Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIn the fall of 1998, David Vitter felt compelled to weigh in on the national debate over the possible impeachment of President Bill Clinton for lying about sex. Vitter was not yet a member of Congress; he was a Republican state representative. And in an October 29, 1998, opinion piece for the New Orleans Times-Picayune, Vitter took issue with a previous article, written by two law professors who had argued that impeachment "is a process of removing a president from office who can no longer effectively govern; it is not about punishment." Given that Clinton was still a capable chief executive, they had maintained, impeachment was not in order.
Vitter, a graduate of Harvard University and Tulane law school and a Rhodes scholar, was aghast at this amoral position. He blasted the law professors for criticizing those congressional Republicans pushing for Clinton's impeachment. Their argument that impeachment is "not primarily about right and wrong or moral fitness to govern," he wrote, was utterly wrongheaded. He continued:
Some current polls may suggest that people are turned off by the whole Clinton mess and don't care -- because the stock market is good, the Clinton spin machine is even better or other reasons. But that doesn't answer the question of whether President Clinton should be impeached and removed from office because he is morally unfit to govern.
The writings of the Founding Fathers are very instructive on this issue. They are not cast in terms of political effectiveness at all but in terms of right and wrong -- moral fitness. Hamilton writes in the Federalists Papers (No. 65) that impeachable offenses are those that "proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust."
In considering impeachment, Vitter asserted, Congress had to judge Clinton on moral terms. Decrying the law professors' failure to see this, Vitter observed, "Is that the level of moral relatively [sic] and vacuousness we have come to?" If no "meaningful action" were to be taken against Clinton, Vitter wrote, "his leadership will only further drain any sense of values left to our political culture."
Strong words. Now that Vitter, who entered the House of Representatives in 1999 after winning a special election to fill the seat of Representative Bob Livingston (who resigned after being caught in an adultery scandal) and who was elected senator in 2004, has admitted he placed a phone call to the so-called DC Madam, his constituents can only wonder if he will hold himself to the same standards he sought to apply to Bill Clinton.
Vitter, who is married with four children, has been a vigorous advocate of family values, championing abstinence-only programs and calling for a ban on gay marriage. In a statement his office rushed out on Monday night--before he could be outed by Hustler magazine--Vitter said he had committed a "serious sin" and claimed that "several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling." I seem to recall that Bill Clinton took a similar stance after he acknowledged his affair with Monica Lewinsky. That, though, did not prevent Vitter from calling for Clinton's forcible removal from office.
Perhaps Vitter ought to revisit the issue of whether the absence of moral fitness is a firing offense for a public official.
******
JUST OUT IN PAPERBACK: 
Share this article
David Corn
Washington--a city of denials, spin, and political calculations. They may speak English there, but most citizens still need an interpreter to understand its ways and meanings. DAVID CORN, the Washington editor of The Nation magazine, has spent years analyzing the policies and pursuing the lies that spew out of the nation's capital. He is a novelist, biographer, and television and radio commentator who is able to both decipher and scrutinize Washington.
In his dispatches, he takes on the day-by-day political and policy battles under way in the Capitol, the White House, the think tanks, and the television studios. With an informed, unconventional perspective, he holds the politicians, policymakers and pundits accountable and reports the important facts and views that go uncovered elsewhere.
Check out David Corn's latest book, (co-written with Michael Isikoff and now available in paperback), Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War (Crown Publishers). For information, visit his personal blog at davidcorn.com.
Photo Credit: Michael Lorenzini
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
i think he will do the right thing and step down so that a buddhist monk can assume his vacated seat...or...
maybe he just called her...but didn't inhale...
maybe he was just homesick and trying to conjure up the house of the rising sun...
but it looks like another morally vapid "conservative republican" exposed for the hypocrite he is...yeah, thats the most obvious explanation. thats the one.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/10/2007 @ 11:25pm
As an act of contrition-- he has to vote to impeach hsuB/cHeney to show he's washed the rest of the evil sin away, he can then call her up a couple of more times, then impeach a few more repubs...
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/10/2007 @ 11:37pm
Well, DAVID, isn't it kinda obvious that you and quite a few on the Far Left, are obviously just as turned on by going after the current POTUS as Vitter was in gunning for Clinton?
Unfortunately for those seeking high thrills, Vitter hasn't been given a chance to lie under oath, and of course, He Ain't the POTUS!
Vitter is a hypocrit? Aren't they all? How else can our pols be elected? Remember McCain, John McCain, Sen. from Arizona and fading POTUS candidate? Where did standing by (mostly) his long-held positions get him? Now look at smart hypocritical cookies like Hillary, why, she is the One to Beat! How about global hypocrit Al Gore....got legions of fans wanting him to run. What about Pretty Hair Edward?
Posted by Happy at 07/10/2007 @ 11:42pm
The straighter they are, the harder they fall.
Posted by CyberCitizen at 07/10/2007 @ 11:42pm
How else can our pols be elected?
Posted by HAPPY 07/10/2007 @ 11:42pm
The straighter they are, the harder they fall.
Posted by CYBERCITIZEN 07/10/2007 @ 11:42pm
Er, no comment...
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/11/2007 @ 01:07am
It's enough to make one wish for a special category of punishment for those who rail against immorality and subsequently get caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Call it the Hypocrisy Law.
Better yet, how about a ban on "morality" speeches in the political arena? No mention allowed of one's god or religion.
Just a thought.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/11/2007 @ 01:08am
One more hog calling the pig smelly.
Posted by skeletonman at 07/11/2007 @ 03:03am
i'm a oinkin, but vitters is a boinkin...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/11/2007 @ 03:23am
Clinton spoke perspicaciously on the subject upon the occasion of his White House portrait's unveiling, I believe pre 9/11, when he said we'd have better government when ethics, rights and wrongs, predominate or even exclude moral imprecations, good and bad/evil, the latter subject to so much metaphysical b.s. and vain posings.
Posted by lewwelge at 07/11/2007 @ 07:21am
Posted by LEWWELGE 07/11/2007 @ 07:21am | ignore this person
well...the party of morality and family values erected these gallows...now i laugh as they get hanged with their own rope. i'm enjoying the timely karmic ripening...
couldn't happen to a more deserving pack of bullshitters...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/11/2007 @ 07:29am
Arn't David Vitter & Bill Clinton having an affair? I thought I read that in Corn's latest work TOTALLY LUDICROUS & USELESS ISSUES IN US DOMESTIC HISTORY. c 2007 by Corn & Corn Pub. 5000pp.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/11/2007 @ 07:45am
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 07/11/2007 @ 07:45am
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ellis-weiner/how-to-write-like-a-conse_b_5 5644.html
this might prove helpful.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/11/2007 @ 07:51am
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 07/11/2007 @ 07:45a
Why I thought for sure you'd relate-- for sure everyone here at one point or another has hired a prostitute on the side while being married and condemning a neighber for fooling around with the baby-sitter. Can't we boys just all get along, go along, we all do it for heaven's sake, right? Why talk about it too...
