Trent Lott may not run for reelection, and according to righty columnist Robert Novak, Mississippi Republicans fear the seat might go Democratic.
Trent Lott within the next week plans to decide between seeking a fourth term in the U.S. Senate from Mississippi or retiring from public life.
That could determine whether Republicans keep control of the Senate in next year’s elections. For the longer range, Lott’s retirement and replacement could signal that Southern political realignment has peaked and now is receding.
Mississippi, one of the reddest of the red Republican states, has not even been on the game board of the Washington analysis forecasting the 2006 Senate outcome. But in Mississippi, prominent Republicans are worried sick. They believe Lott will probably retire. If so, they expect the new senator will be a Democrat, former State Attorney General Mike Moore. Republican politicians in Mississippi believe Rep. Chip Pickering, the likely Republican nominee if Lott does not run, cannot defeat Moore.
2006 is shaping up to be an awfully tough year for the GOP. If they’re worried about defending their turf in the Deep South, it’s hard to imagine them mounting a tough challenge out here in the Pacific Northwest.
Schumer, the head of Senate Democrats’ campaign efforts, said Tuesday he is focusing on seven states where he believes they can take GOP-held Senate seats in 2006: Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri, Montana, Tennessee, and Arizona.
http://customwire.ap.org/dynam....._DEMOCRATS?
SITE=JRC&SECTION=POLITICS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2005-12-27-14-51-50
Oh, I can see it now: A Democratic controlled senate issuing subpoenas that compels those who have been subpoenaed to testify under oath with the force of law behind it.
The last two years of W’s presidency bogged down in hearings, if he makes it that far.
Hahahahahahaha Oh my, where are the outraged neo-convicts now? Imagine a president lying under oath about his “predatory sexual behavior” (say it again Mark the ‘Tard you make me laugh), but nary a word about W failing to uphold his oath of office to “defend and protect the Constitution of the United States of America.”
Mark, how’s your face healing up? Did you tell everyone that you stepped on a rake will picking up litter along Hwy. 2 as part of your community service?
Loser.
Hey GBS – Did the bruises heal yet? LMAO. Call me “chilling” again. LMAO.
Tell us… why did Bubba fork over EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS to settle the case? ‘Cause he was innocent?
Moron…
Here’s one I can’t wait to see bite the dust:
16. If the election for United States Senate were held today, and the choice was between Robert Casey, Jr., the Democrat and Rick Santorum, the Republican, whom would you vote for?
Robert Casey 50%
Rick Santorum 39%
Other 1%
Undecided 10%
http://www.strategicvision.biz.....l_1221.htm
I don’t believe Novak is being straight about this (shocking!). I think he’s guilting Lott to stay in the race. If Lott retires, it would be a very tough race for Moore or, perhaps my favorite, Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS).
GBS – I’m really glad you’re back. I need somebody to slap around.
Tell me, should McDermott resign because he broke the law, or are HIS illegal wiretaps OK?
Or would it be “chilling” and “morally repugnant” for him to fess up and resign?
7
I’ll trade you McDermott for Bush. Deal? Oh, never mind … you’re a welsher. Nobody can make a bet or a deal with you.
Oh, before I forget, righton is a nazi and prr too
MTR, you ass —
There’s a big difference:
McDermott never wiretapped anybody.
Bush says he has the right to wiretap anybody and everybody.
I said this before on another thread but…
How can ANYONE continue to support such an incompetent bunch of CLOWNS. The UBER-pragmatic “redneck” would have FIRED any and all of these fuckups a LOOOONG time ago. WHY? Because if they were responsible for efficient business operation and turning a profit…they COULDN’T DO IT!
Yet all these troll-nutz think Bu$hco(tm) is just the shit. Go Figure. Naaahhhh…like I said, “redneck” is on the payroll somewhere. Gotta be. Nothing else figures.
NinSeattle – OK, yer right. The grandparents just happened to have a cell phone and just happened to have tape recorder handy in their car when they happened to hear Newt. So is Baghdad Jim culpable for being a co-conspirator? Should NYT also be indicted as co-conspirators?
WHAT DID HE KNOW????
WHEN DID HE KNOW IT????
WHY DIDN’T HE CONNECT THE DOTS???
Those would be the headlines and the bloglines if/when we’re hit again. GWB is doing the smart thing by getting info where available. As you well know if you study this, he’s WELL within the law, and he certainly has the moral clarity to do what’s right.
wabbit @ 9 – Did you forget somebody?
Why did he bypass the Judiciary? They approve well over 90% of the requests in less than one day?
Or is his power only limited by his (or more likely Dick Chaney’s)imagination?
Mark The Redneck @ 4, this bullshit must be answered.
Q. Tell us… why did Bubba fork over EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS to settle the case? ‘Cause he was innocent?
Let us asked the accused himself.
A. Page 830 of My life by William J. Clintons
…I settled the Jones lawsuit for a large amount of money and no apology. I hated to do it because I had won a clear victory on the law and the facts in a politically motivated case. Jones lawyers had appealed her case to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, but the governing case law was clear: if the Court of Appeals followed its own decisions, I would win the appeal. Unfortunately, the three-judge panel assigned to hear the case was headed by Pasco Bowman, the same ultra conservative judge who had removed Judge Henry Woods from one of the Whitewater cases in the basis of spurious newspaper articles after Woods had rendered a decision that Starr didn’t like. Pasco Bowman, like Judge David Sentelle in Washington, had shown that he was willing to make exceptions to the normal rules of law in Whitewater related cases.
Jones the groupie, pinup girl, and tool of the right wing dings was discarded like yesterdays trash after she served her purpose. I would feel sorry for her, except I believe that what goes around comes around.
Ogg – Look, the guy was a predator. He had been one his whole life. The list was endless. He was arrogant enough to think he could get away with it. Finally one of them decided enough was enough and called bullshit on him. The asshole got what he deserved.
And c’mon…. quoting bubba’s book? Please.
The fact remains… he was impeached and disbarred because he lied to grand jury in an attempt to conceal a pattern of predatory behavior.
Think about it… if a low level manager at a corporation did this would he be allowed to keep his job? No. If a military officer did the same thing would he keep his command? No. Yet this immoral asshole kept his job as commander in chief. Shameful…
Ogg – I answered your bullshit, but it’s hung in the filter.
Shit piss cock cunt mother fucker screw nazi fascist jew hymie nigger fuck
Those words are all OK, but thoughtful replies to bullshit comments are not.
How many Bush officials to screw in a lightbulb?
None. There’s nothing wrong with that light bulb. There is no need to change anything. We made the right decision and nothing has happened to change our minds. People who criticize this light bulb now, just because it doesn’t work anymore, supported us when we first screwed it in, and when these flip-floppers insist on saying that it is
burned out, they are merely giving aid and encouragement to the Forces of Darkness.– John Cleese.
Bullshit you make think it is MTR, but I think it pretty much tells it all. Bowman had an agenda, just like Jess Helms boy Sentelle, GOP (Get our President).
And their record is perfect. In all decisions concerning William J Clinton’s appeals to the 8th and DC Circus Court three Judge panel , NOT ONE DECISION WAS EVER IN CLINTONS FAVOR.
http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/articles/2060
Clinton = perjury — did he resign – NO
To all the donks who want President Bush to resign for any reason I say this:
FUCK YOU.
NUFF SAID
Bush and spying
Ok, i’m slow, but if NSA only listened to overseas calls to bomb throwing 911 types, so what. I say, tap some more.
I say again, with the Judiciary approving nearly all requests nearly immediately, why did they bypass them?
RUFUS and the rest-
If your arguement is your guy did it too, you’ve lost the arguement. Bush came in procaliming he would be better, more honest, more moral. Everytime you point to Clinton or McDermott, you concede he failed in his initial goals.
Former Mayor, anti-gay gay guy, Jim West is an excellent example of republican values. Blatant lies and corruption in public office. This is the guy to smear cruelly and paint with a broad brush republicans in general. Remember Jeff Gannon of militarystud.com? I wonder how many republican men he serviced in Bush’s White House?
The commie, cowardly, inbred, moronic, pathetic looooooser republicans may end up on the short end of the stick in BOTH chambers. Lott is just the first to go. Between federal prison sentences for DeLay and Frist, Santorum being squashed and other punks cutting and running, the Dems will clean up. Hopefully impeachment hearings will come in January 2007!
CDR OGG @16
I settled the Jones lawsuit for a large amount of money and no apology. I hated to do it because I had won a clear victory on the law and the facts in a politically motivated case. Jones lawyers had appealed her case to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, but the governing case law was clear: if the Court of Appeals followed its own decisions, I would win the appeal. Unfortunately, the three-judge panel assigned to hear the case was headed by Pasco Bowman, the same ultra conservative judge who had removed Judge Henry Woods from one of the Whitewater cases in the basis of spurious newspaper articles after Woods had rendered a decision that Starr didn’t like.
