pehaps they want to keep Americans out of their country by now!
July 21st, 2007 at 8:30 pmShockingly progressive!
Comment by r
Outside of being snide and condescending, got anything real to say?
July 21st, 2007 at 8:30 pmEnough for now but I’ll probably be back later looking for zooey and wayne!
Comment by michael
Hey Zooey… Wayne… ya better look out! michael is coming back later and he’s gonna be looking fer ya!!!
July 21st, 2007 at 8:41 pmRepublicans obstruct…and more of our soldiers die.
Republicans obstruct…and more of our sacred and beloved democracy withers and dies.
Republicans obstruct…and more of our nation’s children go to bed hungry or end up dying due to lack of health insurance.
Republicans obstruct…as if they have a “death wish” for our soldiers, our republic, and our nation’s children. But then, all death-dealing war-mongering conservatives are the same, aren’t they?
July 21st, 2007 at 8:41 pmWhat is going one here?
This place is degenerating into bedlam. Phony CIA spooks, shrill trolls who can’t formulate a coherent thought to save their lives, endless poo flinging, neo-cons who tout mass extermination as the only way…
Boy, are we in trouble as a society.
July 21st, 2007 at 8:43 pmThe Republic of Stupidity
You asked me, “Outside of being snide and condescending, got anything real to say?â€
Here’s something rea, my comment was directed to this:
Hello, I’m Ronald Reagan, former president and Iran/Contra TRAITOR.
Now, I’m DEAD and BURNING IN HELL, and YOU CAN, TOO!
It’s EASY!!
Just continue to support the policies of the BIGGEST TRAITOR to AMERICA EVER, George W. Bush, the Saudi OIL-WHOREBAG!!
Treasonously yours from the pits of hell,
Traitor Ronnie and my Master Satan…
Comment by Ronald Reagan and his Master Satan — July 21, 2007 @
Do you still think my comment was inappropriately snide and condescending considering what I was commenting on – or do you support Mr. RR and his master Satan?
July 21st, 2007 at 8:53 pmAnd what have the Canucks ever done to you? Or pehaps they want to keep Americans out of their country by now!
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — July 21, 2007 @ 8:30 pm
You did understand my point, didn’t you? The people who scream loudest about putting up a fence on our border never seem to mean our border to the north, which is porous and unguarded in so many places. And why would that be? Could it perhaps be because the people up there are mostly white while the people crossing our border to the south are mostly not? I believe that the border fence advocates are, at heart, racists, though they will never, ever openly admit that. (For the benefit of the two-digit IQ trolls, that’s an opinion.)
I, for one, have no problem whatsoever with our neighbors to the north (or the south, for that matter). We are all human beings on this floating piece of rock, none superior to any others. We are all in this together. IF, as the other side claims, and I do mean IF, they believe this, too, then they shouldn’t be advocating going out and killing people to solve their problems. If they do advocate killing people to solve their problems, then they must not believe that we are all human beings.
July 21st, 2007 at 9:15 pmDo you still think my comment was inappropriately snide and condescending considering what I was commenting on – or do you support Mr. RR and his master Satan?
Comment by r
I actually think some of the posters here are over the top. I usually scroll thru the ones I don’t like. Whilst I don’t always like the words used, I can understand the frustraton behind them.
Why do you come here? Does it make you feel superior to post the kinds of comments you do?
July 21st, 2007 at 9:16 pmHey Zooey… Wayne… ya better look out! michael is coming back later and he’s gonna be looking fer ya!!!
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — July 21, 2007 @ 8:41 pm
Coultergeist doesn’t scare me. Or should I say “michaelgeist”?
July 21st, 2007 at 9:16 pmCoultergeist doesn’t scare me. Or should I say “michaelgeist�
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider
Pssst… I didn’t think you’d be scared. You should know me by now (sarcastic…). I have to say, it’s kind of weird to see how impressed w/ themselves some of these trolls are. They really think they make sense, no matter what. Kind of a stange phenomenon, isn’t it?
