Good morning David,

Some say you have Hubris. This time, I think they're right.

Hubris? Huh? How so, in this context?

Israel has produced many, many great ideas; especailly in the realm of security and software! In great part, this is due to the perpetual existential threats they face which keep adrenalin flowing!

The wars we've fought in my lifetime, were all overseas where our existence were not in question (until the current unconventional War on Terror).....therein lies our `problem'! Too many armchair quarterbacks sitting far from danger!

Not to sound callous with the dead and wounded of both sides, reality is that the Israel-Hezbo fight was fairly minor and Israel had many, many options...including not lauching its attacks on Hezbo in Lebanon!

IF Hezbo is not reigned in effectively, look for a much bigger war where much more of the power of the Israeli armed forces will be deployed!

They tape their cabinet meetings? Holy accountability!

Mr. Corn,
The criminals in the White House are strict disciples of Charles Murphy and George Washington Plunkitt...they do not put the details of their secret cabals down on paper. Our national policy is deliberated and schemed in the swamps of Louisiana during the multitude of "hunting trips" cheney makes with the big oil executives.

Taping of meetings is a great idea. It is time for Israel to be THE LIGHT TO THE NATIONS. We should learn more accountability skills.

Yes, ever since I heard about Nixon leaving his tapes for posterity, I thought: "Now why can't every president do that? Why not get the whole thing on film? This is why we vote for them, right? So we can watch what they do it our names."

And then they laughed at me and claimed it would never work because the average American doesn't deserve to know what's going on in the WH, and certainly wouldn't understand it. That's why someone else does the 'hard work', whilst we dumbfuck slobs drool in front of the TV.

The Israelis are investigating the conduct of the war with Hezbollah b/c they feel it wasn't successful. The Bush administration's goals have been met--keep the Middle East in turmoil and control the oil. They see no need to investigate. PS I'm not being sarcastic.

When George W. Bush leaves office (if that actually happens)the citizens of the United States will finally begin to get the real picture -of what sort of "leadership" we've been forced to endure for the last 5plus years. I'm not convinced that we will ever see that day. As Kevin Phillips once said, the boys at the American Enterprise Institute spent the 90's figuring out how to regain power and keep it permanently in their possession. I mean if PNAC, with its overtly and publicly stated goals (not to mention its catastrophic recipe for speeding things up) doesn't make an impression on people what will? Oh yeah, I think taping meetings would be a swell idea but I think Col. Karen Kwiatkowski has a better idea. Let's just get them all drunk in public and let them spew out whatever they're really thinking.

Dems + Islamic radicals = like minds

Bush Opponents Welcome Wiretap Ruling

By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
August 18, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - Democrats and an Islamic advocacy group are among those applauding a federal judge's ruling that the government's warrantless wiretapping/terrorist surveillance program is unconstitutional.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi on Thursday called the ruling "a repudiation of Mr. Bush's dangerous assertion that he has unlimited authority to conduct wiretapping activities in the United States."

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid called the ruling "the latest example of how the Bush Administration has jeopardized our efforts in the war on terror."

Hey Happy,

Way to go with the donation to Joe! I loved the mental breakdown of Panty telling you to go ahead and donate to Joe cuz he votes with the Dems 90% of the time and then frantically tells the Cornnuts to donate & vote for only liberals.

I think their heads are going to explode when Lamont loses by a landslide in Nov.

I love it when they win such a tiny victory, like the Conn primary, only to be snatched away from them just before getting crushed by one of their own guys. It must really suck to be a liberal right now!!!

With Idiots like the ACLU working for the terrorists who needs enemies!

Ruling for the Terrorists...(a week after wiretapping helped British authorities)

New York Sun ^ | August 18, 2006 | Editorial

The American Civil Liberties Union may know how to craft a winning legal brief but it seems to be clueless when it comes to reading a newspaper. It has just succeeded in persuading a federal judge to block the National Security Agency's counter-terrorist wiretapping program exactly a week after — you guessed it — wiretapping helped British authorities bust up a terrorist plot. Whether or not the NSA was listening in on any of the London-related calls, and we may never know, the episode certainly does demonstrate the importance of such tapping. Good going, guys.

Yesterday's ruling follows the disclosure in December of an NSA program to listen in on calls between suspected terrorists abroad and those on American soil who might be communicating with them. The NSA has always had the green light to listen in on calls between two parties when both of them were overseas, and also to listen in to an America-to-abroad call from the abroad end of the line. The Bush administration's remarkable innovation was to start tapping those calls from the American end, as well as collecting data on calling patterns that would allow intelligence experts to spot suspect patterns and identify other potential terrorists.

Which has now led to another "innovation" of sorts, as one could politely call Judge Anna Diggs Taylor's opinion. Any wiretapping or surveillance program raises some constitutional issues, and the passage in 1978 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has certainly muddied the water, but Judge Taylor's ruling makes a hash of no fewer than two constitutional amendments in addition to FISA. Between the muddled historical analogies, the uncritical regurgitation of various ACLU claims, and the grandiloquent constitutional pronouncements, this ruling is something to behold indeed.

effin happy!
James, of all handle-changers, you are the easiest to spot!... your posts are (mostly) easy to spot

dude i was kidding when i said where is the proof of alleged name change - ha ha - of course i am easy to spot; that is my entire MO - yes i change my handle at least every other day, but i do it just to be silly - please don't equate me with the foul mouth pretender who was/is an affront to common decency. the worst thing i have said on this blog is just blow me - for which i have apologized profusely -
i hope that no one thinks that i am the one who was insulting and foul. i was not. as well, there was a "dc" on the last thread who for some reason didn't use capital letters just as i don't. he is not me either.
i am the one and only james ha! (all hail)
(accept no substitutes)

"Preliminary 'Lessons' of the Israeli-Hezbollah War,"

well i'm sure the lebanese children, oops i mean hezbollas have learned a preliminary lesson:
when the israelis say evacuate the south so they can move the border over to include the only source of fresh water in that whole region and anyone who doesn't jump immediately will be considered to be a terrorist and killed then by god you'd better jump!

I will continue to visit enjoyed the reading thanks

I will continue to visit enjoyed the reading thanks

#12 LBH...

It has just succeeded in persuading a federal judge to block the National Security Agency's counter-terrorist wiretapping program exactly a week after — you guessed it — wiretapping helped British authorities bust up a terrorist plot.

But the author is tricking you LBH. The British got warrants for all their wiretaps. We could very well do the same and not be in violation of our Constitution.

Israelis examine what went wrong? How about examining why they did what they did in the first place.

They seem more interested why their actions at the end of a gunbarrel failed rather than looking for other methods of solving problems.

We in the US are just as arrogant about our military motives, depending on faulty evidence, acting anyway, then denial the faulty evidence existed in the first place.

Sickening systems in both countries, need to be changed to avoid stupid mistakes in the future resulting in more death and destruction.

Regarding the recent District Court ruling, I wish this would have been done a long time ago. Anyone that thinks wiretaps without FISA is ok need to move to another country that allows it.

The Constitution is very clear, if you do not like it, TOUGH!

Mr David Corn,

Good stuff!

They could video tape EVERYTHING and the liars would just deny, deny, deny!

Thanks for all of your work.

Kirk

Alan,

Agreed, but the Brits don't have the ACLU fighting every step taken, less hurdles! I have an idea lets get rid of the ACLU in excahnge for seeking a warrant before listening. You see,we can have bipartisanship!

Here is a re-post for anybody that would support the intrusion of privacy:

Just sign and date the following Posner Waiver:
I, ___________________,

hereby waive any rights of privacy in my person, property, association, thought and/or expression that I have, had or claim to have under the federal and state constitutions, statutory law or regulation of the United States or any political subdivision thereof, decisional law, common law and/or any other source of authority, real or imagined, to the extent the waiver of such rights is, in the sole judgment of any military, law enforcement or national security employee of the United States, deemed necessary to prosecute the war on terror.

