Tuesday, October 17, 2006

A HIGHER MORAL POWER

Hey everyone, please try to send CARE packages to our troops. They all need our love and care. Here is a letter from one of our brave soldiers stationed in Iraq, who writes a blog called ANGER MANAGEMENT

Lydia,
Yes, my wife and I are fine. We are pretty angry about the extension because what's another month and a half in an infants life without their parents. It is just too stupid. It seems like our brigade is losing people on a daily basis. My wife is the Executive Officer for the brigades Medical Support Company so she get's to see the casualties everyday, worrying whether or not I might be on the next MEDEVAC into her aid station. It doesnt seem to be getting any better.

I have not received any packages yet, but the mail takes time around here. I'll get it eventually.

As Wayne Dyer says, "There's a spiritual solution to every problem." For SPIRITUAL SOLUTIONS to the world crises, along with some amazing prayer miracles in the next few weeks, please check out RADICAL PRAYER at my other blog THE PEACEMAKERS* LIGHT OF TRUTH

"We all have built into us the capacities for kindness and creativity and beauty. It's a matter of perspective. As Einstein said, "The single most important decision any of us will ever make is whether or not to believe that the universe is friendly." It's our choice.

When Jesus told us to 'love our enemies,' I really don't think he meant "go and kill them." When children perish (in Iraq in such a manner) there is no moral person in this world who sees it as "self-defense."

"As I read some of contents of this detainee bill which is called ‘Military Commissions Bill (S. 3930)’ it states categorically, “Re-establishes President Bush's military tribunals, which were rejected by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional." How can any elected official including Bush place their hand on the Bible and take an oath to uphold the United States Constitution, and then support a bill that the U.S. Supreme Court rejected?"

Congressman, Tim Bishop: “Why Fear a Trial?”
By Mary MacElveen

As I attended a debate between Congressman Tim Bishop (D 1st Cong. District, NY) and his Republican challenger, Italo Zanzi: when both were asked of the detainee bill recently approved by Congress which will be signed by Bush today, this is what candidate Zanzi stated that he “doesn’t believe Bush can claim anyone as a terrorist.”

As I read some of contents of this detainee bill which is called ‘Military Commissions Bill (S. 3930)’ it states categorically, “Re-establishes President Bush's military tribunals, which were rejected by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional." I want candidate Zanzi to focus in on the word ‘unconstitutional’. I want candidate Zanzi to focus in on the word ‘unconstitutional’. How can any elected official including Bush place their hand on the Bible and take an oath to uphold the United States Constitution, and then support a bill that the U.S. Supreme Court rejected? It is not so much that directive, but this one that disproves Zanzi’s assessment of this bill that it, “strips legal residents of the U.S. of their right to challenge their detention in court if they're accused of being “enemy combatants,” So, if an American is arrested that is accused of being an “enemy combatant”, don’t they have the right to due process of law?

At one point, I was going to write of this country’s most heinous serial killers and we gave them the right of due process. Their victims were allowed to confront them in court and in one case; Ted Bundy was even allowed to marry within a court of law. These killers had and still do have the right to challenge any law in which the prosecution said they broke. Their defense attorneys are even allowed to challenge the courts when it comes to constitutional issues.

As journalists write of the Iraq War and terrorism in general, it is this part of the bill that does disturb me that it, “names any individual, including citizens, as an “unlawful enemy combatant” if they provide “material support” to those engaged in hostilities against the U.S.” As I see it, words do have value so should be thought of as a physical entity and can be construed as ‘material support’. Journalists also write the opinions and reactions of those that are engaged in hostilities against us, so can journalists be targeted and labeled as ‘enemy combatants’ by aiding the other side with a venue in order to speak out?

What happens to an innocent American that unknowingly supplies “material support” to an enemy of the United States? Are they not allowed due process? In the past, we placed many on trial for acts of treason, gave them due process and those convicted sit in prison. The United States Constitution served us in those cases.

While no question was submitted concerning war crimes contained within this bill, this is what that bill soon to be signed into law states “legalizes U.S. war crimes committed before December 30, 2005” So, if down the road and this is directed to, Italo Zanzi, should it be found that Bush had indeed committed war crimes, does this shield him? I would also like him to speak of these ‘U.S. war crimes’ since congress felt the need to place it within this bill.

As we all know, Bush lied about the facts concerning our illegal invasion of Iraq which even the UN Security Council did not give us permission to invade since we lied about the facts. We all know that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, yet another fact not brought up as it related to this war in this debate. We most certainly do know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. As a result of these lies it has now been reported that 655,000 innocent Iraqis have died. Wouldn’t he call that a war crime? If so, then through this bill, Bush is now shielded.

As I listened to Congressman, Tim Bishop’s answer regarding this one bill, he point-blank stated, “Why fear a trial?” which means due process under the law. He also stated that our “government should be run by rule of law” If our Constitution has served us so well in the past, why change it? That is what Congressman, Tim Bishop understands.

This is what Congressman, Bishop stated of the war in Iraq by us focusing on this war, “We allowed our concentration in Afghanistan to slip” He also stated that we do need to get our soldiers out” He then stated that it has turned into a “civil war” in which our “soldiers are not trained”

The following remarks were the ones that I focused in on. He (Bishop) stated that “70 percent of Iraqis think that it is okay to attack our soldiers” Gee, I wonder why? Bishop referred to where we would be thought of as liberators and greeted with flowers, when the complete opposite has happened. He also stated that our military is “stretched to the limit” With US Naval ships just off the coast of Iran, just how is this Bush administration going to supply the man power should we invade Iran?

This was perhaps the one most single and powerful statement made by Congressman Bishop concerning our war in Iraq that it was “a war of choice” I seem to remember Senator John Kerry stating during the 2004 presidential campaign, “You don’t use the military because you want to, but because you have to.”

When it comes to Bush’s go-it-alone foreign policy, this is what Congressman Bishop believes that we “need to return to a saner foreign policy” He also believes that “diplomacy is not a bad thing” There are some that believe diplomacy is a sign of weakness, but I am of the opinion it makes one stronger and makes this nation stronger.

By us returning to the rule of law, and through the use of diplomacy, it is then we can most certainly say that we are guided by a higher moral power.


Read the original article here

588 comments:

  1. Today was a bad day for Americans, because evil one another victory.

    Bush has turned us into an evil police state where the President has supreme power to arrest anyone, anywhere, anytime, without providing any reason whatsover.

    If that sounds right to anyone out there, take two cyanide tablets and call me in the morning.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Imagine a country where any citizen, at any time, can be snatched away in the night, with no writ or warrant, no habeaus corpus, taken away to a foreign country, where his own confession extracted by torture, can be used against him in a secret kangaroo court, where he can be condemned on hearsay and classifed evidence which he has no right to see or contest, and on a confession extracted by torture. Then after he is secretly sentenced, he can be taken out back and shot, his body burned and ashes spread or buried in an unmarked location, never to be heard from again.

    5 years ago, if you had imagined such a scenario, you would have been talking about some evil dark third world country.

    But now, thanks to Bush and his followers, this is the new America.

    I know it sounds insane, but its absolutey true.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bush just took away the FOUNDATIONS of our Constitution, and our laws.

    For their fear of terrorists they gave up everything that made us Americans.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Lydia wrote “legalizes U.S. war crimes committed before December 30, 2005”

    Can this bill be contested further in American courts i.e. Supreme Court or is it too late, is there no going back now? I don't understand enough of your legal sytems and I'm no lawyer.

    If a bill states it's intention is to "legalise war crimes" then I wonder if the bill is illegal under international law/treaties?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Lydia wrote “Re-establishes President Bush's military tribunals, which were rejected by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional."

    Again, I'm confused because of my ignorance of American Law. Does this bill legally overrule the Supreme Court?

    If so, Clif, is this what you meant a few days ago regarding the President is 'above the law'? (I think those were not your actual words but were your inference).

    If the President CAN legally overrule the Supreme Court, why do you have one?

    I'm quite sincere in my questions as I want to understand these statements in this Bill, I'll check in later when the planet's rotated a little and you're all out of bed.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The bill like any bill passed by congress and signed into "law" is reviewable by the courts, and can be struck down as unconstitutional, just as the line item veto was.

    And the constitution has a provision in section 9 which states;

    No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

    And Wikipedia defines ex post facto as;

    An ex post facto law (from the Latin for "from something done afterward") or retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law.

    Generally speaking, ex post facto laws are seen as a violation of the rule of law as it applies in a free and democratic society. Most common law jurisdictions do not permit retroactive legislation, though some have suggested that judge-made 'law' is retroactive as a new precedent applies to events that occurred prior to the judicial decision. In some nations that follow the Westminster system of government, such as the United Kingdom, ex post facto laws are technically possible as parliamentary supremacy allows the parliament to pass any law it wishes. However, in a nation with an entrenched bill of rights or a written constitution, ex post facto legislation may be prohibited.

    Ex post facto is the uncomplimentary characterization of law and legislation that applies retroactively (i.e. "from a thing done afterward").

    United States - Prohibited by Article I section 9 (applying to federal law) and section 10 (applying to state law) of the U.S. Constitution. Over the years, when deciding ex post facto cases, the United States Supreme Court has referred repeatedly to its ruling in the Calder v. Bull case of 1798, in which Justice Chase established four categories of unconstitutional ex post facto laws. A current U.S. law that definitely has an ex post facto effect is the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. This law, which imposes new registration requirements on convicted sex offenders, gives the U.S. Attorney General the authority to apply the law retroactively. [1] However, the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled in Smith v. Doe (2003) that forcing sex offenders to register their whereabouts at regular intervals, and the posting of personal information about them on the Internet, does not violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws, because compulsory registration of offenders who completed their sentences before new laws requiring compliance went into effect does not constitute a punishment.


    So whether the Supreme court declares this law constitutional or NOT, what happened BEFORE Bush signed it still falls under what statures that existed then not what they claim is legal now.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Gary the President CAN NOT overrule the supreme court, but may ask congress to pass an amendment to the constitution to change it thus make what was unconstitutional now legal in the eyes of the supreme court.

    the classic example was the 13 amendment which OUTLAWS slavery, which eliminated all laws which regulated slavery since nobody in the US could be a slave after this amendment was passed.

    Two more amendments which could be looked at are the 18th amendment which outlawed alcohol, and the 21th which repealed the 18th and legalised alcohol once again.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I dont know how to pose this hypothetical without being thrown into a mideast torture facility. But what, hypothetically, would the executive branch of our government have to do to be 1) impeached or 2) forcibly removed from office by military action in defense of the Constitution? The number 2 is the one I'm most interested in the answer to because 1 would never happen in a circumstance where 2 would have to be performed. People seem to forget that when military officers (Reps and the President also for that matter) take an oath to support and defend the constitution against ALL ENEMIES foreign and domestic. And when two of the three branches are compromised wouldnt it be the duty of the military to intervene? It seems to me noone lives up to that part of the oath even though it seems to be the most grave section of it. It is also forgotten that the US Army is not the Israeli expeditionary defense force and belongs to the USA and should remain in the USA unless absolutely neccessary for the safety of the Republic to be a deterrent to both external and internal threats. Now we go to war like going to the grocery store.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Marcus, until November 7th nobody inside the beltway is going to listen to the anger most Americans have about now, BUT November 8th if all goes well, the MSM will be out in force wondering what happened to cause the upheaval in congress and why they members of congress did not stop it, by DOING what the American people want.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Clif"Gary the President CAN NOT overrule the supreme court, but may ask congress to pass an amendment to the constitution to change it thus make what was unconstitutional now legal in the eyes of the supreme court."

    So he can't overrule the Supreme Court, but he can undercut it? Is that what you mean? Isn't the result the same - just achieved indirectly rather than directly?

    thanks for your help as I find this thread by Lydia as frightening as I do fascinating....

    ReplyDelete
  11. and if the Supreme Court can be undercut, then it renders the Supreme Court useless, so I repeat the question, why have one? Why have a bureaucracy that is so easily circumnavigated?

    Also worth repeating, if a Bill states it's intention is to "legalise war crimes" then I wonder if the bill is illegal under international law/treaties?

    And if there is an international law that exists to punish those who try to "legalise war crimes"?

    Can someone please tell me if America is still a signatory nation to the Geneva Conventions?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Tom/Marcus,
    “what, hypothetically, would the executive branch of our government have to do to be…….forcibly removed from office by military action in defense of the Constitution?”

