Even though the Senate sold out America by passing a new wiretapping bill that includes retroactive immunity for telcos that broke the law, the House is standing firm. As a result, the Terrorist-in-chief is not amused. And he is threatening to postpone his trip to Africa in order to sit in a corner and pout:
Leaving aside the problems with the wiretapping portion of the bill, what’s with this telco immunity bullshit? If the telecom companies need retroactive immunity, why the fuck doesn’t Bush simply use his presidential pardon powers to pardon them? I mean, isn’t Bush just throwing a temper tantrum to get Congress to do his dirty work?
Yeah…maybe there has never been a pardon granted to a corporate “person” (I don’t really know), but Bush has played so fast and lose with the constitution that extending the presidential pardon powers to corporate “persons” is no biggie.
Really, what Bush is doing is dodging his own responsibility, and that of his administration, for sweet-talking (or, perhaps, threatening) the telcos into breaking the law. By getting Congress to pardon the telcos, he avoids the scrutiny and scorn that would accompany a presidential pardon.
Lets hope the House stands firm on this and the Senate gets a clue.
Screwing up royally, with a combination of ignorance and malice, then having someone else pay for it — the entire biography of G.W. Bush, in one line. Given the huge number of vile cronies he must pardon, just to keep his own self out of jail, pardoning the very telcos he threatened into lawbreaking might push things so far, the courts might reverse their rulings on the personhood of a corporation. That would mean the end of corporate rule as we know it, an event our masters of our corporate state must avoid at all costs.
Will he hold his breath too?
Please, somebody, convince him to hold his breath until the House changes its mind.
So we can all agree Scary Harry Land Deal Nepotism Reid is worthless? We’ve been saying that since he took over the senate.
@ 3,
Harry Reid worthless? Nah. There are still a few Republicans in the Senate.
What’s even more curious, and why you still warrant the “Terrorist” moniker with which you’ve been tagged, is why you would invoke Harry Reid’s name when George W. Bush is the one who has been even worse than worthless. How do you explain, for example, Bush’s threat to veto a 30 day extension of FISA if it doesn’t contain telecom immunity despite Bush’s contention that Americans might die if FISA isn’t extended? Does President Bush really believe that telecom immunity is more important than the risk to the lives of Americans, or is this whole notion of risk to the lives of Americans just a facade?
Welcome to the Decidership of George W. Bush.
The NSA is reading every comment on the blogs across the US. In fact, they can actually see what you’re typing from inside a van parked outside your residence. They know where your residence is because they know where your IP address is located.
Do we really need the NSA, CIA, FBI, & Department of Homeland Security? Will the next prez do something about the intrusion and get us the hell out of these goddam foreign adventures that brought about these threats to privacy?
@5 Politically Incorrect
Dear Mr. Connely,
As a service we want to reassure you that we do not need a “van outside your residence” to monitor you. Current technology using the information carrier wave imposed on your water supply solved that problem long ago. Every time you flush, we get a new load!
Why am I telling you this? We respect your privacy, Your government realizes that if we ant our citizens to accept domestic surveillance, then we must be fully transparent about our conduct. In that spirit, want to assure you that the “Thommy’s Plumbing” van located outside your house at 567 Harrison St. NE is not there under the government programs that authorize ur activities.
Under the Patriotic Citizen Act, we are not allowed to tell you who is conducting the surveillance. For your benefit, we have checked the ownership of the Van and it is not the property of Thommy’s Plumbing. However, we do suggest you make inquiries on your own.
Of course, this message is a hoax.
Sincerely yours,
Pricilla Truehart, GS10
I SO LOVE the logic of this debate. Bush has said multiple times that the telcos did NOT at any time violate the law. Everything they’ve done has been completely legal and obviously above board. Yet, in the very next breath, they MUST be given immunity for past “acts”.
Sorry to throw in 3rd grade logic, but if the telco’s never broke the law, why is a bill giving them immunity for what they did in the last couple years needed? Not only needed, but SO SO SO SO important that Bush would veto a bill to “protect America” and risk letting Americans die to protect the phone companies…er….from something they didn’t do…er…what?
Because no one in the world would trust GW Bush.
Worst.
Fucking.
President.
Everrrrrrrrrr……
A pardon from the President only covers Federal criminal acts. It doesn’t confer immunity from civil suits, which is what the Senate bill grants.
# 2
… Cheney president?
Good job Jack Flanders.
Delusional Joe:
First I had to take time to read the latest updates and not get the lefty perspective. Especially when Keith “Petraeus was Pimped – No Apology Needed” Olbermann is used for any discussion anywhere. Delusional Joe, in your zeal to support and preserve 18 U.S.C. 2520(c)(2) sanctity, you are not advocating we all should risk more death to terrorists who get their orders by phone calls from overseas? Are you?
Just checking…
Next, I believe the President, whomever he is, has taken an oath as his duty to protect by all methods possible the country from foreign enemies and foreign attacks. While some argue over whether the proposed is a suicide pact with the devil, first let me ask this question? Do innocent people need lawyers?
If you make a call overseas and you are calling an innocent person, not a perceived bogeyman, ie – you didn’t make a call to a person of interest, as I understood, you are not being tapped. But from what I’ve read the only thing that’s got the donkey panties in a bind is monitoring overseas phone calls. If they are only checking those to bad guys…? If I am wrong Delusional one show me. Well, do you contact Al Qaeda?
So what do you suppose; select from the following:
1: Choose to cooperate with the request. Lawyers cry fowl, opportunistic class action lawsuits (Pelletizer anyone) begin in full force. A new legal jargon is created. Left-wing commentators (Keith, Chris, Adriana, Randi) and 16%ers go beserk.
2: See where the political winds are blowing. Stick your wet willie finger up in the air, call Lanny Davis, Harold Ickies, and George Soros and wait for their answer.
3: Ignore the request, tell the government you are too busy making boocoo bucks being a cheap labor capitalist and let them know you’ll get back to them later.
4: Do like the Florida Supreme Court did in 2000. They said, “We are not going to be bound by hypertechnical statutory requirements. Instead, we are going to resort to the will of the people, the will of the electorate, the will of the voters.” (CNN Transcripts) Well since Bush won the election, the telco chooses follow along like the FLSC said.
5: Or the telcos choose to refuse cooperation immediately based on some hypothethical hypertechnical statutory requirement and become branded as unpatriotic. Possibly lose upward of half your existing customer base to cooperating competitors. New subscribers come to you being the friends of terrorists knowing you will allow their calls to get connected free of any blockage or tappage and you get sued anyway.
I’ll wait for your choice.
Oh… I’m sorry lefties. Per ATJ’s friends, I guess I was blabbering or talking like a baby in post #12.
Too bad the shrub wasn’t this interested in the intelligence he was given prior to Sept. 11, 2001.
@5 If you believe that Van Eyck Devices are that effective, then you probably believe in the tooth faerie as well. . . .
Last time I checked, Teleco’s are still legally bound to follow FISA warrants. Warrants, you know that fancy 4th amendment word.
And FISA, that secret court full of AQ sympathizers, the ones that have denied soooooo many requests.
http://epic.org/privacy/wireta.....stats.html.
