Emperor Bush--As God, Mysterious and Omniscient

After a week in which Osama bin Laden offered truce terms and Bush decided that Iran is not such an evil axis that the UN can't peacefully curb its nuclear ambitions, I thought I'd take a stab at an unorthodox diplomatic solution to the "surveillance issue." Here's the deal: I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

I'm happy to let Dick Cheney analyze my Google records and discover that my most frequently searched terms are "Brad," "Angelina," and "baby," if the NSA will data-mine his computer for the keywords: "Joseph," "Wilson," and "wife." The White House can eavesdrop on my cell phone calls to my daughter, if it gives a detailed accounting of its dealings with Jack Abramoff. I don't even mind if George Bush learns the title of the last book I checked out of the library, if the FBI will tell me when the last time W. was in a library.

If NSA spying were really an issue of security, as the all-out media assault by the Bush administration claims it to be, it should accept the deal. But it's not. Rather this is all part of their neocon dream of an American Empire. You see, in a republic the lives of private citizens are private while the workings of public servants are public, but in an empire, Caesar's dealings remains shrouded in secrecy while he spies on citizens looking for threats to the regime. It is up to the Congress to put a stop to this idolatry: the emperor as God, mysterious and omniscient.

Comments (284)

1. it's odd when you think about it: this white house is soooo concerned about protecting us from "the terrorists," while in the run-up to 9/11 they apparenly ignored with impunity all warnings of the impending calamity. now, if only they'd had their program of spying on citizens' communications in place before 9/11, they'd have nipped the plot in the bud -- or so we're told. in defense of the indefensible, alberto gonzales tries to implicate every president going back to george washington in spying on citizens, neglecting to mention that when congress proposed writing "reasonable suspicion" into domestic surveillance law, the administration demurred, calling such a move unnecssary and constitutionally deficient. there's something going on here, and it has little to do with the bearded one in his wazuristan cave. just don't expect our leaders to call it by its real name.

   Posted by wpahnelas at 01/25/2006 @ 12:30pm

2. They had all the information they could reasonably expect, and they did exactly nothing with it! Bush and the NSA can do all the spying they want within the law. It gets more and more apparent that this administration is doing everything in its power to flaunt its almost absolute power - ignore standing legislation and the Constitution; appoint unqualified (and that's being generous) people to extremely important government positions in scope and breadth unlike anything seen up to now; nominate jurists who are out of the mainstream of American life; ad nauseum.

   The only thing worse than this is the Democrats' refusal to do anything more than throw spitballs at the juggernaut.

   Posted by Turk33 at 01/25/2006 @ 12:52pm

3. Ms vanden Heuval Googles about movie stars and their pregnancies?

   Guess she's being sarcastic....hmmm...maybe not.

   Politically, this is a loser for Democrats. That arch-villian Dick Morris (who helped get Bill re-elected, BTW) has said as much. Every time the Democrats fight on the Republicans' "national security" field of play, they lose.

   Gallup's latest shows that the public is behind the "White House's version" of what "NSA-Spygate" is about, and few liberals have been able to change that perception of the events. And so, you see most mainstream Democrats shying away from the issue, preferring to concentrate on "Abramoff-gate" and "culture of corruption".

   Posted by Mask at 01/25/2006 @ 12:53pm

4. Perfect. Bulls-eye!

   Let's not confuse the democratic ideal with the practice of previous administrations, including Democrats. Lots of people try to deflect this criticism by switching the debate to what FDR or JFK or Clinton did. That's simply not relevant. We should strive for an ideal democracy regardless of what this or that president did.

   Public business should be public. Private citizens should be private. In both cases, we have courts to find exceptions, which should be explained clearly.

   I keep feeling more and more like I've found myself within the pages of Orwell's 1984 -- just a couple of decades late.

   It's definitely time to stop watching our democracy evaporate (even boil away these days) and do something.

   Posted by adr at 01/25/2006 @ 12:58pm

5. I'd be happy to see one, just one, real instance of all this aggression and skullduggery resulting in an act of terrorism prevented. It would clear everything up, wouldn't it. We sleptics would be exposed as emotional cowards and America could feel secure with its modern conservative government.

   But even with that savory prize, such proof never comes. Because the real agenda is to keep the ideological pots boiling while slowly privatizing the Department of Defense and completing the transformation of our system from a democracy to a monarchy, where only the opinions of nobility are respected, and only the wealthy can ever achieve power.

   Terrorism, schmerrorism. They've got bigger fish to fry.

   Posted by MyParadigm at 01/25/2006 @ 1:05pm

6. "Politically, this is a loser for Democrats." -- Posted by MASK 01/25/2006 @ 12:53am

   There's much more at stake than parties here. Even if you're right, which is uncertain, the issue must be raised if we are to remain free.

   Destroying our system from within to defend it from threats from without is just not acceptable.

   I believe that polls are generally poor indicators because they depend on what people hear from mostly controlled and biased media and depend on how the questions are asked. Just tell the people that everything they've learned in school about our country is being subverted by a group in power that values their power above our freedom and liberty.

   Yes, Democrats are tending toward corruption as an issue. That doesn't make them right. Anyway, not all are so doing.

   Posted by adr at 01/25/2006 @ 1:06pm

7. For once I agree with Katrina. This president is starting to make Nixon look like Jimmy Carter. At least Tricky Dick KNEW what he was doing was illegal, hence the effort to cover it all up.

   The next time I talk to my 21 year old Pakistani friend from Karachi on AIM, I'll have to excuse myself momentarily and type "UP YOURS TO ANYONE LISTENING!" then return to my conversation. How I'll explain that to her I havn't figured out yet.

   Chip

   Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/25/2006 @ 1:07pm

8. Here is one question I would like Alberto Gonzalez or the Administration to answer:

   Say a call comes in from overseas to a US citizen, and the NSA taps the call without a warrant. That US citizen then hangs up the phone, and calls another US citizen. Does the NSA stay on the trail (an illegal act), or does FISA take over? Can this administration claim they are moving back and forth between the two? Can they prove it?

   Posted by Duchamp at 01/25/2006 @ 1:19pm

9. Politically, this is a loser for Democrats. That arch-villian Dick Morris (who helped get Bill re-elected, BTW) has said as much. Every time the Democrats fight on the Republicans' "national security" field of play, they lose.

   Gallup's latest shows that the public is behind the "White House's version" of what "NSA-Spygate" is about, and few liberals have been able to change that perception of the events. Posted by MASK 01/25/2006 @ 12:53am

   Your information is out of date. The most recent Gallup Poll was taken 1/20 to 1/22

   "Do you think the Bush Administration was right or wrong in wiretapping these conversations without obtaining a court order?" N=506, MoE ± 5 The numbers were Right, 46%; Wrong, 51%; Not sure, 3% That's down from 50/46/4 in the poll taken 1/6-8

   "Do you think a special prosecutor should or should not be appointed to investigate this matter?" N=500, MoE ± 5 This question wasn't asked in the 1/6-8 poll but was asked in this one. It broke down as Should, 58%; Should Not, 39%; Not Sure, 2% http://www.pollingreport.com/terror.htm

   Posted by brunowe at 01/25/2006 @ 1:20pm

10. Posted by ADR 01/25/2006 @ 1:06pm |

    I'm not saying "Don't raise the issue"....but the feeling seems to be that this will be useful in the November midterms; it won't.

    Once Democrats are back in power, the REALLY interesting part of this, will come into play. Will they (and even some critics like Ms vanden Heuval) be as "concerned" about what the NSA does...when THEIR SIDE is in charge?

    Posted by Mask at 01/25/2006 @ 1:20pm

11. "Say a call comes in from overseas to a US citizen, and the NSA taps the call without a warrant. That US citizen then hangs up the phone, and calls another US citizen. Does the NSA stay on the trail (an illegal act), or does FISA take over? Can this administration claim they are moving back and forth between the two? Can they prove it?"

    If the call comes to an Al queda suspect, then I hope they follow it, tape it and go get the bastard.

    If they are listen to the drivle from Katrina and her daughter, then the agents should be made to listen to it 24 hours a day for 3 years straight for wasting time and resources better spent on the dangers of real al queda people here, talking over seas or in our own country.

    Posted by john maasch at 01/25/2006 @ 1:28pm

12. well, keep pounding the issue. the only polls that will really matter are the results of the upcoming congressional elections, anyway.

    good points katrina. as i've said before, what is this war on terrorism to be? the hundred years world war 3? so we must expect our government to eavesdrop upon us until no one ever wants to harm us while acting like arrogant assholes and ticking everyone off? as long as there is danger in the world we must accept the erosion of privacy?

    what a pathetic pack of cowards we have become. the first century and a quarter of our history the united states was in a continuous state of war with native american tribes. people on the frontier were in near constant danger. they dealt with it, without saying "oh well, perhaps we should give up some rights in exchange for safety"

    the funny thing is that apparantly all the bushies needed to do was get permission from the court in charge to authorize such wiretappings. the fact that they did not COULD indicate a form of natural human sloth, or it COULD indicate something truly sinister. but, of course in 'secrecy nation" we the people who fund this crap have NO RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING...for our own good...because we who fund this cannot be trusted...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/25/2006 @ 1:29pm

13. Posted by BRUNOWE 01/25/2006 @ 1:20pm

    I'll accept your numbers as more current, but still no overwhelming figures. 46-51%? Still not a mass movement to claim that we are in "peril from Big Brother". And again, the Administration is out in force today, pushing its version of events.

    If it had "festered" for a while, with no WH response, you might have seen those numbers go even higher. But as I said, when the argument gets put out there that "Democrats are worried about the rights of terrorist suspects...while the President is doing everything he can to protect the American people"...the Dems lose.

    Corruption?...a probable winning issue. Katrina the Hurricane?...maybe. But if the Democrats try to talk civil rights and the Administration points to an incident where Mister "Muhammed ibn-Muhammed" of Detroit's phone call to Damascus the night before a troop transport leaves for Baghdad, wouldn't have been intercepted....they'll get stomped in November.

    Yes, yes...I know...it's about "warrentless searches, not legal ones under FISA". But I'm telling you about the PERCEPTION...and in politics, perception is reality.

    Posted by Mask at 01/25/2006 @ 1:29pm

14. The interesting thing about the polling results is that, when taking the margin of error (MOE) into account, the results are even about the rightness of it but a definite majority favors a special prosecutor.

    As opposed to it being a loser--The Gallup polls show that 69% were following it Very Closely/Somewhat Closely while 29% Not Too Closely or Not At All (The split in the 1/8-10 poll was 75%/25%) The MOE was 3%.

    I might also mention the ABCNews/WaPo poll of 1/5-8. "According to recent news reports, the National Security Agency has been investigating people suspected of involvement with terrorism by secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading e-mails between some people in the United States and other countries, without first getting court approval to do so. How closely have you been following this story: very closely, somewhat closely, not too closely or not closely at all?" 66% Very Closely/Somewhat Closely vs. 34% Not Too Closely/Not At All

    "Would you consider this wiretapping of telephone calls and e-mails without court approval as an acceptable or unacceptable way for the federal government to investigate terrorism?" Acceptable--51%/Unacceptable 47% MOE for both questions was 3%.

    This suggests that the most of the public is interested in this issue and is evenly split on the merits.

    Posted by brunowe at 01/25/2006 @ 1:31pm

15. Mask, I do agree that corruption is a stronger issue, but I think much of the visibility of the wiretapping issue will depend on how much impact the WHouse makes and on the visibility of any hearings.

    Posted by brunowe at 01/25/2006 @ 1:32pm

16. Yes, yes...I know...it's about "warrentless searches, not legal ones under FISA". But I'm telling you about the PERCEPTION...and in politics, perception is reality.

    Posted by MASK 01/25/2006 @ 1:29pm | ignore this person

    yup.

    no one said this would be easy. the game is slanted no doubt.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/25/2006 @ 1:39pm

17. Katrina has once again demonstrated her complete lack of understand ing of the NSA situation. In today's world, satellite transmissions are used to reach location not connected with fiber optic or other cable. Satellites transmit on global beams to approximately 1/3 of the earth and can be listened to by anybody. If you make an international call, there is NO expectation of privacy because you have just put your voice on the radio to 1/3 of the world. In the world of IP packets, your voice is packetized and sent on a cable and can be listened to by anybody with access to the cable. This included every telephone company and intelligence organization in the world. You have failed to grasp the concept of " domestic" wiretapping ,which has not been done, and foreign monitoring of satellite radio transmissions which are broadcast to everybody with an antenna. As I am sure you understand, there is no requirement for the military to get a warrant to monitor satellite transmissions overseas even if a US citizen is calling. It is really frustrating to see this utter nonsense being written about when, if you understood the facts, you would know that this program does not violate the rights of anybody.

    Byron Allen CEO Novolink Communications, an international carrier

    Posted by byron allen at 01/25/2006 @ 1:55pm

18. Poll by Zogby, 01/17/06

    Q. "If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."

    A. 52% yes, 42% no

    Posted by butterfly at 01/25/2006 @ 2:00pm

19. Mask,

    I have to wonder if you're hearing the stampede of the hooves. Today you are saying "Gee Democrats you should get off this wire tapping thing and focus on something you can win, like say, the Ambramoff scandal".

    However, when the Ambramoff issue was front and center you advised Democrats to stay away from that because Harry Reid was "tainted" (your opinion which I veheemently argued against).

    Is it fair to say that you don't want Democrats to focus on anything that Republicans have screwed up?

    Posted by freedomplease at 01/25/2006 @ 2:08pm

20. Byron Allen,

    You are telling me that I have no right to, or expectation of privacy if the number I am calling starts with 011?

    Posted by freedomplease at 01/25/2006 @ 2:11pm

21. TO Freedom Please,

    You are 100% correct, when you dial 011, you better understand that there is no privacy.. When you send out an international call, your voice is transmitted on either a fiber cable as a packet or on a satellite. In either case, your voice can be monitored by anybody on the cable or by anybody with a satellite antenna. The transmission from a satellite, as from Iaq or Pakistan or Afganistan, is sent just like your direct TV. It is a blanket broadcast to EVERYBODY, and , the receiver selects which transmission it decodes by frequency. The important part is that , just like Direct TV, you send your voice out to everybody listening, which is probably hundreds of earth stations.

    Posted by byron allen at 01/25/2006 @ 2:17pm

22. Freedom,

    Byron is correct and that was agreed to in a C-Span broadcast I watched yesterday by David Cole, the Georgetown law professer that many on the left here are proud to quote.

    Satellite transmissions from overseas and overseas phone calls to the US do not fall under FISA (according the Mr. Cole who is anti-Bush) and do not require a warrant.

    Posted by love liberty at 01/25/2006 @ 2:20pm

23. Freedom:

    I hope you now understand why the people in our business view this entire NSA debate as absurd given how today's technology actually works.

    Posted by byron allen at 01/25/2006 @ 2:24pm

24. Byron Allen,

    What you seem to be telling me is that all international calls from all originations to all destinations are open to eavesdropping by literally hundreds of individuals and companies.

    Therefore, I have to now wonder why the President of the United States talks to anyone outside of the USA by phone?

    How does the Pentagon communicate with its overseas generals and so on?

    Posted by freedomplease at 01/25/2006 @ 2:30pm

25. Freedom,

    there is such a thing as encyption with complex keys which in effect " scramble" the transmission. This is necesary because, if you transmit, as I indicated , everybody will listen. The President and the military use encrypted or secure communications system. This is like talking in Navajo code if you ever saw the movie. Your phone company does not use secure communications.

    Posted by byron allen at 01/25/2006 @ 2:38pm

26. I find interesting the fact that the liberal minded posts discuss our constitutional rights, and the conservative posts (MASK) view this issue simply as a political game. Is this right, or not? Is this dangerous to the very fabric of what America has been about for over 200 years? Those questions don't even make it onto the radar screen of MASK. The only thing that's important to MASK is the neocons are gonna win by selling this issue the same way Ford sells SUVs, power and security! The only problem for MASK is that, aside from being dangerously narrow-minded, the last time I checked americans aren't buying too many Ford SUVs these days. Likewise they aren't buying the neocon sales pitch either!

    Posted by scatzer at 01/25/2006 @ 2:46pm

27. "Once Democrats are back in power..." -- Posted by MASK 01/25/2006 @ 1:20pm

    Unless the neo-cons have their way, the pendulum will swing and the Dems will return to office. Will they immediately fix all of these problems? We've had plenty of problems getting politicians of either party (in numbers, that is -- not talking about a few, rare individuals) to change the election laws to make elections fairer and more democratic. Of course, that's because it would make re-election more difficult.

    So, I hope that there's a big backlash that will force them to fix things and not leave lots of loopholes. Although not sanguine, I can hope.

    Posted by adr at 01/25/2006 @ 2:47pm

28. Free/Byron, lets get back to the USA. Domestic wiretapping requires a warrant. If it is shown that the WH assigned/asked/allowed/gave permission to the NSA to do warrantless tapping on 'domestic' private calls, email, mail,...etc.-- not international calls-- it's a crime, no?

    Posted by Bushfools at 01/25/2006 @ 2:47pm

29. Posted by BUTTERFLY 01/25/2006 @ 2:00pm

    BUTTERS, who sponserd the Zogby poll?

    Posted by Mask at 01/25/2006 @ 2:49pm

30. Is it fair to say that you don't want Democrats to focus on anything that Republicans have screwed up?

    Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 01/25/2006 @ 2:08pm

    Nope, focus on lobbying/corruption....but better make sure the Dem side is COMPLETELY clean, or clean it out now, before trying to make it an issue. Or....focus on runaway spending...but...Drat!...Dems can't focus on that, because they wouldn't cut anything and their "repeal tax cuts for the top 1%" doesn't cover the amount of "vital, needed" spending they promise.

    They could focus on Iraq...if they could figure out if Jack Murtha or Hillary Clinton is their "leader" on the issue.

    They could focus on Katrina the Hurricane...if it played outside of Louisiana and Mississippi.

    Posted by Mask at 01/25/2006 @ 2:52pm

31. Byron,

    I am clearly out of my element. Is it possible to de-encrtypt these encrypted calls?

    If so, how are world leaders protected and if not how do terrorists phones get "wire tapped" given that these encryption devices seem pretty ubiquitous (quick search on Google)?

    Posted by freedomplease at 01/25/2006 @ 2:53pm

32. MARY,

    Meanwhile, if you check the UN statistic, you will find that on infant mortality, the US is on the 43rd place. Last time I checked, the infant mortality rate in the US was worse than in Cuba, not to mention most of Europe.

    Posted by vvvenus at 01/25/2006 @ 2:54pm

33. Dear Bush:

    If there is a domestic tap or phone connection without a warrant it is a crime. There is no question about it. You will find that this NEVER happened. The " domestic" spying discussion is anything but domestic and therefore an absurd discussion. So far as emails, I am not sure because I know that in our company, any email you write on a company computer is not private. Most government entities and companies views emails as public data. I think that international emails are wide open and can easily be intercepted by anybody. Clearly, no warrant it required to intercept emails outside of the US just as no FISA court has juristiction over monitoring of satellite transmissions outside of the US.

    Posted by byron allen at 01/25/2006 @ 2:55pm

34. Posted by SCATZER 01/25/2006 @ 2:46pm | ignore this person

    Odd isn't it?...How if a weatherman forecasts a tornado, that people rarely accuse him of "supporting tornadoes"?

    My point wasn't on the legality of the Bush NSA spying...that's pretty dubious, thought not "air tight". But I think if you check, that even Ms vanden Heuval expects some POLITICAL gain out of this issue, as she and "The Nation" staff do about "Abramoff-gate".

    Now...is it that they are "only concerned with stopping corruption"...or that they'd like to see that corruption return to power people who share their ideology AS WELL?

    and once again, for the "new kids"...I voted for Kerry.

    Posted by Mask at 01/25/2006 @ 2:56pm

35. "Democrats can win control of Congress by actively opposing the Islamic terrorists and their state sponsors." (Ed Koch is the former Mayor of New York City.) -- Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/25/2006 @ 1:50pm

    What the??!!

    Who doesn't oppose terrorists, except the terrorists themselves?

    Of course, you have to define "terrorist" and "oppose."

    Bombing the Madrid trains, London buses, NYC WTC are all pretty obviously terrorist actions. I certainly support all reasonable efforts to root out and bring these people to justice. What's a reasonable effort? Well, nuking Pakistan or Afghanistan wouldn't be. I'll leave the definition to others with the proviso that the cure must not be worse than the disease.

    Here is one important caveat. We must not wreck our society because of terrorist threats. Then, the terrorists win without another direct U.S. attack.

    Posted by adr at 01/25/2006 @ 2:59pm

36. Bushfools,

    I spend all day, every day on international business calls. I have a personal interest.

    Mask,

    How can the Democrats make sure they are free and clear when even intelligent people like yourself persist in muddying the waters to the degree that you even include Harry Reid's activities with regards to Ambramoff in the same breath as the type of activity that Delay and Ney were involved in?

    Strategically wouldn't it better to carry on the attack on Republican's from the wire tapping angle and then if the Republican's counter attack or start to "win" then hit the wounded puppy square between the eyes with Ambramoffgate?

