Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditNed Lamont, the Connecticut cable television entrepreneur whose anger over Democratic U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman's support of Bush administration policies spurred him to explore whether to mount a primary challenge to the most prominent Democratic supporter of the war on Iraq, is done exploring.
Lamont's running, and he's got a message for the globetrotting incumbent who returned from his most recent trip to Iraq with a ringing endorsement of the occupation: "Senator," the challenger said, "stop by Bridgeport on your way back from Baghdad and listen to your constituents..."
What Lamont thinks Lieberman's constituents will tell the senator when Connecticut Democrats vote in the August 9 primary is that the Bush administration must be challenged, not coddled.
Making pointed reference to the incumbent's status as the Democrat that Republicans love to love, Lamont declared his candidacy with a Monday announcement that, "I am jumping into this Senate primary because voters deserve a choice."
That choice, the challanger suggests, is between a "Republican-lite" incumbent who cooperates with the administration and a progressive who will confront the president when Bush is wrong.
"Let's have the debate," Lamont announced in a speech that spelled out the differences between the three-term incumbent and a progressive challenger who promises he won't be "complicit" with this White House.
Lamont's declaration of candidacy was blunt and aggressive in its critique of Lieberman, signaling that this will not be a tepid challenge to a Democratic incumbent who has broken faith with the progressive base of the Democratic party.
Here's an excerpt from Lamont's announcement speech.
Let's have the debate.
Three years ago politicians with years of political experience rushed our troops off to war; they told us the war would be easy; we'd be greeted as liberators.
Now three years later, America is no safer, Israel is no safer, the Middle East is even less stable, Iran is on the prowl, Osama Bid Laden is on the prowl, and we have 130,000 valiant troops stuck in the middle of a violent civil war in the heart of Iraq.
Those who got us into this mess should be held accountable.
In Washington they give you a medal; in my world they say: "You're fired."
I say it is time for the Iraqis to take control of their own destiny and we're just getting in the way.
Let's have the debate.
The $250 million a day we are spending in Iraq is better spent on pre-school and healthcare, public transit and veterans benefits.
Let's have the debate.
I would have lead the opposition to the nomination of Judge Alito? Next year the Supreme Court will hear the South Dakota law which outlaws a woman's right to choose, even in the case of rape and incest.
Let's have the debate.
I believe that President George Bush's illegal wiretaps, his reckless fiscal and environmental policies are weakening America and leaving too many hardworking citizens behind.
I doubt that anybody will call me "George Bush's favorite Democrat."
Do you remember that Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska? Part of the 6,371 earmarks, which are multi million dollar pork ridden special favors for special congressmen, added to a bill at the last moment, under the cloak of darkness. And it's all legal, the big easy for career politicians.
If you are not shouting from the rafters that this is wrong, then you are complicit and part of the problem.
I am not a shouter, but I come to this race as someone who is obviously not afraid of a challenge. I am ready challenge business as usual, I am ready to fight for our Democratic values and I will tell the Bush administration to put their haughty arrogance in their back pocket and deal with the rest of the world with respect. That's how America will start winning again in a post 9-11 world.
As I travel the state I have heard from thousands of you - students and elderly, veterans and teachers, small business and labor, even a few courageous political leaders: let's have a primary, let's have the debate: how did we get into this mess and how do we get out?
Sure, there are some that have not been quite so encouraging: Ned, don't jeopardize a safe seat.
I tell them, Connecticut is a progressive state. You're not losing a Senator, you're gaining a Democrat.
They tell me, Ned, don't rock the boat.
And I tell them, baby, it's high time we "rock the boat."
We are running for the heart and soul of the Democratic party; we're showing the country that we can win as proud Democrats fueled by your grassroots support and energy and passion; and on August 9 the pundits will be shaking their heads and noting: here come the Democrats.
Share this article
John Nichols
Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Lieberman ist ein Schwein. he would allow catholic hospital emergency rooms to deny rapevictims emergency contraception. Romney too is a misogynist, homophobic swine. check the Boston Globe regularly to see what these opportunistic lowlife's are up to. women voters, pay attention, these guys want to get elected on your backs. vote your conscience
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/14/2006 @ 3:19pm
Johannesrolf,
You should be more blunt in your postings.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 03/14/2006 @ 3:23pm
Which has a longer half-life?
A. a trans-uranic particle in the high 110s, created at CERN
B. a censure resolution from Russ Feingold
C. a "true progressive" primary challenge to Joe Lieberman (who, oddly, was once considered the "legitimate Vice-President"..hehe)
Posted by Mask at 03/14/2006 @ 3:34pm
ORAIBI, I'll keep trying.
the hatred of women, and the hatred of gays, is deeply ingrained in our society. the two are connected, a gay man is often called a woman as a slur, it is the same hate.
the catholic church, incidentally the first church to cut a side deal with Hitler, is aiding and abetting this hate. the previous pope, far from being a saint, should be excoriated for supporting that hate. the present pope earned his Hitlerjugend spurs, and his election to that office speaks volumes. pedophiles they excuse and forgive, women and gays they continue to hate, and harm.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/14/2006 @ 3:35pm
Johannesrolf
I concur with your assessment of how the RC Church hierarchy is aiding and abetting the anti-gay and anti-women rhetoric taking place in America. Below is a link to a NY Times article on religion.
Defenders of the Faith [nytimes.com]
Posted by oraibi1952 at 03/14/2006 @ 3:47pm
The answer to the question posed above is:
D) nobody cares
The shortest half-life of all?
The amount of time that elapses between John Nichol's posting on his blog and the first comment made by MASK. Either somebody needs to get a job, or else posting canned conservative blather on liberal websites IS his job. Either way, best of luck with that, chief.
Posted by Robespierre at 03/14/2006 @ 3:56pm
thanks johannesrolf!
and the catholics put the jews in certain areas of towns the catholics named ghettos and made them wear yellow stars hundreds of years before hitler. see, the dark side of the papacy--a very good book.
we don't even need to go into what they did to women. again thanks johannesrolf for pointing out their complicity in this hatred to this day.
go lamont go!!!
Posted by loveloki at 03/14/2006 @ 3:57pm
I wish Congress was like professional sports, in that one party could trade annoying members to the other party. That way, the Democrats could trade Republicrats like Lieberman and Ben Nelson for nonconformists like Olympia Snowe and Lincoln Chaffee. What purpose does Joe Lierberman serve, anyways?
Posted by Robespierre at 03/14/2006 @ 4:00pm
Joe Lieberman,
Shut down the Senate and demand Phase II. Do that TODAY (since the two week's expired LAST YEAR) and I think you'll be back in the game.
Grow at least one testicle Joe.
Posted by freedomplease at 03/14/2006 @ 4:01pm
Go LaMont Go-----Just kidding----Lieberman will win general election in Conn. with more than 60% of the vote. Shoot, I will trade a vote to anyone for a vote for Lieberman--On second thought naaaah--he won't need it. Hey Zero----Which Do you think will make a quicker exit:Washington and Gonzaga out of the NCAA tournament or LaMont from serious consideration in Connecticut?
Posted by Len Mosse at 03/14/2006 @ 4:27pm
Posted by ROBESPIERRE 03/14/2006 @ 3:56pm | ignore this person
ROBES, just so I don't start doubting your honesty....
if ZERO, JOHANNES, HMAN or somebody AGREEING with Mr Nichols was making "First Post"....you'd chastise them too in the same way?
Right?
Posted by Mask at 03/14/2006 @ 4:29pm
No.
Why? I just want to give you the same treatment that any liberal on a conservative blog would be treated. I'm all for equality, after all.
Posted by Robespierre at 03/14/2006 @ 4:35pm
Zero,
If you like that, you'll love that John Snow (Treasury Secretary and on the committee that fast tracked the DP World takeover of P&O) sold CSXT's foreign ports to DP World just before becoming Treasury Secretary (he was CEO of CSX Railroad).
Bush is getting $1M from UAE for his library.
DP World did and continues to still hold about 50% of a Miami terminal through one of it's American subsidiaries.
Posted by freedomplease at 03/14/2006 @ 4:37pm
And please don't embarass yourself by question my honesty. If either of us was truly honest, why would we feel compelled to use pseudonyms?
Posted by Robespierre at 03/14/2006 @ 4:39pm
"Bush is getting $1M from UAE for his library."
Bush's library--that's a good one..Does that include "My Pet Goat"?
Posted by rain man at 03/14/2006 @ 4:45pm
Politicians like Lieberman really push the need for a three-party system (at least) in the US. Why our politicians didn't copy the Japanese system (that we created!!!) and simply create a monolithic "centrist" (i.e. business-friendly, fiscally conservative) party like their grossly-misnamed Liberal Democrats, and shunt off everyone else into fringe leftist and fascist parties, is beyond me. What we have now is ridiculous. Our parties don't stand for anything anyways, so why not just have one party that panders to the corporations which actually run our country and lives? Then liberals wouldn't be forced to vote for tools like Lieberman, and the Rapture-awaiting skinheads on the right wouldn't have to vote for a party that includes Condoleeza Rice. It's almost too ideal for the business elite to think that they passed it up!
Posted by Robespierre at 03/14/2006 @ 4:48pm
Zero,
The Snow thing is interesting.....because of his personal contacts with DP World that were cemented during the CSX sale of assets (for USD $1 Billion) to DP World.
For those wondering.....this does have relevance to the Lieberman BLOG because he was FOR DP World taking control of P&O terminals.
Posted by freedomplease at 03/14/2006 @ 4:48pm
Although, I guess it's hard to extort money from people that already know how you're going to vote on every issue, eh?
Answered my own question.
Posted by Robespierre at 03/14/2006 @ 4:49pm
Posted by MASK 03/14/2006 @ 4:29pm
Oh, save the "poor me, I'm picked on" ludicrousness for those of who don't see you constantly post little else beyond devil's advocacy. Usually, the only meaningful thing most of your posts contribute to any given topic is doubt.
You are so reliably DISagreeable with the authors here that you shouldn't throw stones at others who USUALLY agree. Agreement is not a requirement for a profound post.
And Mask, your posts don't even come close to the usual insight and clarity of those of Zero, Johannes, or HMan. Something for you to aspire to, though...
On another note, I'm about to give up entirely on even discussing these things with people who simply refuse to see them... The Carlysle Group back on the scene? And there isn't an outcry?
The brainwashing has been very effective.
Danger. Fear. Terr. Murka. Trust us. Truuuuust us. Pay no attention to the men behind the curtains...
Posted by New Dawn at 03/14/2006 @ 4:51pm
Adieu.
Unlike someone, I have to travel further than my laptop to go to work...
Posted by Robespierre at 03/14/2006 @ 4:56pm
Oh thank goodness! Someone take Joe Lieberman out of Congress already!!!
I only wish I could vote for LaMont. Any registered Connecticut voters out there interested in a trade? I'll vote for the Senator of your choice (even a Republican) in "safely" (ick) Democrat Washington State in exchange for a guaranteed vote for LaMont.
Posted by ZERO 03/14/2006 @ 4:14pm |
Tell me about it...here in Virginia, we have a democratic candidate, James Webb, challenging George Allen, and is being "asked to explain his republican roots."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/07/AR200602 0701852.html
Posted by Oustbush at 03/14/2006 @ 4:59pm
hey dawn, where ya been? ya, isn't that a real shocker. bechtel and carlyle up to their eyeballs. (thanks zero, btw.) and dawn, i like your--danger. fear. terror. murka. trust us....very poetic, and creepy.
Posted by loveloki at 03/14/2006 @ 5:04pm
.
Why, call Senator Lieberman, who is an orthodox Jew, a pig, and particularly in that language?! As a demonstration of your tolerance as a German?
You object to the fact that Catholic hospitals do not perform abortions and do not facilitate birth control. Is that Joe Lieberman's doing? I thought rather, Catholic teachings and the pope forbid it.
Lieberman supports the right of those hospitals to their policy. He does not think an institution, physicians and nurses can be or should be forced to participate in courses of treatment they consider sinful. For that he is a swine?
You are one more example of lefty virtue.
.
Posted by nacl at 03/14/2006 @ 5:09pm
RUN NED RUN
Posted by redsox at 03/14/2006 @ 5:20pm
Rio's Psyche [landoverbaptist.org]
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 03/14/2006 @ 4:22pm |
Ibble,
Don't forget NaCl!
Posted by Oustbush at 03/14/2006 @ 5:20pm
Excerpt from Molly Ivins article in the March 2006 issue of The Progressive:
I can't see a damn soul in D.C. except Russ Feingold who is even worth considering for President. The rest of them seem to me so poisonously in hock to this system of legalized bribery they can't even see straight.
Enough of the D.C. Dems
Posted by oraibi1952 at 03/14/2006 @ 5:25pm
.
Why does he say, America is no safer? Have we had a torrent of attacks on US cities?
Would we be safer -
This Lamont is a jerk. He should be posting here.
Posted by nacl at 03/14/2006 @ 5:25pm
joe lieberman
proof that these guys are not nazis obverse democratic fascism - jews welcome - only qualification? spout their crap...(and kiss fundyvangelist ass just like the ayn rand eonomic nihilists - oh wait - all obverse democratic fascists, regardless of public proclamations faith, are truly nihilists...)
Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/14/2006 @ 5:25pm
Posted by NACL 03/14/2006 @ 5:25pm
yeah we would...
oh yeah, nacl (and please go ahead and accuse me of anti-semitism) if its in israels best interest, OBVIOUSLY its in our best interest! in fact, we should never put our best interest above israel's best interest - how would we atone for prescott bush's support of nazi's in ww2?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/14/2006 @ 5:30pm
lvliberty, i thought the deal took place in 2003. thanks for the carlyle info, too.
Posted by loveloki at 03/14/2006 @ 5:31pm
oraibi, thanks for the ivins link. lvliberty posted it a few days ago. i wanted to read it again--it's a good one.
Posted by loveloki at 03/14/2006 @ 5:33pm
Have we had a torrent of attacks on US cities?
Posted by NACL 03/14/2006 @ 5:25pm
when exactly DID we have "a torrent of attacks on US cities"?
not since the riechstag fire, fascist.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/14/2006 @ 5:41pm
i mean, not since your incompetant idols allowed ilsamic fundamentalist terrorists to hit the trade centers on 9/11
Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/14/2006 @ 5:43pm
This Lamont is a jerk.
Posted by NACL 03/14/2006 @ 5:25pm
brilliant, biting, cutting, inteluhjunt commentary! i once said that the cons who post here represent the cream of the crop of schmuk nation's conservative posters...see?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/14/2006 @ 5:48pm
see? flood conservative sites and rip these pea brained ideologues new ones.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/14/2006 @ 5:50pm
.