It’s soooooo hard to file warrants with them also, you know that they can even retroactively file up to 3 days after the fact.
But that’s sooooo much effort for these chumps. Ya, we should cut them a break.
Factless P-budder@12:
“….in your zeal to support and preserve 18 U.S.C. 2520(c)(2) sanctity, you are not advocating we all should risk more death to terrorists who get their orders by phone calls from overseas?”
Ah, the old ‘when did you stop beating your wife question”. How pathetic. You’d make a great prosecutor…for Joe Stalin. The calls can still be monitored under the old FISA. All they have to do is get a warrant….and it can even be obtained retroactively. So, where’s the beef?
But wait, P-budd goes on: “I believe the President, whomever he is, has taken an oath as his duty to protect by all methods possible…”
You can believe what you want, but it doesn’t make it so. The word “all” gives you away as an authoritarian.
And then the rhetorical finish: “Do innocent people need lawyers?”
If charged with a crime, I’d say yes. Wouldn’t you agree? Another Joe, Geobbles by name, was fond of spouting that same question. Joe McCarthy reasoned similarly. You’re in with some great company there, Putty.
http://rawstory.com//printstory.php?story=9302
PuddyBrain the Dictator – Every day you fascinate me with your dazzle, truly amazing. Next to Bush you look like more like a 3 year old, not a baby.
…and PuddyLiar gives voice to the bedwetter set. How nice!
Hey Puddy, who’s a “person of interest?” Is that anyone the Executive Branch says it is? With no judicial oversight, you bet it is! Could be you, could be me, could be anyone. Shockingly, it could even be a political enemy of the party in power. I’m sure that’s OK with you with your buddy Georgie in power, but what happens when Hillary moves into the White House? All of a sudden does the Constitution get a new lease on life?
And the telcos weren’t tapping specific people, they were gathering EVERYTHING and letting the government datamine the whole shebang.
Finally, Qwest wasn’t hurt by refusing to cooperate. Nice to know at least one telco has a spine.
Now go crawl back under your bed with your blankie and your binkie.
Puddybud:
If you’re the righteous rightie, why are you always in here sucking dick? You think you’re changing any minds?????
“Finally, Qwest wasn’t hurt by refusing to cooperate. Nice to know at least one telco has a spine”.
Actually Qwest’s former CEO might disagree:
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/....._1012.html
Truth Teller or Something Else,
“A pardon from the President only covers Federal criminal acts. It doesn’t confer immunity from civil suits, which is what the Senate bill grants.”
A Presidential pardon remits restitution awarded (but not yet paid) for the criminal acts. I believe a pardon by Bush would make it impossible to collect anything except ACTUAL damages in a civil suit. If so, a pardon would provide a strong economic disincentive for civil suits.
@22: Hadn’t seen that before. I stand corrected.
*sits down again*
Darryl @ 23
I think the remission of unpaid restitution that can result from a presidential pardon would only apply to restitution that was awarded in a criminal case. I cannot see how a president (or governor for that matter) could issue a pardon in a civil case, even with respective to punitive damages. Otherwise, you would see conservative governors all over the country issuing “pardons” in civil lawsuits involving large punitive damages awards against big businesses. But you do raise an interesting theorectical interpretation of the “pardon” power. Don’t talk about it too much, or the Republicans will get emboldened.
I have heard way too much hype and grandstanding the last few days, from both sides in Congress and from President Bush.
Didn’t the House of Representatives already pass one version of the legislation in question, which does not contain the telecom immunity provision? And the Senate passed a different version, which does contain the telecom immunity provision?
@20: Qwest WAS hurt – they did not get some government contracts – this was a bribery scheme and all the other telecoms that went along and broke the law (and have no doubt, their high-priced lawyers told them it was against the law but OUR government told them (no doubt) that OUR government (read the corrupt Bush/cheney oligarchy) would protect their butts for their illegal activity).
No – we need to string these guys up and prosecute the government that broke the law.
No AMNESTY for lawbreakers.
The current FISA law works just fine, is legal and adheres to the constitution.
Lawbreakers need to go to JAIL – period.
I am tired of the moral relativism.
torture is illegal – until we do it.
The fourth amendment and the laws of congress can be ignored:
a. whenever Bush/Cheney feel like it
b. whenever Bush/Cheney think there is a threat to the US
c. whenever
the next step to totalitarianism – the war on terror goes on forever – so we need to lose our constitutional freedoms.
Ben Franklin: “those who will give up our liberties for security deserve neither”
George Washington: Refused to torture British soldioers even though they did it to our soldiers (called them traitors).
Gee – is our country more in danger from al qeada in caves in Pakistan than we were with British soldiers (the best fighting force in the world at the time) all over our country?
If we didn’t need to torture then – why do we need to do it now? Who are the true patriots now? Not Bush and his republican supporters – long live those who support our rights.
To all you attack libbies:
Again so typical. You missed the IMPORTANT point in my response which I said three different ways:
“phone calls from overseas”, “If you make a call overseas”, “monitoring overseas phone calls.
Your posts above prove the liberal mind is a terrible waste. Liberalism is a mental disorder. Liberalism – where a burqa is in your wife’s future.
Keep up the rub-a-dub on each other liberals. You can’t read, you take your marching orders from Kos and Soros and can’t think objectively if a gun was pointed at your small cranial orifices without calling Kos or Soros.
A presidential pardon can only remove liability imposed by the government, the president can’t intervene in a private dispute. Also, a pardon would actually increase the exposure of a company, because they could no longer claim that they have 5th amendment rights.
In addition, a pardon doesn’t change the facts. If someone violates my civil rights, and this can be proven in a civil lawsuit (with a lower threshold of proof), the fact of a pardon, or, for instance, being found not guilty in a criminal case, is unimportant.
It is interesting that Congress can do this. Maybe we should celebrate the fact that Congress does create the rules, and the president, and everyone else must live by them?
If Qwest consulted counsel and they said no, you don’t think AT&T and Verizon consulted counsel and they said yes?
12 Pud
I believe the President, whomever he is, has taken an oath as his duty to protect by all methods possible the country from foreign enemies and foreign attacks.
Nope. It’s funny that you say ignorant things without even trying to educate yourself first so that you won’t look as stupid as you eventually do.
The President, as required in the Constitution of the United States, Article II Section 1, swears an oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Violating the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment requirement for warrants is the opposite of honoring that oath.
Source: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt
28 Pud
The administration has been gathering all communications and has been doing it since well before 9/11/2001. When the truth comes out in the next administration, it will be amusing to see you try to spin the avalanche of thuggery and lawbreaking we will incover.
I still remember the what Senator Jay Rockefeller said last fall. Liberals don’t because it is more than 2 hours old. Rockefeller, who is a loud-mouth microphone hogging, newspaper searching, critic of the Administration is very sympathetic to your friends, the trial lawyers.
“In the meantime, however, these companies are being sued, which is unfair and unwise. As the operational details of the program remain highly classified, the companies are prevented from defending themselves in court. And if we require them to face a mountain of lawsuits, we risk losing their support in the future.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....01821.html
But then to the 16%ers, he’s a horses ass.