This waiver applies both retroactively and prospectively.

_____________________________
(Signed)

_____________________________
(Dated)

12 With Idiots like the ACLU working for the terrorists who needs enemies!

New York Sun ^ | August 18, 2006 | Editorial
The American Civil Liberties Union may know how to craft a winning legal brief . . .

Posted by: LBH at August 18, 2006 01:08 PM

Every single laywer in the ACLU, down to each man and woman, is smarter than you LBH. All have college degrees, their J.D. and passed the Bar exam. I'm just sayin. . . idiot?

Agreed, but the Brits don't have the ACLU fighting every step taken, less hurdles! I have an idea lets get rid of the ACLU in excahnge for seeking a warrant before listening. You see,we can have bipartisanship!

Thanks for the reasoned reply. Still, the way I see it... the ACLU wouldn't have to sue if bush had went the Constitutional route in the first place.
Sometimes the ACLU fights for liberal ideas, sometimes for conservative ideas. I think they are a needed resource in a free society.

Neo-cons are reactionary. They don't like the UN, so the neo-con solution is get rid of it. They don't like the ACLU, sp the neo-con solution is get rid of it. They fail to grasp the mission and purpose of these organizations and give themselves a chance to support the mission, which in both cases, is akin to supporting motherhood and apple pie. In neo-con land, its an us and them world. Even potential allies are cast off as not completely for us. The neo-con movement is either the most billigerent and arrogant political movement in the last 100 years or . . . pigs fly.

Bush Must Negotiate to Make America Safer, Say Former Generals

"We call on the administration to engage immediately in direct talks with the government of Iran without preconditions to help resolve the current crisis in the Middle East and to settle differences over an Iranian nuclear program," their letter read.

"An attack on Iran would have disastrous consequences for security in the region and U.S. forces in Iraq," they argued. "It would inflame hatred and violence in the Middle East and among Muslims everywhere."

In a telephone news conference Thursday morning, the former security officials took particular aim at the Bush Administration's policy of refusing to negotiate with terrorists or with states that support them.

"That seems strange since Ronald Reagan was willing to negotiate with the Soviets even though they were the 'Evil Empire," said retired Lt. General Robert Guard, who served as special assistant to Defense Secretary Robert McNamara during the Vietnam War and now works at the non-profit Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. "One wonders why George Bush can't negotiate with the Axis of Evil."

More HERE

*****end of clip*****

This is a chance for all of the armchair generals to join with the real generals in a call for talks not military action.

capt

the aclu exists to try and protect john Q from an ever increasing corporate oppression.
if one views the aclu simply as an obstacle needing to be removed from the path of said oppression, then what does that say about one's character? perhaps one should die one's shirt a shade of brown more pleasing to one's eye?

O'Reilly,

If you think the mission of the ACLU is akin to "mom and apple pie" in these great United States I can't help you. The ACLU is a subversive, anti-American organization and should be treated accordingly. It's arguable the most dangerous organization of it's type in America today.

The U.N. is another matter as it is a world body. The idea behind it is laudible, but the execution is almost a complete and utter failure. THAT'S why some of us don't "like" it.

spy,

Aw c'mon. The ACLU's mission is nothing of the sort.

Corporations are not the enemy! Corporations do not "oppress" people. What have you been smokin? Hugo Chavez cigars?

No more illegal wiretapping!

Recently, a Federal Judge ruled that this administration's domestic warrantless wiretapping program was unconstitutional and illegal. Join Senator Feingold in telling the President to bring this program back within the law. Use the form below to send an email to President Bush letting him know that you believe that we can protect America while still preserving our rights and freedoms.

More HERE

*****end of clip*****

A petition to sign!

Nobody has ever intimated that there should not be wiretaps on suspected criminals. The FISA court is one of the legal ways to circumvent an open court.

I personally believe the FISA court does not pass constitutional muster in that FISA does not require an "oath or affirmation" for probable cause before a warrant or action is taken.

capt

You know, I hate to see what has happened to the ACLU over the last 35 years or so. I have first-hand experience with them and once upon a time they took up a case and defended my right to free speech.

BUT, look at the organization today! It's sad really.

BUT, look at the organization (ACLU)
today! It's sad really.

why don't you elaborate tim? what is wrong with the aclu today?

No more illegal wiretapping!

The American system of government is founded on two counterbalancing principles: that the majority of the people governs, through democratically elected representatives; and that the power even of a democratic majority must be limited, to ensure individual rights.

Majority power is limited by the Constitution's Bill of Rights, which consists of the original ten amendments ratified in 1791, plus the three post-Civil War amendments (the 13th, 14th and 15th) and the 19th Amendment (women's suffrage), adopted in 1920.

The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:

Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.

Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.

Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.

Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.
We work also to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including Native Americans and other people of color; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgendered people; women; mental-health patients; prisoners; people with disabilities; and the poor.

If the rights of society's most vulnerable members are denied, everybody's rights are imperiled.

The ACLU was founded by Roger Baldwin, Crystal Eastman, Albert DeSilver and others in 1920. We are nonprofit and nonpartisan and have grown from a roomful of civil liberties activists to an organization of more than 500,000 members and supporters. We handle nearly 6,000 court cases annually from our offices in almost every state.

The ACLU has maintained the position that civil liberties must be respected, even in times of national emergency. The ACLU is supported by annual dues and contributions from its members, plus grants from private foundations and individuals. We do not receive any government funding. Learn more about joining the ACLU.

More HERE

*****end of clip*****

If there was no ACLU we would have invented it.

They have a very important purpose. These people that think the ACLU is the enemy are actually the enemy to your rights under the constitution. Those are important enough issues to protect and defend from un-American ideology (like Bush).

The petty small minded "dear leader knows best" is as un-American as Stalin or Hitler. Ergo they HATE any group that would dare to defend the constitution - to them it is just a GD piece of paper. We should line these traitors up and have a firing squad put them out of our collective misery. Of course the ACLU would defend them too (as they have in the past).

capt

President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Bush,

The court recently declared your domestic warrantless wiretapping program to be illegal and unconstitutional. I believe that we can fight terrorism with protecting our rights and freedoms, and that's why I agree with Senator Feingold: we need to bring this program back within the law.

Sincerely,

Every real patriot in America!

Spy,

Well, for starters there's the ruthless attack on the Boy Scouts of America. Another example is the attempt to remove each and every reference to God or faith, no matter how trivial, from the public sphere. It's shameful and simply un-American to pick and choose which rights to trample in the name of political correctness!

There's a lot more, but I will have to post later at length.

Legality is not a luxury enjoyed by citizens and offered piecemeal by politicians.

The coutry is formed around the founding documents and if any politician does not want to obey the law they are a criminal - plain and simple. Nearly binary enough for all but the most idiotic neocons.

capt

the ruthless attack on the Boy Scouts of America. ?

wow. what was that all about? didn't the BSA kick some poor gay kid out of scouts simply because he was gay? how did the poor BSA fare in that ruthless attack?

the attempt to remove each and every reference to God or faith, no matter how trivial, from the public sphere

why would they want to do that? and yet you say that they defended your right to free speech. against whom did they defend your right?

Alan,

Bush went the constitutional route because his legal team thinks he has a legal right to do so. The democratically elected judge that was most likely shopped by the ACLU won't be the final decider.

The problem I have with thew ACLU is that they are a non-profit that spends the majority of their cases suing religous freedoms while collecting payoffs from the american taxpayer. It's nothing more than a shake down like Jesse Jacksons Rainbow Coalition.

If the ACLU actually stuck to defending people's rights under the U.S. Constitution, no one would likely have any issues with them.