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/11/2007 @ 08:10am
There are plenty of cheating to go 'round: As they say it stinks from the head down:
WASHINGTON, July 10 -- Former Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona told a Congressional panel Tuesday that top Bush administration officials repeatedly tried to weaken or suppress important public health reports because of political considerations.
The administration, Dr. Carmona said, would not allow him to speak or issue reports about stem cells, emergency contraception, sex education, or prison, mental and global health issues. Top officials delayed for years and tried to "water down" a landmark report on secondhand smoke, he said. Released last year, the report concluded that even brief exposure to cigarette smoke could cause immediate harm.
Dr. Carmona said he was ordered to mention President Bush three times on every page of his speeches. He also said he was asked to make speeches to support Republican political candidates and to attend political briefings.
And administration officials even discouraged him from attending the Special Olympics because, he said, of that charitable organization's longtime ties to a "prominent family" that he refused to name.
"I was specifically told by a senior person, ‘Why would you want to help those people?' " Dr. Carmona said.
Dr. Carmona is one of a growing list of present and former administration officials to charge that politics often trumped science within what had previously been largely nonpartisan government health and scientific agencies.
Dr. Carmona, 57, served as surgeon general for one four-year term, from 2002 to 2006, but was not asked to serve a second. Before being nominated, he was in the Army Special Forces, earned two purple hearts in the Vietnam War and was a trauma surgeon and leader of the Pima County, Ariz., SWAT team. He received a bachelor's degree, in biology and chemistry, in 1976 and his M.D. in 1979, both from the University of California, San Francisco. He is now vice chairman of Canyon Ranch, a resort and residential development company.
His testimony comes two days before the Senate confirmation hearings of his designated successor, Dr. James W. Holsinger Jr. Two members of the Senate health committee have already declared their opposition to Dr. Holsinger's nomination because of a 1991 report he wrote that concluded that homosexual sex was unnatural and unhealthy. Dr. Carmona's testimony may further complicate Dr. Holsinger's nomination.
In his testimony, Dr. Carmona said that at first he was so politically naïve that he had little idea how inappropriate the administration's actions were. He eventually consulted six previous surgeons general, Republican and Democratic, and all agreed, he said, that he faced more political interference than they had.
On issue after issue, Dr. Carmona said, the administration made decisions about important public health issues based solely on political considerations, not scientific ones.
"I was told to stay away from those because we've already decided which way we want to go," Dr. Carmona said.
He described attending a meeting of top officials in which the subject of global warming was discussed. The officials concluded that global warming was a liberal cause and dismissed it, he said.
"And I said to myself, ‘I realize why I've been invited. They want me to discuss the science because they obviously don't understand the science,' " he said. "I was never invited back."
Dr. Carmona described being invited to testify at the government's nine-month racketeering trial of the tobacco industry that ended in 2005. He said top administration officials discouraged him from testifying while simultaneously telling the lead government lawyer in the case that he was not competent to testify. Dr. Carmona testified anyway.
Sharon Y. Eubanks, director of the Justice Department's tobacco litigation team, was in the audience during Dr. Carmona's testimony.
"What he said is all correct," she said. "He was one of the most powerful witnesses. His testimony was very important."
Dr. Carmona said that he felt that the duty of the surgeon general, often called the "nation's doctor," was to tackle many of the nation's most controversial health topics and to issue balanced reports about the studies underlying them.
When stem cells became a focus of debate, Dr. Carmona said he proposed that his office offer guidance "so that we can have, if you will, informed consent."
"I was told to stand down and not speak about it," he said. "It was removed from my speeches."
The Bush administration rejected the advice of many top scientists on this subject, including that of the director of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Elias Zerhouni.
Similarly, Dr. Carmona wanted to address the controversial topic of sexual education, he said. Scientific studies suggest that the most effective approach includes a discussion of contraceptives.
"However there was already a policy in place that did not want to hear the science but wanted to preach abstinence only, but I felt that was scientifically incorrect," he said.
Dr. Carmona said drafts of surgeon general reports on global health and prison health were still being debated by the administration. The global health report was never approved, Dr. Carmona said, because he refused to sprinkle the report with glowing references to the efforts of the Bush administration.
"The correctional health care report is pointing out the inadequacies of health care within our correctional health care system," he said. "It would force the government on a course of action to improve that."
Because the administration does not want to spend more money on prisoners' health care, the report has been delayed, Dr. Carmona said.
"For us, the science was pretty easy," he said. "These people go back into the community and take diseases with them." He added, "This is not about the crime. It's about protecting the public."
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/11/2007 @ 01:42am | ignore this person
Got to impeach hsuB/cHeney and get some sane, moral, competent and intelligent people in the exec to start fixing this mess. The longer we wait the more shit there'll be and at some point the idea is to pile it so high everyone just says fuck-it and the poopooers like Maskerina win it for the new con supporters, servicers of dic'tator philosophy.
Got to shine as much light on this evil as possible-- so much light, it burns.
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/11/2007 @ 01:51am | ignore this person
Can one say habitual liar without a conscience:
Bush Stands Behind Current Iraq Policy
BEN FELLER | July 10, 2007 05:13 PM EST |
CLEVELAND -- President Bush, facing new pressure to start bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq, said Tuesday he won't consider it until hearing a fresh assessment from his top commander there this fall.
"We just started. We got all the troops there a couple of weeks ago," Bush told the Greater Cleveland Partnership, a coalition of Northeast Ohio companies.
Bush's comments came as the White House scrambled to respond to growing opposition to the war.
"I wouldn't ask a mother or a dad _ I wouldn't put their son in harm's way if I didn't believe this was necessary for the security of the United States and the peace of the world," Bush said. "I strongly believe it, and I strongly believe we'll prevail."
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/11/2007 @ 08:01am | ignore this person
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/11/2007 @ 08:49am
well...the party of morality and family values erected these gallows...now i laugh as they get hanged with their own rope. i'm enjoying the timely karmic ripening...
couldn't happen to a more deserving pack of bullshitters...
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE
Well put. What really gets me about all this is Vitter claiming that God has forgiven him. How the hell does he know that? All of these people talking directly to God make me a little nervous. Seems like kind of a one sided conversation.....them and no God talking back, only their guilty feelings. I flipped the tv on the other day and heard some evangelist saying that people needed to send their checks in to them so that they can fight and make sure God stays in the government and that separation of church and state is misleading. The first thing that came to mind was, is this program being presented by a tax sheltered political campaign? 10 to 1 it is. But back to the point, I wish these morons would look past the ends of their noses. What happens if in the future there are more Muslims in the U.S. than Christians and the Muslims shove legislation through claiming that we must include Allah in our government? I wonder how these bible thumpers would like that? I'd bet they would all be for separation of church and state then. It comes down to controlling people. They wish to force their religious dogma onto the rest of America and control people. Isn't there something in the bible about God giving people the choice between salvation and damnation? Hey, at least there's a choice there. It just goes to show that even God is more liberal than these hypocrites cramming this crap down our throats.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/11/2007 @ 08:50am
Again, seriously....the Republicans should drop the whole "sexual morality" thing.