@30: Counsel for Quest didn’t say no – they said it was illegal and qwest managment decided NOT to do it. Counsel for the other telecoms (ATT and Verizon) surely came to the same conclusion (that it was illegal) but the company decided to take the chance (and probably secured some lucrative government contracts from the defense dept.).
what we have here is:
Bribery
conspiracy
Illegal wiretapping under the law at the time and under the fourth amendment
Here is what a real patriot says (quoted from the House letter to President Bush by Rep. Reyes):
“If our nation is left vulnerable in the coming months, it will not be because we don’t have enough domestic spying powers. It will be because your Administration has not done enough to defeat terrorist organizations – including al Qaeda — that have gained strength since 9/11. We do not have nearly enough linguists to translate the reams of information we currently collect. We do not have enough intelligence officers who can penetrate the hardest targets, such as al Qaeda. We have surged so many intelligence resources into Iraq that we have taken our eye off the ball in Afghanistan and Pakistan. As a result, you have allowed al Qaeda to reconstitute itself on your watch.
You have also suggested that Congress must grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies. As someone who has been briefed on our most sensitive intelligence programs, I can see no argument why the future security of our country depends on whether past actions of telecommunications companies are immunized.
The issue of telecom liability should be carefully considered based on a full review of the documents that your Administration withheld from Congress for eight months. However, it is an insult to the intelligence of the American people to say that we will be vulnerable unless we grant immunity for actions that happened years ago.
Congress has not been sitting on its hands. Last November, the House passed responsible legislation to authorize the NSA to conduct surveillance of foreign terrorists and to provide clarity and legal protection to our private sector partners who assist in that surveillance.
The proper course is now to conference the House bill with the Senate bill that was passed on Tuesday. There are significant differences between these two bills and a conference, in regular order, is the appropriate mechanism to resolve the differences between these two bills. I urge you, Mr. President, to put partisanship aside and allow Republicans in Congress to arrive at a compromise that will protect America and protect our Constitution.
I, for one, do not intend to back down – not to the terrorists and not to anyone, including a President, who wants Americans to cower in fear.
We are a strong nation. We cannot allow ourselves to be scared into suspending the Constitution. If we do that, we might as well call the terrorists and tell them that they have won.
Sincerely,
Silvestre Reyes
Member of Congress
Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence”
Darryl @23
“A Presidential pardon remits restitution awarded (but not yet paid) for the criminal acts. I believe a pardon by Bush would make it impossible to collect anything except ACTUAL damages in a civil suit. If so, a pardon would provide a strong economic disincentive for civil suits.”
I believe the Pardon only remits restitution for fines/penalties imposed that flow directly from the criminal conviction in a Federal court – this act of remission has nothing to do with civil matters and doesn’t constrain or refund awards in a civil case. In fact, a pardon for an individual could hurt that person’s chances in a civil suit. The pardon would remove the person’s chance to take the 5th against Federal Crimes in the civil court, since he couldn’t incriminate himself for a pardoned offense, if that makes sense. Of course, a Presidential pardon doesn’t stop a State from bringing criminal charges, so the defendant in a civil suit might be able to a make a 5th-like claim under State law.
@32: and to 99% of us here, you’re a horse’s ass.
And a liar.
And, apparently, a welsher.
where a burqa is in your wife’s future.
Why isn’t your son in Iraq so he can defend his momma from wearing a burqa?
Why is your son attending Obama rallies instead of fighting for momma and country?
I thought according to you Obama was a “democrap”. Is he one of the “16%ers”?
What do you know? He is:
http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings
PuddyStupid: why are you “for” a “16%er”?
Clueless Idiot: As a married man it’s my job to defend my wife. Come attack her and feel the consequences. You are so stupid.
Since it seems your life of being married and two children is a lie, maybe you can defend your momma’s bathrobe.
SchizoMan@35: You forget one more thing.
And proud not to be a 16%er.
37 – There’s a war on Terra, goin’ on fool. If you wear the pants in the family, sign the kid up.
http://www.goarmy.com
He can ride around in a mrap and kill terraists. He can perform “enhanced interrogation”. He can “spread democracy”.
You said you’re for all that shit. So what’s the hold up?
You’re so fucked up it’s pathetic.
You now say you’re voting for a “16%er” for Prez. YOU who voted for that Chimp twice. Yeah the one with the elephant memory of right wing crap.
If the most liberal Senator (Obama) isn’t a “16%er”, what is?
It sure isn’t Hillary Clinton with a rating of the 32nd most liberal Senator.
You’re such a fool!!!
re 12: They know all the bad guys phone numbers? But they won’t arrest them? They just listen to their phone conversations!?!?
PudWax™, you truly are an idiot.
Keith Oldermann needs to give up ideological commentary and go back to SportsCenter where he was a natural. A serious “journalist” he is not.
Daddy Love: You are right on the Presidential Oath.
I was focusing on: “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”” – which is GWB, the Commander in Chief.
The allegiance is to our constitution, his first duty is to protect it from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
That’s what I was thinking about above.
Headless Lucy appears using name #16. Howdy racist!
If you propose a new gun law the conservatives go “nuts” talking about protecting their “rights.”
But, have the president of the United States try to spy on law abiding citizens in the name of “protecting American’s lives” and suddenly they sit on their hands.
Whether our rights are being chipped away by gun laws or big government spying on our private conversations does not matter. It IS the same slippery slope, if not worse, that the 2nd amendment advocates invoke.
Benjamin Franklin once said “Any society that would give up a little liberty for a little security deserves neither and will eventually lose both.”
For me, I prefer to follow the “pre 9/11” mindset and wisdom of Benjamin Franklin than the post 9/11 thinking, or lack of it, of George W. Bush.
9/11 changed NOTHING, if you’re a patriot who believes in and understands our way of life in America. If you understand why millions and millions served, fought, were wounded and died preserving our founding fathers principles you realize NOTHING has changed. Only the simple fac that we were attacked. It’s happened before and it happened again.
In fact, the Bill of Rights were given to us while the greatest military of the time, the Brithish Army, was BURNING down the White House.
If you believe 9/11 changed EVERYTHING, then you’re with the terrorists. Because they hate our freedoms, our way of life, our liberties. Why would you side with anyone who wants to take those away from us? If that’s what al Qeada wants, and you side with men who are helping al Qeada and the terrorists reach that goal, then you are with the terrorists.
You are either with America or against America. Republicans and conservatives have choosen sides and they chose to follow the “post 9/11 everything changed” terrorists mindset.
This nation was founded on liberal principles and it will continue to live on in its glory of liberalism. Conservatism, like terrorism can and must be defeated.
Terrorists live in caves.
Conservatives live in our midst.
Either way, they are on the same team.
So tell us Clueless Idiot, what do you do for a living again except blog all day?
When caught you change the subject. I hear jo momma calling you.
45 – I got you dead to rights fool.
You said earlier that you live for insulting and making fun of “16%ers”.
Let’s see you do it to Obama who you say you support.
Gonna change your vote now?
Stupes you remind me of a schoolboy who teases the girl he has a crush on.
You have a crush on us “16%ers”. How sweet!