BUT. This is not what they do! Let's take the Boy Scouts for example. You want to talk about hate, my friends? This is one of the most hated and vilified organizations in America today. The ACLU and it's enablers HATE the Boy Scouts and all they stand for! The ACLU should be DEFENDING the Boy Scouts, not the other way around!

The Supreme Court of the land has made it abundantly clear that the Boy Scouts still enjoy the right of free association and have a right to their religious beliefs. Why doesn't the ACLU defend them? If you think about it honestly, you will realize why.

LBH,

Amen! I like Ann Coulter's new book. She tells it like it is concerning the liberals true religion! Check it out.

ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero told reporters that the opinion was "another nail in the coffin in the Bush administration's legal strategy in the war on terror."

By his own words, the true reason behind the law suit is to kill the war on terror, not protect american citizens

Spy,

Well, you pose a good question. Why does the ACLU go after God and religion like a pack of wild dogs?

I'll have to post about my experience at a later time, but I'll just say it was a just cause and one that the ACLU of old was good at persuing.

didn't the aclu defend a little boy against the boy scouts? what was that all about? i really don't know anything about it but you say the aclu is evil because they hate the boy scouts -

did the aclu defend your right to free speech as you said or did they not? if so, from whom did they defend your right?

'Fahrenheit' Used in Iraq to Mock Bush


An Iraqi militant group has produced an elaborate video of what it said were attacks on U.S. troops, in the latest example of the increasingly sophisticated propaganda war being waged by Iraqi insurgents.

"The Code of Silence" was posted on the Internet by the Rashedeen Army, thought to be a relatively small Sunni group which has produced videos in the past of attacks it claims to have carried out.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You've got the Rashedden using Michael Moore

You've got Islamic radicals and the Dems praising the killing of wire tapping

You've got the ACLU trying to kill the war on terror

You've got Murtha calling our troops murders

You've got the Dems kicking out Leiberman who supports the war

You've got Mr Corn who wants Iraq coverage 24/7

You've got Mr Corn crying about coverage of Jon Bonet, but loved all the coverage of the Rove indictment that didn't happen. How many hours of media time did that take away from Iraq?

Does anyone see a pattern here?

O'Reilly, maybe you could ask the ACLU help you figure this one out!

Very telling indeed that some would say it is a bad thing to protect and defend the constitution.

Traitors to a person.

The ACLU defends CIVIL LIBERTY under the constitution the fact that they defend some people they do not agree with speaks to the integrity.

I know the nuance stuff is hard for the binary thinkers. That is why they get so confused.

*sigh*

capt

Detroit Dumber Don, you are dumber than I thought! My Questions were addressed to YOU and, right of the bat, you blew it!....unless you are Grover!

258 "Saying" thread

(Happy asked:) 1) Ever heard of Bi-Partisanship support? Didn't think So! Uber libs never do!

(DDD answered:) Well, Grover Norquist (he's one of yours) has heard of it....
..........
(DDD whined:) .....You don't really understand politics, I doubt you really understand business, and your ceaseless bleating about the stock market is really tiresome. Why don't you go play with your Scouts and stop cluttering up the bandwidth here with your idiocy?

Posted by: Don at August 18, 2006 12:25 PM
=================================================
DDD, your last paragraph is the most revealing! Not your fault! Truly sorry that you are both brain and hair-challenged!

I'll tell what is NOT "tiresome", your Dumb Detroit Don whine! Oh, don't forget, next time, repeat your request for me to save David some bandwidth! You've been HAD!

PS: If you know how, go to CNNMoney's Real Estate tab and see if, just maybe, I remebered it wrong and Detroit is actually booming! Ha, ha, ha....

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) defends legal cases involving the violations of civil liberties. It is a staunch supporter of the rights laid out in the Constitution and its amendments

Until the ACLU’≥ involvement no free speech defense trials had been won in the Supreme Court. With the ACLU this changed. Among many successful freedom defenses by the ACLU was the right of the Jehovah’≥ Witnesses to enjoy freedom of the press which had been denied to them because of a Georgia statute requiring a permit to distribute literature of any kind. Other successful ACLU cases were the John Scopes "monkey trial" in 1925 permitting the teaching of evolution in schools, the James Joyce trial in which the ban was lifted from selling his book "Ulysses" in the United States, and the Henry Ford trial where his right to distribute anti-union materials was successfully defended.

The ACLU has fought a great many cases before the Supreme Court in defense of civil liberties. Among them, in 1941, the ACLU won a discrimination case referred to as Edwards v. California. This Supreme Court Case fought the "anti-Okie" law of California which prohibited the transporting of indigent people into the state. In 1943, the Supreme Court decided in favor of the ACLU in the religious discrimination case, West Virginia v. Barnette, and determined that Jehovah’≥ Witness children could not be forced to salute the American flag. In Smith v. Allwright, 1944, the ACLU successfully fought a racial discrimination case which allowed blacks to vote in Texas’≥ "white primary". The Supreme Court determined that even though the Democratic Party is a private organization, primaries are essential to the electoral process and all eligible voters must be included. In 1948 a censorship case called Shelley vs. Kramer determined that restrictive homeowner’≥ covenants cannot be used to prevent the sale of houses to blacks. In 1952, Burstyn vs. Wilson determined that New York state was wrong to censor a movie called "The Miracle" for being sacrilegious, saying this violated the First Amendment.

In more recent cases, the 1992 case, Lee vs. Weisman determined that it is unconstitutional for officially sanctioned prayers to be read at graduation ceremonies. The 1993 case of J.E.B. vs. T.B. the Supreme Court decided that pre-emptory challenges could not be used to exclude jurors on the basis of sex. And in 1997, the Supreme Court decided that the 1996 Communications Act banning "indecent" speech violated First Amendment rights.

The ACLU has traditionally fought cases that were unpopular and controversial, but they stand by the American citizen’≥ right to Constitutional freedoms. Those cases that may seem the most extreme and outlandish as they occur often later become beloved institutions of American jurisprudence.

More HERE

*****end of clip*****

Anybody that would think defending free speech is a bad thing is un-American.

Case closed.

capt

Well, you pose a good question. Why does the ACLU go after God and religion like a pack of wild dogs?

Tim

Tim, they only go after Christianity, other religions like Occultists and Satanist are quite acceptable to them.

When it comes to the Christian faith, the spokesmen, policy-makers, and attorneys for the ACLU have made their position painfully clear: they're against it. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Although they have fought for the free speech and expression "rights" of pornographers, witches, abortionists, homosexuals, convicted criminals, child molesters, occultists, Communists, lesbians, Nazis, illegal aliens, AIDS patients, and Satanists, they have resolutely attempted to deny those same privileges to Christians. As a result, according to Richard and Susan Vigilante, they have effectively reduced "the place of religion in American life" and have restricted religious speech "in a way they would never allow other forms of speech to be restricted." [1]

Their discriminatory intolerance is a matter of record. [2] Recently, they have sought to:

Halt the singing of Christmas carols like "Silent Night" and "Away in a Manger" in public facilities;

Deny the tax-exempt status of all churches--yet maintaining it for themselves as well as for various occult groups;

Disallow prayer--not just in the public school classrooms, but in locker rooms, sports arenas, graduation exercises, and legislative assemblies;

Terminate all military and prison chaplains;

Deny Christian school children access to publicly funded services;

Eliminate nativity scenes, crosses, and other Christian symbols from public property;

Repeal all blue law statutes;

Prohibit voluntary Bible reading in public schools--even during free time or after classes;

Remove the words In God We Trust from our coins;

Deny accreditation to science departments at Bible-believing Christian Universities;

Prevent the posting of the Ten Commandments in classrooms;

Terminate all voucher programs and tuition tax credits;

Prohibit census questions about religious affiliation;

Purge the words under God from the Pledge of Allegiance.

