Bush backers tried the old “oh, yeah, you did it, too” line to try to discredit Al Gore’s indictment this week of the Bush administration’s misuse of executive power. The GOP spin was that the Clinton/Gore administration also did warrantless searches of American citizens, which apparently means that it’s OK.
“Al Gore’s hypocrisy knows no bounds,” White House press secretary Scott McClellan (in photo) said Tuesday, citing as evidence the FBI’s warrantless search of the home of CIA spy Aldrich Ames. Only problem is that at the time of that search, in 1993, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act didn’t cover physical searches. That changed in 1995 with legislation that President Clinton supported and signed, The Washington Post reported.
Meanwhile, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights filed separate lawsuits Tuesday claiming that the National Security Agency’s surveillance program violated Fourth Amendment guarantees against unreasonable searches and seizures. And The New York Times reported that FBI officials repeatedly complained about how ineffective the surveillance program was and that FBI director Robert Mueller reportedly raised concerns about the program’s legal rationale.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Let immigrants run
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Let immigrants run
- okobserver on Let immigrants run
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
105 Comments
Achtung, Achtung:
President George W. Bush has signed executive orders giving him sole authority to impose martial law, suspend habeas corpus and ignore the Posse Comitatus Act that prohibits deployment of U.S. troops on American streets. This would give him absolute dictatorial power over the government with no checks and balances.
Bush discussed imposing martial law on American streets in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks by activating “national security initiatives” put in place by Ronald Reagan during the 1980s.
These “national security initiatives,” hatched in 1982 by controversial Marine Colonel Oliver North, later one of the key players in the Iran-Contra Scandal, charged the Federal Emergency Management Agency with administering executive orders that allowed suspension of the Constitution, implementation of martial law, establishment of internment camps, and the turning the government over to the President.
John Brinkerhoff, deputy director of FEMA, developed the martial law implementation plan, following a template originally developed by former FEMA director Louis Guiffrida to battle a “national uprising of black militants.” Gifuffrida’s implementation of martial law called for jailing at least 21 million African Americans in “relocation camps.” Brinkerhoff later admitted in an interview with the Miami Herald that President Reagan signed off on the initiatives and they remained in place, dormant, until George W. Bush took office….
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/printer_7986.shtml
Ian,Plagerism really sucks. At least put quotes around the crap you post.
I do not plagarise, I ain’t MLK! I provided a link so relax, skiipy!
Al Gore needs to shut his big fat pie hole when it comes to tapping communications. Unless of course he’d like to talk about the Clipper chip project he was herding.
Typical Bush-league response: ignore the issue and attack the messenger with questionable claims. The NewsMax writer who made these claims against Gore is the same one who made the bogus charge about Gore “inventing the internet”:
From Urban Legends:Claim: Vice-President Al Gore claimed that he “invented” the Internet.
Status: False.
Origins: Despite the derisive references that continue even today, Al Gore did not claim he “invented” the Internet, nor did he say anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way. The “Al Gore said he ‘invented’ the Internet” put-downs were misleading, out-of-context distortions of something he said during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN’s “Late Edition” program on 9 March 1999. When asked to describe what distinguished him from his challenger for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey, Gore replied (in part):During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country’s economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.
But what should we expect from NewsMax but contrived distortion.
Ha…proven: Ian and Ed are one in the same. “skiipy”
Walker, What are you talking about?
So Randy suggests the president who is in charge of fighting a WAR cannot spy on the enemy? We naturally accuse democrat presidents of doing the same thing because IT IS LEGAL. Is the enemy supposed to gain special protection just because he slips across our border? Or is a long time sleeper? The only difference between Bush and Roosevelt is that secrets used to be kept by both parties when at war.Bad analogy. I guess FDR did overstep a bit.
Codie–
What part of they can spy as much as they want as LONG AS THEY GO BEFORE A JUDGE do you not understand?
Dumbass.
It is fascinating that every thing us critics have predicted has been coming out in subsequent news stories?
More like frightening, Rage.
Look at these miserable Wingnuts spinning like mad, playing their games of deliberate misunderstanding and misdirection in the face of the evidence that their ‘President’ has acted in a way that breaks the law and contravenes the Constitution. They know they’re lying, but with total cynicism and abandon, go on lying.
Appalling. Laughable. Pathetic. Every one of you. You have absolutely no arguments to make. But you can’t stop, because to admit you’re wrong would shatter your fragile, Bush-worshipping psyches.
What a morbidly fascinating spectacle you present. How sad. And how wonderful that the American public appears finally to have seen through your charade.
WOW Heckler what a well thought out and illustrative post for you!
“Al Gore should shut his big fat pie hole”
VERY illustrative of the doggy folowers of Rush… er I mean bush. After all anyone without the guidance of talent “on loan from God” should just shut up shouldn’t they Heck?
Ah but Rush is playing golf this week and is not available to tell you how to think and what to say.
This last is just more neo con spin. “Don’t look at what we do! Look at what they did!!!! or “So what if this is worse? They made it bad!”
Make no mistake bushies. Many milions have NOT forgotten the theft of the 2004 election. I’ll be happy to put Al Gore and his folowers and their actions post that crisis agaist the actions of bush and his follwers any day.
