O’Reilly: Fox News Turned Down Pro-Constitution Ad Because It Was ‘Anti-American’
O’Reilly: Fox News Turned Down Pro-Constitution Ad Because It Was ‘Anti-American’
The Center for Constitutional Rights recently produced an ad called “Rescue the Constitution” that criticizes the Bush administration for “destroying the Constitution” through the use of tactics like renditions and torture. Fox News refused to air the ad, claiming that it needed “documentation” that the Constitution “is indeed being destroyed.”
In the ad, actor Danny Glover states, “Trials. Renditions. Torture. The Bush administration is destroying the Constitution. They can be stopped. Rescue the Constitution.”
Yesterday, while discussing NBC’s recent refusal to run an ad from the White House front group Freedom’s Watch, Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly explained why Fox News turns down ads:
Yeah, but I understand why. Fox News turns down blatantly anti-American ads. We just turned one down recently. I understand that.
Watch it:
It is not “anti-American” to believe that President Bush has shredded the Constitution. In fact, 55 percent of voters believe Bush “has abused his powers in a way that rises to the level of impeachable offenses.”
But protecting Bush’s power is a priority for Fox News. The network previously refused to run an ad that was critical of then-Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito. The decision was seen as an “effort to shield President Bush’s choice for the high court.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
139 Responses to “O’Reilly: Fox News Turned Down Pro-Constitution Ad Because It Was ‘Anti-American’”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
It’s the understanding Bill O’Reilly - as long as you’re discussing censorship, he understands…
December 8th, 2007 at 8:09 pmThe missing 5 comments were blatantly uncivilized ads from O’Really,
December 8th, 2007 at 8:17 pmattempting to justify his existence.
The Constitution was repealed on January 20, 2001. Therefore anyone advocating the document’s principles is anti-American.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:24 pmFOX is State Sponsored TV
December 8th, 2007 at 8:31 pmYou’re anti-american unless you’re Fox News and/or White House approved!
December 8th, 2007 at 8:31 pmO’Reilly is a chicken hawk!
Comment by Megatron — December 8, 2007 @ 8:26 pm
You’re too polite, Megatron.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:33 pmSatyam, you need more finesse to capture our looniness. Please, more practice.
I say we transfer Bill O’s salary to Satyam as incentive!
December 8th, 2007 at 8:37 pm“I hope when our leader Hillary is elected…”
- - The preceding was the personal opinion of one poster and does not represent the view of ALL posters. What’s this “our” crap?
December 8th, 2007 at 8:38 pmComment by Megatron — December 8, 2007 @ 8:34 pm
Ching-ching-a-ling… ching-ching-ching-a-ling…
Ya look ridiculous dressed up like that. You guys need to form a union, and get some leverage w/ the RNC.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:39 pmI assume the trolls are going nuts tonight with the number of missing posts. I guess since O’Rielly is the subject all the true worshipers are up in arms as it were. Currently 25-9=16 rants. Is there a record for removed posts from rightwing ranters?
The the unmissed writers of the missing posts: Greetings from planet Earth.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:42 pmYer right, Saint Augustine. They must be blipping them off like crazy… and look at the number that still got thru.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:44 pmHow on God’s Green Earth can be pro-U. S. Constitution be twisted to being “anti-Merican?” These right-wing loonies boggle the mind..
December 8th, 2007 at 8:44 pmThese right-wing loonies boggle the mind..
Comment by Oval12345678 aka James K. Sayre — December 8, 2007 @ 8:44 pm
Only in the murky minds of folks like the Falafel King and Megatron…
December 8th, 2007 at 8:47 pmI will vote for her and hope she gets elected President for Life!
Comment by Megatron — December 8, 2007 @ 8:47 pm
Yer only embarrsssing yerself, pal.
Ya come across as such a silly ding-dong, it’s almost impossible to not laugh at you.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:48 pmFaux Snooze is not news, and O’really is not a pundit or a news man. Fox is “state sponsored” opinion. A direct advertising arm of BushCo. They need to be exposed to the American public again and again, for what they are, until they have the reputation they so rightly deserve. O’really is nothing more than a puppet who sold his soul to “big brother” for some silver. Hiding behind his Catholicism, he is a hollow shell of a man.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:50 pmIntern at Fox News: I admire Benjamin Franklin.
Roger Ailes: Witch!!! Burn them at the stake!!! Mmmmm….steak.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:50 pmKeg-a-tron…
December 8th, 2007 at 8:51 pmShe is loved by America!