It's a time-bomb, that in Vitter's case, went off. Just like Limbaugh and the Drug War. And I'm sure someday we'll learn that one of the Bush Twins had an abortion, etc.
Posted by Mask at 07/11/2007 @ 09:00am
Posted by WOLFGANG1 07/11/2007 @ 08:50am | ignore this person
yeah, god talked to me and said that people who claim god blabs to them are full of it...
but regardless, typical of these bullshitters when exposed..."oh lord, i commited the dread sin of getting caught! but i luv the jesus and he's gettin me into heaven as long as i keep feeling bad when i get caught...thank you lord, for accepting my sorry lying ass in your one true, something for nothing religion! praise jesus! oh, and...boo hoo hoo..."
pathetic sack of shit.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/11/2007 @ 09:24am
"i would further like to say that i'm checking into a pricey clinic for pathologically lying, hypocritical sacks of shit. in nevada..."
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/11/2007 @ 09:28am
Well, DAVID, isn't it kinda obvious that you and quite a few on the Far Left, are obviously just as turned on by going after the current POTUS as Vitter was in gunning for Clinton?-HAPPY
big difference between a blow job and kidnapping people and sending them to Egypt to be tortured, or firing attorneys because they were not playing the right politics. Sorry you can't see the difference. As mentioned in Davids article, if the mkt is good, the blinders are on.
Posted by crabwalk at 07/11/2007 @ 10:06am
As far as Vitter goes, buwahahaha.
Frickin hypocrites.
When do we stone him? God says we have to. Not only is it written, She told me so. (.99 /minute for prayers, 1.99 /minute for theological analysis)
Posted by crabwalk at 07/11/2007 @ 10:09am
New cons live in a state of constant 'fear', therefore others must conform, be just like them, replicants, borg, lemmings. We see it as controlling but it's really new con self medicating their fear into security. If they were secure with their own guilt, they could accept others faults as being separate but equal to their own and not fear others and let them have their own space, get out of ME.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/11/2007 @ 10:43am
Hey Chip Thorton, What the f*** stupid kind of name is Chip? Do you hang with Scooter?
Anyhoo, our little bumpkin, David Corn is a god!! He is my personal hero. His books listing the lies of The Bush Crime Family must have driven you nuts. How else do you explain your inanity?
Posted by tomshef at 07/11/2007 @ 10:51am
If evangelical Christians would branch out a little and adopt the concept of karma, they wouldn't have this problem. But I guess it's all about forgiveness for them. Fine. Too bad elections are all about karma, not forgiveness.
Posted by MyParadigm at 07/11/2007 @ 10:57am
Posted by MYPARADIGM 07/11/2007 @ 10:57am
yeah, i have no use for "guilt" - "oooh, i feel so guilty! i'll beat up on myself for doing wrong then it will be better. whenever i do wrong, i'll make it right y feeling guilty and punishing myself. then i'll do it again."
combined with "believe in jesus (or the monster in the lake, or whatever) and everything gonna be alright! i just keep screwing up and doing evil, and as long as i show up bawling, beating my chest, pulling out my hair and trusting in jesus to forgive me...i go to heaven and all you godless heathens who believe in DOING the right thing, and NOT doing the wrong...sheeesh, your goin to hell!"
because god is so stupid, arrogant, self absorbed and in need of getting his ass kissed on a constant basis by scared shitless of dying shaved apes...
yeah...god loves someone who gives their life for others fully believing in a pleasant reward forever...but an atheist who gives his life (all he will ever have, as he sees it) is actually on a morally lower level than the simpering coward who loves the jesus!!!!
is it any wonder that there is a moral failure in this country when millions equate all religion with that crap? is this medeivalist bullshit the only alternative to nihilist relativism?
no...its not.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/11/2007 @ 11:08am
what fundyvangelists truly fear is the disolution of their backwards mumbo jumbo, fatally flawed religion in a true free market of ideas.
in a modern world, that old irraional exclusionary crap simply does not fill the void for most people. realizing that their faith, literally interpreted, is doomed when rationally examined, they insist on SHOVING IT IN EVERYONE'S FACES...
blue laws, asswipe judges posting ten commandments in public spaces, a halfwit who cant even speak comprehensibly leading the most powerful country in the world blabbin his jesus borg crap, deluded ignorants and fanatics revising history to make this country a christian theoracy, stupid incomprehensible fundyvangelist pres throwing science out the window...they dont want the competition because they know their narrow bass ackwards version of christianity is doomed to the dustbin of history if it has to compete without gubbament support.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/11/2007 @ 11:19am
Perhaps Vitter ought to revisit the issue of whether the absence of moral fitness is a firing offense for a public official.
Vitter's a slimebucket, but, in fairness, his "absence of moral fitness" arguments that Mr Corn presents were directed at the issue of impeaching the President, not just any old public official. Vitter could easily argue that, since the President constitutes in one person the entire executive authority of the federal government, it is very important that the President be held to a very high moral standard, and that this consideration is less important for a mere Congressman, of which there are many.
That said, in my view neither scenario warrants removal from office.
Posted by BlueSpark at 07/11/2007 @ 11:21am
I think I love you Ibble...
Posted by crabwalk at 07/11/2007 @ 11:23am
When all the names on this "ladies" list hit the wires, it is going to be raucous fun. Neither party is going to go without it's lumps. It would be interesting to compare her lists with the corporate contribution lists to see who the greater whores really are, those who sell sex, or those that sell votes.
Posted by crabwalk at 07/11/2007 @ 11:28am
Posted by CRABWALK 07/11/2007 @ 11:23am |
careful, crab...i AM evil...lol.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/11/2007 @ 11:32am
is it any wonder that there is a moral failure in this country when millions equate all religion with that crap? is this medeivalist bullshit the only alternative to nihilist relativism?
no...its not.
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE
IBBLEBLIBBLE, Once again, you are making too much sense here. All one really has to do is take a look at what "religion" has been doing around the globe to see that it's caused way more misery than comfort to most people including the ones burnt at the stake for witch craft. A term the repubs like to use when people are investigating them for any wrongdoing which I find quite ironic since they are usually the type that would get in a mob and beat and kill somebody say based on race, sexual orientation, religion etc. But really, religion is just one of the many tools the powers that be have found to control people. There's always the threat that someone is coming to get us....Russia, China, Iran, North Korea. Then, there's the communist scare tactic that if you oppose the free market system as is, then you are a communist. The latter implying that you don't fit in or there is something wrong with you if you don't swallow the status quo. Oh, and I forgot that you aren't a patriot unless you believe we should be at war 365 days a year. We've been played for suckers so long in this country that we don't even see it anymore.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/11/2007 @ 11:40am
It is only Christian biblical understanding "One should be measured in the same manner he/she measures others." Vitter's should go swim with the fish. Impeachment!!