Wow, you actually read and attempted to digest that? Sorry…
CDR OGG @20
NOT ONE DECISION WAS EVER IN CLINTONS FAVOR.
Ummm, this was amazing because…? Perhaps he was guilty and his slimy lawyers couldn’t find any way to save his ass? Not that I give a shit…
CDR OGG,
You are just a little bit partisan. Here, have some of your spittle back…you sprayed me.
K @23
I say again, with the Judiciary approving nearly all requests nearly immediately, why did they bypass them?
That is what gets me, too. Why didn’t they? And it pisses me off. There are three branches of government for a reason…
Bush has given us a very good arguement for divided government. He clearly needs oversight.
K – what I have read is that the approval only takes a day, but the preparation of the paperwork can take weeks. If NSA hears a phone call from a foreign enemy, there isn’t time to go through even a week of paperwork. They will be gone by then.
I have also read that the congressional intelligence committees have been told all the names of those who have been tapped without a warrant. They have known this for quite some time.
The next big news will be that groups like code pink will show up being tapped, because they are contributing to the insurgents (read terrorists). But they are american citizens. This will be a very gray.
That should end “very gray area”.
I just hope that dems go after this with national security in mind, not looking at a power grab.
Janet S @29
there isn’t time to go through even a week of paperwork. They will be gone by then.
I appreciate the thought. To me, it is so much easier to ask forgiveness than permission. They could petition the court after the fact. If the court holds that the tap was unlawful, the government would then be unable to hold that information or make any records of it. As it is now, they can and do without the backing of law and precident.
No one got hurt with Clinton’s little personal blunder. Who cares, outside of right wing bedroom monitors. No comparison to these bastards, lied us into mindless bloody war, the torture issue which will take years to repair, illegal spying on Americans. Protected us at home with ‘heck of a job brownie boy’ Tom Brokaw on MTP 12/25/05. This guy (brownie) wouldn’t have been a store manager for Wal-Mart in east Wichita.” But Bush puts him in charge of protecting us in disasters.
Janet and Marks@29-31 Actually the way the law is currently written, you can go ahead and tap someone’s line without the warrant if it is that urgent, you just have to follow up with the FISA court up to three days later.
As for the preparation time, I don’t know where you got your information mark (Fox?) but doesn’t three weeks sound pretty ridiculous on its face?
The FISA court had not turned down a request in 20+ years until Bush started putting in requests that were patently illegal. The court had the temerity to suggest ways to accomplish the wire taps while staying in the law and Bush simply broke the law.
Their excuses and justifications for breaking the law should scare anyone who cares about democracy. The president has unlimited and unchecked power in time of crisis? That is the stuff of monarchs, dictators and petty tyrants…
We can make ourselves try and feel better by thinking it is only being done to whoever Bush decides to label a terrorist – but even if you are naïve or misinformed enough to think that is all that has or will be done, ask yourself this: do you want to live in an America where the Rule of Law still stands?
In a country of laws, the ends can not justify the means.
You know marks, I agree with you on this one. I distinctly remember when J Edgar Hoover died and the MLK Jr wiretaps came out I was pissed. He wiretapped MLK’s hotel rooms. They leaked MLK’s extra marital affairs. Did you know that AG Robert Kennedy authorized those wiretaps? So I can partially understand some the freaking out by various people if US Citizens are tapped. But if these are green card or visa visitors, I have no issue. Also it has come out that this information was known for a year at the NY Times and they are now printing it because a NYT reporter is about to out his CIA book? Now thats curious! And many members of congress knew this was going on!
Read this Marks: http://www.fitug.de/debate/9910/msg00603.html
marks @ 27, of course I am partisan. We all are. I think Democratic political ideas are better then Republican ones when it comes to government.
That said, if you do not believe that the Republicans conducted a 10 year war on bad Bill that ended with a phony impeachment for a blow job, what can I say? I think the evidence is overwhelming that this occurred. Hell, even Ann Coulter admitted that she was one of the Elves that aided Jones in an effort to destroy Clinton:
http://www.jewishworldreview.c.....103000.asp
During his testimony to Congress Ted Olson, our fine solicitor general, admitted the existence of the Arkansas Project while denying being part of it:
I do not know why Bush felt it necessary to violate US Code 50.36I §1809, unauthorized surveillance under color of law the law, but I think Attorney Alan Dershowitz points out that a court order involves keeping a record of the proceedings. The unanswered question is did President Bush authorized something that he did not want in an official record?
Heh wabbit,
Nazi’s steal your property…Sound Familiar, Yes…Ron Sims
Nazi’s steal your money…Sound Familiar, Yes, Gregoire
Nazi’s first call for Gun registation, Yes, then collect the gun’s, Sound familiar…Stay tuned to the next Democratic session in this state.
Who are you calling a Nazi sucker?
I can’t wait for the Fire Proof Cigarette bill to pass. Of course, they arn’t fire proof, but that’s beside the damn point, someone will feel good about putting it on their resume that they passed a Fire Proof Cigarette bill to protect people.
Little do they know that some idiot might actually believe them and end up dead…….
Off Subject:
Wabbit and gang NY Post has a different view than what you have been presenting lately.
THE GRAY LADY TOYS WITH TREASON
December 27, 2005 — Has The New York Times declared itself to be on the front line in the war against the War on Terror?
The self-styled paper of record seems to be trying to reclaim the loyalty of those radical lefties who ludicrously accused it of uncritically reporting on Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.
Yet the paper has done more than merely try to embarrass the Bush administration these last few months.
It has published classified information — and thereby knowingly blown the covers of secret programs and agencies engaged in combating the terrorist threat.
The most notorious example was the paper’s disclosure some 10 days ago that, since 9/11, the Bush administration has “secretly” engaged in warrantless eavesdropping on U.S.-based international phone calls and e-mails.
It’s not secret anymore, of course — though the folks who reacted to the naming of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative aren’t exactly shrieking for another grand jury investigation.
On the contrary: Democrats and their news-media allies — particularly on CNN and CBS — are openly suggesting that the president committed an impeachable offense and could (read: should) be removed from office.
In fact, the Times managed only to blow the lid off of what President Bush rightly calls “a vital tool in our war against the terrorists” — one that already has uncovered several terrorist plots.
Is it legal? The administration insists so, and notes that congressional Democrats got repeated briefings on the program, with few objections. Sure, the legality can be debated — but the case against it is far from a slam-dunk.
As for taking action without court-issued warrants, both the last two Democratic presidents, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, used warrantless searches — and strongly defended them as fully justified under the authority granted the president by the Constitution. In fact, the Washington Times reports that Clinton expanded their use to purely domestic situations — such as violent public-housing projects.
The Times says it held the story for more than a year, provoking a predictable uproar on the left. So why did it finally go ahead?
According to a Los Angeles Times report, New York Times editors knew that a book by the article’s author was to be published in just a few weeks — and they feared losing their “exclusive” to their own reporter’s outside work.
But the exact timing is highly suspect. The article appeared on the very day that the Senate was to vote on a Democratic filibuster against renewal of the anti-terrorist Patriot Act — a vote the Bush administration then lost. At least two previously undecided senators said they voted against the act precisely because of the Times piece.
BUT it’s not just the National Security Agency story.
Last May, the Times similarly “exposed” — in painstaking detail — the fact that the CIA uses its own airline service, posing as a private charter company, as “the discreet bus drivers of the battle against terrorism.”
In fact, as the Times itself reported, “the civilian planes can go places American military craft would not be welcome.” In an unconventional war, like the one against terrorism, the ability to move personnel around quickly and inconspicuously — or to deliver captured terrorists to a third country — is indispensable.
Thanks to the Times, that ability has been irrevocably compromised — costing Washington yet another vital tool in the War on Terror.
Then, not content to merely sabotage the federal government, the Times last week blew the whistle on the fact that the New York Police Department has been using plainclothes officers during protest demonstrations.
In particular, the cops have been exercising their vigilance on the group called Critical Mass, which the Times refers to benignly as “a monthly bicycle ride.”
Not quite. Yes, it began as peaceful, law-abiding rides — orderly protests. But it deteriorated last year into mass disruptions of traffic.
A federal judge unwisely refused the city’s demand that the riders obtain a police permit in advance — but still admitted that the monthly protests were “spawning potential dangers.”
All along, the NYPD has not been trying to shut the Critical Mass protests down or abridge anyone’s First Amendment rights. It has only insisted on safeguards — like permits — to guarantee that no laws are broken and traffic disruptions are held to a minimum.
Unable to get the courts to agree, the cops instead used plainclothes cops “to prevent and respond to acts of violence and other unlawful activity.”
In other words, to protect the people of New York.