    Posted by freedomplease at 01/25/2006 @ 2:59pm

37. "Do you think the Bush Administration was right or wrong in wiretapping these conversations without obtaining a court order?" N=506, MoE ± 5 (Form A)

    _________________Right _______Wrong _________Unsure    

    1/20-22/06 _________46__________ 51 _____________3

    1/6-8/06 ___________50__________ 46_____________ 4

    If 'right' moves down 4 points and 'wrong' moves up 5 points, isn't that considered a '9' point swing in less than 2 weeks? I guess we need to look in another two weeks to see if it's 40/60 to be witnessing a trend. Not too long to wait if they keep putting out the poll at this pace.

    Posted by Bushfools at 01/25/2006 @ 3:00pm

38. BUTTERS, who sponserd the Zogby poll?

    They are independent and nonpartisan. John Zogby is a Democrat, but the firm does a lot of work for media (like Reuters America, New York Post, St. Louis Post Dispatch, etc.) and they work for both parties. They become partisan only when there polls do not agree with the trolls who frequent the Nation.

    Posted by butterfly at 01/25/2006 @ 3:01pm

39. Freedom,

    in order to de-encrypt, you have to know the "key" Many systems change the key frequently and therefore de-encrypting is extremely difficult. Have you seen the new bank bank wire transfer code devices which change the key every 60 seconds? This is really secure. If the terrorists are using some secure communications system to communicate, then the NSA must break the code just like the military people have done in the past. Did you ever see the movie " Midway"? If the terrorists are using a cell phone or land line to call the US, then it is wide open to intercept because there is no secret encryption.

    Posted by byron allen at 01/25/2006 @ 3:02pm

40. Mask -

    If you are a Democrat, or at least one that votes so, as you claim - perhaps a little less sniping at their failings and a little more support where it is due.

    The President of the United States is directly involved in impeachable offenses and when caught twists and strains the rule of law to bend it to what he sees fit, and only his interpretation is allowed otherwise we are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Nice work, if you can make it wash, and mostly they have.

    Why, because the sheeple, aren't paying attention. Why? Why? Why?

    Why do we expect so little of this Administration. Why are we willing to accept this. I am agog. AGOG..IN YOUR TERMS.

    Please some one ungog me.

    Posted by audiojoebob at 01/25/2006 @ 3:03pm

41. "46-51%? Still not a mass movement to claim that we are in "peril from Big Brother"."

    How many wingers have we heard or read that considered 51% (in a national election) to be a mandate?

    Fully half the country believes that the administration has broken the law, and needs to be investigated.

    My perception is that that is hugely fucked up.

    Posted by drhammer at 01/25/2006 @ 3:04pm

42. Posted by BUTTERFLY 01/25/2006 @ 3:01pm | ignore this person

    I'll try again....BUTTERS, who sponsered the Zogby poll?

    Posted by Mask at 01/25/2006 @ 3:04pm

43. Here is one important caveat. We must not wreck our society because of terrorist threats. Then, the terrorists win without another direct U.S. attack.

    Well said!!!

    Posted by butterfly at 01/25/2006 @ 3:05pm

44. "...they'd like to see that corruption return to power people who share their ideology AS WELL?" -- Posted by MASK 01/25/2006 @ 2:56pm

    Too many might fall into that trap. Any corruption steals from the poor and powerless majority. You shouldn't care what label it wears or what color (red or blue, etc.). It's why we must make elections fair and government activities as open as possible.

    I'd run for office if I thought I could, and my platform would be (1) serve for no more than four years and (2) do everything possible to open up the system and make elections more competitive. But, I can't reasonably expect to run without playing the money game, and I just refuse to do that.

    Posted by adr at 01/25/2006 @ 3:05pm

45. Strategically wouldn't it better to carry on the attack on Republican's from the wire tapping angle and then if the Republican's counter attack or start to "win" then hit the wounded puppy square between the eyes with Ambramoffgate?

    Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 01/25/2006 @ 2:59pm | ignore this person

    Nope...as I said, the "counter-attack" would be worse on the Dems. "See! See! Same ol' liberals, soft on crime, soft on terrorists...they want to give Osama's guys Miranda rights...while Pres. Bush wants to protect YOUR CHILDREN!!!"

    Jeez, I'm sure there are SOME of you guys out there who remember the "Swift Vets" and a guy named Karl Rove, who is STILL around and active.....am I stretching the "probable" here?

    Posted by Mask at 01/25/2006 @ 3:07pm

46. I'll try again....BUTTERS, who sponsered the Zogby poll?

    Tell me why this matters

    Posted by butterfly at 01/25/2006 @ 3:11pm

47. Posted by AUDIOJOEBOB 01/25/2006 @ 3:03pm | ignore this person

    AUDIO...if you want to see "sniping" at the Dems, read some of the posts here after a LOT of them (including Mr Nichols' beloved Russ Feingold) voted FOR John Roberts.

    And I'm not a Democrat, I voted for Kerry on judges and because I wanted a return to something similar to the "Clinton-post-94" years.

    BTW, everytime a liberal uses the term "sheeple"...it merely reinforces the old idea that the Left thinks that the American people are stupid, because they don't vote the way the liberals want.....and oddly, calling people stupid...doesn't win elections.

    Posted by Mask at 01/25/2006 @ 3:11pm

48. "Why, because the sheeple, aren't paying attention. Why? Why? Why?" -- Posted by AUDIOJOEBOB 01/25/2006 @ 3:03pm

    So true and trumps the party stuff you mentioned. Although the problems are deeply seated in the current run of Repubs, they are not unique to that party.

    We have to oppose the current run of power people because they've gone so far and show no indication of stopping. Then, we must reform the whole system so neither party can be hijacked again and used in an attempt to take over our country for personal gain.

    These are not contradictory ideas.

    Stop Bush. Reform the system.

    The former appears partisan. The latter depends on who's doing the interpreting. Appearances can be deceiving.

    Posted by adr at 01/25/2006 @ 3:12pm

49. Posted by BUTTERFLY 01/25/2006 @ 3:11pm | ignore this person

    Tell me why you won't...or can't answer. If you don't know, I'll be happy to tell you.

    Posted by Mask at 01/25/2006 @ 3:13pm

50. Freedom:

    go to http://www.intelsat.com/resources/coveragemaps.aspx and you can click on broadcast beam maps for communications satellites and you will immediately see what we have been discussing

    Posted by byron allen at 01/25/2006 @ 3:15pm

51. Byron,

    So how long have non encrypted calls been open game to all and sundry?

    And what is the point in having the Foreign Intelligence Surveilance Act if Joe Public can listen in on any call he wants?

    How come the Patriot Act didn't dispense with ALL government restrictions on warrantless wire taps of calls to and from non-USA countries? And the fact that it is still law still means the President / NSA broke the law regardless of whether a non government entity could have done it legally, doesn't it?

    Posted by freedomplease at 01/25/2006 @ 3:15pm

52. "...calling people stupid...doesn't win elections." -- Posted by MASK 01/25/2006 @ 3:11pm

    True enough. But lying to them does. If they swallow the lies, then they can hardly be considered as Einsteins. Both sides lie -- this isn't a partisan rant. If you want to win elections, you have to counter the lies without blaming those who swallow them for swallowing them. Some counter lies with lies; other with truth. Ah, politics!

    Posted by adr at 01/25/2006 @ 3:15pm

53. MASK,

    Again, what does it matter?

    Posted by butterfly at 01/25/2006 @ 3:16pm

54. drhamer,

    "Fully half the country believes that the administration has broken the law, and needs to be investigated. "

    Belief is not knowledge. Just because I believ you commited a crime and want you in jail doesn't mean you actually commited one. There is a process and apparently there is nothing to be investigated. Who has stepped forward to bring charges? The proud and honest left?

    If Bush is such a criminal, then why noit push the charges?

    Posted by john maasch at 01/25/2006 @ 3:21pm

55. BTW, impeachment can come AFTER the charges have been proven, tried, found guilty, and sentenced. Then impeachment. Why not? What am I missing? Facts? Charges?

    Posted by john maasch at 01/25/2006 @ 3:23pm

56. BYRON ALLEN, hello and thanks for joining in. There's more than enough ignorance to go around, as you know, and I'm sure you're helping a few readers elevate their game.

    My opinion that surveillance of the private communications of a nation's citizens by their own government needs to be heavily regulated remains unchanged. Technology moves fast, as you have pointed out. We need to make sure the law does not get too far behind.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 01/25/2006 @ 3:29pm

57. JM,

    Who knows if there is anything to be investigated?

    The Senate and House are both controlled by Republicans (which means that the Commitees are headed by Republicans and thus the agenda is set by Republicans) and they have so far refused to Investigate this matter despite Democratic members sending them hundreds of opinions from legal scholars that the matter should be investigated.

    The process is broken.

    Posted by freedomplease at 01/25/2006 @ 3:29pm

58. MBB Ed Koch endorsed Bush for re-election and supported the decision to go to war in Iraq (he's hardly on our side).

    Byron Allen The only problem with your argument is that the expectation of privacy is a legal term, not a technological one. The issue was defined in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). The key phrase is "What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected. (citations omitted)(emphasis added)

    "You are 100% correct, when you dial 011, you better understand that there is no privacy.. When you send out an international call, your voice is transmitted on either a fiber cable as a packet or on a satellite. In either case, your voice can be monitored by anybody on the cable or by anybody with a satellite antenna. The transmission from a satellite, as from Iaq or Pakistan or Afganistan, is sent just like your direct TV. It is a blanket broadcast to EVERYBODY, and , the receiver selects which transmission it decodes by frequency. The important part is that , just like Direct TV, you send your voice out to everybody listening, which is probably hundreds of earth stations."

    Unless you are arguing that everybody does hear you, the way they would hear a conversation made out in the street, the expectation is that the only party who is ACTUALLY listenting is the receiving party. When I make a O11 call, who, outside of the party actually receiving the call, is listening. Further, your statement that phone companies and intel agencies can listen suggests that some technological apparatus is needed to actually intercept the call. There is no less an expectation of privacy in such a case then if the government were using surveillance mikes to listen in on conversations inside the home (for example, by focusing on the window vibrations).

    Posted by brunowe at 01/25/2006 @ 3:31pm

59. JM,

    Sorry, after Democratic pressure the Senate is now hearing this issue. It took a while but the matter is finally getting to at least one of the two Houses of Congress.

    Posted by freedomplease at 01/25/2006 @ 3:34pm

60. "Clearly, no warrant it required to intercept emails outside of the US just as no FISA court has juristiction over monitoring of satellite transmissions outside of the US."

    Actually, the statue draws the line between communications to which a United States person is not a party and those where they are. The latter is covered by FISA.

    Posted by brunowe at 01/25/2006 @ 3:34pm

61. There is no requirement for the military to ask anybody for approval to intercept foreign communications when the intercept is done overseas. Listening in Pakistan or Iran or Iraq requires no FISA court. Your domestic calls are completely secured by your privacy rights, however, there has never ever been a right to privacy in a foreign country. Think about this: if the DEA legally wire taps a mafia person inside the US and you call the mafia, are you protected or is YOUR conversation recorded? What if the mafia calls you? What if the military has a absolutely legal intercept on a circuit in Pakistan and you call it or it calls you? Where does anybody get the idea that somehow a warrant is required just because you are a US Citizen?

    Posted by byron allen at 01/25/2006 @ 3:36pm

62. Byron,

    How does 'anyone' know if all it is is just 'international' calls being tapped? That 'is' the issue as there is no oversight which is required by the law. Seems the current administration were awfully quick to try and rename/package 'domestic' spying to 'terrorist' spying. One would think that they'd be 'eager' to jump all over the prove that there were no domestic spying rather than renaming it-- too much like a marketing scheme or a reverse bait and switch... They definitely make me feel like they have a lot to hide.

    Posted by Bushfools at 01/25/2006 @ 3:40pm

63. proof-- not prove

    Posted by Bushfools at 01/25/2006 @ 3:43pm

64. There is another SCOTUS case that I think although not totally on point, is relevant: KYLLO V. UNITED STATES, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) The police use thermal imaging to determine if a home that they believed was being used to grow marijuana plants had a particularly hot area (for the plants). That results were used to obtain a warrant. I quote from the syllabus of the opinion:

    "..the information obtained by the thermal imager in this case was the product of a search. The Court rejects the Government's argument that the thermal imaging must be upheld because it detected only heat radiating from the home's external surface. Such a mechanical interpretation of the Fourth Amendment was rejected in Katz, where the eavesdropping device in question picked up only sound waves that reached the exterior of the phone booth to which it was attached. Reversing that approach would leave the homeowner at the mercy of advancing technology–including imaging technology that could discern all human activity in the home."

    The standard appears to be that info which is not ascertainable to the sense but is obtained by technical means comes within the ambit of an "expectation of privacy" I don't see the difference between a thermal emanation from a home that can only be picked up with special equipment and a phone transmission that is the same.

    Having said that, I do want to thank you for the technical details. Even though I don't agree with your conclusions, I found them enlightening.

    Posted by brunowe at 01/25/2006 @ 3:43pm

65. Posted by BUTTERFLY 01/25/2006 @ 3:16pm | ignore this person

    I'm sorry, BUTTERS...shouldn't embaress you (if you're ignorant) or waste time (if you're dodging).

    It was "AfterDowningStreet.org".....now, do you know what the main "political goal" of "ADS.org" is?...or do you want to go another few rounds?

    Posted by Mask at 01/25/2006 @ 3:47pm

66. Brunowe,

    you are incorrect as the protocls used for transmission are G711, G723 or G729 all of which require no special equipment and are commercial equipment. I am in this business and when I call overseas, I KNOW hundreds of people are listening. I have ZERO expectation of privacy when I call. I suggest you consider that your international calls are just like a radio transmission.

    Posted by byron allen at 01/25/2006 @ 3:51pm

67. Posted by ADR 01/25/2006 @ 3:15pm | ignore this person

    As I'm sure any philosophy class will tell you, "the truth" can sometimes be elusive. "If they swallow the lies, then they can hardly be considered as Einsteins"? Again, maybe they're just not accepting YOUR "truth"...or maybe you're not "Einstein" enough to figure out a way to explain your "truth" that it sounds like it is Truth?

    Posted by Mask at 01/25/2006 @ 3:51pm

68. Byron,

    Your understanding of the technical aspects are enlightening, but you do not seem to understand the scope of FISA.

    The NSA DOES need to get a warrant for calls that involve USA citizens whether or not those calls are international. That is the law and only time will tell whether the law applies or does not apply because we are in a war.

    Posted by freedomplease at 01/25/2006 @ 3:53pm

69. My take on 9/11 is that Cheney instructed the intelligence agencies to drop everything and focus on finding a justification for war with Iraq. So when they received calls about Middle Easterns at flight schools, they let it go. Given that, is Bush (Cheney actually) strong on terrorism, or indirectly responsible for 9/11?

    What exactly has the Bush Administration accomplished to merit the characterization of strong on terrorism? They had Osama pinned in, and let him escape. Republicans are very good at staying on message. If one doesn't work, they just try another. Democrats need to improve in this area. The word "incompetent" should be a part of every sentence referring to the Bush Administration.

    On another note, does anyone else have an issue with all the Osama "audio tapes"? I think he's been dead for quite some time, and this is the same old crap, like raising the terror alert warning when Bush's poll numbers would drop.

    Posted by turquhart at 01/25/2006 @ 3:56pm

70. BUSHFOOLS:

    a good question. I expect that all of the NSA activities are reviewed by the Justice Department and that they have been approved. I think that the politicians are just completely out to lunch with this entire hoopla. They are assuming that the public is too stupid to understand what has happened is not only legal, but normal military activity for the past 70 years. If there is the first "Domestic" wire tap ( meaning physical connection to somebody's phone line in the US) without a warrant, then they should hang.

    Posted by byron allen at 01/25/2006 @ 3:58pm

71. Freedom:

    Am I to understand that the FISA court controls satellite intercepts in Pakistan? I am sure that the law controls interception of calls by US Citizens inside of the US. Ponder how would anybody get an approval to monitor some unkown person talking in Pakistan? I think that military intelligence gathering is normal and expected when it is done overseas.

    Please help me to understnad how the FISA law could possibly apply to Pakistan when half the world is listening.

    Posted by byron allen at 01/25/2006 @ 4:02pm

72. I'm sorry, BUTTERS...shouldn't embaress you (if you're ignorant) or waste time (if you're dodging).

    I'm not dodging you, Also, ignorant equals republicans. My point again is does it matter. Just because the sponser is not a troll does not dismiss it findings.

    Another Zogby Poll:

    Presidential Job Approval Improves To 44%, Up 6% In Latest poll, New Zogby Interactive Poll Shows

    Dam those liberal polls. Also, I believe that waste of time comes from the trolls who try to spin that facts.

    Posted by butterfly at 01/25/2006 @ 4:06pm

73. "Brunowe,

    you are incorrect as the protocls used for transmission are G711, G723 or G729 all of which require no special equipment and are commercial equipment. I am in this business and when I call overseas, I KNOW hundreds of people are listening"

    How easy is it to get that commercial equipment? When you say "hundreds of people" (a rather small amount considering that the broadcast was going out to 1/3 of the world), would that be the equivalent of telephone operators being able to listen in on domestic calls? My understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, is that operators can listen to calls using their commercially available equipment. This doesn't stop phone calls from being subject to Fourth Amendment rules re searches.

    Posted by brunowe at 01/25/2006 @ 4:13pm

74. Posted by BUTTERFLY 01/25/2006 @ 4:06pm | ignore this person

    Just a question BUTTERS....if the "National Right-to-Life Organization" sponsered a Zogby poll, that showed that 65% of Americans favored over-turning Roe v. Wade....

    any suspicions raised on your part?

    Posted by Mask at 01/25/2006 @ 4:20pm

75. Brunowe,

    The communciations equipment is standard stuff avaivalble form hundreds of manufacturers. You probably have heard of Cisco? Inside the US, we don't use satellite transmissions and therfore there is, for the most part, no broadcasting of your conversation. In third world desitinations, satellite communications is primarily used. The satellite broadcast to a large footprint on the ground and anybody in that footprint can listen to the satellite. The communications is based upon an assigned frequency but this data is not secret. Listening to a satelite transmissionis a matter of tuning to the frequency and separating the voice channels. I assure you that this is not even tricky and done by the intelligence organizations in every country. Think of it like this...you get a direct TV signal and you have a channel decoding device which lets you isolate a particular data stream from the satellite ( you call it a TV channel). As I said, I personally have no expectation of privacy when I dial 011....you shouldn't either because it is a fact that your conversation is not private at all.

    Posted by byron allen at 01/25/2006 @ 4:22pm

76. Perhaps the Democrats are letting so much of this go on because they are wishing that they had thought of it themselves. They are, after all, lobbied by the same groups as the Rupublicans, just as interested in money and power as the Republicans, and, as was demostrated in Clinton's years (and I'm not referring to the infamous BJ) just as corrupt. There are some good apples on both sides of the aisle, but let's face it, the whole bunch is starting to spoil, enough that we might as well throw out the bag and buy some oranges instead.

    Posted by Paunk at 01/25/2006 @ 4:22pm

77. Where does anybody get the idea that somehow a warrant is required just because you are a US Citizen?

    Posted by BYRON ALLEN 01/25/2006 @ 3:36pm

    As one representative of all anybodies I can tell you that I get the idea from the same belief that my international mail should not be opened unless there is evidence of a domestic mail service violation. There are at least a few examples that Homeland Security is overstepping its authority to inspect international mail as well as the NSA's eavesdropping on phone conversations. If one end of the line is attached in this country, then domestic and not military laws apply.

    And, again, simply because the Feds CAN listen does not mean that they MAY without legal authority.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/25/2006 @ 4:26pm

78. Rio,

    It's only Wednesday. Still a good chunk of the week left. You might want to watch your level of medication if you hope to enjoy the weekend. But I do enjoy your distinctive style of Madlibs writing.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/25/2006 @ 4:28pm

79. MyPara

    I'd be happy to see one, just one, real instance of all this aggression and skullduggery resulting in an act of terrorism prevented. It would clear everything up, wouldn't it. Exactly so!

    Rio

    Better take cool drink of water to dilute the Kool-Aid. The post is about Dubya garnering power beyond that permitted to his post. If it appears to "be hatin" America, it is because your stilted view of reality does not permit disagreement. You are a good little Bush-ite. Maybe he'll let you lick his boots if he needs a shine.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 01/25/2006 @ 4:28pm

80. "I assure you that this is not even tricky and done by the intelligence organizations in every country. Think of it like this...you get a direct TV signal and you have a channel decoding device which lets you isolate a particular data stream from the satellite ( you call it a TV channel). As I said, I personally have no expectation of privacy when I dial 011....you shouldn't either because it is a fact that your conversation is not private at all.

    I don't doubt that intelligence organizations can do this, just as they can tap into phone lines. My question is, could I get this equipment; how expensive would it be and how hard would it be for me to learn to operate it? Secondly, even if it were easy, if the police in this country were to use equipment that I could obtain (say from one of the Spy shops), it would still constitute a search. I don't think the question is merely one of technological feasibility (I defer to your expertise on this) but if the expectation is that this is going out to the public at large. If I speak loudly on a subway, anyone within ear shot can hear and I have no expectation of privacy. If I have a conversation with someone in a room, of course anyone could put an ear to a door or wall and listen, but that wouldn't change the fact that I have a legitimate expectation of privacy.