To quote the your president. “Bring it on”
Bush hasn’t earned the “right” to do anything except go to Hell along with his buddies, the murdering Zionist thugs.
soup’s on.
From My Spam Bucket:
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 10:29:21 -0800 (PST)From: Barney AliasSubject: Are you the Ed Friedemann that posts to the Wichita Eagle WE Blog site?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
I’m a post-er there, and someone is using this name claiming he’s from Texas.Just wondered if you were aware of it.Thank you,Steve
This is what happens when people have too much time on their hands
Goodmorning, Ed. That’s VERY interesting! And it adds a piece to a “puzzle” I’m working on. I’d sure like to see the “properties” box on that email, lol.Thanks, Pal!
Dear Phillip,
The indictment By Gore is discredited merely by the fact that it came from Gore. Gore was the presidential butt-boy for one of the most corrupt presidents in history. Clinton found ways to misuse the office of the Presidency and executive power that had never been thought of before!
I find it interesting that you of all people use the word spin in a derogatory way. When the administration points out examples of ‘precedent’ that is not spin. They are not saying “previous administrations broke the law so we can too”. They are merely citing ways that previous presidents have excercised their authority and responsibilities under Article 2, sect 2 of the constitution.
Hank
JR
Listening to Al (there is no controlling legal authority) Gore spout about misuse of power by the Bush administration is enough to make a an objective person blow a lung out their nose. The only people who grant him any credibility are people desperate to bring down Bush no matter what the cost.
Your so bent out of shape that the Florida supreme court couldnt engineer a victory for Gore, ignoring Florida law, that you still can’t see straight. Get over it.
CF
You sure weave some beautifull rhetoric, but it’s empty.
You’d be so much happier in the long run if you could just admit to yourself that what Bush has been doing is AT WORST something that falls in a gray area of law.
As for the American public, according to the polls I’ve seen, they seem to agree by significant percentages that listening in on conversations of people who have sworn to destroy Western civilization without a warrant is a reasonable and logical thing to do.
It’s interesting when reflecting over the past 6 years or so to wonder how history could be different if- some FBI officer had been a little more insistant about pushing for a FISA warrant to look at Zacharias Musawi’s laptop computer. It’s entirely possible we could have prevented 9-11 and not even known it simply by digging around asking questions of some of the people in his phone book. How many other attacks have we derailed without even knowing it simply by asking questions of people who’s name popped up in a suspicious looking e-mail. How we might have had Al (NCLA) Gore as President if the Supremes hadnt told the Florida Supreme Court to count the votes according to Florida law.
Heckler,
Still getting that ‘no controlling legal authority’ spin off of the NRO online and Charles Krauthammer, eh?
Polls also show the opposite result in large numbers: that if Bush conducted warrantless searches in violation of existing law, that he broke the law and should be impeached.
As for your pathetic ad hominems against Al Gore, give me a break. Let’s see: making fundraising calls from the White House, or surveilling people who have committed no crime and are suspected of none, in violation of a statute. Your arguments, Heckler, depend on phony equivalences.
Imagine the shoe were on the other foot. Imagine that Al Gore had been the one to implement the illegal surveillance begun by this President. You’d be calling for his head on a platter. Of course you would. And if you say you wouldn’t, well, frankly, Heckler, I don’t believe you. Your partisanship finds whatever justification it requires. Don’t pretend to be arguing as anything more than a slavish Bush partisan. Because when you open the door to ‘total information awareness’, you’re talking like anything but an American.
Oh, and Heckler, Al Gore got more total votes in the 2000 election, and, according to a new book by Lance De Haven-Smith, received 46,000 of the Florida over-vote ballots, while Bush’s name was marked on only 17,000. He WON the election, and lost the coup. Your attempts to dash his credibilty are a joke. A joke. Look who’s in the White House: why should your word mean jack shit, when I see who YOU’RE supporting? Lies, thieves, murderers. On a grand scale.
It is also interesting to wonder how 9/11 could have been prevented if real law enforcement had been used appropriately, and resources had not been spread thin chasing after those who might be guilty of not worship Bush and his neocon handlers. You can speculate endlessly Heckler about imaginary “what ifs”.
This is from that famously liberal rag, the NYT
But the results of the program look very different to some officials charged with tracking terrorism in the United States. More than a dozen current and former law enforcement and counterterrorism officials, including some in the small circle who knew of the secret program and how it played out at the F.B.I., said the torrent of tips led them to few potential terrorists inside the country they did not know of from other sources and diverted agents from counterterrorism work they viewed as more productive.
“We’d chase a number, find it’s a schoolteacher with no indication they’ve ever been involved in international terrorism – case closed,” said one former F.B.I. official, who was aware of the program and the data it generated for the bureau. “After you get a thousand numbers and not one is turning up anything, you get some frustration.”
You dont know what you dont know Heck.
BTW Heck:
if- some FBI officer had been a little more insistant about pushing for a FISA warrant to look at Zacharias Musawi’s laptop computer.