Now, the Times has “exposed” this police work — and not just in words, but by splashing the pictures of these undercover officers across the pages of the newspaper, without making even the slightest effort to protect their identities.
And make no mistake: The result will be to compromise the ability of the NYPD to work undercover at a time of increasing danger to the city from back-pack-toting terrorists — a la Madrid and London.
Does The New York Times consider it self a law unto itself — free to subversively undercut basic efforts by any government to protect and defend its citizens?
The Times, it appears, is less concerned with promoting its dubious views on civil liberties than with undercutting the Bush administration. The end result of the paper’s flagrant irresponsibility: Lives have been put in danger on the international, national and local levels.
The ability of the nation to perform the most fundamental mission of any government — protection of its citizens — has been pointlessly compromised.
The Jayson Blair and Judith Miller fias coes were high-profile embarrass ments for The Times, but at the end of the day mostly damaged the newspaper alone.
The NSA, CIA and NYPD stories are of a different order of magnitude — they place in unnecessary danger the lives of U.S. citizens.
The New York Times — a once-great and still-powerful institution — is badly in need of adult supervision.
http://www.nypost.com/postopin...../60379.htm
12
“So is Baghdad Jim culpable for being a co-conspirator?”
No. He had nothing to do with taping the conversation. The tape was passed to him after it was made. So how could he be a co-conspirator? And how could an accidentally overheard conversation be a conspiracy? What McDermott did with the tape may not have been appropriate. But McDermott is a psychiatrist, not a lawyer. In hindsight, maybe he should have talked to a lawyer first, but what he did was due to ignorance of the law.
Bush, on the other hand, is surrounded by lawyers; and either they told him what he wanted to hear (in which case, they’re crappy lawyers), or (more probably) he ignored their advice. Bush acted deliberately, and not in ignorance of the law, but in violation of it. McDermott received and disseminated one intercepted communication; Bush ordered thousands of interceptions.
No question here who is more culpable; there’s no comparison.
13
Colin Powell says surveillance is necessary to national security, and I agree with him. That’s not the issue. The issue is whether those conducting the surveillance should comply with the law and obtain a warrant when they deem surveillance of U.S. citizens justified. The warrant ensures that a legitimate justification exists, and that the NSA is not abusing its authority to conduct domestic surveillance that has nothing to do with national security, such as for the purpose of spying on or harassing the president’s critics or political opponents.
The fact Bush went around the warrant procedure tells me he wants to conduct domestic surveillance that is, in fact, abusive. There is no other explanation for his failure to comply with the law.
14
“wabbit @ 9 – Did you forget somebody?”
Thanks for reminding me. Ann Coulter is a nazi. She looks like a pig, too. She’s also a whore.
16
“Jones the groupie, pinup girl, and tool of the right wing dings was discarded like yesterdays trash after she served her purpose. I would feel sorry for her, except I believe that what goes around comes around.”
Hmmm … that’s interesting. One of Paul Jones’s lawyers, a certain Ann Coulter, now says Jones is a “fraud.”
Clinton paid Paula Jones $800,000 for the alleged privilege of asking her to perform a sex act. Penthouse paid Paula Jones … how much, $800,000? more? less? … for the privilege of displaying her naked to the entire world. Well, what know what Paula Jones is, and what her fee is, don’t we? She’s a high-priced (but not high-class) hooker.
Reminds me of the joke about a businessman visiting New York who propositioned a young woman as follows:
He: “If I pay you $10,000, will you spend the night with me?”
She: “Sure!”
He: “Will you do it for $20?”
She: “What do you think I am?!!”
He: “We’ve already established that. Now we’re just haggling over the price.”
17
“Ogg – Look, the guy was a predator. He had been one his whole life. The list was endless. He was arrogant enough to think he could get away with it.”
True enough, and a draft dodger too, but despite his character flaws he was a damn smart (and damn successful) president.
“Finally one of them decided enough was enough and called bullshit on him.”
I would insert the word “allegedly” into this sentence, because Paula Jones is by no means a credible complainant.
“The asshole got what he deserved.”
I’d have to ask Hillary, but since he appears to still be in one piece, I doubt it.
“And c’mon…. quoting bubba’s book? Please.”
Why not? Give it a couple years and you’ll be quoting Bush’s book. Why should you Republican assholes have a monopoly on quoting books? You want a monopoly on every fucking thing! We have as much right to quote books as you do! So, screw yourself.
“The fact remains… he was impeached and disbarred because he lied to grand jury in an attempt to conceal a pattern of predatory behavior.”
He was disbarred for lying to a grand jury about a private consensual affair that gave rise to no civil or criminal legal liability. Was that stupid? Oh, God, yes! Should lawyers get disbarred for lying to grand juries? Yes, a no-brainer. Was Clinton’s private consensual sexual affair any of Ken Starr’s business? Hell, no. Was Ken Starr an impartial prosecutor dedicated to the law and justice? Hell, no, he was a GOP party hack abusing his office for political motivations. Should Ken Starr have been disbarred, too? If it were up to me, I’d disbar him in a flash.
“Think about it… if a low level manager at a corporation did this would he be allowed to keep his job? No. If a military officer did the same thing would he keep his command? No. Yet this immoral asshole kept his job as commander in chief. Shameful…”
All I can say is, if I had been a U.S. Senator voting on the issue, I would have voted to remove him. Despite the fact he was a good president. Because I don’t think Clinton’s behavior is acceptable in any workplace. Because if a little guy did it, he would lose his job, and I’m an egalitarian who doesn’t believe the rich, powerful, or high and mighty are entitled to special treatment or different rules. They ought to live by the same rules as the rest of us.
And if Clinton had been removed, Bush would have run in 2000 against an incumbent President Gore — and lost.
39
Democracy 101, According to Klake
1. President decides to break and law and violate citizens’ constitutional rights.
2. President decides to cover up his lawbreaking, so he declares his illegal acts “classified.”
3. Newspaper finds out President has violated the Constitution, a federal statute, and his oath of office, and reports it.
4. Klake the Flake declares the newspaper a “traitor” for revealing “classified” information.
Hey klake, you should move to North Korea, you would do well there. Kim Jong Il would like your attitude and find a good job for you.
Reply to 37
GS is a nazi, and a fascist pig too.
Oh, and did I forget to mention? GS is a nazi.
Did I mention I think Rabbit is a Nazi
Yes I did mention that Rabbit is a Nazi, but I forgot to mention that he is also a fascist pig too!
48, 49
What a feeble, unimaginative, lackluster comeback. May the fleas of a thousand camels infest your armpits.*
* Ancient Middle Eastern curse
Wells@26
Actually I think Jim Wests problem was he was surrounded by Democrats so he started thinking and acting like a homo liberal….
Republican Trainwreck #92383043847
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....per28.html
LeftTurn@52
http://clinton-legacy.org/
The liberal poster boy…
Centrist Democrats do not share Goldy’s enthusiasm.
http://www.washtimes.com/natio.....-1549r.htm
Here’s something somebody emailed to me:
Many years ago in Seattle, two wonderful neighbors, Elliott and
Patty Roosevelt came to my home to swim on a regular basis. They were a
great couple full of laughter and stories that today I continue to marvel
at.
Both are now deceased, but their stories remain. During the years
of our
friendship we had many, many discussions about his parents
(President Franklin D. and Eleanor Roosevelt) and how his father and mother
never intended for the Social Security and Welfare programs to turn out
the way they are today. Elliott used to say that if his mother returned to
earth and saw what the politicians had done to their programs she would
have burned all of them in hell.
Here is a story I received today regarding the Social Security
Program and I immediately thought of Elliott’s comments. Hope you will
read this and think about it.
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security
(FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be completely
voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first
$1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,
> >
3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program
would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the independent “Trust
Fund” rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would
only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other
Government program, and,
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed
as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving
a Social Security check every month — and then finding that we are
getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to “put
away,” you may be interested in the following:
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
independent “Trust” fund and put it into the General fund so that
Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House
and Senate.
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for
Social Security (FICA) withholding
A: The Democratic Party.
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the “tie-breaking”
deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice-President of
the U.S.
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments
to immigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:
A: That’s right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants
moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social
Security
payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even
though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and violation of the
original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you
that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens believe it!
Maybe Mississippi could turn, but based on this AP story, Mass is still a marijuana blue state now the wealthy ‘rats chillen are doing it: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories.....7046.shtml
It will be a great relief when the Democratic party takes over the Senate majority once more and can begin to pursue some of the stinking corruption and illegality of both the Administration and Congress. There will be a ten-mile-long Republican conga line to the federal prison.
Yes, Puddy, we all know that Blue state kids never do drugs.
Wow. Stupid me; I meant “Red state kids.”
The fact that this republican administration is COMPLETELY incompetent is obviously the Democrats fault.