    Superb question, I wonder if there is a qualifier in Law to define this?

    “And when two of the three branches are compromised wouldnt it be the duty of the military to intervene?”

    Aren’t all three branches compromised if this Bill becomes a permanent Law? I’ve been trawling to see if I can find a quick answer to both your questions, no such luck. Even if it’s only two branches, is the enforcement of this ‘oath of enlistment’ only taken when a civil war breaks out? Or when senior commanders issue orders? Or when an individual makes a personal, moral assessment?

    Logically speaking, if there is no qualifier in Law, I would imagine it all depends on what constitutes an ‘attack’ on the constitution, rather than an ‘amendment’ to it. This distinction would depend on the ideological/political value systems of cumulative individuals in a society (rather than 1 individual otherwise the President may face a coup every day).

    So what would constitute a ‘domestic attack’? While I was trawling, I found this comment;

    “Sometimes our own citizens can become threats to the freedoms of others. In the past few years we have heard of instances where our own citizens have joined the enemy in the war. This is one example of a “domestic” enemy. Another, less apparent example, are the small ideas that infiltrate our value systems- ideas like we should feel guilty for being the world’s foremost superpower, like the voice of dissent can be expressed in the form of violence, like we should weaken ourselves to accommodate the ideals of foreign nations. These are also domestic enemies, ones that we should combat not by physical force, but by example.”
    -Cadet Sam Schinder, AFROTC Det. 215 (Indiana University)

    The above comment negates ‘President/Executive Branch’ and ‘domestic enemy’ and may be the reason why there is probably no qualifier in Law regarding your first question Tom - in the ‘spirit of the law’, the oath is not used in the context of your question.
    I wonder if people are taking the oath out of context because of their value systems which therefore renders such questions irrelevant?
    Personally, I hope NOT as I would like to think the President of the United States of America, the Worlds Most Powerful Man, is NOT above the law, or he‘ll be tempted to abuse it!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Gary,
    Makes a little more sense now. I guess our system was designed in such way, with the turnover of Reps and the Exec by election (will of the people) that is military intervention was neccessary it would be completely apparent. For instance, if someone suspended elections completely and just named themselves supreme dictator. I guess there is always a legal or diplomatic solution before physcial force, huh? I with other people would learn that.

    ReplyDelete
  14. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Indiana University...GO BIG RED!!!!!
    Their football team sucks but I'm no fairweather fan. (RE: Comment from AFROTC Cadet by Gary)

    ReplyDelete
  16. Tom,
    I didn't know Indiana was a 'red' locale because I don't know America in that level of detail - I've never even been there!
    Having read what the cadet wrote I think it makes sense and shows how people with different value systems perceive the same oath. As you say, with elections (diebold notwithstanding) you already have the opportunity to remove Preznits so I doubt the oath was designed for that purpose.

    I don't know if you've heard but depending which sites you go to, there were 9 to 10 more troop deaths in Iraq yesterday but they don't say where. Things are heating up again with 69 deaths this month so far. Keep your head down Tom, that's 69 too many.

    http://icasualties.org/oif/US_chart.aspx

    ReplyDelete
  17. Wow!

    Maybe you guys should talk to someone in South America to see the best way to stage a military coup?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Welcome to the third world baby!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Tom"I guess there is always a legal or diplomatic solution before physcial force, huh? I with other people would learn that."

    I wish other people would learn that too, in my opinion we are both currently led by the worst leaders the world has seen in decades at least.

    Morally bankrupt, they stain us all with the history of their actions IN OUR NAMES while we, the people, suffer humiliation and death for their egotism, hubris and greed.

    According to Arthur Silber, a blogger [who wrote this in the context of trolls who denounce the latest Lancet study]:
    "When people voluntarily evict themselves from civilization, and when they announce that facts, reason and evidence are entirely irrelevant to their beliefs and actions, it's pointless to offer any arguments whatsoever.
    They are vicious barbarians to the depths of their wretched souls, and they merit only banishment from the realm of human discourse. And they should always be prevented from ascending to positions of power and influence. At the moment, we are not doing terribly well on that score."

    I think it equally applies to our incumbents.

    ReplyDelete
  20. WORF,

    you mentioned the TCFC DVD's earlier. I'd like to see them as I like your sense of humour (there's supposed to be a 'u' in humour by the way) but there are two sets to choose from.

    I only want to buy one set in case I don't like them (nothing against Lydia - the scriptwriters) please can you recommend which set is best, series 1 or 2?

    In fact........Lydia, if you're reading this, do you send these packages abroad, namely Britain?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Gary it is very difficult to amend the US constitution.

    Here is the process according to Wikipedia,

    The authors of the Constitution were clearly aware that changes would be necessary from time to time if the Constitution was to endure and cope with the effects of the anticipated growth of the nation. However, they were also conscious that such change should not be easy, lest it permit ill-conceived and hastily passed amendments. Balancing this, they also wanted to ensure that an overly rigid requirement of unanimity would not block action desired by the vast majority of the population. Their solution was to devise a dual process by which the Constitution could be altered.

    The first option must begin in Congress which, by a two-thirds vote (of a quorum) in each house, may initiate an amendment. Alternatively, the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states may ask Congress to call a national convention to discuss and draft amendments. To date, all amendments have been proposed by Congress; although state legislatures have on occasion requested the calling of a convention, no such request has yet received the concurrence required for such a convention.

    In either case, amendments must have the approval of the legislatures or of smaller ratifying conventions within three-fourths of the states before becoming part of the Constitution. All amendments save one have been submitted to the state legislatures for ratification; only the 21st Amendment was ratified by individual conventions in the states.


    BTW Gary, Over 10,000 Constitutional amendments have been introduced in Congress since 1789; in a typical Congressional year in the last several decades, between 100 and 200 are offered.

    There are 27 amendments to the constitution, which means it is not easy to do, the flag burning amendment is one of the last measures to fail passage.

    The president can be reigned in by the Supreme Court, if he violates the constitution, and laws which violate the constitution are struck down almost every term, but the last amendment ratified poassed congress and 2/3 of the congress and 3/4 of the states must agree to change the constitution. this make it very hard to change it on a whim.

    The last proposed amendment to actually pass the process was actually proposed inthe late 1790's but NOT fully ratified until 1992.

    All info comes from Wiki and links in that article.

    ReplyDelete
  22. BG said;

    Again, I'm confused because of my ignorance of American Law. Does this bill legally overrule the Supreme Court?

    Well its important to understand the role of the Supreme Court in our government in order to answer that question.

    The Supreme Court doesn't create law. Neither does the President.

    The Legislative body, our Congress makes the laws. The Supreme Court decides if those laws are Constitutional.

    They already ruled the Presidents actions as unconstitutional.

    So the President simply introcded a new bill or "law" that they haven't yet ruled against, to continue doing what he's doing, and to make legal what the Supreme Court said was illegal.

    By introducing a new bill, worded slightly different, the Supreme Court would need to execute another ruling, declaring this new bill as unconstitutional.

    For reasons that exceed my limited understanding, they are not expected to do this.

    I know its mind boggling.

    ReplyDelete
  23. All right Worf, i'll bite on this one, this new law is FAR WORSE than the original, this allows American citizens to be labeled enemy combatants and sent to secret foreign prisons and tortured to confess, where they will essentially disappear or be put to death, this could very well deny American citizens Habeous Corpos, Due Process, the right to a fair trial by their peers, rules of evidence that can be used against them, and the right to know the charges against them and select a disinterested attorney to represent them that doesnt have conflicts of interest, where they are judge jury and executioner.

    This is something VERY SIMILAR to what happened in Nazi German under Hitler or Russia under Stalin, where those who opposed the dictator disappeared, I said way back in December and January that our govenment was following Hitlers blueprint where they used excessive nationalism and patriotism to pass laws slowly giving them supreme power at a later time so as not to alarm people, I stated the would give the masses a common enemy to hate and a cause to rally around and that they would control the MSM and use it as a propaganda tool to deceive and manipulate the masses with their fear tactics and war mongering, we have clearly seen all that, the next step i said would be the government making people who speak out or oppose them disappear, that I had thought would be 4-5 years away, unfortunaly it looks like i was wrong as the final piece of legislation to make reular Americans with dissenting views from our "decider" disappear was just put into place.

    So I ask How in Hell could the Supreme Court "NOT" declare a law that could possibly deny so many guarenteed Constitutional rights to regular American citizens based on heresay by a known liar calling him self The "DECIDER" and his sycophant cronnies who are also know liars being able to subjectively label them enemy combatants with no constitutional rules of evidence, due process, habeous corpus or right to fair representation and a jury of the persons peers.......its unconceivable and unconscienable.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Dolt said "Wow!

    Maybe you guys should talk to someone in South America to see the best way to stage a military coup?"

    Why would any one want to stage a coup to remove you lovable benevolent wisemen allways looking out for our best interests and protecting us from evil, particularly when you do such a good job at shoot your self in the foot and removing yourselves from office all by yourselves..........although in Foleys case that would be shoot himself and others in the chin.

    ReplyDelete
  25. TomPaine said...
    I dont know how to pose this hypothetical without being thrown into a mideast torture facility. But what, hypothetically, would the executive branch of our government have to do to be 1) impeached or 2) forcibly removed from office by military action in defense of the Constitution?


    Marcus.

    When you come home you better run for congress, cause you are what Congress needs right now. A real American.

    I think number 1 is in the works. Assuming no Diebold skullduggery here in November, we should be able to easily gain enough seats in both houses to Censure or Impeach this President. Censure, while sounding weak, would actually turn Bush into a "lameduck" President, and his ability to wage war would be all but removed. At that point, Bush would be lucky to get permission to build a parking lot.

    So I think we're going to see number 1 coming up shortly.

    As for number 2, be careful what you say there. Yesterday's historic trump of the Supreme Court and our constitution gave the President unlimited powers to hurt you, and every member of your family, for even uttering what you just uttered.

    The President has clearly gone insane, as has the small majority of Americans who still support him and the America we used to be has suddenly dramatically changed.

    Ahh what the hell. Lets explore it.

    Removing a corrput President who has run amuk and is violating our constitution from office would be the role of the National Guard more than the military.

    The Constitution made allowances for such events, and the well organized state militia's would be the last line of defense against a corrupt executive as defined by our Constitution.

    The National Guard coupled with civillian law enforcement and other agencies would first work with Congress, however if Congress was corrupted as well, then we would be most likely looking at civil war between states and the Federal government. There is no smooth way to do this.

    The Military answers to the executive, and would be at his disposal to quell such an uprising. Martial law would be declared and US troops would be firing on their own citizens.

    Of course, if the military commanders did not side with the President, then it would be over before it got started, because the Military would most likely take its orders from a civillian appointed command, a new executive who would be stood up once the corrupt one has been removed.

    There are of course dozens of scenarios in which something like this could play out, but chances are it would never come to that.

    Next month is going to be the swan song for the corrupt neocons who currently weild power beyond what our Constitution gave them, and guys like you are going to be brought home where you belong.

    Protecting the states and not the oil.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Mike said;

    So I ask How in Hell could the Supreme Court "NOT" declare a law that could possibly deny so many guarenteed Constitutional rights to regular American citizens


    By simply not hearing the argument before the court. Someone has to take it to the court for a ruling, and then the Cheif Justice (John Roberts) decides what cases that come before the court they will actually rule on.

    For some reason the pundits seem to think the court will not hear this one, meaning Roberts may be wavering, perhaps out of fear.

    Ever see "the Pelican Breif"?

    ReplyDelete
  27. BG said "you mentioned the TCFC DVD's earlier. I'd like to see them as I like your sense of humour (there's supposed to be a 'u' in humour by the way) but there are two sets to choose from.

    I only want to buy one set in case I don't like them (nothing against Lydia - the scriptwriters) please can you recommend which set is best, series 1 or 2?

    In fact........Lydia, if you're reading this, do you send these packages abroad, namely Britain?"

    Trust me BG you'll like them both, TCFC is one of the best Sitcoms made IMHO, the cast and writing was great, I LMAO every time I watch them, i've watched much more of the first season than the second (actually the entire first season) I think the second season has the reunion on it, but if you've never seen it before you wont be invested in or care about the characters enough to see what they look like today or what they are like in person.

    I guess I would recommend the first season so you can see the pilot and watch them in order (not that it matters) then if you like it you can get the second season)

    But if it were me I would just get both right now, I KNOW you will like it, and overseas shipping could be just as much as the DVD itself so it wouldnt really make financial sense to order one then order another later and pay the high shipping costs twice.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Worf said "For some reason the pundits seem to think the court will not hear this one, meaning Roberts may be wavering, perhaps out of fear.