    Posted by brunowe at 01/25/2006 @ 4:31pm

81. Brunowe,

    I just read the FISA law regarding electronic intercepts without a warrant. It seems that the President can do this with some caveats. One of thoise is that the recorded conversations are not likely to involce a US person. Of course, Al Quaeda memebers are probably not US persons. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that everything being done is in accordance with this FISA law section 1802 governing Electronic surveillance authorization without court order it the electronic surveillance is solely directed at-- (i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or (ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; (B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and (C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title;

    Posted by byron allen at 01/25/2006 @ 4:32pm

82. Byron,

    FISA is a Statute that tries to balance the needs of Security with the limitations imposed by the Fourth Amendment.

    The Constitutionality of the Statute has not really been tested. It may or may not hold up constitutionally in its current format. It purports to create that balance by specifically requiring a warrant for surveilance that includes US Citizens or Permanant Residents.

    It does not matter whether the conversation is from Pakistan to Nepal, if one person who is party to the call is American then the Warrant has to be applied for. At least that is my understanding and interpretation of the statute.

    Even if the Statute holds up constitutionally, if the NSA / Executive branch ignored the warrant requirement then the law was broken.

    You seem to think that because it is easy to listen in on a conversation then it must be legal. It is easy to kill someone but not legal. It is easy to climb up a telephone pole and tap into the wire and listen in on a "landline" conversation, but it's not legal.

    Perhaps your argument is one of jurisdiction and since US law has no applicability beyond the borders of the USA and it's territories then anything goes......not true. USA Citizens cannot be treated by the USA Government in non constitutional ways wherever they are.

    If your argument is that the Executive Branch has far reaching authority in a time of war and this comes under that authority, then I cannot argue.....you may be right and we'll have to wait and see.

    Posted by freedomplease at 01/25/2006 @ 4:34pm

83. "...maybe you're not "Einstein" enough to figure out a way to explain your "truth" that it sounds like it is Truth?" -- Posted by MASK 01/25/2006 @ 3:51pm

    Point taken. However, politicians dissemble all of the time. I'm thinking of some obvious recent cases before GWB like Iran-Contra and good ol' Monica. (Although, the latter was more personal than political and then became political.)

    Rove has certainly raised the state of the art.

    Let's take truth as verifiable fact rather than opinion. I'm a scientist and do know the difference. People still believe untruths like "Saddam was involved in 9/11." The people who do are either (1) lazy thinkers or (2) uninterested in seeking the truth.

    Posted by adr at 01/25/2006 @ 4:35pm

84. "46-51%? Still not a mass movement to claim that we are in "peril from Big Brother"."

    How many wingers have we heard or read that considered 51% (in a national election) to be a mandate?

    Fully half the country believes that the administration has broken the law, and needs to be investigated.

    My perception is that that is hugely fucked up.

    Posted by DRHAMMER 01/25/2006 @ 3:04pm

    DRHammer;

    I would think that Bush is certainly on stronger grounds than Bill Clinton when he gathered 43% of the popular vote in 1992; granted Clinton did much better in 1996 when he received 49.2% of the popular vote. Somehow, I don't recall a massive outcry from liberals that Clinton had no mandate in either term.

    Posted by love liberty at 01/25/2006 @ 4:38pm

85. Just a question BUTTERS....if the "National Right-to-Life Organization" sponsered a Zogby poll, that showed that 65% of Americans favored over-turning Roe v. Wade....

    any suspicions raised on your part?

    No, it would not bother me at all as long as the Poll was conducted with the envolvement of both sides. Also, on Zoby's website, it mentioned that polls show a sharp decline for support of abortions. Is that partisan polling? This is typical of the trolls, if it is not part of the talking points issued to them every morning, you just dimiss it. If it someone who has a liberal leaning, you consider it false. Who's ignorant? By the way, it is BUTTERFLY.

    Posted by butterfly at 01/25/2006 @ 4:39pm

86. The Dems must show that Bush is soft on national security.

    Because of all his lies and nonsense, he is not pursuing our national security interests. Instead, he is following an unstated partisan agenda. Real national security would .....

    JFK beat Nixon in 1960 by arguing that JFK was tougher and that Nixon was responsible for the "missile gap." The Dems need to follow JFK's example if they are serious about beating the Repubs at this game.

    Posted by jkrogman at 01/25/2006 @ 4:48pm

87. The criteria for warrantless surveillance in Sec. 1802 include: (B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party

    "United States person" is defined in Sec. 1801 as "a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in section 1101(a)(20) of title 8), an unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States, but does not include a corporation or an assocition which is a foreign power, as defined in subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section." as you correctly stated. If I read that correctly, even if the US citizen were overseas, a FISA warrant would be required.

    However, the Bush administration has admitted that US persons INSIDE the United States are being subject to this program, that it targeted US citizens' intl. communications. http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/

    Posted by brunowe at 01/25/2006 @ 4:51pm

88. The word "incompetent" should be a part of every sentence referring to the Bush Administration.

    The word "conservative" too.

    Posted by reidsucks at 01/25/2006 @ 5:17pm

89. Seems like more and more arenas of our lives are being redefined by the government as "public" space even as the government defines more and more of its activities as "private". It can listen as it pleases, but we can't learn the details of its plans to cope with Katrina?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/25/2006 @ 5:19pm

90. Bush certainly has been spying on political opponents, and not just ones calling in from out of the country,

    Karl Rove is bluffing about using this as an issue, Democrats spend 10 minutes thinking about it and they'll find an angle: how about an FBI agent talking about how his time is being wasted, and troops talking about how theyd rather go after the Bin Laden family than help the Bush family make more money.

    Posted by reidsucks at 01/25/2006 @ 5:20pm

91. I meant the storm, by the way--not the author of the above essay.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/25/2006 @ 5:20pm

92. Zero,

    cellular communications at one point was widely intercepted. Remember the case in Miami? I think they had to pass a special law to make it illegal to intercept cellphone calls.

    Posted by byron allen at 01/25/2006 @ 5:45pm

93. Yesterday I heard a general in charge of NSA state that there was nothing concerning "probable cause" in the 4th amendment. That the NSA knows exactly what the amendment says because that's their job and there's no such thing written for a warrat as ‘but upon probable cause'! How can anyone believe these guys can be trusted when they can't even read. Perhaps they're ahead of their plan a few years and thought that the children had all been left behind per the plan to shift the funding to the secret 3 trillion to be mysteriously lost war on the never ending definition of a feeling.

    Posted by Bushfools at 01/25/2006 @ 5:48pm

94. meant: 'mysteriously lost on a war on the never ending definition of a feeling."

    Posted by Bushfools at 01/25/2006 @ 5:51pm

95. JFK beat Nixon in 1960 by arguing that JFK was tougher and that Nixon was responsible for the "missile gap." The Dems need to follow JFK's example if they are serious about beating the Repubs at this game.

    Posted by JKROGMAN 01/25/2006 @ 4:48pm

    Republicans are also inherently weak and timid (note how they are still running around screaming that "the terrorists are coming, the terrorista are coming")

    but they have proven that if you say something long enough and loud enough that people will start believing you.

    It's a bitch ain't it.

    Posted by Will C. at 01/25/2006 @ 5:52pm

96. what i want to know, is do right wingers willingly lie, repeat lies in ignorance of the fact they are lies, or what? or some combination of the two?

    i think most wingnuts here trend more with group two, repeating lies they want to believe. what bothers me is those in power who know they are lying...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/25/2006 @ 6:13pm

97. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 01/25/2006 @ 6:13pm

    willingly lie

    Posted by Will C. at 01/25/2006 @ 6:15pm

98. Bearing false witness is a conservative family value

    Posted by Will C. at 01/25/2006 @ 6:15pm

99. jim hightower is good medicine for blue collar wingnuts - i converted a good wingnut friend with jim a couple of years ago

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/25/2006 @ 6:17pm

100. who's Jim Hightower

     Posted by Will C. at 01/25/2006 @ 6:18pm

101. Posted by WILL C. 01/25/2006 @ 6:18pm | ignore this person

     google him and check it out - hokey, common sense populist progressivism - texas style - funny as hell

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/25/2006 @ 6:20pm

102. Ha Ha Ha Ha

     the picture says it all

     Posted by Will C. at 01/25/2006 @ 6:21pm

103. ibble

     are you from texas

     Posted by Will C. at 01/25/2006 @ 6:22pm

104. It is really frustrating to see this utter nonsense being written about when, if you understood the facts, you would know that this program does not violate the rights of anybody.

     Byron Allen CEO Novolink Communications, an international carrier

     Posted by BYRON ALLEN 01/25/2006 @ 1:55pm

     Byron,

     What you fail to understand is that statute regulates how and when the govt can conduct any type of signals surveillance. Others have touched on the FISA requirements etc. To turn it further, let's have a look at NSA directives.

     "While NSCIDs and DoD Directives offer general guidance on the activities of NSA and the United States SIGINT System (USSS), far more detailed guidance is provided by the director of NSA in the form of United States Signals Intelligence Directives (USSIDs). The directives fall into at least nine different categories: policy, collection, processing, analysis and reporting, standards, administration, training, data processing, and tasking."

     Here is the actual directive issued July 27, 1993.

     Document 11a: United States Signals Intelligence Directive [USSID] 18, "Legal Compliance and Minimization Procedures," July 27, 1993

     . 27 July 1993 c. DoD Directive 5240.1, .. Activities of- DoD Intelligence components that Affect U.S. Persons." dated 25 April 1988. .

     d. NSA/CSS Directive No. 10-30, "Procedures Governing Activities of NSA/CSS that Affect US Persons, dated 20 September 1990. '

     SECTION 3 - POLICY

     3.1. The policy of the USSS is to TARGET or COLLECT only FOREIGN COMMUNICATIONS.. The USSS will not intentionally COLLECT communications to, from or about U, S. persons or persons or entities in the U:S. except as set forth in this USSID. If the,USSS inadvertently COLLECTS such Communications, it will process, retain and disseminate them only in accordance with this USSID. . . .

     SECTION 4 - COLLECTION

     4.1. (S-CCO) Communications which are known to be to, from or about. a US. PERSON……[Redacted]………….. not be intentionally intercepted,….[Redacted]……unless

     a. With the approval of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court under the conditions outlined in Annex A of this USSID.

     b. With the approval of the Attorney General of the United States, if:

     (1) -The COLLECTION is directed against the following:

     (a) Communications to or from U.S. PERSONS outside the UNITED.STATES, or

     (b) International communications to, [Redacted]

     (c) Communications which are not to or from but merely about U.S. PERSONS (wherever located)

     Posted by doumer at 01/25/2006 @ 6:23pm

105. where i read to my former anti-intellectual blue collar good friend about wal mart's dead peasant insurance scam - that and hightower's hilarious hokey pokey delivery got my friend. franken is good medicine for the non-anti-intellectual.

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/25/2006 @ 6:23pm

106. ibble from deep in the gothic south....

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/25/2006 @ 6:24pm

107. And you will note that the NSA Directive says only "communications". telling me that a sat call is not a "communication"?

     Posted by doumer at 01/25/2006 @ 6:26pm

108. ibble from deep in the gothic south....

     Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 01/25/2006 @ 6:24pm

     Any thoughts on how to win that five to ten percent back into the true blue clan

     Posted by Will C. at 01/25/2006 @ 6:27pm

109. MBB:

     "Demanding the Impossible From Our Health Care, By Robert Samuelson "

     Yoy are thinking of Paul Samuelson...the master. Not Robert...whoever he is...he ain't no Paul.

     Posted by doumer at 01/25/2006 @ 6:39pm

110. BTW, impeachment can come AFTER the charges have been proven, tried, found guilty, and sentenced. Then impeachment. Why not? What am I missing? Facts? Charges?

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/25/2006 @ 3:23pm | ignore this person

     Now that I'm back at work, I'm always the last one to get to the dance it seems, but this needs to be responded to.

     Maasch, you could not be more wrong about this. Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. One need not have been convicted - or even accused - of a crime to be impeached.

     Before you get all chafed about 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' I suggest you follow this link:

     http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764613.html

     for a discussion of the definition. In the discussion you will find abuse of power, along with bribery and treason.

     Given the list of things that dubyuk has done, it seems to me that he remains very much in jeopardy of impeachment, provided that miserable excuse for a congress called the Republican caucus gets off its collective dead ass and does something to protect our nation.

     Posted by skeletonman at 01/25/2006 @ 6:47pm

111. byron,

     "Clearly, no warrant it required to intercept emails outside of the US just as no FISA court has juristiction over monitoring of satellite transmissions outside of the US."

     It's taking me a while to catch up here. Read again the NSA wording on "communications". Sat phone calls, land lines, cell phones...emails...pagers...blackberries...pda's are all "Communications".

     Time to perhaps look at the line of command here. NSA clearly disregarded their own directives....they in turn sent their requests for additional investigation to the FBI. Where does it all start? At the top! Only the prez has the authority to order the NSA and FBI to contravene their directives.

     Without sounding like Rese, although I have respect for what he is doing, this thing is much more massive than we realize.

     Posted by doumer at 01/25/2006 @ 6:50pm

112. OK, anybody want to play a game? Lets enumerate the situations the current administration would want to keep secret and why, starting with the most recent:

     FLAG DRAPED COFFINS – the illegal war may seep into the larger US psyche and spark a conscience

     HURRICANE KATRINA – hiding true extent of incompetence, sloth and lack of resources

     MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG PROGRAM – see above, plus backroom deals with pharmaceutical companies, plus a doughnut hole (?)

     ILLEGAL DOMESTIC SPYING – so no one finds out it actually started early 2001, pre 9/11, extremely far reaching, and see OHIO

     ABRAMOFF – DUH, he's only a mid-level bagman-- JEFE.

     OHIO – see Florida

     (Just got started the list, but have to run, er jog, will be back later to do more with it-- but feel free to add as much to the list as you want)

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/25/2006 @ 6:56pm

113. I find it fascinating the lengths some liberals go to defend, essentially, communications between AQ and Americans in this country.

     I understand that the rule of law principle, is pre-eminent in many of your minds. And that you are all for getting AQ, you just want it done "legally," which of course is the essence of the debate.

     But I wonder,in this absolutists position that many of you take, if you think about the EFFECT, if you are proven to be right? Which in the end you maybe, though i doubt it. What will be the effect? Difficult to know with any certainty, but do you honestly think that the message sent will be interepeted as a message of strengh?

     Yes, i know its not about "who they are, but about who we are"

     What is it that you achieve? checks and balances? rule of law? These were never endangered concepts to begin with, but rather steady.

     What do you achieve? I know we, neo-cons are the FEAR-mongers, many of you believe that the terrorists threat is not REALLY that big of a threat, until they actually hit us, and then its, "you ignored the warnings" "your heads were in the sand"

     Thats why I for one am so amazed at these seemingly diametrically opposed concepts.

     Posted by CPT at 01/25/2006 @ 7:04pm

114. I find it fascinating the lengths some liberals go to defend, essentially, communications between AQ and Americans in this country.

     Posted by CPT 01/25/2006 @ 7:04pm

     I find it fascinating the lengths some conservatives go to defend, essentially, executive branch laziness.

     (Why can't gee Dubya cross the street and get a FISA warrent?)

     (Won't Uncle Dick hold his hand?)

     Posted by Will C. at 01/25/2006 @ 7:09pm

115. maybe if we promise him a vacation...

     Posted by Will C. at 01/25/2006 @ 7:09pm

116. I hope you now understand why the people in our business view this entire NSA debate as absurd given how today's technology actually works.

     Posted by BYRON ALLEN 01/25/2006 @ 2:24pm

     Byron, Everything you say is true about telecommunications. But besides the point.

     Anybody with access to the wires coming out of your house can listen in. But that doesn't make it legal.

     So now there a a myriad of ways to tap a call. And there are many points of opportunity for public eavsdropping. Does any of this make listening in on private phone callss by the govt., w/o warrants, legal?

     Who cares HOW. Is it LEGAL. And if it is, should it be.

     We are not even talking about some govt. employee listen in for voueristic reasons. We are talking overt govt. policy to eavesdrop w/o oversight. And a. "kiss my ass, I am above the law" attitude.

     Yes, most don't understand how easy it is. Those of us that do are more upset about the overt claims to the right to do so, than we would be if we though our communications harder to intercept. (And thus, less likely to be intercepted for personal/political gain.)

     You know of what you speak. But, I think your missing the point.

     Eric

     Posted by malcontent3 at 01/25/2006 @ 7:18pm

117. Off-Topic Warning!

     LoveLiberty, look at this! Here you are on Katrina's new thread. Last I read, you were on her previous thread, running away after some cogent challenges. You promised you'd be back and answer/continue the discussion. I predicted that you'd disappear and show up on the next thread, acting as if the other never happened.

     Guess who was right? Wasn't you, LL. You ran and never looked back.

     /Off-Topic. Sorry, but LL says all kinds of things, and doesn't feel like he needs to mean them.

     Posted by LisaJo at 01/25/2006 @ 7:27pm

118. Eric, that needed to be pointed out. Byron is a flim flam man, dazzling you with foorwork, to cover, blanket absolution for the Caligula wannabe

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/25/2006 @ 7:27pm

119. LISAJO

     All the trolls do it.

     Posted by butterfly at 01/25/2006 @ 7:30pm

120. On topic. Since this thread purports to respond to the power-madness of King George, I strongly recommend that everyone read Jacob Weisberg's "The Power-Madness of King George: Is Bush Turning America into an Elective Dictatorship?" Link below. I will note that this article appears on Slate, which is not exactly known for its Progressive bias. Weisberg says:

     Even if one assumes that every unknown instance of warrant-less spying by the NSA were justified on security grounds, the arguments issuing from the White House threaten the concept of checks and balances as it has been understood in America for the last 218 years. Simply put, Bush and his lawyers contend that the president's national security powers are unlimited. And since the war on terror is currently scheduled to run indefinitely, the executive supremacy they're asserting won't be a temporary condition.

     And that's just the intro. Please read. It is quite worth discussing, and I'd especially like to hear the Bush-supporters' take on it--as long as they don't keep screaming, "Tens of thousands of Americans are talking to Al Qaida every single day! The President says so! It must be Truthy!"

     http://www.slate.com/id/2134845/

     Posted by LisaJo at 01/25/2006 @ 7:35pm

121. Byron: I guess you have moved on to other "lib" blogs with your piece. Personally, I don't buy your rhetoric.

     "I expect that all of the NSA activities are reviewed by the Justice Department and that they have been approved. I think that the politicians are just completely out to lunch with this entire hoopla. They are assuming that the public is too stupid to understand what has happened is not only legal, but normal military activity for the past 70 years."

     What! If you do take the time to read, you will have garnered a few facts. Since 9/11, the FBI has received thousands of "tips" every month from the NSA on suspicious interceptions. So far, all they have found was Faris who was gonna bring down the brooklyn bridge with a blow torch and a couple of guys who were "conspring" to blow up some landmark in the UK. Yippee kayay dude! I'm grateful for the protection accorded by our CiC. A blow torch?

     NSA sought approval from the Justice Dept for each of these "tips"? Get real! Are you talking about Gonzales' Justice Dept? Mr. Rubber Stamp? Mr. Torture "is good"? Mr. "I personally extensively reviewed every execution memo" for GW in Texaz?

     The NSA rules are clear. The definition of "communications" is clear. FISA rules are clear.

     You being in the communications industry know well of the rules governing privicy within your sector. A computer hacker gets nailed and goes to jail for using your personal information. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act makes a clear distinction of who is entitled to use/and act on private information. A listener on an international call can and will be prosecuted if use of personal information is disclosed.You know that a business must indicate in no uncertain words that a call may be monitored. Failure to do so is a crime.Same applies to "official" listeners such as the NSA...FBI...or whoever. It's ALL against the law....if no warrant is obtained.How much clearer can I make it?

     Posted by doumer at 01/25/2006 @ 7:43pm

122. This resolution is invariably referred to by the ungainly acronym AUMF--the sound, perhaps, of civil liberties being exhaled by a democracy.

     http://www.slate.com/id/2134845

     yup

     Posted by Will C. at 01/25/2006 @ 7:47pm

123. The president's insistence that he alone can divine the hidden meaning of legislation is of a piece with his recently noticed practice of appending "signing statements" to bills--as in, "by signing this anti-torture bill into law, I pronounce it to signify that it has no power over me." Similarly, in his white paper, Bush as much as declares: "I determine what my words mean and I alone determine what yours mean, too."

     http://www.slate.com/id/2134845

     The man can't speak english. He is the last guy on the planet who should be discerning intent

     Posted by Will C. at 01/25/2006 @ 7:50pm

124. Truth is far stranger than fiction. Note the current Drudge Report headline: "BUSH: BIN LADEN SHOULD BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY."