Are you saying 9/11 could have been prevented with a LEGAL wiretap? Are you agreeing with those who say warrants, even 72 hours after the fact are a good thing?
ksfarmgrrl
There were some people in the FBI who were gun shy about going after FISA warrants because some had been disciplined for trying to get them with to little evidence. I was just reflecting on how history may have swung wildly had someone been a little more persistant about getting a warrant to look at it. I don’t know what was on it but imagine how history may have changed had someone found Atta’s phone number on it and paid him a visit to ask him why he was taking flying lessons. We may have prevented 9-11 just by spooking him and we may not even have known it.
CF
If you havent heard of the “Clipper Chip” you really ought to read up on it. Scary shit, a lot worse than what you perceive Bush has done wrong. And Gore was helping to drive it. And I was screaming about it at the time, and I was calling for his head, but you didn’t hear me because this Blog didn’t exist.
Al Gore lost. The Florida votes were counted according to the LAW. The President is chosen by electoral votes not popular votes. If you don’t like it change the Constitution.
I got your reflections Heck. Now…could you please answer my questions?
ksfarmgrrl
Sorry, wasn’t inoring you, just busy.
Warrant’s are a good thing. When you are investigating American citizens in America for commiting ordinary crime.
When you are investigating suspected terrorists, who by their own admission wish to destroy our way of life, and you are investigating who they are making contact with in America I say screw the warrants. If you end up listening to someone who you find has not connection to the suspected terrorist then end the surveilance or get a warrant.
Why on earth would you want to bring up the sins of the past to justify the sins of the present? Amazing… little Bill did it to!
My gosh, just listen to yourself. The fact is that this president is spying on Americans and said that he will continue. Who will stop the president from breaking the law? The past is past… let’s insure our rights today!
Heckler,
Oh, you mean the law that not all the votes count, and that not all the votes are to be counted? The outcome of the election had everything to do with brute force and nothing to do with the law or the representation of the will of the voters. Zero. Obviously. The Supreme Court encroached on a state matter and installed a President.
I’ve gotta run, but looking briefly at the Clipper Chip, you know what, Heckler? I think it would have been a disaster for American democracy and I’m glad it was scotched. Fortunately, then, the system was able to reign in potentially runaway Executive power. I can say that about Al Gore. Why can’t you say the same about “total information awareness” and the obviously illegal and overreaching activities of the Administration? I worry about all Executive overreach. You only seem to be concerned when it’s Democrats doing the overreaching.
So, Heckler, judging by your response to ksfarmgrrl, you advocate shooting first and asking questions later. Bad idea, bad for democracy and a free society.
nwkansas
I bring up the sins of the past because Al Gore has to open his blow hole. He criticizes Bush for things that are legal knowing full well that he himself tryed to do things far worse, to American citizens. Bushes target is terrorists and people they are consorting with. If those people happen to be American citizens and are knowingly aiding terrorists it wouldnt bother me if they dropped dead in the street with a bullet in their head.
You people are arguing which politicians are the worst. Wouldn’t it be great if we could debate on who was the best?Unfortunately, the political waters have been ideologically poisoned to the extent that nobody decent would consider running for office, so we only get to decide which ones are the least corrupt!We need some new voices.
Heck, you need to go back on your medication. “He criticizes Bush for things that are legal”.
Where the hell do you get your controlling legal authority? From Rush or from Hannity?
“If you end up listening to someone who you find has not connection to the suspected terrorist then end the surveilance or get a warrant.”
Heck, if we could trust them to do this, we wouldnt need laws or the courts or a constitution, now would we? Is that what is really behind all this “trust me” bull? Will you trust Hillary with all this power in 09?
Sorry for the repeat of something old here, but I think it applies.
Even though I support the fourth amendment, I cant wait for the next gun hating president to tap the phones of gun owners so he knows where to send the authorities to seize them just in case the owner might be a terrorist.
The “innocent” gun owners, who were identified by mistake of course, could get an apology if the government were wrong. But by then, their gun inventory would already be in the FBI database, now wouldnt it?
Do you think “I’m sorry, we’ll quit tapping you now” would make it all ok for that gun owner? I bet it would be different if the jackboot were on the other foot.
CF ksfarmgrrl
This discussion just blows my mind.
There are people living in this country, some legally, most illegally, who want to destroy our way of life. Some are citizens, most are not. They use the advantages of a free society to go about planning to destroy it. Our President uses powers that are constitutional during wartime to try to find out who they are. And you and a lot of people here don’t like it. I don’t understand.
Is it that you don’t consider Al Quaeda a real threat, that we’re really not in a war?
Since when do we grant constituional rights to enemies, who in most cases arent citizens, and want to destroy everything we care about.
I’m as big a privacy advocate as anyone, I don’t think the government needs to know anything more about me than the fact that I exist and I am a citizen of the USA. But I’m not trying to destroy this country.
Heck, I guess with your logic, the terrorists have already won.
When the president is appointed to the office by his cronies, thumbs his nose at the UN and the international community, lies like a rug with no consequence, repeatedly supports a state sanctioned religion, is above the law, persecutes his perceived enemies, defends his right to torture anyone he pleases, spies on his citizens with impunity, pays covert media shills to print his propeganda, makes a mockery of the courts, spends without regard to any budget, and hijacks the oil supply and refineries to make his buddies rich, I’d say that sounds like another country.
Like…um…Iraq and Saddam?