    Ever see "the Pelican Breif"?"

    Fear of what???

    would he be afraid for his life or the lives of his family, I know he cant lose his job, because he was appointed for life.......and no, I never saw the Pelican Brief.

    ReplyDelete
  29. The Pelican Brief Mike was about a President who had 2 members of the Supreme Court assasinated to make room for 2 new justices who would uphold the Presidents policies.

    William Renquist died suddenly, and yes he was old, but look at the events surrounding his death.

    Then suddenly Sandra Day Oconner steps down, making room for another Justice for the President.

    When she stepped down, I couldn't help but notice to me, she looked scared. Angry and scared.

    Bush then got 2 justices on the court who he felt would uphold his violations of the Constitution, and it looks like it worked.

    I am not saying anything, but I am not ignoring anything either.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Hey Worf, this occured to me Friday and over the weekend, then I discussed it with Clif elsewhere yesterday.

    the world expects us to attack Iran, there is a buildup in the gulf, all the defense and military/aerospace stocks have spiked in October like they smell a war with Iran, BUT........I think there will be a brutal agressive push to take Iraq, I think the Jim Baker talk of dividing Iraq is a smokescreen, I think we will see the mask come off the Neo Cons, there will be a brutal masacre.civil war followed by a USA sponsored strongman far more brutal than Saddam coming to power with an iron fist.

    the mask will come off and all talk of removing a brutal dictator in Iraq and installing democracy will cease, although the Neo Cons will try to suppress the fact that a new dictaor/strongman has taken over Iraq and that the war was NEVER about removing a brutal dictator and installing democracy in the first place, it was all about OIL.

    They might have sham/rigged elections to legitimize the new Pro American government, but over all all information going to both the Iraqi citizens and to the outside world will be filtered, the media will become a propaganda tool for the government and any uprisings will be dealt with brutally.

    Essentially what we will have is a dictator/strongman at least as bad as Saddam propped up by the American military who is out to protect American interests by building up the oil infrastructure and oil pumping capacity to break OPEC and destroy their pricing power forever, this has been a plan since the 1970's by Rummy, Cheney and other hardline cronnies from the Nixon administration.

    Thats not to say they wont ever go into iran at a later time or use this war possibly to attack Iran, but I now think the main focus is to squash the uprising in Iraq and get the oil pumping in Iraq before Bush's term is up in 2009.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Sandra O'connor was threatened Worf, in fact Lydia did a blog on how O'Connors life was threatened and I also couldnt help but think that played a factor in her stepping down.

    I dont know if you remember the blog Lydia did on Sandra O'Connor being threatened but it was an excellent one that has been burned into my memory ever since.

    I think I might rent the Pelican Brief this weekend.

    ReplyDelete
  32. The Pentagon is getting ready...

    ...for a new batch of Anthrax vaccinations for their employees who would be most affected by this biological weapon. Uh huh.

    Okay, let's see if I get this straight. The person or persons who were behind the 2001 Anthrax attack after 9/11 have never been apprehended. What is so interesting about that is the recipients of the Anthrax laced letters that were mailed with the biological weapon were democrats and the media. For me, this spoke volumes on who was behind these attacks. It wasn't some guy wearing a turban and living in the USA, oh no, it was a republican in the depths of the military (it was Army-grade Anthrax) who I believe to this day would do it again because of his love and loyalty to the Bush Regime.

    So, the November mid-term election is coming up and assuming it won't be stolen again, I bet the Pentagon on the advice of the White House is getting ready to attack Americans again IF THE DEMOCRATS TAKE CONTROL OF THE HOUSE & SENATE. Seems logical to me and if I could trust the asses in the White House, the Pentagon and every level beneath thereafter that is run by their friends, I wouldn't be thinking this way!

    The real terrorists live in the Bush Regime. The End.

    posted by KayInMaine at 7:38 PM

    ReplyDelete
  33. Consider Kayes post, I also found the Anthrax highly questionable as well..............it appears, our government is a bunch of jackbooted thugs with less honor and integrity than the mafia.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Sniff,sniff...Mike,whats thats smell? Why,I think mommys made you some mac n cheese.If you've been a good little poopsie maybe there's a corn dog also.Run to the kitchen little poopsie.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Dusty this is NOT my space, your trolling for kids in the wrong place again son.

    as usual.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Hey Col.,I'm gonna be in Louisville Nov.2nd to Nov.6th (for Breeders Cup),care to stop by? That offer is still open for Mrs.Col.Klink,she could go on some of the rides at Rustyland...you know what I mean..wink,wink,nod,nod.I'm sure she'll find ole Rusty far less boreing then your teidious army stories.What do you think?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Col.,I forgot to ask.Mrs.Col.Klink is'nt a fatty,is she? If she's not I'll be willing to take some of the pressure off you,seeing you've got that wartime disability and all.Poor Mrs.Col.Klink,you've got that problem with the ol flag going all the way up the poll and then you're spending most of your waking hours cutting and pasting here.I really feel a bit sorry for her...so damn the torpedo's I'll take a shot even if she's a bit tubby.Anything to help a vet like you.

    ReplyDelete
  38. STILL TROLLING the Internet for sex son, are you THAT UGLY and fat?

    Seems you would do something about it, or right your a repug, and it is all image not reality you project.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Poor poor dusty, couldn't get elected to congress like Mark Foley so he has to troll the net for what ever will show up for him.

    ReplyDelete
  40. So,Mike the T.V.critic feels that Lyds old show (how long was it on?)ranks right up there with Cheers,Seinfeld,Mash and Friends.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Probably like Larry Craig, who seems a bit in the closet also eh dusty?

    ReplyDelete
  42. But then again he can tell them their doing a senator, not some loser named dusty......

    ReplyDelete
  43. Come on Klink,you O.K. with me and Mrs.Col.Klink bumping bellies?I just want to help you out buddy.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Dusty I know you have a fixation with MY penis, but My name is NOT Rush Limpballs, so I do not need any help, like repugs seem to do if it ain't little boys they are going after.

    ReplyDelete
  45. No son Larry Craig was outed by THREE people for going after poles, you might want to check with HIM about your quest.

    ReplyDelete
  46. BTW he wants people who can be descrete, so don't use this Blog to ask him, just text message him like you used to text message Foley.

    ReplyDelete
  47. While your at it you might also try Hastert's staff since they all live with him in ONE apartment in DC, happy BIG homemakers there.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Nice of you to not ask Larry Craig to meet you on this blog there dusty, real descrete there son, way to go.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Seinfeld and Friends were two of the dumbest stupidest shows on tv, I wouldnt watch either if you paid me, to this day I fail to see what so many people saw in either show, they were not the least bit funny, just corny stale humor every week.

    like I said yesterday the dumbing down of America.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Mike isn't it NICE that dusty is text messaging Larry Craig, and Not using this blog to troll for sex any more?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Pretty pathetic,clif but what I just found interesting is that old Rusty the Calice obviously swings both ways since he is so desperate for sex that he even propositions members of this blog and their spouses, wonder if he is so desperate he even does sheep and other farm animals, obviously he didnt get that calice on the roof of his mouth for nothing, his masters knew right away that he was a greedy repug that likes to receive rather than give, although Rusty did have his teeth extracted when he got his last bonus always willing to please his boss and master, Rusty is never the disgruntled employee, thats just anyone who disagrees with him or his fascist masters.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Lydia, I posted a few pieces today I think you might be interested in.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Rusty Shackelford said...
    That offer is still open for Mrs.Col.Klink,she could go on some of the rides at Rustyland


    I think she's too tall, Rusty...shouldn't you be over at ABC Nursery School in your raincoat? Maybe you'd even get laid!

    ReplyDelete
  54. Also Clif, this passage of the law that allows the president to imprison Americans at whim and deny them their constitutional rights does not seem part of a short term plan, quite the contrary, it seems part of a long term plan to seize power and set up a permanent fascist dictatorship where anyone who opposes you can be made to disappear just as Hitler did in Nazi Germany.

    This seems like a long term power grab to cement Bush's power and make him omnipotent, with a law like this in place I think it unlikely they will relinkquish power in 2009, if they were to lose the election martial law or declaring the opponent an aider of the enemy and making them disappear seems far more likely.

    You dont take the time to push laws like this through if you arent trying to seize power for ever and implement an iron fisted rule where all fear to oppose you or draw your ire, this bill passing is the most ominous thing I have EVER seen in my lifetime,it is clearly a life threatening blow to Freedom and Democracy.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Even Brain dead dicky morris is writing the Greedy Old Pedophile party off this time.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Mike the law could NOT easily invoked against an American citizen now and it is going to be challenged at the first time it is used.

    Once the Supreme court decrees it unconstitutional, well the democrats will have won the white house proly,



    But this is a funny thought,

    In Jan 2009, Hillary as president declares Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld enemy combatants for all the damage they did to this country, what could they do?

    ReplyDelete
  57. Clif said "Mike the law could NOT easily invoked against an American citizen now and it is going to be challenged at the first time it is used."

    Well Clif my question would be how would you "KNOW" when the law was invoked against an American, if a bunch of brownshirted thugs broke into your house at 3AM and took you away and shipped you off to a foreign prison with out a trace, how would any one know what happened to you, or that this sinister law was used on an American citizen for that matter?

    The very law itself states no evidence is needed,so since the law is so broad in scope people could simply disappear and no evidence would be left to prove what happened.

    in my opinion laws like that dont get passed by accident any law written that broadly and open eneded so as to allow those in power to get away with almost anything is written with a clear purpose in mind and in this case that purpose is POWER and fear.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Mike I found out HOW rusty got his name,

    Check this OUT

    ReplyDelete
  59. Clif, thanks for the Wikipedia link. >10,000 attempts and only 27 got through? Sounds like a sperm count after troll sex!

    Worf, thanks for the explanation, and it seems you do know why this second Bill will not be declared Unconstitutional. It's much clearer to me now.

    Mike, I'll try and order set 1, I'll see what it'll cost to order both sets at the same time. From what you wrote, it seems like TCFC is a witty show - I despise dumbed-down stuff too.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Worf / Cliff,

    In order for the Supreme Court to hear a case, the losing party must file a writ of certiary, and in order for that writ to be granted, four of the nine justices must agree to grant the writ and hear the case.

    The responsibilty of the Chief Justice is basically to assign cases on which he will vote on the winning side. He does not determine, alone, which cases get granted "cert."

    Also, the Supreme Court does create law, but in a different way.

    In the 1954 decision, Brown v. Board of Education, the Court ruled that segregation in schools was either unconstituional unconstitutional or against existing law.

    In the Roe v. Wade decision, the Court ruled, incorrectly as far as I am concerned, that states may not enact laws to prohibit abortion. So, yes, the Court does make law. Legal rulings from the courts are known as "case law," and laws enacted by the Congress together with the president are known as "statutory law."

    In the case you guys have been talking about for the last day or two, the Court ruled that the president alone may not set the rules for trials of illegal enemy combatants. The Court stated that the formation of such tribunals must arise from a bill passed by the Congress and signed into law by the president.

    The most recent bill signed into law by Bush was in direct response to this Court ruling, thereby complying with the decision of the Supreme Court.

    This legislation was specifically tailored to address the Court's concerns, so there should not be a constitutional infirmity in it, as far as I can tell.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Gary, Worf was on the right track, but note my corrections. FYI.

    ReplyDelete
  62. TT.

    The bill provides for the arrest of ANYONE, ANYTIME, ANYWHERE, without warrant, and for them to be taken to a foreign country, tortured, and then tried using a confession extracted by torture, as well as permitting hearsay evidence, no habeus corpus, meaning NO ONE needs to know where you are, and you can even be convicted by testimony you are not allowed to hear, or even confront your accusers. Secret information can send you to a firing squad, and your body can be discarded never to be heard from again.

    If you are on board with that, then you are no American.

    Only a NAZI PIG would support that.

    ReplyDelete
  63. And I see that human peice of crap has crawled in, hearing that the 57 percent of Americans are going to vote Democrat in 3 weeks.

    75 percent of Americans disapprove of congress, so rusty the punk comes in to try and threaten people.

    Rusty, you're puss. Your mother was a puss. Your father was a puss, and your entire family is a family of pusses.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Crawl back in your hole puss boy.