Posted by americano at 07/11/2007 @ 11:46am
Posted by WOLFGANG1 07/11/2007 @ 11:40am
whats always bothered me about literal interpretations of christianity and islam is this evil, arrogant, senseless intolerance...in islam its "de jure"...spelled out in no uncertain terms (tax the jews and christians, kill the rest unless they convert).
literal christianity specifically does no such thing, but the logical conclusion is the same...belief systems that threaten chrisianity are a deadly threat, and since jesus/god forgives all who take him as their savior...well...technically offing some obnoxious heathens...aint so bad in the big picture...
but niether buddhism, hinduism, zoroastrianism, nor taoism set up this dichotomy. the first two, believing in reincarnation basically say "if you dont get it right now, eventually you will". "religion" in and of itself, can be a powerful force for good.
its a specific set of beliefs, which unreformed islam and literalist christianity share, that are the problem. and central american blood cults, but i aint too worried about them these days...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/11/2007 @ 11:55am
It is only Christian biblical understanding "One should be measured in the same manner he/she measures others." Vitter's should go swim with the fish. Impeachment!!
Posted by AMERICANO
Are you trying to see that Vitter should sleep with the fish as in the Godfather?
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/11/2007 @ 12:01pm
IF "G_D" HAS FORGIVEN HIM, WHO ARE WE TO COMPLAIN? OF COURSE, I WANT TOO SEE A WRITTEN NOTE FROM GOD SIGNED IN FRONT OF A NOTARY PUBLIC AND TWO WITNESSES (NOT DOBSON, ROBERTSON, HAGEE ETC.). John Lewis-Dickerson, Atlanta
Posted by DICKERSON38 at 07/11/2007 @ 12:08pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE From what I know of Buddhism and Hinduism, which is very limited, I would have to agree with you that they haven't been destructive. Were you referring to Constantine about being a Christian and being taxed, or being a heathen and dying? That's kind of a funny (not really funny, but odd) situation within itself. A lot of Christians think taxation is evil because it's mentioned in a negative way in the bible. But, the reason J.C. mentions it in a negative way is becuase the Romans were occupying Israel at the time and collecting taxes from the people of Israel. So, let's see, Jesus didn't take too kindly to foreign soldiers occupying his country....kind of makes one think about present circumstances doesn't it. I'll bet this particular perspective isn't brought up in a lot of the churches in the U.S.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/11/2007 @ 12:09pm
Posted by WOLFGANG1 07/11/2007 @ 12:09pm |
interestingpoint, but in this case i was referring to the dictates in the koran that call for conquered peoples to be converted by the sword, if needed. fellow "people of the book" as they refer to jews, christians (and themselves)...jews and christians getto live and practise their religion if...they pay the muslim state a little extra tax money. but everyone else...not so lucky. no wonder the hindus hate the muslims so much. they had to suffer under that crap for hundreds of years.
but yeah, i do notice this...often those whose worldly philosophy allows for no "something for nothing" notions whatsoever, do indeed seem prone to spiritual versions of the concept. ironic. guess if your worldly generosity is challenged, you kind of crave some form of generosity, and if its all to happen after your dead and cant prove it...so what? hell, all the better for the mammonite...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/11/2007 @ 12:22pm
Funny how Vitter is the one who said he had committed a "serious sin." Apparently, no one knew nor knows what sins he committed or that he did anything more than call the number but he was right up front to confess his sin again, wasn't he. What pigs! Absolute hipocrites! I don't care who's f_ _ _ ing whom, just don't play that family values bullshit card like all those Republican jerks do then cry for forgiveness without apologizing to those you tried to ruin. At least Guliani showed his true colors publically, not like Newt and the rest of the self-righteous christians who claim to have "the answer" to everything. Athiests behave better than most christians because athiests don't pretend to swear an oath to a God then point the finger at everyone else while they're screwing prostitutes or masturbating over strip dancers. Here's a novel idea, legalize prostitution and announce in your vows that your marriage is open. Then you won't be a hipocrite, and perhaps not even a sinner...
Posted by Lucem ferre at 07/11/2007 @ 12:34pm
"David Corn is a god!! He is my personal hero."---Posted by TOMSHEF 07/11/2007 @ 10:51am
TOM, curious....do you support this from Mr Corn?
"There's another argument against impeachment: It will force its proponents to act as extremists. If you favor impeachment, then you must be committed to going all the way and this will include demanding (repeatedly) that the Democrats in Congress do the same. Impeachment is indeed an extreme action. To support it means that you believe the situation is dire and there's not a moment to waste. This will oblige impeachment partisans to assail Democrats--including Pelosi, who has declared impeachment "off the table," and incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid--for not seeing it this way."
"So Republicans and the White House officials can sit back and enjoy Democrats clawing each other over an issue not likely to be popular with non-Democratic voters (i.e., the people who just handed the Democrats their congressional victories)."
the original link at tompaine.com, if it's still active [tompaine.com]
Posted by Mask at 07/11/2007 @ 12:48pm
Berman, Corn, and Nichols all weighing in on the supremely important national political story of a senator visiting a prostitute. I'm sorry, I thought this was a site to discuss serious political issues.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 07/11/2007 @ 11:59am | ignore this person
This is a damned serious political issue. Vitter was an accomplice in a coup attempt against a head of state who had actually been freely and fairly elected twice, in marked contrast to the current occupants of the Executive Branch. He should be held, along with Livingston, Gingrich, Hyde, Hutchinson, Haggard, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Foley, and the rest of their ilk, as a constant example of craven right-wing theocratic hypocrisy. The GOP should be tarred with these people, and Americans should see them as the quintessential example of theocrats and fascists as they truly are. They deserve everything they've demanded of others, and more. You're damn straight this site discusses serious political issues. Unless you think the hijacking of America by these and other right-wing jackals is something less than a serious political issue.
Posted by jmusolino at 07/11/2007 @ 12:58pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 07/11/2007 @ 11:59am
If you had any integrity, you would realize how far off base you are.
But you don't.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/11/2007 @ 1:56pm
As an Evangelical conservative,I have no problem with Vitter being subjected to his own criteria.
so pagans, have your gloat. We Christians should always remember the plank in our own eye before removing the speck from someone else.
Posted by antiliberal at 07/11/2007 @ 1:58pm
CONSEVATIVES ARE NOTHING IF NOT HYPOCRITES...
I believe that has been firmly established over the last several decades. They go around preaching their "values" to the rest of us, and then violate genuine morality at every turn. And before you ask us (progressive liberal lefties or whatever label you care to apply) if we're so all-fired perfect ourselves, I would answer, of course not! That's the whole point. We don't go around PRETENDING that we are, least of all by preaching a so-called "morality" that we don't ourselves adhere to. Give me an honest and authentic nihilist any day over, say, a gay-bashing fundie minister who secretly visits homoerotic porn sites.
I always want to ask conservatives, "What's WRONG with you?" I can tell them what's wrong. For one thing, they're most likely not in touch with their sexuality or with their authentic feelings and intuition in general. Otherwise, they wouldn't want to run around telling other people how to behave while secretly MISbehaving themselves.