Comment by Megatron — December 8, 2007 @ 8:51 pm
More irrational gibberish.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:52 pmNeg-a-tron…
December 8th, 2007 at 8:52 pmThe thread lists 41 comments and there are 22 visible. Clearly, someone is paying a little attention to trolls this evening, but megamoron is still here.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:53 pmLook at the Polls, she’s ahead!
Comment by Megatron — December 8, 2007 @ 8:52 pm
Unfortunately, that’s not the subject of the thread, but you’d actually have to be able to “read” and “think” to understand that. Try again, and if you keep jumping up and down like that, yer Jingle Ballsâ„¢ are going to fall off…
Ooops… too late…
December 8th, 2007 at 8:55 pmComment by Megatron — December 8, 2007 @ 8:47 pm
I support Hillary and so do most Democrats.
I will vote for her and hope she gets elected President for Life!
Wake up Megatron! Hillary is not the candidate of progressives. She is solidly DLC, and BushCo light on Iraq and foreign policy. Oh and “president for life?” You must be a Hillary “groupie” with no real idea what you are espousing.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:55 pmVeg-a-tron…
December 8th, 2007 at 8:55 pmThey’re like kamikazes, gummitch. No matter how many you shoot down, some are going to get thru.
Li’l Megamoron is a real headbanger, isn’t he? A shame they forgot to give him a helmet first.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:56 pmFox NeoCon News and Fox Comedy/Business have a right to exist until the viewers turn on them, not government banishment. The right wing lugnuts would love it if a Democratic president shutdown a right wing establishment.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:56 pmThanks to Fox’s legal right to lie, I thought I would present some information about Bill O’Rielly’s younger days. Bill once worked at a winery where he placed the stoppers used in the bottling process in a liquid solution all day long. He was a qualified cork soaker!
December 8th, 2007 at 8:58 pmGates during Mid East convention
December 8th, 2007 at 9:00 pmThey’re like kamikazes, gummitch. No matter how many you shoot down, some are going to get thru.
Li’l Megamoron is a real headbanger, isn’t he? A shame they forgot to give him a helmet first.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — December 8, 2007 @ 8:56 pm
Seems like classic Mr Pee behavior to me, but it can be really difficult to tell them apart. This one is certainly stuck on 12 years old and stupid.
December 8th, 2007 at 9:00 pmComment by Megatron — December 8, 2007 @ 8:52 pm
Merlin,
Hillary will ban FOX.
Only CNN and MSNBC will be allowed!
So don’t worry the purge from our Great Mother will come!
Do you have proof that she will do that? Or is this more “groupie” talk?
Oh, and you want a “Great Mother” as your leader? Whew…
December 8th, 2007 at 9:00 pmyay! more new billo at C&L too!
The O’Reilly Fetish: Falafel Boy Hearts Torture
with jonathan turley, no less!
December 8th, 2007 at 9:02 pmand the winner is:
Veg-a-tron…
Comment by Nevar @ 8:55 pm
l o l …
December 8th, 2007 at 9:05 pmThey’re like kamikazes, gummitch. No matter how many you shoot down, some are going to get thru.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — December 8, 2007 @ 8:56 pm
Seems like classic Mr Pee behavior to me, but it can be really difficult to tell them apart. This one is certainly stuck on 12 years old and stupid.
Comment by gummitch — December 8, 2007 @ 9:00 pm
I second both comments here. The smell of urine is here and yeah, some will get through. Yet the numbers, 57/38 are a far cry from before. Poor wingers! Where are they going to go if they can’t spew their garbage here?
December 8th, 2007 at 9:12 pmComment by Saint Augustine — December 8, 2007 @ 8:58 pm
He was a qualified cork soaker!
Yes, his resume is a duzy. Right after the cork soaker job, he went to work in a sock making factory. His job was to tuck the ends of the pairs of socks together before they were packaged. This experience made him an expert sock tucker.
December 8th, 2007 at 9:17 pm“Comment by Megatron”
- - Megablurts.
December 8th, 2007 at 9:18 pmMerlin:
He did a stint with a coal company also. He walked along the railroad tracks picking up lumps of coal that had fallen from hopper cars and put them in burlap bags. He was the crew’s coke sacker.
December 8th, 2007 at 9:35 pmWhere are they going to go if they can’t spew their garbage here?
Comment by Merlin — December 8, 2007 @ 9:12 pm
Homeland Security or TSA, my guesses.
December 8th, 2007 at 9:46 pmIntuition would indicate that the least American person on the planet - O’Rielly - should know unAmerican when he sees it. Alas, never trust intuition.
December 8th, 2007 at 9:50 pmAm I the only one who suspects that Megatron is in reality a right-wing sympathizer who’s hoping to incite some provocative responses that he can report back to his buddies at RedState or FreeRepublic?