     Well, thank heaven for THAT! I'm sure that now we can expect Bush to apologize for his previous, admitted indifference to Bin Laden. No doubt he'll raise the terrorist alert level. No doubt he'll unveil his new strategy for "taking out" the man he first said he wanted "dead or alive" and then said he didn't care about.

     Right? RIGHT?

     Um, wrong. The story continues:

     President George W. Bush said on Wednesday he took Osama bin Laden's threats of another attack seriously and invoked the al Qaeda leader's recent audiotape to defend a domestic eavesdropping program.

     Oh, I see. It was just all hype, designed to turn discussion away from a potentially embarrassing topic.

     Posted by LisaJo at 01/25/2006 @ 8:17pm

125. Guess who was right? Wasn't you, LL. You ran and never looked back.

     /Off-Topic. Sorry, but LL says all kinds of things, and doesn't feel like he needs to mean them.

     Posted by LISAJO 01/25/2006 @ 7:27pm

     LISAJO, LL does that to everybody. He never comes back to repond to."good points, I''ll respond when I have time."

     Even when someone else chides him for it later in the thread.

     He also ignores most relevant questions from the get go. Occasionally, if you ad a smart ass comment, he'll respond to it, but ignore the meat of your post.

     I guess it's better than the vitriolic spew some righties post, when backed into a corner.

     Eric

     Posted by malcontent3 at 01/25/2006 @ 8:33pm

126. CPT drivel alert: I find it fascinating the lengths some liberals go to defend, essentially, communications between AQ and Americans in this country.

     Since our government would never make a mistake, right? Competent bureacrats all. If they say it's AQ it HAS TO BE AQ, why? Because they never make a mistake. And they've got the track record to prove it. Here's a better idea - why not drop bombs on both sides of the phone call. We know they're terrorists, we know they're guilty, so let's cut out all that tiresome investigating, fact-checking B.S. just like we cut out that time-wasting legal process for getting warrants.

     CPT's ability to continue to admire the emperor's shiny new clothes - now THAT'S fascinating.

     Posted by Fishbite at 01/25/2006 @ 8:34pm

127. Guess who was right? Wasn't you, LL. You ran and never looked back.

     /Off-Topic. Sorry, but LL says all kinds of things, and doesn't feel like he needs to mean them.

     Posted by LISAJO 01/25/2006 @ 7:27pm

     Lisajo,

     If you would be kind enough to refresh my memory (I'm old and my wife even gets tired of my alzheimers), I would be happy to reply.

     Posted by love liberty at 01/25/2006 @ 8:56pm

128. But I wonder,in this absolutists position that many of you take, if you think about the EFFECT, if you are proven to be right? Which in the end you maybe, though i doubt it. What will be the effect? Difficult to know with any certainty, but do you honestly think that the message sent will be interepeted as a message of strengh?

     Yes, i know its not about "who they are, but about who we are"

     What is it that you achieve? checks and balances? rule of law? These were never endangered concepts to begin with, but rather steady.

     We send a message that a homicidal religious fanatic hiding in the mountains of Waziristan isn't going to scare us into abandoning our morals. We send a message that we can get his people without submitting to panic in the process of doing so.

     As to the checks and balances and rule of law concepts not being endangered, well those things sometimes recede in little steps then in dramatic ones. The are maintained only if, as a people, we watchfully maintain them. I believe it is you conservative types who always say: Vigilance is the price of liberty.

     Posted by brunowe at 01/25/2006 @ 9:00pm

129. Oh, Love Liberty, aren't you just the cutest thing? You're old, and your wife blah blah blah. Isn't it nice that you can pretend that you don't remember what you've said. Poor little senile old man. You are such a liar.

     Here's what you wrote on Katrina's previous post, and a whole bunch of us took you seriously, even promising to withold judgment until you did what you said you'd do:

     I must run out but will return. You folks need to realize by now that I am in and out of my home office seeing clients and attending to ministry needs. I never would want to duck an issue. It's been fun...look forward to the re-engagement. Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/24/2006 @ 5:31pm | ignore this person

     You never returned to that thread, but here you are on this one, claiming memory loss. You are a liar and a dodger. No one should pay any attention to anything you say.

     Posted by LisaJo at 01/25/2006 @ 9:05pm

130. Lisajo,

     Thank you for showing me which post it was in, but so I don't screw up, which issue? You are certainly entitled to your attacks, but I assure you, I mean what I say and as others have helped my memory in debates last year, I will gladly followup.

     Posted by love liberty at 01/25/2006 @ 9:14pm

131. I must apologize to other posters here, since I've wasted their time with my exhaustion with LL's dodges. But I did want to point out that he said he would return to continue discussion, after a number of posters on the previous KVH thread had pressed him on his inconsistencies. It's not worth repeating here, but please do not believe LL's promises of "engagement." He doesn't engage. He runs. Then he comes up with cute little "Precious Moments" excuses. That is the level of LL's discourse. Keep it in mind when you respond to him.

     Posted by LisaJo at 01/25/2006 @ 9:16pm

132. LL, that was a little more than 24 hours ago. You sent plenty of posts in response to the issue. Indeed, you must be senile if you can't remember what you were talking about yesterday. I don't want to waste the current readers' time. Refresh your own memory by simply reviewing your posts on KVH's previous thread. It's easy, LL. Just go to the bottom of this thread and click on "Saving Our Democracy."

     Folks, this guy says he can't remember something like twenty posts he made a little over 24 hours ago. He's not worth engaging.

     Posted by LisaJo at 01/25/2006 @ 9:21pm

133. Nice dodge, LL. Does that mean you absolutely Promise to never cite the Old Testament again? OK, then, maybe I'll listen to you.

     Look, it's the Bible. It's either the Word of God or it isn't. It's either eternal and inerrant, or it isn't. What a wussy you are.

     Posted by LISAJO 01/24/2006 @ 5:32pm

     Lisajo,

     I am not quite certain why you are so antagonistic and refuse to believe me when I post that I have to leave, but that is up to you, and I have no control over it.

     I hope this is the post you were referring to:

     Nice dodge, LL. Does that mean you absolutely Promise to never cite the Old Testament again? OK, then, maybe I'll listen to you.

     Look, it's the Bible. It's either the Word of God or it isn't. It's either eternal and inerrant, or it isn't. What a wussy you are.

     Posted by LISAJO 01/24/2006 @ 5:32pm

     Now then, of course it is the word of God. As Jesus and the Apostles all point out, the OT Laws no longer are the requirement for righteousness to those who believe in Christ. That appeared to be the point that New Dawn was challenging-ie, do I follow OT law? If that was not the point, perhaps New Dawn would have stated so in a follow up.

     I would never promise not to cite the OT again since there are many prophecies yet unfulfilled in the OT and many beautiful passages for our comfort, encouragement, and direction. But that is not the same as being saved by Grace under the new covenant.

     If you feel that I have other inconsistencies, I would be happy to engage. I will openly say that I do value my family time, my ministry time and I have a busines to run. I do not have the luxury of 24/7 on the computer, nor do I have the luxury of always responding immediately. I'm sure that others here can relate to this point. Sometimes the thread changes between postings and I admit I have a hard time even finding where I was really engaged. You may not believe that, but again, I cannot change what you think.

     Posted by love liberty at 01/25/2006 @ 9:27pm

134. Folks, this guy says he can't remember something like twenty posts he made a little over 24 hours ago. He's not worth engaging.

     Posted by LISAJO 01/25/2006 @ 9:21pm

     Lisajo,

     Again, why such anger? Do you treat students this way? How about your neighbors? Don't get angry. If you think I'm such an ignorant clutz, bear with me a little. I think you will find that most people I have ever known, liberal or conservative, actually like me (and that's not ego, I like nearly everyone, even when we disagree).

     Now, you will probably say "there you go again" but my wife is hungry for desert and a husband is a good servant to his wife. I will return in the next 45 min to an hour.

     Posted by love liberty at 01/25/2006 @ 9:30pm

135. Nice dodge, again, LL. I asked you why you didn't come back and continue the discussion. You chose one random post you had made, and ignored the post I quoted, in which you assured us all that you would return to THAT thread.

     But talking to you is like talking to a cat. There is no continuity, and no sense in you. You are, in fact, a liar, and a cheat. If you want to continue the discussion, go back to "Saving Our Democracy" and keep your promise to return to the debate we had there.

     You are a bad, bad example of Christianity. You're just as legalistic as the worst pharisee. No wonder you love Bush; he too refuses to answer direct questions. For example:

     LJ: Why did you not return to the discussion, as you said you would?

     LL: You people don't understand how much I love my wife and my ministry.

     LJ: You said you would come back to the discussion. You seemed to mean it. A whole bunch of us believed you, and checked back for several hours.

     LL: You must hate Jesus.

     LJ: No, we just wanted to continue the discussion. You said you would, and a whole bunch of us, you know, kept waiting for you to return to the discussion, like you said you would.

     LL: I'm really sorry that you hate Jesus so much.

     And on, and on, and on.

     Posted by LisaJo at 01/25/2006 @ 9:36pm

136. OK, serious posters, I do apologize for using this post to castigate LL. It's like trying to get truth from Scott McClellan: utterly hopeless. I'm done. And I do apologize again. Please resume your reasonable discourse; I won't disrupt it again.

     Posted by LisaJo at 01/25/2006 @ 9:40pm

137. Ok Lisajo,

     I tried to sincerely ask you what you wanted me to respond to; instead you come back with more invectives and slurs.

     I'm sorry my attempts to communicate have angered you so much.

     Posted by love liberty at 01/25/2006 @ 9:49pm

138. LL. You never responded to me. But fine, please ignore me in the future. I can assure you that I won't mind.

     Posted by LisaJo at 01/25/2006 @ 10:04pm

139. I'm sorry my attempts to communicate have angered you so much.

     Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/25/2006 @ 9:49pm

     Liberty

     You gave your word and you didn't keep it. Face it Liberty, your word's not good for anything.

     But we knew that

     Posted by Will C. at 01/25/2006 @ 10:08pm

140. LL. You never responded to me. But fine, please ignore me in the future. I can assure you that I won't mind.

     Posted by LISAJO 01/25/2006 @ 10:04pm

     Lisajo,

     Again, why so angry? And I didn't even suggest that I would ignore you. I have stated before that I don't ignore anyone here, even Rese and Plunger.

     Posted by love liberty at 01/25/2006 @ 10:13pm

141. Please resume your reasonable discourse; I won't disrupt it again.

     Posted by LISAJO 01/25/2006 @ 9:40pm

     Do we have to be reasonable?

     ....never been reasonable in here before...bunch of extremist yelling at each other actually.

     ....was kinda fun.

     Eric

     Posted by malcontent3 at 01/25/2006 @ 10:20pm

142. Aw c'mon. this blog is akin to inmates running the asylum. Learn to embrace your inner idiot.

     Posted by vano at 01/25/2006 @ 10:28pm

143. That--trying to talk with one more Scott McClellan--was really a waste of time. But thank you all for your indulgence.

     Back to the topic at hand. Another quote from Weisberg (and REALLY, if I could say it half so well myself, I would, but his guy just says everything so well):

     . . . the president's latest assertion that he alone can safeguard our civil liberties isn't just disturbing and wrong. It's downright un-American.

     But now, we're through the looking-glass. Everything is reversed. People who do everything in their power to undermine the Constitution are called "patriots." People who defend the Constitution are accused of sympathizing with terrorists. My, my, my, what a beautiful world.

     Posted by LisaJo at 01/25/2006 @ 10:50pm

144. Oh dear!!!... the candy-ass "schoolboys" of fascism are still slinking around, johnsons in hand, making us all really scared. Come-on ladies, it ain't ever gonna work. Don't you understand that the party is just about over?

     Enjoy the glory of "empire" while you can. It's about done.

     Love always,

     bloppy

     Posted by bloppy at 01/25/2006 @ 11:02pm

145. I hope you now understand why the people in our business view this entire NSA debate as absurd given how today's technology actually works. Posted by BYRON ALLEN 01/25/2006 @ 2:24pm | ignore this person

     BA seems to suggest that tech hubris trumps American values of privacy and due process of law. What is it exactly that you find absurd, BA? Is it our insistence that laws should protect the privacy of our citizens in their personal communications? Is it absurd that some Americans insist that a very powerful federal government obey the law to protect the civil liberties of its citizens?

     You write your voice can be monitored by anybody on the cable or by anybody with a satellite antenna. Posted by BYRON ALLEN 01/25/2006 @ 2:17pm While this may be technically correct – though since we are dealing with packetized voice transmission rather than analog signaling, wouldn't it be a bit more difficult if you encrypted the packets before transmission? – you do not speak to intent. There are laws on the books that prosecute people who do what you point out can be done. See, for example, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. Or is it this law you find absurd?

     Why do I sense you are siding with the Bush Administration when you seem to suggest the futility of maintaining privacy and due process over cables and satellites? Could it be because you are a contributor to the Republican National Committee? No. That, of course, is your right and it would be absurd to suggest a linkage.

     Posted by seattlescribe at 01/26/2006 @ 02:41am

146. Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/25/2006 @ 4:38pm

     What the fuck does that have to do with what I posted?

     If you read for content instead of contention, you'd realize I was trying to make a point about the sliding scale some people use when evaluating what percentage of the population holds a given opinion.

     Posted by drhammer at 01/26/2006 @ 07:32am

147. And the falling back on Clinton thing?

     Brilliant!

     Posted by drhammer at 01/26/2006 @ 07:35am

148. Be prepared to be disappointed, when the court finds that the POTUS acted within his authority.

     Posted by CPT at 01/26/2006 @ 08:19am

149. Any thoughts on how to win that five to ten percent back into the true blue clan

     Posted by WILL C. 01/25/2006 @ 6:27pm | ignore this person

     lots, but not sure dems are prepared to go there.

     first reccomendation - dissuadde hillary from running. i used to like her, figured the right's obsessive hatred with her had more to do with the fact that she was an intelligent, articulate and therefore threatening woman. i still think this was integral in the hate hillary phenomenon. but recent words and initiatives from the senator from new york force me to question my earlier assessment of her intellect, integrity, force of personality, and her wisdom. nominate her - lose the election, not just in the south.

     southern democratic parties should seek compromise in terms of abortion and should lay off the more draconian gun control issues. not that hese things bother me, but you would be amazed at how many bubbas who might otherwise sneakily vote dem from time to time, insist on voting against their best interest over fear that some egghead wants to take away there arsenal of ridiculously destructive firearms. i think its stupid, foolish and dangerous, but thats the way it is.

     speaking of self interest, why do southern whites, esp. white males, such as myself, so uniformly vote against their own economic best interest, time and again? oops - got to work now, but hint - yes, it does involve race and affirmative action and yes, it also involves racism (casual and passive to concious and intentional) and yes, there is an underlying legitimacy to some complaints by southern whites in regard to affirmative action and a certain form of political correct race baiting now no longer in vogue, especially in regard to those southern whites living on the edge of poverty themselves...

     must work now.

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/26/2006 @ 08:39am

150. IBBLE

     Odd?....you mention TWO social issues that answer your question on why "Southern white males" "vote against their economic interests".....guns and abortion...and how the Democrats need to compromise on those.

     Then proceed to claim that it's all about "race".....well, which is it? race....or abortion and guns?

     BTW, I know in Frank's book "What's the Matter with Kansas?", he asks that question about "voting against your economic interests"....but what he automatically ASSUMES is, that liberal policies ARE in people's "best interest" and that any opposing view is "stupid".

     Posted by Mask at 01/26/2006 @ 08:56am

151. CPT

     The way shrub has been packing the court, he might as well tell everybody to kiss off, because SCOTUS has become a kangaroo court for the administration. I'm surprised he hasn't tried an FDR and add a couple more ideologues to really set things up in his favor.

     In terms of the wiretapping issue, it just comes down to why Bush felt the need to circumvent the law when what he wanted to accomplish was simple under the law. Is he just rubbing people's noses in his willingness and apparent ability to do whatever the hell he wants? I think he looked up the wrong definition of "execute" when figuring out his job description as Executive. "Ah get to execute the laws of the US? Hot damn! Ah knew that mah experience as Guvner would be good fer sumthin! Which laws should I execute first, Dick?"

     Posted by Turk33 at 01/26/2006 @ 08:59am

152. Then proceed to claim that it's all about "race".....well, which is it? race....or abortion and guns?

     BTW, I know in Frank's book "What's the Matter with Kansas?", he asks that question about "voting against your economic interests"....but what he automatically ASSUMES is, that liberal policies ARE in people's "best interest" and that any opposing view is "stupid".

     Posted by MASK 01/26/2006 @ 08:56am | ignore this person

     i did not claim it was all about race...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/26/2006 @ 09:00am

153. Mask,

     Guns, abortion and gay marriage - how exactly do any of these things really affect people in Kansas (or any red state for that matter) more than education, health care, social services, tax cuts for the wealthiest, etc., etc. That's the point!

     Posted by Turk33 at 01/26/2006 @ 09:02am

154. IBBLE

     There is something more to it, that I think you are missing. It goes a little deeper.

     Alot of White Southerners, whether its true or not, think of themselves as the SELF-RELIANT type, not the ENTITLEMENT type.

     Now I am sure that will provoke some obscure stat that southern states recieve more welfare or something to that effect. Nevertheless the point is still the same, ESPECIALLY out in the boonies.

     Southerners dont like to be told how to think(the politically correct way) or that their way of life or culture is inferior to the rest of country. As is currently thought by many in hte blue states. Thats a powerful underlying influence, although many wont admit it.

     Many are fiercely patriotic, though not particularly fond of the national govt, which has always seemed odd to me.

     Many resent the Hollywood portrayal of Southerners as ingorant, avid KKK types. Though is some parts of the South their is an Archie Bunker kind of bigotry, its a far from the Mississippi Burning archetype.

     Hillary, yeah she never win here, but not because she is some giant intellect, its her giant arrogance, as is seen by some.

     Posted by CPT at 01/26/2006 @ 09:16am

155. My above post is a little incomplete, but in time crunch right now

     Posted by CPT at 01/26/2006 @ 09:19am

156. All this hype from Generals, the AG and even the VP regarding the need for this survelience is a bunch of crap. Condelisa Rice had considerable amount of pre-intelligence regarding a possible strike against America prior to 9-11 and the present administration ignored it...As far as the hype Cheney is throwing at the media regarding his quote of "thousands of lives being saved", I ask then where are all of the arrests ???

     Posted by djmarch at 01/26/2006 @ 09:39am

157. I thought Bush quoted as saying that any countries harboring terrism is at war with America, yet quotes a good relationship with Pakistan. Is Pakistan really fighting terrorism here ??? Don't be so nieve...As they have told America no more drone bombings...

     Posted by djmarch at 01/26/2006 @ 09:49am

158. One just has to keep thinking in the opposite when reviewing of the ‘current administration'-- it's really a planned reactive misdirection, it's purposeful misspeak, marketed garble, advertised redefinition, a verbal ‘divide and defeat' shell game producing a mass nonlinear deconstruction of thought, an all out assault on the letter and spirit of the law. Is it any wonder the president has a hard time even speaking, that's a hard job.

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/26/2006 @ 10:14am

159. I don't think we should discourage Hillary from running at all.if the past is any guide there will be a handful or more dem candidates to choose from. in the primary campaigns they will all have a chance to position themselves, and presumably the strongest candidate will win. at least among those who haven't been kneecapped by the press, as did happen with Howard Dean

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/26/2006 @ 10:17am

160. the sovietization of the US is getting closer when you cannot trust the government to speak the truth.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/26/2006 @ 10:18am

161. "Be prepared to be disappointed, when the court finds that the POTUS acted within his authority."

     Posted by CPT 01/26/2006 @ 08:19am

     CPT: why do you presume that the illegal surveillance imbroglio will be settled by the courts? Articles of Impeachment for abuse of power are a matter for congress to decide, not the courts. In fact, the courts play no part in this at all. Don't forget that the prez does not have to be indicted or convicted of anything criminally for the Articles to be enforced.

     Posted by doumer at 01/26/2006 @ 10:19am

162. I thought Bush quoted as saying that any countries harboring terrism is at war with America, yet quotes a good relationship with Pakistan. Is Pakistan really fighting terrorism here ??? Don't be so nieve...As they have told America no more drone bombings...

     Posted by DJMARCH 01/26/2006 @ 09:49am | ignore this person

     Apparently you missed all together when the PAKS lost about 150 soldiers fighting AQ in the mountian region. 12 of the soldiers were captured and executed by AQ. They took out hundreds of AQ foot soldiers. Not to mention Sheik Muhammend and others arrested their. Drone bombings? Yeah they were really heart-broken that 4 AQ buddies and some sympathetic villagers of AQ were killed.

     So who are you kidding? Dont bad mouth the paks in this regard, the GOVT of Pak, harbors NO love for AQ-types

     STOP KIDDING yourself. Dont be so simple-minded

     Posted by CPT at 01/26/2006 @ 10:25am

163. DOUMER

     Referring to the cases the ACLU have filed against the surviellence of terrorists or Americans talking to them.

