Former Nixon aide John Dean says that President Bush’s illegal domestic spying surpasses the crimes that got his former boss impeached.
“Had the Senate or House, or both, censured or somehow warned Richard Nixon, the tragedy of Watergate might have been prevented,” Dean told the Senate Judiciary Committee. “Hopefully the Senate will not sit by while even more serious abuses unfold before it.”
How can we force Congress to be a check and balance on the White House? Help the Democrats seize control. And how do we do this? Help Darcy Burner meet today’s fundraising target. Click here to contribute.
Isn’t the ‘elect me to defeat Bush” Darcy’s only campaign platform?
I smell Darcy going down in flames.
BTW, Goldy, wouldn’t your time be better spent interviewing for jobs and trying to feed your broken family?
Wasn’t John Dean imprisoned and disbarred due to the Watergate mess? This is the best that Feingold has? He has opinions, but who cares? Does he trump the former FISA judges that are testifying to the adults in the Senate?
Mom @1 You had better hope that the election is about something other than a referendum on Bush. Maybe you haven’t noticed but the only people that support Bush at this point are die-hard Republicans. The man is cruising in Nixon territory now.
And really, whether you are a conservative or a progressive, we can all agree that government runs more efficently when the check and balances are in effect. With the current situation where Republicans refuse to hold to their constitutional duty to act as a check on the executive branch, we simply need to get one branch in control of the Democrats for the good of the country.
The US didn’t do a great job in the early 90’s when the Deomcrats controlled both the executive and the legislative and the Republicans have sunk to new lows in a few short years.
If you are a Republican you can hope for their success. If you are a patriot you should be hoping the Democrats take one branch.
ITMFA !!
People who support Dubya are Quislings, Aaron Burrs , Vichy’s —traitorous scum who’d sell their own mothers to torturing , bulletheaded Bulgars…
So NIndid…
What I am hearing from you is the basis of quality government is having equal opinions represented by our government?
These checks and balances you speak of…
Can you explain how electing an additional democrat, in a state that already has an overwhelming democrat prescence, accomplishes this task?
I think it is telling about the dems case against Bush that the only “expert” cited is the former prison inmate. Meanwhile, there are actual judges testifying in the Senate who helped write FISA and were FISA judges, who say that the administration is well within the constitution on this issue.
So far, no one has refuted this. JDB thinks he has by ranting and waving his arms, but has yet to put a fact on the table. Yes, we have checks and balances. And so far the other two branches are agreeing that Bush is in safe legal territory.
But why not ask Maria what she thinks? She hasn’t given a press conference in quite awhile. Her handlers must have put the muzzle back on, until they need her again.
No Momus, what I am saying is that the current Repblican mis-adventures in administration and the rampant Republican corruption in Congress would be limited to a great degree if the Democrats had subpeona power.
This is not a controversial point really. Several national Republicans have also remarked on how “undiscilined” (read corrupt) the Republicans have become in such a short time in control of Congress.
Nobody — even SharkBoy — has commented on the fact that the state employees’ union backed off and has asked that the employess who refused to pay dues be rehired. While the core of the case is the violation of due process, it sounds much more like the union wants to build a stronger case before running the risk of losing and having Washington become a right-to-work state.
Even staunch Dem, pro-union state employees I know have said that the union vote was total BS (and even admitted that the “agency fee” is out of line with what is really spent).
Of course, unions and Democratic legislators have never cared that closed shops are a violation of basic human rights according to the UN.
No,
That’s not what you said…
I quote
“And really, whether you are a conservative or a progressive, we can all agree that government runs more efficently when the check and balances are in effect. ”
On a state level we do not have checks and balances in effect.
washington state NEEDS to have more republicans voted into office to equal the scales of justice in this state.
CONDI DEFENDS BUSH, BLAMES TROOPS
On a visit to England today to drum up support for Bush’s failed Iraq policy, Condoleeze Rice said, “Yes, I know we have made tactical errors, thousands of them,” but added, “I believe strongly that it was the right strategic decision.”
Let’s see, who makes “tactical” decisions? Troops in the field. So Condi is saying Bush did the right thing, and the fucked-up mess in Iraq is all the fault of the soldiers.
So much for supporting the troops.
Momus Pompous Assus @1
“Isn’t the ‘elect me to defeat Bush” Darcy’s only campaign platform? Commentby momus— 3/31/06@ 11:35 am”
No, although if it was, it would easily be enough. Your post proves you’re too fucking lazy to make the slightest effort to find out what Darcy’s campaign platform is. But we already knew that.
Roger and Gang new reading material.
http://www.gop.com/?s=mainwatch
Dear Klake,
Terrorists are at war with our country. And we have a choice.
Either we use every tool available to fight and win the War on Terror … or we heed the calls of Democrats who would censure and impeach the President for fighting the terrorists.
Watch our new web video, “Censure? Impeachment?,” which outlines the stakes in this fight.
On September 11, the President made a solemn commitment to protect the American people. The President made his choice. And many Democrats are making theirs, calling a program to defeat al Qaeda terrorists inside the U.S. an illegal and an “impeachable offense.”
Where do you stand? Watch the video. And take action by signing our petition against repeated Democrat attempts to weaken these efforts to fight the terrorists and keep American families safe.