Ye gods…only an absolute chucklehead with not even two functioning brain cells to rub together, never mind even the simplest comprehension of our history as a nation, would actually want any politician regardless of party to be appointed President for life! The Twenty-Second Amendment to the Constitution is there for a reason…to prevent the possibility of the President becoming a de facto monarch, even if by the will of the people.
December 8th, 2007 at 9:52 pmno, bluestocking, you’re not…
it’s true… they really DO think we’re stupid…
December 8th, 2007 at 9:54 pmI’m pretty sure Megatron is that stupid troll The Joker.
December 8th, 2007 at 9:57 pm46 / 65 … gee, i wonder which insistant little trooller it is?
December 8th, 2007 at 9:57 pm…
Comment by Saint Augustine — December 8, 2007 @ 9:35 pm
A coke sacker! He surely got around! Did you know that before he left the winery, he got a promotion? Seems that the next job up the ladder was at the end of the conveyor belt he was working at. There, he placed the corks into the filled bottles and whacked them with a hammer to seat them properly. In no time at all he was a champion cork socker.
Of course, all these titles came to the attention of management and he was called in to explain what was going on. Under enhanced interrogation, he admitted that “he was the real thing.”
December 8th, 2007 at 10:09 pmComment by Bluestocking — December 8, 2007 @ 9:52 pm
Am I the only one who suspects that Megatron is in reality a right-wing sympathizer who’s hoping to incite some provocative responses that he can report back to his buddies at RedState or FreeRepublic?
Nah. The trolls go back to the locker room in the “West Hollywood Gym for Men” before going home to sleep under the bridge at the LA River.
December 8th, 2007 at 10:13 pmMurdock: ‘How are we doing saying supporting the constitution is anti-American?’. Their laughing at us?????……send O’Rielly to my office!’.
December 8th, 2007 at 10:14 pmComment by katy — December 8, 2007 @ 9:57 pm
46 / 65 … gee, i wonder which insistant little trooller it is?
Out of frustration, reinforcements were called in. Its probably all of them!
December 8th, 2007 at 10:16 pmHi Zooey!
December 8th, 2007 at 10:17 pmHey, Merlin. :)
December 8th, 2007 at 10:19 pmO’reilly is bad!
Comment by Megatron — December 8, 2007 @ 8:22 pm
that’s true.
December 8th, 2007 at 10:27 pmI don’t see how the ad is un-American — it is pro-Constitution — isn’t that about as American as it gets?
December 8th, 2007 at 10:56 pmG = George
December 8th, 2007 at 11:01 pmO = Orwell’s
P = Prediction
good one, zooey…
December 8th, 2007 at 11:28 pmComment by Zooey — December 8, 2007 @ 11:01 pm
G = George
O = Orwell’s
P = Prediction
Perfect!
December 8th, 2007 at 11:30 pmI hope when our leader Hillary is elected FOX News is ban and O’Reilly arrested!
Comment by Megatron
No but we’ll have yet another pro Israel Zionist sock puppet in the White House…
IDIOT!
December 9th, 2007 at 12:05 amI don’t see how the ad is un-American — it is pro-Constitution — isn’t that about as American as it gets?
Comment by Marie
Their definition of “America” is different than ours.
December 9th, 2007 at 12:06 amIs it because Fox News has higher ratings then CNN and MSNBC that the posters here hate Fox News so much?
December 9th, 2007 at 12:27 am“O’reilly is bad!
Comment by Megatron — December 8, 2007 @ 8:22 pm
that’s true.
Comment by joe cantwell — December 8, 2007 @ 10:27 pm”
At least Mr. P got something right.
December 9th, 2007 at 12:27 amCon10tious. CNN has a higher number of viewers. Fox has the mouthbreathers that never change the channel. Like…you!!
December 9th, 2007 at 12:28 amHow can any of you overlook Danny Glover’s support for Chavez?
December 9th, 2007 at 12:31 amHow can any of you overlook Danny Glover’s support for Chavez?
Comment by Con10tious — December 9, 2007 @ 12:31 am
What does that have to do with this ad?
December 9th, 2007 at 12:33 am64: I asked a questions. You answer may or may not be true, but either way it doesn’t warrant name calling. Or is that the only way you can elevate your own self worth by demeaning others?
December 9th, 2007 at 12:37 am“What does that have to do with this ad?”
Too bad for Con10tious, progressives aren’t drawn to shiny things.
December 9th, 2007 at 12:37 am66: Glover is the one in the ad.