Oh…and the Kurds have infiltrated the Iraqi forces with 10,000 troops so they can take over Northern Iraq…including the oilfields at Kirkuk. The Kurds are behind the new pro-war ad campaign.
Oh…and the FISA Court CLEANED UP requests submitted by the incompetent Bu$h DoJ so those requests would pass legal muster.
…but it’s STLLL all Bill Clinton’s fault.
(last time chimpy saw a blow job they had to truck in whores from Plano…what a f’kin’ asshole dumbshit)
And of course Republicans have no ethical problems (PDF warning).
Yossarian – don’t post urban legends. The email is so full of half truths and BS – do you believe everything you get in an email or from right wing radio? Use your brain.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/sschanges.asp
Can Conservatives ever defend George W. Bush without bring up a Democrat?
And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens believe it!
Comment by Yossarian— 12/28/05 @ 7:47 am
Yossarian back when I was a little whipper snapper that was how SSI was handdled, Today it is being abused for what Social Security was intended to provide. The political parties today pratice what the Germans did back in he 1930’s. Paul Joseph Goebbels (1897-1945):. Reich Propaganda Director of the NSDAP and Reich Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda. “Tell a big lie longe enought and the mass will belive it’s the TRUTH.”
SHORTER CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT 1994:
“I’m from the government, and I’m here to help you.”
HAW HAW HAW! AW HAW HAW HAW HAW! Thassa good one! Yee-haaa!
SHORTER CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT 2005:
“I’m from the government, and I’m here to spy on you and perhaps indefinitely detain you without charges.”
That sounds reasonable.
Thanks to alicublog.
Conservatives USED to believe in limited government, individual rights, balanced budgets, political prudence and religious moderation, but from their ACTIONS we know that is BS.
Robert
I’d say rather that conservatives used to say they believe in those things but never did.
Hey Robert –
Thanks for the Snopes link. Isn’t it funy how they’ll cut and past their favorite Internet trash without attribution (or, apparently, critical thinking)?
Bad news for Dems.
Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States.
http://www.rasmussenreports.co.....proval.htm
Daddy Love,
Yep – it is “for” their argument they cut-n-paste it without a thought. If it doesn’t help their arugment is “Librul Media”.
If you don’t have an argument – change the subject, throw mud, etc.
Robert, Klake, et. al.
The post was just to get responses. It did what it was inteded to do.
It would be as if I went to PETA’s website and posted a story about a lady trying to dry a wet puppy in a microwave.
Motto of the story – don’t belive anything you hear and only half of what you see. And don’t belive anything you read here.
nice weasel yossarian… almost.
You’re not gonna get away with trying to post a lie that easily!
Liar.
LoveDaddy: First I love that Freudian slip of yours! I never said red state chillen didn’t do drugs. I was commenting on the novel way AFFLUENT blue stater chillens are now drug advertising. Come on LoveDaddy, you know most red state kids don’t have them ‘spensive picture phones yet.
Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the NSA should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States.
http://www.rasmussenreports.co.....proval.htm
Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the NSA should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States
The above poll compliments of razzmuzzen dot com.
I had to mis-spell the name of the polling company because of Goldy’s censorship of the site name.
Radical libs just love the free exchange of ideas!
jaybo
The NSA is allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. All they have to do is get a FISA warrant, as I understand it, or get Congress to legislate it if they are not currently allowed. No problem. All nice and legal. It’s the governmental lawbreaking that’t the problem, you see.
Don’t talk to me, talk to the american people.
They’re the one’s that don’t seem to agree with the “moveon.org” crowd.
windie,
It did what it was supposed to do. It made everybody mad and got the comments flowing.
It was something somebody emailed me, and that was that. I made no statement saying it was true or false.
So, FO.
so you’re admitting you’re a troll. I’ll admit, Yossarian, your honesty is refreshing…. up to that point.
But don’t pretend you wouldn’t have gleefully gone along with it if nobody had called you on posting that legend.
Congrats on setting yourself up in a win-win situation. Either you win ‘points’ by getting away with a falsehood, or you get to say ‘haha I got you!’ (or maybe: ‘Its okay that I posted a total falsehood without a disclaimer, it got people talking!’)
jaybo
“The American people” did NOT say that they want the gocernment to ILLEGALLY wiretap said terrorism suspects. Do you think we PREFER illegality to legality?
windie
It’s like when people say Ann Coulter is “just joking.”
Yossarian – Are you sying that you do not believe the Democrats have fouled up SS and are deciving the public on it?
If all they had been doing was monitoring terrorism suspects then why didn’t they go to FISA court? When the list comes out it will be interesting who all was included.
Windie: Some food for thought. Tim Groseclose and Jeffrey Milyo, “A Measure of Media Bias,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(4): 1191-1237 (November 2005).
“Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left”
Too bad there are actually people out there who are actually counting on only Social Security to see them through their elderly years.
puddybud: Interesting, if not too useful. (Not sure that 2 people in an economics journal is a fair way to judge the political leanings of an entire industry, y’know? :p) Anyways it actually shows that the media is to the left of Congress… which isn’t saying that much right now :p
Totally off my point tho, dunno why you’re addressing it to me ;)
I’m still going over how the oh-so-misnamed Yossarian is a lying scumbag :p
Windie, we have had some good conversations lately and after dealing with lamebrained cluelessASS, I thought having a real conversation without someone calling names would be a refreshing activity! But regarding to being left of congress, you and I both know he was referring to the Pelosi/Reid/Dean triumvirate!
BTW Windie: Where is your outrage over two of Chucky Schumer’s staffers (since fired) leaking confidential financial data on Lt Gov. Michael Steele to the press. I wouldn’t trust anything coming from the frothing mouth of Schumer. I wonder what his stance is on Merry Christmas?
One person who was able to keep his registration at a private mailbox was the guitarist for the band Soundgarden, Kim Thayil. He told the canvassing board he wants to keep his home address private, and Republicans agreed to drop their challenge. But Thayil isn’t in the clear yet. Dan Satterberg is a member of the canvassing board and of the King County Prosecutor’s office. He says Thayil’s registration as the law stands now, is illegal and it’s up to lawmakers to change voter registration rules.
SATTERBERG: “I think the legislature ought to consider whether there should be additional exceptions other than just people who are domestic violence victims, I think some of the security concerns, particularly from a well known rock musician, are legitimate and we shouldn’t just ignore those.”
You righties can always make an exception when you want to. Why Satterberg even thinks this bullshit foisted on the county by Lori Sotelo was a “good faith effort”.
So which is it, my righties, do we need more exceptions? Aren’t you afraid that Eddie Vedder will register multiple times if there’s a rock muscian exemption.
is he? I might have missed that… just read the abstract. I don’t have time to read the whole thing right now, tho’.
The answer I wanna say is “Well the left thinktanks are more correct!” but I don’t think that thats gonna be helpful :p
To be honest, its close to what I feel tho’. I think its a clever idea to try to judge ‘left’ vs. ‘right’ by the number of references to progressive/conservative think tanks. But theres alot of things that need to be considered… Like the trustworthiness of sources (aka if you’re citing the discovery institute, you’re just in for trouble, IMO).
One of the better bits in the second Franken book was his liberal media bias chapter. Its actually a good read, even if you don’t agree with him. (his writing style can be grating I know). His criteria was ‘articles critical of Bush’ vs ‘articles critical of Gore’ in the 2000 election. (the papers were more critical of Gore… substantially) Look it up sometime, you’ll find it at least interesting :)
And he’s actually right… The media has a ‘juicy story’ bias and a ‘make people buy our product’ bias. I think they are more mirrors of public opinion than the shapers (blatant opinion rags lke the WA times and FOX aside :p) If the media is leaning left right now (can’t read/digest that paper to make sure) then its probably because the people are leaning left, and are tired of the Reps.
PS: Link to article
http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/fa.....a.Bias.pdf
Belltowner @ 6
I think you are right. Chip Pickering would be a strong candidate for the GOP. All the GOP needs to win statewide for federal office in Mississippi is for the candidate (Senator or President) not to be weak.
I don’t see Mike Moore running for the Senate. He did win several times for Attorney General statewide, but either against no GOP opposition or token GOP opposition. A Democrat can win state or local races in Mississippi — as they have for well over 100 years — if they are moderate or conservative and the voters like them. Federal office is a different story.
Gene Taylor is an anomaly. He is about the most conservative Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives. He happens to represent the district in Mississippi where the GOP is strongest in federal races. He got elected in a special election years back, and the voters really like him. That doesn’t mean that the same voters (or the voters statewide) will promote him to an opening in the U.S. Senate. On the other hand, Taylor does have a federal track record in Congress, so the voters in Mississippi might just trust him to be one of the (few) “good” Democrats, as opposed to being another big guvmint libral.