July 21st, 2007 at 9:19 pmComment by The Republic of Stupidity — July 21, 2007 @ 9:19 pm
Have you read John W. Dean’s book “Conservatives Without Conscience”? He explains very well the right-wing authoritarian mindset that compels these people (like Ann Coulter and her alter-ego, michael) to believe in authority no matter what that authority tells them. They believe that you must have one person in charge ( and that this one person MUST be obeyed by everyone (except themselves). They do think they are “better” and “more deserving” than the rest of us, and usually for no other reason than that the person in charge shares their views. Its almost got a circular-logic feel to it. Which explains their lame arguments when it comes to debating. It’s almost as if they want to say, “Well, everyone knows the moon is made of cheese. So how come the moon isn’t covered with all kinds of bacteria?” And when you point out that the moon is no, in fact, made of cheese, they continue asking you how come it;s not covered in bacteria. And then they ridicule you when you realize that there’s just no getting through to them. They speculate about something, infer something else from it, then demand that we explain why what they inferred is wrong, usually without admitting that their conclusion was based on either a faulty premise or one which could not be substantiated one way or the other. Then they claim victory and laugh at you.
It’s a sad, pathetic existence. No wonder Ann Coulter never got married. She probably insists that any guy she dates (assuming any exist) must prove they are not rapists before going to bed with her. Except her definition of “rapist” keeps changing and includes outright speculation about what a rapist might be like. So anything the guy does would “be just what she’d expect a rapist to do.” And the guy goes home without getting any. He should consider himself lucky.
July 21st, 2007 at 9:35 pmSo basically, it’s like this:
Reps have the majority – Dems are helpless
Reps are in the minority – DEMS ARE STILL HELPLESS!!!
Ooh, you Leftists sure know how to get things done!!!!!!!
July 21st, 2007 at 9:40 pmAnd the guy goes home without getting any. He should consider himself lucky.
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider
I only read parts of Dean’s book. Once I got the gist of what he was saying, I quit. It was too depressing. Yeah, I hear you. I feel like I’ve been talking to people for decades and not getting thru. There’s a reason I use the Republic of Stupidity for an on-line name. ya know.
July 21st, 2007 at 9:42 pmComment by The Republic of Stupidity — July 21, 2007 @ 9:42 pm
Don’t give up. Convince them one at a time if necessary and ask them to convince someone else. It can be done. I’ve turned a lifelong Republican’s mind around and she voted for the Democrats last year. First time in her life and she was proud and happy to do it. She’s working on the rest of her family little by little. Don’t give up.
But do continue pointing out the errors of the trolls’ thinking ways.
July 21st, 2007 at 9:47 pmThere’s a reason I use the Republic of Stupidity for an on-line name. ya know.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — July 21, 2007 @ 9:42 pm
—————————————–
Yeah, we know. You’re a babbling idiot!!!
July 21st, 2007 at 9:51 pmYeah, we know. You’re a babbling idiot!!!
Comment by Kalashnikov — July 21, 2007 @ 9:51 pm
Talking to your mirror again, Mr. P(resident)?
July 21st, 2007 at 9:56 pmTalking to your mirror again, Mr. P(resident)?
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — July 21, 2007 @ 9:56 pm
I would point out all the obvious ways in which we can tell who it is.
—————————————–
But we know that wouldn’t stop the neo-Liberalish Stalino-Fascistas koalas from tickling its brain banana.
+-+-+Conspiracy!!!+-+-+
July 21st, 2007 at 10:04 pmI would point out all the obvious ways in which we can tell who it is.
Comment by Moderation — July 21, 2007 @ 10:04 pm
Actually, I think I might know his real name. But in his case I’ll respect the TP rules and not reveal it to protect his “anonymity”. (It’s nobody you ever heard of. Unlike “michael”, who I believe is really Ann Coulter, who deserves no anonymity.)
July 21st, 2007 at 10:12 pmYeah, we know. You’re a babbling idiot!!!