NACL - "with the world seeing us unable to manage a half pint dictator?"
Does the world now look favorably on our management of a "half pint" occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan? Just checking.
Posted by BlueTexan at 03/14/2006 @ 6:01pm
Posted by NACL 03/14/2006 @ 5:53pm
your mendacity is exceeded only by your master's
Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/14/2006 @ 6:45pm
Oh thank goodness! Someone take Joe Lieberman out of Congress already!!!
I only wish I could vote for LaMont. Any registered Connecticut voters out there interested in a trade? I'll vote for the Senator of your choice (even a Republican) in "safely" (ick) Democrat Washington State in exchange for a guaranteed vote for LaMont.
Unfortunately I cannot trade votes with you because I am definitely not going to vote for Lieberman. I've been reading about Lamont in the local newspapers and he definitely has my vote. Anyone who represents true Democratic ideals and does not endorse Bush has my vote.
Posted by abraxas at 03/14/2006 @ 6:58pm
Posted by NACL 03/14/2006 @ 5:09pm
NaCl,
Oh great and phony moralist:
Do you really think the just-raped woman should be beholden to the pre-technological, hypocrisy-laden ethics of your Christian cult?
Posted by Oustbush at 03/14/2006 @ 7:02pm
Yes, you conservative assholes preferred to endorse and defend the republican party as it continues to turn our government into a half-assed American corporation. You jerkoffs apologize for Reagan who, in twisted symbolism revealing his assinine ideology, had the Carter-installed solar panels ripped off the roof of the White House, and then commenced to strip and gut the funds for renewable energy research and development. Let the auto industry and oil businesses spend millions not to develop more rational and efficient technologies, but in fighting and lobbying against any meager reforms that may have nudged them forward to face the pending realities and consequences of petrocapitalism.
Why should our industries reform when it's easier for them to continue buying off our politicians. We can maintain a bloated military to lock down our fossil fuels; an economy booster, the war business is! Thanks, Liberty, NaCl, Rio, and all you other idiots! Narrow minds; narrow options.
Posted by Oustbush at 03/14/2006 @ 7:28pm
.
I really think that if anyone can change the pope's mind about abortion you and IBBLEBLIBBLE can.
.
Posted by nacl at 03/14/2006 @ 7:29pm
Posted by NACL 03/14/2006 @ 7:29pm
thanks, man
guess i misjudged you
Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/14/2006 @ 7:36pm
Posted by NACL 03/14/2006 @ 7:29pm
Great suggestion, thanks. Can you spot me the email address of your holy lemming leader?
best,
Posted by Oustbush at 03/14/2006 @ 8:13pm
ibble your joyceian-faulknerian stream-of-consciousness posts are only exceeded by your humorous posts.
Posted by loveloki at 03/14/2006 @ 8:19pm
it's Reich not Riech, and Reichstag not Riechstag
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/14/2006 @ 8:36pm
Loveloki -
Howyadooon, darlin'?
I'm peachy, just ain't been around to do anything but read Nation posts instead of posting myself since I found a new toy...
http://movies.lionhead.com/movie/59257
Thanks for asking and even noticing my presence (cuz I need all the validation I can get, marginalized as I am in this political climate...)
Mask just incenses me so much with his devils' advocacy, I had to post...
Anybody notice this?:
http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/ view.php?StoryID=20060313-041037-6495r
Posted by New Dawn at 03/14/2006 @ 8:55pm
.
You fellows are no fun. You never offer new or interesting information. You are unable to say anything with wit or bounce. And even the pleasure of insulting you fails, as you don't realize when you've been dissed.
.
Posted by nacl at 03/14/2006 @ 9:27pm
.
There is an old saying: don't show a moron an unfinished house..
Posted by nacl at 03/14/2006 @ 9:36pm
newdawn, very nice little movie ya have there!
as for the article, i found it fascinating that one of the weak links in the saddam regime was his insistence on being surrounded by only yes-men. i wonder if this particular parallel will help bring down the bush regime...and saddam was so sick he believed his own propoganda machine. i wonder if there is a parallel here, as well?
Posted by loveloki at 03/14/2006 @ 9:43pm
oustbush and ibble, i'd say mr. salty is projecting again.
Posted by loveloki at 03/14/2006 @ 9:44pm
Old salt is doing just fine...more salt please..
Posted by john maasch at 03/14/2006 @ 9:49pm
Why have the Democrats become so impotent during the past decade? What is going to bring the liberals to life? Cheers for Feingold!
Posted by had enough at 03/14/2006 @ 9:51pm
old salty - i thought you were being nice....
awwww man, thought i saw an opportunity for some meanigful dialogue for a brief, shining second....
oh - recognize sarcasm?
yuk yuk yuck
Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/14/2006 @ 9:58pm
Posted by NACL 03/14/2006 @ 9:27pm
And you don't realize when you've been played?
Posted by malcontent3 at 03/14/2006 @ 10:02pm
Oustbush----Did they teach you how to win friends and influence people at UVA? Guess not. I am sure you will influence a lot of people by starting out your post "you conservative a--holes". Your attitude just makes people run away and say "I told you all those liberals are nut jobs".
Posted by Len Mosse at 03/14/2006 @ 10:05pm
off topic - slowly digging rese/plunger style here...9/11 conspiracy
ultimately, not sure anything can be proved...the only thing right now sticking in my craw is WTC-7...totally inexplicable thus far... even all the put orders prior to 9/11 on american airlines and united, although suspicious, could be explained by sympathetic to al queda folks trying to make some money off the situation...thogh - cia and ex cia types infest wall street...
another suspicious area, though, which did not pique my attention too much initially because of its on the surface anti semitic undertones, is evidence of mossad forknowledge, suspicious activity...silverstien...checked out some info from some group called "jews against zionism" or something (getting late, sleepy and lazy), which had some interesting stuff...will check out later...
i still dont discount the possible existance of evil conspiracies, just phasing more skeptical now (see mask, its not a one way street - semi schizo/chameleonic psuedo sociopathic gemini's like me CAN shift back and forth from conspiracy theorist to skeptic with agile ease...). actually considering writing a book on the whole phenomenon (conspiracy theories of 9/11, in general, looking at it from all vantage points - mask, somebody, prove rese/plunger wrong please, else i will have to do so...which does not seem fair nor nice, since i like him/them)...
regardless, at the very very least, the bush administration has been hideously incompetant in this whole mess, and, i would argue, at least criminally negligent, decietful...and stupid...more than enough to impeach, technically
Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/14/2006 @ 10:14pm
Holy crap.
After reading this entire thread, my poor, overworked noggin is so stuffed with sanctimonious horseshit that it is veritably spewing out of my ears like lava out of Krakatoa.
LvLiberty and NACL -
Before I assault you with approximately one hundred epithets, all varied and imaginative extrapolations on the words "stupid", "ignorant", and "dumbass", I want to mention a couple of things:
Posted by NACL 03/14/2006 @ 5:09pm | ignore this person
Nice try, oh sanctimonious one. Ask Johannes where he's from and what his heritage is before you accuse him of anti-semitism just for using the language.
And nice try at appearing clueless, too (why bother pretending? - you are) with the bit about "lefty virtue". Lieberman supports the archaic and unrealistic aims of those Catholic hospitals, and that was Johanne's point. I know you aren't really this dense, but you wanted to appear to be… hmmm… Really, what's your angle, what's your game?
And then, since you haven't descended low enough into the depths of complete and shameless ignorance, you posit:
Would we be safer - · with Saddam still in power?
We weren't unsafe with him IN power. Look at a map and explain how he was a threat to the U.S.
· with the world seeing us unable to manage a half pint dictator?
A contained half-pint dictator, the very definition of "managed"… By us and the rest of the world…
· with Qaddafi pursuing his WMD programs?
Maybe we should have concerned ourselves with the next biggest threat in line after Qaddafi. Are you really arguing that Saddam was a bigger threat than Kim Jong Il? Damn, *****, puh-leeze.
· With the example of Iraq's successful defiance would the Syrians have quit Lebanon quicker?
If you think sound policy instead of "we are approximately one thousand times bigger than you – face facts" was the mindset behind Syria's withdrawal, you are as dumb as a box of rocks, no, wait, retarded rocks.
· When did Israel last complain that Saddam is gone? (He threatened to turn her into a sheet of flame, payed bonuses to suicide bombers, and had the most powerful Arab army.)
When did Israel ever complain about any favor we've ever done for them? Iraq was one of the least powerful countries that wanted Israel wiped off the map. And I'm still confused, 36 years in, why Israel's best interests are in any way synonymous with America's best interests. Explain it to me.
* Is Osama really pleased that a huge US army is now on the doorstep of Mecca and Medina?
Let's see… I am Osama. The West has done exactly what I predicted (prophesied, in certain circles), invaded our holy lands yet again… I don't have to have my men scheme for four years how to fly planes into American buildings, I can just have them plant IED's all day long, every day, day in and day out. New followers will increase my army daily as long as Westerners continue to bomb their mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, sons, and daughters… I could have never advanced an army through the air or over the sea quickly enough to actually assault the United States mainland… But they have come to us. Praise be to Allah.
NACL, don't post here anymore, unless self-immolation is your thing.
Your blatant point-and-click-to-three-websites-for-all-of-the-information-in-the-worl d-and-your-take-on-it posts are laughable. You embarrass yourself and expose your ignorance further with every unfortunate post you make here.
Please, for the love of Almighty God, or Allah, or whatever, just stop.
_____
And LvLibrty, you're the worse of the two evils! I haven't the patience to sit here for another twenty minutes retorting to your rhetoric… One moron a night is enough for me…
Just one short remark…
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/14/2006 @ 5:13pm
To take the mission statement from Carlyle's web page (or so it seems) and paste it here as a defense of the Carlysle Group is laughable, at best. Kinda like our resident biblical-prophecy-end-times fellows explaining away the sins of the world (and in particular, prominent Republicans) by quoting scripture... And who else but LvLiberty... Even the real LoveLiberty makes more cogent points and well-reasoned arguments… Using followup articles to solidify a point that was on thin ice to begin with... Get a real argument, pal. Have you never heard of friends (Maybe not)...?
Just because such-and-such group "legally" left the fold doesn't mean glad-handing "amongst old friends" isn't still the status quo.
Good God, you're dumb.
Blah.
Posted by New Dawn at 03/14/2006 @ 10:16pm
Posted by HAD ENOUGH 03/14/2006 @ 9:51pm |
Damned right. We already renounced our Democrat status, told the DNC to stop e-mailing us, and have been junk-mail-wadding-up all of the associated snail mail...
Grow a set, politicians! Display the courage of your goddamnned convictions (yea, Russ!
I learned everything I know about honesty, integrity, courage, respect, and self-control from my grandfather, WWII veteran and political sponge until the day of his death...
and he is doing cartwheels in his grave over the State of our Union. I can hear the whirring from here. Sounds like a wind turbine.
Where are the real men?
Posted by New Dawn at 03/14/2006 @ 10:21pm
Posted by LOVELOKI 03/14/2006 @ 9:43pm
Didja catch this? I posted it earlier...
http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/ view.php?StoryID=20060313-041037-6495r
Posted by New Dawn at 03/14/2006 @ 10:25pm
Posted by LEN MOSSE 03/14/2006 @ 10:05pm
Awww, boo-hoo.
Mooooooommmmm, the Liberals are calling us conservatives naaaaames.
Len, we who didn't vote for this monstrosity or what he's done with the most revered office and administration in the world think conservatives who enable him are... assholes.
Consider the article I posted above, then get over it, or get into it.
Sorry, buddy. I don't think you think much, but I still think you're swell.
(Any luck suckering anyone into a lunch date?)
Posted by New Dawn at 03/14/2006 @ 10:29pm
ya dawn, i caught that. i responded earlier but here it is again:
as for the article, i found it fascinating that one of the weak links in the saddam regime was his insistence on being surrounded by only yes-men. i wonder if this particular parallel will help bring down the bush regime...and saddam was so sick he believed his own propoganda machine. i wonder if there is a parallel here, as well?
Posted by loveloki at 03/14/2006 @ 10:56pm
I was being redundant for humor value, Loki!
So here it is again for the slooooow people...
LOL
Posted by New Dawn at 03/14/2006 @ 11:15pm
Lieberman is really isolated these days. Calls Sean Hannity his good friend (and believes him). The GOP always seems to find one stupid Dem to kiss their ass, then they drop him when he's done (where's Zell Miller been?)....
Posted by assbaby at 03/14/2006 @ 11:38pm
Wouldn't it be great if Joe was doing his second term as VP
:)
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 12:52am
I'll even bet you Joe could distinguish a seventy eight year old man from a small, wing clipped, cage raised quail and hold his fire long enough to keep from shooting anyone...
in the face.
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 12:57am
but then Joe probably doesn't booze it up before going huntin
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 01:00am
what are the red state legal blood alcohol limits for huntin anyway?
.008 and below... cage raised quail
.008 and above... street signs
.008 even... any one of your huntin buddies dumb enough to dress up in blaze orange and...
the older the better (they can't run as fast Ha Ha Ha Ha)
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 01:04am
oh my god, dawn and will, thank u both for the laughs. i, for one, really needed those! :) :) :)!
Posted by loveloki at 03/15/2006 @ 01:32am
dawn, lvliberty1 is loveliberty. he explained while u were gone about a computer crash or something.
Posted by loveloki at 03/15/2006 @ 01:47am
it's Reich not Riech, and Reichstag not Riechstag
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 03/14/2006 @ 8:36pm | ignore this person
So, to review...it's i before e - except after NeoZionist Coup d'Etat.
Posted by plunger at 03/15/2006 @ 07:21am
With every passing day, it becomes more clear that Lieberman works for Israel - as does Michael Chertoff, and most of the Neocons who worked within Cheney's "Office Of Special Lies", and about 2/3 of all Congressman and Senators – whom are either being bribed, blackmailed or both.
Think back.
Did Israel benefit from the downfall of the Clintons? Remember when Hillary mentioned the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy?" It was Chertoff who ran the Whitewater Investigation. Who was Monica ("The Swallow") working for? And Linda Tripp? And Lucianne Goldberg?
Who tapped the phones at the White House?
Hillary said "Right Wing," but meant "Zionist."
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=3497
Neocon = Zionist.
AIPAC = Kingmaker.
Conversely, they will destroy all who oppose them.