Conservatism is not a legitimate political stance. It's a pathology and should qualify as an recognized psychiatric disorder.
Posted by w_m_bear at 07/11/2007 @ 2:06pm
We Christians should always remember the plank in our own eye before removing the speck from someone else.
Posted by ANTILIBERAL 07/11/2007 @ 1:58pm
Yes, "we Christians" should. However, after years of you morons rubbing our noses in amything you can find, we ARE taking a bit of joy in yet ANOTHER Repug being exposed for the kinky hooker fucking frauds they are.
You figure he liked getting spanked, anal sex, blow jobs, which was it he desired so much that his "wife" wouldn't give him?
Republican Values..... bullshit.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/11/2007 @ 2:07pm
Berman, Corn, and Nichols all weighing in on the supremely important national political story of a senator visiting a prostitute. I'm sorry, I thought this was a site to discuss serious political issues.
MARYBRETBRAD 07/11/2007 @ 11:59am
You can go to FoxNews.com for true relevance, then. Their featured story is a YouTube video spoofing Hillary.
Posted by MyParadigm at 07/11/2007 @ 2:11pm
TOM..SHIT is it, oh no SHEF.
Add this to your list of axioms, you no , like what goes up must come down, etc.
1. Chip is a magnificent name. Short for C.H. Thornton, IV, Esquire
2. Corn is mostly a Boob
3. Posts on here should be kept reasonably relevant.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/11/2007 @ 2:15pm
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 07/11/2007 @ 2:15pm
Buffalo CHIPS.... Cow CHIPS... Chip off the old turd. Yeah, magnificent name bubba.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/11/2007 @ 2:20pm
Don't forget Potato Chips
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/11/2007 @ 2:31pm
Conservatism is not a legitimate political stance. It's a pathology and should qualify as an recognized psychiatric disorder.
Posted by W_M_BEAR 07/11/2007 @ 2:06pm
Isn't that the attitude the SOVIETS started with, when they started putting political dissidents into insane asylums...since obviously anybody that opposed the State and the Party HAD to be mentally ill?
Posted by Mask at 07/11/2007 @ 3:01pm
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 07/11/2007 @ 2:31pm
Well, don't forget-
Chromatin immunoprecipitation...or "CHIP" programming language...or "CHIPs" starring Erik Estrada and Larry Wilcox....or "Goodbye Mr Chips"!
Posted by Mask at 07/11/2007 @ 3:04pm
And don't forget Slippery Chip and his culture of bigotry exemplified by his bumper stickers.
Posted by nathanhale at 07/11/2007 @ 3:17pm
Just a suggestion, but instead of only putting their freak flags out there when they're alone with little boys, hanging out with hookers, or having "youthful indescretions" at 40, why don't you wear them all of the time "Family Values" crowd?
We know you have 'em because they keep showing up...at all of the most inopportune times.
Jesus said something about letting he who is without sin throw the first rock. It might be a good idea for everyone to think about whether or not you can throw that rock in good conscience before you start your toss. However, I get the feeling that the GOP base would rather throw Vitter under the bus before it does that.
Posted by edwriter at 07/11/2007 @ 3:21pm
NATHANHALE, No bigotry here, old boy, I simply refuse to be a slave (no pun intended) to whatever current PC wisdom is out there. (PC wisdom, isn't that a contradiction in terms?) So if you think the Reb Flag automatically means racism, then you need to rid yourself of some of your own prejudices.
And speaking of that, saw a great T-shirt up at Gettysburg during the anniversary. Top and bottom of a hugh Stars & Bars, the comment "IF THIS FLAG OFFENDS YOU,,,STUDY AMERICAN HISTORY!
...and I thought of you :)
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/11/2007 @ 3:33pm
Hey HAPPY.... You forgot one little bitty point..... Vitter broke the LAW. Last I checked... prostitution .... and hiring a prostitute was illegal... in D.C. and Louisiana.
Posted by tedward at 07/11/2007 @ 3:35pm
yeah, chip, and how about people being prejudiced against all those poor victimized ku kluxers just cause they hide behind sheets. blatant anti-sheetism.
Posted by pretzel at 07/11/2007 @ 3:49pm
Anti-sheetism? LoL I like it
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/11/2007 @ 4:06pm
This is a little off the subject, but not too much since the surgeon general Bush appointed states that if he had anything to say that opposed the conservative religious views of the administration, he was pretty much shut down. In this case, he brings up stem cell research. This administration has systematically eaten away at any common sense and scientific approach to anything. You bible thumpers out there need to remove the damn forest from your eyes, you don't have a twig or even a branch. Your eyes have been plucked out of your head along with your hearing senses, and common sense along with it. Conservatives, don't even waste your time bitching about the article being an NPR article. The surgeon general quoted in the article is a Bush appointee. If this link doesn't work the article was on MSNBC.com
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11854247
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/11/2007 @ 4:10pm
Wolfgang, I honestly can't see a contradiction between observing Biblical Law (not that I'm real great at THAT.) and supporting stem cell research. Any objections I'd have, and I have few, would revolve around Federal Funding beliefs, not religion. Don't know why one's faith must always make things "either-or" situations.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/11/2007 @ 4:21pm
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/11/2007 @ 4:21pm
It kinda reminds of the saying about those who live in glass houses! Will the Senator now resign?
http://OsiSpeaks.com or http://OsiSpeaks.org
Posted by KYJurisDoctor at 07/11/2007 @ 4:25pm
As an Evangelical conservative,I have no problem with Vitter being subjected to his own criteria.
so pagans, have your gloat. We Christians should always remember the plank in our own eye before removing the speck from someone else.
Posted by ANTILIBERAL
Hey Mr Antiliberal evangelical nutcase, do you believe that atheists or agnostics are un-American? What about native Americans...do they count as Americans, or do you have to be a southern baptist evangelical kkk member to be considered a true American in your book? You see, I live in the south where there is a lot of that going around and these people consider themselves good Christians with good Christian values. So hanging some poor black guy and burning a cross in his yard for no particular reason other than something to do on a Saturday night is a good Christian thing to do? I used to be a Christian myself until I moved out here and found out just how twisted some Christians can be. I figured that whatever God these people follow is not for me and have since moved away from Christianity. Once people see themselves as holier than though, they think they are on some kind of sacred mission and there's nothing more scary than some religious lunatic on a sacred mission. If you doubt me, look at the people blowing themselves up in the name of Allah. Then look at some of your evangelical buddies killing doctors who perform abortions. So, I guess God doesn't care if they kill in his name. Doesn't that sound like some of the guys from the 9/11 plot. Keep your friggin religion to yourself. If you want to waste your time every Sunday going to church and listening to a guy talk about a God he doesn't know any better than you, go ahead. But please don't try to cram you religious perspectives down everyone elses throats. And if you truly believe in Jefferson and the fathers of this country, quit trying to force religion into the government.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/11/2007 @ 4:27pm
Wolfgang, I honestly can't see a contradiction between observing Biblical Law (not that I'm real great at THAT.) and supporting stem cell research. Any objections I'd have, and I have few, would revolve around Federal Funding beliefs, not religion. Don't know why one's faith must always make things "either-or" situations.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON
Chip, At least you are honest. You just believe someone should make a huge pile of money out of stem cell research versus the fed funding it for the good of everyone. By the way, I think Bush really shares your views, but he knows damn well that if he removed the religious implications from the arguement, then stem cell research would be federally funded. So, they turn it into a religious ethical question instead of the real question of whether the funding should be private or federal. So, it's ok for people to die so long as the private sector gets to profit off the cures down the road instead of the government kicking in more money and also controlling the costs of the cures. Like I said, at least you are honest and to you it comes down to dollars and cents. I would rather pay extra taxes to see cures that people could afford, but then, I guess that's a socialistic view that is also unpatriotic and un-Amercian and by all means dare I say it....liberal or as southern folks say, libral.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/11/2007 @ 5:06pm
the repukes are all sicko hypocrites
Posted by studlyguy at 07/11/2007 @ 5:17pm
Hey, CHIP,
The best is "Chips' Ahoy"....Definitely a HAPPY one!