Mike Moore and Trent Lott are actually good friends. They come from the same circles in Pascagoula, in the state’s southeast corner. I would say the Democrats will put up Taylor, and not Moore, in the event Lott doesn’t seek re-election.
it reminds me of an anecdote by Mark Twain.
When he was a reporter in San Fransico, he worked for the “Daily Morning Call”… It was the ‘washerwomans paper’, and most of its circulation was from the poor, white sector of the city.
Now these people hated the Chinese with a passion (as a rule). One day Twain happened to witness a mob of boys beat a ‘Chinaman’ (to use their phrase) to death… with the cops looking on. He was outraged, and went home to rip out a roaring article about how horrible it was. He waited excitedly to see it in print the next day….
But it wasn’t there. When he went to his boss, he was told ‘I pulled it because it would have offended our customers, and we would lose subscriptions’.
The media is the same today, I think. They’re in the business of telling people what they already/want to know.
Eddie Vedder is also registered illegally!
And so is Chris Cornell…………….. right along with thousands of Seattle workers who are registered at their work places instead of their residences and that’s on top of the hundreds of post office box midgets!
“Thousands?”
But none fraudulently.
Daddy,
We don’t know if it’s fraudulent or not. Why would a logical thinking person write down his work address in the block that says Home address?
Maybe for laziness or maybe they don’t even live in Seattle?
So, repeating an email that was sent to you is lying?
You know, sgmmac, you play pretty fast and loose with the facts. You know for a fact that there are thousands registered at their workplaces? Did you tell Lori Sotelo?
Because if you do, you’d be able to do better than she could.
Yossarian –
I was asking (paraphrasing here): do you do believe that the Democrats have fouled up SS and are deciving the public on it?
oh, and if you knew it to be spurious and presented as if you believe it to be fact, I’d say yes, you were lying.
Available evidence suggests that election fraud is at most a minor problem across the 50 U.S. states, and does not affect election outcomes, according to a study released by the Demos network, titled Securing the Vote: An Analysis on Election Fraud.
From the “Central Findings” setion of Securing the Vote: An Analysis on Election Fraud:
– There is little available evidence that election reforms such as the National Voter Registration Act, election day registration, and mail-in voting have resulted in increases in election fraud.
– The disenfranchisement of voters through antiquated voting systems, system error, and improper management of registration databases, as occurred in Florida in the 2000 election, is a far bigger problem than traditional forms of election fraud.
– Election day registration (EDR), which has been proven to increase voter participation, also reduces the possibility for fraud as more registrations are handled by election officials.
– Vigorous signature-matching procedures can prevent fraud under mail-in voting election systems.
76
“Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the NSA should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. Comment by jaybo— 12/28/05 @ 9:31 am”
Of course they should be able to! That’s not the issue. All we’re asking them to do is get a warrant, as the Constitution and federal statute require, so there is judicial oversight of these activities to ensure they’re not abusing the power to conduct surveillance.
Do you really want some government bureaucrat listening to your phone conversations, perusing the contents of your computer, looking at your credit and medical files, or peeping in your bedroom window because he feels like it? for jollies? or because he has a personal grudge against you, or is competing with you for the affections of a woman, or disagrees with your politics?
I thought you guys didn’t like arbitrary bureaucratic power.
99
“So, repeating an email that was sent to you is lying?”
Yes, if you know (or should have known) it is false.
70
“Bad news for Dems.
Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States.
http://www.rasmussenreports.co.....proval.htm
Comment by jaybo— 12/28/05 @ 9:00 am”
What’s wrong with the other 36%? What are they thinking? Of course the NSA should be allowed to do this. That’s what the NSA is for, that’s why we spend billions of taxpayer dollars on NSA’s surveillance technologies!!! Whether the government should spy on terrorism suspects is NOT the issue.
Wonder what poll response you would get if the question was worded like this?
“Should the NSA be allowed to spy on you and your family, even though you’re not a terrorism suspect, without court approval just because they feel like it?”
Yossarian
Not only (as RR put it) if you kow it is false, but also if your intent was to mislead. This is not perjury, after all.
lie
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lEogan; akin to Old High German liogan to lie, Old Church Slavonic lugati
intransitive senses
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression
Mark The Yellowdick @ 4
Wella ding, dang, dong, youuus shurr isa firecracker ain’t ya?
Go on there smart ass tell us again, *snicker* how McDermott, *snicker* How McDermott violated the 4th amendment with wiretaps!
Baaaa Haaaaaa Haaaaaa Haaaaaa.
We can certainly agree on one thing; that no matter what, President Clinton was no choir boy. He definitely cheated on his wife on more than one occasion. And, he lied to the grand jury. Which is why he got impeached. We agree.
That proves to me you recognize when a public official lies to a grand jury it’s wrong and against the law.
So why is it when W opens his big mouth and admits to breaking the law, i.e. the 4th amendment, you’re not clamoring for at least an investigation into the matter?
Why aren’t you upset that the republican congress isn’t doing it’s job of oversight?
Why is it when the Duke-ster admits to felonies that were far worse than lying to a grand jury about a blow job, you’re not upset at the inaction of the House Ethics committee? Hell, where’s the Ethics Committee on Bob Ney?
You Al Qaeda lover.
Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the NSA should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States.
http://americablog.blogspot.co.....s-are.html
Another TJ @ 106
I wouldn’t disagree with the 64% number per se, although I an a bit surprised it’s that low.
What bothers me is that a far less percentage would believe the NSA should spy on US citizens without the judicial branch overseeing the executive branch as long as it’s done in the name of fighting “terrorism.”
On the other hand, maybe it’s not a bad premise for change. Perhaps the next Democratic president could outlaw gun ownership in the name of fighting terrorism by eliminating guns that could be stolen from private citizens and used in terrorist plots to kill us over HERE instead of over THERE.
I feel better about the whole spying thing now that I think about the benefits of arbitrarily changing the constitution.
Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree. – Let’s see the 23% must be the moonbats leftists of Pelosi/Reid/Dean/Goldstein/Clueless/Other ASSes!
Eighty-one percent (81%) of Republicans believe the NSA should be allowed to listen in on conversations between terror suspects and people living in the United States. That view is shared by 51% of Democrats and 57% of those not affiliated with either major political party.
Hmmm…? Goldy are you again on the moonbat fringe on this one too? I wonder what Bush’s poll numbers will be NEXT WEEK?
GBS, the reason the number is only 64% is the 36% of prime time GWB haters club. These 36% are entrenched haters and could care less if a bad event happens as long as it makes GWB look bad. I have already stated if he is spying on US citizens, he better have a good case. But if they be visitors, H1B visa holders, or green carders, go ahead and save our bacon!
If a suitcase weapon exploded in a blue city, you leftists would be crying fowl loud and clear. You’d be asking why wasn’t this person(s) found out? How did this happen? So this feigned concern for eavesdropping on islamofascists trying to set up bad events in the US is very political and is elevating Bush’s poll numbers. Please keep it up because the rest of America is leaving the moonbat fringe of WA State leftist behind in critical thought to protect the USA!!!
Puddybud @35
Interesting link, and meshes with my opinion to an extent.
Puddybud @ 108
Eighty-one percent (81%) of Republicans believe the NSA should be allowed to listen in on conversations between terror suspects and people living in the United States. That view is shared by 51% of Democrats and 57% of those not affiliated with either major political party.
Count me in with the majority, but if Justice (the Executive branch) decides that they can use them for prosecution without judicial oversight, count me out.
I wouldn’t disagree with the 64% number per se, although I an a bit surprised it’s that low.
What bothers me is that a far less percentage would believe the NSA should spy on US citizens without the judicial branch overseeing the executive branch as long as it’s done in the name of fighting “terrorism.”
I’m a little surprised it’s that low too. Now that I think about it, it’s probably tied to the widespread and growing belief that the Bush Administration is a) morally bankrupt and b) incompetent. I think many people just don’t trust the people running the government. It’s not an unjustified position to take, but I still would expect a narrowly-worded question like this one to yield higher numbers.
Of course, the problem here is the question has nothing to do with the current scandal, and that may be why they got such a low number. I suspect many respondents weren’t answering the question that was asked; they were responding to the actual actions of the administration.
Hmm,
You got me thinking ATJ @111…
Ummm, no. My point remains that the NSA can perform it’s mandate. The moment the NSA gives the FBI anything that can be used for a prosecution is the day I burn my Republican Party membership. Nothing to do with Bush, in case you were wondering…
Oh, I meant illegal…
Sorry, I been skylarking,
Here is my belief:
The moment the NSA illegally gives the FBI anything that can be used for a prosecution is the day I burn my Republican Party membership.
marks,
There are tons of reasons to torch that GOP membership. Besides, all the cool kids are doing it. Join us, join us… ;-)
Anyhoo, you have a fair point. I was responding to GBS, but I understand where you’re coming from. My point was simply that the question that was asked is a no-brainer for more people than this survey revealed. I think you and I can agree that the NSA should be able to monitor international communications between suspected terrorists and people living in the USA. It’s just a “no-duh” question. That the numbers were so low means the respondents were bringing baggage to the question. Perhaps I was unfair in my analysis of the *source* of that baggage (probably a combination of my observations, recent polling data, and a little partisan needling – though I think you may be underestimating the dissatisfaction with this administration), but I think we can agree the numbers “should” be higher.
Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the NSA should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States.
I think everyone wants this. It’s just the part about illegally intercepting telephone conversations that’s the problem.
Bush has had four freakin’ years to ask Congress to give him the legal right to do what they’re doing. They either know Congress won’t agree to it (which makes you wonder what the f–k they’re doing) or they don’t care, which makes them common criminals.
Guys: I hear your complaints. But Remember whistleblower Coleen Rowley? Remember Rowley came forward with the allegation that the Bureau might have been able to stop the 9/11 attacks if only investigators had been allowed access to the laptop computer of suspected 20th hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui. Guess what? The FISA court said no way. Now we know that Khalid Sheik Mohammad fingered Moussaoui as the 20th hijacker. So what do you all say to this? I am so surprised the left’s memory is so short. You all trumpeted her as the great person complaining about the ineptitude of the FBI.
Sen. Charles Grassley is among those who think that the FBI might have been able to stop the 9/11 attacks if the FISA Court hadn’t discouraged the Bureau from aggressively pursuing a warrant in the Moussaoui case.
In a January 2002 letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller, Grassley noted that had a search been permitted, “Agents would have found information in Moussaoui’s belongings that linked him both to a major financier of the [9/11] hijacking plot working out of Germany, and to a Malaysian Al Qaeda boss who had met with at least two other [9/11] hijackers while under surveillance by intelligence officials.”
Remember Rowley came forward with the allegation that the Bureau might have been able to stop the 9/11 attacks if only investigators had been allowed access to the laptop computer of suspected 20th hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui. Guess what? The FISA court said no way.
According to the DOJ, the FISA court did not reject a single warrant application from its beginning in 1979 through 2002. Either there’s something you’re not telling us, or what you’re telling us is a lie.
Puddy
But AFTER 9/11 FISA was achanged to loosen the requirements, with this case in mind. And IF the president needed greater powers, he has had FOUR YEARS to work wih the Congress to get them. Did he? I didn’t think so.
Complaining about FISA restrictions is ridiculous and deliberately misleading. These guys break the law and spit on the Constitution because they don’t care about the law or the Constitution. Defend THAT.
And, a great ‘Southern Strategy’ to get ear of southerners and to gain House in ’06 given by Sen. Clinton today.
124
marks spews:
-
125
klake spews:
-
126
Puddybud spews:
-
127
Another TJ spews:
-
128
marks spews:
-
129
Puddybud spews:
-
130
jaybo spews:
-
131
Daddy Love spews:
-
132
Another TJ spews:
-
133
jaybo spews:
-
134
jaybo spews:
-
135
windie spews:
-
136
jaybo spews:
-
137
Daddy Love spews:
-
138
jaybo spews:
-
139
Daddy Love spews:
-
140
jaybo spews:
-
141
Daddy Love spews:
-
142
jaybo spews:
-
143
Puddybud spews:
-
144
Another TJ spews:
-
145
Puddybud spews:
-
146
Another TJ spews:
-
147
windie spews:
-
148
Puddybud spews:
-
149
GBS spews:
-
150
GBS spews:
-
151
GBS spews:
-
152
GBS spews:
-
153
Daddy Love spews:
-
154
GBS spews:
-
155
Puddybud spews:
-
156
Another TJ spews:
-
157
Puddybud spews:
-
158
GBS spews:
-
159
GBS spews:
-
160
GBS spews:
-
161
windie spews:
-
162
GBS spews:
-
163
Puddybud spews:
-
164
Another TJ spews:
-
165
Puddybud spews:
-
166
Puddybud spews:
-
167
Puddybud spews:
-
168
GBS spews:
-
169
Puddybud spews:
-
170
Puddybud spews:
-
171
windie spews:
-
172
Puddybud spews:
-
173
Puddybud spews:
-
174
Puddybud spews:
-
175
GBS spews:
-
176
Daddy Love spews:
-
177
Another TJ spews:
-
178
GBS spews:
-
179
Puddybud spews:
-
180
GBS spews:
-
181
Puddybud spews:
Edness @120
Umm, where?
1. Hey klake, you should move to North Korea, you would do well there. Kim Jong Il would like your attitude and find a good job for you.
Comment by Roger Rabbit— 12/28/05 @ 12:00 am
Wabbit how did you know I was in North Korea? It is not a place to send your worst enemy for a vacation. Part of the time I had a sniper scope me out for a building across the way. The picture I took of him with my telephoto lens did not turn out due to light shining on the glass window. Rabbit the whole time I was there you could not find any rabbits living in any holes, The Koreans were living in them and eating all the vegetations they could find. It was obvious due to no body fat on their frames and their uniforms hanging lose on their frames. Now for checking them out without a court order to see if they are going to bomb our cities is going on all the time. Now Wabbit if you give Kim Jong II a call from your rabbit hole I can assure you that the FBI or some other organization will giving you a house call. Roger the North Koreans have not seen a rabbit for years, they are now an endangered species. You and the Mrs. Should travel over there with Jim McDermott, bring peace to the North Koreans, and united the South under Kim Jong’s red banner.
Another TJ, go back and google it. Read the vaulted NY Times, the paper of librul record! I have my web subscription to them. Google Ms. Rowley TJ! Google what she said to Congress. The libruls used her to make their case against GWB. Now when I use it you all call fowl?
In other words, you have no answer, but you’re not man enough to admit it. Good night, and good riddance.
ATJ @115
There are tons of reasons to torch that GOP membership. Besides, all the cool kids are doing it. Join us, join us…
You flatter me for no reason:
I happen to believe the GOP is the better of the parties at the moment. I can meatloaf it very simply by what policy would be under Kerry and what reality is under Bush. Whether either is good for us is a great question, but I do not doubt for a moment (based on Kerry campaign rhetoric) that I made the better choice.
As an aside, let there be zero doubt that I would ever allow my vote to count as nothing. Should a Democratic candidate arise who can bridge the partisan divide (perhaps Bill Richardson – Gov NM?) I will vote accordingly. But it is up to you in the Democratic party to nominate him.
Wrong TJ. I gave you THE answer. You just don’t want to do the work. You are like cluelessASS, wants all things handed on a platter. Life ain’t cut and dry. I don’t speak for the DOJ.
Why did Crowley show up in Congress as a whistle blower with Chuck Schumer and Turbin DIck Durbin? Why did you libruls love her dissing the FBI? Why did she say if they had access to the computer things could have changed. I have no idea what the DOJ said. All I did was provide evidence that the NY Times says one thing in 2002 and another in 2005. But this is not the first time the NYT has done this act. So good riddance to you TJ. I don’t work for you and I don’t provide evidence for you. If you have your NYT web subscription you can see it too.
Daddy Love @116,
“That view is shared by 51% of Democrats and 57% of those not affiliated with either major political party.”
Makes you mad doesn’t it.
Now watch the spineless poll watching dems. run from this issue as fast as they can!
jaybo
I’ll speak more slowly then. Sure, Democrats agree that terrorism suspects should be surveilled. But for the president to do so illegally for four years is an impeachable crime.
So, I was curious to see just how badly Puddybud had bungled his latest accidental foray into the reality-based world, and I did has he suggested and investigated it myself. You will be shocked (SHOCKED!) to learn that he has his facts wrong. The FBI denied the request of field agents to pursue a FISA warrant. FISA didn’t deny the request because it was not filed until September 11, and it was approved.
Among many other sources, you can read a synopsis here: http://foi.missouri.edu/whistl.....imemo.html
And you can read an edited version of the memo here: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/WTC_whistleblower1.htm
Or here: http://www.time.com/time/cover...../memo.html
Daddy Love @ 127,
The problem with the dems is that their courage is drawn from polling data (ref. ex-Pres. Clinton) and they will quietly turn from this issue.
I guess you moonbats will have to find another reason to “impeach” Pres. Bush.
What does that make all of you now, 0 for 4?
LOL.
Dems continue to prove where their true loyalties are.
http://daily.nysun.com/Reposit.....;Mode=HTML
wow, jaybo… A tabloid article quoting santorum on the Hannity show.
That sure is a convincing indictment of the democrats!
Windie @ 131,
I think you miss the important point of the article.
The dems had a chance to show their jewish american constituents that they harshly condemned Iran’s fallacious claim that the Holocast was a myth.
But, to their (jewish americans) surprise, the Senate dems decided to turn their backs on them.
jaybo
lawbreaking is lawbreaking. When did you start endorsing it?