    You're nothing in here but the crap we wipe off our shoes.

    ReplyDelete
  65. TT said;

    The responsibilty of the Chief Justice is basically to assign cases on which he will vote on the winning side. He does not determine, alone, which cases get granted "cert."

    Also, the Supreme Court does create law, but in a different way.



    WRONG.

    You're just trying to take what I said and say it in a different way.

    The SUPREME COURT DOES NOT MAKE LAWS.

    THEY DECIDE IF THEY ARE CONSTITUTIONAL.

    PERIOD.

    And the Cheif Justice DOES have ultimate power to decide what cases are heard before the court.

    Where did you get your poly sci degree? Same place as the rest of the republicans? Off a matchbook cover?

    ReplyDelete
  66. Now wufuss/dufuss I did'nt threaten anyone,I just offered my assistance to Col.Klink.
    I've got to head on down to the "dojo" this evening.Have you been to yours recently wufuss?

    ReplyDelete
  67. Now understand I am not saying he has constitutional authority to decide which cases are heard. But he chairs the conferences where cases are heard, and he ultimately decides which direction the court goes in with regards to hearing cases.

    This is just the way it is done. Theres nothing in the Constitution to permit this explicitly, its just how its done.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Oh look.

    Poor tiny brained rusty the pussy is running his little mouth.

    ohhh...look at me...I'm angry because the republicans look like assholes....waaahhhh

    Little pussy.

    You're losing punk, and theres NOTHING you can do.

    You're impotent.

    Just like your mom tried to tell you last night.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Wufuss/dufuss,why would you express such anger when I was just offering my services to help out the ole disabled war hero.You gotta agree that Mrs.Col.Klink must be a bit testy what with Klink's little problem due to his war injury and the vast ammount of time he spends here cuttin and pastin.I'm sure you'd want to see someone help your buddy out.Would'nt you?

    ReplyDelete
  70. I hope your not pissed off becausing I'm offering to help the Col..

    ReplyDelete
  71. You weren't offering shit.

    You're a pussy, and wouldn't show up to anything. You're just running your mouth.

    But hey, you got the address of the dojo, right? Volt gave it to you.

    Show up there and run your mouth bitch.

    Show up here looking for trouble, and see what happens.

    Bitch.

    ReplyDelete
  72. More from the moral values and integrity party
    With help from BuzzFlash:


    'The Colorado governor's race was thrown into a frenzy Friday when the Colorado Bureau of Investigation began probing whether Republican Bob Beauprez's campaign illegally accessed an FBI criminal database for an attack ad.'

    A camping trip that Rep. Jim Kolbe took with two former pages in 1996 is now under review by the Justice Department.

    Rep. Bob Ney, who pleaded guilty to corruption charges Friday, still has not resigned.

    Rep. John Sweeney may have violated congressional ethics rules by failing to reveal who paid for a trip he took to a Pacific island with a lobbyist hired by convicted republican influence peddler Jack Abramoff.

    Republican Congressman Curt Weldon on his massive corruption charges: it's the Liberal Attack Machine's fault.

    GOP Congressman Doolittle defended a dentist accused of sexually assaulting patients, blames Clinton.

    Former congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham, with the assistance of other Congressmen and Congressional aides, stole more than $70 million in American taxpayers' money; blames Clinton.

    Oh Noe!

    Pervert Craig Schelske, 3-way/anal-sex-loving adulterer, erect-penis photographer and husband of GOP fave on "Dancing With the Stars" denies everything, appeals to "persons of faith," blames Clinton.

    Ohio Republican candidate for governor and sec of state Ken Blackwell, currently 28 points behind in polls, is deciding whether or not to disqualify his opponent, Dem Ted Strickland.

    RNC headhomeboy Ken Mehlman may have illegally accepted U2 tickets from corrupt republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff while in the Bush White House, blames Hillary.

    Idaho Sen. Larry Craig denies he's cruised Union Station mensrooms - not that there's anything wrong with that. Besides lying.

    Kenny-boy Lay's conviction erased from his record. Bush sends paperwork to Pope requesting sainthood.

    Didn't the Idiot-in-Chief proclaim this National Character Counts Week?


    I guess he did, just before going off to pimp for funds to help re-elect Rep Donald Sherwood who has admitted the adulterous affair, he just denies that he attacked his girlfriend while cheating on his wife.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Worf, I don't where you got the idea that the Chief Justice could deny cert by himself.

    Also, when cert is granted and the CJ is in the minority, the most senior member of the the Supreme Court in the majority chooses which justice writes the decision.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Dusty I am not a repug so I do not have those problems like Limpballs does, BTW did Sen Craig answer you text messages yet?

    ReplyDelete
  75. BTW you'd have to plan a trip to Union Station in DC because something about the mens rooms really gets him going.....

    ReplyDelete
  76. TalllTexan said...
    Worf, I don't where you got the idea that the Chief Justice could deny cert by himself.


    I don't know where you get half the crap you say slappy.

    Cause I never said that.

    Go back and read, and this time put the bifocals on.

    ReplyDelete
  77. clif said...
    BTW you'd have to plan a trip to Union Station in DC because something about the mens rooms really gets him going.....


    He and Foley can fondle each other.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Also, Worf, when the SCOTUS decides a major issue, like Roe v. Wade, that decision trumps everything and becomes the law of the land.

    Courts make law every day, especially where the other two branches have been silent of the issue. The method of arriving at their decision may involve constitutional interpretation, but case law is case law, until it is superceded by constitutional legislation, ot is overturned or modified by a higher court.

    ReplyDelete
  79. You could ask Limpman to bring his little blue pills and make a weekend of it, with the temporarily non-Limpman and Sen Larry....enjoy son.

    They proly would even let you pretend to be a house page there.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Worf said: :And the Cheif Justice DOES have ultimate power to decide what cases are heard before the court."

    Can you cite any authority to support this -- and the Pelican Brief doesn't count.

    ReplyDelete
  81. TalllTexan said...
    Also, Worf, when the SCOTUS decides a major issue, like Roe v. Wade, that decision trumps everything and becomes the law of the land.


    You are just playing with words, and incorrectly I might add.

    Our political structure makes laws from the "LEGISLATIVE" branch.

    Not the JUDICIARY. The JUDICIARY "decides" what laws are "Constitutional".

    To say that people adhere to the courts ruling on the constitutionality of a given law, is making law itself, is a misnomer, and is incorrect.

    It is not correctly stated, and it is not the make up of our form of government.

    ReplyDelete
  82. TalllTexan said...
    Worf said: :And the Cheif Justice DOES have ultimate power to decide what cases are heard before the court."

    Can you cite any authority to support this


    Aww just quit being an asshole and read the qualifying statement that came after it.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Well Tiny have ANOTHER diversion from the MOST scandalous US government EVER.

    A scandal or TWO a week, that HAS to be a record for American political governance.

    It must have Nixon spinning so fast in his grave that he had to resign, to prevent from being impeached and convicted for only a fraction of what the repugs are trying to get away with this time around.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Tonight, NBC Evening News reported that the REPUBLICAN LED CONGRESS enjoys only a 16 percent approval rating.

    16 percent. Thats like NOBODY!

    57 percent of Americans say they are voting Democrat in November.

    This is gonna be good.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Worf said, "Not the JUDICIARY. The JUDICIARY "decides" what laws are "Constitutional"."

    But all too often, they "legislate from the bench," so in effect (and unfortuneately) their decisions give rise to new law.

    Before '73, states could prohibit abortion. After '73, the SCOTUS said they could not, so the Court, has become a de facto law making body.

    In every police show, you see someone getting their Miranda rights read. That's the law, and the Supreme Court came up with it.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Worf, look up the phrase "case law" on Wiki. It confirms what I said

    ReplyDelete
  87. Even better because the Democrats seem to really going FOR a big win, they are spending money in races which "lean" repug making even those assclowns defend their seats, and the repugs have withdrawn much of their cash from attacking the democrats in the same manner.

    But with lost seats like

    Bob Ney

    Tom delay

    Mark Foley

    Donald Sherwood

    And Tom Reynolds, their claim of retaining the house looks bleak, after all everyone of these seats was supposed to be a safe repug seat this year...

    Worfeus you might need to put up that ph# again, so these repugs will have somewhere to turn come Nov 7th.


    BTW Wall Street Journal has Bush at 38%, and congress slinking into the teens.......

    ReplyDelete
  88. You know Worfeus I would say these assclown could not screw up much worse, BUT they are repugs after all......and they have only topped each scandal with a bigger one all year.

    ReplyDelete
  89. TalllTexan said...
    Worf, look up the phrase "case law" on Wiki. It confirms what I said


    I don't have to look it up on wiki dude. I know what the Supreme Courts role in our government is, and its NOT to make laws.

    You can use coined phrases like "legislate from the bench" all night, but it doesn't change the fact that they are not WRITING the laws.

    Congress WRITES the laws.

    The supreme court decides if they are constitutional.

    I know what you are trying to say, but you're just playing with words.

    The facts are as I stated.

    ReplyDelete
  90. From Wiki: "Case law (also known as precedential law or decisional law) is the body of judge-made law and legal decisions that interprets prior case law, statutes and other legal authority -- including doctrinal writings by legal scholars such as the Corpus Juris Secundum, Halsbury's Laws of England or the doctrinal writings found in the Recueil Dalloz and law commissions such as the American Law Institute. The term "common law" is also often used to mean case law."

    ReplyDelete
  91. First TT, the Supreme Court only takes a case AFTER its been tried in a lower court, so stating they are "making law" is a misnomer.

    If you want to insist that the act of deciding on a case is AUTHORING law, then the attorney's from the lower courts that first heard the case would be more aptly put as authoring the law.

    But I am not going to get caught up in a word game with you.

    The Supreme Court DECIDES if something is consitutional.

    They don't WRITE OUR LAWS.

    PERIOD.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Worf, this is not a word game. Ask any legal scholar, law professor or attorney if the judiciary is a source of law. They will all say "yes."

    ReplyDelete
  93. In reality our laws are made by all three branches, working together.

    No one branch was intended to have complete control, until now.

    ReplyDelete
  94. TT wikipedia IS not the authority on LAW, hell even the Foole changed it to try and make a point last March.

    You could have typed your entry JUST LIKE HE DID, and then cite it.

    But then again your proly NOT that smart

    ReplyDelete
  95. Worf said, "They don't WRITE OUR LAWS.

    PERIOD."

    Many, many people in the legal community will tell you that the Roe decision was made of out of whole cloth by the Supreme Court.

    I understand your point, but when stautory law is silent on a given subject, the judiciary may be called in to fill in the gaps, thus MAKING LAW.

    It happens all the time.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Now we might as well do away with the division, and just merge the branches, right?

    After all, 7 out of 9 Justices sitting on our courts were appointed by republicans.

    Republicans hold both houses of the congress(for 3 more weeks) and the oval office is overwhelmingly republican. (At least Clinton appointed republicans to positions, Bush wouldn't think of appointing dems).

    Bush said it himself. A dictatorship would be easier.

    ReplyDelete
  97. and according to the United States Constitution, remember that "goddamned piece of paper" only congress can Make laws, The Supreme Court only checks the constitutionality of the laws congress or the states write.

    I know idiots like you do not like the system and are trying to destroy it, but that is still the way it is.

    ReplyDelete
  98. You know a bunch of repugs in dems clothes said the same thing about brown vs board of education, only now they have to do that in code eh son.

    ReplyDelete
  99. In the 1954 Brown decision, the Supreme Court declared that "separate and equal was not equal." That became the law of the land. The manner in which they arrived at that decision is of no consequence.

    The judiciary IS a source of law. That is a cannon of the law.

    (Also, if you're in a hole, stop digging.)

    ReplyDelete
  100. Guys I hate to say this but for once in his pathetic life Troll Tex is right, judges do make law its called prescedent, their decisions, particularly Supreme Court decisions are used to interpret laws and even the Constitution and over time, particularly those that show similar decisions over a period of time carry weight just as legislative laws do.

    ReplyDelete
  101. But why allow one of the three branches of the Government to operate in the very mode that the founding fathers thought it should, after all you as clowns have gutted habeas corpus which the founding fathers thought SO important they PUT it in the constitution, not just a written law.

    ReplyDelete
  102. They made Habeus Corpus a foundation of the country, and you Morons just threw it away, because you idiots KNOW better than, jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Washington ET al.