Posted by Happy at 07/11/2007 @ 6:12pm
Chips are down.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/11/2007 @ 7:53pm
I think it'll become more and more obvious that the only way to get all the info necessary to convince 'all' if not most of the people that impeachment was necessary, was impeachment.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/11/2007 @ 7:56pm
Dip Chip?
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/11/2007 @ 7:57pm
Then look at some of your evangelical buddies killing doctors who perform abortions.
Posted by WOLFGANG1 07/11/2007 @ 4:27pm
Hehe....I got a chuckle out of this one.
Seriously, Wolfie...has this reached epidemic proportions as of yet? Care to give a credible estimate of how many times that this has happened in the last 30 years? We know that abortions performed stands at around 40-45 million.
I realize that killing fetuses is somehow legal, and killing an abortion doc is illegal, but this really bothers you, doesn't it?
Posted by Sliver at 07/11/2007 @ 9:20pm
Hey, Wolfe old boy,
You read a little bit too much into my post I'm afraid. I wouldn't be opposed to Fed funding for something like this, although, yes, private funding would be better. I said if I HAD and issue it would be related to that issue rather than Religion.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/12/2007 @ 08:19am
Hehe....I got a chuckle out of this one.... Posted by SLIVER
Sliver, Glad to be a source of your amusement. With the abortion issue, I wasn't making a statement pro or con about the doctors performing the abortions. I was pointing out the hypocracy in killing or shooting doctors in the name of God. Doesn't that kind of go against the grain of being a Christian? But now that you've opened that can of worms up, here goes....The people who are so damn concerned about the unborn fetus don't give rats ass about the baby once it is born. A woman decides she doesn't want a baby, gets pregnant by accident, stupidity or whatever, but then is forced to have the unwanted baby. So, the baby ends up in a toilet, dumpster, dump, doorstep or living with a mom who doesn't like or want the baby. Now, some of these babies end up doing alright, but I'd wager a good portion of them have horrible lives as children. Some of these kids are crack babies, some have fetal alcohol syndrome and who knows what else. Where are these so called good Christians once these babies are born? Where is the support for these "wanted" babies when they become teenagers and end up on the street? Most children don't stand much of a chance without having loving parents or at least a family of some sorts supporting them. So, like I said some of them end up in gangs, using drugs, becoming prostitutes etc. So, what do the "good conservative evangelical Christians" wish to do with these kids? They wish these kids had never been born, so they push to have them locked up in prison and by all means support the death penalty for crimes comitted by the "wanted babies". So yes, I guess I do get a little bothered by that particular subject. There are consequences for every action one does kind of like one of Newtons laws. For every action, there will be an equal and opposite reaction which applies to the conservation of energy thereom. Well, once you unleash pandoras box by forcing people to have unwanted babies, then you have to deal with the ramifications of opening pandoras box in the first place.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/12/2007 @ 09:32am
I realize that killing fetuses is somehow legal, and killing an abortion doc is illegal, but this really bothers you, doesn't it?
Posted by SLIVER 07/11/2007 @ 9:20pm
Yes, murders with religous blessings bother people. Fucking terrorists is what they are - you, Randall Terry, Rudolph, all you bastards.
OPERATION RESCUE = TERRORISTS.
Take you religous claptrap and blow it out your ass.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/12/2007 @ 11:24am
Posted by SLIVER 07/11/2007 @ 9:20pm
Yes, murders with religous blessings bother people. Fucking terrorists is what they are - you, Randall Terry, Rudolph, all you bastards.
OPERATION RESCUE = TERRORISTS.
Take you religous claptrap and blow it out your ass.
Posted by DR DECIBELS 07/12/2007
Dr. DB, or is that DBM? Once again, you hit the nail on the head and cut to the quick. I can't figure out the logic of these people. They are willing to kill a person over something that hasn't even developed a brain yet, and also give it more rights than a living, breathing, completely self-functioning person. Maybe I've stumbled onto something here. The undeveloped brain, that's it, that's why these right wing morons are so defensive about the fetus, it's mental development is the same as theirs. The arguement will never end with these people. They are worried about the potential life being damaged for stem cell research. Pretty soon,they will want to outlaw sex out of wedlock since sperm cells may be wasted and these Godly cells, which hold the potential for a new life, may be wasted in having that "fun sex". Sex isn't for fun, it's for creating babies only. No, there will be no fun for any single people out there from this day forward, because if they don't want to have babies, there is no reason to have sex of any kind, and that includes sex with yourself. And you married people, no birth control from now on. Be fruitful and multiply so that the population of Christians can grow to 10 billion.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/12/2007 @ 11:57am
Hey Christians, look at what your Jesus said about himself. No interpretation contradicts his belief that he is in fact Lucifer (Lucem ferre) the bright and morning star, the bringer of light, one and the same Jesus and Lucifer. How messed up is that? How do you ignore this one and justify not taking you own God's words literally in this case?
Do you folks even read your book or do you simply read the verses the preachers tell you to read? I am the way, the truth and the life everlasting... Lucem ferre
if you read the rest of that book you find that having multiple wives and mistresses is acceptable, sex with preteen girls is fine, killing children is a great thing, especially the first born sons, slavery is never denounced (NEVER) and homosexuality is never mentioned by Jesus and neither is there a single word in that book about abortion and Jesus turned water into wine after everyone at the party was drunk so apparently he was an enabler and a supplier for those who were getting drunk. And there is so much more...no wonder this world is fucked up! Religious people are running it.
Revelation 22:16 Parallel Translations
NASB: "I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star." (NASB ©1995) GWT: "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give this testimony to you for the churches. I am the root and descendant of David. I am the bright morning star."(GOD'S WORD®) KJV: I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. ASV: I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright, the morning star. BBE: I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give witness to you of these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright and morning star. DBY: I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify these things to you in the assemblies. I am the root and offspring of David, the bright and morning star. ERV: I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright, the morning star. WEY: "I Jesus have sent My angel for him solemnly to declare these things to you among the Churches. I am the Root and the offspring of David, the bright Morning Star. WBS: I Jesus have sent my angel to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning-star. WEB: I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify these things to you for the assemblies. I am the root and the offspring of David; the Bright and Morning Star." YLT: 'I, Jesus did send my messenger to testify to you these things concerning the assemblies; I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright and morning star!