December 9th, 2007 at 12:39 am“64: I asked a questions. You answer may or may not be true, but either way it doesn’t warrant name calling. Or is that the only way you can elevate your own self worth by demeaning others?”
Your question was loaded and you are a mouthbreather.
December 9th, 2007 at 12:39 am“66: Glover is the one in the ad.”
That has what to do with rescuing the Constitution?
December 9th, 2007 at 12:43 amThe ad loses much, in my opinion, by having Glover as the spokesperson. Clearly Glover support of Chavez, whose views are decidedly un-American doesn’t seem the best person for the job of defending the Constitution.
Regardless, just because President Bush reads the Constitution to support his actions doesn’t mean he should be impeached. Clearly a very small minority of US Representatives, most notably including Dennis Kucinich, think president Bush should be impeached. And while I think that Congress’s 22% approval rating is considerably too high, I do think they have this one right, that is that there aren’t sufficient grounds to impeach!
December 9th, 2007 at 12:49 am66: Glover is the one in the ad.
Comment by Con10tious — December 9, 2007 @ 12:39 am
Again, what does that have to do with this ad?
December 9th, 2007 at 12:53 amCon10tious. The small minority of US Reps that are willing to put their careers on the line to impeach Junior does not match the percentage of people in the US that want him gone. The Dems are simply being huge wimps. Very few people want Bush/Cheney to continue to f^ck the country up.
December 9th, 2007 at 12:55 am74: I searched and the polls I found indicating high numbers were supposedly due to President Bush’s surveillance program’ but the wording is never really clear, in my opinion. And nothing recent, say in 2007; so I’m wondering if the media spin / hype charged the issue in ‘05 & ‘06.
So other than trying to protect against another terrorist attach, which liberal thinkers and conspiracy adherents seem to over look President Bush has f^cked up anything.
December 9th, 2007 at 1:08 amI think its pie in the sky to think we can placate terrorists by backing off. Israel backed off the Gaza Strip and still Hamas and Hezbollah launch rockets into Israel. I think Bush gets that, many people don’t.
December 9th, 2007 at 1:11 am70: Sabyen91
It wasn’t loaded with anything except the claim O’Reily makes almost every show that he has better ratings the CNN and MSNBC combined.
I’m not sure the answer you gave is accurate either. Regardless, I’m not belittling myself to call you a name so you can feel justified in doing so in the first place.
December 9th, 2007 at 1:18 amBush doesn’t “get” anything dumbf#ck. It’s laughable to see all these “partriotic” americans that are too stupid to realize Bush and co are making parts of the Constitution null and void and idiots like you applaud. Wow
December 9th, 2007 at 1:21 amAnd yeah, I do listen to O’Reilly, but I also listen to Chris Mathews, Tim Russert and a bunch of others so that I can be informed.
I also like this website because occasionally someone will come up with a coherent argument or an original idea.
Mouth-breather is neither coherent nor original; simply a poor reflection.
December 9th, 2007 at 1:23 amTerror, Terror, Terror, everyone must surrender all their Constitutional rights because the big bad terrorists might strike again. Hide under your bed and await the end times.
December 9th, 2007 at 1:24 amThere is a word “TRUTH” most of you should look up in a dictionary and find out what it means.
December 9th, 2007 at 1:24 amAnd yeah, I do listen to O’Reilly, but I also listen to Chris Mathews, Tim Russert and a bunch of others so that I can be informed.
Comment by Con10tious — December 9, 2007 @ 1:23 am
I’m sorry to inform you that if you listen to O’Reilly, Matthews, and Russert you are not informed.
December 9th, 2007 at 1:25 amPeople who still think all of BUsh’s actions are legal are braindead or unbelievably stupid. Inpertretation my ass!!!!!!!!!!!!!
December 9th, 2007 at 1:27 am“It wasn’t loaded with anything except the claim O’Reily makes almost every show that he has better ratings the CNN and MSNBC combined.”
Maybe, since you don’t know that it is BS, it wasn’t loaded. But it IS BS. Yeah, Fox has the most logged time. But that does not mean it is more successful than CNN. CNN has more unique viewers, meaning they make more money from advertisers.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2005
December 9th, 2007 at 1:28 amInterpretation, sorry. At least I can pronounce “Olmert”.
December 9th, 2007 at 1:28 am#78 Can you articulate which part of the Constitution President Bush has violated? I would really like to know. The Supreme Court has upheld all challenges to Guantanamo, there is at least some basis for the surveillance program he initiated, the military tribunals are authorized and they don’t include the right to habeas corpus and there is no conclusive proof that we have tortured anyone.
I am not quick to condemn simply because of innuendo or un-substantiated charges. I would rather adhere to the innocent until proven guilty and reasonable suspicion that someone has actually broken the law rather then political spin and unfounded accusations.