Lieberman has clearly been selected by those in positions of REAL POWER (above the President's pay grade) to move into THE power position. McCain is clearly part of the strategy too...in the role of the "Useful Idiot" - a.k.a. "Gentile."
Through whatever means are required, Lieberman will ultimately be appointed President Of The United States, and unless AIPAC is stopped from conducting its dishonest business on US shores, there's not a damn thing we can do to prevent it.
If they use useful-idiot McCain as cover to put Lieberman in as VP, it just means that President McCain's security detail will have their work cut out for them - as useful idiots are disposable.
Hillary will be selected as the useful idiot to lose to them in the faux-election. All of the money spent on advertising the purported candidates in the faux election will go into the hands of those who own the mainstream media, who in turn are tools of the Zionists.
The whole Republican vs. Democrat thing is a smoke screen. Stop falling into their trap.
No Democrat can fix this problem. A coup has already occurred in the United States. A foreign power controls America.
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/01/10/Sharon3.html
Occupied Jerusalem: 3 October, 2001 (IAP) -- According to Israel radio (in Hebrew) Kol Yisrael, [Shimon] Peres warned [Ariel] Sharon Wednesday that refusing to heed incessant American requests for a cease-fire with the Palestinians would endanger Israeli interests and "turn the US against us."
At this point, a furious Sharon reportedly turned toward Peres, saying "every time we do something you tell me Americans will do this and will do that. I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it."
The radio said Peres and other cabinet ministers warned Sharon against saying what he said in public because "it would cause us a public relations disaster."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=75266&contras sID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
http://antiwar.com/israeli-files.php
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html
On the day of the 9-11 attacks, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was asked what the attack would mean for US-Israeli relations. His quick reply was: "It's very good…….Well, it's not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel)"
Climb aboard the Way-Back Machine, to the days just prior to September 11, 2001:
http://www.alternet.org/story/11427
Posted by plunger at 03/15/2006 @ 07:35am
New Dawn----After we get done calling each other a--holes what will we have accomplished? Will you have convinced me that you have one point worth thinking about? Will I have convinced you that much of the far left philosophy is harmful to the U.S.? I doubt it. Such language does not bother me. I played on a number of athletic teams and long ago got used to be called names by opponents and their fans. I was pointing out to OUSTBUSH that such language is counter productive in a political discussion. As for you New Dawn, you know that you always have a standing invitation for lunch on me. I am of the opinion that a more temperate discussion would be more productive and that it would be accomplished more readily face to face. I find few people willing to act in such a rude and combatitive manner in a face to face conversation.
Posted by Len Mosse at 03/15/2006 @ 07:38am
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.html
Posted by plunger at 03/15/2006 @ 07:56am
It's interesting that the leftists continue to radicalize the Democratic Party. Any and all moderates are being eliminated in the quest for ideological purity. At the same time, Republicans have enjoyed unprecedented ascendance at all levels of government. The liberal media extinguishes itself as Americans increasingly turn to less left-wing tainted news sources. Where will it all end? I think we're seeing the implosion of the Democratic Party.
Posted by pontificus at 03/15/2006 @ 08:07am
To expound further, what can you make of a Party that considers Hillary Clinton too far right? Russ Feingold has proposed a political non-starter. Why do you think all the professional Democratic politicos have gone AWOL on this oh Nation readers? Do you think that it might have something to do with the fact that it is political suicide? Don't you guys realize that you are so far out there that you resemble lemmings running off a cliff? Hard not to giggle when you leftists reiterate the off-stated belief that you're all geniuses for following the lead lemming. But by all means, continue, you are an important source of amusement.
Posted by pontificus at 03/15/2006 @ 08:15am
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/15/2006 @ 08:07am
leftists radicalize democratic party? what planet are you on? when has the democratic party been more center-moderate?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/15/2006 @ 08:23am
if anything its the inability of the dems to DISTINGUISH itself from the republican party ideologically thet explains its difficulties...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/15/2006 @ 08:24am
Anyone want to hazard a guess on what the final vote would be if Russ Feingold's initiative is actually voted on? Anyone want to contest the notion that the Democratic leadership will not even allow it to be voted on so they won't have to vote against red meat for the far left? (see: vote on Murtha resolution and Patriot Act) Guys, be serious: America thinks you far lefties are dangerous and crazy, and anyone who votes for your loony toon initiatives is a political goner. This is what happens when fantasy meets reality. So you lefties can sit on this board all day with your puds in your hands, entertaining notions like Halliburton or space aliens destroying the WTC, but it will have no more future than Russ Feingold's latest political fart.
Posted by pontificus at 03/15/2006 @ 08:24am
MSNBC Poll update:
Question - Should the country support President Bush on Iraq?
No. of participants - 17,233 (last count at 8:19am EST)
Poll Choice:
No - 71 percent
Yes - 17 percent
Yes, but for a limited time - 12 percent
Bush continues to take a beating from the American people.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 03/15/2006 @ 08:28am
Posted by ORAIBI1952 03/15/2006 @ 08:28am
A few comments about those polls:
- just because people aren't happy with the way things are going in Iraq, doesn't mean they are ready to vote for the left. See: last election.
- just as 'figures can lie, and liars can figure', pollsters can also rig polls to say just about anything they want. CBS has frequently been cited for rigging its polls by overweighting with Democrats, for example. Bottom line is the only poll that counts is the one at the ballot box.
Posted by pontificus at 03/15/2006 @ 09:06am
Pontificus is an idiot. As is the case with all idiots, he reads for self confirmation, and then goes out and baits what he perceives to be an opposition to the nothingness that he upholds. He posts on this board because the right wing zealots he admires also know he is an idiot, but they smile at his funny arm waving, shouting and leg pumping. He believes people laugh at him because they think he is funny, what they are laughing at is his presumption, the presumption of a man rotating in his own filth. He thinks he is being patronized when people call him out on his idiocy, in reality, it is an act of mercy extended to someone who has it backwards as always. Instead of shucking and jiving, he jives and shucks. Shuck he is and shuck he shall ever be. Hail to thee, o Shuck. We salute thee en passant.
Posted by redwingblack at 03/15/2006 @ 09:09am
I called Lieberman a swine, pardon my german. I did not suggest he eat pork. to call me an anti semite is a bit of a stretch, I live in a jewish neighborhood in a jewish town, have jewish friends and neighbors, and I have defended both jews and Israel in these pages. can my attacker say the same? of course not.
Posted by johannesrolf at 03/15/2006 @ 09:11am
Posted by REDWINGBLACK 03/15/2006 @ 09:09am
I was going to rebut the substance of your post but there was none to be found.
Posted by pontificus at 03/15/2006 @ 09:14am
Quite right, idiot. You're hardly worthy of the time I spent.
Posted by redwingblack at 03/15/2006 @ 09:18am
What the mainstream media doesn't want to report is below, offered here for balance, in the belly of the beast as it were. Read the whole thing at realclearpolitics.com
Consider just a few of the inaccuracies served up by the media:
Claims of civil war. In the wake of the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra, a flurry of sectarian attacks inspired wild media claims of a collapse into civil war. It didn't happen. Driving and walking the streets of Baghdad, I found children playing and, in most neighborhoods, business as usual. Iraq can be deadly, but, more often, it's just dreary.
Iraqi disunity. Factional differences are real, but overblown in the reporting. Few Iraqis support calls for religious violence. After the Samarra bombing, only rogue militias and criminals responded to the demagogues' calls for vengeance. Iraqis refused to play along, staging an unrecognized triumph of passive resistance.
Expanding terrorism. On the contrary, foreign terrorists, such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, have lost ground. They've alienated Iraqis of every stripe. Iraqis regard the foreigners as murderers, wreckers and blasphemers, and they want them gone. The Samarra attack may, indeed, have been a tipping point--against the terrorists.
Hatred of the U.S. military. If anything surprised me in the streets of Baghdad, it was the surge in the popularity of U.S. troops among both Shias and Sunnis. In one slum, amid friendly adult waves, children and teenagers cheered a U.S. Army patrol as we passed. Instead of being viewed as occupiers, we're increasingly seen as impartial and well-intentioned.
Posted by pontificus at 03/15/2006 @ 09:25am
Posted by REDWINGBLACK 03/15/2006 @ 09:18am
Okay, just let me know when you have said anything at all of substance.
Posted by pontificus at 03/15/2006 @ 09:36am
Posted by pontificus at 03/15/2006 @ 09:47am
John's going after Leiberman via Lamont because Leiberman didn't support (laughing)...didn't support (laughing)...didn't support Feingold's (laughing)...Feingold's "Censure" stunt (laughing)...
Posted by woodyee at 03/15/2006 @ 10:07am
Posted by WOODYEE 03/15/2006 @ 10:07am
what?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/15/2006 @ 10:34am
If Nichols goes after every Dem who won't vote for the Censure motion, he's going to be pretty busy.
Posted by pontificus at 03/15/2006 @ 10:44am
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/15/2006 @ 10:44am
yeah, true - but then thats his job...from the volume of his blog postings, he IS a very busy man, and passionate about this subject. good, someone needs to be doing this...scared, reticent dems NEED to be prodded.
i am overall disgusted with the inaction of dems for quite some time now, and not for a failure to push supposedly "leftist agenda"...but for failure to call the president down on the lies and arrogant incompetance of his entire bought and paid for administration...of course part of the reason is the very bought and pad for nature of the democratic party itself...
WE NEED SERIOUS CAMPAIGN FINANCE/LOBBYING REFORM - EVEN IF IT REQUIRES CONSTITUTIONAL AMMENDMENTS...this is not a leftist proposition, by the way. it is in the best interest of ALL citizens of our REPUBLIC, although certainly not in the best interest of all corporations and special interest groups.
an interesting qualification can be found in cooper's end comments from his notion blog, that some suggest the dems current torpidity may be the result of a combination of some shadowy deals worked out with moderate republicans such as graham and specter, and a desire to see exactly what the congress will look like after the november elections...this makes sense and although i do not necc. credit it, could have much to do with the situation...i will withhold final judgement for a while, though continue to join mr. nichols in his drumbeat for action...russ should not be ridiculed for courageously standing up and doing SOMETHING...perhaps he is even a herald for larger things to come, a sounding board...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/15/2006 @ 10:58am
"Bush Derangement Syndrome" - do you have it? From Dr. Sanity's blog:
"Bush Derangement Syndrome" has to do with an unreasoning hatred of Bush, or as Charles Krauthammer put it in his definition of Bush Derangement Syndrome:
"the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush."
What is going on here--I mean, besides the usual opportunist agenda of the Leftist/Socialist/Communist remnants of the last century? I have discussed this issue several times in this blog, but the dynamics bear repeating because the lies keep getting repeated; and so the hysteria continues.
The psychology of some of the Bush Haters is pretty cut and dried. They hate Bush because he stands between them and the implementation of their collectivist "utopian" vision. I have no time to waste on them, except to note that their intentions are deliberately and decidedly malevolent toward this country. They want it to fail at anything and everything it does and they openly cheer for the barbarians at the gate.
They are indistinguishable from the barbarians we are actively fighting, with the only difference being that they have different ideas about which group of thugs will be in charge of the "utopia". They prefer themselves--a more secularly-oriented set of thugs--to rule.
But what about the average person on the street who has, or has come to have a visceral hatred of President Bush? Perhaps they simply didn't vote for him in 2000, believing the media propaganda or caricature of his intellect and capabilities; or perhaps they simply didn't like him because he was from the opposition party, or a Texan. or any other number of normal reasons.
It seems to me that the Democrats and the Left have used their continuous propaganda well, but there is a also a strong personal psychological factor involved in being able to convince normally sane people that the source of all evil in the world is George W. Bush.
After 9/11, in many cases, even a mild dislike of "W" rapidly morphed into the ferocious Bush hatred we are now all familiar with. The opposition to a conservative Republican; and reasonable disagreement with his policies became a swooning hysteria; and an unmitigated, deranged hatred with all the accompanying paranoid delusions.
Posted by pontificus at 03/15/2006 @ 11:10am
Pontificus,
Most of us here don't hate GWB, we feel sad for the poor little insignificant turd.
Now Chenney.....there's someone to hate!
Posted by freedomplease at 03/15/2006 @ 11:29am
.
I did not call you an anti-Semite, or say, you charged Lieberman with eating pork. I suggested, your calling Lieberman a swine, in German, because he defends the right of Catholic hospitals to adhere to Catholic teaching, was gratuitous and malicious.
The reason I did not call you an anti-Semite was because I have seen you wrestle with Plunger. But if you think that licenses you to engage in stupid and provocative Jew baiting, your wrong.
.
Posted by nacl at 03/15/2006 @ 11:50am
BULLETIN:
The ghastly germ of "Bush Derangement Syndrome" has spread further than anticipated!!! Indeed, the military brass of the US' most steadfast ally is part of the pathogenic arc!!! Where does it stop???
Read on, from yesterday's London Guardian that quotes internal memos included in the recently released book COBRA II --- and reveals that the Bush-hating tendencies expressed via insiderly criticism Bush's VanityWar raging within the Brit hierarchy!!!
As the drooling, radical loser on wheels Charles Krauthammer may be having the faeces massaged out of his bowels presently, it willd evolve onto other rightwingers to explain just how the British military came to be afflicted with the dreaded, virulent syndrome that may require leeches to suck the toxins from the blood:
Senior British diplomatic and military staff gave Tony Blair explicit warnings three years ago that the US was disastrously mishandling the occupation of Iraq, according to leaked memos. John Sawers, Mr Blair's envoy in Baghdad in the aftermath of the invasion, sent a series of confidential memos to Downing Street in May and June 2003 cataloguing US failures. With unusual frankness, he described the US postwar administration, led by the retired general Jay Garner, as "an unbelievable mess" and said "Garner and his top team of 60-year-old retired generals" were "well-meaning but out of their depth".
That assessment is reinforced by Major General Albert Whitley, the most senior British officer with the US land forces. Gen Whitley, in another memo later that summer, expressed alarm that the US-British coalition was in danger of losing the peace. "We may have been seduced into something we might be inclined to regret. Is strategic failure a possibility? The answer has to be 'yes'," he concluded.
...
The British memos identified a series of US failures that contained the seeds of the present insurgency and anarchy.
The mistakes include:
· A lack of interest by the US commander, General Tommy Franks, in the post-invasion phase.
· The presence in the capital of the US Third Infantry Division, which took a heavyhanded approach to security.
· Squandering the initial sympathy of Iraqis.
· Bechtel, the main US civilian contractor, moving too slowly to reconnect basic services, such as electricity and water.
· Failure to deal with health hazards, such as 40% of Baghdad's sewage pouring into the Tigris and rubbish piling up in the streets.