Posted by Lucem ferre at 07/12/2007 @ 12:43pm
I'm not only harsh or the christians, because the jews, the muslims, and every westernized religion that has separated human beings from the rest of the universe are guilty of being sick. it's not that these people are actually Schizophrenic, although the symptoms are quite similar, the fact is, religious people are attracted to the symptoms of schizophrenia, not neccessarily controlled by them. if you look at a born-again, an evangelical, a charasmatic you see similarities to schizophrenia in their beliefs and behaviors but that does'n mean they're actually schizophrenic. what it shows, though, is that they feel very safe and secure and assured while exisiting under the schizophrenic umberella. in other workds, they choose to live a sick life without really being controlled by the sickness. they choose to give up thier identity, their choices, their will to their god. it's a chioce for them to live like they are sick. really strange stuff. a sort of self induced brainwashing that they've then forced on their children who have less of a choice. that is why they are cultish. they force these psycho beliefs on innocent children, like the moonies and JW's and Krishners etc. groups they all hate and call cults. look at yourselves... have fun
Posted by Lucem ferre at 07/12/2007 @ 12:55pm
DRDECIBELS, WOLFGANG....
Don't you hear a bit of familiarity in those rants?
I don't like Terry or Operation: Rescue either....but your "religious nuts are all terrorists" comments sound an AWFUL lot like the RIO BRAVO/BARRY guys who say "all Muslims are terrorists"!
Posted by Mask at 07/12/2007 @ 12:58pm
I would love to be Lucifer or even Satan. So misunderstood are they. Satan, as the JW's would agree, is the ruler of this planet. Just ask Jesus, the one Satan offered rulership of his Kingdom to, and you'll find the answer. If this were not Satan's world to rule, Jesus would have laughed at Satan's tempting offer and told him he cannot give away what is not his.
Earlier, Satan visits God and tricks God into allowing him to abuse Lot. Father of lies you say? More like Father. The great deceiver is God, for he lied to Adam and Eve while the serpant told them the truth. They did not die after eating from that tree.
Well, I must go for now because this is not on topic but it was fun.
Posted by Lucem ferre at 07/12/2007 @ 1:02pm
Posted by WOLFGANG1 07/12/2007 @ 11:57am
Thanks, Dr Db is fine.
Posted by MASK 07/12/2007 @ 12:58pm
Just painting them with the same broad brush they use to accuse us of being socialists and communists.
Sauce for the goose and all that.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/12/2007 @ 1:08pm
I think some people get freedom fighters mixed up with terrorists. all those fighting in defense or to free themselves are freedom fighters, but those killing for causes unrelated to freedom or liberty are terrorists. America was not fighting in Iraq for it's freedom. That war was in Afghanastan. Now that it's moved to Iraq is not relevant. We attacked a country that was not harming us in any way and now we've accepted a safe zone where the true enemies hide without fear we will kill them. there is something very wrong with this picture. Republican lies are going to get us all killed by freedom fighters who are trying to get free from our rule.
Posted by Lucem ferre at 07/12/2007 @ 1:08pm
I don't like Terry or Operation: Rescue either....but your "religious nuts are all terrorists" comments sound an AWFUL lot like the RIO BRAVO/BARRY guys who say "all Muslims are terrorists"!
Posted by MASK MASK, Religious nuts who think that killing people working at Planned Parenthoods via snipers and bombs and threatening patients using those types of facilities and the like are indeed terrorists. What else would you call it. If someone did that outside a Church, they would be arrested on the spot. And, by W's own take, if you fund that sort of thing, you are an accesorry to the crime. I don't think all religious people are terrorists and never said they were, I think people who wish to see other people die or be hurt because of their beliefs are. If a person thinks, well that doctor deserved to be killed because he performed an abortion, that person is right on the border of having the terrorist mentality if not already there. That person just may or may not have the guts to carry their twisted thinking out is all.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/12/2007 @ 1:10pm
Just painting them with the same broad brush they use to accuse us of being socialists and communists.
Sauce for the goose and all that.
Posted by DR DECIBELS 07/12/2007 @ 1:08pm
So, you've basically put yourself on the same level with them?
Posted by Mask at 07/12/2007 @ 1:43pm
Posted by WOLFGANG1 07/12/2007 @ 1:10pm
Okay, here's the dangerous ground you're treading.
Not all the Operation: Rescue guys are like that. In fact, you may call in "disengenuousness", but they atleast SAY they oppose violence like that.
And while I think they're wrong and fighting a losing battle, OR doesn't engage in violent behavior.
Politics aside, they operate with just as much "terrorism" as a group that supports Palestinian rights, with even "hints" at desiring the destruction of Israel. Not all of those groups are "terrorists", though YES they may secretly or not-so-secretly nod approvingly at the actions of Hamas or Hezbollah.
But what has been the reaction of the Left (and those of us civil libertarians) to using the FBI and NSA to spy on those groups?
Or to paint ALL Muslims with a suspicious brush?
If they advocate violence...watch them. If they incite violence...prosecute them under RICO. If they ENGAGE in violence...slam down on them.
But you tread dangerous ground in stereotyping political opponents with tenuous "links" to terrorists (like McVeigh or Rudolph)...
ground firmly occupied by many on the RIGHT these days!
Posted by Mask at 07/12/2007 @ 1:51pm
Posted by MASK 07/12/2007 @ 1:43pm
Fighting fire with fire. If they only understand a 2x4 upside the head, then that is what they get.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/12/2007 @ 2:40pm
I've escorted patients at a clinic before - all anti-choice terrorists are scum.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/12/2007 @ 2:41pm
Bu then we were talking about the hypocrisy of the Family Values guys out whoring around hiring out pro's for their kinky habits that their wives won't satisfy all the while railing about the decline in Morals, weren't we?
Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/12/2007 @ 2:47pm
But you tread dangerous ground in stereotyping political opponents with tenuous "links" to terrorists (like McVeigh or Rudolph)...
ground firmly occupied by many on the RIGHT these days!
Posted by MASK 07/12/2007 MASK, You jump to the defense of people on the right who are a step away from assaulting people going into a Planned Parenthood. I thought this was supposed to be a free country, that is, free to chose your own private medical care without the interference of whacked out morons. These people will do whatever they can to undermine the safe care of women who wish to make a choice for themselves. At best you could call them control freaks, but then again, the Taliban are just control freaks too right. They think they should control what people listen to, how many times a day one must pray etc. I don't see too much of a difference between them and these family values folks. This isn't some trivial issue here. Don't let those bastards off the hook so easy. Like I said, they get started talking together, and get all fired up, and that is how you end up with a McVeigh or Rudolph. It's kind of a mob mentality. They feed off each other and one tries to out do the other to prove they are more Godly than the next. I think that is how this type of thing escalates into terrorist activity.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/12/2007 @ 4:44pm
MASK, You jump to the defense of people on the right who are a step away from assaulting people going into a Planned Parenthood. ----Posted by WOLFGANG1 07/12/2007 @ 4:44pm
Sorry, WOLF, but that's the way the legal system works. You can't "go after" someone for what you THINK they might do.