     Posted by CPT at 01/26/2006 @ 10:27am

164. speaking of self interest, why do southern whites, esp. white males, such as myself, so uniformly vote against their own economic best interest, time and again? oops - got to work now, but hint - yes, it does involve race and affirmative action and yes, it also involves racism -----IBBLE

     For not thinking racism is the "main reason", you SURE devoted a lot of space to it.

     Posted by Mask at 01/26/2006 @ 10:47am

165. Posted by TURK33 01/26/2006 @ 09:02am | ignore this person

     I know this might shock you, but is it POSSIBLE that Kansans might NOT consider the liberal ideas on health, education, social services, or screwing the wealthy....to be in their economic interests...or even efficient and workable?

     Posted by Mask at 01/26/2006 @ 10:49am

166. CPT et all

     ok, let me take a crack at this...

     during the heyday of civil rights movement, and more importantly in the afterglow, in which affirmative action was adopted and accepted by the "maistream" of american political thought, the southern white, esp the southern white male, most especially the petty white collar and struggling blue collar southern white male, felt abandoned, reviled and ignored by the democratic party. while often struggling to provide for self and family, he saw people of other ethnicities (in the not so distant south, of course, read "black") benefitting from government programs (read "affirmative action") which he saw as not only ignoring his plight, but in fact, in context of the sometimes heated rhetoric, hostile and threatening to him.

     i know. i was there. i have on several occasions directly experienced the hypocritical stereotypes of politically correct "liberal" outsiders, regardless of ethnicity, who see/saw me as little more than a living representative of the wickedness perpetrated by my ancestors. as i should not have to point out, however, i have no control over such past actions...when you unfairly "stick it" to someone, sometimes that someone perversely embraces such negativity, and the south is, historically speaking, notoriously perverse in this regard. i'm not advocating anything here - i'm just telling you the sum total of my anecdotal life experiences in this regard. the result, in the south, is the "apparantly i cant win, so fuck y'all" mindset. to many southern white males, including those who were/are not really very racist at all, the message of the democratic party to them was "we're going to make you pay for the sins of your ancestors", and when one is struggling to support oneself and one's family, bigger picture considerations tend to get thrown out the window and one votes for those who appear to have your best interest at heart. and as mask pointed out, perception is the key...

     now am i saying that this is the ONLY explanation? NO. CPT has valid points. there are many factors in this equation. do i support affirmative action? yeah, i guess i still do. i think of the whole thing as an ugly mess, fraught with sticky moral/ethical/constitutional issues, but i firmly believe that in light of the hideous history of race relations IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY, affirmative action was and to a lesser extent still is, a neccecary evil, but one we, as a society should periodically reevaluate with open minds with the intention of ULTIMATELY dismantling. but when? thats the question. my guess is that at siome point when we have intercopulated enough the question will resolve itself.

     as an aside, i remember a couple of years ago when the late reverend e. x. slave, a black man, liesurely strolled up to the conferderate war memorial in the middle of august in a black santa claus suit with an aluminum step ladder. he sat there a few minutes as passersby passed him by, staring at the confederate battle flag waving in the hot late summer breeze, then prodeeded to mount said ladder, climb up, take out his zippo, and set fire to what for him was a representation of his ancestor's enslavement as well as well over a century of kkk activity, lynchings and enslavement de facto. when the capitol cops finally arrived, they shouted at him to get down, and when he did not, took out their pepper spray cannisters, aimed and shot. as if by divine will, however, the wind abruptly changed, spraying the pepper back into their own eyes, nececitating some medical attention for them. the reverend was eventually apprehended, served a short stint in the local jail, and was released with another injuction against coming on state house grounds. i thought it was hilariously wonderful. many other of my fellow southern whites gave the reverend a hearty "huzzah!" as well...

     beyond the obvious, though, for those who hyperbolically insinuate that the south is nothing but a hotbed of racism, please compare the response to the good reverend with what such response would have been a couple of genreations past.

     but if the democratic party wants the south it needs to understand the south, and how the south percieves, especially how the petty white collar and blue collar southern male percieves...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/26/2006 @ 11:02am

167. nice bit of revisionism there, Ibble

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/26/2006 @ 11:12am

168. jR

     i have lived here for almost 40 years

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/26/2006 @ 11:16am

169. I'll have to peruse your post more closely. but I can say already that I saw what happened to the freedom riders and demonstrators down south. if it hadn't been for northerners with a conscience AND great courage, blacks would likely be still drinking from the colored water fountain and not sitting at the lunch counter

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/26/2006 @ 11:20am

170. ALL

     In a related story, GW Bush advises world leaders, in an effort to combat avian flu, to "choke their chickens". Seems he has the same speechwriters as South Park's Cartman. CHICKEN [tinyurl.com]

     Posted by leftofcenter at 01/26/2006 @ 11:28am

171. Ibble,

     You are of course, correct in your southern strategy. Kennedy and Kerry and Hillary, or any New England liberal will not work. I also have family in the south and what turned them was watching the water cannons and the dogs. The room went quiet as we watched the TV and one of my relatives sat there and said,", Man, that's just not right"....Epiphany..miracles..

     And also,. JR, if you haven't put me on ignore list, the following,

     ". at least among those who haven't been kneecapped by the press, as did happen with Howard Dean"...

     ..will further drive away any hopes of electoral victory anywhere in the south and add the midwest. If youy are a conservative you are screaming, Run Hillary, run Howard, and you hope the press promotes them more than they normally do liberal candidates.

     Knee capped? Howard shot himself in both feet by showing exactly who he was and what he believes.

     Posted by john maasch at 01/26/2006 @ 11:29am

172. Jr,

     The north in many ways was just as bad. It took civil right legislation passed by southern and midwestern moderates(read Rublicans and Dems, not southern or northern Dems) to have a huge effect as well as the force of the National Guard troops. Boston and Chcago were just as harsh as Birmingham.

     Posted by john maasch at 01/26/2006 @ 11:34am

173. Is anyone familiar with the term 'reverse-speech'? It was big in the early '90s. I've Googled for any current studies as related to the current president's twanged and garbled speach'afying, but to no avail. There seems to be lots of examples of Clinton secretly stating all kinds of lies ‘reverse-speech-ed' of course. Weird, I'd think this administration would create a boon of activity in that direction.

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/26/2006 @ 11:47am

174. Mask,

     Come on, you're not that thick...I know they don't "consider the liberal ideas on health, education, social services, or screwing the wealthy....to be in their economic interests...or even efficient and workable?" That's the point! They'd rather vote someone in who will prevent two fags from expressing their monogamous love into an abomination than vote someone in who will actually work to get their 4 kids health care. It's more important to them to vote someone in who allow somebody (not them because they can't afford it) to buy a .50 caliber sniper rifle than to vote someone who will actually tru to improve the school system instead of gutting the financial infrastrucure of schools.

     And screwing the wealthy? Again, I know you're not that big of an idiot to buy the bullshit about taxation "screwing the wealthy" when in actuality, it screws everybody who makes less than $1,000,000 when you tak into account all the regressive taxes (cigarettes, gas, sales, etc.) and all the tax breaks the wealthy get.

     Kansans vote against their interests because they are fed reams and reams of conservative crap.

     Posted by Turk33 at 01/26/2006 @ 11:50am

175. liberal policies ARE in people's "best interest" - MASK

     I agree 100%, Mask is absolutely correct

     Posted by reidsucks at 01/26/2006 @ 12:00pm

176. Turk,

     This is were the rubber meets the road..you libs and the following..

     "Kansans vote against their interests because they are fed reams and reams of conservative crap."...

     This attitude will FOREVER keep you out of real power. You constantly denigrate and insult the very people you want to influence the most with your "we know better and you are to stupid to realize that you do not". They also translate this into ..."we know better how to spend your money better than you do, so let us redistribute with our programs we KNOW will be better for everybody. If you disagree then you are ignorant and selfish"

     Result, Kansas says , "fuck you" and moves further right. The history of people here is self determinastion and not Hillarys village. You may never get it, but that is what it is.

     Posted by john maasch at 01/26/2006 @ 12:04pm

177. CPT - Bob Jones University - Bush had to go there, had to

     What if cultural differences are just a tool used by Conservatives to get away with corruption and acting against our interests, which is treason

     Posted by reidsucks at 01/26/2006 @ 12:06pm

178. I'll have to peruse your post more closely. but I can say already that I saw what happened to the freedom riders and demonstrators down south. if it hadn't been for northerners with a conscience AND great courage, blacks would likely be still drinking from the colored water fountain and not sitting at the lunch counter

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 01/26/2006 @ 11:20am | ignore this person

     yes, once again, read it closely- this is sensitive issue stuff - even discussing it is still, even after thepolitically correct tyranny, fraught with danger, esp for a southern white male such as i.

     my relationship with my region, is, not atypically, a love /hate sort of thing.

     there are many,in my opinion, archaicand counterproductive ways of thinking downherre, among my fellow caucasians, but

     1. this is the way it is, and

     2. there are some legitimate complaints to be heard from the stereotyped southern white male.

     that said,ifind the type of historical revisionism you mentioned to be ultimately pathetic and evil in itself. but then the older i get the more prevelent i find such mindsets in all us wickedly cunning shaved apes of whatever hue, shape, creed, origen, or outward physical appearance.

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/26/2006 @ 12:09pm

179. there are lots of miners and loggers here who were democrats because of unions and labor laws. then they switched to republicans because the tree-huggers took their jobs away.

     i don't think the tree-huggers took their jobs away.

     i don't know about racism anywhere else in the world. but i know a little about it here, in butte, montana. the first and last real-live black woman i saw was 12 years ago, in nebraska. everyone, 35,000 of us, knows who the 3 black men are that live here. growing up there were more people, but only 1 black man, leroy. i guess there was a black family living here all along. but i've never seen them or met them.

     i despise racism and fight against it in myself and others.

     personally, i like guns. a lot of people here could be swayed if their gun ownership were not threatened.

     maybe we should explain to everyone that hatred is not a correct motivation. that's what we should say about gays.

     the last time i heard micheal moore speak, he talked for an hour first, addressing every negative thing said about him. then he talked for an hour about what's going on and what to do about it. when he talked about the negatives, it's like he was reinforcing them.

     i don't see anything wrong with dean's speech.

     Posted by loveloki at 01/26/2006 @ 12:18pm

180. TURK, REID,

     Yah, guess it must be the "God, Guns, and Gays" thing.....certainly couldn't be a failed welfare-state or socialism masquerading as "progressivism" or even good ol' "We know better how to spend your money than you do" snobbery.

     You guys really take the cake. So some guy whose family has no health care or is working at that Home of Slave Labor, Wal-mart, says "I want to keep my gun, so I'll reject the GUARENTEED PROMISE of a Utopian economy"?

     Frank's book boiled down was this "The people aren't voting in their 'best interest'...cuz WE (the Left) KNOW what their best interest is...and they're not voting for us....so they're stupid and only care about homosexuals and guns!"

     He NEVER ONCE considered that his (your) ideas might be BAD, and have some HISTORICAL proof of that...just that Kansans were dumb hick homophobes who wanted machine guns.

     Posted by Mask at 01/26/2006 @ 12:23pm

181. Mask,

     For the umpteenth time "choice" in this modern day democracy is merely an illusion.

     The Democrat party is not some pinko commie socialist party. They are a party that serves their masters which is big business. The Republican party serves the same master and the big business media creates an illusion that there is some important difference between the parties.

     In this country, if you like the idea of wealth being siphoned upwards then you have two choices. If you have a notion that government should work for the well being of its true employers (the electorate) then you are shit out of luck.

     Posted by freedomplease at 01/26/2006 @ 12:48pm

182. Michael Moore is an artist, a filmmaker. he does not speak for the democratic party. he speaks only for himself. his views have been mischaracterized by the media, as a kind of short hand. shorthand for what you might ask.

     and here I can refer you to the Canada thread. our "center" has moved so far to the right, in contrast to Canada and most first world countries. the right has moved so far right that they beg comparison to the soviets, if not Stalin. our gov't in in the hands of stalinist extremists, and the Tories on this blog twist themselves into pretzels to defend the indefensible.

     we do not need to revisit the 60s civil rights struggle, it's hugely off topic. we need a civil rights movement for all americans, who are being deprived of their rights to fair elections, of a rational foreign policy.

     we were engaged in a "cold" war for half a century, against an adversary who had the means to incinerate every american city, and still has that capability. during this time it was not necessary to abridge citizens rights and freedoms.

     we did not change our system to make Bush a king, or our parliament mindless slaves to that king. this "LONG" war is a phony, the terrorists are a pimple on america's ass. this war is a public relations exercise. I don't believe the american people will buy it, just as they did not buy Bush socalled reform of social security, or any of his other destructive proposals.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/26/2006 @ 12:56pm

183. Posted by CPT 01/26/2006 @ 09:16am

     Write this historic date on your calendar. CPTs entire post made sense AND was mostly factual!

     Eric

     Posted by malcontent3 at 01/26/2006 @ 12:57pm

184. can we talk about issues here instead of nutcases like CPT et al?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/26/2006 @ 1:00pm

185. Mask,

     You talk out your ass when you believe that the tens of thousands of conservative evangelicals who poured out of their homes in November '04 to vote did so because of failed government programs. They did so because conservative Christians got anti-gay marriage referendums on the ballot.

     And in terms of failed economic policies, how'd the business run wild policy of the early twentieth century work out? You remember monopolies, trusts, zero government regulation, gerrymandering, corruption (as a matter of fact, everything that Bush & Co. have foisted on us in the early part of the twenty-first century)? Let me refresh your memory - the Great Depression!

     Do the Democrats have all the answers? Absolutely not! The problem is, the Republicans don't give a shit about investigating the right questions. But don't shovel a lot of crap about the failed Democrat programs, the Utopian society they supposedly are working towards, and the "steal from the rich" bullshit about taxation. The Democratic programs haven't been smashing successes, but compared to the way the Republicans have destroyed the economy every chance they get, yeah, I'd say the Democrats do have a better answer for the huge majority of Americans (those who don't belong to the millionaires club). But you keep working for anti gay marriage amendments and more tax cuts for the wealthiest, and guns of every caliber, shape and use for everyone, and health plans that screw the elderly while making drug companies richer, and social security plans that will destroy a program that's in need of tinkering, and deficits that make Reagan's look like chump change. Sounds like a hell of an alternative to the Democrats! The reason the Republicans have to resort to bullshit social issues is because they can't run on what they really stand for - most of the Kansans would lynch them.

     Posted by Turk33 at 01/26/2006 @ 1:05pm

186. Turk

     Bravo.....

     I can only think to add my favorite Bushism...which is part of my email signature file...

     "I do know I'm ready for the job. And, if not, that's just the way it goes." - George W Bush 8/21/00

     Obviously he wasn't....guess that's just the way it goes!

     Posted by leftofcenter at 01/26/2006 @ 1:10pm

187. Mal

     re: your 12:57am Do ya suppose it was sheer probability working in his favor?

     Posted by leftofcenter at 01/26/2006 @ 1:12pm

188. Turk,

     I hadn't hit refresh on this page before I started composing my response to MASK's latest venture into the absurd. I am thankful I did before expending much effort, since your response was almost exactly what I was composing, down to the talking out of his ass introduction.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/26/2006 @ 1:15pm

189. You guys are making me blush - some troll like NACL better come along and put me in my place. No, wait, can't be Mr. Salty, I've ignored him for conduct unbecoming a mammal.

     Posted by Turk33 at 01/26/2006 @ 1:35pm

190. For those interested in reading more on the intersection of history, religion, and liberal values, look at this article posted on The Nation's home page.

     http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId= 10875

     (no space after the last "=") The author provides a very basic set of principles designed to respond rationally with core religious values to the various forms of ignorant activities performed by our current leadership. I am not a religious person, but I find much to agree with in this article.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/26/2006 @ 1:41pm

191. MALCONTENT

     It must have been a star and planet alignment kind of thing.

     Posted by CPT at 01/26/2006 @ 1:44pm

192. turk, that business run wild and no gov.t regulations is what really happened to mt.'s economy

     bob gannon, the president of the now non-existent mt. power co. was on 60 minutes for a whole segment. the man who not only destroyed a good company, but a whole state. he got rich. goldman-sachs got richer. but our state's economy was destroyed.

     Posted by loveloki at 01/26/2006 @ 1:48pm

193. LOVELOKI

     FYI, had an army buddy from butte, montanna, he graduated from montanna state. 7 yrs ago.

     Posted by CPT at 01/26/2006 @ 1:48pm

194. FREEDOM, TURK

     Just had to go back and review my posts after the one that IBBLE started....

     Did I mention "Democrats"?.....or "liberals"?

     Democrats can win...Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, "New" ones like Clinton....but the post-1960s neo-Marxist, hyper-egalitarian, "Munich-1938" foreign policy liberals....nope.

     Posted by Mask at 01/26/2006 @ 1:49pm

195. Do the Democrats have all the answers? Absolutely not! The problem is, the Republicans don't give a shit about investigating the right questions. But don't shovel a lot of crap about the failed Democrat programs, the Utopian society they supposedly are working towards, and the "steal from the rich" bullshit about taxation. The Democratic programs haven't been smashing successes, but compared to the way the Republicans have destroyed the economy every chance they get, yeah, I'd say the Democrats do have a better answer for the huge majority of Americans (those who don't belong to the millionaires club). But you keep working for anti gay marriage amendments and more tax cuts for the wealthiest, and guns of every caliber, shape and use for everyone, and health plans that screw the elderly while making drug companies richer, and social security plans that will destroy a program that's in need of tinkering, and deficits that make Reagan's look like chump change. Sounds like a hell of an alternative to the Democrats! The reason the Republicans have to resort to bullshit social issues is because they can't run on what they really stand for - most of the Kansans would lynch them.

     Posted by TURK33 01/26/2006 @ 1:05pm

     Turk,

     I would venture that you will have no problem with your liberal compatriots agreeing wholeheartedly with your post.

     That said, most conservatives would agree when I say, "they still don't have a clue".

     Liberals dwell in the world of assumptions that conservatives and especially conservative Christians are easily manipulated and simplistic in their decision making process. Hence, the opportunity to achieve your goal of liberalism/progressive politics capturing control of the national political arena is severely handicapped.

     One of the key ways liberal/progressives could actually enhance their future chances would be to actually engage in dialogue that produces understanding. What usually transpires currently at both the national political level (ala a Dean or KVH type) or on sites like the Nation, is a condescending or dismissive arrogance towards us.

     I would be the first to admit that while I would love to see better dialogue, I am not confident that I will see that kind of communication develop on a large scale anytime in the near future.

     Posted by love liberty at 01/26/2006 @ 2:08pm

196. "...the post-1960s neo-Marxist, hyper-egalitarian, "Munich-1938" foreign policy liberals And who might be on this list, pray tell?

     And I bet no koala will get elected, nor a fern, nor a practicing Imperial Wizard, nor a gay hispanic midget who opposes firearms, wants a 90% tax rate and likes dressing up like a milk maid. Nothing like keeping the conversation real, Mask.

     At some point, not sure which thread, I asked if you could for once tell us not who won't win, but who you could support in '08. Or is that asking you to reveal too much of your private self?

     Posted by Turk33 at 01/26/2006 @ 2:12pm

197. LL,

     You mean how evangelicals get condescending towards non-believers (or believers of the wrong dogma)? Yeah, that does get kind of annoying.

     And in this dialogue you see as pie in the sky, where's the middle ground? Everything that comes into contact with faith gets put in the "can't touch this" pile. Everything that hints of socialism (universal health care, progressive taxes, etc.) is scoffed at. What's left to talk about? Believe me, there are way more democrats/liberals willing to sit down and talk than there are conservatives/republicans willing to even consider your dialogue (which is part of the left's problem - they keep expecting the right to play by some equal rules. Think they'd learn by now!)

     Posted by Turk33 at 01/26/2006 @ 2:27pm

198. Result, Kansas says , "fuck you" and moves further right. The history of people here is self determinastion and not Hillarys village. You may never get it, but that is what it is.

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/26/2006 @ 12:04am

     Bullshit Maasch.

     It has nothing to do with self determination. If you'll jump back to October 2004, when DHS issued orange alert and alert, when the masses in the midwest sold out their harware stores to load up on plastic sheething, duct tape and jugs of water, where locals were chomping about gays, abortion and religion.

     Like another poster said "its all about perception" The conservative talking heads all said "only we can protect you", "only we can prevent those hell bound queers from wrecking the institution of marriage", "only we can save all those poor unborn children from sliding under the abortionists knife".

     Self determination my ass. The only commonality Kansans, Nebraskans (like yourself) etc had in November 2004 was the perception of fear. And they fell hard for the "perception" so effectively created by the conservatives.

     Posted by doumer at 01/26/2006 @ 2:37pm

199. LL

     "Liberals dwell in the world of assumptions that conservatives and especially conservative Christians are easily manipulated and simplistic in their decision making process."