December 9th, 2007 at 1:29 am“And yeah, I do listen to O’Reilly, but I also listen to Chris Mathews, Tim Russert and a bunch of others so that I can be informed.
I also like this website because occasionally someone will come up with a coherent argument or an original idea.
Mouth-breather is neither coherent nor original; simply a poor reflection
”
Are you kidding? Matthews and Russert? Matthews sucks anybodies d!ck that happens to be the largest at the time and Russert is a whore. Russert stated (in his freaking auto-bio) that integrity is for paupers. You might want to think about listening to people not on the Republican approved schill list.
December 9th, 2007 at 1:31 amCon10tious: The folks you mention in your #79 are among the “Hillary Haters” that are so prevalent in the media. I hope you have noticed how they went from Rudy to Obama and are now giving Mike the big push. These “Media Darlings” will go away after early February.
December 9th, 2007 at 1:31 amTo be fair lyle, I am a Hillary Hater too. It isn’t just the right that can’t stand her.
December 9th, 2007 at 1:34 am84: While that conventional wisdom may have held true in ‘03 and ‘04, current cumulative data says otherwise.
http://www.mediabistro.com/ tvnewser/ ratings/ the_scoreboard_thursday_dec_6_72539.asp#more
December 9th, 2007 at 1:38 am“#78 Can you articulate which part of the Constitution President Bush has violated?”
Have you actually READ the Constitution? I would say, conservatively, he has crapped on about HALF of it.
December 9th, 2007 at 1:39 amCon10tious, I saw some numbers that have no explanation.
December 9th, 2007 at 1:42 amNo methodology, just numbers.
December 9th, 2007 at 1:42 amThat little Dubbie was his Mommy’s precious, special, little fellow when he wore his prep-school cheerleader outfit off to school…
…but now he’s all weary and worn down, and, if you look into his eyes,
you can see the reflection of the headlight on the freight train bearing down on him.
December 9th, 2007 at 1:43 am#89: I have no problem agreeing with you about that. I have trouble finding plausable reasoning behind it though. I have catagories set up and think most of these folks fit into my “Envy/Jealous” one, in where I find “Factors” as a major contributing cause.
December 9th, 2007 at 1:45 am82: So who is informed, in your opinion, Randy Rhodes?
December 9th, 2007 at 1:46 amLyle, envy/jealousy isn’t one of my reasons. Triangulating, no thought of her own, nothing but a poll-watching cypher…that kinda sums it up. She is no friend to progressives and we know it.
December 9th, 2007 at 1:48 amHow about Jack Cafferty?
December 9th, 2007 at 1:49 am82: So who is informed, in your opinion, Randy Rhodes?
Comment by Con10tious — December 9, 2007 @ 1:46 am
I think she is well-informed, but the radio stations around here don’t carry any sort of liberal shows.
Try BBC, Reuters, TPM, and for fun FARK.
December 9th, 2007 at 1:50 amI don’t listen to Randy Rhodes. I find her grating and over the top. I don’t actually listen to much of either side of the aisle. I read.
December 9th, 2007 at 1:50 amZoo, Fark is the best :)
December 9th, 2007 at 1:51 amHave you actually READ the Constitution? I would say, conservatively, he has crapped on about HALF of it.
Comment by Sabyen91 — December 9, 2007 @ 1:39 am
Yes, I have read the constitution many, many more times then I would guess you have. And I have sworn numerous oaths to defend the constitution in several different professional capacities.
And I believe that if you do actually read the document you will find that President Bush has not committed any act sufficient to constitute a high crime or misdemeanor.
You may however, virulently disagree with his interpretation, but he has not commuted an impeachable offense.
December 9th, 2007 at 1:54 amHeh. It’s a recent discovery for me, but I love it. :-D
December 9th, 2007 at 1:54 amCon10tious, then Bush’s new EO policy is clearly a blatant firebombing of the Constitution. The president can decide what is legal??? What???
December 9th, 2007 at 1:55 amYou may however, virulently disagree with his interpretation, but he has not commuted an impeachable offense.
Comment by Con10tious — December 9, 2007 @ 1:54 am
It’s not up to the president to interpret the Constitution, dingleberry. That’s why he packed the f_cking SCOTUS.
December 9th, 2007 at 1:55 amIt is a lot of fun, Zoo. And I think the intelligent righty (oxymoron?) would like it too. I think there are two editors…one very left and one very right.
December 9th, 2007 at 1:57 amZoo, I am thinking his interpretation of the Constitution was that it was a god-damn piece of paper.