As Patrick Buchanan has all too obviously pointed out, "That is not a record of tolerance." [3]

Interestingly, the ACLU is led into this absurd contradiction of its stated purpose because it sees the Christian faith as "an almost irresistible persuasive force." [4] Gadfly liberal columnist Nat Hentoff has said that the ACLU seems to be "afraid of making religious speech first-class speech, the way all other speech is" because it really ascribes "extraordinary powers to religious speech." [5] In other words, the ACLU fears Christianity in a way that it fears nothing else.

Of course, its fear is cloaked in high-sounding Constitutional concerns--its bigotry is not overly blatant. It makes much ado over the principle of "separation of church and state." It brandishes the idea of "the wall of separation" like a saber. And it fixates on the "establishment clause" of the First Amendment. According to Barry Lynn, the ACLU's Legislative Director:

it seems to me that for you guys this is all about left v. right liberal v. conservative - i don't relate to that and find it to be a waste of time.
i am neither on the left nor the right and there are qualities to each that i find both admirable and repellent but if i was on one side or the other i would not overlook the qualities of my side that i find repellent just because they are my side.
does this all boil down to the war on terror?
obviously we have different views on that but those views have nothing to do with left v. right. because you may be on the right and your views are not mine does not mean that my views are from the left.
left v. right is simply a tool that those who feature themselves as masters use to further their supposed mastery. you guys know this but you fall into it anyway - that is truly beyond my comprehension to understand.

South Lebanon Christians bitter over Israeli attack

QLAIAH, Lebanon: Ever since a truce between Israel and Hizbollah took hold this week, Boulos Abu Hamad and his family have been cleaning up the damage they say was left by Israeli troops who occupied their home for a night.

Their properties have only been moderately affected compared to the devastation of nearby Shi’©te Muslim towns, but residents of some Christian areas in southern Lebanon are just as angry with the Israelis.

"We are Maronite Christians. We are neither with Israel nor with Hizbollah nor with any other party so why did they do this to us?" said Abu Hamad’≥ wife, breaking into tears.

"Their troops came and ruined the bedroom furniture. We threw out the clothes I bought for my sister’≥ wedding because they ruined them and sacked the drawers and cupboards. They left nothing intact. Even their dogs left mess in the house."

Many Lebanese Christians, Sunni Muslims and Druze have criticised Hizbollah for touching off the war by capturing two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid on July 12.

But they are also furious with Israel’≥ devastating response, which killed at least 1,100 people in Lebanon. One hundred and fifty-seven Israelis were killed in the conflict.

More HERE

*****end of clip*****

How dare they complain? Right? They are ingrates and do not appreciate Israel saving them from themselves. Israel gave them the opportunity to rebuild from scratch. To start a new village where their old places were razed to the ground.

They do not appreciate it?

Go figure.

capt

Typical neocons.

They want the luxury of leadership without the messy issues of legality.

Trotsky would be very proud!

The laws of this land are not optional just because they are inconvenient.

Jezze

capt

LBH are you seriously equating aids patients and illegal immigrants with nazis, child molestors and satanists?
do you really believe that "silent night" is under attack by the aclu?
where did you hear nonsense like that?

Good post, #45 - capt. The ACLU conducts itself with integrity at all times. The detractors of the ACLU prove it every time they speak. The US Constitution still means something in this country regardless of the apparent mood of the country.

Neoconservatism in the United States

Some opponents of neoconservatives have sought to emphasize their interest in Israel and the relatively large proportion of Jewish neoconservatives, and have raised the question of "dual loyalty". A number of critics, such as Pat Buchanan, have accused them of putting Israeli interests above those of America. In turn these critics have been labeled as anti-Semites by many neoconservatives (which in turn has led to accusations of professional smearing, and then paranoia, and so on). However, it may be noted that many prominent neoconservatives are not Jewish, such as Michael Novak, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Frank Gaffney, and Max Boot. Furthermore, neoconservatives in the 1960s were much less interested in Israel before the June 1967 Six Day War. It was only after this conflict, which raised the specter of unopposed Soviet influence in the Middle East, that the neoconservatives became preoccupied by Israel's security interests. They promote the view that Israel is the US's strongest ally in the Middle East as the sole Western-style democracy in the region, aside from Turkey (George W. Bush has also supported Turkey in its efforts to join the European Union).

*****end of clip*****

One paragraph from the wikipedia page. You really have to read the rest of the page linked and I would seek additional sources on the subject.

This WH has been radical in their actions. Nobody can dispute the fact that radical IS NOT conservative. Radical is (in the old days) the opposite of conservative.

Neocons are a mix of Trotskite and neo-liberal, a slice of eastern bloc communists and idiots that think might makes right.

Democracy at the point of a gun is neo-liberal thinking.

The troll could not be more cookie cutter perfect for the neocon effort to destroy the constitution. That is why they are against the ACLU and un-American.

capt

Actually, it appears Capt is the one who is confused here. I never said it was a bad thing to defend the Constitution and people's rights that are protected by it!

The ACLU is simply on the wrong side of most Constitutional issues these days! Many people would agree with me on this, btw.

The ACLU of today is more concerned with the leftist/liberal agenda of it's members and employees. The PC viewpoint is the mantra today, not what is truly in the Constitution.

Joe,

Thanks, and always good to read your type of type! Don't be such a stranger. We always need more voices of reason to offset the unreasoned and unreasonable tripe the troll spews.

capt

The ACLU defends CIVIL LIBERTY under the constitution the fact that they defend some people they do not agree with speaks to the integrity.

I know the nuance stuff is hard for the binary thinkers. That is why they get so confused.

Capt

Capt, if this is true, name one, just one Christian civil liberty that the ACLU has defended. How many times have they defended NAMBLA? I'm sure you know that one!

Let me help:

ACLU defends child-molester group
Asks judge to throw out lawsuit against NAMBLA for 10-year-old's murder

By Julie Foster
? 2000 WorldNetDaily.com

The American Civil Liberties Union has asked a judge to dismiss what it calls an "unconstitutional" lawsuit against a national pedophile organization being sued in a wrongful death case after two of the group's members brutally raped and murdered a 10-year-old boy.

The $200 million civil lawsuit, which charges the North American Man-Boy Love Association with wrongful death, was originally filed in Massachusetts Federal District Court on May 16.

How's that for integrity??????????????????????

How's that for integrity?

Standing up for your principles even if it means that scum benefit? They did it for Rush Limbaugh and they did it for these guys.

They are showing their integrity. You are showing what you do and don't like. Not the same thing, but it's a limitation that explains why you could be so easily duped and exploited on the NSA story.

Nice going, weak link.
.

201 "Saying" thread

Happy,

why do you think Lieberman lost the primary? THEY DON'T WANT HIM! What makes you think he'll win in November IF THEY DON'T WANT HIM ON THE TICKET NOW? Be realistic. Can't imagine why you tossed money away donating to him. I'm glad you have extra cash to throw away on crap. To each his own where they spend their hard earned bucks.

Posted by: ÔøΩÔøΩcarol at August 18, 2006 01:05 AM
===============================================
carol: sorry I overlooked you!...especailly since you addressed me head-on!

Look, I'll concede "THEY DON'T WANT HIM!" only to the extent of the Dem voters that cast votes in THAT PRIMARY! (Note to casual readers or those that don't understand politics: THEY = 145,000 voters out of Connecticut's approximately 2 million registerd voters!)

As to why I think Joe will win? I've already posted my thoughts and that of professional pundits in previous thread(s).

You said: "Be realistic."....Hell, there is no one on this blog that is more "realistic"; at least on days when the stock market is open!

My "tossing money away"? No, that money will spread throught the economy in the form of media buys and staff salaries....in addition to helping a politician with real spine!

I rest my case.
Nothing more needs to be said about the New ACLU.

Good, then you won't be wasting any more space showing us how inferior you are as a thinking person?

Better news I have not heard all day!
.

Of Neo-Cons and Nabobs

[..]