     The left can't help making observations, and when all it takes for some Northeasterner elitist with homes in Connecticut and Maine to win the hearts of evangelicals is to talk the talk and promote relatively inconsequential issues (like gay marriage), then what are we to assume? That the people who vote for anti-gay marriage laws and against universal health care have actually thought through the process, or that they have voted on faith (whether that's in God or the Republicans)? I have many friends who supported President Bush, and out of curiosity I asked them why. The only answer I ever got was that they didn't like the rich white guy from the Northeast who's family has had money for generations and who has no moral character, but Kerry was worse. And why is that? Because of in-depth consideration of the past, plans and specifics? No, because Bush is a good Christian man. And that is absolutely their right. But don't expect those of us who actually considered more than where the candidates go on Sunday mornings to not think a little less of those who didn't consider more than where the candidates go on Sunday mornings.

     Posted by Turk33 at 01/26/2006 @ 2:41pm

200. Posted by TURK33 01/26/2006 @ 2:12pm

     TURK, I think I DID respond....Bill Richardson.

     He seems moderate, a tax-cutter, tough on illegal immigration, and would have a REASONABLE energy policy, not old-style and not neo-Luddite environmentalist.

     Posted by Mask at 01/26/2006 @ 2:52pm

201. You mean how evangelicals get condescending towards non-believers (or believers of the wrong dogma)? Yeah, that does get kind of annoying.

     And in this dialogue you see as pie in the sky, where's the middle ground? Everything that comes into contact with faith gets put in the "can't touch this" pile. Everything that hints of socialism (universal health care, progressive taxes, etc.) is scoffed at. What's left to talk about? Believe me, there are way more democrats/liberals willing to sit down and talk than there are conservatives/republicans willing to even consider your dialogue (which is part of the left's problem - they keep expecting the right to play by some equal rules. Think they'd learn by now!)

     Posted by TURK33 01/26/2006 @ 2:27pm

     Turk,

     Issues of faith and salvation should not enter into a political discussion. If someone asks a Christian like myself whether I believe that only those who confess Jesus as Lord and Savior will go to heaven, should I deny my faith or it's doctrines? But it should not weigh on matters of politics.

     There are several practicing Buddhists who post here. You cannot find one post where I have attacked their Buddhist beliefs. Have I previously attacked Islam? Yes, for distorting and lying about Judaism and Christianity. In that regard, I have a right of defense.

     I'm not sure what you are implying on the "Everything that comes into contact with faith gets put in the "can't touch this" pile". If it's as mentioned above, sure. If it regards faith based issues touching on political decisions, it is open to debate. I might add that I have stated on several occasions that there are areas where Christians have been wrong to insist on mixing our faith with the constitution.

     For instance, I am firm that marriage is a religious institution and the Jewish-Christian tradition was the basis for the institution in this country. Therefore "gay marriage" should not be allowed. However, as much as I and most conservative Christians and Jews would find gay civil unions abhorrent, constitutionally I believe we can register no political dissent that is legitimate.

     On another issue, the old argument that Christianity and Southern Christians in particular used their faith and supposedly the Bible to justify slavery was an abomination to God and a distortion of Christian scripture. There was no way to find God approving of slavery.

     Lastly, "scoffing" at universal health care or progressive taxes doesn't mean the debate ends, it simply reflects the distate conservatives find in that approach. What it then requires is to extend the dialogue further and examine how the seemingly insurmountable gap can be bridged. I have openly said that the individual states have all the legal right and opportunity to pass these types of legislative solutions. Yet that answer which is entirely in keeping with our constitution is emphatically rejected by nearly all of the progressives here.

     Rather than just complain about entrenched positions, a willingness to continue the dialogue would seem to hold out more promise.

     Hope our little dialogue is expanded between us and adds others.

     Posted by love liberty at 01/26/2006 @ 2:53pm

202. Posted by DOUMER 01/26/2006 @ 2:37pm | ignore this person

     The "perception of fear" is used by BOTH sides....I remember quite well how we were "all just a paycheck away from homelessness" back in the 80s.....or how "Japan was going to own us all, if we didn't pass some of Dick Gephardt's protectionism plans".

     Posted by Mask at 01/26/2006 @ 2:54pm

203. The left can't help making observations, and when all it takes for some Northeasterner elitist with homes in Connecticut and Maine to win the hearts of evangelicals is to talk the talk and promote relatively inconsequential issues (like gay marriage), then what are we to assume? That the people who vote for anti-gay marriage laws and against universal health care have actually thought through the process, or that they have voted on faith (whether that's in God or the Republicans)? I have many friends who supported President Bush, and out of curiosity I asked them why. The only answer I ever got was that they didn't like the rich white guy from the Northeast who's family has had money for generations and who has no moral character, but Kerry was worse. And why is that? Because of in-depth consideration of the past, plans and specifics? No, because Bush is a good Christian man. And that is absolutely their right. But don't expect those of us who actually considered more than where the candidates go on Sunday mornings to not think a little less of those who didn't consider more than where the candidates go on Sunday mornings.

     Posted by TURK33 01/26/2006 @ 2:41pm

     Turk,

     I'm sorry that has been your experience. Yes, I know people like that on both sides of the spectrum. I can cite all manner of liberal ignorance. I choose rather to focus on how I can expand the level of understand and the dialogue. The alternative is to abandon hope.

     An old but trusted saying is "an opinion that can't be defended, can't be trusted".

     Posted by love liberty at 01/26/2006 @ 2:57pm

204. LL

     " I choose rather to focus on how I can expand the level of understand and the dialogue."

     I'm not in a position of power, but I'm listening. Please explain how you and I, with some pretty different ideas, can expand each other's level of understanding and the dialogue.

     Posted by Turk33 at 01/26/2006 @ 3:04pm

205. Mask,

     I'm sorry, I must have missed your endorsement of Governor Richardson. He definitely seems like a reasonable candidate, and from what I have read and heard, I could defiinitely share your support of him. My apology for sarcasm.

     Posted by Turk33 at 01/26/2006 @ 3:10pm

206. An excellent point you make Katrina.

     Looking back I find it a bit peculiar that at a time when the Bush administration and the NSA have been eavesdropping on American citizens and with hearings on the horizon regarding this issue, that Osama bin Laden mysteriously surfaces in an audio tape! Now, our bellicose, usurper "n" chief is using the tape as a tool, once again instilling fear by reminding us of 9/11 and hoping it will justify the eavesdropping. And let us not forget, he is King George. Our King will do what ever the heck he dam well wants. Right?

     What I also found interesting is the date this Bin Laden tape was aired. January 19. Reverse this date, 9/11. A coincidence?

     And did I also hear Bush subliminally mention today in his news conference that he wasn't going to allow Iran to mess with our currency? Was he referring to the proposed Iranian Oil Bourse scheduled for this March?

     Folks please fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

     Posted by Munich at 01/26/2006 @ 3:12pm

207. An old but trusted saying is "an opinion that can't be defended, can't be trusted". Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/26/2006 @ 2:57pm

     Right, so an opinion (folks who confess Jesus as Lord and Savior will go to heaven) that can't be defended, since it's only supported by faith, can't be trusted. Oh, sorry, that's not an opinion backed by faith, it's a fact... unless you have no religious faith.

     How can someone whose world is populated by ghosts and phantoms able to look at the real world and reach decisions that aren't informed, wholly or in part, by their fantastic belief system? And then force these decisions on the heathen?

     Posted by Fishbite at 01/26/2006 @ 3:15pm

208. Okay, I am in the process of catching up from yesterday, and I'm only on Page 3. THANK YOU LISA JO for returning to Love Liberty's dodge of my questions yesterday. I was going to let it lie since I believe him to be long on hyperbole and short on facts, anyway, but THANK YOU FOR BRINGING IT BACK UP.

     I'll have to catch up on the other two pages I missed, but this part is for our "senile" friend, since he claims he can't remember it. Here's my last post to you yesterday, Liberty:

     Welcome back to the discussion, LL.

     Imagine my boundless surprise. Your first sentence contains the requisite sarcasm that your posts always do. I'll try to refrain from mentioning how you seek to defend the Bible with more quotes from the same book, which is what I believe is known as a circular argument...

     Now, then, what I'm getting is this in a nutshell:

     God required his followers to commit genocide, arson, murder, pillaging, infanticide, etc. all over the Old Testament but Jesus brought a New Testament which instead instructs people to turn the other cheek.

     First of all, Christian history does not bear this New Testament idea out. Christian armies never turned the other cheek when they slaughtered their enemies in the name of God. Church leaders supported these acts and often led the clamor for holy wars.

     Secondly, the New Testament argument destroys the very foundation that Christianity is built upon. If God is really all-powerful and all-knowing and all-loving, then he can't possibly have meant to tell his followers to go out and engage in acts of ethnic cleansing and then have changed his mind a thousand years or so later.

     If God really knows all and can do whatever he wants, why couldn't he have brought Jesus and the New Testament down earlier and saved the Earth a whole lot of bloodshed? Waiting around to teach forgiveness after you've been teaching human slaughter doesn't sound very all-loving to me.

     Whichever tack you take, the argument that a New Testament separates modern Christianity from the atrocities of the Old Testament is a theologically unsound excuse.

     Besides, all the Christian protestations about being followers of the New Testaments and not the Old Testament are shown to be the hollow excuses they are by the continued use of the Old Testament by practically every Christian church on the face of the Earth. If Christianity really repudiates the Old Testament, then why is the Old Testament still included in the Christian Holy Bible? Why do Christian priests and preachers still base entire doctrines on Old Testament Verses? Why do Christian politicians try to get the Ten Commandments posted in public places? Why do most Christians still circumcise their little boys if they don't believe in keeping the old covenant with God?

     If you really believe in compassion, mercy and forgiveness (New Testament virtues), it might be time for you to try ministering to people with ACTS of love, kindness, patience, and respect, instead of just paying said virtues lip service.

     Thank YOU for responding. That was brave and I commend your passion, no matter how misguided I may personally believe it to be.

     Posted by NEW DAWN 01/24/2006 @ 5:37pm | ignore this person

     Posted by New Dawn at 01/26/2006 @ 3:36pm

209. "There are several practicing Buddhists who post here. You cannot find one post where I have attacked their Buddhist beliefs."

     LL: You are absolutely correct. However if you ever do attack Buddhist beliefs, i will meet you with compassion as all other sentient beings.

     Posted by wuwei at 01/26/2006 @ 3:37pm

210. johannesrolf,

     i completely agree with you that we need a real civil rights movement for all americans right now.

     i also agree that this war is not what it seems. many things are occuring in the name of this war that have little to do with being patriotic. there is a power grab in play that can destroy the foundations of this country. or has it already happened? is it too late?

     i did not mean to imply that micheal moore speaks for the left. i only meant that perhaps there is a lesson to be learned from his mistakes.

     cpt, small world.

     Posted by loveloki at 01/26/2006 @ 3:44pm

211. Posted by TURK33 01/26/2006 @ 3:10pm | ignore this person

     No problem, dude (or dudette, never know on Internet)....

     Richardson seems "okay"...another Clinton "Third Way'er", who'll be loathed by "The Nation", but will steer a centrist course, maybe veer Right a bit.

     For those who want a tough stance on illegal immigration, he'll probably be "their guy" too (Repub or Dem or Indy)...as a Latino, to "insulate" himself from charges of wanting "an open border", he'll probably be tougher on border control than any Anglo could be.

     Posted by Mask at 01/26/2006 @ 3:46pm

212. "For instance, I am firm that marriage is a religious institution and the Jewish-Christian tradition was the basis for the institution in this country. Therefore "gay marriage" should not be allowed. However, as much as I and most conservative Christians and Jews would find gay civil unions abhorrent, constitutionally I believe we can register no political dissent that is legitimate."

     LL: off topic here, but here goes.

     My mother-in-law lives with us. She is a devout Catholic and every Sunday, my chauffering services are commandered. When I drove back to pick her up, I noticed several booths set up outside the church building...but fully within church grounds. I saw signs posted "Save Arizona Marriage". While parked and waiting for mom-in-law to peel herself out of church, a lady manning one of the booths came to my window. the conversation went somehting like this:

     Lady in red: "are you a registered voter in Arizona?"

     Doumer: "yes, I am"

     Lady in red: "would you like to sign our petition to help save marriage in Arizona"?

     Doumer: "is marriage in trouble in Arizona?"

     Lady in red:"yes, very much in trouble"

     Doumer: "who is attacking marriage"?

     Lady in red:"homosexuals, don't you know that?"

     Doumer:"how are homosexuals wrecking marriage?"

     Lady in red:"marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman"

     Doumer: "says who?"

     Lady in red:"it's in the bible and homosexuality is an abomination". "We are gathering signatures to place this on the ballot in November". "we want to make sure our constitutional marriage rights are protected"

     Doumer: (thinking this might get a little tense changes tactics and says) "are you a registered PAC in Arizona?"

     Lady in red:"what is a PAC?"

     Doumer: "Political Action Committee"

     Lady in red:"I don't know...why does it matter?"

     Doumer:"You have to register your political group with the state in order to get something on the ticket".

     Lady in red:"Oh yes then, we are registered".

     Doumer: "You are aware of the IRS Rules for tax exempted churches aren't you?

     Lady in red:......(looks perplexed but makes no comment)

     Doumer: "you do realize that what you are doing is politicizing on church property, don't you"?

     Lady in red:"homosexuality is an abomination and a threat to marriage in Arizona."

     Doumer: "whatever, but.....you just can't do what you're doing here".

     Lady in red:(walks away...one minute later)

     Large man with badge: Larry...Knights of Columbus...asks "can I help you?"

     Doumer: "no thanks...I was conversing with this lady here"

     Larry: "What are you doing here?"

     Doumer: I'm talking with this lady AND waiting for my mother in law.

     Larry: "move your vehicle or I will call the police"

     Doumer:(gives Lady in red snarly little smirk and drives off.

     Sorry about the long winded post, but gotta be factual. Tell me LL what you think about this exchange.

     Posted by doumer at 01/26/2006 @ 4:11pm

213. I know some of you will think I'm dodging again, but I do have to run out. I actually have to work at least part of the time to pay my house payment!

     New Dawn and Doumer, both are interesting posts to respond to; please allow me a few hours to get back with you.

     Posted by love liberty at 01/26/2006 @ 4:18pm

214. BTW ND and Doumer,

     I just copied your posts onto Word files so I make sure I don't lose them.

     Thanks for your patience.

     Posted by love liberty at 01/26/2006 @ 4:21pm

215. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

     As Billy Graham would proffer in one of his 1,000s of revivals we must choose this day whom we will serve, God or Mammon (the world)!

     Posted by RIO BRAVO 01/26/2006 @ 4:21pm | ignore this person

     i like chocolate cake. i might say "chocolate cake makes me happy" but i would be wrong. if i ate two pieces of chocolate cake, i would not be twice as happy as if i had eaten just one. if i ate 25 pieces of cake, not only would i not be 25 times happier, in fact i would be far far more miserable. chocolate cake is then, not a true source of happiness. all things of this world are like this.

     threre - my religion...

     i should be a conservative, should i not? har har

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/26/2006 @ 4:38pm

216. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 01/26/2006 @ 4:38pm

     How about mammon cake? Tastes better...less filling!

     Posted by doumer at 01/26/2006 @ 4:45pm

217. Okay, I'm pretty caught up, and so...

     Heya, Loki... Fish... Ibble... Even Mask is interesting as always (though we certainly don't agree about much). LisaJo, where'd ya go?

     And now that I've completed the butt-kissing and sycophantic hellos, let's get down to business...

     Liberty, you are not just a hypocrite, as I originally suspected (knew). You are also either as senile as you claim or are even more picky about what you believe in your own supposedly inerrant book than I thought.

     From LL: "On another issue, the old argument that Christianity and Southern Christians in particular used their faith and supposedly the Bible to justify slavery was an abomination to God and a distortion of Christian scripture. There was no way to find God approving of slavery."

     Try Lev. 25:44. I even asked you a direct question about it, remember?

     "Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?"

     And don't give me the "Oh, that's just Old Testament stuff superseded and made irrelevant by the New Testament" argument again. I've already soundly trounced that rhetoric, and will be happy to do it again if you ask me really, really nicely.

     I also noticed that you tried in your recent posts to suddenly appear oh so very altruistic... Accusing LisaJo of being so mean to you... How's that feel, by the by, to be on the receiving end of what you do to others whenever it suits you?

     You make me very upset, not because of your faith but because of who you are personally, and even that not so much as that others look up to you for guidance. I still think you should be simply ashamed of yourself.

     And I still believe Jesus would be ashamed of you, too.

     And Rio - First, I wasn't talking to you and I'm pretty sure that Liberty wears big boy pants and can respond for himself. Second, I already pointed out that your argument doesn't hold water. The Old Testament is still very much in use today, even though it is directly contradicted and supposedly superseded by the New. Sort of like the contradictions between the Gospels. You folks just excuse that stuff away in light of your larger argument: You're right, and the rest of us are wrong and hell-bound on a fast train. Third, an independent? You??? You are the most liberal-hating independent I've ever had the misfortune to come across.

     By the by, you are the also one of the worst offenders here when it comes to using hyperbole over facts. Your usual liberal-hating rhetoric is so ludicrous it doesn't even upset me, however, it just makes me sadly shake my head, like I do at people who button their shirts wrong or don't know how to tie their own shoes or back up over their own cats in the driveway.

     Whew, are we having fun yet??? I know I am.

     Posted by New Dawn at 01/26/2006 @ 4:49pm

218. Suggest you report to the proper authorities any church you find where Bill or Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, or any democrat or republican makes a speech seemingly politicizing!

     Posted by RIO BRAVO 01/26/2006 @ 4:28pm

     Thanks for the tip...but I'm way ahead of you. I did call the Phoenix IRS office on Monday and lodged a complaint. They promised an investigation. I'm not holding my breath. At least I've done my small part in reacting against these bigots and hypocrites. Like you.

     Posted by doumer at 01/26/2006 @ 4:50pm

219. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 01/26/2006 @ 4:38pm

     How about mammon cake? Tastes better...less filling!

     Posted by DOUMER 01/26/2006 @ 4:45pm | ignore this person

     yeah, but it gives me the gas

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/26/2006 @ 4:55pm

220. as do soy products, which apparantly dont help much in heart health, except they gotta be better than grain and cow brain/spinal colum feed fed beef...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/26/2006 @ 4:58pm

221. yeah, but it gives me the gas

     Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 01/26/2006 @ 4:55pm

     Come on IBBL: look at the possibilities. Bottle it." IBBLE"S GAS of MAMMON". Our resident enterpreneur Maasch could probably derive mega profits for you (and him).Doesn't Massch owe you some dough?

     Posted by doumer at 01/26/2006 @ 5:00pm

222. Doumer and Ibble -

     You two are nuts. Tres f'ing funny, but clearly nuts. Hee hee

     Rio -

     Check this out. About a dozen entries onto the page...

     http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut/allcomments?pid=52113&rpg=4

     Now for the funny part... That ain't me arguing with you... The entire post above is from Love Liberty. He's arguing how the Old Testament is revoked by the New.

     Now, let's all sit back and watch you two argue it out as to the relevance of the Old Testament.

     This should be fun.

     Posted by New Dawn at 01/26/2006 @ 5:03pm

223. Ibble's Gas of Mammon. Oh my f'ing A... I am just crying laughing.

     I'll take a case. Where do I send the check?

     Posted by New Dawn at 01/26/2006 @ 5:05pm

224. what is this blog about, by the way?

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/26/2006 @ 5:08pm

225. Surely you don't expect me to know... I just come here hypocrite-hunting. :)

     Posted by New Dawn at 01/26/2006 @ 5:10pm

226. Since what they say is reverse of what they really want:

     http://www.reversespeech.com/bush.htm

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/26/2006 @ 5:11pm

227. IBBLE:

     Damn, I wish Maasch was here. Marketing...marketing..profits...profits!

     Label:

     IBBLES GAS of MAMMON

     "One whiff and you too can talk just like George"

     Directions:

     Place dispenser in open mouth

     Depress lever twice

     Breathe deeply

     Speak haltingly in twisted stuttered english (or tongues if you wish)

     Be the hit of the party at every replublican event.

     New Dawn: you're gonna have to stand in line to buy. All the bonzos here have first dibs. Sorry.

     Posted by doumer at 01/26/2006 @ 5:19pm

228. Doumer

     re: "antics in AZ"

     Obviously if God is on your side, what do laws matter? We don' need no steenking lawz

     Posted by leftofcenter at 01/26/2006 @ 5:19pm

229. Crap. How about if I scoop out half of my brain? Can I get a better spot in line?

     Posted by New Dawn at 01/26/2006 @ 5:22pm

230. Crap. How about if I scoop out half of my brain? Can I get a better spot in line?

     Posted by NEW DAWN 01/26/2006 @ 5:22pm

     Deal.

     You know we'd have to beat up on you. Now scoop out 9/10th's of the matter and you can stand behind Rio.

     Posted by doumer at 01/26/2006 @ 5:30pm

231. On another issue, the old argument that Christianity and Southern Christians in particular used their faith and supposedly the Bible to justify slavery was an abomination to God and a distortion of Christian scripture. There was no way to find God approving of slavery.

     Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/26/2006 @ 2:53pm | ignore this person

     ok, i have to respectfully clear a few things up. some southern christian denominations MOST CERTAINLY DID support slavery. i have seen primary source documentation. it is common knowledge. furthermore i would argue that although increased conversion to moral religions like christianity (which, taken as a whole has done more in my opinion to end the institution of slavery in the world than even my own religion) has been a good thing and has resulted, among other things, in the end of slavery, it also resulted in ironic, poorly understood, unfortunate consequenses.

     such as slavery. before christianity, slavery was just that. you won the war, you took a bunch of their peeps. nothing really racial there, just honest brutality and explloitation. but, if say a syrian slave of a roman family managed to buy his freedom, who knows but that in a generation or two, that former slave's descendents might fade into society in general and, who knows, achieve that which is open to all? sometimes even crazy ben hur stuff happened.

     but with christianity came a knowledge slavery is bad, and a determination to end it.

     yet when europeans gobbled up the new world they discovered a need for slave lavbor in order to profitably farm their colonies. but slavery was wrong. slavery of human beings...so europe cast about and found a group of people whose physical appearance was significantly different so that they could say to themselves, "these are not really men. they are something less. so we CAN enslave them!"

     thus do people justify eveil to themselves. therefore because christianity elevated people's morality to such a level that slavery of another human being was viewed as unacceptable, people who needed slaves dehumanized their slaves by imputing qualities of racial inferiority. thus is christianity INDIRECTLY responsible for the particularly severity of american race based slavery. of course, so, through christian abolishionist movement, did it undo slavery. good karma there.

     but yes, specifically speaking, prior to the civil war, LL, some christian denominations in the south did in fact act as apologists for slavery...

     apologies if i have offended.

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/26/2006 @ 5:33pm

232. Beat up on me? Better bring a couple of friends and a lunch, cuz that's gonna be a long day.

     :)

     In all seriousness, Doumer, your responses to that nitwit that confronted at the church you were perfect, my man. And while I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a response, either, at least it shows you know the difference between passion and action.

     Kudos.

     Posted by New Dawn at 01/26/2006 @ 5:39pm

233. http://www.reversespeech.com/rev/debate5.Mp3

     Bush: "But I again I want to tell the America people, we're doing everything we can at home but you better have a President who chases these terrorists down and brings them to justice before they hurt us again." Lets arrest Jesus (An obscure metaphor. Meaning unknown)

     Maybe he's referring to torture?

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/26/2006 @ 6:22pm

234. Rio -

     Take a wild guess as to what you can do with your sarcasm about glasses. I might just as well tell you to take your blinders off.

     I shouldn't even bother to engage you, since you have a clear record of cherry-picking people's comments and then retorting with what I'm sure you consider to be stunning wit. But I'm a little bored at the moment, so what the heck.

     Your post said the Old Testament "simply reveals God, his nature of love, his laws of judgement, his sovereignty ruling over all, his power that is omnipotence, his chosen people out of Abraham, and his purposeful plan for a new covenant through prophecy" and that the New "is the record of the truth of that prophecy fulfilled by the sacrifice of his son Jesus Christ as a propitiation (substitute) for our sins if we accept his gift!"

     You completely failed to address my point that the two contradict one another. It's war, infanticide, arson, and murder in the Old and "Love thy neighbor" in the New. That's called a contradiction.

     And your post, as you well know, didn't address Liberty's saying the Old is repudiated by the new in every way. That's called an omission.

     Play your word games. You're fooling no one but you.

     Posted by New Dawn at 01/26/2006 @ 6:24pm

235. IBBLE:

     Good points. From my own experiences in the developing world, I have seen a more nuanced, but just as insidious form of slavery. And it really has nothing to do with religion/christianity/animism.

     Much of the developing world embraces the extended family system. Clan is everything. A well to do person has a distinct and unwritten obligation to extend assistance to all members of the extended family. More often than not, young boys and girls are brought out of the villages and placed in very subservient and servile positions. They do nothing more than serve at the whim of the "master". If the head of the clan is beneficient, the kids may be sent to school. If not, they are doomed to spend years in absolute servitude.

     I saw this in west africa, north africa and asia. I have not seen this in south or central america as I have not traveled much in that area. If Chimi reads this, then perhaps he can add some observations.

     Nevertheless, as you pointed out, christianity and islam have played a somewhat sinister role in this. The belief system is simple: feed and clothe dispossessed family members and you have done your share. My belief system begs otherwise. The dispossessed deserve much more than servitude, porridge and hand me downs.

     If I can recall correctly, you practice Buddhism. In Thailand, Malaysia and Kampuchia I saw evidence of the same type of extended family abuse. In their case, the "servants" were told that "karma" had dictated their position in the world and nothing could change that.

     Overall, religion, or its abuse, plays a large share in ongoing "slavery", but the concept is deeply enbedded and will take nothing short of complete economic revolution to change it.

     Posted by doumer at 01/26/2006 @ 6:30pm

236. It's amazing that a silly title of a short essay could encourage--yet again--a discussion of Christianity. Rio wants objectivity and intellect and yet seems incapable of grasping the world without a Bible in hand. To anyone who believes that religion is anything beyond a personal choice (one chosen from a near-infinite number of options) I say you seek not objectivity nor intellect in any discussion.

     Everyone is welcome to engage these people, but even your best attempts at knocking sense into 'em will be warped into a validation of their senses of superiority. If they had but an ounce of humility, one of the great values to be learned from The Bible, they might actually be able to communicate with a firm grasp on both reality and sanity. Instead they blow out their noxious fumes, self-satisfied that everyone else will have an ultimate and unpleasant meeting with his/her maker.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/26/2006 @ 6:35pm

237. Doumer -

     Have you read the book "A History of God" by Karen Armstrong? Discussing the common origins of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity?

     Fascinating, fascinating, fascinating... Addresses some of what you just posted.

     TJ -

     Many good points. But I only started posting on this board to take on Liberty's hypocrisy, which I had, after far too long, finally had enough of. Rio decided to jump in on me at his own peril. I'm just enjoying the discourse, not really expecting to change anyone, least of all either of those two!

     Hope I'm not being a pain in the ass!

     Posted by New Dawn at 01/26/2006 @ 6:42pm

238. Back to the topic at hand, which if nobody remembers was wiretapping, I wanted to ask a question that Byron Allen brought up in a previous post about reasonable expectation of privacy. I wonder if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in international sattelite phone calls? While Bush's program clearly violates FISA, the question remains, if the S/c finds an inherent exception through Congress' authorization to use any means necessary to stop terrorists, is the warrantless search unconstitutional?

     Posted by nattiebumpo at 01/26/2006 @ 6:42pm

239. Nattie -

     Do a quick Yahoo search on Mr. Allen. Not to impugn his integrity in any way, of course, but simply to understand the filter through which he, like all of us, shares his insights and information (all of which I believe to be factually true, by the way, at least the techno stuff).

     And Rio -

     I was born and raised a Catholic. I just don't follow that particular faith anymore. I don't "hate" anything, except maybe hypocrisy, and certainly not God. I just choose to use the intellect that my creator gifted me with to think critically and ask questions. When one stops seeking, one stops learning, and that ain't calculus, kiddo, it's a simple fact.

     I find it terribly amusing that both you and Liberty have tried to use the "Then you must hate God" excuse instead of logically arguing your position.

     Posted by New Dawn at 01/26/2006 @ 6:49pm

240. George Bush at The Republican Convention

     By David  J. Oates September 2004  

     The study of Reverse Speech over the years has yielded many insights into the minds of our political leaders. Of no exception to this is United States President, George W. Bush.

     In previous articles on this website, we have noted several trends in the reversals of George Bush, such as an edge that is first seen during the 2000 election campaign. As he talked about the murder of a black man, he delivered a reversal that said, "Hide the filthy nigger." This continues throughout his presidency with reversals of contempt against both the Senate and Congress – "Senate, they're all first year losers," and "Choke the fuckers now" when he was talking about Congress.

     We have noted that Bush is a strong leader. We see this with reversals after 911 such as. "Sky, see the limit with terror," "I am avowed", and "I must reveal the law."  We noted his resolve to move into Iraq as early as 2002 with reversals like "Mess Iraq,"  "Begin with Iraq," and Kill them with the friendly London." On domestic issues, we have noted that Bush appears to be incongruent with reversals such as "You cant do it," and "Renege on it." as he talked about tax cuts for the middle class, and  "We're doubtful we will beat them," as he talked about combating corporate corruption.

     The next significant reversal we hear appears as he is talking about the American tax code. He says backwards "Demonic Iran." This is out of context with the forwards and suggests that his mind is preoccupied with other things, maybe war with Iran. This incongruity continues as he talks about other domestic issues. Continuing with the American tax code he says backwards, "High crime with the law," - as he is talking about creating new American housing, he delivers a reversal that says, "More harm." Further, he shows disdain as talks about retirement security and says backwards, "That idiot, not worthy." And when he is talking about children's education, he says backwards, "I am a fake."

     http://www.reversespeech.com/bushconv.htm

     Posted by Bushfools at 01/26/2006 @ 6:55pm

241. I guess you got Al Gore for taking all that money from the buddist temple in california too! Good work!

     Posted by RIO BRAVO 01/26/2006 @ 6:09pm

     You again Rio. Nothing new? All debunked. Same old. Same old. Get to it man! Hunker down with your thumpin-books and offer some rebuttles to New Dawn and IBBLE. Can't do it can you? Waiting for LL to cover your quivering excuse for balls? Coward!

     Will there be a time and, perhaps a moment,a second when you will have an original thought? I'm waiting.

     Posted by doumer at 01/26/2006 @ 6:56pm

242. "demoncrats"

     Rio, you are an expert at destroying your own credibility.

     Posted by New Dawn at 01/26/2006 @ 7:12pm

243. If I can recall correctly, you practice Buddhism. In Thailand, Malaysia and Kampuchia I saw evidence of the same type of extended family abuse. In their case, the "servants" were told that "karma" had dictated their position in the world and nothing could change that.

     yeah - this ole world works hell on lofty ideals

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/26/2006 @ 7:17pm

244. so what about what that allen guy talked about? IS this wire tapping thing nothing?

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/26/2006 @ 7:27pm

245. Politicizing at religious institutions with impunity for liberals and demoncrats! Just as I thought another fine example of liberal hypocracy and double standards that are indefensible! It would have been too uncharactoristically kind just to respond with a "No thank you madam!"

     Posted by RIO BRAVO 01/26/2006 @ 7:08pm

     Wrong Rio. Wasn't me who was politicizing. It was the bigots "Save Arizona Marriage" la la wingers. Get a grip. I was there to pick up the mom-in-law. They stuck their shit in my face. Hell no! They did not belong there. I was there doing a favor for my mom-in-law. So fuck you.

     Posted by doumer at 01/26/2006 @ 7:51pm

246. Katrina,

     "if the FBI will tell me when the last time W. was in a library."

     I'm just wondering what this non-sequitur and ad-hominem has to do with anything?

     Right....nothing.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/26/2006 @ 7:55pm

247. Posted by BUSHFOOLS 01/26/2006 @ 6:55pm | ignore this person

     that website was cool

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/26/2006 @ 7:56pm

248. Posted by RIO BRAVO 01/26/2006 @ 8:03pm

     Another follower of Paulianity who can't quite seem to walk the telk

     Posted by Will C. at 01/26/2006 @ 8:10pm

249. correction... talk

     Posted by Will C. at 01/26/2006 @ 8:11pm

250. Christ was a socialist.

     Posted by Frank Thomas at 01/26/2006 @ 8:17pm

251. Rio:

     Unless you don't realize it, you are debating here with an atheist. I have no need, or use for your verses. Kindly refrain from posting such, as a favor. And use your own "ideas" if you choose to respond to my queries to you.

     I give everybody the benefit of doubt. I read your longish post from "Reason Magazine". In so far as the line "Unfortunately, citizens in the United States today, with only a few notable exceptions, have neither an appreciation of this ratchet process nor a strong commitment to individual rights to life, liberty, and property.", well, think about why you posted that here, on The Nation? Nation readers and posters have no commitment to life, liberty etc?

     Go post your shit to those will accept your word as legit. It doesn't sell here. Guaranteed!

     Posted by doumer at 01/26/2006 @ 8:18pm

252. well, the crisis constitution thing is a legitimate point, like it or not. the article seemed to simultaneously warn and reassure. interesting.

     well, that is the question, is it not? what is this entire thing about? is it the hundred years world war 3? (the "war")

     but rio is right on the money if he's saying this is bush's defense for the wiretapping.

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/26/2006 @ 8:26pm

253. Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/26/2006 @ 8:33pm

254. ibble, your cat is on the computer again.

     Posted by loveloki at 01/26/2006 @ 8:39pm

255. Considering how highly the Dubya Administration values its privacy, it's amazing how little concern they've shown for ours. Frankly, I've received two very strong impressions from this Administration. 1. The Bush Gang hasn't the foggiest about how our government works, and 2. They aren't too bright. Heck, for example, Paul Wolfowitz was said to have been the brightest of the bunch, and invading Iraq was his idea. Rumsfeld, of course, has been wrong about everything. Bush, well, we all saw Bush having trouble with that door in China, and we was just lucky that was a short trip. And Cheney...heck, what can you say about a guy who continues to tell the same lies even after everyone knows he lying? It's a good thing, he's got someone like Dubya around to carry his jumper cables. So how do we know that the Bush Gang is actually spying on everyone? For one thing, because he said he wasn't spying on everyone. Just look at his face, close-set beady eyes, just like a raccoon in a sweet potato patch. For another thing the boy is bragging about it. We let him slide on this he might end up with another term, not that the republicans would mind. They've always been attracted to idiots. Don't ask me why. As for Dick Morris's opinion that speaking out against the Bush gang's follies will reflect poorly against liberals and such...seriously, I mean, this is a grown man who paid a high class working girl to let him suck her toes. Now if that's something he couldn't work out for free, then I'd wager that his opinion is vastly overrated. Best regards, Jack

     Posted by Monroe5 at 01/26/2006 @ 8:40pm

256. Ibbleblibble,

     Your last post contained no words at all. Was that deliberate?

     Posted by Frank Thomas at 01/26/2006 @ 8:40pm

257. Considering how highly the Dubya Administration values its privacy, it's amazing how little concern they've shown for ours. Frankly, I've received two very strong impressions from this Administration. 1. The Bush Gang hasn't the foggiest about how our government works, and 2. They aren't too bright. Heck, for example, Paul Wolfowitz was said to have been the brightest of the bunch, and invading Iraq was his idea. Rumsfeld, of course, has been wrong about everything. Bush, well, we all saw Bush having trouble with that door in China, and we was just lucky that was a short trip. And Cheney...heck, what can you say about a guy who continues to tell the same lies even after everyone knows he lying? It's a good thing, he's got someone like Dubya around to carry his jumper cables. So how do we know that the Bush Gang is actually spying on everyone? For one thing, because he said he wasn't spying on everyone. Just look at his face, close-set beady eyes, just like a raccoon in a sweet potato patch. For another thing the boy is bragging about it. We let him slide on this he might end up with another term, not that the republicans would mind. They've always been attracted to idiots. Don't ask me why. As for Dick Morris's opinion that speaking out against the Bush gang's follies will reflect poorly against liberals and such...seriously, what can you say? I mean, this is a grown man who paid a high class working girl to let him suck her toes. Now if that's something he couldn't work out for free, then I'd wager that his opinion is vastly overrated. Best regards, Jack

     Posted by Monroe5 at 01/26/2006 @ 8:42pm

258. Posted by LOVELOKI 01/26/2006 @ 8:39pm | ignore this person

     yup - tv is boring tonight - i think i'm watching that superman thing. thank god tomorrow's friday. i bet KVH is about to post a new one. my cat's posting.

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/26/2006 @ 8:43pm

259. The funniest line Bush spoke today was: [the warrantless wiretaps] "was legal and just because [in addition to protecting us from terrorists] it helps protect our civil liberties." (Paraphrase)

     Posted by Frank Thomas at 01/26/2006 @ 8:43pm

260. P.S. How Orwellian can you get?

     Posted by Frank Thomas at 01/26/2006 @ 8:44pm

261. Posted by FRANK THOMAS 01/26/2006 @ 8:44pm | ignore this person

     yeah - usually i poo poo stuff like this. like handwriting analysis and color and rorshak or however you spell it, tets, but the website also offered reverse speach of people expressing neutral or good stuff, so its not just "look bush really is evil" stuff. like the bob dole one - i like dole, think he's basically a decent guy, and that was nice.

     not completely convinced, but definately intrigued...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/26/2006 @ 8:50pm

262. damn - i think superman's old man just croaked. gotta stop watching this stuff and do some work.

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/26/2006 @ 8:54pm

263. Goodbye Superman, where did you go?

     Posted by Frank Thomas at 01/26/2006 @ 9:11pm

264. "demoncrats"

     Rio, you are an expert at destroying your own credibility.

     Posted by NEW DAWN 01/26/2006 @ 7:12pm | ignore this person

     "demoncrats" heehe - i love that one... funny website for the irreverent - www.landoverbaptist.org

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/26/2006 @ 9:34pm

265. Ibble do you think the Dems may stage a filibuster over Alito?

     Posted by Frank Thomas at 01/26/2006 @ 9:43pm

266. Posted by FRANK THOMAS 01/26/2006 @ 9:43pm | ignore this person

     i don't know nuthin, but why would they? i dont think it would help them now. if it were closer to the november elections...maybe a but blow-up showdown would be good, but now is too early. this one is in. lets get used to it.

     and it may not be so dire after all, whatever his effect is. i, however, am not a big pro-lifer (though i'm not sure that RvW is quite dead yet). my concern is with the presidential powers thing - a la rio's cut and pasted "crisis constitution" thing above. but regardless, he is in. time to concentrate on winning midterm elections...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/26/2006 @ 9:56pm

267. frank t., on the nation's other thread, the canada one, mask said he heard kerry's going to filibuster. i was watching the count earlier today on c-span and 3 democrats said they were going to vote yes on alito. i don't see how or why they would do this.

     Posted by loveloki at 01/26/2006 @ 9:56pm

268. i agree with ibble though. he's in. we gotta deal with it.

     Posted by loveloki at 01/26/2006 @ 9:58pm

269. Ibble -

     Irreverent!

     You had me at: As True Christians™,

     TRADEMARK!!! That's some funny shit.

     To depart from my religion hash with Liberty (and the intrusive Rio), I have to agree with Ibble, as much as I am loathe to join in rampant political speculation.

     I admit that my crystal ball is in the shop, but it doesn't take a wizard to scry that Alito is a shoo-in. The filibuster option would, I believe, immediately be met with the so-called "nuclear option", and neither side really wants to go there, do they?

     Or do they?

     What are the political implications (the real ones based in logic and fact and precedent, please) of Kerry leading the charge for a filibuster?

     What is the Elephant's tale in the history books if its party actually invokes such an option?

     A new moniker for John K? "Hot Airy Kerry"? Or a continuing inquiry expose of who Alito really is?

     Get real. I hate to be "defeatist", but who's going to put in the work to actually out the guy on anything? No Democrats I can name, and certainly no Republicans.

     No one. Ain't gonna happen, Americans. And that is not a good thing.

     Bye-bye, little guy, and hello "Unitary Executive Theory".

     See, this is why I never bothered to log in to the Nation and post a comment before. Hypocrisy on a message board is easy to fight, but this real-world political horseshit just makes me sad.

     Posted by New Dawn at 01/26/2006 @ 10:20pm

270. Whoa, need a little practice driving the html tags for italics... My bad. Sorry, I usually drive an automatic.

     Posted by New Dawn at 01/26/2006 @ 10:21pm

271. oh great! finally something good on tv - pbs, siege of fort fisher, civil war history blow up stuff. nice.

     you know, honestly i think i am kind of an enlightened conservative. i mean that in the big picture classical political paradigm. i mean, according to it, what we call "conservative" is really "liberal", or classical liberalism. conservatism, according to this paradigm, was the landed aristocracy, that which survived from feudalism. "ugh, aristocratic feudalism?" well yeah, but not the reactionary asshole part, but the form of enlightened conservatism that later morphed into or pre-empted - gulp - social democracy (our system of government from 1932 - around 1980 - 90) -

     i mean, i believe a nation's elite, however you define that term, must strive to be something of a moral/ethical group of ubermensh, that if they do not, the example they give, is disasterous in terms of society. the situation is ultimately self correcting, however, and i'm not talking about violent commie revolution stuff either, though such has, of course occurred.

     when the elites get too complacent and too unfairly govern, eventually the "masses" wake up, get antsy, and there is a shuffle up. how much shuffle up results depends on many factors. i think we are approaching such a shuffle up. i hope so, because we need it.

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/26/2006 @ 10:21pm

272. Posted by NEW DAWN 01/26/2006 @ 10:21pm | ignore this person

     italics bold i tried the link thing once, but either i'm incompetant or its messed up

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/26/2006 @ 10:32pm

273. Ibb -

     By your definition, I, too, am an enlightened conservative, though I'm sure even you and I can find a few things to vehemently disagree about, if we work at it.

     The decisive splitting of our country is based predominately on the moral and ethical questions arising from the blowing of an otherwise damned good president and the terror and horror and terrible uncertainty birthed of 9/11. Since those two events (the Iraq war notwithstanding), I think it's safe to say that things have gone downhill. I'm of a mind to believe that this can be summed up in a few simple equations.