· Sacking of many of Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath party, even though many of them held relatively junior posts.
Mr Sawers, in a memo titled Iraq: What's Going Wrong, written on May 11, four days after he had arrived in Baghdad, is uncompromising about the US administration in Baghdad. He wrote: "No leadership, no strategy, no coordination, no structure and inaccessible to ordinary Iraqis."
He said the US needed to take action in Baghdad urgently. "The clock is ticking." Both Mr Sawers, who is now political director at the Foreign Office, and Gen Whitley see as one of the biggest errors a decision by Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, and General Tommy Franks, the overall US commander, to cut troops after the invasion.
...
The British diplomat is particularly scathing about the US Third Infantry Division, which he describes as "a big part of the problem" in Baghdad. He accused its troops of being reluctant to leave their heavily armoured vehicles to carry out policing and cites an incident in which British Paras saw them fire three tank rounds into a building in response to harmless rifle fire.
...
Mr Sawers, in later memos, welcomed the replacement of Gen Garner with Paul Bremer, a US diplomat. But in a memo written in June 25, Mr Sawyer concluded that, despite Mr Bremer's arrival, the situation was getting worse.
In that memo, Mr Sawers expressed opposition to further troop reductions. "Bremer's main concern is that we must keep in-country sufficient military capability to ensure a security blanket across the country. He has twice said to President Bush that he is concerned that the drawdown of US/UK troops had gone too far, and we cannot afford further reductions," Mr Sawers said.
Throughout his time in Iraq, however, Mr Sawers remained optimistic Mr Bremer would make a difference.
His views in the memo are echoed in a note by Gen Whitley, who says that while Gen Franks took credit for the fall of Baghdad, he showed little interest in the postwar period. "I am quite sure Franks did not want to take ownership of Phase IV," Gen Whitley wrote.
He added that Phase IV "did not work well" because the concentration was on the invasion. "There was a blind faith that Phase IV would work. There was a failure to anticipate the extent of the backlash or mood of Iraqi society."
Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 03/15/2006 @ 1:17pm
The reason I did not call you an anti-Semite was because I have seen you wrestle with Plunger. But if you think that licenses you to engage in stupid and provocative Jew baiting, your wrong.
.
Posted by NACL 03/15/2006 @ 11:50am
No sweeping generalities in that comment.
FYI:
Plunger is NOT an "anti-Semite" - whatever that means.
Posted by plunger at 03/15/2006 @ 1:19pm
Okay, just let me know when you have said anything at all of substance.
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/15/2006 @ 09:36am
Hail Caeser!
Ha Ha Ha Ha.
Vacuum requiring substance.
Now that's funny.
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 1:27pm
You should go pound down a few beers son.
there are street signs terrorizing the women
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 1:28pm
Speaking of matters salient to Iraq:
Am still waiting for LVLIBERTY1 --- the moral Titan, with copious praise by and for himself for his own reasoning abilities, that city councilman/lawyer/aereospace exec/preacher/soldier/entrepreneur (did I leave anything out? "Passion of the Christ" movie Star? Folk Singer? Heart Surgeon?) --- to explain how W. Scott Ritter is a liar for positing in 1999 that UNSCOM had effectively disarmed Iraq.
When he last pulled himself away from practicing his weekly acceptance speech for his LVLIBERY1 "Man of the Year" Award in the mirror, LVLIBERTY1 gamley attempted to evidence his bald assertion that Ritter fibbed (that's right --- RITTER --- not Bush, Dummy, Cheney, etc) with quotes from ... Sandy Beger and Madelien Albright.
So, once again, I want the evidence, LVLIBERY1. Not whining boo-hooing about "vulgarity", but e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e. Either you furnish evidence --- or you recant your assertion that Ritter is a liar and acknowledge that YOU have lied in an effort to extend your devotion to right-wing boot licking via new lines of calumnies against a good man serving America's interests.
Which will it be?
Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 03/15/2006 @ 1:32pm
"To expound further, what can you make of a Party that considers Hillary Clinton too far right?"
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/15/2006 @ 08:15am
Hmmm...for the war, backpedaled on choice, voted for "patriot" act (admittedly not alone.But I will NOT vote for ANYBODY who voted for this abomination)...flag burning ammendments. I actually take back any defense I ever made of the bitch, years ago, when she was pretending to be semi-progressive. She is 100% political bullshit. (As are most in congress today)
-------------------------------------------------
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/15/2006 @ 11:10am
I was going to rebut the substance of your post but there was none to be found.
OK, but this part is funny: "But what about the average person on the street who has, or has come to have a visceral hatred of President Bush? Perhaps they simply didn't vote for him in 2000, believing the media propaganda or caricature of his intellect and capabilities; or perhaps they simply didn't like him because he was from the opposition party, or a Texan. or any other number of normal reasons."
...or any number of normal reasons, like warrantless spying, prerpetual lies into war, preplanned agenda of war, cronyism, spend and spend deficit creation. If it weren't for his fundyvangenistic appeals, his approval would be in single digits.
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 03/15/2006 @ 1:38pm
Thanks, Mal...
Knew someone would point that out better than I could.
Posted by New Dawn at 03/15/2006 @ 1:54pm
Ha Ha Ha Ha. Vacuum requiring substance. Now that's funny.
Posted by WILL C. 03/15/2006 @ 1:27pm
I was going to rebut the substance of your post but there was none to be found.
I'm going to have to make a form letter out of this. This is not a Democrats-only forum, Will, so insults and bad jokes are no substitute for thought.
Posted by pontificus at 03/15/2006 @ 1:58pm
Posted by LEN MOSSE 03/15/2006 @ 07:38am
For someone who is so immune to curses or epithets, you sure cry about them a lot, Len. That's how you and I got off on the bad foot way back when, remember? Selective memory?
I see you're still unsuccessfully begging people for lunch dates (and imagine my boundless surprise - give that crap a rest, would you and just debate online like the rest of us), still trying to imply that you are so intimidating that people wouldn't dare say things to your face that they say online (and how's them giant feet, Sasquatch?), and most importantly, still completely ignoring the article I posted...
Len, I still think you're silly. Deal with it.
Posted by New Dawn at 03/15/2006 @ 2:02pm
Posted by MALCONTENT3 03/15/2006 @ 1:38pm
..or any number of normal reasons, like warrantless spying
I'll let the WSJ debunk this canard, it's less effort:
As a legal matter, Mr. Feingold's censure proposal is preposterous. The National Security Agency wiretaps were disclosed to Congressional leaders, including Democrats, from the start. The lead FISA court judges were also informed, and the Attorney General and Justice lawyers have monitored the wiretaps all along. Despite a media drumbeat about "illegal domestic eavesdropping," Mr. Bush's spirited defense of the program since news of it leaked has swung public opinion in support.
But as a political matter, the Wisconsin Senator knows exactly what he's doing. He knows that anti-Bush pathology runs so deep among many Democrats that they really do think they're living in some new dictatorship. Liberal journals solemnly debate impeachment, and political-action groups have formed to promote it. One of our leading left-wing newspapers recently compared Mr. Bush to J. Edgar Hoover and Richard Nixon, as if there were even a speck of evidence that this White House is wiretapping its political enemies.
, prerpetual lies into war
real lies, or just imagined ones? Which real lies?
preplanned agenda of war
Proof? do you have any?
cronyism
come on, you just through that in because it sounded good, right?
spend and spend deficit creation
I believe we can blame Congress for this, not the President, after all, they have the power to spend, not he. But I don't mean to interrupt your daydream.
If it weren't for his fundyvangenistic appeals, his approval would be in single digits.
Whatever that means...
Eric
Posted by pontificus at 03/15/2006 @ 2:14pm
I'm going to have to make a form letter out of this. This is not a Democrats-only forum, Will, so insults and bad jokes are no substitute for thought.
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/15/2006 @ 1:58pm
Hail Caeser!
Ha Ha Ha Ha
That's even funnier!
Insults and bad jokes require thought
Ha Ha Ha Ha
Remember son, at point .008 the slaying of the street signs can begin. Just remember not to wear any blaze orange until after you pass through that crucial limit.
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 2:15pm
New Dawn---My point has always been that name calling in a post does nothing to forward the cause of either side. All that is accomplished is further alienation. You would think that people would be trying to influence people with their insights not insult them. I am still of the opinion that this action (insults/name calling) by blog/post is unique to posting. People who would never say such things in public or face to face with someone somehow muster their fake courage to do so in the anonimity of the blogosphere. I find it peculiar that they get some sort of kick out of that---like they really accomplished something. The only thing accomplished is you have driven your political opponent even further away and made them even more determined to defeat you and everything you stand for.
Posted by Len Mosse at 03/15/2006 @ 2:19pm
I believe we can blame Congress for this, not the President, after all, they have the power to spend, not he. But I don't mean to interrupt your daydream.
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/15/2006 @ 2:14pm
Hmmm... I see the concept of "Veto" has never penetrated the vacuum
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 2:19pm
oh I forgot... Hail Caeser!
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 2:19pm
New Dawn----Almost forgot----My business is taking me to California next month---got time for lunch?
Posted by Len Mosse at 03/15/2006 @ 2:20pm
Posted by GLENNC.LEMON 03/15/2006 @ 1:17pm
No one said disagreeing with Bush or providing a constructive critique of the Iraq War amounts to a true case of Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS). Here are some of the symptoms of a full blown case of BDS:
What is most funny is that these psychologically naive individuals simultaneously think of Bush as this "criminal mastermind"--a genius of evil; and also as a complete moron who isn't capable of uttering a sentence without making a hash of it; or that his brain is controlled by the equally evil Karl Rove.
The cognitive dissonance required to have all these contradictory beliefs swirling around in one's brain is astonishing. But besides the primary function it serves to erase from consciousness what is happening in the world today, it is serving a secondary purpose--it makes them feel in control of what might come.
They can predict with the complete accuracy of the delusional mind that whatever happens--whatever horror is unleased by Al Qaeda or Hamas or Islamic Jihad--was caused by President Bush's actions/inactions/intentions (take your pick).
They can conduct a brave protest march against the evil Bush...but clearly they don't dare protest real terror or terrorist acts the way that the Jordanians or the Lebanese did, for example. The terrorists are simply poor, misunderstood individuals who have been oppressed by...Bush. Get rid of Bush (or America; or Israel) and voila! Problem solved!
Posted by pontificus at 03/15/2006 @ 2:21pm
real lies, or just imagined ones? Which real lies?
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/15/2006 @ 2:14pm
Hail Caeser!
that Saddam had WMD in Iraq...
When in fact he hide it all under ol' Gee Dubyas office furniture
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 2:22pm
If it weren't for his fundyvangenistic appeals, his approval would be in single digits.
Whatever that means...
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/15/2006 @ 2:14pm
Hail Caeser!
Fundyvangenist is Mal's term for evangelic conservatives...
You know... the mindless tools that occasionally substitute for caged raised Quail.
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 2:25pm
Posted by WILL C. 03/15/2006 @ 2:22pm
See Will, you can post things of substance. You will find that with some practice it will get much easier.
That said, can you a) prove that Saddam did not have WMD in his country prior to the invasion and did not dispose of them prior to the invasion and that b) George Bush knew that he did not have them. Accomplish this, then we will have gotten somewhere.
Posted by pontificus at 03/15/2006 @ 2:32pm
Posted by LEN MOSSE 03/15/2006 @ 2:19pm |
And still no mention of the article I posted so we could actually discuss something that matters... C'mon, Len, we've discussed things that matter before, at least for a few seconds... How about letting all of the crying about name-calling go and discussing issues?
Posted by LEN MOSSE 03/15/2006 @ 2:20pm |
This was a tongue-in-cheek remark, right?
I'll be at an MMA match in Salinas next month. Wanna come glove up? (That's definitely tongue-in-cheek - maybe you'll get the intended humor, but I doubt it...)
Stop asking me to lunch, Len. It really is annoying as hell. I wouldn't even go to lunch with a stranger from the net that I agreed with, let alone with you. I've repeatedly told you that.
You just refuse to get it.
Posted by New Dawn at 03/15/2006 @ 2:42pm
That said, can you a) prove that Saddam did not have WMD in his country prior to the invasion and did not dispose of them prior to the invasion and that b) George Bush knew that he did not have them. Accomplish this, then we will have gotten somewhere.
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/15/2006 @ 2:32pm
Hail Caeser!
But Saddam did dispose of his WMD before the Invasion through a very successful regime of UN inspection and disarmament.
And Ol' Gee Dubya told us he knew Saddam disarmed the second he started looking under his office furniture.
(Earth to vacuum... earth to vacuum... we are prepared to supply street signs in exchange for a fresh supply of vacuous questions)
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 2:42pm
..or any number of normal reasons, like warrantless spying
I'll let the WSJ debunk this canard, it's less effort:
As a legal matter, Mr. Feingold's censure proposal is preposterous. The National Security Agency wiretaps were disclosed to Congressional leaders, including Democrats, from the start. The lead FISA court judges were also informed, and the Attorney General and Justice lawyers have monitored the wiretaps all along. Despite a media drumbeat about "illegal domestic eavesdropping," Mr. Bush's spirited defense of the program since news of it leaked has swung public opinion in support.
But as a political matter, the Wisconsin Senator knows exactly what he's doing. He knows that anti-Bush pathology runs so deep among many Democrats that they really do think they're living in some new dictatorship. Liberal journals solemnly debate impeachment, and political-action groups have formed to promote it. One of our leading left-wing newspapers recently compared Mr. Bush to J. Edgar Hoover and Richard Nixon, as if there were even a speck of evidence that this White House is wiretapping its political enemies.
, prerpetual lies into war
real lies, or just imagined ones? Which real lies?
preplanned agenda of war
Proof? do you have any?
cronyism
come on, you just through that in because it sounded good, right?
spend and spend deficit creation
I believe we can blame Congress for this, not the President, after all, they have the power to spend, not he. But I don't mean to interrupt your daydream.
If it weren't for his fundyvangenistic appeals, his approval would be in single digits.
Whatever that means...
Eric
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/15/2006 @ 2:14pm | ignore this person
----------------
Warrantless spying: read the god damn law and then come back to us and tell us it hasn't been broken. Senator Feingold is in on the Judiciary Committee because he is one of the most highly educated lawyers in the country. He's read the law, clearly the retard from the WSJ hasn't bothered.....neither have you.
Perpetual Lies Into War: Cheney's mushroom clouds. Powell's pics of WMD movements. Bush's yellowcake.