The reality is that Iraq was invaded because a powerful faction of the old-line American Establishment wanted to do it and the rest of the Establishment –†the Democrats, the media, the "respectable" intelligentsia –†countenanced the crime. The belligerence and oppression of the hardline Israeli government in Lebanon and Palestine are receiving unquestioned –†and armed –†support from the United States because this suits the larger strategic purposes of the "global dominance" faction of the Establishment, and the domestic political purposes both of the Democrats, heavily reliant on Jewish-American backing, and the Republicans, dependent on their rabidly pro-Israel evangelical base.

It is the American elite –†pursuing, as always, the enhancement of its own power and privilege, heedless of the consent of the governed or the genuine interests of the American people (or the Palestinian people or the Israeli people or the Lebanese people or the Iraqi people) –†that bedevils us. The emergence of the cretinous neo-conservative cult is just a symptom of a deeper moral corruption coursing through the dominant institutions and structures of American society. The body politic is rotting from the head.

More HERE

*****end of clip*****

A good piece on the neocon issue.

capt

As always:

ACLU defends Christianity

Try a google yourself?

Maybe you could put a small effort in before you expose your inanity?

Protecting free speech protects all Christians or do you think there is an exception to the rule?

capt

Grand Muff Tex-Ass

Good, then you won't be wasting any more space showing us how inferior you are as a thinking person?

I thought we were done, but since you decided to continue:

ACLU's adult male members, joined with NAMBLA to fuck little boys.

LBH at #48,

Right on. The ACLU has lost all credibility on religious issues. What do you say Capt?

It's interesting that 99% of the examples Capt gave were very old cases!

It just shows that the ACLU will defend the rights of everyone indcluding your dog, but not Christians.

Where have Christians been unconstitutionally challenged? As Christians try to subvert our constitution, they should expect patriotic resistance. Save that theocratic crap for the third world.
.

ACLU's adult male members, joined with NAMBLA to fuck little boys.

If you have any evidence of that, take it to the police. If you're just going to make shit up, then you've already lost.

There, that was easy.

Next regurgitating wingnut, please!
.

I know that the constitution is all complicated and stuff but rights are right and the ACLU defends rights (not people).

Your hard core Reich-wingnuttiness is showing and your low intelligence is exposed again.

This end the training session on the ACLU. You are on your own. You want to hate something -anything, that is pathetic and not very enlightened.

HAND

capt

Amen! I like Ann Coulter's new book. She tells it like it is concerning the liberals true religion!

Four chapters of regurgitating every urban myth about evolution, even garbling some of them (hello? what color were the moths?). It's the fodder of drooling superstitious freaks, dead weight dragging this country down.
.

Your hard core Reich-wingnuttiness is showing and your low intelligence is exposed again.

That's why he's nothing but an aristocrat's bitch. Hey, wingnut! Every wonder why your ass is sore?

Keep making yourself useful to your betters, moron, and don't forget to shit on the Constitution, you fucking traitor.
.

To Replace DeLay, TX GOP Picks Polite over Pushy -- But Pushy Won't Leave

In the wake of Tom DeLay's messy exit, local Republican leaders have been scrambling to find a replacement. Last night, a meeting of Republican precinct chairmen selected Dr. Shelley Sekula-Gibbs to be their chosen write-in candidate.

But another prominent local Republican, David Wallace, also filed as a write-in candidate and earlier this week vowed to run regardless of the meeting's outcome, deriding the process as "something that may have worked in Moscow." (Sekula-Gibbs said she'd drop out if the party elders didn't choose her.)

So it looks like Republicans, already severely disadvantaged by lacking a legitimate official candidate on the ballot in Texas' 22nd District, will have the added handicap of having two GOPers running as write-in candidates. As the AP points out, only four men have ever been elected to Congress as write-in candidates.

Will Wallace stick to his guns? We hope to hear soon. With the disarray among Republicans in the district so great that some have publicly endorsed the Libertarian candidate, Democrat Nick Lampson is sitting pretty

More HERE

*****end of clip*****

Nick might just be the best person for his district? It seems like the GOP are more concerned with their national standing and numbers. You never actually hear them say "Our guy is better for the constituents in his district" they only worry about how to get "their guy" in. Damn the torpedoes full steam ahead, eh?

capt

tim:
I never said it was a bad thing to defend the Constitution and people's rights

no. what you said was the ACLU once defended your right to free speech.
i ask you again: against whom did the ACLU defend your right?
------
No you MORON! It just shows that the ACLU will defend the rights of everyone indcluding your dog, but not Christians.

you are the moron lbh - see 64
i ask you again:
who told you that "silent night" was under attack by the ACLU?

...the ACLU will defend the rights of everyone indcluding your dog, but not Christians.

I didn't THINK that horny old DoctorShopper was much of Christian!

The President pledged to uphold and protect the constitution, not the safety of American people. A leader who is sworn to protect his subjects at the expense of their liberty is a benevolent dictator, not the leader of a democratic republic. It is our duty as Patriots to shed our blood if needed to preserve the sanctity of our constitution, for if we are safe - but not free, then the ideals of America and our constitution and all that has made us a beacon of hope for all oppressed peoples in the world has become a farce.

Our Major Ally in Bush's war of choice (Turkey) is shelling and massing tanks on the border of our other major ally in Bush's war of choice (Iraqi Kurds) with help from Iran. (Axis of evil) 8-18

Members of Parliament from our biggest ally in Bush's war of choice (Britain) reach a popular consensus: Bush really is Crap 8-18

Ditch US in terror war, say 80 percent of Britons 8-18

The Latest London bomb plotters had no passports, no tickets, are being held without charges. Now it turns out that binary liquid explosives aren't the big threat they were made out to be. 8-18

Congress is Slashing Funding for Troops' Brain Injury Treatment 8-18

Bush Administration Says It Will Appeal the NSA Ruling, explaining that a police state is a safe state 8-18

Thanks POAC Headlines!

I didn't THINK that horny old DoctorShopper was much of Christian!

Well, chances are neither is the guy who seems to spend all his time thinking about fucking little boys. Anyone can call himself a "Christian" as part of the empty rhetoric of entitlement.

Cheap, easy, and meaningless. No wonder it's so easy to use!
.

Congress is Slashing Funding for Troops' Brain Injury Treatment

Yes, because the troops are just toilet-paper to a Republican.
.

What do we "do" with a president that breaks the law, and continues to break the law even after the courts have told him he is breaking the law?

We IMPEACH the SOB.

Anything less is un-American. I remember the wails and plaintiff cries from many on both sides of the aisle "rule of law" and "character" - seems old Bubba's BJ pales in comparison to the violation and damage to our country this wiretapping BS has done.

It is just another example of "relative values" being applied as "relative laws", eh?

The silence from the hill is deafening. The GOP should be ashamed but they have no character, no morals, no values just pro-Bush anti-liberal hate.

capt

I didn't say I supported the ACLU defending Rush.

I don't give a shit. That was my example of how you were missing the point. They don't defend people, they defend the Constitution. Since you have already identified yourself as an enemy of our Constitution, I can see why you don't get it.

NASA? LOL!

As for reality, it's crushing right wing policies as we speak. The GOP doesn't have a single policy success they can point to after all this red tape and dead soldiers. They can't get anything right, which is why they're losing support across the board.

Wow, did we just get back on-topic? Yes: accountability. The Republicans blew it and that's why even their lobbyists are abandoning them.

Sucks to be a loser, doesn't it?
.

#69

I'm not sure who you are referring to, but your reaction is typical. When you can't defend an argument you resort to name-calling and retreat to your spaceship.

You might as well say "Beam me up, Scottie"!!! BTW, does it makew you feel good to be back on your own bridge? Aw, poor lil' capn... did he get his little phaser taken away by Daddy?

Grand Muff Diver, (if you are not a fag...)