What are we fighting for if the terrorists have already made us over in their own image? Bring the troops home, it will probably look familiar to them after their time in the middle east. Exactly what democracy are we exporting?
I apologize for encouraging OT chatter, but I too would like to see the “properties” on that message, Ed.
Back to work. .(sigh).
ksfarmgrrl
I bet you fit right in over at DU.
Heckler–
When Tim McVey and James Nichols (who lived in KANSAS at the time) blew up the Murrah Federal Building in Ok City, they too wanted to violently overthrow the US government.
They too wanted to “destroy our way of life.”
The President didn’t invade Kansas to secure democracy, did he.
You stop terrorists by 1. capturing and punishing them, like Clinton did to McVey and the Millenium Bomber who had the trunkful of explosives trying to cross the border in Canada and 2. working to create a fairer world so that terrorism cannot take root.
You don’t fight terrorism by ignoring it like Bush/Cheney did for nine months (Cheney took over an anti-terrorism committee that NEVER MET), and then start a war in an uninvolved country.
ProudLib
1. We should wait until they have already blown something up or are on their way to do it? We should count on lucky breaks?
2.How do you create a fairer world when you have people like the leaders of (name just about any middle east nation and most African nations) who are determined to keep their people in servitude and poverty?
Is it your contention that we should afford all of Al Qaeda and their supporters the same protections of our constitution that you and I enjoy as citizens of this nation?
This discusion has brought me to one of 2 conclusions-
1. 80 percent of the people commenting on this blog are so blinded by their hatred for Bush that they cannot reason properly.
2. 80 percent of the people commenting on this blog don’t really think that we are in a war against an enemy who would saw our heads off with a dull knife if they had a chance.
If people like you all were in charge during World War 2 we’d all be speaking German and busting rocks with hammers for the North American Autobahn.
Good day.
We spend 52 percent of the federal money (i.e., our tax dollars) for military related expenditures.
We spend 7 percent for education.
That is exactly how NOT to create a fairer world.
BTW, why were we not “at war” with the White Power movement that spawned McVey and Nichols?
And anybody who thinks that Al Qaeda poses the same threat to America as German Nazism, Italian Fascism, and Japanese Imperialism is FUBAR.
Heckler,
And you are blinded by hysteria.
It’s sad to see that a small, ragtag band of stateless terrorists has you running to W for protection.
ProudLib
This is in fact a different threat than posed by Germany. And we are fighting it with drastically different tactics.
One thing that hasnt changed though is that the limp wristed left is playing the same old appeasement dance. “We should try to understand them, not kill them”. “Cant we all just get along?”
History does repeat itself! It’s 1938 and Nazi Germany again! Was it a popular vote who elected this dictator in this democracy, or was it something else? To remain great America must remain free.
Hey CF,
Perhaps you should tell the famalies who lost their loved ones on 9/11 about how insignificant “small, ragtag band of stateless terrorists” are?
The difference is Uncle sam, that Bush is not the one trying to dissarm the public of their 2nd Amendment right to own firearms.
Their are many more, but that is a big one!
The Mossad have their own State. And they pulled-off 9/11 without a hitch. They even had a film crew taking movies.
Nathan,
Perhaps you could ask the families of the 2000+ soldiers in Iraq how their sacrifice has helped to diminsh Al Quaeda.
Punk.
CF
“Stateless terrorists”. Hmmm..I guess that your not including the 8000 or more that were trained in Iraq in the late 90’s.
I was trying to renew the yearly service on my TracFone yesterday and their website crashed on me over 10 times before I was able to buy airtime and activate it. But I’m sure none of those people tying to activate phones were terrorists.
Wouldnt have anything to do with the middle eastern looking males trying to buy TracFones by the hundreds in recent weeks either.
Wouldnt have anything to do with Bin Ladens message that came out today either.
CF,
You mean the brave men and women who volunteer to serve in our military?
You guys should read Bin Laden’s speach from today. Man it’s like he’s been reading Democrat talking points straight from Howard Deans office.
Terrorists HAVE won already, the way of life that was the United States of America (not just the physical country, but also the guiding principles behind her) was destroyed when the nation’s government decided to resort to openly raping the rule of law in the name of national security to hide their attempts at total power grab.
Come to think of it, what is a terrorist anyway? One who straps explosives around their body to be used against civilians? Then if the targets are of military nature the definition fails. Can the persons who misuse their priviledged positions to prioritize their hedonistic way of life on the backs of the less fortunates be also called terrorists, at least economically speaking?
I have read too many posts that voice blind support to the administration motivated more by deep hatred for the opposition than by open-minded logical reasoning. This is dangerous, one should keep a skeptical eye towardthe government; in fact, I believe the Constitution itself has been written to institutionalize this attitude, with provisions added to allow for smooth transitions of governments. So, question your leader, and don’t be satisfied with the patronizing answer that law breaking is “sometimes” necessary for your security. That “sometimes” can soon become “often,” or worse, “always.” The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, from enemies domestic and foreign, and that includes your own government!
Heck, I gotta ask. What is DU?
ksfarmgirl,
I am pretty sure it stands for the Democratic Underground.
Some left wing website.