Preplanned Agenda: Downing Street Memo's. The fact that the evidence was fixed around the policy. The fact that the American public has never been allowed to see the results of the infamous "energy meetings" that were held at the beginning of the Administration's tenure.
Cronyism: Michael Brown. Julie L. Myers who was appointed to head the highly important anti terror position of Customs and Immigration Enforcement (part of Homeland Security). She was appointed because she's Richard Myers niece. She has no real qualifications for the job according to Republican Senators, so Bush appointed her while Congress was in reccess.
Spend and Spend Deficit Creation: President's fault as he's not financed his vanity war through taxation.
Posted by freedomplease at 03/15/2006 @ 2:43pm
Well done, Free.
Posted by New Dawn at 03/15/2006 @ 2:48pm
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 03/15/2006 @ 2:43pm
Warrantless spying: read the god damn law and then come back to us and tell us it hasn't been broken. Senator Feingold is in on the Judiciary Committee because he is one of the most highly educated lawyers in the country. He's read the law, clearly the retard from the WSJ hasn't bothered.....neither have you.
So that's your proof? Feingold's a lawyer - oh, wait, 'one of the most highly educated lawyers in the country', so that's the end of the story? End of discussion? Slam dunk proof? And thus, since the Dem leaders were in on it, they were all guilty too? Shall we just throw all the bastards in jail, because after all, Feingold's a 'highly educated lawyer?' ooooookaaayyyyyyy.....
Perpetual Lies Into War: Cheney's mushroom clouds. Powell's pics of WMD movements. Bush's yellowcake.
These were all lies? Or just in your fevered imagination? Do you know the definition of a lie?
Preplanned Agenda: Downing Street Memo's. The fact that the evidence was fixed around the policy. The fact that the American public has never been allowed to see the results of the infamous "energy meetings" that were held at the beginning of the Administration's tenure.
This is all very debatable, not proof at all. Do you have, say, a smoking gun showing proof of a lie, or dare I say, a semen-stained dress type proof?
Cronyism: Michael Brown. Julie L. Myers who was appointed to head the highly important anti terror position of Customs and Immigration Enforcement (part of Homeland Security). She was appointed because she's Richard Myers niece. She has no real qualifications for the job according to Republican Senators, so Bush appointed her while Congress was in reccess.
You cite two cases of possible, but not proven nepotism, and that makes your case?
Spend and Spend Deficit Creation: President's fault as he's not financed his vanity war through taxation.
Again, some remedial civics for you. Congress taxes and spends, the President executes. Any questions?
Posted by pontificus at 03/15/2006 @ 2:53pm
These were all lies? Or just in your fevered imagination? Do you know the definition of a lie?
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/15/2006 @ 2:53pm
Hail Caeser!
Cheney's lies about mushroom clouds get all the hamsters a scurrying and you accuse Free of having a fevered imagination?
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 3:06pm
This is all very debatable, not proof at all. Do you have, say, a smoking gun showing proof of a lie, or dare I say, a semen-stained dress type proof?
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/15/2006 @ 2:53pm
Hail Caeser!
we have the Downing Street Memo...
or do substance and vacuum not mix?
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 3:08pm
Again, some remedial civics for you. Congress taxes and spends, the President executes. Any questions?
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/15/2006 @ 2:53pm
Hail Caeser!
yeah I have one...
Veto anyone?
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 3:09pm
You know, it's funny how the president won't use his enumerated power to Veto spending bills but he is first in line to use his vacuous... if not nebulous "power" to spy on Americans without a warrent of any kind.
When the forth amendment plainly states that warrants must be issued
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 3:21pm
Posted by WILL C. 03/15/2006 @ 3:21pm |
Will, in preschool terminology you are what's known as 'not a good listener.' But fear not, Will, I am equipped to help you with the good old cut and paste:
As a legal matter, Mr. Feingold's censure proposal is preposterous. The National Security Agency wiretaps were disclosed to Congressional leaders, including Democrats, from the start. The lead FISA court judges were also informed, and the Attorney General and Justice lawyers have monitored the wiretaps all along. Despite a media drumbeat about "illegal domestic eavesdropping," Mr. Bush's spirited defense of the program since news of it leaked has swung public opinion in support.
But as a political matter, the Wisconsin Senator knows exactly what he's doing. He knows that anti-Bush pathology runs so deep among many Democrats that they really do think they're living in some new dictatorship. Liberal journals solemnly debate impeachment, and political-action groups have formed to promote it. One of our leading left-wing newspapers recently compared Mr. Bush to J. Edgar Hoover and Richard Nixon, as if there were even a speck of evidence that this White House is wiretapping its political enemies.
Posted by pontificus at 03/15/2006 @ 3:32pm
Will, in preschool terminology you are what's known as 'not a good listener.' But fear not, Will, I am equipped to help you with the good old cut and paste:
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/15/2006 @ 3:32pm
But doesn't "cut and past" imply readin?
but then maybe they haven't covered that in preschool yet, huh?
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 3:36pm
oops... Hail Caeser!
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 3:36pm
Will,
Your mother wears army boots.
Posted by pontificus at 03/15/2006 @ 4:04pm
Pontificus,
You're way out of your league if all you want is a pissing match.
If you actually want to learn something then you'll do alright here but if your purpose here is to be another Bush apologist, you'll have to severely crank up your game.
To learn.....stop cutting and pasting and start reading. Read the FISA law and its revisions, like I, and a number of others here have (we care about our country enough to do that type of thing), when you're done I absolutely challenge you to come and debate me on whether or not the President has acted within his authority.
Good luck.
Posted by freedomplease at 03/15/2006 @ 4:08pm
Your mother wears army boots.
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/15/2006 @ 4:04pm
Hail Caeser!
they were my dads...
:)
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 4:15pm
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 03/15/2006 @ 2:43pm
Warrantless spying: read the god damn law and then come back to us and tell us it hasn't been broken. Senator Feingold is in on the Judiciary Committee because he is one of the most highly educated lawyers in the country. He's read the law, clearly the retard from the WSJ hasn't bothered.....neither have you.
So that's your proof? Feingold's a lawyer - oh, wait, 'one of the most highly educated lawyers in the country', so that's the end of the story? End of discussion? Slam dunk proof? And thus, since the Dem leaders were in on it, they were all guilty too? Shall we just throw all the bastards in jail, because after all, Feingold's a 'highly educated lawyer?' ooooookaaayyyyyyy.....
What does any of that rant have to do with the substance of the law vs. the presidents actions? (clue: None)
-----------------------------
Perpetual Lies Into War: Cheney's mushroom clouds. Powell's pics of WMD movements. Bush's yellowcake.
These were all lies? Or just in your fevered imagination? Do you know the definition of a lie?
Yes, they were all lies. Well documented lies. Lies told on national tv, to an audience, some of whom KNEW AT THE TIME they were lies. (Sometimes half-truths and distortions are considered lies. Might wanna consider that before your next post.)
-------------------------------
Preplanned Agenda: Downing Street Memo's. The fact that the evidence was fixed around the policy. The fact that the American public has never been allowed to see the results of the infamous "energy meetings" that were held at the beginning of the Administration's tenure.
This is all very debatable, not proof at all. Do you have, say, a smoking gun showing proof of a lie, or dare I say, a semen-stained dress type proof?
Debatable? Do you read the news? Can you say PNAC? Google it. The aluminum tubes, yellow cake, mushroom coluds, WMDs are DOCUMENTED LIES. (And let's leave my stained dress collection out of this.)
------------------------------------------------
Cronyism: Michael Brown. Julie L. Myers who was appointed to head the highly important anti terror position of Customs and Immigration Enforcement (part of Homeland Security). She was appointed because she's Richard Myers niece. She has no real qualifications for the job according to Republican Senators, so Bush appointed her while Congress was in reccess.
You cite two cases of possible, but not proven nepotism, and that makes your case?
And you site nothing in rebuttal, but your ignorance.You pay too little attention and confuse 'cronyism' with 'nepotism'. Look them up.
Lynn Scarlett: Undersecretary of the Interior- Becoming the president and CEO in 2001, of The Reason Foundation, which is funded by industry groups such as the American Forest and Paper Association, the American Petroleum Institute, American Plastics Council, Chevron Corporation, Dow Chemical, etc.
J. Steven Griles: Deputy Secretary of the Interior-A former oil and coal lobbyist
Gale A. Norton: Secretary of the Interior (retired)-former mining industry lobbyist
Linda Fisher: Deputy administrator at EPA- Lobbied on behalf of Monsanto from 1995 until 2000
I could go on. Or you could read yourself.
----------------------------------------
Spend and Spend Deficit Creation: President's fault as he's not financed his vanity war through taxation.
Again, some remedial civics for you. Congress taxes and spends, the President executes. Any questions?
Yes. Who vetos, again? Who asks for appropriations for this war, again?
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/15/2006 @ 2:53pm
Apologies to all, (except monteficus) for length and excessive use of bold, to denote individuals.
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 03/15/2006 @ 4:19pm
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 03/15/2006 @ 4:08pm
Read the FISA law and its revisions, like I, and a number of others here have (we care about our country enough to do that type of thing), when you're done I absolutely challenge you to come and debate me on whether or not the President has acted within his authority.
That's a pretty silly suggestion. No one but a lawyer has the time or expertise to understand the wording, import, and implications of that law and all it's amendments. If you are implying that you have all of that, plus an objective viewpoint, I simply don't believe you. It's enough for me to know that a) the Democratic leadership was kept fully informed of all of Bush's actions under FISA, and if they chose to keep silent until it seemed politically expedient that should tell us all something and b) since the leftists have been on a partisan hunt for revenge for six years now, this FISA business is most likely just more of the same. This is not discussion, and we are not lawyers.
Posted by pontificus at 03/15/2006 @ 4:20pm
Posted by pontificus at 03/15/2006 @ 4:20pm
Posted by MALCONTENT3 03/15/2006 @ 4:19pm
I ask you for proof, and you cite accusations. Proof is determined by a judge and/or jury based on evidence and testimony presented in a court of law or other appropriate legal venue. You and I both know you have no such proof, so stop using your circular reasoning based on your own moonbat accusations and just admit you are a partisan Bush hater for whom proof is not necessary. Then admit it to yourself, if you are capable.
Posted by pontificus at 03/15/2006 @ 4:26pm
That's a pretty silly suggestion. No one but a lawyer has the time or expertise to understand the wording, import, and implications of that law and all it's amendments.
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/15/2006 @ 4:20pm
Hail Caeser!
I read it. It's written in plain, easy to understand english.
But then in your preschool I hear you have to master finger painting and nap time before they start you on reading.
Hang tough little buckaroo. Kindy garden is right around the corner.
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 4:31pm
I ask you for proof, and you cite accusations. Proof is determined by a judge and/or jury based on evidence and testimony presented in a court of law or other appropriate legal venue.
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/15/2006 @ 4:26pm
Let's see. You're not a judge and one isn't a jury.
So what your saying is your not qualified to even evaluate the very proof you are demanding.
Why are we talking to again?
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 4:33pm
Hail Caeser!
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 4:34pm
correction... to you again?
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 4:34pm
Eric, you said
And you site nothing in rebuttal, but your ignorance.You pay too little attention and confuse 'cronyism' with 'nepotism'. Look them up.
Lynn Scarlett: Undersecretary of the Interior- Becoming the president and CEO in 2001, of The Reason Foundation, which is funded by industry groups such as the American Forest and Paper Association, the American Petroleum Institute, American Plastics Council, Chevron Corporation, Dow Chemical, etc.
J. Steven Griles: Deputy Secretary of the Interior-A former oil and coal lobbyist
Gale A. Norton: Secretary of the Interior (retired)-former mining industry lobbyist
Linda Fisher: Deputy administrator at EPA- Lobbied on behalf of Monsanto from 1995 until 2000
I could go on. Or you could read yourself.
This is proof of cronyism? I'm sure if I was inclined to bother I could provide you a much more 'incriminating' documentation of 'cronyism' for the Clinton Administration.
But the problem is, it's not cronyism. It's real life. You don't nominate people with no credentials or experience to lead government agencies. And the fact is that the most capable people in our country are in private enterprise. They are definitely not typically to be found in ivory towers in academia or government, places where one could believe the earth was flat for all the practical import.
Posted by pontificus at 03/15/2006 @ 4:35pm
Pontificus blathers:
"It's enough for me to know that a) the Democratic leadership was kept fully informed of all of Bush's actions under FISA, and if they chose to keep silent until it seemed politically expedient that should tell us all something..."
They were not kept "fully informed", and even if they were, they are legally prohibited from discussing these matters outside of the briefings with the public, press, or even their fellow pols. You really didn't know that? Clearly, you haven't read much on the topic...
Posted by New Dawn at 03/15/2006 @ 4:37pm
Posted by NEW DAWN 03/15/2006 @ 4:37pm
They were not kept "fully informed"
How do you know this? Have they denied it?
, and even if they were, they are legally prohibited from discussing these matters outside of the briefings with the public, press, or even their fellow pols. You really didn't know that? Clearly, you haven't read much on the topic..
You mean they were legally required to keep illegal activities to themselves? Is that what you are alleging?
Posted by pontificus at 03/15/2006 @ 4:41pm
You really didn't know that? Clearly, you haven't read much on the topic...
Posted by NEW DAWN 03/15/2006 @ 4:37pm
My favorite part is how he wholeheartedly believes that swearing a few congressmen to secrecy under threat of punishment before you tell them you are breaking the law constitutes a warrant...
the kind the fourth amendment clearly states you need
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 4:42pm
You mean they were legally required to keep illegal activities to themselves? Is that what you are alleging?
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/15/2006 @ 4:41pm
No, he's saying that with treats and intimidation they were illigally required to keep quiet about illegal activities
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 4:44pm
correction... threats and intimidation
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 4:45pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/15/2006 @ 4:20pm
"It's enough for me to know that the Democratic leadership was kept fully informed of all of Bush's actions under FISA, and if they chose to keep silent until it seemed politically expedient that should tell us all something."
Something like, all you know is,"(Some) of the Democratic leadership was kept (partially) informed of (some) of Bush's actions under FISA"? Or, maybe, they were told it was classified and made it illegal, not 'politically expedient'.
"This is not discussion, and we are not lawyers."
Yes, we are not lawyers, but we can read. And no, this is not an informed discussion. But the, the lack of ability to recognize when, even you, are engaging in one, is just a symptom of your lack of awareness.
"I ask you for proof, and you cite accusations. Proof is determined by a judge and/or jury based on evidence and testimony presented in a court of law or other appropriate legal venue. You and I both know you have no such proof, so stop using your circular reasoning based on your own moonbat accusations and just admit you are a partisan Bush hater for whom proof is not necessary. Then admit it to yourself, if you are capable."