December 9th, 2007 at 1:58 amTry BBC, Reuters, TPM, and for fun FARK.
Congrats on reading, so what does that mean, it’s true if it’s written?
The BBC is no better then the NYT. I’ve no idea about Reuters. TPM is just another Liberal blog. And I find Fark OK when I’ve got the time.
December 9th, 2007 at 2:01 am“Congrats on reading, so what does that mean, it’s true if it’s written? ”
No, it means I don’t listen to corporate bullsh!t like you do. I can decide if my source is reputable (I find very few journalists reputable).
December 9th, 2007 at 2:03 amZoo, I am thinking his interpretation of the Constitution was that it was a god-damn piece of paper.
Comment by Sabyen91 — December 9, 2007 @ 1:58 am
Words from the man himself, what more could the piss-soaked trolls want?
This contentious dingleberry can’t even figure out the purpose of reading a variety of sources for news. Lost cause….
I’m off to bed, have fun!
December 9th, 2007 at 2:04 amNight Zoo.
December 9th, 2007 at 2:06 am105: Oh and nobody else packed the Supreme Court????
Come on Zooey, be a little intellectually honest. When was the last time you tried to enforce a law without at least trying to understand what the law says your supposed to enforce? If you don’t read the statute to understand what it is that you are trying to enforce then you can’t be sure your doing your job can you?
So in order for President Bush and the Executive Branch, the ones who are supposed to implement the Constitution and other laws passed by congress they need to interpret what the documents say!!!
And Sabyen91, it is not just a piece of paper, how very boorish of you to think you have the only “correct” understanding of what the constitution says.
December 9th, 2007 at 2:09 amCon10tious, you jack-ass. BUSH said it was a god-damn piece of paper.
December 9th, 2007 at 2:11 am“in order for President Bush and the Executive Branch, the ones who are supposed to implement the Constitution and other laws passed by congress they need to interpret what the documents say!!! ”
What??? Were you homeschooled for Civics 101?
December 9th, 2007 at 2:12 amThe constitution has been suspended since 1933 when FDR declared a state of National Emergency and signed the War and Emergency Powers Act of 1933. This is still in effect. Every President can do whatever they want so long as we have a National Emergency (and if we do not have one they make one). The President creates laws known as Executive Orders (EOs). If an EO says he can do something, despite it being against a law passed by Congress, he can do it. Most of our Presidents wanted to give us the illusion that we still had a constitutional Democracy. Bush is just a bit more honest about being a Dictator than others.
It is interesting, in 1933 Germany surrendered their power to the President as well. What a year. A Republican warned at the time that FDR’s policies would result in perpetual war and crisis to pay for big government. He was right. Problem is, Republicans do not exist any longer. We just got 2 kinds of Democrats, Far Right and Center Right. Not much difference between em. Actually, I might be unfair here, maybe just call them Corporacrats, Extra Strength and Lite
Fox News is just like all the radio stations back in FDR’s day. People got their news from the radio, and under FDR, every radio station had to submit transcripts of their public affairs programming in advance for FCC approval. They were told by the FCC that if you broadcast against governments policies, they will not renew their license which came up for renewal every 6 months. So we were infected with fascism 75 years ago, perhaps longer, yet is has been a softer fascism than Mussolinis and Hitlers version. Today we may be in transition to a more harsher version, as the infection develops into full blown Fascism. Good luck.
The one question I have yet to hear asked of any candidate is whether they will issue Executive Orders and use signing statements if elected. Maybe I missed it. I bet only Kucinich and Paul give the right answer.
December 9th, 2007 at 2:19 amNo Sabyen91, just because a story is repeated hundreds of times over, almost exclusively on liberal blogs, doesn’t make it true.
December 9th, 2007 at 2:20 amAh, I see, Con10. You will believe what you want to believe despite the fact that your idol acts EXACTLY as if he belives the Constitution is a god-damn piece of paper. I will give him the benefit of the doubt. I think he meant toilet paper.
December 9th, 2007 at 2:24 amWhat??? Were you homeschooled for Civics 101?
I argue the plain meaning of laws all the time. It is disingenuous to say that by reading a document someone understands the document without considering or interpreting the meaning. What part of comprehension don’t you understand?
December 9th, 2007 at 2:26 am“It is disingenuous to say that by reading a document someone understands the document without considering or interpreting the meaning. What part of comprehension don’t you understand?”
Oh, I understand totally. You are Antonin Scalia. Your interpretation is different than every Constitutional scholar ever born.
December 9th, 2007 at 2:27 amI relent. Sabyen91 you are a foul mouthed, uncouth, boor. And I hope the many times I have reported your posts finally come back to you by way of the bad karma you so richly deserve!