Here Ksfarmgrrl, let me help you out. It’s….well, check it out for yourself. Be sure to read Bob Boudelang for a good laugh.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/
XXX,
I occasionally get an article run on their website.
I write under the name Brad Radcliffe.
I’ve got another one I’m working on right now–what Team Bush would be doing if they wanted to “win” in Iraq as opposed to what they ARE doing.
Should be good if I ever get cracking on it . . .
Win in Iraq? I thought all you liberals wanted to do was leave.
Off Topic:
PL – when was the last time you wrote anything? I went thru the 2005 archive and did not find anything?
This story had me going until I realized it was a satire.
Kansas Outlaws Dinosaur-Themed Toys, CartoonsMay 13, 2005 · TOPEKA, KS – Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline stunned many Kansans yesterday by announcing that books, toys and cartoons depicting or featuring dinosaurs were now illegal across the state. Satire by David Albrecht
ProudLiberal, I’ll keep an eye open for your next contribution. I don’t visit the site as often as I used to, but I watch for the next installation of Boudelang like a hawk, lol!
Nathan, how clever! Would you like a little gold star? Maybe a “little pony”.
…”Enthusiasm for the “war effort” will surpass anything known in 1917 or 1942, and the boobs will be delighted to live under naked tyranny and terror. When they see their Aryan neighbor, suspected of having a copy of Liberty Bell in his house, dragged from his home to be beaten to death in the street or hauled to a prolonged and agonizing death in a concentration camp, such as the foul mongrel called Eisenhower set up for the vanquished Germans, the boobs will smile contentedly and thank their god that their “precious liberties” are being so well protected.”…
…” Remember that you are now living under a dictatorship and tyranny as absolute as any known on earth.
If you haven’t noticed that fact, it is only because the tyrants have not yet used their power over you.
Bushy has more power than Stalin ever had–more, because Stalin did not have the means of electronic surveillance and record-keeping that “our” Federal government is now employing, and Stalin, furthermore, could not change the long notorious inefficiency and ineptitude of all Russian governments.
Bushy’s tyrannical powers, moreover, are entirely legal, as legality now goes in the country our parents and grandparents discarded in fits of righteousness.”…
http://www.revilo-oliver.com/rpo/Surprise_Surprise.html
Sigh………
Ya know what Heck? I am sick to death of granting any semblance of credibility to a ditto head like you. For you, if Rush farts….it is symphony. If Hannity fumes, it should be transcribed for the King Bush version of the bible. You have all the intellectual depth and capacity for reasoned self thought of a doorknob.
So what I’m gonna do Heck is pretend you don’t even exist……even as I fight with my last dying breath to destroy such as you.
A final thought Heck? You spoke of not giving a care if anyone bush suspects as AlQuaeda drops dead in the street. I must tell you I feel much the same about you. And of course you had to toss in also the tired talk radio rhetoric about people “wanting to saw off our heads with dull rusty blades”. Thing is Heck. If someone should saw off your head with a dull rusty blade…..well I don’t have much a problem with that.
So keep spinning your lies just as your president and your masters do. But ….I aint got your back. Too busy defendng my own from folks like you.
Jr
You sound just like Ed. I can’t tell you how devastated I am to be granted “persona non grata” status by you. I guess I touched a nerve, say hi to Osama for me.
Jr, You can’t argue with something that’s too stupid to understand what you’re saying. They’re all the same. I saw one with 12 magnetic stickers on his truck. As people wise-up, they lose those stickers, but some like whatshisface keep hanging-on, stickers ans all.
“There is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or pretending that you can love your country but despise your government. There is nothing heroic about turning your back on America, or ignoring your own responsibilities.”
Who wrote this?
Bush is a Zionist Pig, who is surrounded by Zionist Pigs.
The statement you’ve sited is bated. Example: If Adolph Hitler was the Government would you hate him but still love your country?
Would it be “patriotic” to hate that Hitler government? While still being loyal to the principles of your country?
That’s why you’re classified as having the mentality of a magnetic sticker.
You just “stick” to something without knowing what it’s all about.
In not so polite terms, you’re just another dumb-ass { with magnetic stickers }.
The “war on terrorism” will end with the extermination of all Zionist Pigs. Order your BLT now.
Ed
You talking to me?
See, you can’t even figure that out.
But Ed
You disavowed my existence long ago. I’m touched. Remember what I said about all that hate and what it will do to your soul.
The quote is from a person who is a God to many in the Democrat party and the news media. See if you can guess who it is.
Ambiguous statements stacked together only can arrive to an anonymous pseudo intellectual meaningless assumption.
Typical of Clinton.
AIPAC is gathering in March to launch a war on Iran. We do not need a war with Iran, as a war with Iran will devastate our economy, and bankrupt our nation.
Zionist Pigs, and their tag-a-longs, need to be exterminated, as they have no redemptive qualities. Just like their mirror image; the Nazis.
Ed
We don’t have to go to war with Iran, France is going to take care of them. Chirac is talking tough so you can count on the Mad Mullahs to cave any day now and invite UN inspectors in to dismantle their nuclear program.
{should have been “erroneous” }
Ambiguous statements stacked together only can arrive to an erroneous pseudo intellectual meaningless assumption.
Typical of a Clinton-class statement.