    ReplyDelete
  103. I worked for a lawfirm in Houston, and Troll Tex is basically correct in what he has said tonight, asmuch as I hate to utter those words.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Clif said: "and according to the United States Constitution, remember that "goddamned piece of paper" only congress can Make laws, The Supreme Court only checks the constitutionality of the laws congress or the states write."

    Maybe. But he went and got the legislation from the Hill to comply with the Court. His actions count more than some dismissive comment.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Clif said "But why allow one of the three branches of the Government to operate in the very mode that the founding fathers thought it should, after all you as clowns have gutted habeas corpus which the founding fathers thought SO important they PUT it in the constitution, not just a written law."


    exactly Clif, thats the crux of the whole argument, The Constitution is the Supreme law of the land and supercedes ALL other laws including the halfwit "DECIDER"

    ReplyDelete
  106. Yo Tiny Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka 1954 was a revisit of Plessy v. Ferguson, 1898, and both were RULINGS about laws whicgh a state legislature had written...NUMBNUTS

    ReplyDelete
  107. A stupid man said "Maybe. But he went and got the legislation from the Hill to comply with the Court. His actions count more than some dismissive comment."

    He tried to circumvent the Constitution and the Geneva Convention fool,we'll just see how well that plays out when you buffoons lose Congress!

    ReplyDelete
  108. So IDIOT the Idiot in chief asked the congress to over-rule the constitution?

    well he did not follow the rules written in the constitution to do it.

    ReplyDelete
  109. TalllTexan said...
    " That became the law of the land

    The operative word here being "BECAME".

    Just because the supreme court rules on something doesn't mean its law. If it were, then their recent ruling against the presidents secret tribunals would've ended the matter there.

    You should take your own advice on the hole digging thing.

    ReplyDelete
  110. And Fart-for-Brains it is the supreme courts JOB to call both congress and the president (even if he is an idiot) on violations of the constitution.

    ReplyDelete
  111. See the ONLY Job they have is DEFEND the constitution......and make sure what both the federal and state governments do..conform to it.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Mike said...
    I worked for a lawfirm in Houston, and Troll Tex is basically correct in what he has said tonight, asmuch as I hate to utter those words.


    Well ok, but I still disagree.

    The legislative branch is responsbile for making or "adopting" law. The Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of a given bill, act or code.

    While I see that can be construed as part of the law making process, which it is, their role is not defined as such in our governmental system, at least not in my PolySci 101 classes.

    But I can agree to disagree on this semantical debate, and move forward.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Clif said "See the ONLY Job they have is DEFEND the constitution......and make sure what both the federal and state governments do..conform to it."

    Basically yes, so lets just hope they do their job and clip the "DECIDER;S" wings and send the fool packing with the helpof the democratic Congress.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Hey Tiny,

    John McCain said...

    ...he would commit suicide if the democrats win in November,

    wanna sign on TOO?

    ReplyDelete
  115. I think we can all agree that the greatest fear of our founding fathers was an executive run amuk.

    That was the whole purpose of the extensive divisions in government, and was refelected in most of their writings.

    The executive run amuk is the worst nightmare of a republic, just as it was in ancient Rome.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Worf, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter and interpreter of what is legal /illegal and constitutional / unconstitutional.

    In the final analysis, Bush respectec the Court's decision and worked with Congress to develop a constitutional way to interrogate illegal combatants. He respected the Court.

    And, by the way, the gravaman of he Court's decision was that the tribunals and method's of interrogation must not have been a product solely of the chief executive. It must be legislation passed by Congress and signed by the president.

    Bush then went to Congress to be in compliance. That's hardly defiance the Supreme Court.

    ReplyDelete
  117. TalllTexan said...
    Worf, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter and interpreter of what is legal /illegal and constitutional / unconstitutional.


    And you will be hardpressed to produce a passage where I said otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  118. NO TINY thre idiot did not respect the constitution because habeus corpus IS written into the fabrisc of it, so to change it TAKES a constitutional amendment, not just a STUPID repug law.


    ANYTHING else is simply

    UNCONSTITUTIONAL

    and being unconstitutional is disrespecting it.

    ReplyDelete
  119. But honestly TT, as much as I am sure you would like a 300 post semantical debate on the nature of the Judiciary as opposed to the Legislature, here on a night where ALL THREE NETWORK NEWS CHANNELS revealed new STAGGERING numbers on the absolute disgust of Americans with the republicans in congress, and in the White House.

    I am sure with major losses in Iraq, the new reports coming out calling for a withdrawal, you'd like to debate endless minutia with me, hours on end, but I'd rather talk about the poll numbers.

    Cause they're hilarious.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Keith Olbermann has already outdone himself, and he is not finished yet....

    ReplyDelete
  121. Worf said "Well ok, but I still disagree.

    The legislative branch is responsbile for making or "adopting" law. The Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of a given bill, act or code.

    While I see that can be construed as part of the law making process, which it is, their role is not defined as such in our governmental system, at least not in my PolySci 101 classes.

    But I can agree to disagree on this semantical debate, and move forward."

    I can also agree with what your saying as well and move on, your basically right, the Supreme Courts job is basically to interpret and defend the Constitution and the Constitutionality of specific laws and court decisions of the lower courts,and the founding fathers did not I believe intend for it to formally make lawsas the legislative branch does, but through its interpretation of the Constitution and it being the court of last resort, its decisions are a quasi form of lawknown as prescedent that influence the decisions of the lower court as well as the legislative decisions of the legislative branch and the actions of the Executive Branch, its part of the checks and balances, see if Congress keepsmaking laws the Supreme Court rules unconstitutional they will eventually have to revise that law to adhere to the constitution,same with the lower courts, if they keepruling on laws unconstitutionally and the Supreme Court keeps overturning there decisions, it will eventually reflect poorly on them and force them to bend to the will of the Constitution.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Oh and BTW TT.

    The other day I posted in the previous blog that the reality was, that for any real stability in Iraq we would need to forgive the insurgents.

    I said until there was some sort of pardon for the insurgents, we will never have stability in Iraq.

    Well I guess Donald Rumsfeld, or someone who works with him reads this blog.

    Because 3 days later, Donald Rumsfeld himself, said on camera, that there would "have to be some sort of clemency for the insurgency" in order to bring this thing to a close.

    Chalk another one up for worfeus.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Damn Clif. I just turned it on when I read that and he was just saying good night.

    Have to catch the rerun in an hour or so.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Lying Texan said "In the final analysis, Bush respectec the Court's decision and worked with Congress to develop a constitutional way to interrogate illegal combatants. He respected the Court."

    BS, Troll Tex,he completely disrespercted the Supreme Court and THe Constitution by trying to pull an end around and circumvent the Constitution by getting his rubberstamping enabler congress to push through what HE WANTED, despite it being unconstitutional.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Keith asked the rtight question at the end...

    What does enemy combatant George walker bush say to president Hillary Clinton when she sends his sorry ass off to gitmo?



    I do not want Bush to have the power,

    I do not want Clinton to have such power,

    I do not want ANY president to have such unchecked power

    ReplyDelete
  126. Mike said,\"BS, Troll Tex,he completely disrespercted the Supreme Court and THe Constitution by trying to pull an end around and circumvent the Constitution by getting his rubberstamping enabler congress to push through what HE WANTED, despite it being unconstitutional.

    6:07 PM"

    and the Supreme Court will so declare, if that's case.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Right tiny, the supreme court will put the idiot back in his little sand box and tell him to play nice AGAIN

    ReplyDelete
  128. Exactly Clif!

    Its not a matter of us not wanting Bush to have this power. Its a matter of ANY President having this level of unchecked power.

    Its not a partisan thing. Its an American thing.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Worfeus I do not want to have THAT power, because it would become tempting, way to tempting to silence a very vocal minority when what they were saying was politically incorrect at the time BUT moral correct for all times.

    ReplyDelete
  130. TT said;

    and the Supreme Court will so declare, if that's case.

    Well, I'm not up on why but apparently its not expected to make it to the Supreme Court again.

    Whatever happens one things for sure. When decent people take over Congress it will get repealed.

    ReplyDelete
  131. Worfeus, unless a law is enacted in some form, NOT just on paper, and only then can it be challanged.

    And after this election Bush may not have the freedoms to actually use the law, especially with in the US.

    to try to do so would proly be political suicide for the repugs, because if anything was wrong in the case they choose to enact it, they would be vilified by both progressives and libretarians.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Worf said: "Well, I'm not up on why but apparently its not expected to make it to the Supreme Court again."

    Why not. I'm sure some ACLU lawyer will figure out a way to get the new law before the Court.

    ReplyDelete
  133. You must have standing in a court of law to challange a law, and that is why Habeus corpus was SO important, because it gave everyone who was charged with a standing to challange the charge itself rapidly.

    Right NOW there is ONE person who was picked up in the post 9-11 sweeps who is still behind bars and never charged with any crimes.

    He is supposedly an illegal alien, and never been charged withj any crime but he has already served 5 yeasr behind bars.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Worf said "Well, I'm not up on why but apparently its not expected to make it to the Supreme Court again.

    Whatever happens one things for sure. When decent people take over Congress it will get repealed."

    Amen to that!

    ReplyDelete
  135. Tiny I do not care if a KKK lawyer gets it there this LAW needs the review of the Supreme Court.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Why is it that all the incompetent buffoons are always the megalomaniacs that crave absolute power?

    ReplyDelete
  137. and tiny moron, the aCLU is simply defending people who do not have million dollar lawyer departments to take on the government.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Hey TT still wanna offer that original bet, I could use a downpayment on a new car or a tropical vacation this winter?

    ReplyDelete
  139. TT had better read talkingpointsmemo first, some polls in NY have quite a few repugs losing MORE ground and they were already behind.

    ReplyDelete
  140. And Ohio with coingate, Bob Ney, and a criminal repug governour, is in worse shape for the repugs than even NY is right now.

    ReplyDelete
  141. Ohio would have been a disaster for the repugs even before Foley screwed them, hope he kissed them like the Idiot kissed Joe Loserman.

    ReplyDelete
  142. It is actually funny, the repugs based their strategy on a southern state base and are reduced to defending senatorial seats in VA, Tenn and MO to try and keep control in the senate, and have already proly lost the house, and the whole north east and west coast. Even the mountain states look weak for them.

    ReplyDelete
  143. Well, Mike both bets were that the loser donate to the DNC or the RNC, so that would't help you too much with a vaction.

    That said, I still think the House is too close to call (but don't underestimate Rove's ground game in Missouri, Tennesee, and Ohio), but I still think we retain control of the Senate.

    ReplyDelete
  144. US President George W. Bush for the first time acknowledged a possible parallel between the raging violence in Iraq and the Vietnam War.

    Bush was asked in an ABC News interview if he agreed with a New York Times columnist's comparison of the strife in Iraq with the Tet offensive, which is considered a key turning point in the US war in Vietnam.

    "He could be right," he said. "There's certainly a stepped up level of violence."


    Bush may finally have realised that Iraq is a mess, as big a mess as Vietnam was for the country, but from a military standpoint there is a better analogy;

    Stalingrad

    Where a commander in chief sent in an entire army and stubbornly made it stay until it was so broke it became militarily uncombat ready.

    Hopefully this commander in chief will withdraw it before this military falls fate to the same end that befell the Army lost at Stalingrad.

    ReplyDelete
  145. TalllTexan said...


    Why not. I'm sure some ACLU lawyer will figure out a way to get the new law before the Court.


    We can only hope.

    ReplyDelete
  146. TT said;

    but I still think we retain control of the Senate.


    In your dreams.

    ReplyDelete
  147. Oh wait. You live down south, thats right.

    You're banking on the Gerrymandering to retain your control of the senate.

    I forgot to factor in deceit and corruption.

    ReplyDelete
  148. Still, with 57 percent of the country saying they will vote Democrat this fall, I don't know....

    Even with the Gerrymandered districts you might fine a surprise,as your own party explains to you what a 16 percent approval rating means.

    ReplyDelete
  149. Worfeus funny you mentioned deciet, in Orange county the GOP is mailing letters to hispanic voters attempting to frighten them from voting, the ONLY problem with the MORONS who ran the operation, they mailed a letter to one of the canidade because he has a hispanic name.

    So he has time to counter the attgempt BY the GOP to supress the vote.

    ReplyDelete
  150. I'll bet TT see's NOTHING with trying to intimidate a voter to KEEP them from voting.