December 9th, 2007 at 2:28 amGood riddence, then Con10. I don’t care how a troll is vanquished, I just care that they are. Buh-bye.
December 9th, 2007 at 2:35 amBy the way, you shouldn’t have put the comma after uncouth. Boor.
December 9th, 2007 at 2:45 amCon10tious,
So you are a lawyer or someone who is immersed in legal things. It is so tiring to hear right wing lawyers use the argument of exacting legality to defend this administration.
Intent followed up by deception and revealed by actions is a much better basis to judge whether this country should have Bush as president along with his administration of neocons.
Proof of guilt takes a long time especially when you have your pick of lawyers to protect you. The Mafia Dons had this advantage. And even though it was evident that they were guilty of all sorts of crimes, in some cases the only way to bring them to justice was to get them on tax fraud! It was a given that they ran drugs, prostitution rings, ordered killings etc. yet they were “innocent” of all these things when looked at as you lawyers argue.
As I said, you lawyer types who argue with semantics and fine point legalities are very tiring.
December 9th, 2007 at 3:12 am#87 Sabyan91: I think Hillary is a mix of P,L,M, and C. I also fit into this mix “Category” as most folk do. When you give it a little thought, I think Will Rogers said it pretty well about the Dem party. The Dems can be considered a party of all the wings, except the extreme right-wing. Many Repubs fit here as well, but are dominated by the so called “Christian Right”, where by any fair judgement there is not much of anything “Christian” about these folks by my reading of “The King James version of The Bible”.
December 9th, 2007 at 3:20 amMerlin, we should call it “legalistic theater” every time it’s used.
December 9th, 2007 at 3:23 amComment by tombaker — December 9, 2007 @ 3:23 am
Merlin, we should call it “legalistic theater†every time it’s used.
Thanks, tombaker. That is a perfect metaphor! I will be using it when the opportunity arises.
December 9th, 2007 at 3:29 am“When you give it a little thought, I think Will Rogers said it pretty well about the Dem party. ”
It depends. Hillary has strong support of the DLCers and the “centrist”, Bush-Lite crowd. I think they are pretty much sheep and are herded quite easily.
December 9th, 2007 at 3:32 amMerlin, you give Con10 way too much credit. He is no lawyer.
December 9th, 2007 at 3:39 amComment by Sabyen91 — December 9, 2007 @ 3:32 am
Hillary has strong support of the DLCers and the “centristâ€, Bush-Lite crowd. I think they are pretty much sheep and are herded quite easily.
Right on! Bill was the “poster boy” for the DLC when he won in 92. Hillary is a solid DLC person. The DLC position on foreign policy is way right of center, snuggling up against the neocons. (Check out Wiki on the DLC. It is pretty shocking! One of the cofounders of the DLC was a PNAC guy!)Unfortunately, The DLC has been the “voice” of the Democratic Party almost since it was founded in 1985 with the express purpose of moving the party way to the right in answer to Raygun’s success.
Only now is the Progressive wing of the party beginning to be felt once again. After Howard Dean won the DNC job over the DLCers things changed. The 2006 election was the first tangible evidence of the changes taking place. 2008 will be a banner year for the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. DLCers and Blue Dogs are being challenged in the primaries, and their spoiler role will be lessened in the next Congress.
December 9th, 2007 at 3:49 am#129 Marlin: “Bill was the poster boy for the DLC when he won in 92. Hillary is a solid DLC person”. You lose your own arguement by that statement. Here is why–The Progressive wing, as you prefer to call yourselves is in reality has some of the most left leaning folk in our party choose not to use Liberal, because over the years it has became a “Dirty Word” in politics, and some of the worst “Hillary Haters” call themselves Liberal. One has to be very careful of pinning a label on someone in their own party that the opposition loves to use against us.
December 9th, 2007 at 4:10 amComment by Sabyen91 — December 9, 2007 @ 3:39 am
Merlin, you give Con10 way too much credit. He is no lawyer.
Your point is well taken. Do consider what I was saying, however. My post was general in intent, using the “con10″ man as a vehicle to express a point. That being that the technique he is using is used by more than a few wingers posting here. I have not seen anyone address this technique as I attempted to do, and I believe it needs to be exposed.
We need, in my view, to attack the trolls where they are weak. Arguing or riduculing their facts, or the points they raise, is playing their game. (Play their game and you lose.) Hit them psychologically and expose them for their con man philosophy. Like exposing a magician (con man) who is fooling his audience. Once exposed he is powerless. It really matters not if the troll is right or wrong. Only that he is exposed for the tricks and techniques he relies on to fool us and disrupt the threads.