Again, that's the same leap as saying that an American Muslim protesting at the Israeli Embassy with a sign saying "Death To Israel" MUST be "a terrorist who will set off a bomb any minute now!"
You can dislike, even hate (as I do) the tactics of the Ops: Rescue guys, but until they do something ILLEGAL you cannot call them "criminals"...nor LABEL them "criminals" (or "terrorists") simply for what they SAY.
America is tough, advanced citizenship (to paraphrase "The American President")...and though a man may be spouting hate, and you may hate what he says...he has the right to say it and not incur unreasonable suspicion.
Once you decide that YOU (or a group of your friends) are going to decide who is and isn't a "terrorist" or even "potential terrorists"...based on their beliefs....you're no better than some idiot like Ann Coulter.
Posted by Mask at 07/12/2007 @ 10:28pm
Once you decide that YOU (or a group of your friends) are going to decide who is and isn't a "terrorist" or even "potential terrorists"...based on their beliefs....you're no better than some idiot like Ann Coulter.
Posted by MASK MASK, I believe we are pretty much on the same page here. All I am saying is that these people show a terrorist mentality. I didn't say they had committed acts of terrorism. I am in complete agreement that you just can't label someone because you don't like them and arrest them. What I am saying is that the people escalate their dislike of abortion by getting in peoples' faces going into abortion clinics which is also illegal. People have the right to their opinion, but they don't have the right to harass and intimidate others trying to go to a clinic. Once they do that, and I'm still not labeling them a terrorist here, but then the authorities should keep a close eye on them. I believe the term is equal protection under the law, and that means that people using Planned Parenthoods have the right to go there without intimidation and harassment.That, I believe is pretty much the same thing you said right?
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/13/2007 @ 07:24am
This is a test to see how this works.
Question: what is with the treatise-length posts that ramble on for paragraph after paragraph reprinting (without permission) other blogs that we could easily reference with a link?
Posted by Cannonball at 07/13/2007 @ 09:53am
You can't "go after" someone for what you THINK they might do. - MASK
Dah, gee Rocky, you mean like attacking a foreign country because they MIGHT pose a threat to us? Sort of like, uh, lets see,....
IRAQ?
Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/13/2007 @ 11:52am
There once was a senator named Vitter, On eBay he was Jeff Gannon's high-bidder, A diaper he wore, And crawled on the floor, And hired Karla Rove as baby-sitter.
Posted by ChicagoKid at 07/13/2007 @ 12:00pm
The senator's wife Wendy Vitter, Her loins were all set a twitter, His small nob she saw it, And went all Larena Bobbit, And shoved it all into her clitter.
Posted by ChicagoKid at 07/13/2007 @ 12:01pm
ChicagoKid - thanks man, that was funny!
Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/13/2007 @ 3:53pm
This bunch of 'Family Value, Law and Order, Oval Office Honor Restoration, Stay the Course, Torture is OK' Republicans, who choose to look upon government as their private domain, and do with it as they please, need to be taken over the knee on the nearest adult..... and spanked.
Posted by L Nordby at 07/13/2007 @ 5:48pm
This bunch of 'Family Value, Law and Order, Oval Office Honor Restoration, Stay the Course, Torture is OK' Republicans, who choose to look upon government as their private domain, and do with it as they please, need to be taken over the knee on the nearest adult..... and spanked.
Posted by L Nordby at 07/13/2007 @ 5:51pm
hey happy, I think I know why you hamsters are such pervs. You teach yours kids to be smut ho's on the internet.
then you get older
Posted by Will C. at 07/13/2007 @ 11:28pm
Bush and Cheney have created a presidency that is above the rule of law. Whether they abduct and torture in secret prisons, record americans private communications without a warrant, or refuse to co-operate and proactively obstruct congress' constitutional obligation to provide executive oversight, the only way to curtail this unconstitional executive power is to impeach.
Join me in calling for impeachment hearings for Bush and Cheney.
Impeachment is not a constitutional crises, Impeachment is the cure for a constitutional crises.
It's time Pelosi recognized her first obligation is to the constitution not the election prospects of the Democratic party.
Posted by NeilSagan at 07/15/2007 @ 8:04pm
House Members are backing impeachment for a number of reasons, including anger with Cheney's involvement with manipulations of intelligence regarding Iraq, illegal spying on Americans and the promotion of torture, as well his recent attempt to avoid scrutiny by claiming that the Office of the Vice President was not part of the executive branch. And then there was President Bush's decision to commute the 30-month prison sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's former chief of staff and co-conspirator in moves to punish former Ambassador Joe Wilson for exposing the deceptions that led to war.
The founders were very clear about the fact that abuses of the presidential authority to pardon or otherwise lift the burden of the law from subordinates was an impeachable offense. And a number of House members who take constitutional matters seriously have spoken up for impeachment since the commutation of Libby's sentence.
Cheney's Actions Put Impeachment on the Table [thenation.com]
Posted by NeilSagan at 07/15/2007 @ 8:19pm
I have news for you folks. Bush is ‘The Leaker'.
In the Name of Brutus
Dames and Gents,
In times unprecedented and tinged with despair, it is appropriate to reflect on the founding of our great nation. It was not with George Washington, but with Brutus, and not the one who killed Caeser. There was another who rebelled against the tyrant monarchy of Rome, The Tarquins. He wrote the Roman Constitution that would stand for 500 years. His sons sided with the monarchy. The monarchy lost. So to punish his sons and found a perfect union, he immolated his own sons. Machiavelli speaks fluently and voluminoulsy and voiciferously on this subject, in ‘The Discourses', and yet is proved wrong on several counts by the miracle of America. He says that a nation founded in servitude, as America was a colony, will never win its freedom. He also says that a nation founded on fertile soil that is easily defended, will in time loose all of its freedoms because it will become, eventually, inevitably, sloth and sated, and will forget to protect them. As regards 'The DC Madam', I am personally involved. You can view my involvement at http://www.maytheygetwhattheydeserve.com/KAT.html Sometimes a mouse will lead you to a kat, and a kat can lead you to a rat and a rat, ironically, can lead you to the truth. And the truth, as they say, and as it is written, will set you free. May all those who sincerely and patiently wait for freedom be free and may all those who desire to steal those freedoms find instead the dire consequences that accompany contempt for a great man like Brutus.
As regards Machiavelli, eram sapiens tamen nefas And again, vox vocis publicus est vox vocis deus
May The Republic stand forever and bring the Glory Of The World, with Dignity, into Its Treasury.
Purple
Posted by Lord Purple at 07/16/2007 @ 4:32pm