You are just obnoxious, which is hardly entertaining (much less worth reading)

Ya know, Capitan von Kirk is at least coherent which makes his accusations against me (and I would venture LBH as well) so puzzling.

Traitors? Please. At least use the word correctly.

At any rate, 99.9% of the time I just scroll past his posts anyway. Anyone so stuck up as to label everyone who disagrees a "troll" isn't worth the time of day anyway.

spy,

Patience, grasshopper!

Cordesman quote from David: Patriotism and the pressures of war call for every effort to be made to win, not for support of the political leadership and military command until the war is over.

How true. Israelis feel they're fighting for their survival, so accountability is necessary -- and necessity can be a mother.

Then there's the U.S. Here, the president is told in 24-point type that Al-Qaeda is planning to attack the U.S. using airliners. The president leaps to inaction, taking a summer vacation that is record-setting in duration. He does NOTHING. Nearly 3,000 Americans die as a result, and U.S. economy is thrown into turmoil. In true American style, the president is held accountable by being re-elected.

For the benefit of the truly credulous, he now insists that illegal wiretaps are necessary to prevent terrorist attacks. Apparently memos is 24-point type aren't enough. The Constitution must be scrapped for our own good. Anyone who disagrees "doesn't understand the world."

This from a man whose ignorance of the world is notorious and whose policies have resulted, quite literally, in disaster.

LBH,

I am really ticked off about the ACLU funding, but what can you do?

At least I don't feel guilty now that President Bush has given some relief to churches that paid out of their own pockets for hurricane relief, etc.

LBH,

So what's your guess as to the real identity of the "grand moff" (im)poster?

tim - it doesn't matter who - the point is the aclu defended you, right? as they should.

but you did also say yesterday that you were well qualified to judge aviation issues, yet you still have not explained where is the crash debris? in this photo of the official crash site.

WOWSER,

I get the feeling the troll want to talk about ANYTHING except Bush breaking the law?

My friends, ignore the ignoant and post about Bush, Bush lies, Bush crimes.

The ACLU is their red herring, to engage them further is of no utility, they HATE anybody or anything that defends the constitution and our civil rights. They cannot make it more plain.

So what do you expect from brown-shirts and neocons? Support for civil rights? (hint -it will never happen) You are not going to convince them and they will (as always) just snipe at this or that. No substance in their pleadings, no gravitas in their hate speech.

But what do I know, eh?

capt

Right-Wing Reactions to the Warrantless Wiretapping Decision

Today, a Detroit judge ruled that Bush's use of warrantless wiretapping is unconstitutional. Here are some right-wing blogosphere reactions to that decision.

The National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez offers this all-caps headline: TERRORIST-FRIENDLY RULING wherein she simply copies and pastes the AP's story without any comment or analysis.

streiff at Red State publishes two short paragraphs of the news story and comments: 'And who says democracy can’¥ be a suicide pact?' Several commenters note that the judge was appointed by Jimmy Carter, while one writes, 'One of Carter's last actions to destroy this country before he was booted from office. Ugh.'

Then there's this racist comment from Ace of Spades commenter, kemperman:

Not only is she a Carter appointee, she is Black. Want to bet she was admitted to Yale on a Minority set a side? Maybe she's related to Conners, the other Black nut from Mo Town.

Over at the Jawa report, you'll find this:

lets hope the first bomb that comes here is dropped on this judges head. what a stupidm move. i cannot believe she would do this. she needs to be put out of office immediately.

frank la may

Kin Preistap of Wizbang declares:

This is terrible news for our national security. The NSA's terrorist surveillance program was instrumental in stopping the British terrorists from blowing up airliners over the Atlantic Ocean.

What the WSJ editorial she links to actually says is this:

We don't yet know how the plot was foiled, but surely part of the explanation was crack surveillance work by British authorities.

More HERE

*****end of clip*****

The troll has been so busy trying to distract that he has missed the neo-talking points on the wiretap ruling.

capt

World Net Daily Forced To Issue 9/11 Hit Piece Retraction

"No such comments made by Jones," admits website as another attack exposed for baseless allegations and shoddy research

Following a radio show debate yesterday in which a 9/11 hit piece article written by Jonathon Moseley for World Net Daily was exposed as containing numerous flaws and baseless allegations, the online news site was later forced to issue a retraction.

One of the most glaring inaccuracies of the article was Moseley's claim that Professor Steven Jones of the 9/11 Truth Scholars, during a conference aired on C-Span, called "for the violent overthrow of the government."

After painstaking analysis of all the tapes from the conference there was no evidence whatsoever that a statement even close to this nature was ever made by Jones.

Following the radio debate, World Net Daily were pressed into issuing the following retraction on their website.

Editor's note, Aug. 17, 2006: In paragraph four of this column, the author makes an assertion about professor Steven Jones' remarks at a 9/11 symposium broadcast by C-SPAN. A review of the program online evidenced no such comments by Jones."

Despite the fact that the claim has been ridiculed and a retraction issued, it can still be read in the fourth paragraph of the article. Since the false claim is potentially damaging to Professor Steven Jones' career - it should be removed altogether.

The last major instance where a retraction to a 9/11 hit piece was issued was in the case of Cinnamon Stillwell's San Francisco Chronicle article in which she claimed that the "whole country witnessed the horrific sight of planes flying into the....Pentagon," an obviously fraudulent claim given that no clear footage of whatever hit the Pentagon was shown on 9/11 or to this day.

"Cinnamon Stillwell's column Wednesday on SFGate originally stated that images of the plane that struck the Pentagon had been seen by the American public. No such images have been made public," read the Chronicle's retraction.

Now we have forced two major websites, one being one of the biggest newspapers in the country, to eat crow and in the case of the journalists concerned, expose themselves as narrow-minded and inept in performing the most basic research skills.

Mistakes mirrored by other large newspapers who seem gung-ho about attacking 9/11 researchers yet seem to struggle when it comes to actually naming them correctly or accurately citing their work.

This latest example of ineptitude on the part of Moseley and World Net Daily only brings their other claims about 9/11 under further scrutiny. If they can't even ascribe the correct statements to the right people, yet use false allegations to try and smear the characters of respected professionals, how can we trust their assertions that 9/11 skeptics are wrong?

The agenda of these individuals is not to research the subject matter and present an honest appraisal of the evidence, it is to zealously savage and try and discredit the 9/11 truth movement. In most cases this isn't because they are on a CIA payroll, it's because any dissenting voice that challenges their cosey world view is an affront to them - and they will go to any lengths to shout us down - including inventing quotes and using them to tar people with.

Unfortunately, their faux pas are as stiflingly obvious as a turd in a punch bowl - and their credibility sinks ever deeper each time they try and pull one of these stunts.

Following a spate of editorials which sought to debunk the 9/11 truth movement and personally attack its progenitors, released on cue almost as if an order went out, this website will continue to defend our friends and colleagues from unfounded personal attacks and also counter any attempts to debunk credible 9/11 evidence.

More HERE

*****end of clip*****

Wow, a retraction? That would mean the official version supporters of Bush and his lies are caught with their pants down! I LOVE IT!

How pathetic that the "official version" hit piece writers have to lie? That says more than anything anybody could post here, eh?

capt

Didn't realize the last thread was dead when I posted this, and I needed to get it off my chest, so here goes:

1) Ever heard of Bi-Partisanship support? Didn't think So! Uber libs never do!

Well, Grover Norquist (he's one of yours) has heard of it. He likes to say, "Bipartisanship is like date rape." Yeah, those Republicans really work on the bipartisanship...as long as they get everything they want and make the Democrats look like idiots as they do it.

2) Ever think Joe's Re-Election helps our country? I'm sure you don't, but a majority of Conn. voters DO (so far)!

The Democrats of Connecticut don't think he "helps our country." They voted for his competitor. As for a majority of Connecticut voters, we'll see in November.