That’s why you support Obama, the most liberal Senator!
http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/
Eat it loser!
Mad Lib: the here issue is overseas calls.
So the next time a terraist (Clueless Idiot spelling) attack happens and one of your loved ones dies, we can trace it to an overseas paymaster call leading the charge, and it was missed due to liberal intransigence. I’ll remember this post.
As one who travels overseas every now and then, when you speak to the European populace, while they may dislike GWB, they certainly don’t like themselves being under the threat of terraism because their laws are more lax than ours.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Stupes: This is the issue. What part of that don’t you fucking understand?
And why do you support a “16%er” for President?
I have no crush on you Clueless Idiot.
You don’t have me dead to rights Idiot. I stated my reasons for supporting Obama. You are still an idiot.
Momma’s calling…
One of Stupes’ greatest hits.
Hmmm…? I love attacking donkey. I love attacking the 16%ers.
http://www.horsesass.org/?p=4303#comment-743059
Folks I guess we’re going to soon see our resident village idiot attack Barack Obama, the most liberal Senator:
http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/
“And he is threatening to postpone his trip to Africa in order to sit in a corner and pout”
I think the House should do absolutely nothing while he holds his breath and turns blue.
Clueless Idiot: What effect “their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” on a cell call in public?
Or on a land line in private to/from an overseas call to a surveilled person of interest?
What I don’t get is your screaming on an overseas call to a person being surveilled as a terrorist.
Since I don’t make those calls I don’t worry. Since I call to family and known company associates I don’t worry. Apparently the 16%ers must make some interesting calls overseas.
“If the telecom companies need retroactive immunity, why the fuck doesn’t Bush simply use his presidential pardon powers to pardon them?”
Because the president has no power to grant civil pardons.
29 “Also, a pardon would actually increase the exposure of a company, because they could no longer claim that they have 5th amendment rights.”
DING! DING! DING! DING! DING!
In other words, the telco brass couldn’t use the 5th as an exuse not to tell Congress all about exactly what they were told to do, when they were told, and who in the administration was telling them to do it. (Was Uncle Karl in the loop, perhaps? Did he end up getting all the DNC’s phone records and email, maybe?) It would also be interesting to know whether there were some carrots hung out for the phone folks–it seems that the skids got greased up real good for the reconstitution of Ma Bell as a de facto monopoly, curiously under the management of some good ole boys from Texas.
I was working at AT&T Wireless through the time of their acquisition by Cingular, and personally knew the person who was in charge of setting up “law enforcement” wiretaps. That individual ended up moving to a different job, and since then I’ve wondered if said individual may have, shall we say, encountered some “issues of conscience”.
Clueless Idiot:
I already stated my political position for this election. In fact I told you my siblings decision too.
What part of remembering facts do you have a problem with?
That’s why you are a Clueless Idiot.
If Osama Bin Laden wants to call Goldy, that is HIS business!
I just cannot IMAGINE the fetid little world the puddyprick lives in. My gawd how awful for him…and everyone around him (including US unfortunately).
@3 “So we can all agree Scary Harry Land Deal Nepotism Reid is worthless? We’ve been saying that since he took over the senate.”
Yeah, pretty much — because he’s a Chamberlain when we need a Patton to deal with your ilk, puddinghead.
And proud not to be a 16%er.
But more than willing to vote for the “most liberal” Senator, Barack Obama.
How can this fool live with himself?
I already stated my political position for this election.
Yes you said you love attacking “16%ers”. I assume that includes Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. I know you have no love for those guys and I’ve seen you attack them.
So lets see the attacks on Barack. He’s the most liberal Senator.
Let’s see you call him a “lefty moonbat”, “stupid”, etc. Is that beyond you?
I thought a conservative was “consistent”.
Puddy @ 12: It’s really not that complicated for the Telcos. It’s the same problem that the phone companies have been dealing with since the 1930’s, and banks have been dealing with for even longer. If someone comes up to you (as a bank, Telco manager, etc.), flashes a badge, and requests information about your customers, you simply reply:
“That information is confidential. May I see your warrent, which shows that a judge has reviewed your application and determined that you have a right to have access to thes customer’s records?”
See? That wasn’t too hard.
Just because somebody has a badge, and “claims” to be working for the government and needs the information, doesn’t mean that they should automatically have access to the information. And the Telco’s know this. As custodians of their customer’s information, they have an affirmative duty to protect it’s confidentiality, unless compelled to do so by court order (i.e., a warrant).
The reason the Bush administration is pushing so hard for immunity? Because it is not just immunity they want, it is protection from pretrial discovery in civil actions, and from subpoenas in criminal actions. The immunity granted in the FSA bill is so broad, it prevents the TELCOMS from ever being compelled to answer with respect to any such violations. Thus being safely protected, Bush & his administration can feel assured that the TELCOMS won’t be compelled to point the finger back at Bush & Co. when the REAL extent of the violations become known. (I’m expecting that lots of survellance targeting political opponants will be discovered, if investigations are allowed to be pursued).
By the way, NPR was reporting this morning that U.S. Customs was interrogating U.S. Citizens returning home to the U.S., wanting to know (among other things) about their religious activities, their relatives, who they met while they were abroad, where they stayed, and who they contacted by phone or e-mail. During the course of the interrogations they have confiscated computers and cell phones, returning them only after they have downloaded the contents for future review. When the citizens object, they are told that if they don’t comply, they will be denied entry into the U.S.
In reality, U.S. Customs has no right to deny a U.S. Citizen entry into the U.S. Their only purpose in asking questons of a U.S. citizens is for the purpose of determining duties on imports, and to make sure you aren’t bringing in any illegal contraband (drugs, etc.). Detaining a citizen for any other purpose is illegal. The correct answer to any other questions should be: (a) none of your damn business, and (b) go to hell. This is the response any REAL American makes to excessive government intrusions into their private affairs. Any other response might indicate that the person is not really an American citizen, and their ID might be forged.
RudejASS. My world is just fine little non-buddy.
Puddybud @ 48:
You must be hiding under a rock. What Bush has ordered and what they did in the infamous room 641B at the AT&T building in San Francisco was to monitor ALL phone calls, overseas AND domestic call, emails, web surfing, etc.
You are grossly uninformed.
42 Pud
As I said, violating the Constitution in order to “defend” it is the logic of a dictator.
@12 “Next, I believe the President, whomever he is, has taken an oath as his duty to protect by all methods possible the country from foreign enemies and foreign attacks.”
You seem to forget he also took an oath to uphold the constitution and laws of the United States. And, you’re apparently too stupid to realize that smart people might differ on the best means of protecting the country from foreign enemies and attacks. To carry this stupidity even further, you morons on the right have stupidly equated insistence on rule of law and difference of opinion over the best ways of protecting our country from attack with “surrendering to the enemy.” Needless to say, the liberal perspective is that Republicans have gone about it in the dumbest and most counterproductive ways possible, by which they — and the stupid sheep like you who enable them — have made our country considerably less safe. But it’s useless to tell you this, because I can’t expect someone with a brain the size of a marble to begin to comprehend it all.