You don’t understand. The Zionist Pigs are going to bomb Iran. Rice and Bush have joined them.
Then use the excuse to move our troops out of Iraq and into Iran.
The Zionist Pigs will never stop, until stopped by whatever force it takes to exterminate all of them.
They will attack Iran in march.
Hopfully one of our submarine Captians is still loyal to the United States and will solve this problem in a heartbeat.
StevenE. –
Wow, has it been that long already?
Sheesh . . .
Let me get some links for you.
Here are three decent ones:
“Operation Iraq Freedom–to do what we tell you.”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/05/31_freedom.html
“Frat Spankings and Bush Backers–the Theory of Cognative Dissonance and why they keep saying, “Thank you, sir, may I have another?”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/11/20_frat.html
This one got picked up by a number of other blogs.
“The Pen is Mightier”http://upload.democraticunderground.com/articles/02/08/30_pen.html
XXX,
It usually takes less time for my questions to wear someone down to nothing more than simple retorts like yours… I commend you for lasting as long as you did, as short as it was.
It is tough actually being asked to defend what you say and back it up. That is why I don’t hold much against you for not being able to discuss what you actually believe with me.
PL,Thanks for the links. Appreciate it.
Back to Topic, this is from Steven Aftergood’s email list – Secrecy News. This service comes from the American Federation of Scientists [whose originator was a unrepentent socialist working in America] At the end of this summary is a link to the Justice Dept.’s white paper on this subject.
** JUSTICE DEPT ISSUES WHITE PAPER ON NSA SURVEILLANCE** THE LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATEMENTS** NSA: REDACTING WITH CONFIDENCE
JUSTICE DEPT ISSUES WHITE PAPER ON NSA SURVEILLANCE
The Department of Justice renewed its legal defense of warrantlessdomestic intelligence surveillance by the National SecurityAgency in a 42 page white paper transmitted to Congressyesterday.
The white paper essentially reiterates at greater length theprevious defenses articulated by the Bush Administration: (1)the NSA surveillance action was authorized by Congress when itpassed the 2001 resolution on use of military force against alQaeda; and (2) the President has inherent authority to conductsuch surveillance in any case. Both assertions are widelydisputed.
“The President — in light of the broad authority to use militaryforce in response to the attacks of September 11th and toprevent further catastrophic attack expressly conferred on thePresident by the Constitution and confirmed and supplemented byCongress in the AUMF [authorization for use of military force]– has legal authority to authorize the NSA to conduct thesignals intelligence activities he has described. Thoseactivities are authorized by the Constitution and by statute,and they violate neither FISA nor the Fourth Amendment,” thedocument concludes.
See “Legal Authorities Supporting the Activities of the NationalSecurity Agency Described by the President,” Department ofJustice White Paper, January 19, 2006:http://www.fas.org/irp/nsa/doj011906.pdf
Gee, Nathan, it used to take a lot longer to drive you to total idiocy. Try to do better. You’re still boring. And I’m done. Go waste your time with someone else.
XXX,
It is a public blog, there is no rule that says you have to reply to me or my questions.
Not like you have been anyhow…
Nathan,”there is no rule that says you have to reply to me or my questions.
Not like you have been anyhow…”
You’re FINALLY starting to catch on.
“It is tough actually being asked to defend what you say and back it up”.Nathan, why would you have such expectations for others and none for yourself?
Damoon,
Is this what you have reduced yourself to, nothing more than a mocking voice everytime I post?
Oh My! Nathan, don’t you pretty much get the impression that we’re ALL mocking you? We are, you know….Soooo serious! Now quote me some verse, then have your cookies and milk and go to bed. Nightie night!
I know I was away awhile. But if I remember correctly, Nathan is Hank.
Nathan is Hank’s son.
Nathan–
Can you prove that XXX is mocking you?
I read through the entire post, and I didn’t see where he said that HE was mocking you.
If you’re not going to stick to the facts, there’s just no point discussing anything with you . . .
I hope that doesn’t sound like I’m mocking what you always say.
Because there’s no real evidence that I AM mocking you.
I’m not mocking you, Nathan. I’m asking you an honest question. You constantly ask others to qualify their statements, but you refuse to qualify your own. You’re not interested in discussion, only confrontation. You treat others with rudeness, disrespect and a condesending attitude, but yet you claim to be a Christian.How do you expect to bring others to Christ when all you do is piss them off and display your own hypocrisy?I’d suggest you heed Christ’s words and take the log out of your eye, then you might be able to help your brother with the speck in his.
Amen Damoon!
Yup, you won’t get a response to that.
Run away . . . run away . . . just like Bush in Alabama . . .
Proudlib,
I did not say XXX was mocking me.
Damoon,
Please show me the statment I refuse to qualfy.
Please show me what Christ has said that I am not doing. What hypocrisy am I displaying?
I am not expecting to bring too many people on this blog to Christ. I am here to debate what the editors of the paper write and peoples responses to them.
When I am talking to you, I am usually just trying to correct the misconceptions about Christianity you usually have.
Not 100% of my conversations are about converting people to Christ.
When I am at the drive through at Mcdonalds I am ordering a value meal, not converting the person behind the window.