3) Ever think why Detroit's home prices went down the 2nd most in the latest stats? Not a clue!

Well, I don't know if this is true or not (as usual, you don't link any information). But...exactly what does this have to do with Joe Liebermann or me?

4) Ever think why Toyota chose Texas for a highly symbolic PickUp truck plant? "What, Toyota makes truck", says Dumb Don.

What is your major malfunction? You are a despicable hypocrite. On one hand, because you own (or, I should say, claim you own) shares in oil companies, you cheer as their greed and ineptness drive up prices. On the other hand, you wag your finger at the incompetence of American auto industry management and tell me how capitalism is teaching them a lesson. There are many reasons that foreign auto companies have been gaining market share on American companies (not the least being the cost of health care in the US in comparison to the Japanese, etc.), but to enjoy schadenfreude at the expense of a couple of America's largest employers strikes me as being...unpatriotic. I'm no apologist for the incompetence of any business, but I think most can admit that the auto industry and it's employees can take a lot of credit for the lifestyle the middle class in this country enjoys.

Anyway, Hapless, you're a twit. You don't really understand politics, I doubt you really understand business, and your ceaseless bleating about the stock market is really tiresome. Why don't you go play with your Scouts and stop cluttering up the bandwidth here with your idiocy?

Didn't see the idiot's response upthread at #46. Sorry.

His non-responsive response speaks for itself, I guess.

DDDon & Panty, Scroll past! More stock market blah, blah, blahs! Good Week! Actually, better than Good, Near-Great!

MARKET SNAPSHOT: U.S. Stocks End Higher For A Fifth Straight Day
By Mark Cotton
Dow Jones

U.S. stocks rose for a fifth straight day Friday, with the Nasdaq logging its biggest weekly point gain in more than four years,....

The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJI) rose 46.51 points to 11,381.47.....On the week, the benchmark index climbed 2.6%.

The Nasdaq Composite Index (RIXF) added 6.34 points to 2,163.95....a weekly advance of 106.24 points, or 5.2%. It was the biggest weekly point gain since the week ended May 17, 2002 when it shot up 141 points.

The S&P 500 Index (SPX) tacked on 4.82 points to 1,302.30. The broad gauge rose 2.8%.

Hardball makes Irey look foolish

On Hardball last night, Diana Irey sent in some questions they thought Matthews should ask Murtha earlier in the show. He wasn't too happy about it and shows the level of incompetence her campaign has as they try to attack Murtha.

Video-WMP

Video-QT

Matthews: What are you I got a letter here. I told you about it before we came on. This is a press release apparently issued by your press secretary. It was sent to me, with a list of 10 questions I'm supposed to ask Murtha.

Here's one. The first one. "How hard is it for you" I'm supposed to ask this to Murtha; your press guy told me to do this "knowing that my brother Jim, the Republican nominee from the (INAUDIBLE) of Pennsylvania, just appeared two days ago with your opponent Diana Irey to cut the ribbon at her new volunteer headquarters in your hometown of Johnstown?" Did you know about this letter coming to me, telling me what to ask Murtha and talking about my brother?

DIANA IREY, PA CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE: These are press releases that have been formally sent out. And we put them all together to give you some questions for Mr. Murtha that he has not answered for

MATTHEWS: Yes, well, what tell me why you want me to ask him about my brother running for lieutenant governor. What relevance is that to anything here on this show?

More HERE

*****end of clip*****

Hardly fair to say Chris made the neo-shill look foolish, the neo-shills do a fine job of that without any help from anybody and foolish is a nice way of saying stupid.

capt

Capt at #94,

You asked, so I will tell you: You don't know shit, son. Nice try painting me and others as mindless haters and other assorted niceties.

It is you who are covering for your own pitiful ignorance on so many topics. Where to begin? Oh that's right, you don't speak to lowly posters who don't kiss your ass every time you post your drivel.

I'm personally glad to welcome Grand Moff Texan to this blog. I've seen his clever comments at all of the best blogs (Eschaton, Greenwald, etc.). I think he's done a fine job of demonstrating his mad troll-killing skillz.

Of course, by now morons like Hapless, Let's Clap Harder, and Fag-Baitin' Tim are used to it, so I guess it doesn't sting that much anymore.

Qaaqadoodle-doo! More shit. bush seems to think judges should rule based on "the nature of the world in which we live." Frightening!

Q Mr. President, the federal ruling yesterday that declared your terrorist surveillance program unconstitutional -- the judge wrote that it was never the intent of the framers to give the President such unfettered control. How do you respond, sir, to opponents who say that this ruling is really the first nail in the coffin of your administration's legal strategy in the war on terror?

bush the fucking moron: I would say that those who herald this decision simply do not understand the nature of the world in which we live. blah blah blah

The accountability factor is nil in bushworld -- a judge rules TSP is unconstitutional and bush shows his ignorance, arrogance and imperialism.

#100,

ha ha ha ha ... oooooh man! Thanks for the levity this fine Friday afternoon.

The answer of course is that they ARE afraid of two lil' ol' conservatives!!! And we're both giving argument with ONE-HALF of our brains on idle just to make it a fair fight!

Isn't it amusing how a little pushback brings out the warmth and loving nature of the CORNNUTS?

It is Time to Censure a Lawless President

When Russ Feingold first argued that the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program was in clear violation of federal law and the spirit of the Constitution, and that the Senate must censure the president for his wrongdoing, the maverick senator was condemned by the White House, ridiculed by Republicans and given the cold shoulder by most Democrats.

But, now, the Wisconsin Democrat who in March proposed that the Senate censure Bush for flagrantly disregarding the law has a federal judge on his side. And the question becomes: When will Democratic and Republican members of the Senate join Feingold in demanding that the administration be held to account for its assaults on basic liberties and the rule of law?

Ruling on a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who expressed concern that the National Security Agency's spying initiative had made it difficult for them to develop and maintain legitimate international contacts and professional relationships, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit determined Thuesday that the warrantless wiretapping scheme is unconstitutional and ordered its immediate halt.

More HERE

*****end of clip*****

Censure? BU__SH__ IMPEACHMENT is the legal remedy for a president that that think he is above the law. Period.

capt

Alan --- I always read Saladin's posts. I often do not agree. But underneath it all, she sometimes has points that I would not otherwise have considered.

Something to think about...

Of the top hundred biggest economies in the world, 51 are corporations, not countries.

#107 Dr. B - In your next career, you should be a diplomat. ;-)

Yes capt, I'm glad WND issued a retraction or apology/whatever. I actually respect them more for having done so.

This is more than we EVER get from your side.

The Post Editorial Board tell us how serious, high-minded people should talk about Presidential law-breaking

For the last four years, the Bush administration has deliberately violated multiple laws because it has adopted radical theories which vest law-breaking powers in the President. It also happens to be well on its way to obtaining the power to criminally prosecute journalists for articles they publish about the administration's conduct. And while all of that has been happening, the Washington Post Editorial Board has said virtually nothing about any of it, sitting idly by while the President vests himself with what George Will calls "monarchical" powers that (at least) rival terrorism as a threat to our country, and while Attorney General Alberto Gonzales casually speculates about putting Jim Risen and New York Times editors (and perhaps even the Post's own Dana Priest) into a federal prison, just as his most prominent supporters have been urging.

But at long last, the Post Editorial Board has finally found something to be outraged about -- the fact that the judicial opinion issued by Judge Anna Diggs Taylor yesterday isn't scholarly and "complex" enough for the intellectual tastes of Fred Hiatt. What really matters, says the Post in its unbelievably petty editorial, is not the profound constitutional crisis we face by virtue of a President who believes he has the power to act outside of the law and has been exercising that power aggressively and enthusiastically in numerous ways over five years. No, that is merely a fascinating intellectual puzzle, something for super-smart experts to resolve with great civility and high-minded, complex discussions as they ponder what the Post calls the "complicated, difficult issues" raised by the administration's lawlessness.