So let’s do this instead. Our country is a democracy. (Supposedly, anyway; if we can keep Republicans from suppressing our votes and rigging the black boxes that control voting machines and count votes.) The voters — theoretically, at least — have the right to hire or fire our government. They fired a bunch of you idiots in Nov. 2006. Now we have another plebiscite coming up and all indications point to the voters firing more of you idiots this Nov. If the voters see fit to give us the presidency, a House majority that doesn’t depend on conservative blue-dog Democrats, and a filibuster-proof 60-seat Senate majority, then I would say the voters have completely, totally, and irrevocably fired the GOP in entirety and want us to reverse all of your policies and raise your taxes to help pay for fixing all the damage you morons caused. Seems like a fair proposition to me, so that’s what we’re going to do — raise your taxes to make you pay for all the china you broke. Call it civil damages, if you like.
In other words, squeezing civil damages out of telco corporations for the laws they broke and the rights they violated is just a downpayment, buddy. Behind that, a tidal wave of retribution is coming straight at you.
Puddybud at 53:
You’ve just made THE perfect arugument why we cannot have strict Constitutionalist judges. It is a farce.
The Constitution must have, at times, it’s meaning interpreted. Of course they couldn’t comprehend a cell phone being made in public. That that doesn’t mean the government can invade our privacy.
Didn’t they teach you Civics in high school??
What are you 12?
Public announcement: The de-nazification of America will begin in Jan. 2009. When it is completed, there will be no fascist organizations or fascist politicians left in America.
Mad Lib: As stated before on this blog, if they are are monitoring domestic call then then I agree that’s wrong.
I have no problem on overseas calls.
Puddybud @ 15: The USSC has ruled, since the 1920’s, I believe, that telephone calls are covered by the 4th Amendment. Are you now trying to revise that? Do you want “activist judges” to say that once the Democrats are in charge, that they can listen to you all you want, because you never call overseas?
It’s going to be real interesting next year, after a Democrat is in the White House, and the Democrats win greater control in both houses of Congress. The same Wingnuts who have claimed for the past seven years that we can trust our government to do pretty much anything they want, are suddenly going to be ranting again about the “black helicopters” and government intrusion.
@53 Puddy, you’re pretty fucking naive if you take the administration at its word that they only eavesdropped on overseas calls.
@53 (continued) Jiminy christmas, man, they’ve lied about everything else; so why would any intelligent person think they’re not lying about this? Of course, “any intelligent person” leaves you out.
@13 “I guess I was … talking like a baby in post #12.”
Hmmm, maybe you’re a little more perceptive than I gave you credit for in my preceding comments.
Pelletizer in his rant went there again:
(Supposedly, anyway; if we can keep Republicans from suppressing our votes and rigging the black boxes that control voting machines and count votes.)
One more time Pelletizer: The Cal Tech/MIT study determined the voting machines didn’t influence any election.
What effect “their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” on a cell call in public? Or on a land line in private to/from an overseas call to a surveilled person of interest? What I don’t get is your screaming on an overseas call to a person being surveilled as a terrorist.
Nice straw man. It really enhances your eyes.
Of course, the the real world people are upset about an “overseas call to a surveilled person of interest” that is being tapped WITHOUT A FISA WARRANT OR ANY OTHER WARRANT, which is, after all, what federal law requires, and the Constitution requires that the president follow the laws. And here in the real world people are also upset about the prospect that calls, e-mails, and such between ordinary Americans domestically are also being collected and recorded because we cannot depend on the word of this lying administration.
Let’s put it this way, Pud. Do you want president Hillary Clinton to have this power, and will you take her word for it that she’s not tapping you?
@12 (continued) “Do innocent people need lawyers?”
Given you GOP morons’ track record of arresting innocent people, the answer to this absolutely is YES.
BTW complete text of presidential oath of office from the US constitution (cited above):
“”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Enemies? No mention. Foreign? No mention. Hmmm…
Puddybud @ 69.
Whoa, whoa, whoa!!!!!
IF I call a family member in Europe I don’t want George W. Bush and his cronies listening in the the call. I’ve done NOTHING wrong and neither has the preson I’m talking to. It is an UNREASONABLE search and there is NOTHING they could swear under oath, as required by the 4th amendment, that would compel a judge to to execute that warrant.
I don’t own a gun, so therefore, by your logic, I don’t care if they take everyone’s gun.
You’re giving up a little of your liberty, and mine, for a little security. You will deserve neither or have both.
Unless, of course, you think George Bush is smarter and more honest than Benjamin Franklin.
Is that it?? You think George W. Bush knows more about granting freedom and liberty to the citizens of this great land???
Is that what you believe in your post 9/11 world that CHANGED EVERYTHING??
rhp6033: Remember Aldrich Ames? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N.....ontroversy
The legality of targeting US persons acting as agents of a foreign power and residing in this country has not been addressed by the US Supreme Court, but has occurred at least once, in the case of Aldrich Ames.
The Stalin Memorial Bush Administration used illegal wire taps to listen in on their political rivals, period. That’s what the immunity is about. And this is not a Liberal ‘thing’. There are some serious Conservative heavy hitter, constitutional scholars against Bushco on this. John Dean and Bruce Fein to name a couple.
Mad Lib: What part of my original statement in #12 is lost on you?
Are your family members on their terrorist watch list? If they are not where’s the beef? Everything else is blather on your part.
Daddy Love @ 77:
For the first time in my life I finally realized there’s a loop hole in the presidential oath that previously we never had to worry about. And, that worry is a total dumb ass in the White House.
“the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”
Maybe all this screwing up on W’s part is the BEST he can do and therefore escapes legal jeopardy because he’s retarded.
BTW, when Congress updated FISA in October, 2001, GW Bush said, “This new law I sign today will allow surveillance of all communications used by terrorists, including e-mails, the Internet, and cell phones.”
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu.....?pid=63850
Cell phones? But surely not if Pud thinks not, right? Someone tell the president!
Daddy Love: I have no worries of Heilary making it. Vladimir Putin:
The former KGB lieutenant colonel appeared to lash out at U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton — a leading Democratic candidate for president — when one reporter quoted her as saying that former KGB officers have no soul:
“At a minimum, a head of state should have a head,” Putin said.
@76 See, e.g.,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Mayfield
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar
These are merely 3 of the most prominent examples of innocent people who were wrongly arrested (or worse) by the incompetent flunkies of the incompetent Bush administration because they had their heads up their asses.
There are literally thousands of cases of people who were detained by the Busheviks and later released without charges because the incompetent flunkies of the incompetent Bush administration grabbed the wrong people.
Yeah, the Busheviks need tort immunity, all right, because they couldn’t begin to pay all the civil damages they’re potentially liable for. Of course, their fallback position is to stick the taxpayers with the bill. A better solution for us taxpayers would be to arrest them all and render them to the international court in The Hague for trial on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
62 ““That information is confidential. May I see your warrent, which shows that a judge has reviewed your application and determined that you have a right to have access to thes customer’s records?””
That got changed not long ago, in a law quietly passed by Congress in a voice vote. Now, any entity with which you, Mr. Citizen, have “financial dealings” (including banks, libraries and presumably, the phone company) is obliged to tell Uncle Sam everything they know about you. Additionally, they’re prohibited from telling you what they told Uncle Sam, or even that they were asked.