Sorry, if everytime I have to constantly point out the distortions you and others make as being false might seem rude or mean to you.
And what misconceptions do I have about Christianity, Nathan?Please qualify your statement and be specific, please.”Taking the log out of your eye” is a good place to start pointing out what I see as your hypocrisy. You see everyone else’s perceived sins, but none of your own. That is not how Christ taught us how to live.I certainly wouldn’t expect you to try an bring everyone you meet to Jesus, but you have an opportunity to share what you perceive as God’s word and love, and you keep blowing it. Is that what Jesus wants for you? You don’t set a Christian example by the way you condescendingly put others down. You have made statements about me that were false, and that’s breaking the 8th comandment.Practice what Christ taught, then you would be more respected and others would see you as the Christian example your God wants you to be.
Well, I’m still waiting, Nathan. Qualify your statement, give me an example.”It’s tough actually being asked to defend what you say and back it up”, right Nathan?
Damoon,
Sorry I didn’t keep records of all of the blog discussion we used to have on homosexuality and other things.
This is one example of recent, where you imply that “bible thumpers” don’t inernalize true Christian values.
“If only the bible thumpers would internalize true Christian values, the country wouldn’t be so divided…”
Then you go on to imply that they do these types of things:
“Rather than influence others by emulating Jesus and living their lives according to His example, they use religion as a weapon to discriminate and persecute those who don’t share their beliefs. They are so caught up in trying to achieve power and control in the government, they forget about the true purpose and meaning of Christianity.”
Did I get the wrong idea there about what kind of picture you were trying to paint about “bible thumpers?”
Perhaps you meant something different with “bible thumpers?”
Then there is this:
“I’m amazed how those who distort Christ’s teachings get so much press.”
I am waiting there for a response on how Pastor Wright is distorting Christ’s teachings.
If I have time I might try to go back through the archives to see if I can find some of your old statements about Christianity.
—–
I think Joe Wright and Terry Fox use religion to discriminate against and suppress the rights of gay people. Our laws should be all inclusive, not give privileges to one group and not another. Equality and human rights for ALL citizens is what our country is based on. Christian dogma and ideology has no place in our govenment. I think Joe Wright, and others like him, would do well to just stick to their church and minister to their followers, rather than trying so hard to influence government policies. They have crossed a line that should not be crossed. They have contributed to the division in this country, and their bigoted actions and prejudice against gay people is hateful.As a Christian, you may believe everything you read in the Bible, but don’t try to incorporate it into our government. It doesn’t belong there. You can choose to worship however you like, but I have the right not to have religious dogma shoved down my throat, via laws based on Christian doctrine, even if you think that’s what I need.
I think you might have a problem with seeing the difference between the sin and sinner.
You may assoicate not wanting the Government to endorse homosexual marriage as hate, but from my perspective it is not.
Hate has nothing to do with it.
Yes, my faith is the primary reason for not wanting homosexuals to get married, but I can argue this topic from a completely secular point as well.
Just like any other voter in this Representative Republic we live in, I have every right to vote for people that represent the things I want to see in government.
Just like any other voter, I have every right to influence the political process to get people who share my values of government elected.
And just becuase I am a Christian doesn’t mean that I should not or can not do any of those things regardless of how much you disagree with what I believe.
Homosexuality is nothing more than a choice in my opinion. A choice that niether deserves nor warrants any special privledges of protection or recognition by our government.
You are wrong, people are born with their sexual orientation. Their behavior is a choice, but their sexual orientation is not. It’s no different than being born with red hair or left handed. It’s not right for the government to legislate that homosexuals aren’t entitled to the same rights as everyone else. How is that different than the Jim Crow laws or not allowing women to vote? The government doesn’t have the right to repress people because of their race, their religion, their gender, or their sexuality.I know many gay couples that have a healthier relationship than many straight couples, and I know some outstanding gay parents (and grandparents). Who are you (and others) to say they shouldn’t live in a way that allows them to be happy? How is allowing gay people to marry and have a family infringing on your right to live the way you want? But yet you’re so willing to negate their right to live the way they want.As long as someone isn’t hurting others, they have the right to do live they please. Isn’t that what living in America is all about?
I have to commend you for expressing your opinion with out the condesending attitude and insults. It’s much more condusive to making your point.
Damoon,
Like our conversation from many months ago, there is no scientific evidence to show that Homosexuality is anything other than a choice nor is there any evidence to show it is not.
There is nothing that I can see in looking at a Homosexual other than taking him at his word that he/she is indeed one to prove it as true vs color and sex which is obvious.
I have no problem with Homosexual living their happy lives together or whatever.
I am not stopping them from doing any of that.
What homosexuals want is an offical government endorsement of their lifestyle and I don’t agree with that and will never support it.
If what you say is true, then are you willing to take it to it’s logical extreme?
Should the government also endorse poligamy?
Shold the government also endorse beastiality?
Should the governmetn endorse incest?
I mean, it is like you said, as long as it is not hurting anyone else… right?
How is beastiality, incest, and poligamy not hurtful? In each case there is a victim.There are studies that suggest sexual orientation is predisposed and scientists are learning more all the time. I can say from personal experience that I know it’s not “just a choice”. Gay people should have all the same rights as straight people. Including the right to get married and adopt children, just like everyone else.