I don’t think this one is going away.
addy Love @ 133,
So The Daily Kos is a mainstream source to back-up your opinion?
LOL.
The moonbat websites (like this one) will continue to post their blather.
None of it really matter, however, the american people are beginning to speak out on this issue and it runs contrary to the radical leftist opinion.
jaybo re: 132
I’m no fan of the Iranian president, but I dislike misleading propaganda even more.
The president of Iran never said that the Holocaust was a myth in the sense of claiming that it did not occur, but that’s what the Right is trying to make it seem.
What he DID say (and I am paraphrasing) was that the Holocaust was accorded a mythic status that fueled efforts to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine. he has also said that if Americans and Europeans want a Jewish homeleand they should put it in America or Europe (again, paraphrasing).
Daddy Love @ 135,
That should make jewish-americans feel much better!
If you are jewish american, you really have to wonder if the dems support you at all anymore.
Jesus, jaybo
I don’t know. Are you just kind of dense? No, the Daily Kos is not a source to back up my opinion. It is one place that reported on the full-page ad in the NY Times the ACLU took out to demand a bipartisan investigation of the president’s lawbreaking. That’s all.
As for the Amefrican people speaking out, if they had asked “Do you think that the government should be able to listen secretly to any international phone calls to the United States that it wants to on the approval of a shift supervisor at the National Security Agency without a warrant or any court or legislative supervision whatsoever?” the numbers would be very different.
Daddy Love @ 137,
Well, I guess I stand corrected!
Those two “titans of objectivity”, the NYT and the ACLU (chuckle) have spoken!
Funny how they seem to be out of the american mainstream on this issue, what a surprise…..
So TJ: I used the New York Times and they were wrong again? Thanks for cluing me in. I guess you CAN’T trust the NY Times as the newspaper of record. I won’t use them for reference harldy anymore. So if the NY Times is wrong about that, are they wrong about the NSA issue? I will give you kudos ATJ.
I used the New York Times and they were wrong again? Thanks for cluing me in.
No, you used your memory of the NYT. Provide a direct quote and properly cite it so that others can check your work.
Do you have a NY Times web subscription TJ? If you do I’ll find the link. If you don’t I won’t reprint the whole article to have it go into the filter and not come out like one of mine above.
Do you have a NY Times web subscription TJ? If you do I’ll find the link. If you don’t I won’t reprint the whole article to have it go into the filter and not come out like one of mine above.
Yes, I have a “web subscription”. I also can find it at my local library if necessary. Give us everything you’ve got. Prove you’re not a liar.
for righties, “Burdon of Proof” is something that happens to other people.
Windie, I am so surprised, when I place link after link and GBS says I bury you all in information. I prove at least 3 sigma of my information.
Another TJ: You are soooooo funny. You don’t get a NY Times web subscription from the library. Try again.
Puddybud @ 148
I’ll have to take a minor exception to your comment here. I didn’t say you bury us all in links, what I said, and more importantly what I meant, was that you tend to provide information overload to links and sites that are either totally one-sided in their view, less than honest with their facts, and or so outdated information as to not be relevant. Sifting through all the crap to find the gold nugget gets tiresome after a while.
I will say, you do have at times excellent links and great information. Even when I don’t agree with the point of view you are putting forward, I do enjoy the “view” from the other side. Sometimes I see your point of view and disagree, ocassionally I agree with you.
Puddy:
PS: man are you really using “control charts?”
Puddybud:
Because if you are, you either working for the RNC, NSA or some sort of engineering nerd.
For laughs I’ll say RNC, to scare the shit out of me I’ll say the NSA, but if I had to bet money I’d say nerd.
Speaking of betting money — **AHEM
jaybo
Wrong. The mainstream favors the rule of law.
Puddybud:
So, uh, in the wording of Bill O’Reilly:
“What say you now about the Bureau might have been able to stop the 9/11 attacks if only investigators had been allowed access to the laptop computer of suspected 20th hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui. Guess what? The FISA court said no way. Now we know that Khalid Sheik Mohammad fingered Moussaoui as the 20th hijacker. So what do you all say to this?”
Great question, Puddybud, what do you all say to this?
Why did the bungleing occur on Bush’s watch?
Why did Bush ignore the Aug. 6th PDB?
GBS Going backward:
I paid PacMan. You need to wait for his email.
I am a eng’g nerd.
My control charts are power point presentations.
Glad you like some of my links. I don’t always agree with your either but I enjoy the repartee! You are a worthy opponent and I think there are only four ahhh… maybe five here. The others have ASS as their name suffix!
Another TJ: You are soooooo funny. You don’t get a NY Times web subscription from the library. Try again.
I meant that I would go to the library and find the hard copy of it if you couldn’t provide a link.
So let’s see your evidence. I think you’re stalling because you know you’ve screwed the pooch and don’t have the stones to admit it.
GBS: I know you can fathom this link over the irrational leftist minds that normally populate this site. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10531436/
Koppel: “If 9/11 had happened on Bill Clinton’s watch, he would have gone into Iraq”
Brokaw: “We are in a political culture of blame and Katrina is a metaphor for that (therefore) Democrats need to acknowledge the successes (of the President)”
Ouch GBS. Now that they have left the news cycle they admit their biases because these comments never left their mouths while theyt worked for these biased organizations!!!
Puddybud:
It was the 3 Sigma thingy that caught my eye. It took me a while for it to sink in, hadn’t seen that terminology in a few years. Not that I’m an engeenering nerd mind you. Oh, and not that being a “nerd” is a bad thing, especially here in the northwest.
You paid PacMan, huh?
Hmmmm. . . could this be a case of, and don’t get me wrong, but, uh, um, you knoooooow, PacMan is a, well, **whispering** a black guy.
Do you think you’ll ever see your money again? Strike that, do you think I’ll ever see my money?
All right, don’t go gettin’ your nickers in a twist. Just kidding. Like PacMan said of me once: I am “one cagy” son-of-a-bitch.
@ 157
I’ll read the link now and get back to you in a few minutes.
“Ouch GBS. Now that they have left the news cycle they admit their biases because these comments never left their mouths while theyt worked for these biased organizations!!!
In the meantime, I’ll ask this: Does Fox News do anything similar?
Puddybud @ 157
I feel like you’ve lied to me with your quote of the article at 157. I just read it end to end and could NOT find the quotes you referenced. I found something close and I copied and pasted the passage verbatim as it appeared in the link you provided.
Not only that, Puddybud, it appears you took some poetic licensing in rewriting the words to give the quote a new meaning. Weird. Is this your way of testing me? Or, did you do something conservative, like, uh I dunno intentionally mislead people?
MR. BROKAW: It would be. I think that the–one of the reasons the president’s doing better in the national polls is he’s beginning to say that “It was more difficult than we thought,” “the intelligence was flawed,” “it would have been a lot easier if we had our allies with us, as well.” I think that they fumbled that at the beginning. The comments of Don Rumsfeld about old Europe and new Europe, the refusal of the president to reach out, to take a little more time to have inspections.
Go back to Katrina for a moment. I think that Katrina then became a metaphor for our political culture. We have a political culture of blame now. Everybody after Katrina was blaming everyone else. No one wanted to step up and take responsibility or accountability for what had happened there. And that’s going on with Iraq. One of the reason that I think John McCain continues to get good notices is that he put together the Gang of 14 in the Senate, to say, “Enough of this; we’ve got to find a way through…”
The Koppel quote I found and interestingly enough, you didn’t feel the need to change that quote at all. Even though in article it is clear it’s pure speculation on Koppel’s part.
Dude, what gives?
If I’ve missed something here please point it out to me.
everyone knows pacman isn’t black, pacman is fake. Puddybud decided that he’d have more ‘credibility’ if he had a black clone of himself that agreed with everything he said.
Not that its particularly effective…
Windie @ 161.
Well, I hope he’s real; after all that’s the only way I’m going to get paid on that bet Puddybud and I made last NOVEMBER.
GBS: I was testing you on the Brokaw quote. I did it as a test to see if you would read the whole article. I did take poetic license with Brokaw’s three paragraphs below.
MR. BROKAW: Yes, and I think if we’d seen the latter George Bush earlier, his polls wouldn’t have plummeted as much as they did. They’re making a pretty remarkable bounce-back now, based on what we’re seeing after these four speeches. What still is unclear to me is–and you and I have talked about this–is what does he mean by “complete victory”? I think that election day was a very positive sign for the Iraqi people and certainly for the Bush administration and what it’s attempting to accomplish there. I also think that the Democrats are fumbling when they don’t acknowledge that. I think that they then resort to the same kind of negativism they used to complain about when they were in power at the White House and on Capitol Hill, the Republicans only engaging in negative attacks. There ought to be some way that the Democrats should be able to hold this administration responsible and accountable for its actions, but at the same time acknowledge, it seems to me, the courage of the Iraqi people for going to the polls in the way that they have.