And if someone bothers to challenge this on constitutional grounds, how much are you willing to bet that the Roberts Court will even agree to hear the case?
Innocent people may or may not need lawyers. That’s kind of a weird and dumb question.
But the cops sure as fuck needs warrants to listen to my calls and read my e-mails. And if they don’t have them they’re breaking the law. And when they are federal investigators working in a program the president approved who are listening to me without warrants, then the president is breaking the law.
@79 BTW, puddy, I find your misuse of the words “Fact Finding” in your screen handle offensive in the same sense that I would consider Ted Bundy’s partipation in a block watch offensive.
@81 See #76.
@81 (continued) So explain to us, puddy dearest, why we should trust people like you or Asscroft or Gonzo or Bush to only eavesdrop on actual terrorists? Given your track record on not being able to distinguish between the innocent and the guilty, I mean.
@ 81:
First of all, nothing you said @ 12 was lost on me. I read your post again, at least as much as I could stomach. You leave your “wiggle free” clauses in there and you’re patently wrong.
Whether or not I’m calling overseas its NONE of the government’s business. PERIOD. And, your “understanding” on this issue is wrong. It also includes domestic SPYING on ordinary, innocent citizens and it is WRONG.
If you don’t have anything illegal in your house are you OK with the FBI coming in and checking around, you know, “just in case?”
Get real. You have so many strawman arguements in pathetic.
I told people Ted Bundy was a relative of Pelletizer. He uses him for everything…
@82 Nope, the loophole isn’t there. That’s because the presidential oath creates an objective, not subjective, standard which is the same for everyone. The Constitution does not tailor what is an impeachable offense to the intelligence level of the Occupant. There is a single objective standard which is the same for everyone, and the fact some Occupants are less mentally capable than others is not a defense.
If there was an IQ test for determining whether presidents violated their oath of office, no Republican would ever be impeachable for anything.
Mad Lib@91 Instead of thinking about 69 read what I said in 69!
The FBI in my house requires a warrant. Talking about strawman canards.
It may, however, save them from jail. Bush reminds me a little of the federal judge who, while sentencing an Idaho GOP congressman for corruption, said words to the effect of:
“I have doubts about your guilt. You impress me as too stupid to form the requisite criminal intent.”
Wow! This thread is already up to 100 posts! That’s more than the sucky little competing blog gets all year!
RancidButtPutty@Everywhere: Get a grip Darrell. Just bring your sadsack and your handfull of sockpuppets by DL and we’ll buy you a lemonaide while we explain basic constitutional law to you. . .
Or perhaps we should just send Rujax and Headless down to Mason County and slap you upsides the head. . . . .
Roger Rabbit at 90.
While I agree with your sentiment, it isn’t up to the AG or the police to determine guilt or innocence. That is up to a jury.
They are, however, required to affirm under oath a “reasonable” cause in order for a judge to effect a warrant. I’m no lawyer, but I’m pretty damn sure I’m right on this one.
@84 Yeah, Putin is an excellent example of the kind of statesman you wingnut robots admire.
Roger Rabbit says:
Public announcement: The de-nazification of America will begin in Jan. 2009. When it is completed, there will be no fascist organizations or fascist politicians left in America.
Does that mean the end to the ACLU?
One of life’s stranger ironies is that all the (formerly) anti-communist rightwingers have become Trotskyites.
Roger Rabbit @ 93:
It was just tounge in cheek. But, thanks for the clarification.
95 Pud
Umm, Pud, you do realize, don’t you, that this thread is about illegal warrantless eavesdropping?
@101 No, it most emphatically does not mean the end of the ACLU, but it does mean we will have to expand the federal prison system to house all the Republicans who will be living on government board.
Here’s some sick shit:
http://video.google.com/videop.....2810348478
Will January 2009 mean the end of this type of facism?
105
Too bad. I was hoping to see the end of that numbnuts org.
@99 No, they only need “probable cause,” which is a rather low standard, but our GOP friends can’t even do that right.
Puddybud @ 95:
I wish I were talking to you face-to-face, that way I could s-l-o-w down for you so you could get catch a ride on the clue train.
This time you go back and “think” about it. It’s a privacy issue. Whether it’s a physical search of your residence or intercepting your communication it’s all covered under the, . . . . (attempting to slow down for you)principle of privacy and least amount of government intrusion into our lives.
Get
it
now?
Good, GAWD, man. You’re either dumb, which I doubt, or a political hack arguing against the facts just to get under the skin of us liberals.
I hope, that conservatives aren’t really that stupid.
@105 Why do you think protecting your First Amendment rights is “numbnuts”? Do you think the First Amendment itself is “numbnuts”? I certainly get that impression.
No, we need to ACLU around, to protect us from numbnuts like you.
@109 Privacy? They don’t understand privacy. Remember, you’re talking to people who think the government should be able to search your bedroom to make sure you’re not using condoms.
Roger Rabbit @ 108.
Like I said, I’m no lawyer, but I’ll go with your wording since it sounds more familiar.
I think I’m confusing the lingo in the 4th amendment regarding the need for “probable cause” to have a warrant that allows “reasonable searches and seizures.” Yeah?
110
Because they’re a bunch of fucking hypocrites. They won’t tolerate dissent on their board of directors. Remember that recent little bit of dirty laundry that assholes like KO, that Abrams asshole and Bill Maher never seem to get around to talking about? Some baord members were saying not-so-nice things about the “bastion of liberaism.” Seems they don’t like free speech when it isn’t exactly what they want to hear.
Hey Roger – FUCK YOU!
PudWax™: What evidence, besides their word (which is worthless), do you have that this besotted administration is only listening to calls going outside the country or into the country? What if you call a number that is rerouted to Pakistan or India? This happens all the time. People’s private credit information is then collected by the government.
Are you sure you are not a Democrat? You’ve got acting like an ASS down to a T.
Here’s a question for you where you can display your command of the ‘facts’:
Is the Republican administration in S. Carolina, in your opinion, dealing with a moral or legal issue in their obdurate refusal to desist from displaying the confederate flag on the state capitol’s dome?
Daddy Love, I was answering a previous Mad Lib post.
Follow the thread…
Wow that Putin comment stung Pelletizer. Like a swift kick in the “cottontail” eh? Oh thats right you are human. So your sofa laden fat ass.
Headless Racist@116: Using your 16th name doesn’t mean anything to me. The only fact I have about you is your racism. Since that blinds me, I can’t see what you post after that…
Did you get my memo yet?
Puddy, anti-terrierist bed wetter avers: “The FBI in my house requires a warrant.”
Well, no. Not if Bush declares you an “enemy combatant”. Then you just disappear.
Perhaps President Clinton\Obama should just ‘disappear’ Billy Kristol right after the Inaugeration to demonstrate to the dead-ender wingnuts just how egregiously dangerous this Bush folly is.
PudWax: You are too cowardly to answer the question because it would involve admitting to yourself that the Republican Party is racist.
Is the Republican administration in S. Carolina, in your opinion, dealing with a moral or legal issue in their obdurate refusal to desist from displaying the confederate flag on the state capitol’s dome?