     -- "Blowjob" is not the same as "Illegal War" There is a difference. Learn to accept that. No one has ever died from a blowjob or from lying to one's wife about a blowjob or from lying to the entire goddamned country about a goddamned blowjob. Face this.

     -- "Economic prosperity" does not equal "The largest deficit in U.S. history" United States economic performance under Clinton: good. United States economic performance under Bush: Not so much.

     -- "Democracy" does not equal "Our way or no fucking way, you Godless, unpatriotic terrorist scum - we're rendering you to Syria for torture and reorientation" Get out your copy of the Constitution and READ it, you dolt. I'm not angry with you because you're a political party or a religion or a color or a creed. I am angry with you because you are knowingly, willingly, gleefully ignorant and you hungrily suckle at the teat of spoon-fed propaganda from all sides.

     Willful ignorance is the worst sin, people. Please let go of your emotions and embrace your logic.

     Our country will slowly become a better place for it.

     Sorry for the rant. There's more, but does anybody care?

     Posted by New Dawn at 01/26/2006 @ 10:44pm

274. Ibb -

     The rest of my post after the first paragraph was NOT directed at you!!!

     I reread my post and realized it might have been misinterpreted.

     Posted by New Dawn at 01/26/2006 @ 10:52pm

275. i believe a nation's elite, however you define that term, must strive to be something of a moral/ethical group of ubermensh, that if they do not, the example they give, is disasterous in terms of society.

     Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 01/26/2006 @ 10:21pm

     That just made me think of repulicans, wringing their hands over Bill's BJ, a few years ago.

     Funny how two sides can say the same, essential words and mean two completely different things.

     Eric

     Posted by malcontent3 at 01/26/2006 @ 11:16pm

276. Okay, I am in the process of catching up from yesterday, and I'm only on Page 3. THANK YOU LISA JO for returning to Love Liberty's dodge of my questions yesterday. I was going to let it lie since I believe him to be long on hyperbole and short on facts, anyway, but THANK YOU FOR BRINGING IT BACK UP. I'll have to catch up on the other two pages I missed, but this part is for our "senile" friend, since he claims he can't remember it. Here's my last post to you yesterday, Liberty: Welcome back to the discussion, LL. Imagine my boundless surprise. Your first sentence contains the requisite sarcasm that your posts always do. I'll try to refrain from mentioning how you seek to defend the Bible with more quotes from the same book, which is what I believe is known as a circular argument... Now, then, what I'm getting is this in a nutshell: God required his followers to commit genocide, arson, murder, pillaging, infanticide, etc. all over the Old Testament but Jesus brought a New Testament, which instead instructs people to turn the other cheek. First of all, Christian history does not bear this New Testament idea out. Christian armies never turned the other cheek when they slaughtered their enemies in the name of God. Church leaders supported these acts and often led the clamor for holy wars. Secondly, the New Testament argument destroys the very foundation that Christianity is built upon. If God is really all-powerful and all-knowing and all-loving, then he can't possibly have meant to tell his followers to go out and engage in acts of ethnic cleansing and then have changed his mind a thousand years or so later. If God really knows all and can do whatever he wants, why couldn't he have brought Jesus and the New Testament down earlier and saved the Earth a whole lot of bloodshed? Waiting around to teach forgiveness after you've been teaching human slaughter doesn't sound very all-loving to me. Whichever tack you take, the argument that a New Testament separates modern Christianity from the atrocities of the Old Testament is a theologically unsound excuse. Besides, all the Christian protestations about being followers of the New Testaments and not the Old Testament are shown to be the hollow excuses they are by the continued use of the Old Testament by practically every Christian church on the face of the Earth. If Christianity really repudiates the Old Testament, then why is the Old Testament still included in the Christian Holy Bible? Why do Christian priests and preachers still base entire doctrines on Old Testament Verses? Why do Christian politicians try to get the Ten Commandments posted in public places? Why do most Christians still circumcise their little boys if they don't believe in keeping the old covenant with God? If you really believe in compassion, mercy and forgiveness (New Testament virtues), it might be time for you to try ministering to people with ACTS of love, kindness, patience, and respect, instead of just paying said virtues lip service. Thank YOU for responding. That was brave and I commend your passion, no matter how misguided I may personally believe it to be.

     Posted by NEW DAWN 01/24/2006 @ 5:37pm | ignore this person

     Posted by NEW DAWN 01/26/2006 @ 3:36pm | ignore this person

     That is a handful of questions. Most of them I would opine reflect a lack of not faith or trust, nor even just plain blind obedience (all of which are routinely suggested by those who posit questions in a hostile manner such as yours). I will endeavor to provide as clear a response as is within my means.

     1. With several variations on the question, it appears a central argument that you pose surrounds a supposed conflict with the Sermon on the Mount message of turn the other cheek, contrasted with acts of armies you label as Christian (and indeed some as in the Crusades were).

     The commandment in the Sermon on the Mount dealt with personal behavior and not governments. The thrust of Jesus' statement was to remove the need under grace for personal revenge. It has nothing to do with government actions on wars. There are just wars and there are wars of greed and lust. Romans 13 outlines God's authority given to government to bear the sword in executing God's wrath on evil. So it is indeed a legitimate expression of God's will. We also see Jesus in Revelation 19 bearing the sword and leading the armies of righteousness into the final battle against evil.

     2. I would never suggest that the New Testament separates us from the Old Testament other than for the fact that Jesus fulfilled the requirements of the Laws of Moses in order to enjoy a complete and reconciled relationship with God that is eternal.

     There are indeed a number of excellent reasons to study from and learn from the OT. Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 10:6-11 speaking about primarily the children of Israel:

     Now these things became our examples, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted. And do not become idolaters as were some of them. As it is written, "The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play." Nor let us commit sexual immorality, as some of them did, and in one day twenty-three thousand fell; nor let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed by serpents; nor complain, as some of them also complained, and were destroyed by the destroyer. Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.

     So the OT provides an example to us of what not to do. The Psalms provide poetic wisdom, comfort during trials, and a sense of joy in season and out. The Proverbs provide the wisdom of Solomon. The prophets provide clear warning of the fruit of disobedience and some of the prophetic words are still to be fulfilled.

     3. No one in Christianity who actually follows Christ should ever repudiate the Old Testament. (see comments in number 2)

     4. Posting the Ten Commandments serves primarily as a model to all mankind of a historical record that has stood the test of time in providing a solid moral foundation for all mankind. It has served as a foundation for both the British and our own Justice System (hence why it is found at the Supreme Court Building). It is not to be worshipped, nor should Christians insist that everyone agree with it (I personally think it foolish not to, but foolishness is a right to any American desiring to do so).

     5. Circumcision is not required in Christianity but serves as both an identification that we are adopted sons of Abraham (for those wishing to do so), and has been proven to be a sound health procedure.

     1 Corinthians 7:19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters.

     Romans 2:28,29 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.

     Galatians 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.

     6. Secondly, the New Testament argument destroys the very foundation that Christianity is built upon. If God is really all-powerful and all-knowing and all-loving, then he can't possibly have meant to tell his followers to go out and engage in acts of ethnic cleansing and then have changed his mind a thousand years or so later. If God really knows all and can do whatever he wants, why couldn't he have brought Jesus and the New Testament down earlier and saved the Earth a whole lot of bloodshed? Waiting around to teach forgiveness after you've been teaching human slaughter doesn't sound very all-loving to me.

     The supposedly different character of God in the OT as some vengeful, bloodthirsty God ignores both some history and a reasonable attempt to come to understanding beyond some surface examination.

     Much of the OT violence that seems to have God's direction and approval is in fact a measure of His mercy. Nations like the Canaanites, Midianites, Sodom and Gomorrah, were nations and civilizations bound in many evil practices. Among them included sacrificing children in fire, brutal slavery, witchcraft, sexual perversion, including bestiality. If you read the history, you see the Jews mixing with the harlots of the Midianites, taking on their ways and leaving their relationship with God behind them to worship idols. This would have eventually destroyed the Jewish race, and in reality, was an attempt by the Devil to destroy any future possibility of the forthcoming of Jesus.

     Many ask, why did all the innocents, especially children have to die? The culture itself was totally corrupted to begin with. Anyone who studies anthropology and sociology can attest that corruption of a society can take generations to change if at all.

     Additionally, when it comes to children, before the age of accountability, children are pure in the eyes of God. Therefore, taking their lives most likely spared them eternity in hell.

     7. Slavery: I maintain that when reads and understands God's revealed thoughts about mankind, it is apparent that God does not favor slavery.

     Slavery was permitted in the Bible because of sin in the world. It existed before the Jews were formed as a nation and it existed after Israel was conquered. God allows many things to happen in the world such as storms, famine, murder, etc. Slavery, like divorce, is not preferred by God. Instead, it is allowed. Where many nations treated their slaves very badly, the Bible gave many rights and privileges to slaves. So, even though it isn't the best way to deal with people, because God has allowed man freedom, slavery then exists. God instructed the Israelites to treat them properly.

     The big question of why Jesus didn't appear sooner?

     4. the fullness of the time--namely, "the time appointed by the Father" ( Gal 4:2 ). "The Church has its own ages" [BENGEL]. God does nothing prematurely, but, foreseeing the end from the beginning, waits till all is ripe for the execution of His purpose. Had Christ come directly after the fall, the enormity and deadly fruits of sin would not have been realized fully by man, so as to feel his desperate state and need of a Saviour. Sin was fully developed. Man's inability to save himself by obedience to the law, whether that of Moses, or that of conscience, was completely manifested; all the prophecies of various ages found their common center in this particular time: and Providence, by various arrangements in the social and political, as well as the moral world, had fully prepared the way for the coming Redeemer. God often permits physical evil long before he teaches the remedy. The smallpox had for long committed its ravages before inoculation, and then vaccination, was discovered. It was essential to the honor of God's law to permit evil long before He revealed the full remedy. (with credit to the commentaries of A. R. Faussett)

     Jesus came at the moment when mankind and history was ready to receive Him. He came when given the Roman Empire, the pieces were in place to take the Gospel of the Kingdom and spread it throughout the world. It could have come later, but not sooner. It was also prophesied as to the time in the book of Daniel. Daniel was told that the Messiah would come in 490 years. Jesus was crucified in the 490th year after the prophecy (based upon the Jewish calendar of 360-day years).

     As some theologians have in my opinion correctly argued, it is not why did God wait so long to send Jesus? Rather we give thanks that God spared man when we all deserved wrath for our sins. When man elects to sin of his/her own free will, we are experiencing a great measure of God's true love for us. He did not make us robots, but gave us the will to choose sin, choose rebellion, and choose even to ignore or deny God. But most of all we can choose to love.

     Lastly, I fail to understand why you would suggest given that you do not know me, why you would suggest that I am not living out the love, compassion, mercy, and grace of God towards others. We have no wealth, no ministry salary, and no church buildings in fact. We meet in homes to maintain a sense of close relationships and to not waste funds. Our average church size is 30 people. We use any money given into the ministry to take care of the needy, and to help poor churches in the great need in 3rd world countries. We send food, clothing, school supplies, medicine, nutritional supplements, and more. In point of fact, that is the heart of our ministry. It is dedicated to obeying the commandments of God in Matthew 25 and Isaiah 58. We feed the hungry, clothes the naked, bring into our house those who are cast out. There is no boast in this, no desire for congratulations or commendation. This is our reasonable service to God and a wonderful opportunity to show God how much we love Him, and mankind how much God loves them.

     Somehow this seems to be a constant judgment against any conservative Christian by liberals on this site without any basis of fact. I thank those who have come to acknowledge the acts of love by our ministry.

     I may have overlooked something you felt was important but it is not intentional. I have tried to go to the heart of your questions. Yet, I would suggest that whenever I have these kinds of questions, I also understand that the root of the question is more spiritual. We are not meeting personally so I will not delve deeper except to say, that questions like this are a mask for those who are not yet willing to accept the real issue which is as Jesus asked: "who do men say I am?"

     Sorry to be so late in bringing this response. It is a busy day and though getting late in the evening, I have to drive out to pick up one of the elderly who lives with us and is arriving by bus back from Tijuana.

     Posted by love liberty at 01/27/2006 @ 12:26am

277. Listen, folks, I want to give another quick apology (in advance) for the following discourse I'm having with Liberty. We're off on a New/Old Testament religious rant best suited for a message board all its own. I know this, and I apologize. By all means, please skip this whole post if necessary. I completely understand.

     LL -

     Better late than never, I suppose, even if late means a full day and a different thread later and only then after someone had to forcefully remind you that you left and still never answered my questions.

     I commend the amount of work you put into your response. You're obviously devout about your subject matter. So am I, but in the interest of brevity and all of the other posters' sanity, I'll keep this as brief as I can.

     As usual, by your second sentence you're already condescending to me with a comment about my "hostility". If we aren't crystal-clear by now on why I seem hostile towards you, then you ain't listening. That sarcasm is why. Humility is a virtue, too, and one you're sorely lacking except when you wish to appear sympathetic to the other posters after you've made an ass of yourself. That really bugs me about you.

     Just for the record, you absolutely did say that the New cast out the Old:

     "First of all, those who accept Christ as Lord and Saviour are no longer under the Law."

     Later, same post, "Jesus also stated: 'Do not think I came to destroy the Law...'"

     If you're no longer under the Law, the Law is no more. Does that not mean the Law is made defunct, ergo destroyed? I smell a contradiction, and your book AND explanations are still rife with them.

     Ten Commandments: Religious document, not for public exhibition by government mandate. Sorry, no dice. And this from a guy who doesn't break any of them, well, much. My neighbor's wife is pretty hot.

     Circumcision "has been proven to be a sound health procedure". Not according to America's doctor, Dr. Dean Edell. Look up the topic on HealthCentral. I think it's a useless procedure widely accepted because of decades of the Christain and Jewish foundation of the practice. Let's stay based in reality instead of theology and stick to the truth on this one.

     God's vengeance and bloodthirst was, by your own scriptural references, a punishment for sin. I say letting your children wander about aimlessly in the dangerous streets is an invitation to get your kid dragged under a passing car. Isn't that a fitting analogy for your concept of God "allowing" us to sin and then us experiencing the worst possible consequences just because we were allowed to wander ignorantly?

     Slavery was permitted because of sin? Did you really just say that and then justify it? How about AIDS or Hurricane Katrina or the earthquake in Pakistan or the tsunami? Those signs of God's anger, too? Are you one of THOSE guys? I shudder...

     Children were murdered with their parents (and their entire tribes and cities) because a few sinning apples spoiled the whole damned bunch, by your argument, for generations? Should we kill convicted criminals' kids because the evil must be in their genes?

     And you close your post with more condescension, intimating that I am cloaked in some "mask" of unwillingness to ask the right questions.

     Now, enough of that.

     LL, it's most unfortunate that our postings veered way off into this theological debate, as my issue with you remains simpler than that, and I'll reiterate it for you since you have consistently missed it.

     You are still a hypocrite.

     You preach Matthew 25 and Isaiah 58 (both of which I read in their entirety three minutes ago) and what I get from the two of them is --- food, clothing, shelter, tolerance, patience, understanding, kindness, etc. for those in need, treat others like you would treat Christ, or "go away into everlasting punishment" --- and I return to what I had to say to you before:

     "Try ministering to people with ACTS of love, kindness, patience, and respect, instead of just paying said virtues lip service".

     That means in your real life (which, by the way I find commendable, and never said any different), AND ON THIS BOARD.

     Be a little nicer in your posts, that's all I'm really asking. Stop claiming all of these virtues on the one hand and then acting like a dick on the other. Your worldviews (and even your faith, to the unfaithful) can and should be open to debate, but simple courtesy would be a bonus.

     And stop claiming you think politics and faith are separate and then introducing your faith into your posts on unrelated topics. You'll piss off a lot fewer people like me.

     I still hope you're having an okey-dokey day.

     Posted by New Dawn at 01/27/2006 @ 01:50am

278. Sorry about the long winded post, but gotta be factual. Tell me LL what you think about this exchange. Posted by DOUMER 01/26/2006 @ 4:11pm | ignore this person

     Doumer,

     An interesting story; First of all, it does appear (and I'm sure you would admit, that you manipulated some poor lady who lacked any real political savy into confessing something she knew nothing about-the PAC)

     I think your question betrays a strange twist of logic and reasoning. Do you get equally roused about liberal churches hosting Anti-War Meetings, Pro-Choice Rallies, etc?

     Actually, I hope not, because the instance you cited and my liberal examples are both legal. I have an excellent resource from the American Center for Law and Justice

     http://www.aclj.org/media/pdf/040317_fed_campaign_finance.pdf

     But in an attempt at fairness and to really emphasize my point, here is the view from Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who are never aligned with Conservative Christians.

     http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=resources_pastorsguide

     Q. Can religious leaders speak out on political or moral issues?

     A. Yes. The IRS prohibition on partisan politicking concerns individuals seeking public office, not issues. Religious leaders may take stands on political issues such as abortion, gay rights, gun control, health care and many others. They may also support or oppose ballot referenda.

     So, in answer to your question, the church and the poor lady you attempted to overwhelm were perfectly within their constitutional rights. I would think as a freedom loving liberal, that more, not less free speech is desirable?

     Posted by love liberty at 01/27/2006 @ 02:19am

279. New Dawn,

     I'm sorry that you still see me that way or think my presentations still make me a hypocrite. It appears that my inability to successfully communicate the lack of contradiction in the scripture I have shared causes this continued issue between us. It is a shame there is not an opportunity to discuss at proper length.

     I do understand that all of us are guilty at some level of reading with our own particular set of bias, any material we have a bias towards or against. One of the central elements of Biblical interpretation is that scripture must be interpeted against the totality of scripture. To stand one verse or even sometimes a chapter on it's own without the breadth of other relevant passages is like looking at a painting under a magnifying glass. You see some detail that can almost overwhelm you. But step back and see the entire painting and your impression is almost always much different.

     Thank you for the dialogue.

     Posted by love liberty at 01/27/2006 @ 02:26am

280. LL,

     Not to be a nitpicker, but your response about the Crusades was incorrect.

     "The commandment in the Sermon on the Mount dealt with personal behavior and not governments. The thrust of Jesus' statement was to remove the need under grace for personal revenge. It has nothing to do with government actions on wars."

     The Crusades was not a government action - it was a call to arms of Christians by Pope Urban II to defeat the terrorists (in the 11th century Muslims were called infidels). There were no governments to speak of, just the all-powerful church. And the Crusades really weren't about religion so much, but a land grab by the Church. How Christian!

     Listen, I'm a Catholic (although Benedict would probably not be real happy with me) and I have certain beliefs, but accepting every single word of the Bible as "gospel" truth (ironic huh?), is not one of them. All I have to do is look around and see people like Pat Robertson to realize that just because someone claims to know what God is all about, that isn't an absolute certainty. Likewise, some of the Bible that seems un-God-like, might have more to do with the human author than with God's will. The Muslim fundamentalists swear that what they're doing is in the Koran, too. The printed words or translations are not the faith. Remember what Jesus said to the Pharisees? I'm sure you do!

     Posted by Turk33 at 01/27/2006 @ 09:11am

281. I am offering a new god removal spray, simply spray on a blog and those unsightly god rants will disappear like magic

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/27/2006 @ 10:01am

282. Johannesrolf,

     You mostly have me on your ignore so I'm unsure if you will see this post. My question to you is twofold:

     1. Are you that offended by speech that differs from you that you feel the need to see it banned or at least kept from your perusal? Liberty allows us to choose what to hear or read. That's why I find it important to read everyone, knowing that even if I vehemently disagree, everyone's opinion has worth.

     2. I can't speak for others, but I try to limit my "religious" posting content to answering religious questions from people who are attempting to debate my religious views.

     I think any forum that allows this type of dialogue is healthy. Challenging each other's beliefs is at the heart of a healthy democracy. I think you would agree with that.

     I have never put anyone on the ignore list (Rese and Plunger can definitely put that practice to question). I believe that kind of censorship is just not healthy. I would rather choose to scroll past that which I choose not to read or engage.

     I agree with most everything you say, except when you speak so well about the rights of Israel, and defend against some of the more vicious slurs.

     I have said before, I hold you in respect even though we disagree on so much.

     Posted by love liberty at 01/27/2006 @ 10:34am

283. the problem with many god people is that they confuse piety with morality. they are not the same thing, you can be a pious swine, as numerous posters have time and time again have proved

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/27/2006 @ 11:46am

284. LL, "and has been proven to be a sound health procedure."

     Yes, it was already resonded to. And I am not just trying to be an asshole (for a change). But it bears repeating. Our 'cultures' genital mutilation, is only marginally less sick than other cultures.

     I don't mind that I was dunked under water for silly reasons, as a baby. (I probably smelled even worse then, than I do now), but i'd really like to have the rest of my dick back. (My, raised catholic, but since educated (i.e. read more than the one book, over and over), mother has since apologized. Did you/will you mutilate your own child, for 'god'?

     These are the sorts of truly stupid things that make me wonder how, seemingly intellegent people continue to believe this crap.

     Eric

     Posted by malcontent3 at 01/27/2006 @ 8:37pm