I was in Iraq before, twice, before the war began and the year before, and it was a horrifying place in terms of the political oppression and the fear that existed and the stories that the Sunnis would tell about what they’d been subjected to down south. And for all of them now to show up and vote, I think that that’s a signal achievement. At what cost, what’s the end game, that’s still to be resolved. And the Democrats, I think, do themselves some damage when they don’t acknowledge that.
And the Katrina comment: Go back to Katrina for a moment. I think that Katrina then became a metaphor for our political culture. We have a political culture of blame now. Everybody after Katrina was blaming everyone else. No one wanted to step up and take responsibility or accountability for what had happened there. And that’s going on with Iraq. One of the reason that I think John McCain continues to get good notices is that he put together the Gang of 14 in the Senate, to say, “Enough of this; we’ve got to find a way through…”
I condensed down the paragraphs. Guilty as charged!
Well, Puddybud, you’ve had all day to prove you’re not a liar, and you’ve failed. You are dismissed… with prejudice.
Windie: PacMan posts from California. I post from the world. Do you understand the Internet?
TJ: I do work for a living. Right now I am taking time from the home schedule working on projects to scan this blog. I have a wife who is asking me to create some msucle output while I am home. I don’t have the FREE TIME of many of you just sitting on my ASS in front of my computer. Trust me, I will take some time soon and find this link to the NY Times just to SHUT YOU UP!
GBS: Here is something interesting while I find TJ’s link:
Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-California) made a surprising statement concerning NSA eavesdropping. According to CBS correspondent John Roberts:
“The President got support today from an unusual quarter: Democrat Jane Harman, a key figure on the House Intelligence Committee. ‘I believe the program is essential to U.S. national security,’ she said in a statement, ‘and that disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities.'”
This is a major blow to the conspiracy theorists, for Harman is a highly regarded Bush antagonist that knows her stuff about national security issues. Any opinion from her that does not support the contentions that the administration has broken the law with this NSA strategy will severely weaken such an argument.
@ 167 et al.
Now you know why I said the info overload thing. OK that’s done.
This is what we call “spin” in the biz. You know and I know most Americans are not against the government monitoring the citizens as long as:
A) They have probable cause, and,
B) They get judicial oversight. Even retroactive warrants!!
If it were so critical to national security, and I believe that it is, then why did George W. Bush disclose the fact in public, in front of the media regarding the super-secret NSA operations?
Does that sound like he’s mishandling Top Secret National Security information to you, Like it does to me?
Isn’t this an enemy that changes it’s tactics quickly? Didn’t George W. Bush disclose that fact in the very press conference he blurted out the NSA spying?
Didn’t George W. Bush tip our hand to the terrorist how we are monitoring them? Giving them official notice form the presidency that there is clear and present danger to THEM if they continue using phones in the US?
Don’t you find this casual mishandling by the Commander-in-Chief of Top Secret information during a time of WAR a bit disturbing?
Me, too.
TJ looks like the NY Times took down the Feb 2002 and the May 2002 Articles. I am still looking. The NYCLU referenced them in their commentaries against the NYPD. This is not the first time that the NY Times will remove articles from their archives when they have said one thing and now say something completely different and get caught in it.
GBS: I’ll take the bait. How did GWB leak a secret program when someone from the intelligence committees leaked it to the NY Times? Help me here. GWB is reacting to the Times revelation.
hey puddy; I understand the net… substantially more than you pretend to, too!
Heres a reminder: on the internet, its really really REALLY easy to lie!
Only goldy can see if you’re posting from different IPs, and even then there are ways to fake it.
The fact remains that Pacman only posts to support you, or only shows up when you use him as an excuse (“I gave Pacman the money, really!”) Maybe he was a real poster once… but its just not that likely now.
You’re running out of tricks, buddy… what’re you gonna do then?
When GBS meets PacMan, I’ll show up, just to shut YOU UP. I won’t stay long, but I will make an appearance unlike Roger Rabbit at Drinking Liberally. When that happens GBS will tell you all about it. Then what will you say?
BTW windie or with the post above is it windieASS, PacMan and I posted both of our hosting traceroutes months ago. Did you miss that Internet “trick” also?
Oh and another thing windieASS where was your voice when Roger “Truth Teller” Rabbit was identified. I notice “Truth Teller” has posted in months!!! Oh yeah “Truth Teller”, another or Roger Rabbit’s alter egos was a leftist pinhead like you windieASS!
GBS: Saw Chronicles of Narnia tonight with the wife. We loved those religious symbols. Must piss off the lefties knowing this movie with all of it’s religious symbolism is being FED TO THE MASSES!
They had headless lucy playing the part of Satan! Oh that’s right headless lucy is a guy!
Puddybud @ 174
What??!!???! You mean C.W. Lewis based his story on JESUS CHRIST!
You mean when the lion gets killed and lives again, sort of like the resurrection.
I haven’t seen the movie yet, but I did read the series a long, long time ago. My daughter saw the movie with her friends the other day. When the wife and I were talking to her about it she didn’t make the connection immediately. Then when we started dropping hints she had an “aha” moment. Pretty funny. Now she wants to read the series to figure out all the symbolism.
I always tell me kids that the Bible is more than the word of God, it’s great literature, too. Knowing Biblical stories gives anyone greater insight to other pieces of literature regardless of your religious beliefs.
Puddybud
Re: Chronicles of Narnia film.
Maybe you haven’t been aware of it, but the Chronicles of Narnia was kind of a successful book series. More than 95 million copies of the books have been sold in 41 languages. It has been distributed “to the masses” for fifty years. You’re a little behind the times.
Very minor correction of the day:
C.W. Lewis
C.S. Lewis
@ 177
As usual TJ you’re on top of your game. I stand corrected.
Thanks,
GBS
Daddy Love: I agree with you regarding the logevity of the series. But, the books being out for 50 years does not mean they were widely disseminated to the ACLU polluted masses of today. And in today’s society, how many people read old time novels versus Tom Clancy, Terry Goodkind or Stephen King of today. We who are older had those read to us because there was no POLITICAL CORRECTNESS in the 50s, 70s or early 70s.
Some people in the movie line said they never heard of his book series (around eight or so fo them) except for the hype around this book becoming a movie. Maybe religion will return to the masses now! Remember Daddy_Love, in today’s society, when it comes to religious things, most lefty people are those with their eyes open but see nuthin and with their ears open but hear nuthin!
GBS: I totally agree with your take on the Bible. With Jesus speaking in Parables, the masses had to have an open heart for the Holy Spirit to ‘splain the true meaning. Otherwise it was like seeds hitting rocky soil. And for you who don’t understand the seeds issue crack open that dusty Bible and read Mark 4!
Puddybud:
Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Stop the parade. You forget, I’m not the crusty ol’ fart you are, bud. 50’s, 60’s & early 70’s?? Geez.
I read that series when I was in the Navy, early 80’s. I’ll take those 10 extra years, thank you very much!!
Parables were always difficult for me to grasp when I was younger, I didn’t always make the connections. Then, as I got older they made more sense. What I find interesting today, for me at least, is that the stories take on different meanings, or maybe better put, they grow in their message.
I’d have to disagree with your “Lefty” assertion: eyes and ears open but understanding noithing. If you look at the Republican leadership in Washington D.C. right now, you’d have to admit that there’s pletny of misunderstanding to go around equally, at the very least, if not more so on the right side of the isle.
I got a great book on hold at the library: The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine. I’ve made a personal commitment to read and study the founding fathers this year. I’ve done Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson in 2005, but this year I’m going to do Thomas Paine, John Adams, George Washington for sure, I hope to squeeze in Alexander Hamilton. I am going to try and read biographies and personal letters they’ve written as I can. I think it will be a fascinating journey into the mindset and thinking of these great patriots. Hopefully, I’ll gain a better understanding of my own patriotism.
Have a Great New Year, Puddybud. I hope you get everything you want, except reelecting Republicans.
GBS
GBS: First off. I appreciate talking to an adult like you. Too many children here with child-like minds of hate. Yes, I am an older fart. Been around the block a few times and thanks for the sentiment, “… except reelecting Republicans.”
My retort: Have a Great New Year, GBS. I hope you get better from the crash. May you take a refreshing vacation that recharges your batteries to high voltage. I hope you and your daughter discuss God every chance you get. I hope your wife gives you everything you want including laying as much pipe as possible morning and night. I hope you see many Republicans in charge in 2007 in Congress. Oh yes, I hope you are blessed to become black below the waist!
I look forward to 2006 discussions with you on these people. May I suggest you read the archived letters between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Watch the relationship change over the years.
I still look for that follow-up conversation with Dr. E. on Haiti.