(The troll does not care how you treat him. He just wants a response, and the more responses the better. He rubs his hands in glee when he is called an idiot.)
BTW, if you read my first sentence in that post “between the lines,” so to speak, I think you will see that I gave “credit” rather negatively, not positively as you indicate.
December 9th, 2007 at 4:10 amComment by lylepink — December 9, 2007 @ 4:10 am
#129 Marlin: “Bill was the poster boy for the DLC when he won in 92. Hillary is a solid DLC personâ€. You lose your own arguement by that statement.
I make no argument as you put it. These are facts.
Here is why–The Progressive wing, as you prefer to call yourselves is in reality has some of the most left leaning folk in our party choose not to use Liberal, because over the years it has became a “Dirty Word†in politics, and some of the worst “Hillary Haters†call themselves Liberal.
You are not at all clear here. Try again, I have no idea what you are trying to say.
One has to be very careful of pinning a label on someone in their own party that the opposition loves to use against us.
December 9th, 2007 at 4:22 amI believe in calling a spade a spade. In call it like I see it. I have no fear of giving the “opposition” ammunition to use against us. They are as aware of the facts as we are. Hillary triangulates, is a corporate (rather than a people) person, and is a war hawk. I won’t react like a pussy and cringe in fear of what the “opposition” will do. It is time for us to speak our minds, stand up and be counted. And we Progressives are doing that now!
“You lose your own arguement by that statement. Here is why–The Progressive wing, as you prefer to call yourselves is in reality has some of the most left leaning folk in our party choose not to use Liberal, because over the years it has became a “Dirty Word†in politics, and some of the worst “Hillary Haters†call themselves Liberal. ”
Who loses WHAT argument. First, I didn’t know there was one going on. Second, progressives can STILL call themselves liberal if they want. I for one, do. I am not afraid of the conservative smear of the word. Third, of course liberals hate Hillary, she is a schill for the right.
December 9th, 2007 at 4:26 am“The Progressive wing, as you prefer to call yourselves”
I totally missed this comment. Go away, troll.
December 9th, 2007 at 4:27 am“One has to be very careful of pinning a label on someone in their own party that the opposition loves to use against us.”
Don’t say us you degenerate troll.
December 9th, 2007 at 4:28 am“BTW, if you read my first sentence in that post “between the lines,†so to speak, I think you will see that I gave “credit†rather negatively, not positively as you indicate.”
Oh, I know. But to give any indication that the guy MIGHT have an education past the 5th grade is VERY generous.
December 9th, 2007 at 4:30 am#135 Sabyan95: As usual, trying to reason with you folks is utterly useless. Each and every time you revert to name calling when you do not have a leg to stand on. I am quite disappointed that you turned out to be one of these types.
December 9th, 2007 at 7:14 am#132 Merlin: When you ” call a spade a spade” get your “FACTS” straight about Hillary. You are totally wrong about Hillary not being a “People person” as well as a “War Hawk”. These statements, along with others you have made appear to put you in the same camp as Sabyan95, which is not good for the Dem party.
December 9th, 2007 at 7:30 am“Is it because Fox News has higher ratings then CNN and MSNBC that the posters here hate Fox News so much?”
No, it is because they pander to the lowest common denominator.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:27 am“Is it because Fox News has higher ratings then CNN and MSNBC that the posters here hate Fox News so much?â€
No, it is because they pander to the lowest common denominator.
Comment by bernard quatermass — December 9, 2007 @ 8:27 am
Besides, FOX news doen’t have higher ratings, just better liars.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:28 am“Besides, FOX news doen’t have higher ratings, just better liars.”
:)
Well, I take issue with this … I think they are astonishingly transparent liars. So is the Presidunce and most of his “people.” So was Bush the First. So was Reagan. They lie baldly and in glaring light, and yet it continues to go on, and folks continue to gulp down that red, white and blue Kool-Aid.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:31 amPro-Constitution = Anti-American?
December 9th, 2007 at 9:40 amPro-Constitution = Anti-American?
Many would refer to that as an oxymoron.
Billy O however, is just an oxymoron. And an asshat.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:42 amdo you really expect anything different? There is no surprise here. Its the same ole worn lying bastard path. Not a damn thing new here…
December 9th, 2007 at 3:59 pmWho gives a rats heiny what this blowhard thinks, except the usual neocon cult members who can’t think for themselves.
December 10th, 2007 at 4:26 pmIf Fox News were turning anything down based on it being “anti-American,” Bill O. would be out of a job. Here’s hoping this traitor swings from a rope for his treason.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:37 pm