    ReplyDelete
  151. Or scrubbing the rolls like katherine Harris did in 2000, and Ken Blackwell did in 2004 and may have just done Oct 1st this year

    ReplyDelete
  152. TT proly sucks up to the Rove mantra anything jusy to win.

    ReplyDelete
  153. From Crooksandliars;

    We have lived as if in a trance. We have lived… as people in fear.

    And now — our rights and our freedoms in peril — we slowly awake to learn that we have been afraid… of the wrong thing.

    Therefore, tonight, have we truly become, the inheritors of our American legacy. For, on this first full day that the Military Commissions Act is in force, we now face what our ancestors faced, at other times of exaggerated crisis and melodramatic fear-mongering:

    And lastly, as promised, a Special Comment tonight on the signing of the Military Commissions Act and the loss of Habeas Corpus.

    We have lived as if in a trance.

    We have lived… as people in fear.

    And now — our rights and our freedoms in peril — we slowly awake to learn that we have been afraid… of the wrong thing.

    Therefore, tonight, have we truly become, the inheritors of our American legacy.

    For, on this first full day that the Military Commissions Act is in force, we now face what our ancestors faced, at other times of exaggerated crisis and melodramatic fear-mongering:

    A government more dangerous to our liberty, than is the enemy it claims to protect us from.

    We have been here before — and we have been here before led here — by men better and wiser and nobler than George W. Bush.

    We have been here when President John Adams insisted that the Alien and Sedition Acts were necessary to save American lives — only to watch him use those Acts to jail newspaper editors.

    American newspaper editors, in American jails, for things they wrote, about America.

    We have been here, when President Woodrow Wilson insisted that the Espionage Act was necessary to save American lives — only to watch him use that Act to prosecute 2,000 Americans, especially those he disparaged as "Hyphenated Americans," most of whom were guilty only of advocating peace in a time of war.

    American public speakers, in American jails, for things they said, about America.

    And we have been here when President Franklin D. Roosevelt insisted that Executive Order 9-0-6-6 was necessary to save American lives — only to watch him use that Order to imprison and pauperize 110-thousand Americans…

    While his man-in-charge…

    General DeWitt, told Congress: "It makes no difference whether he is an American citizen — he is still a Japanese."

    American citizens, in American camps, for something they neither wrote nor said nor did — but for the choices they or their ancestors had made, about coming to America.

    Each of these actions was undertaken for the most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.

    And each, was a betrayal of that for which the President who advocated them, claimed to be fighting.

    Adams and his party were swept from office, and the Alien and Sedition Acts erased.

    Many of the very people Wilson silenced, survived him, and…

    …one of them even ran to succeed him, and got 900-thousand votes… though his Presidential campaign was conducted entirely… from his jail cell.

    And Roosevelt's internment of the Japanese was not merely the worst blight on his record, but it would necessitate a formal apology from the government of the United States, to the citizens of the United States, whose lives it ruined.

    The most vital… the most urgent… the most inescapable of reasons.

    In times of fright, we have been, only human.

    We have let Roosevelt's "fear of fear itself" overtake us.

    We have listened to the little voice inside that has said "the wolf is at the door; this will be temporary; this will be precise; this too shall pass."

    We have accepted, that the only way to stop the terrorists, is to let the government become just a little bit like the terrorists.

    Just the way we once accepted that the only way to stop the Soviets, was to let the government become just a little bit like the Soviets.

    Or substitute… the Japanese.

    Or the Germans.

    Or the Socialists.

    Or the Anarchists.

    Or the Immigrants.

    Or the British.

    Or the Aliens.

    The most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.

    And, always, always… wrong.

    "With the distance of history, the questions will be narrowed and few: Did this generation of Americans take the threat seriously, and did we do what it takes to defeat that threat?"

    Wise words.

    And ironic ones, Mr. Bush.

    Your own, of course, yesterday, in signing the Military Commissions Act.

    You spoke so much more than you know, Sir.

    Sadly — of course — the distance of history will recognize that the threat this generation of Americans needed to take seriously… was you.

    We have a long and painful history of ignoring the prophecy attributed to Benjamin Franklin that "those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    But even within this history, we have not before codified, the poisoning of Habeas Corpus, that wellspring of protection from which all essential liberties flow.

    You, sir, have now befouled that spring.

    You, sir, have now given us chaos and called it order.

    You, sir, have now imposed subjugation and called it freedom.

    For the most vital… the most urgent… the most inescapable of reasons.

    And — again, Mr. Bush — all of them, wrong.

    We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who has said it is unacceptable to compare anything this country has ever done, to anything the terrorists have ever done.

    We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who has insisted again that "the United States does not torture. It's against our laws and it's against our values" and who has said it with a straight face while the pictures from Abu Ghraib Prison and the stories of Waterboarding figuratively fade in and out, around him.

    We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who may now, if he so decides, declare not merely any non-American citizens "Unlawful Enemy Combatants" and ship them somewhere — anywhere — but may now, if he so decides, declare you an "Unlawful Enemy Combatant" and ship you somewhere - anywhere.

    And if you think this, hyperbole or hysteria… ask the newspaper editors when John Adams was President, or the pacifists when Woodrow Wilson was President, or the Japanese at Manzanar when Franklin Roosevelt was President.

    And if you somehow think Habeas Corpus has not been suspended for American citizens but only for everybody else, ask yourself this: If you are pulled off the street tomorrow, and they call you an alien or an undocumented immigrant or an "unlawful enemy combatant" — exactly how are you going to convince them to give you a court hearing to prove you are not? Do you think this Attorney General is going to help you?

    This President now has his blank check.

    He lied to get it.

    He lied as he received it.

    Is there any reason to even hope, he has not lied about how he intends to use it, nor who he intends to use it against?

    "These military commissions will provide a fair trial," you told us yesterday, Mr. Bush. "In which the accused are presumed innocent, have access to an attorney, and can hear all the evidence against them."

    'Presumed innocent,' Mr. Bush?

    The very piece of paper you signed as you said that, allows for the detainees to be abused up to the point just before they sustain "serious mental and physical trauma" in the hope of getting them to incriminate themselves, and may no longer even invoke The Geneva Conventions in their own defense.

    'Access to an attorney,' Mr. Bush?

    Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift said on this program, Sir, and to the Supreme Court, that he was only granted access to his detainee defendant, on the promise that the detainee would plead guilty.

    'Hearing all the evidence,' Mr. Bush?

    The Military Commissions act specifically permits the introduction of classified evidence not made available to the defense.

    Your words are lies, Sir.

    They are lies, that imperil us all.

    "One of the terrorists believed to have planned the 9/11 attacks," …you told us yesterday… "said he hoped the attacks would be the beginning of the end of America."

    That terrorist, sir, could only hope.

    Not his actions, nor the actions of a ceaseless line of terrorists (real or imagined), could measure up to what you have wrought.

    Habeas Corpus? Gone.

    The Geneva Conventions? Optional.

    The Moral Force we shined outwards to the world as an eternal beacon, and inwards at ourselves as an eternal protection? Snuffed out.

    These things you have done, Mr. Bush… they would be "the beginning of the end of America."

    And did it even occur to you once sir — somewhere in amidst those eight separate, gruesome, intentional, terroristic invocations of the horrors of 9/11 — that with only a little further shift in this world we now know — just a touch more repudiation of all of that for which our patriots died —

    Did it ever occur to you once, that in just 27 months and two days from now when you leave office, some irresponsible future President and a "competent tribunal" of lackeys would be entitled, by the actions of your own hand, to declare the status of "Unlawful Enemy Combatant" for… and convene a Military Commission to try… not John Walker Lindh, but George Walker Bush?

    For the most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.

    And doubtless, sir, all of them — as always — wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  154. That 7:30 post was great Clif.

    ReplyDelete
  155. Thgat was one of the best Keith olbermann has done, he nailed it at the end, Bush, or any of the repug minions in congress could fall victim to this very law, and they would have NO recourse.

    ReplyDelete
  156. Its so unbelievable that guys like TT, who sound so smart, can be so stupid.

    Don't they realize that these very laws can, and most likely, will be used against them or someone they know, by someone down the road.

    One things for sure. Once the power is there, someones going to use it. Even if you're a pinhead who believes that Bush never would misuse his power, any intelligent person would be worried the someone down the road would.

    Our entire country was established so this couldn't happen, and President Bush has wiped that out with the stroke of his pen.

    ReplyDelete
  157. Here is Juan Cole's take on it.


    Bush and a supine, cowardly Congress shredded the US Constitution on Tuesday, abolishing the right of a court review (habeas corpus) for some classes of suspect. Suspect, mind you, not proven criminal.

    In other words, we have to be confident that George W. Bush is so competent, all-knowing, and inherently just that we can just trust him. If he says someone is an enemy combatant, then he or she is. No need to check with a judge about why he or she is being held. And then Bush can have the suspect tortured to make him confess, and can convict him on the basis of the coerced confession, all in secret.

    This law creates two classes of persons inside the United States, citizens with rights and non-citizens (12 million persons? Equivalent to the entire state of Michigan!) without rights.

    Basically, Bush can issue them what the French kings used to call lettres de cachet.:

    ' In French history, lettres de cachet were letters signed by the king of France, countersigned by one of his ministers, and closed with the royal seal, or cachet. They contained orders directly from the king, often to enforce arbitrary actions and judgements that could not be appealed. . .'

    We Americans made a revolution against such arbitrary practices of the French and other Empires.

    Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution says, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

    I look out my window. I don't see a general Rebellion or an invasion by a foreign power. The conditions, under which the right of the imprisoned to demand that a court establish whether there are genuine grounds to hold him is suspended, are absent.

    The law is unconstitutional.

    Moreover, our founding documents did not admit of a distinction among human beings with regard to rights. The Declaration of Independence says:

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

    All men here means all human beings. It says they are all created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights. All of them. Not some of them.

    Of course we have had these periods of neo-Monarchy and temporary insanity before in our history. There was the Alien and Sedition Act, and the Red Scare after World War I, etc.

    King George came on O'Reilly and said that it is "illogical" to disagree with his policies in Iraq and branded arguments that he is drifting along without a plan "propaganda."

    Bush sounds more and more like the Borg every day. I swear to God, next we are going to get up in the morning and hear him proclaim, "Resistance is futile!"

    So of course eventually Bush-think will lead to attempts to cure those of us who are critical of him of our illogicality, and to suppress our "propaganda." We'll all be right-thinking non-propagandists after a little water-boarding. You say we don't have to worry about that because we are citizens? But what is to stop Bush from declaring you an enemy combatant and stripping you of your citizenship? And then keeping you away from any civil court where those letters of cachet can be challenged?

    The Republic is Dead, Long Live the Republic.

    You want a resurrection of the Republic?

    Join the American Civil Liberties Union and send it lots of money.

    ReplyDelete
  158. David Kuo on the Colbert Report is sounding like us here on this blog,

    Basically Jesus is NOT a republican.

    ReplyDelete
  159. Yea I saw that Clif. I've seen him a lot over the last week or so.

    Funny thing is, hes a Christian Conservative, and a republican.

    And his message?

    JESUS DIDN"T HIRE BUSH!!!

    ReplyDelete
  160. I like when he says Bush is the commander in chief,

    NOT

    The pastor in Chief.......

    ReplyDelete
  161. Ok I just saw Olbermans special comment and you're right Clif.

    He nailed it.

    ReplyDelete
  162. Worfeus, I am finding THIS floating around the net......

    ReplyDelete
  163. I would say that the House Republicans seem to have their act together about as well as the Three Stooges....

    but I don't want to insult the fine memory of Moe, Larry, Curly or Shemp!

    by Ranting Roland


    Best comment about the repug meltdown yet.

    ReplyDelete
  164. Another one;

    The DNC is running of of pledges,

    while the RNC is running out of pages!

    by Ranting Roland

    ReplyDelete
  165. Dude they better pray this ones a dud.

    ReplyDelete
  166. I dont know because he is the congressman married to the Guatemalan congress lady.

    Yes HE is a member of the US congress and she is the daughter of a dictator from the 1980's atrocities and a member of the Guatemalan Congress.

    And I have heard rumors around the net another page scandal was coming.

    but I figgered it would be another repug false story to try to take heat off them for the Foley mes.

    If true Hastert is DONE, and the repugs are gonna HATE November.

    We will know in a couple of days...proly friday around 4pm(like tyhey tried with Foley), like that is gonna take the sting out of this story.