PudWax™: What do you think the confederate flag represents? Why is it only flown in RED states?
@ 119:
Ahhhh, yes. I believe they call that the “what goes around comes around” of Karmic justice.
Wouldn’t it be great, if President Clinton/Obama declared Karl Rove an enemby combatant. Even if Bush pardoned him before leaving the WH, Karl could be declared an enemy combatant, sent off to a prison in Syria for some waterboarding. You know, because it’s not torture, it’s liek doing the back stroke.
@ 121:
Just to play devils advocate; could the flag mean anything besides racism?
Could it also be a symbol of history, albeit, a checkered past?
Is there NO legitimate reason to continue to fly the Confederate flat, at all, any where, any time?
Should we abandon the Crucifix because the KKK burns a cross?
PudWax™: Why are you voting for Obama? You don’t agree with his political philosophy. You don’t agree with him on the issues. MY,my…. Whatever could that reason be?
@ 124:
Why would Puddybud vote for Obama? He’s clearly a conservative.
125 cont.
IF, he said he was voting for Obama, clearly he’s pulling your leg.
re 123: Should we fly Nazi flags because some Germans didn’t kill Jews? Couldn’t the Swastica just represent those happy times when production was up and the trains ran on time?
Mad Lib you are mixing up issues like how you mix metaphors.
The domestic issues are all defined by existing case law. The SCOTUS has not ruled on overseas wiretaps.
No Headless Lucy Name #16: I don’t answer to racists or their racist traps.
Good try missing link Good bye.
The confederate flag represents something as abhorrent as the Swastica does. Calling either an homage to your culture and history is a dodge.
I stated my reasons for voting for Obama.
Clueless Idiot, post what I wrote. Post what I wrote about my siblings too since these 2 hour Alzheimic liberals can’t remember anything.
Headless Lucy@130: No dodge, I just decided to not answer to your racist rants anymore. If PacMan or undercover brother choose to thats their business.
You are a racist fool. No pun intended there.
Besides how does the SC flag have anything to do with the “FISA Showdown” Thread title racist lucy?…
Puddybud, I don’t know how to make this any clearer for you. One last try then it’s time to move on.
A phone call orignated in the United States by an innocent citizen, where there is no probable cause of wrong doing established and affirmed under oath cannot have their private communications monitored by the government.
BESIDES that, there is a BIGGER issue of calls and other forms of communication that are originating in the United States and staying within the boundaries of the United States that are also being monitored by the government. Which is a gross violation of the Constitutioin.
Got it?
re 129: You don’t answer because you can’t.
You know what the Republican flying of the confederate flag means. You understand what the Republican ‘southern strategy’ is.
To give an answer would entail questioning the authority of your beloved, although racist, Republican Party.
If, as Puddy says, the reason he won’t answer the question is because I asked it. Then someone else should ask it.
By the way racist lucy the choosing of “Little Lord Fauntleroy” is for your penis size right?
You are the last of anyone to practice compassion and social justice towards humanity with your racist rants. You are more like the grandfather before the boy came back to England.
Well maybe you’d look well-dressed as a little boy in purple velvet suits with frilly lace collars and yello sashes and short knee-pants. Maybe some jackboots will fit you too.
@ 127:
The great difference being that the Confederate flag is a part of American history whereas the Nazi flag belongs to Germany.
While I get your analogy of the brutality of Nazi Germany and our own bout of brutality of slavery, the Confederate flag is a part of our American history.
Which we should not shy away from.
PuddyFuck the Idiot.
Oh no racist lucy@135: I won’t answer you but I’ll ridicule you on your racism with every fiber of my being…
Tommy Thompson: The Vacuous Moron.
Idiot is reserved for YLB – The Clueless Idiot.
Confederate Flag: Product of Donkeys. Invented by Donkeys.
Why are we still talking about the Confederate flag???
re 133: In # 40 I asked you:
“re 12: They know all the bad guys phone numbers? But they won’t arrest them? They just listen to their phone conversations!?!?
PudWax™, you truly are an idiot.”
In # 43, you, instead of answering my question, brought up race:
“Puddybud, The Fact Finding Prognosticator… says:
Headless Lucy appears using name #16. Howdy racist!”
Wikipedis defines Uncle Tom thusly: “An Uncle Tom is a pejorative for an African American who is perceived by others as behaving in a subservient manner to White American authority figures, …”
You fit that definition, PudWax™, because you will not denounce the flying of the confederate flag by Republican politicians. You can not have it both ways. You can’t call me a racist for labeling you as what you are.
Little Lord Fauntleroy isn’t you. Go back to name #15 Creighton Baril.
Hey 16%er liberals, you know why I dislike all of you?
Mr. X
Perfessor Darryl
GBS
Pelletizer
correctnotright
rhp6033
Clueless Idiot – begrudgingly
Are the only ones who rejected Little Lord Fauntleroy – Creighton Baril – Headless Lucy’s racist rants.
So I will continue to treat the rest of you with full disdain for the enablers you all are.
Enablers? Hell yes. Where is your repudiation? You want me to repudiate GWB whom I’ve never met, but you all cheer on headless whom some of you met at a DL party.
Put that into your crack pipe and smoke it. See ya.
can you two take your flag/racist debate to the open thread please?
Name one black person who approves of what the confederate flag stands for? — except yourself, Wax™.
Mad Lib: Only your resident racist headless lucy (Little Lord Fauntleroy) brought up the confederate flag.
He like Pelletizer will hijack a thread.
Mad Lib just repudiate headless racist.
I dare you!
Wax™: How do you know that I’m not Black? If I were, how would your perception of me change?
re 150: Would it be OK for another black person to point out that you are an Uncle Tom?
Puddybud,
“You want me to repudiate
GWBheadlss whom I’ve never met,”Can we stay on topic? Please?
Perhaps, you can answer my charge at 134 instead of all the flag/racist garbage.
…because you are. For all the reasons I’ve enumerated.
Go fuck yourself. You can’t hide behind your race anymore.
Later.
You two can hash out your personal views on race and the Confederate flag.
Little Lord Fauntleroy fix your italics jackASS. All your reasons are worthless cuz you are a racist.
After post #144:
Rujax! shuts up
ArtFart shuts up
Mad Lib shuts up
Daddy Love shuts up
Tommy Thompson shuts up
Sure is amazing…
Mad Lib @134 Where did I say I supported domestic calls starting and ending the the US anywhere?
URL?
Citation?
Time and Date Stamp?
I already stated the SCOTUS has not decided case law on the going out of the US yet.
Is English your third language?
146 I’ve actually seen black people in Alabama wearing jackets with the Stars and Bars on the back. Why? I never asked ’em, but I might point out that there are certain aspects of “southern culture” that are not easy for us Yankees to fully comprehend.
re 157: You’re using the same sort of anecdotal evidence that PudWax™ often uses to make his points. But, no big deal. I can understand why you don’t want to jump in the racial pit of quicksand that PudWax™ has created.
Every time I try to participate in a thread, that Uncle Tom calls me a racist and squelches me.
I’m not putting up with his bullshit any longer.