"Proof is determined by a judge and/or jury based on evidence and testimony presented in a court of law or other appropriate legal venue"?? There are no facts extant, which were not handed down by a jury? No documents? No photographs? How do you define proof. Are OJ or MJ 'proven' innocent, because a jury said so?
Juries 'prove' nothing. They assess reasonable doubt. Most 'facts' have been nowhere near a courtroom.
You talk out your ass.
And the fact that I've never denied hating bushco, for the reasons of 'the facts' I've laid out, adds nothing to your "arguments"
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 03/15/2006 @ 4:52pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/15/2006 @ 4:35pm
"This is proof of cronyism? I'm sure if I was inclined to bother I could provide you a much more 'incriminating' documentation of 'cronyism' for the Clinton Administration."
So what? Big fucking deal.? This adds what, to the discussion about bush or the here and now? Besides I doubt you could find much "more incriminating" than the blatent extreme cronyism of bushco.
"But the problem is, it's not cronyism. It's real life. You don't nominate people with no credentials or experience to lead government agencies."
First you conflate cronyism with nepotism. And now you do the same with reality. You also don't appoint people to protect the publics interest, who were financed and still represent the very industries, these posts tend to regulate. Duh.
You are an extreme apologist, with no meat to any of your arguments. You declaring me to me 'wrong' or 'uninformed' does not correlate to you having any substantive position.
Go learn something. Anything. Then come back and we can debate reality, intead of "discuss" ideology.
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 03/15/2006 @ 5:04pm
Pontificus seems to be attempting to apologize for GWB's illegal wiretapping by saying that Nelson Rockefeller and a few other Democrats on that committee were privvy to the activity.
It is truely sad how underinformed some American's can be.
Senator Rockefeller sent a hand written note to Chenney to articulate his discomfort with this program. According to Rockerfeller Chenney never responded.
Pontificus.....ask yourself....why did Rockerfeller send a hand written note instead of talking to the press or at least having his staff type a formal letter?
The Committee he was / is serving on is top secret. It is forbidden for him to discuss any of this with anybody, including his own staff.
Some how / some way word of this program was leaked to the NY Times, and thankfully they finally broke the story after knowing for a year (thankfully, so we can have the chance of stopping big brother from illegally spying on us).
There is an active and aggressive investigation currently ongoing as to who and how the program was leaked. There probably should be. There is no active and aggressive investigation ongoing as to the use / misuse of the intelligence that got us into the quagmire in Iraq. That investigation is called Phase II. You might remember that last year the Democrats shut down the Senate to demand progress on Phase II (since it is so critically important to the health of our republic). They were assured it will be ready in two weeks. Since it's now the ides of March that was yet another Republican lie / broken promise (whatever apologetic terminology you wish).
As Will would say; Hail Caeser
Posted by freedomplease at 03/15/2006 @ 5:12pm
" You don't nominate people with no credentials or experience to lead government agencies."
OK. Maybe I missed something.
Is this the bush doctrine, for reducing lobbying? Appoint your favorite lobbyist directly to the post, they would otherwise have to lobby, and...viola! Fewer lobbyists AND he doesn't have to work hard to lobby or make decisions.
Pure brilliance. Next, let's hire enemy generals, to lead our troops. I mean, they know what the enemy is up to. Who better to represent the publics interests, than the people in the know.
Maybe I misunderestimated bushco.
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 03/15/2006 @ 5:13pm
Malcontent,
The funniest part is Julie L. Myer's is the ultimate in people who "no credentials or experience".
This apologist doesn't care enough about America to care that GWB appointed an unqualified woman to head one of the most important anti-terrorist positions within all of government!
Posted by freedomplease at 03/15/2006 @ 5:18pm
Eric, before I put you on ignore for your gratuitous and tiresome use of pointless infantile profanity, I'll address these points:
"This is proof of cronyism? I'm sure if I was inclined to bother I could provide you a much more 'incriminating' documentation of 'cronyism' for the Clinton Administration."
So what? Big fucking deal.? This adds what, to the discussion about bush or the here and now?
Because it buttresses my case that many of your objections to 'Bushco' are nothing but partisan blather, because you are blatantly hypocritical.
First you conflate cronyism with nepotism.
Where did I do that?
You also don't appoint people to protect the publics interest, who were financed and still represent the very industries, these posts tend to regulate.
You don't? In which world is this not done? Because every Administration does. Or do you dispute that?
You are an extreme apologist, with no meat to any of your arguments. You declaring me to me 'wrong' or 'uninformed' does not correlate to you having any substantive position.
I would say the same about you. Again, representing your opinions without facts backing them up is a pointless, wearisome exercise. Saying 'niger uranium' as proof that 'Bush Lied!!!!' is nonsensical except to a Kool-Aid drinking moonbat. In any case, I never explicitly said either that you were 'wrong', or 'uninformed', so I don't know where you got that from.
Go learn something. Anything. Then come back and we can debate reality, intead of "discuss" ideology.
Ditto to you, my friend.
Posted by pontificus at 03/15/2006 @ 5:22pm
Freedom,
Yes. And I neglected to mention, that the appointees you spoke of were pure unbridled nepotism. I mean, why else does anyone make 'recess appointments'.
I believe arguing with Ponte Hall is just a game of ideology. There will never be facts debated. The truly sad part is he believes this propoganda and will probably, never arm himself with uncomfortable facts. Oh well....moving on.
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 03/15/2006 @ 5:29pm
Because it buttresses my case that many of your objections to 'Bushco' are nothing but partisan blather, because you are blatantly hypocritical.
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/15/2006 @ 5:22pm
Hail Caeser!
Men of principle... ain't for sale
Using Clinton's actions to defend ol' Gee Dubya's... priceless
(next you guys will all be wanting be wanting a shot at Monika)
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 5:30pm
Pont -
Another one crying about profanity. Get over it. Grownups and free Americans sometimes use words you might not like.
Not one single fact in your last post, and many misinformed statements that clearly show your ignorance in previous ones, as I already pointed out before.
I'll let Eric deal with you himself now (as he's more than capable).
Posted by New Dawn at 03/15/2006 @ 5:33pm
Ponte,
Have at it. You seem fact averse, anyway. Scroll back, for previous answers to every question, in your last post.
As to my "gratuitous" use of profanity, maybe you should look up "gratuitous" while you're at it.
Bushcos actions are more 'profane' than my language.
Fuck bush. And anyone who mindlessly defends his vacuous policies. (Yes, that means you too.)
See ya.
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 03/15/2006 @ 5:33pm
I would say the same about you. Again, representing your opinions without facts backing them up is a pointless, wearisome exercise. Saying 'niger uranium' as proof that 'Bush Lied!!!!' is nonsensical except to a Kool-Aid drinking moonbat. In any case, I never explicitly said either that you were 'wrong', or 'uninformed', so I don't know where you got that from.
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/15/2006 @ 5:22pm
Hail Caeser!
That's intersting because what you said earlier would imply that facts would be nonsenical to a non-judge non-jury moonbat.
I bet this doesn't make any sense to you huh?
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 5:33pm
maybe you should talk to mom about switchin preschools
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 5:34pm
Eric, before I put you on ignore for your gratuitous and tiresome use of pointless infantile profanity, I'll address these points:
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/15/2006 @ 5:22pm |
Hail Caeser!
Please ignore us...
we won't go away.
:)
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 5:36pm
(next you guys will all be wanting be wanting a shot at Monika)
Posted by WILL C. 03/15/2006 @ 5:30pm
OOOOOOO!!!! I want a shot, too. I like fiesty, plump brunettes who give head.
(Don't tell my 'femme de jour', though, ok?)
Anonymous
Posted by malcontent3 at 03/15/2006 @ 5:37pm
Another one crying about profanity. Get over it. Grownups and free Americans sometimes use words you might not like.
Gratuitous use of profanity is a good way to drive away people that make you uncomfortable. People insecure about their positions are easily made uncomfortable. Draw your own conclusions.
Posted by pontificus at 03/15/2006 @ 5:37pm
Gratuitous use of profanity is a good way to drive away people that make you uncomfortable.
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/15/2006 @ 5:37pm
Hail Caeser
Our apologies if we have offended your delicate sensibilities.
If I may be so bold, perhaps a regimen of calcium and vitamin D might help you with that spine thing.
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 5:41pm
Draw your own conclusions.
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/15/2006 @ 5:37pm
Maybe, one day soon, you'll draw your conclusions with evidence, not finger paint.
Til then, have fun.
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 03/15/2006 @ 5:42pm
Anonymous
Posted by MALCONTENT3 03/15/2006 @ 5:37pm
:)
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 5:42pm
Pont -
You make me uncomfortable because you are clueless and refuse to address, internalize, accept, or debate real facts. Then you come to a board where you know you'll be challenged and spread your errors and misconceptions around like fertilizer. And you are not alone in that.
And if your position is so weak you can't defend it (with facts) against a few bad words, well then...
Allow me to wholeheartedly second Eric's hearty "Fuck you."
Perhaps you and Len should get together and have lunch and cry about freedom of speech and how neither of you cares for it much...
Now, drive away.
Posted by New Dawn at 03/15/2006 @ 5:44pm
Posted by MALCONTENT3 03/15/2006 @ 5:37pm
And JFK liked plumb blondes...
Can't say I disagree with either of 'em. I wouldn't have turned down Monica or Marilyn...
hee hee hee
Posted by New Dawn at 03/15/2006 @ 5:46pm
plump
Posted by New Dawn at 03/15/2006 @ 5:46pm
all in favor of giving our resident Roman a hearty fuckus youous
Say MacGillicuddy
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 5:48pm
MacGillicuddy
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 5:48pm
Eric,
It's a pity that you have lost whatever manners you might have been given during your upbringing, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to years of shattering electoral defeats. You're reaching bottom, though, because you have as few manners left to lose as your Party does political power, so perhaps there's hope for both of you.
Posted by pontificus at 03/15/2006 @ 5:57pm
Posted by NEW DAWN 03/15/2006 @ 5:44pm
Allow me to wholeheartedly second Eric's hearty "Fuck you."
I need to thank you gentlemen, for without you, election night would not be nearly so sweet.
Posted by pontificus at 03/15/2006 @ 5:59pm
Pont -
Sanctimonious. Look it up. Your picture should be next to it in the dictionary.
Really didn't know about the zipped lips order and illegality of discussing confidential briefings, huh? I'm still amazed by that one...
Posted by New Dawn at 03/15/2006 @ 6:00pm
What election night is that, Pont?
The one decided by the Supremes, or the one where half of America lost their minds and got suckered in by a "good ol' Texas boy they'd like to drink beers with" who, in reality, was actually born and raised with a silver spoon?
Posted by New Dawn at 03/15/2006 @ 6:02pm
You're reaching bottom, though, because you have as few manners left to lose as your Party does political power, so perhaps there's hope for both of you.
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/15/2006 @ 5:57pm
Hail Caeser!
That's all you have left... manners!
I think it's time to change your name to Snobus Maximus.
(and you might want to cut the shine on that nose before you look down it)
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 6:03pm
I need to thank you gentlemen, for without you, election night would not be nearly so sweet.
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/15/2006 @ 5:59pm
you're welcome!
We'll even have a jacket waiting for you.
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 6:05pm
Hail Caeser
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 6:05pm
Or the upcoming elections where it's increasingly likely that the voters will send the message that they'd prefer a weak Dem over a corrupt Repub?
Posted by New Dawn at 03/15/2006 @ 6:06pm
Sanctimonious. Look it up. Your picture should be next to it in the dictionary.
Not appearing sanctimonious around here is next to impossible. Anyone expressing any civility at all looks like a saint.
Really didn't know about the zipped lips order and illegality of discussing confidential briefings, huh? I'm still amazed by that one...
Funny - it didn't seem to stop some Democratic senators from releasing classified info to the New York Times about the NSA wiretaps used to hunt down terrorists. I'm really, really looking forward to seeing some of these moonbats go to jail.
Posted by pontificus at 03/15/2006 @ 6:07pm
"Funny - it didn't seem to stop some Democratic senators from releasing classified info to the New York Times about the NSA wiretaps used to hunt down terrorists. I'm really, really looking forward to seeing some of these moonbats go to jail."
And your proof of that accusation is? Enlighten me.
Posted by New Dawn at 03/15/2006 @ 6:09pm
Not appearing sanctimonious around here is next to impossible. Anyone expressing any civility at all looks like a saint.
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/15/2006 @ 6:07pm
New Orleans or Holy Roman?
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 6:10pm
And your proof of that accusation is? Enlighten me.
Posted by NEW DAWN 03/15/2006 @ 6:09pm
Dawn
He's a conservative. The conservative double standard means that he only has to demand it... not give it
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 6:11pm
And Pont, are you also eager to see Rove, Cheney, and Libby in jail over the Plame affair, or are you just as blatantly, blindly partisan as you appear?
Posted by New Dawn at 03/15/2006 @ 6:12pm
and the word of Snobus Maximus is beyond question
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 6:12pm
Posted by WILL C. 03/15/2006 @ 6:11pm
Yep.
Posted by New Dawn at 03/15/2006 @ 6:13pm
And Pont, are you also eager to see Rove, Cheney, and Libby in jail over the Plame affair, or are you just as blatantly, blindly partisan as you appear?
Posted by NEW DAWN 03/15/2006 @ 6:12pm
Again... the double standard.
It's Ok if they do it.
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 6:13pm
right Snobus?
or is far right Snobus more appropriate?
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 6:14pm
I like the way he keeps using the word "moonbats" as though that's less offensive because he doesn't see it as technically profane.
Posted by New Dawn at 03/15/2006 @ 6:14pm
I'm a little rusty on the manners of the empire
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 6:15pm
I like the way he keeps using the word "moonbats" as though that's less offensive because he doesn't see it as technically profane.
Posted by NEW DAWN 03/15/2006 @ 6:14pm
or saying my mom wears army boots.
(what does it say when a snob belittles others for acts he himself is guilty of?)
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 6:17pm
there's a word for that... it's called "conservative"
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 6:18pm
Posted by NEW DAWN 03/15/2006 @ 6:06pm
What election night is that, Pont?
Well, let's see, there's been so many. Reagan's whomping of the pathetic losers Carter and Mondale. Bush I beating the pathetic Dukakis. Gingrich's 1994 Contract with America rousting the rascals from Congress.