Damoon,
How does poligamy hurt anyone? If all participants involved agree what is the problem?
The only way incest hurts is if children are had. As long as they adopt what is the problem?
Well, on beasiality, I suppose you don’t really know if the animal is a victim or not…
I know, from experience, that homosexuality is a choice.
I have seen people make it.
Sorry Nathan, if you’ve ever studied the fundamentalist mormon religion, you’d know it’s only one step up from slavery. The women involved in plural marriages often have no choice, because that’s what was decided for them when they were very young.Homosexual behavior is a choice, but sexual orientation is often predisposed. I noticed my best friend’s son was different from about the age of 2. He always wanted to play more with the girls and do the thing that they did. When he was 4, he wanted to play with dolls, he often put on a dress, and he loved wearing high heels. This is a kid who had a very normal, nuturing family with a father who was very involved in his life, a warm and loving mother, and 2 older brothers who were “all boy”. He suffered terribly in school because the other kids made fun of him. Even his own brothers whould call him a “sissy” and “fag” when they got mad at him. He pretended to be interested in girls when he got into junior high, but couldn’t keep up the charade and got very depressed in high school. He finally “came out” when he was a senior. Those of us who knew him from the time he was born were not at all surprised. This was not a “choice” on his part, what kid in preschool decides he wants to be gay? He was born with his sexual orientation. If you believe that he was created by God, then God made him this way. He is in college now and he finally has some peace since he learned to accept himself and his sexuality. Everyone who loves him also accepts him just the way he is.I could never look at him and think that he doesn’t deserve to have what everyone else has. He deserves to be happy and have a life like any of us.His father is a Christian fundamentalist, and it was very hard for him to accept his son’s sexuality at first, he even took him to a Christian counselor to see “if he could change”. He loves his son very much, so he has had to grow and accept that his son is who he is and that will never change.Maybe someday you will have a gay child and then you will see that life is not so black and white. Fate has a way of doing that to people. Never say never, Nathan.
Damoon and friends,In the final analysis the truth is that governments at all levels legislate the values and culture of their societies, probably even more so in a democracy, as the culture of the majority is often codified in that way. One can turn blue in the face arguing back and forth over the issue of whether homosexuality is a choice or a hereditary state of being. Same goes for polygamy. There is mounting evidence that homosexuality is genetic encoded as a predisposition. Nature doesn’t vote for what is normal or abnormal. People in democracies do. It is no more abnormal to be tall than it is to be of shorter height. The rule in nature is diversity. Unfortunately, people seize upon their right to vote as means of forcing their cultural and moral values on others, i.e., the minority. Our Constitution was NOT designed to protect the majority, for arguably they need no protection as they will do what they do via the ballot box anyway. The central issues, as I see them, are the following:1) Is there a harm inflicted on others in a society because of the actions taken by a few, recognizing that HARM cannot be defined simply as something that bothers someone, like a difference in opinion?2) Is there an unethical premise that is so universal that it must be enforced, such as a law against murder?
I will not get into bestiality, for the victim there is an animal, and we would be hypocrites if we did not acknowledge that we exploit animals (such as horses and oxen) in many other ways, including as food and game for sport– it would meet the second issue raised above I would think. But homosexuality between consenting adults does not harm anyone in and of itself. Unfortunately, it is a minority behavior, and it is considered repulsive by many, i.e., the majority. So with regard to the first issue about harm, the fact that it “bothers” someone that the couple next door is homosexual is not enough to have it banned. This type of choice is exactly what our Constitution was designed to handle, that is, to protect the minority from the excessive control by the majority. Plus, it doesn’t rise to the moral value criterion posed in the second question above, as many other societies tolerate homosexuality. What I want to ask the knee-jerk reflex conservatives on this issue is the following: Do you equate allowing certain types of pornography, or expression of divergent philosophical and religious beliefs, with government endorsement? Not at all. The Consitution is about freedom, not endorsement. Finally, why does it bother you if a homosexual couple has the same rights to visit their significant other in a hospital as you have, and to collect social security benefits in the event of death of the love partner? AFTER ALL, IF THEY WERE TO ABIDE BY YOUR MORAL DICTUM AND MARRY HETEROSEXUALLY THESE BENEFITS WOULD STILL ACCRUE TO THEM. In your perfect world of heterosexuality only, they would be heterosexuals and tax all the systems currently in place in just the same exact way. Therefore, “married’ homosexuals would not cost our society more money than they would if they were heterosexuals. What homosexuals are saying is that they contribute to our society like everyone else, and they pay taxes like everyone else (perhaps even more so), so logically they should be entitled to the same benefits and rights as anyone else. As homosexuality may indeed by biologically determined, it is just as senseless to discriminate against them in their entitlements as it would be to prevent, say short people, from the same benefits as tall people. Remember, our Constitution was founded to protect the rights of minorities, not necessarily the majority, as the latter have all the protection they need. Otherwise, let’s just let a dictator of the majority take over (and God knows they are trying).
Damoon and friends,I should also mention that whether homosexuality is indeed genetically encoded is still a non-essential issue anyway. It’s just that if it is genetically encoded, you may be inclined to show more compassion.