To the Post, what really matters here is how impressed law professors are with the complexity and nuance in Judge Taylor's written decision. Condescendingly scoffing at the judicial quality of her opinion is of infinitely greater importance than objecting to the growing extremism and lawlessness to which our country has been subjected.

More HERE

*****end of clip*****

Glen Greenwald has some interesting insights and solid legal perspective.

capt

Capt and others seem to think that the determination of one judge settles the issue. Not so. It's just the first shot in the battle.

I'm not particularly impressed with the quality of a number of our Federal judges these days. Some of them are products of NYU and other fetid liberal swamps.

Just remember this one adage and you can't go wrong: Liberalism is a mental disorder! Judges who have it are particularly dangerous. It's kinda like MAD COW disease. If you could cut open their brains you would find - SWISS CHEESE! Yes, we're talking serious loss of brain matter.

Cafferty: Success in Iraq?

Jack Cafferty did a great run down of all the points of "success" we have heard about in Iraq. From the toppling of the Saddam statue to the killing of Zarqawi, he hit them all then asked the most important question; "Do you think we need a new definition of what constitutes success in Iraq?"

Video - WMV

Video - QT

Roadside bombs have almost doubled since January along with insurgency violence against our troops and Iraqi security forces, yet we hear from Bush and the wingnuts that Iraq is a great success. If that is "success," I would sure hate to see what failure looked like.

More HERE

*****end of clip*****

There was a huge success in Iraq. We won the war, we effected a change of leadership. Now we lose the occupation because of a lack of planning, a lack of understanding, and the abject ineptitude of Bush and his merry band of morons.

I wonder how long the MSM is going to endure Jack telling the truth? (he will be gone before the holidays I bet)

capt

Bush's Iraq Quagmire: "Lions Led By Donkeys"

Poor petulant punk! Mr. Bush just can't understand why he continues to get punked in Iraq. Yet, unlike America's military leaders, who utilize "lessons learned" debriefings to avoid being punked in future insurgencies, Mr. Bush learns nothing -- except for new ways to fling more Panglossian excrement. Even punks can fake it as men of conviction.

Bush is a punk? Yes. Always has been. Consider the following:

(1) As Ron Suskind reports in his recent book, The One Percent Doctrine, Bush was a dirty, cheap-shot intramural basketball player while a student at the Harvard Business School. On one occasion, Bush not only elbowed the opponent's star player in the mouth, he also chopped his legs "out from under him" as he jumped to grab a rebound. [Suskind, p. 215.] As anyone who's played basketball knows, such tactics are those of a cheap-shot punk.

(2) Carrying his punk stupidity to the White House, Bush told Bob Woodward: "I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the President. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." ["A Rare Glimpse Inside Bush's Cabinet," CBS News, Nov. 17, 2002.]

(3) Perhaps most incriminating was Bush's punk behavior immediately before his televised national address announcing the beginning of his (illegal, immoral) war with Iraq. "A camera caught Bush pumping his fist as though instead of initiating a war he had kicked a winning field goal or hit a home run. 'Feels good," he said." [Paul Waldman, Fraud, p. 8] So much, then, for his supposed concern about sending U.S. forces into harm's way.

(4) Whenever you hear someone taunt the enemy by asserting, "Bring 'em on," while sitting safely behind a desk thousands of miles away from the battlefield, it's a safe bet you're listening to a punk.

More HERE

*****end of clip*****

Bush and his pathetic sycophants just got PUNKED!

(better than the TV show, eh?)

capt

13
effin happy!
James, of all handle-changers, you are the easiest to spot!... your posts are (mostly) easy to spot

dude i was kidding when i said where is the proof of alleged name change - ha ha - of course i am easy to spot; that is my entire MO - yes i change my handle at least every other day, but i do it just to be silly - please don't equate me with the foul mouth pretender....

Posted by: ha at August 18, 2006 01:25 PM
================================================
Ha Dude:

Of course I knew you were kidding! Otherwise, I'd have Huffed & Puffed, like DDDon or Panty, and gone back into the Archives to prove it... wasting that irreplaceable TIME!

No, I don't equate you w/having foulmouth disease! Those that have such disease, must be breeding Gangstas at home!

So what happens to the money he's raised if Lieberman is finally pressured into dropping out?

Micki --- Thank you. I am sure that either of us could do better than Bolton.

capt --- I give up. I thought about it for a whole day now. Just how can MALadministration be read more than one way? Too tough for me.

So what happens to the money he's raised if Lieberman is finally pressured into dropping out?

Well, Hapless will put on his Boy Scout uniform, stand in front of the mirror, salute himself and say, "Valiant effort, Joe. Can I have my five dollars back, please?"

LBH & Tim:

Thanks for ACLU vs. Scouts back & forth! Thanks for `Ouching' DDDon! I felt sorry for him and decided NOT to embarrase him again!

BTW: Portland's home price up 19% from a year ago! Good for you, LBH!

LBH,

Great minds think alike. I was just off reading that article about the jerkin' judge and I come back to find you already posted it!!!

Don't get me started about NAMBLA. Long-time bloggers here probably can't forget my lengthly diatribe on homosexual "marriage" many moons ago. NAMBLA was one of the featured examples in my many brilliant analogies!

Don't worry, Hajji - I'm not goin' there...

Yeah, please don't "embarrase" me. Sounds like it might hurt.

Moron.

Bush Tampers with War Prisoner Rights

Why does the Bush administration insist on tinkering with the long-established laws on military conduct and treaties of this land?

Bush administration officials are drafting amendments to the 1996 War Crimes Act to immunize political appointees, CIA officials and former military personnel from criminal prosecution for humiliating or degrading treatment of prisoners of war.

The War Crimes Act makes it a felony to violate the Geneva Conventions. Those treaties govern military conduct in wartime and were ratified in 1949 in the aftermath of World War II.

The administration's proposed amendments would reduce the number of acts against detainees subject to criminal prosecution.

The administration seems most concerned about Common Article 3 of the Conventions that bars "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment."

Officials are concerned that revelations about U.S. use of leashed dogs lunging at detainees during interrogation, forcing male prisoners to wear feminine underwear, and nakedness might fall into the category of "outrages upon personal dignity" and give rise to prosecution in the aftermath of the scandals at Abu Ghraib prisons.

Perhaps they fear future accountability.

More HERE

*****end of clip*****

Of course they fear accountability like the plague. Because the most cursory review of their crimes would have them facing a firing squad.

capt

Happy,

I'm envious of your success with your investments! Throw me a bone?

If you want to be discrete, just e-mail me (mouse over my handle)

I'm envious of your success with your investments! Throw me a bone?

Do you want him wearing his Scout uniform when he does it?

This is too easy!

We all know about your obsession with NAMBLA?

Your false accusations are as patheitic as the rest of the tripe you post here.

SEE FOLKS? This is what the troll reverts to:

Personal attacks (which are also false), Ad Hominem and pathetic petty insults with some sicko NAMBLA obsession. The troll has accused David of being a NAMBLA founding member?

Enough feeding the trolls? eh?

capt

capt,

I think you're mixing Fag-Baitin' Tim up with TRH (from the conservative branch of the Hodges tree), who admitted and apologized for his rudeness.

Just sayin'.

Send President Clinton a birthday wish

Tomorrow, a man very near and dear to me and Democrats across the country celebrates a milestone. Former President Bill Clinton turns 60.

Since leaving the Oval Office, President Clinton has seamlessly moved into his role as senior statesman of the Democratic Party, continuing to offer new ideas and campaigning tirelessly for our candidates around the country. Much of his time is now occupied with his charitable and philanthropic works through the Clinton Foundation, which is focused on issues such as public health and economic development.

For his 60th