    ReplyDelete
  167. "and tiny moron, the aCLU is simply defending people who do not have million dollar lawyer departments to take on the government."
    -Cliffy

    The ACLU was founded in the 1920s by Roger Baldwin and Crystal Eastman, described as a "progressive" and "the perfect feminist."
    Earl Browder was general secretary of the Communist Party of the United States from 1930 through its dissolution in 1944. When the party was reconstituted as the Communist Political Association later that year, Browder was chosen as its president. Browder proudly proclaimed that the ACLU functioned as "a transmission belt" for the party.


    And besides all that, Cliffy I KNOW how much you guys HATE child molesters who pick on little boys and simply WOULD NOT support a group that is defending NAMBLA members...
    (I don't recall the part in the constitution where it says it's OK to keep and distribute child porn)

    ReplyDelete
  168. Here is one place....

    I wonder if this is the repug that Dana Preist was talking about on Olberman's show last night having a heterosexual relationship with a 16 year old female page.

    At least the repugs will NOT be able to spin it as a gay problem if true but a real sicko in the GOP again....go figure.

    ReplyDelete
  169. And this from Think Progress

    Milbank: ‘There Are Rumors About A Third [Page Scandal], This One Involving A 16-Year-Old Girl’

    Last night on MSNBC, Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank told Keith Olbermann that “there are rumors now about a third [page scandal], this one involving a 16-year-old girl.”

    Milbank later noted that “political news is starting to sound more and more like you’re reading the police blotter, with Ney last week, the eighth guilty plea or conviction in the Abramoff case, piled on top of Scooter Libby and Tom DeLay and Curt Weldon. It goes on and on. And, of course, the punchline is that President Bush has declared this to be National Character Counts Week.” Watch it:

    ReplyDelete
  170. "Worfeus, I am finding THIS floating around the net......"
    -cliffy

    Looks like you found it "floating" in that toilet bowl called DailyKOS...

    Eat 'em up...yum, yum...

    LOL

    ReplyDelete
  171. Numbnuts it Ain't just there son, it is quite a few places.

    That was the easiest blog to read about it.

    ReplyDelete
  172. BTW if it pans out this picture is gonna be all over the net and MSM.

    Since they used it in this Wednesday's edition, maybe somebody there has heard the rumors also?

    ReplyDelete
  173. yeah Clif but the statute of limitations ran out on that crime, and the guy is too old for it to ruin his carreer and reputation, so he and Foley have nothing to lose and the repugs will say that since the statute of limitations ran out and he cant be CONVICTED that he did nothing wrong just like Troll Tex defends Nixon like resigning to avoid being impeached and removed from office is a badge of honor some how better than being a man and sticking it out and being found worthy of remaining our commander in chief like the Senate found Bill Clinton.

    ReplyDelete
  174. Worf said "Its so unbelievable that guys like TT, who sound so smart, can be so stupid.

    Don't they realize that these very laws can, and most likely, will be used against them or someone they know, by someone down the road.

    One things for sure. Once the power is there, someones going to use it. Even if you're a pinhead who believes that Bush never would misuse his power, any intelligent person would be worried the someone down the road would.

    Our entire country was established so this couldn't happen, and President Bush has wiped that out with the stroke of his pen."

    Well Worf your alone and out on a limb on this one, although for once TT said something that made sense and wasnt a lie or riddulous, saying he sounds smart is more than a stretch, as outside of Rusty he's probably one of the bumbest trolls here.

    ReplyDelete
  175. Mike it ain't about Foley, but a NEW guy...repug guy that is.

    The Pic is the two of them together, read the Daily Kos story, it explains it all.

    ReplyDelete
  176. BTW go here, and try to get Il-11 to come up, all the rest work FINE other states.........

    ReplyDelete
  177. Gary,
    I would expect to see the American casualties stay constant or even rise until the end of Ramadan. I thought the American Taliban was bad, these guys are crazy and stupid. One blew his arm off yesterday trying to throw a grenade out of a car window. I have to tell you I laughed so hard I had tears coming down my face when I read that. It's like watching the Keystone Cops.

    On another note I'm pretty pissed. We do convoy security so we have to travel to other FOBs and stay overnight, on occasion. Well, the housing problem is so bad that my guys cant even get a place to sleep and on top of that they wouldnt have beds to give them if there was a physical location for them to sleep. It's bullshit 3 1/2 years into this disaster and we cant get cots and a fucking tent. They want to add more troops but where in fuck are they going to put them. I guess they'll just have to sleep in their vehicles for their 14 month extended deployment in the most volatile region in Iraq. I know the leadership is probably doing everything in their power to address this situation, but if you cant house us then dont send us.

    Also I received Iraq for Sale yesterday and watched it. I guess I'm going to have to have myself tested for parasites. I just wish they would have gone into detail on which ones. I know we have a preventetive medicine team with our brigade and they test the water after it gets deposited into the dispensing containers often, but they cant be everywhere all the time.

    ReplyDelete
  178. Oh yeah just finished reading Fiasco yesterday. It seems the military has learned from its mistakes and this fantastic beauracracy has already adapted and corrected issues in training and conducting COIN opertions. It seems the only people that havent learned from their mistakes are the only people unwilling to admit they made them. Elbow, elbow, nudge, nudge.
    I've been in Iraq so long that they are talking about operations my brigade participated in when we first arrived in theater in Tall Afar in January in a book that's already published. That's strange. It's strange to read books about history and actually have been a part of it. It's kind of surreal.

    ReplyDelete
  179. Riverbend is alive, she posted on her blog Baghdad Burning yesterday.

    ReplyDelete
  180. Worf, TT, Mike,
    I'm glad you had your legal debate for whatever reasons as it has helped me learn a LOT more about how your legal system works, this has allowed me to draw my own conclusions, thanks.

    Clif, Keith Olberman ROCKS!

    Tom,
    he blew his own arm off? Idiot!
    I think the modern talibangelicals are not as courageous as the talibans, that's for sure. But I wouldn't stereotype all the taliban as idiots, they've kicked Brit butt several times before and they're doing it again. I've read reports of what Brit troops are going through in Hellmand province. One soldier physically crapped his pants getting off a helicopter when he saw his friends run into a "wall of lead". It was that bad. On many occasions, our troops there have run out of ammunition and food for several days, not just a single day, because the taliban cut off supplies. Not a single bullet left. This is what really pisses me off because we should all be in AFGHANISTAN AND SAUDI ARABIA, not bloody Iraq in the first place!!!!!!!!

    Not that I blame you, please don't think that. As for you being upset too, your comments remind me of the writings by Spike Milligan. I don't know if you've ever heard of him, he was one of our greatest comedians and suffered really badly in World War II. He was injured by a mortar bomb while climbing an exposed slope which the Germans could see over. He then suffered a complete mental breakdown which haunted him for the rest of his life.

    He often wrote in a dual way: extremes of joy and humour (I think to try to cope with the awful stress) often directed at one upmanship over his officers and terrible anger/saddness at the folly of superiors.

    The way things are going in the West, I think there may not be so many extra troops sent, or if they are, not for long. The rethugs are getting wiped out in the polls and the numbers are getting worse the nearer the elections become. If there's one topic the Dems are going to win on, it's Iraq.

    As for water, the technical term for microbes you don't want in water is 'Waterborne Pathogens'. One of the most common organisms my staff find (that you don't want) is called Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Not very nice if you slash water containing this in your eyes, it will give you conjunctivitis.

    From a drinking water perspective, watch out for 'dechlorinated water' as dechlorination is great for removing tainted tastes from the water, but it also removes the chemical agents that suppress microbial growth. Then you can isolate Escherichia coli, Salmonella typhimurium, Shigella, Campylobacter and a host of other nasties that are non-bacterial contamination e.g. protozoa (Toxoplasma) and viruses (Hepatitis A) but protozoa, Giardia and viruses in drinking water are EXTREME.
    Look up a medical site if you suspect you ar your friends are suffering from any of these, each infection causes different symptoms and have different cures.

    People don't realise when they filter water and keep it in the fridge for several days they are risking it.
    Basically, bugs grow if they have three things, food, water, warmth. Cut one off and they don't grow. If you can't cut one of these off, then add chemicals e.g. chlorine, especially if you're somewhere hot and sunny!

    What does FOBs mean?

    ReplyDelete
  181. oh man, I never thought I'd say it but I'm so glad your economy is in the U-bend.

    I just ordered series One of TCFC and it only cost me £20 including shipping costs! That's sod all! I can't buy a pair of good socks for that!

    How about this for a suggestion, if you guys want to improve your reputation around the world, vote REPUBLICAN. As John Cleese said, "Just don't mention the war".
    :D

    p.s. I'm glad I'm not an exporter to the U.S, do you have to pay like $100 just for a small wedge of Wensleydale cheese?
    :D

    ReplyDelete
  182. It seems there are going to be problems at some polling stations From the NYT;
    WASHINGTON: New electronic voting machines have arrived in Yolo County, Calif., but there is one hitch: The audio program for the visually impaired in some of them works only in Vietnamese.

    "We've got new laws, new technology, heightened partisanship and a growing involvement of lawyers in the voting process," said Tova Wang, who studies elections for the Century Foundation, a nonpartisan research group. "We also have the greatest potential for problems in more places next month than in any voting season before."



    Well, if you speak Vietnamese you can still vote. This is like the Blind Association of the Vietnamese having to speak English during an election while the rest of the Vietcong are invading Alaska to protect Israel and steal it's oil.

    I don't know whether to laugh or cry

    ReplyDelete
  183. Gary,
    FOB=Forward Operating Base
    It's connotation would suggest that it is pretty small and in the middle of nowhere. Not true. Some of these things are absolutely humongous. The size of medium American cities but with less people.
    I know I'm probably going to get this wrong but when we were in Kuwait we were instructed on latest enemy tactics by a member of the Elite Scottish Guard???? Or Highland Guard??? It was just really cool getting to work with another country's military and realize how we are much more similar than we are different. I worked with the Japanese in Okinawa and it was the same thing. Your guys are a little more relaxed and laid back though. He was sergeant major with a thick accent, we could barely understand him most of the time. I'm sure the same was true for him and some of our more southern rooted soldiers.

    ReplyDelete
  184. Worf said "Its so unbelievable that guys like TT, who sound so smart, can be so stupid.

    Don't they realize that these very laws can, and most likely, will be used against them or someone they know, by someone down the road.

    One things for sure. Once the power is there, someones going to use it. Even if you're a pinhead who believes that Bush never would misuse his power, any intelligent person would be worried the someone down the road would.

    Our entire country was established so this couldn't happen, and President Bush has wiped that out with the stroke of his pen."

    Well Worf your alone and out on a limb on this one, although for once TT said something that made sense and wasnt a lie or riddiculous, saying he sounds smart is more than a stretch, as outside of Rusty and Johnny he's probably one of the dumbest trolls here.

    ReplyDelete
  185. From RiverBends blog
    http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

    Baghdad Burning


    ... I'll meet you 'round the bend my friend, where hearts can heal and souls can mend...

    Wednesday, October 18, 2006

    The Lancet Study...

    This has been the longest time I have been away from blogging. There were several reasons for my disappearance the major one being the fact that every time I felt the urge to write about Iraq, about the situation, I'd be filled with a certain hopelessness that can't be put into words and that I suspect other Iraqis feel also.


    It's very difficult at this point to connect to the internet and try to read the articles written by so-called specialists and analysts and politicians. They write about and discuss Iraq as I might write about the Ivory Coast or Cambodia- with a detachment and lack of sentiment that- I suppose- is meant to be impartial. Hearing American politicians is even worse. They fall between idiots like Bush- constantly and totally in denial, and opportunists who want to use the war and ensuing chaos to promote themselves.


    The latest horror is the study published in the Lancet Journal concluding that over 600,000 Iraqis have been killed since the war. Reading about it left me with mixed feelings. On the one hand, it sounded like a reasonable figure. It wasn't at all surprising. On the other hand, I so wanted it to be wrong. But... who to believe? Who to believe....? American politicians... or highly reputable scientists using a reliable scientific survey technique?


    The responses were typical- war supporters said the number was nonsense because, of course, who would want to admit that an action they so heartily supported led to the deaths of 600,000 people (even if they were just crazy Iraqis…)? Admitting a number like that would be the equivalent of admitting they had endorsed, say, a tsunami, or an earthquake with a magnitude of 9 on the Richter scale, or the occupation of a developing country by a ruthless superpower… oh wait- that one actually happened. Is the number really that preposterous? Thousands of Iraqis are dying every month- that is undeniable. And yes, they are dying as a direct result of the war and occupation (very few of them are actually dying of bliss, as war-supporters and Puppets would have you believe).