If he wants to call me a racist, then I’ll call him an Uncle Tom — which he is.
Jesus, this thread looks as off topic as if JCH posted here. Less him getting a bitch-blog slapping by me, of course.
Puddybud,
Still having race relations problems with the honkys I see. Man, after a while, you gotta wonder who is the common denominator here: You or all of the whiteys?
Bro, I’m starting to think you don’t like us crackers in general, but will tolerate a few of us white devils, but not many.
Philly, the city of brotherly love. Well, depending on which side of Broad Street you’re on.
158 Guilty as charged. I’ve also been known to trot out my little anecdote about having spotted a bumper sticker that said, “Save the whales–boycott Japanese goods”–on the back of a Datsun. (For the youn’uns among us, that’s the brand that latter became Nissan.)
144 – If you think I took orders from you, you’re wrong.
I REJECT YOU AND YOUR AGENDA HERE TOTALLY.
If you believe that people who comment here, who think Republicans suck are “16%ers” you still have to answer to why you support the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate – Barack Obama for President of the United States.
Obama even exceeds Teddy Kennedy!
It’s a fact. Read it and weep!
http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings
Everyone else: ignore PuddySilly’s orders to dance to his tune. It’s utterly disingenuous and only serves his twisted agenda which is fathomable only to the choir of voices in his empty head.
162. Exactly. The guy’s so stupid he thinks he’s making points when in reality, he’s being ignored.
I’m here to share information with others who might make use of it, not to provide therapy for the hopelessly deranged.
BREAKING NEWS
Dave Reichert has just announced he will not seek re-election in 2008. Sources say he’s going to retire from congress and return to the King County Sheriffs department as a Deputy Sheriff’.
It’s also being reported that Dave will be assigned to the Special Victims Unit. Dave’s first case will be to identify the body of a local black man, about 6’ 2” tall, goes by the blogger name of Puddybud. Ironically, he was found dead, face down in his bathtub filled with milk, Life cereal, and a banana protruding from his anus. Deputy sheriff Reichert was quoted as saying “It looks as if we have a cereal killer on our hands.”
When asked if there were any suspects in the case, Deputy Dave responded “It must’ve been someone Puddybud knew, someone Puddybud trusted and that someone had to strong enough to hold his head under the milk until he drowned. Most likely a man. A man who could pack a banana in his anus. I will dub the suspect ‘PackMan’.”
More new on this developing case as details emerge.
For KIRO NEWS, this is Joe King reporting.
Careful, guys. You’ve got Mr Ebonics so spun up he’s apt to disintegrate totally, and that would be, well..too funny!
Doesn’t seem to take much to make THAT agitator hyperactive.
#146 Little Lord Fauntleroy says:
Hey headless lucy, do you have any black friends? Name one.
Hey, Marvy, do you have ANY friends? Name one.
#158 Little Lord Fauntleroy says:
Further proof headless lucy is a racist.
Marvin Stamn: I don’t believe you ever toured with musicians. You wouldn’t know a B flat from an A sharp.
GBS: Only the ignorant ones.
Helpless Lucy: Regarding you being black; you would have used that “standard” back in 2005.
Nope you are not black.
I don’t trade on blackness like you do. You are the type of black person that I detest most of all. If, that is, you are black in the first place.
You browbeat and silence people with this ‘black’ thing that you’ve got going for yourself.
You are a miserable Uncle Tom black man who won’t even denounce the confederate flag for what it is.
And that handful of mainstream black artists that you and Marvin always mention is laughable.
You’d have to Google YellowMan to find out who he is.
Re Goldy’s article, I think the Executive can pardon a criminal act, but not protect someone from civil liability. Thus the need for immunity from suit.
Though why anyone would want to provide someone immunity for clearing disaobeying the lawis beyond me. There is nothing ‘in good faith obeyed the Exsecutive’s request’ about this. This is basic rule of law stuff. They SHOULD have required a court order or warrant, as FISA clearly required. Otherwise the majority party can simply run rampant over the law, which of course is what the ‘unitary theory of the Executive’, and this sought immunity, achieves.
As to comment #12, the President does not take an oath to ‘protect the country’, but to preserve and protect the Constitution. And there is quite a bit of difference between the two. Protecting the Constitution means acting within the law (i.e. within the Constitution); it manifesting does NOT mean doing anything one feels needs doing in the interests of ‘national security’. Nor is the President the ‘Commander in Chief’ of the country, instead, he/she is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, and again, there is quite a difference between the two. The latter means that the rule of law does not stop in war time and the President may do as he/she sees fit. We still have separation of powers, rule of law, and entire Constitutional framework. In the case of the telecoms, the law required a valid warrant. To allow otherwise is to subvert the Constitution, which IS directly contrary to the President’s oath.
These things are not subject to partisan opinion, it’s pretty basic stuff: sort of like not firing A U.S. attorney in order to obstruct justice. Basic stuff.
#168 Little Lord Fauntleroy says:
How cute, a 3 chord guitar player is asking theory questions. Did you find that question on google?
#171 Creighton Baril says:
Sounds like an admission you detest all black people, some more so than others.
re 175: No. I didn’t. Did you find the answer on Google? Maybe you could ask PuddyTom™.
174 Protect the country, or protect the constitution…Bush has done neither.
theres was a good piece on this issue on “countdown” on the 13th, as well as one about Rove having his ass handed to him by a highschool senior in a debate.
We sent the letter below to Pelosi and our Senators and US Rep. If you feel likewise, maybe do something similar to give them some positive reinforcement:
———–
February 15, 2007
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House
D.C. office via fax 202 225-8259
202 225-4188
District Office
450 Golden Gate Ave., 14th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
Dear Speaker Pelosi:
This is a heartfelt THANK YOU to you and the rest of the Democrats in the House of Representatives for finally standing up to President Bush’s fearmongering on FISA, and refusing to enact the administration’s and the Senate’s version of the so-called Protect America Act. Please continue to protect our Constitution while doing what is needed to combat terrorism threats to the United States. No bill at all will be better than what the Senate passed.
No matter who wins the nomination, we Democrats will win the Presidency this year with a transformative candidate, and we will solidify our control of Congress IF WE START STANDING UP FOR WHAT WE BELIEVE AS DEMOCRATS. The country is with us on this and every other real issue.
Sincerely,
Tom and Cheryl Fitzpatrick
Kenmore WA
Cc via fax: Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, Representative Jay Inslee
Terrorist @ 12 and several others.
I commend you on one of the more verbose non-answers we’ve seen in the comment threads here in a long time.
Nevertheless, you haven’t answered the question I’ve asked. If the Protect America Act is so absolutely necessary for the protection of American lives, then why would GWB threaten to veto the law if it doesn’t include telecom immunity? Is immunity for telecoms more important than the lives of American people?
‘Course, you’ll just dance around that question again, which is why I’ll keep call you “Terrorist”.
Mad Lib – Idiots (PuddyBrainFart) don’t know how to respond, so they deflect to other issues.
@155 – PuddyBrain – you are delusional – I “Shut Up”, as you put it, because I left work for the day.
I think if anyone here is racist, the “N” word would have come out by now – especially when you could hide behind the scene, but possibly be censored.