And yes, the one decided by the Supremes, which prevented the theft of Florida by the Florida Supreme Court. Then the one where somewhat less than half of America lost their minds and got suckered in by a phony poseur John Kerry, who never had a real job or a real military career for that matter.
Or the upcoming elections where it's increasingly likely that the voters will send the message that they'd prefer a weak Dem over a corrupt Repub?
That remains to be seen. At any rate, we are all comforted by the fact that most of you leftists will be gone in a couple of generations.
Posted by pontificus at 03/15/2006 @ 6:19pm
The your mom/army boots thing cracked me up. Bugs Bunny used to say that in the ooooooold WB cartoons.
Tells us a lot about Pont.
Posted by New Dawn at 03/15/2006 @ 6:19pm
Ahh, manners. The vague and oblique term, that is defined by it's exclaimer. The last refuge of those without an actual argument.
I bet you're an expert in 'manners'.
Allow me to reiterate.
Would you please go fuck off and learn something, before you posit an "argument". Thank you.
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 03/15/2006 @ 6:20pm
Posted by NEW DAWN 03/15/2006 @ 6:09pm
And your proof of that accusation is? Enlighten me.
Don't tell me you guys are revising your standards here. Based on what I've seen, accusation is more than enough proof for Bush-haters, are the rules different for people who don't hate Bush?
Posted by pontificus at 03/15/2006 @ 6:21pm
Pont -
Nice dodge.
You said a bunch of prominent Dems are going to jail for leaking classified info about wiretapping. That's a pretty specific accusation. You got that where?
We've offered you numerous examples of our accusations.
Posted by New Dawn at 03/15/2006 @ 6:23pm
Posted by NEW DAWN 03/15/2006 @ 6:12pm
And Pont, are you also eager to see Rove, Cheney, and Libby in jail over the Plame affair, or are you just as blatantly, blindly partisan as you appear?
If these guys break the law, send them to jail by all means but what exactly were they guilty of? Fitzgerald said that Plame was not covert, so there was no crime and thus no leak. Anything else about this you want to discuss?
Posted by pontificus at 03/15/2006 @ 6:24pm
"suckered in by a phony poseur John Kerry, who never had a real job or a real military career for that matter."
That cinches it. You are a moron. Look at the military records.
Facts mean nothing to you.
Posted by New Dawn at 03/15/2006 @ 6:24pm
Facts mean nothing to you.
Posted by NEW DAWN 03/15/2006 @ 6:24pm
The word of Snobus Maximus is beyond question
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 6:28pm
and fact are only facts if Snobus proclaims them to be facts
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 6:29pm
as proof is only proof if Snobus proclaims that it is proof
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 6:30pm
Posted by NEW DAWN 03/15/2006 @ 6:23pm
Pont -
Nice dodge.
You said a bunch of prominent Dems are going to jail for leaking classified info about wiretapping. That's a pretty specific accusation. You got that where?
We've offered you numerous examples of our accusations.
When I asked for proof of Bush's lies, you and others said 'Niger uranium,' for example, as if that was some sort of proof. When I called Eric on it, he got mad and started cussing. Give me some proof, or even present a case, and you'll have something. Otherwise, I guess profanity will have to do. But since I have a life, I must go, I have been on here way too long today. But if you have time, check out realclearpolitics.com, there are some articles about the investigations and the hoped for prosecutions of those who have compromised national security. You really should, as a libertarian I check out the leftist sites regularly to think about what the left is thinking. Maybe tomorrow we can discuss it.
Posted by pontificus at 03/15/2006 @ 6:30pm
Republican with a military past (or even without one) = godly and untouchable.
Democrat with a military past = unpatriotic, liar, weak, and never had a real job (see Kerry, Murtha, McCain...)
Posted by New Dawn at 03/15/2006 @ 6:31pm
"That remains to be seen. At any rate, we are all comforted by the fact that most of you leftists will be gone in a couple of generations."
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/15/2006 @ 6:19pm
What? Rounded up in halliburton detention centers?
As has been pointed out before, long after our rantings of the moment, the world will move on. More and more in a liberal fashion. As has always been the case, overall, throughout history.
Perhaps, you've not given alot of thought to the children, that right wing policies will force to be born. Some will be steeped in left-wing ideology by their liberal parents. Some, abondoned by those who didn't want them and left to fend for themselves in a right-wing run world.
Fewer leftists? At least, by projecting several generations into the future, you have finally hit on something that no one can argue with.
Try educating yourself to reality and doing that in the present tense. In the future, inevitably, you will be a minority.
Hell, history predicts my views will be deemed conservatives by then. Is that why they call it conservatism. Because the ideologies change. But the name remains the same?
Hopefully, my grandchildren won't have to belittle yours, for their ignorance.
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 03/15/2006 @ 6:32pm
Snobus... and his nose
exit stage right
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 6:32pm
i hope none of you need proof
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 6:32pm
:)
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 6:33pm
Pont -
You're a fucking liar. I have never mentioned Niger uranium on this board or any other.
And I back up my accusations. You just don't read well.
I'm already working, and a casual glance at your e-mail led me, for a moment, to think you said you were a "librarian". I almost fell off my chair laughing. Your lack of reading comprehension appears to be contagious.
Posted by New Dawn at 03/15/2006 @ 6:34pm
You're a fucking liar. I have never mentioned Niger uranium on this board or any other.
Posted by NEW DAWN 03/15/2006 @ 6:34pm
Dawn
Snobus proclaimed that you did.
let's see some of those manners.
(and a little gratitude would be nice)
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 6:37pm
:)
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 6:37pm
Didn't mean McCain above, meant Cleland.
My bad.
Posted by New Dawn at 03/15/2006 @ 6:38pm
F you too Will!
hee hee hee
Posted by New Dawn at 03/15/2006 @ 6:39pm
MacGillicudy!
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 6:39pm
:)
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 6:39pm
Don't worry Pontificus--New Dawn, Mal, and Will C are my bitches from way back. They talk a lot of trash but don't have one testicle between them. They stay behind the screen in anonimity and fool themselves into believing they are tough guys because they can hurl insults. Paper Tigers in their nice cozy little safe rooms--Apparently never coming out for lunch even when I have given all 3 standing invitations for lunch on me.-------- Now after saying something so unkind and non issue related did I accomplish anything? Did I persuade anyone? I think not. ------Now let us talk about the wiretapping. President Bush took an action that is contrary to the FISA law. But there is statutory law and there is constitutional law. The FISA LAW is statutory law and by its nature not as binding as Constitutional law. If the Presidents actions rest in his/her inherent Constitutional power as Commander In Chief in time of war then FISA may not apply to the President's actions. As Commander in Chief in time of war it has always been within the Presidents power to order the interception of enemy communications. The President also has a resolution passed by Congress in 2001 that ask him to do everything in his power to bring justice to those responsible for 9/11. This resolution in combination with his powers of Commander IN Chief are an excellent legal argument for his actions. This is not the first time that Presidential power has clashed with Congressional power. Andrew Johnson was impeached but not convicted for directly defying a law passed by Congress that said he could not fire his Secretary of War William Stanton without Senate approval. In later years the Supreme Court declared that the Congress had no right to approve of Presidential firings of his Cabinet. The Constitutionality of FISA in this particular situation has not been decided by a court. Congress has the right to pass laws. The President has the power to be Commander In Chief and in time of war those powers are magnified. As a practical matter they can wiretap all my phone calls that I make out of the country and I could give rats a--.
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore
a) In General.--That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any further acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
Posted by Len Mosse at 03/15/2006 @ 7:02pm
"When I asked for proof of Bush's lies, you and others said 'Niger uranium,' for example, as if that was some sort of proof. When I called Eric on it, he got mad and started cussing"
Bullshit. Foist off, I was cussing all along.
More importantly, I never used the term 'Niger uranium' at all. I said:
"Debatable? Do you read the news? Can you say PNAC? Google it. The aluminum tubes, yellow cake, mushroom coluds, WMDs are DOCUMENTED LIES."
Maybe I was wrong about you. Maybe, you do read. And then immediately forget, like what I wrote two pages back.
I guess you didn't google it.
Here you go. For the learning (and google) impaired:
The International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said, "Based on available evidence, the IAEA team has concluded that Iraq efforts to import these aluminum tubes were not likely to have been related to the manufacture of centrifuge, and moreover that it was highly unlikely that Iraq could have achieved the considerable redesign needed to use them in a revived centrifuge program."
And this:
"What's clear now is that earlier intelligence reports suggesting Saddam Hussein's regime was attempting to obtain uranium from the African nation of Niger were based on false information, including forged documents.
But what's even more embarrassing to Bush administration officials is that the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department had themselves earlier concluded the Niger uranium reports were almost certainly not true."
Links: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/sprj.irq.un.transcript.elbaradei/
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/08/wbr.iraq.claims/
I chose CNN as a middle of the road news outlet. Neither hard left or right. I'm sure you'll disagree. So go learn something and come back tomorrow and actually have an argument.
Oh yea... Fuck you, parsimoniously uninformed shithead. (opps, I meant 'moonbat'..maybe if I say 'flock you', I'll be all nice and mannerly, like Ponte)
BTW, some of us were aware they were lies, as controverted in major media outlets before shrub started lying to me on tv. Some of us are not 'johnny come latelys' to the 'bush lies' club. We were screaming "LIAR", at our tvs, as he spoke.
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 03/15/2006 @ 7:07pm
they talk a lot of trash but don't have one testicle between them
Posted by LEN MOSSE 03/15/2006 @ 7:02pm
And this is why we will never go to lunch with Len again.
Len you promised that if we let you lick whipped cream off our one testicle you would never tell.
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 7:19pm
The FISA LAW is statutory law and by its nature not as binding as Constitutional law.
Posted by LEN MOSSE 03/15/2006 @ 7:02pm
True... and the constitution plainly states you need a warrant.
see amendment four.
(that's the finger with the ring on it Len)
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 7:22pm
Posted by LEN MOSSE 03/15/2006 @ 7:02pm
"They talk a lot of trash but don't have one testicle between them."
Nope. We've got six. Is your preoccupation with testicle count, in any way related to your desire to meet for lunch? Or are you just trying to imply, the opinions of those born w/o testicles are irrelevant?
"Now after saying something so unkind and non issue related did I accomplish anything? Did I persuade anyone?"
No, but you're turning me on. If we have lunch, can I call you monica?
" As a practical matter they can wiretap all my phone calls that I make out of the country and I could give rats a--."
Nevermind. I don't mind plump, but I like my bitches with a brain. Besides, who says that's all they are monitoring? Some oversight judiciary, like FISA maybe? No? Then who? Themselves? Who?
Now define 'war' and 'terrorist', as defined by bushco, so we can be talking with a defined vocabulary and we'll see who's bitch you really are. I'm guessing you're 'little georgie dubya's' bitch.
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 03/15/2006 @ 7:24pm
As Commander in Chief in time of war it has always been within the Presidents power to order the interception of enemy communications.
Posted by LEN MOSSE 03/15/2006 @ 7:02pm
Agreed... unless he's intercepting them by tapping my phone. Then he needs a warrant.
see finger with ring... scuse me, see amendment four.
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 7:25pm
The President also has a resolution passed by Congress in 2001 that ask him to do everything in his power to bring justice to those responsible for 9/11.
Posted by LEN MOSSE 03/15/2006 @ 7:02pm
See article Five of the US Constituton for instructons on ammeding the constitution and then proceed to ammendment four instructions about warrants.
if you count the little finger... you've gone too far
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 7:28pm
This resolution in combination with his powers of Commander IN Chief are an excellent legal argument for his actions
Posted by LEN MOSSE 03/15/2006 @ 7:02pm
Please feel free to cut and paste the language of those powers.
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 7:30pm
The Constitutionality of FISA in this particular situation has not been decided by a court.
Posted by LEN MOSSE 03/15/2006 @ 7:02pm
OK ball boy. If you stop counting teticals long enough you could pack yours up and take your argument to the supreme court.
The president does have the power to do that you know.
just not the balls
(but then you probably knew that)
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 7:33pm
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States:
Posted by LEN MOSSE 03/15/2006 @ 7:02pm
ooooooooooo. Perfect opportuinity to give us the language in the article Two to support that statement but then instead gives us the language from the limp wristed use of force resolution.
Again see article five about the proper procedure for ammending the Us constituion.
(this time stop at the little finger)
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 7:38pm
Will C---HI sweetie ---good to hear from you again---Read my post for comprehension this time. I said you three don't have one testicle between you" .
4th Amendment -- The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Unreasonable searches and seizures----Within the context of the following: Sept. 14 Resolution passed by Congress; We are at War; President's powers as Commander In Chief in a time of war;----does the Presidents actions reach a standard of unreasonableness? Remember that the program is limited to the wiretapping of persons in the U.S. that are having conversations with people from outside the U.S. who are suspected enemies of this country. It is not an open and shut case as you, New Dawn, and Mal like to portray.
Posted by Len Mosse at 03/15/2006 @ 7:41pm
Will C---HI sweetie ---good to hear from you again---Read my post for comprehension this time. I said you three don't have one testicle between you" .
Posted by LEN MOSSE 03/15/2006 @ 7:41pm
right
Len you promised that if we let you lick whipped cream off our one testicle you would never tell.
Posted by WILL C. 03/15/2006 @ 7:19pm
And this is probably explains why you didn't get it when I said I'm not going to be your boy friend LEN. i'm not going to be your husband LEN.
I'm not gay LEN.
(For one a them gettin it conservatives you sure don't get it do ya)
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 7:47pm
and "and" means that both criteria must be met
resonableness "and" warrant
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 7:49pm
It is not an open and shut case as you, New Dawn, and Mal like to portray.
Posted by LEN MOSSE 03/15/2006 @ 7:41pm
sure it is...
see ammendment four in the US Constitution
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 7:52pm
Hey Will C----Let us give each other the benefit of the doubt and assume that we both know a little about the Constitution. I don't need references I assure you. I can recite much of it as well as explain the history behind all 7 Articles and 27 Amendments. Here let me help you out with your argument---The Presidents powers as Commande In Chief are at their lowest ebb when they are restricted by statutory law---however, being at their lowest ebb does mean they do not exist. They are still there and they are strengthened by the Sept. 14 Resolution. Gosh Will C---I guess you have become unnecessary --I make better arguments for you than you do for you.
Posted by Len Mosse at 03/15/2006 @ 7:58pm
and "and" means that both criteria must be met
resonableness "and" warrant --Will C
Wrong Will -----if your interpretation was true then Police would always need warrants to search and as I hope you know they do not.
Posted by Len Mosse at 03/15/2006 @ 8:02pm
I make better arguments for you than you do for you.