    For American politicians and military personnel, playing dumb and talking about numbers of bodies in morgues and official statistics, etc, seems to be the latest tactic. But as any Iraqi knows, not every death is being reported. As for getting reliable numbers from the Ministry of Health or any other official Iraqi institution, that's about as probable as getting a coherent, grammatically correct sentence from George Bush- especially after the ministry was banned from giving out correct mortality numbers. So far, the only Iraqis I know pretending this number is outrageous are either out-of-touch Iraqis abroad who supported the war, or Iraqis inside of the country who are directly benefiting from the occupation ($) and likely living in the Green Zone.


    The chaos and lack of proper facilities is resulting in people being buried without a trip to the morgue or the hospital. During American military attacks on cities like Samarra and Fallujah, victims were buried in their gardens or in mass graves in football fields. Or has that been forgotten already?


    We literally do not know a single Iraqi family that has not seen the violent death of a first or second-degree relative these last three years. Abductions, militias, sectarian violence, revenge killings, assassinations, car-bombs, suicide bombers, American military strikes, Iraqi military raids, death squads, extremists, armed robberies, executions, detentions, secret prisons, torture, mysterious weapons – with so many different ways to die, is the number so far fetched?


    There are Iraqi women who have not shed their black mourning robes since 2003 because each time the end of the proper mourning period comes around, some other relative dies and the countdown begins once again.


    Let's pretend the 600,000+ number is all wrong and that the minimum is the correct number: nearly 400,000. Is that better? Prior to the war, the Bush administration kept claiming that Saddam killed 300,000 Iraqis over 24 years. After this latest report published in The Lancet, 300,000 is looking quite modest and tame. Congratulations Bush et al.


    Everyone knows the 'official numbers' about Iraqi deaths as a direct result of the war and occupation are far less than reality (yes- even you war hawks know this, in your minuscule heart of hearts). This latest report is probably closer to the truth than anything that's been published yet. And what about American military deaths? When will someone do a study on the actual number of those? If the Bush administration is lying so vehemently about the number of dead Iraqis, one can only imagine the extent of lying about dead Americans…


    - posted by river @ 11:35 PM

    ReplyDelete
  186. Mikey,Mikey,Mikey you rascal.Did you call Johnnie and ole Rusty dumb?How would Mikey guage dumb?Are we dumb because we dont think Lydia is the best actress going?Are we dumb because we dont think her old show was the best sitcom ever?Are we dumb because we dont agree with you and the other code pink boys?Are we dumb because we dont still live with our parents?Are we dumb because we continue to piss you wizards off and you've got no come back except to cry to Lydia to ban us?

    ReplyDelete
  187. Mikey,if mummys little poopsie is an extra good boy today maybe she'll make you some tomato soup and a grilled cheese sandwich....emmmm yummy.

    ReplyDelete
  188. Can you believe it!!!!! The DOW is over 12,000 today...the first time in history!!! People are investing...do tax cuts really work? Looks like it.Raise your hand if your making money in the market.

    ReplyDelete
  189. election scorecard: Where the elections stand today.
    Election Scorecard
    Where the midterm elections stand today.
    By Mark Blumenthal and Charles Franklin
    Updated Wednesday, Oct. 18, 2006, at 6:31 PM ET


    Which party would control the U.S. Senate if the election were held today? The numbers below show the leaders based on averages of the most recent polls in each state. The "momentum shift" meter indicates statistically meaningful trends in recent polls of competitive races. How did we get these numbers and what do they mean?



    Senate Race Summary for Oct. 18:
    The state of Ohio provides yet another reason why our big momentum arrow continues to point in the Democratic direction. New polls released over the last week show Democrat Sherrod Brown leading Republican Sen. Mike DeWine by margins of 14 points (SurveyUSA), six points (Rasmussen Reports), seven points (University of Cincinnati), 12 points (Quinnipiac University), and 13 points (CBS/New York Times). Brown's lead on our last-five-poll average more than doubled over the last week, from five points to 10.4 (51.6 percent to 41.2 percent). Ohio, considered a "tossup" race for much of the year, now moves on our scorecard from "lean Democrat" to "strong Democrat."

    ReplyDelete
  190. Donald Trump is on Donny Deutche, Trump just said

    1) We need to get out of Iraq, IRAQ IS A "TOTAL DIASTER"

    2) BUSH SURROUNDS HIMSELF WITH INCOMPETENT PEOPLE

    3) CONDI RICE IS INCOMPETENT, SHE FLIES ALL OVER THE WORLD TALKING TO PEOPLE, AND NOTHING GETS DONE, NOTHING IS EVER ACCOMPLISHED

    4) RUMMY IS A TOTAL DISASTER, COMPLETELY INCOMPETENT.

    5) The country is not behind Bush and doesnt have faith in his leadership, it has never been so divisive or filled with hatred, aftere 9/11 the whole world was behind us and Bush turned it arounf and we are hated by the world.

    Donald Trump

    ReplyDelete
  191. Don't Buy the Dow's New High

    Peter Schiff

    This week, the professional stock market boosters, who masquerade as wise market commentators, filled the airwaves with celebratory musings on the significance of a record high Dow. Many spoke of it as the milestone that will usher in a new bull market reminiscent of the one which roared during the 1990s. However, the Dow's new high is merely an inflationary illusion. The fact that Wall Street universally ignores inflation adjustments with respect to the Dow, while consistently qualifying oil prices in inflation adjusted terms, reveals the bullish bias of an industry dependent on optimism.

    In the first place, adjusted for the CPI the Dow's January, 2000 peak would equate to over 14,000 in today's dollars. Of course, since the CPI understates the true inflation rate by at least 2-3 percentage points annually, the Dow Jones would likely have to be over 16,000 today to deliver the same purchasing power that it did then. Ignoring inflation and looking instead from a foreign exchange perspective the Dow is also far from a real high. Priced in British pounds, Canadian or Australian dollars, or euros, at 11,850 the Dow is still below its 2000 peak by approximately 25%, 26% and 32% respectively.

    In the second place, the Dow Jones consists of just thirty stocks. If you look at broader market averages, such as the S& P 500 or the NASDAQ Composite, the former is about 13% below its 2000 high, while the latter is 55% below. When those numbers are adjusted for rises in the CPI, in real terms the indexes are below their 2000 peaks by more than 27% and 63% respectively. Of course, those numbers would be far higher were we using a more accurate inflation measure.

    While the financial media is quick to proclaim a new bull market in stocks, they have simultaneously proclaimed an end to the current bull markets in gold and oil. Both calls are premature, unsupported by the facts, and more representative of wishful thinking than legitimate forecasting.

    Since hitting its nominal peak in January 2000, the Dow Jones has lost just over half of its value relative to gold, even after the recent surge in the Dow and the dip in gold. It should be clear, therefore, that the real bull market is in gold, not the Dow. The way I see it, nothing has happened during the last several months to reverse these trends. From my perspective, we are simply experiencing normal counter-trend moves that typify bull and bear markets alike.

    The most significant aspect of such counter-trend moves is their impact on market psychology. Bull market corrections produce fear, while bear market corrections produce hope. Among gold and oil investors, the fear is that the move is over. Those who got in early sell to preserve what remains of their gains, while recent entrants sell to mitigate their losses. Stock market investors buy more hoping to finally recover their losses.

    However, neither emotion is likely to be validated. In fact, secular market trends generally continue until both emotions are completely exhausted. Bull markets will persist until all fear is eliminated; producing euphoria, while bear markets will persist until all hope is lost, producing despair. The Dow's new high, and the media hype surrounding it, should help create enough optimism for a major top to be established. Similarly, the recent sharp drops in the prices of gold and oil should unleash enough pessimism for significant bottoms to emerge.

    The decree of leverage in today's markets tends to exaggerate the magnitude and speed of corrections. Hedge funds and other speculative players are generally trend-followers and are quick to exit when the winds appear to be shifting. It is important to remember that speculators do not create the underlying trends; they simply tag along for the ride. However, as their frequent entrances and exits add to short-term volatility, long-term investors should not follow their lead.



    October 6, 2006

    The best strategy for investors is to take advantage of the opportunities short-term speculators create. In other words, buy gold and oil. For the best way to take advantage of the big drop in oil and gas prices, download my must-read, free report on Canadian Energy Trusts here.



    Email this Article to a Friend

    Like usual the repugs are spinning away, thumping their chests and crowing about things they have no right to crow about, they should be ashamed of an economy were only the ultra wealthy have done well, were health care and medical costs are out of reach of the majority of americans and college is becoming out of reach as well, housing costs medical costs and college costs have in some cases doubled or tripled while wages have stagnated or even decreased for the majority of Americans.

    ReplyDelete
  192. Robert Dreyfus said "President Bush lumps the remnants of al-Qaida together with states such as Iran and Syria, the resistance movement in Iraq, insurgent political parties such as Hezbollah and Hamas and other assorted entities into one, big “Islamofascist” enemy. Nothing could be more ill-informed or further from the truth. "That's an oversimplification of the task of dealing with the tactic [terrorism] that is used by many different groups, with many different ideologies," Paul R. Pillar, a former top CIA analyst and the author of a respected book on terrorism, told The Washington Post . "It leads to a misunderstanding of the need of what is in fact a different counterterrorist policy for each group and state we are dealing with. . . . Hamas is an entirely different entity than al-Qaeda. . . . Their objectives are very much different." Pillar said much the same thing to me. Bush claims that al-Qaida and its terrorist allies want to create an “empire than spans from Spain to Indonesia.” Not a chance. Larry Wilkerson, the former top aide to Colin Powell, told me: “I don’t think there’s a soul in the administration, except for Vice President Dick Cheney, who believes that crap about Islamofascism.” Why don’t Democrats ridicule this specific sort of fear-mongering?"

    ReplyDelete
  193. A stupid fool said "Can you believe it!!!!! The DOW is over 12,000 today...the first time in history!!! People are investing...do tax cuts really work? Looks like it.Raise your hand if your making money in the market."


    Gee halfwit the Dow is over 12,000 how many more years till it makes a new high adjusted for inflation another decade?

    I'm making oplenty of money in the market it doesnt mean the market or the economy are healthy, Warren Buffet and others made fortunes in the 1970,s one of the worst decades ever, average people have not fair too well since the Clinton Administration

    ReplyDelete
  194. Hey Troll tex didnt the repugs used to be the party of morality, and fiscal responsibility and small government and no government interference and freedom, and personal accountability etc....WHAT HAPPENED, 6 years with you guys in charge and you screwed everything up, you "CLAIMED" you didnt want Iraq to have Nukes but yet North Korea and iran are developing them ON YOUR WATCH and you do nothing.

    You were handed a surplus and you ran up the biggest deficit of all time, you claim to be the party of morality but you cover for a child predator, you have done nothing to secure our ports and borders and your invasion of Iraq based on lies as well as abandoning the real war on terror in Afghanistan has made us much less safe, you went into Iraq with no plan except to line the pockets of big oil and the wealthy elite and there is still no plan.

    YOU GUYS ARE INCOMPETENT BUFFOONS TT how bout you explain that Troll!

    ReplyDelete
  195. Amazing Mikey,you guys always find some obscure economist to quote and take his ramblings as law...now who is the dumb one.I never see you quote Creamer,Covuto,Wayne Rodgers and so on and so on.You america haters just dispise any type of success.Or maybe you hate it because you're not a part of it.
    And as for Robert Dreyfus...I mean who really cares what that idiot says,he has'nt sold a book in 20 years.
    Did you notice O'Rielly's new book has been #1 on the NYT bestseller list the past two weeks and you never quote him..now who is dumb.

    ReplyDelete
  196. Time for the trolls to quit sniffing glue and wake up to the fact that their guy Bush is an imbecile.

    Comment by RealScientist — October 9, 2006 @ 11:51 am

    Why should I care about Osama?
    Why should I care about North Korea?
    Why should I care about NOLA?
    Why should I care about body bags?
    Why should I care about PDB’s?
    Why should I care about a gottdamn piece of paper?
    Why should I care………………

    Anyone else seeing a pattern here by or socipathic administration?

    Comment by Dog_named_Boo — October 9, 2006

    ReplyDelete
  197. Mikey,I was at Barnes& Noble the other day and tried to buy Lydia's book,they said there was'nt one.Whats going on?How can I buy her book?

    ReplyDelete