Comment by Kalashnikov
Wow… ZINGER! I’ll probably die a few months younger because of that one. Man, you’re wasting your talents here. You’re ready for the BIG TIME. Send your resume to O’Reilly or KKKarl today!!
July 21st, 2007 at 10:22 pmBut we know that wouldn’t stop the neo-Liberalish Stalino-Fascistas koalas from tickling its brain banana.
+-+-+Conspiracy!!!+-+-+
Comment by Moderation
I personally have converted to Salamo-Marxism, sir. It’s a new branch of the tree, a synthesis of a solid belief in the value of salted, dried beef, w/ some sourdough, mayo, mustard, and pickles, coupled w/ an ardent love of the clever wordplay and absurd slapstick of the Marx Bros.
I expect this to sweep the planet in the next few years! But for the time being, I’ve simply gotten hungry… later!!
July 21st, 2007 at 10:27 pmRonald Reagan and his Master Satan
Shockingly progressive!
Comment by r
Weeellll, THANK YOU!!
Burning in hell for eternity,
Traitor Ronnie and my Master Satan
July 21st, 2007 at 11:44 pmor do you support Mr. RR and his master Satan?
Comment by r
Weeellll, no, YOU support TRAITORS like MURDERERS and WAR CRIMINALS Bush, Cheney and myself….
Satan Bless the Bushes and Cheneys and lackeys like YOU.
Treasonously yours from the pits of hell,
Traitor Ronnie and my Master Satan
July 21st, 2007 at 11:50 pm“Pssst… I didn’t think you’d be scared. You should know me by now (sarcastic…). I have to say, it’s kind of weird to see how impressed w/ themselves some of these trolls are. They really think they make sense, no matter what. Kind of a stange phenomenon, isn’t it?
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — July 21, 2007″
And you can provide some examples?
July 22nd, 2007 at 12:43 am“Weeellll, no, YOU support TRAITORS like MURDERERS and WAR CRIMINALS Bush, Cheney and myself….
Satan Bless the Bushes and Cheneys and lackeys like YOU.
Treasonously yours from the pits of hell,
Traitor Ronnie and my Master Satan
Comment by Ronald Reagan and his Master Satan”
Debating skills 101 from an American Public School. Proud?
July 22nd, 2007 at 12:45 am“shrill trolls who can’t formulate a coherent thought to save their lives, endless poo flinging, neo-cons who tout mass extermination as the only way…
Boy, are we in trouble as a society.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — July 21, 2007″
You want to go one on one in front of your liberal lemmings? I would love to! It won’t happen tonight but how about 1:00 p.m. on Sunday. Are you man enough?
July 22nd, 2007 at 12:54 amrepublic, I expect an answer and so do the other idiot liberals who think you can beat me! I’m waiting?
July 22nd, 2007 at 12:56 amComment by michael — July 22, 2007 @ 12:43 am
Comment by michael — July 22, 2007 @ 12:45 am
Comment by michael — July 22, 2007 @ 12:54 am
Comment by michael — July 22, 2007 @ 12:56 am
That’s what I thought, buddy. You don’t HAVE an answer, because the Geneva Conventions cover all the bases. This is one of the major reasons why the world at large is disgusted with us, for we are currently in breach of the Geneva Conventions, and are thus involved in war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
Would you like to give it another shot? Article 75 of Protocol I? Linked for your convenience, along with the rest of the Geneva Conventions, in post #197 above, guy.
Come on, you can do it. How are we not in violation of that article, and thus the GC?
July 22nd, 2007 at 2:08 amAlberto says the Geneva Conventions have been rendered quaint.
July 22nd, 2007 at 2:45 amthis site will do anything to try to save the lowest rated democrat congress ever
July 22nd, 2007 at 9:39 am…”conservatism” is America’s cancer…
…and radical surgery is needed…
…to remove it…
July 22nd, 2007 at 8:17 pmI have some of my own stats here:
http://deltanin.blogspot.com/2007/07/who-likes-filibuster-now.html
It shows just the failed (i.e. successfully-blocked) votes, and scales according to the number of days in session.
July 23rd, 2007 at 5:17 pm