Posted by LEN MOSSE 03/15/2006 @ 7:58pm
and he never has the power to amend the Us Constitution using executive power or congressional resloution regardless of whether the nation is a war or peace.
See article 5 for the proper procedure.
And then go to amendment four for instructions on warrrants.
I can't make it anymore simple for you
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 8:02pm
Wrong Will -----if your interpretation was true then Police would always need warrants to search and as I hope you know they do not.
Posted by LEN MOSSE 03/15/2006 @ 8:02pm
To search my house they need a warrent unless they are invited to search by the homeowner(who is at that time giving up their fourth ammendment rights).
Phone communications are considered to be 'my house"(without my permision you need a warrent to listen in)
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 8:09pm
Will---He is not attempting to amend the Constitution. Warrantless searches happen all the time depending on circumstances They are not considered unreasonable----Such searches take place when there is probable cause or at schools when there is reasonable suspecion. The question is whether this warrantless search is unreasonable. Based on the Presidents Constitutional powers in time of war and the Sept. 14 Resolution you can make an excellent legal argument that probable cause exist for a warrantless search in limited circumstances.
Posted by Len Mosse at 03/15/2006 @ 8:10pm
Posted by LEN MOSSE 03/15/2006 @ 7:41pm
"Remember that the program is limited to the wiretapping of persons in the U.S. that are having conversations with people from outside the U.S. who are suspected enemies of this country."
As far as you, or anybody knows, because he has illegally ignored mandated oversight.
" It is not an open and shut case as you, New Dawn, and Mal like to portray."
You are right. There are no open cases, against bushco, in our defunct, rep. controled congress. If it were explored it would be open and shut. Why do you think it is not explored?
(Oh yea, I forgot to be vulgar.... Dumbass.)
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 03/15/2006 @ 8:14pm
schools aren't my house, the government owns them and it has custodial responsibility over the students.
and please cut and paste the exact wording of the presidents powers in time of war
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 8:14pm
and if he's not trying to ammend the constitution then he has to follow it.
see ammendment four
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 8:15pm
Posted by MALCONTENT3 03/15/2006 @ 8:14pm
I now feel compleleed to out vulgar you.
Len, what he said... times (you guessed it) four
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 8:17pm
Posted by LEN MOSSE 03/15/2006 @ 8:10pm
"a legal argument that probable cause exist for a warrantless search in limited circumstances.", is your only hope. If there were FISA warrants (remember 72hr. delay is acceptable), we would know one way or another now, wouldn't we.
You are blowing second hand smoke here. Why do you think the republican control congress is afraid to investigate?
Wake up and think. Read. Analyze. Stop the mindless excuses.
You can do it.
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 03/15/2006 @ 8:21pm
Hey Will-----amendment not ammendment---I mess up spelling also--just a helpful hint. I'm sure your lack of spelling has nothing to do with you being ballless.
Hey Mal---I read and I think ---I also use my experiences and my education. I just don't come to the same conclusions that you do. I guess that's what makes the world go round. Something for you to consider is that the only court case on this issue agrees with President:
The In re sealed case decision in section III says, "The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power. The question before us is the reverse, does FISA amplify the President's power by providing a mechanism that at least approaches a classic warrant and which therefore supports the government's contention that FISA searches are constitutionally reasonable."
Posted by Len Mosse at 03/15/2006 @ 8:48pm
Will---One more thing---there are times when the police don't need a warrant to search your house. They are rare but they do exist. This wiretapping program, within a limited context, in time of war, may be one of those times.
Have to leave now---got things to do----I am sure I will hear from you ballless freaks another day---probably not tomorrow---playing golf---life is good.
Posted by Len Mosse at 03/15/2006 @ 8:56pm
Troung was a Vietnamese national working for the government of Vietnam
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 8:57pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/15/2006 @ 6:24pm
Really? Nothing shady here that you can see? Are you for real?
You think that, legally or not, Rove, Cheney, et al, weren't out to "get" Wilson for breaking from the fold?
Do you remember McCain's presidential aspirations and what these people did to him?
Unreal.
Posted by New Dawn at 03/15/2006 @ 8:58pm
Will---One more thing---there are times when the police don't need a warrant to search your house.
Posted by LEN MOSSE 03/15/2006 @ 8:56pm
please provide support for this statement
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 8:58pm
Posted by LEN MOSSE 03/15/2006 @ 7:02pm
I was all set to post something nice, that even included you, and then I started catching up on the thread and caught your first post (came to write this before finishing).
Well, well, well, look who grew a sack. Finally showing us your true colors, eh, big man?
I'm your bitch now, eh? Len, you're acting like a joke right now. And you make me laugh.
Ha-ha.
I'm going to go ahead and post now what I had to say earlier (which will clearly be more reasoned and calm than what you posted), just because I'm not going to let your newfound honesty throw me.
I wrote:
Isn't Bush pushing, right now, for the line item veto, even though the Supremes struck it down as unconstitutional in, 1998, was it?
When do they stop pushing for power? When is enough enough?
And why is there no daily front-page headline from the right AND the left about real issues and an overall realization of the big picture, the whole? Largest deficit in history, imperial hubris, the Constitution becoming as "quaint" as the Geneva Conventions?
And when, God, when, will the corrupt Republicans AND the weak-kneed Dems (who the hell are you guys representing?) AND the well-intentioned-but-ill-informed fringes AND the outer limits-oriented just remember the idea and ideals of the country we live in - stick to your personal convictions and stop blindly, meekly, weakly, sugarcoating this ridiculous excuse for an American president and his cronies?
I agree with fewer of you than you think, and less frequently than it appears, and you with me. But alas, we all sometimes (often) descend into quibbling over insignificant things...
Madness. And not in the best interest of America.
Len, LoveLiberty, Pontificus, NACL, Max, Todd, USC, CPT, Rio, Libz, you fellows shouldn't like this guy or what he's done with the most revered office and administration on the planet anymore than we do. And just for the record, Clinton shouldn't have done what he done, neither, so stuff your cries of "Partisanship!".
Economy, healthcare, international relations, cronyism and rampant corporatism, ill-managed natural disasters, rampant media manipulation and propaganda (and no, the Dems don't have, and have never had, a Jeff Gannon), war without American sacrifice by way of taxation (and yes, I'll put my money where my mouth is and gladly be taxed for wars against any foreign country that ever dares realistically threaten us), the real and present threat of a trend towards a corporate theocracy (there's a scary thought)...
I get angry with you fellows not because of red or blue, or because of Rep or Dem, or because of have or have-not.
I get angry with you fellows because of what is and isn't America or being an American.
George W. Bush is not America, guys. And when you lay down your heads to sleep at night, I think you justify things to yourself, about this "president" and his misadministration, and when you wake up, I think you do it again. And when you hear your preferred information stream parrot your justifications (and/or provide them for you), you feel justified.
But you are wrong, and our founding fathers would think so, too, on so many counts. So many counts.
If you are not conflicted over this man and his "presidency", you are blind, or perhaps, perhaps, you are just covering your eyes and peeking through your fingers, just a little bit petrified and aghast at what might happen next, like many of the rest of us.
_____
This is a post-9/11 world being run by the Nixon administration.
Posted by New Dawn at 03/15/2006 @ 9:06pm
All right Will --you have me addicted ---one last post before I get some productive work done. It does not matter who was involved in the Troung case---all that matters is the interpretation of the Constitutional powers of the President by the court.
And Will you could have googled these examples of warrantless searches yourself--I am upset at you sweetie for keeping me from my appointed chores.
These exceptions exist under "exigent circumstances": the emergencylike demands of specifically defined situations that call for immediate response by the police, who must have probable cause to conduct a search. Generally, these are circumstances under which obtaining a search warrant would be impractical--ranging from those requiring officers to frisk suspects for weapons to those requiring officers to stop and search automobiles--as well as when suspects explicitly consent or imply consent to a search.
Hot pursuit is one such exigent circumstance. It usually applies when the police are pursuing a suspected felon into private premises or have probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed on private premises. The Supreme Court stated that " ‘hot pursuit' means some sort of a chase, but it need not be an extended hue and cry ‘in and about the public streets' " (United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 96 S. Ct. 2406, 49 L. Ed. 2d 300 [1976]). Hot pursuit also applies when the lives of police officers or others are in danger. Thus, the Court has recognized two specific conditions that justify warrantless searches under the rule of hot pursuit: the need to circumvent the destruction of evidence, and the need to prevent the loss of life or serious injury.
Posted by Len Mosse at 03/15/2006 @ 9:10pm
This is a post-9/11 world being run by the Nixon administration.
Posted by NEW DAWN 03/15/2006 @ 9:06pm
the Party of Nixon
yeah Baby!
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 9:10pm
And Will you could have googled these examples of warrantless searches yourself--I am upset at you sweetie for keeping me from my appointed chores.
Posted by LEN MOSSE 03/15/2006 @ 9:10pm
I don't have to make your argument for you
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 9:11pm
Posted by LEN MOSSE 03/15/2006 @ 7:41pm
I have never portrayed nor claimed the avoidance of FISA was an "open-and-shut case", Len. You're either lying, or full of shit.
I demand to know. Which is it?
--I-- argue it deserves investigation and oversight.
--You-- argue differently.
Posted by New Dawn at 03/15/2006 @ 9:12pm
Posted by Len:
"Will---He is not attempting to amend the Constitution."
Exactly. Because he's pretty sure the amendment wouldn't pass.
Just like when he was already floating the idea of an appeal to bypass FISA and was told it would never happen, so they shelved the appeal... I read that somewhere... Some government website...
Posted by New Dawn at 03/15/2006 @ 9:15pm
Posted by LEN MOSSE 03/15/2006 @ 9:10pm
Hot pursuit means you can break down the door and grab their ass and anything incriminating in plain sight is admissible in court.
But then after you have them confined you have to call a magistrate and get a search warrant to go through the rest of the house.
Trust me; it's real easy at that point.
(and none of this applies to illegal warrantless wiretaps after the first 72 hours)
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 9:18pm
I think the congress through FISA has been very accommodating to the president.
His inability to abide by the law is just more proof of his profound incompetence
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 9:21pm
and lying about it on national TV during a campaign...
inexcusable
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 9:23pm
Finally catching up in posts... My lady is cooking naked, and I keep getting distracted...
Len, a couple of boards back, if I recall correctly, we parted on fairly innocuous terms - I forget what we were discussing, but we agreed, and even parted ways in a friendly manner... We've since jabbed and jibed, but kept it pretty mellow...
And then comes my catching up on this thread.
Len, I take back everything nice I've been trying to do towards you today. And I have tried to be nice to you today. So, with that in mind and the whole "balless" garbage directed at me in this thread, let me say this.
Go fuck yourself.
Posted by New Dawn at 03/15/2006 @ 9:27pm
Go fuck yourself.
Posted by NEW DAWN 03/15/2006 @ 9:27pm
Dude, we can't make peace with these people.
there can be no rest for the wicked.
ever
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 9:29pm
Will, did you see Len jump in here and throw a "brotherly" arm around Pontificus, so big ol' Len could protect him from the mean ol' foul-mouthed (free speech) liberals like you, me, and Mal?
That was touching.
I think I cried a little tear.
(But it was a manly, cowboy tear, so don't you go looking at me funny)
Do you suppose we'll next see them together at lunch?
Posted by New Dawn at 03/15/2006 @ 9:30pm
Do you suppose we'll next see them together at lunch?
Posted by NEW DAWN 03/15/2006 @ 9:30pm
all I know is that I don't play by their rules... anymore
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 9:32pm
unless it's prohibited by the physical laws of the universe or the US constitution...
we're on
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 9:34pm
Night, Will.
Posted by New Dawn at 03/15/2006 @ 9:35pm
see ya dawn
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 9:37pm
NEW Dawn----look at my post again---Don't worry Pontificus--New Dawn, Mal, and Will C are my bitches from way back. They talk a lot of trash but don't have one testicle between them. They stay behind the screen in anonimity and fool themselves into believing they are tough guys because they can hurl insults. Paper Tigers in their nice cozy little safe rooms--Apparently never coming out for lunch even when I have given all 3 standing invitations for lunch on me.-------- Now after saying something so unkind and non issue related did I accomplish anything? Did I persuade anyone---I think not.
The post was making fun (tongue in cheak) of all the confrontational post that seem to emerge from many on this board I am sorry that my attempt at being funny and at the same time make a point was lost on you.
Posted by Len Mosse at 03/15/2006 @ 9:42pm
gOOD NIGHT JOHN BOY
Posted by Len Mosse at 03/15/2006 @ 9:42pm
The post was making fun (tongue in cheak) of all the confrontational post that seem to emerge from many on this board I am sorry that my attempt at being funny and at the same time make a point was lost on you.
Posted by LEN MOSSE 03/15/2006 @ 9:42pm
another conservative who once cornered pretends it was all a big joke.
you and todd have no spine.
Posted by Will C. at 03/15/2006 @ 11:17pm
Len,
Say goodnight to bobette for me.
Posted by malcontent3 at 03/15/2006 @ 11:21pm
Posted by LEN MOSSE 03/15/2006 @ 9:42pm
What a crock of shit. You think you get to hurl an entire paragraph of insults and then say you were just joking, as if that erases all of the shitty things you said?
Unreal.
And by the by, I'm also sick of your implications that you are such a big scary man that everyone is afraid to meet you in person. No one will meet you over the internet because they don't know if you're a fucking wacko with a gun, you moron. Don't you get that? You're clearly bipolar, as evidenced by your posts today, so that just adds to the reasonable concern. Who'd want to meet you in person?
I'm also tired of your implications that I am somehow weak or "afraid" of you or anyone else. This isn't a schoolyard, and you know exactly jack shit about me. Grow the fuck up.
I have never thought I was "badder" than you or anyone else, but I'm for damned sure not the coward or weakling you contantly imply that I am. I don't define myself by any of those things, anyway (though you keep not-so-subtly trying to define yourself that way - who do you think you're impressing?).
Because I'm now an adult and prefer to be (a little) civilized and confine my occasional naked angst about things I'm passionate about to hurling words on a screen instead of fists in faces makes me no less "tough" than you or anyone else.
Just smarter. And clearly makes me your intellectual superior.
And you my bitch. :)
Some enlightened level of discourse from both of us, huh? Couldn't just discuss politics, huh, Len? We could have played so nice.
If I believed your apology earlier was anywhere near sincere, I'd have typed something entirely different.
Good night and good luck.
Posted by New Dawn at 03/16/2006 @ 02:56am