Sincerely,
Ken Mehlman
Kevin Carns @2
Adults? In the Senate? On the Republican side of the aisle? You jest. Oh, and … Kevin … about opinions … they’re like assholes, everybody’s got one.
Genius @ 7
Ok if the Preznit is acting legally then why are there legislative proposals on the table? Isn’t there other pressing business other than fixing what isn’t broken?
Think about this genius:
Robertson indicated privately to colleagues in recent conversations that he was concerned that information gained from warrantless NSA surveillance could have then been used to obtain FISA warrants. FISA court Presiding Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who had been briefed on the spying program by the administration, raised the same concern in 2004 and insisted that the Justice Department certify in writing that it was not occurring.
“They just don’t know if the product of wiretaps were used for FISA warrants — to kind of cleanse the information,” said one source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the FISA warrants. “What I’ve heard some of the judges say is they feel they’ve participated in a Potemkin court.”
Oh and here is this tidbit from left-winger Bruce Fein who worked in Reagan’s DOJ:
Even if President Bush’s official misconduct regarding the NSA’s warrantless surveillance program would justify censure, the ultimate decision of whether to press forward is political—a type of prosecutorial discretion. The objective should be to restore the Constitution’s checks and balances that President Bush has begun to cripple. If President Bush had shown a serious inclination to collaborate with Congress over joint approaches to defeating international terrorism and gathering foreign intelligence, then censure would be counterproductive. But the President has been intransigent. Censure would not worsen the intransigence, but would facilitate a judgment by the American people during the next election as to whether they approve or disapprove of President Bush’s contempt for the rule of law and constitutional limitations. But an even superior response would be the exercise of the power of the purse to prohibit electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes outside of FISA, which I have previously advocated before this Committee.
3
“the only people that support Bush at this point are die-hard Republicans”
This isn’t exactly accurate. While a majority of die-hard Republicans still support the Idiot-in-Chief, a recent Newsweek poll shows 5% of Republicans support impeaching Bush and 20% support censuring Bush. Overall, about 1 in 4 Americans believe Bush should be impeached and removed from office.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11...../newsweek/
I’m watching these mealy-mouthed Republican Senators on C-Span and I’ve come to the conclusion that these guys love it when their President wages war because it according to them his powers increase over what they’d be in peacetime and these jerks can all ride on his coat-tails. It’s especially sweet given that they’re in the majority.
It’s a corrupt gang in charge.
Wow, even Klake can’t come up with one thing the GOP has done right since taking power. It is that bad.
Commentby JDB— 3/31/06@ 11:34 am
JDB read the post above and make up your own mind. Post 13
By telling you anything, good about this administration would put you in complete denial. That depressing thought would make you postal, and whose funeral we would be going to tomorrow.
Rabbit @16 – Thanks for the correction… frankly you could put Larry Flint in the White House as a Republican and he would probably poll at least that well.
It’s a damned shame that the most significant thing that anyone could do to make America better is to unseat the sitting president, but unfortunately it’s true.
Whatever else the Dems try to promote as their platform–energy independence, saving the environment, jobs, even stopping this idiot war–doesn’t amount to a hill of shit, because as long as the Crawford Caligula occupies the Oval Office, none of it’s gonna happen.
3
“we can all agree that government runs more efficently when the check and balances are in effect”
Actually, this isn’t true. Government is more efficient when one party has complete control and can ram through its agenda without negotiating or compromising with the opposition.
But efficiency is not the goal of government. In a democracy, government is supposed to mediate and reconcile competing interests and clashing goals. Done properly, this is a cautious and deliberative process, not an efficient one. Much of the trouble in American politics today stems from the GOP’s abandonment of this model in favor of one-party rule that disregards the political interests of half the public.
Pompous Ass @6
“Can you explain how electing an additional democrat, in a state that already has an overwhelming democrat prescence, accomplishes this task? Commentby momus— 3/31/06@ 12:10 pm”
Electing one more Democrat in our state won’t accomplish a damn thing. Electing 15 more Democrats to the House of Representatives nationwide will not only restore checks and balances, but also rationality and respect for the Constitution and law, to our national government.
7
“Meanwhile, there are actual judges testifying in the Senate who helped write FISA and were FISA judges, who say that the administration is well within the constitution on this issue. So far, no one has refuted this. JDB thinks he has by ranting and waving his arms, but has yet to put a fact on the table. Yes, we have checks and balances. And so far the other two branches are agreeing that Bush is in safe legal territory.”
Where did you get this crapola from? Fake journalist Jeff Gannon’s web site? Here’s what REAL JOURNALISTS reported:
“FIVE FORMER FISA JUDGES TESTIFY ON WARRANTLESS SPY PROGRAM. Four judges who served on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) – Harold A. Baker, Stanley S. Brotman, John F. Keenan, and William H. Stafford Jr. – testified yesterday at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, urging Congress to give the FISC oversight of the National Security Agency’s eavesdropping program, The New York Times reported. The president is bound by the law “like everyone else,” Baker said. If a law like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is duly enacted by Congress and considered constitutional, “the president ignores it at the president’s peril,” he said. The Committee also received written testimony from Judge James Robertson – a former FISC judge who resigned from the court days after the NSA program was disclosed reportedly out of frustration that only the presiding judge of the 11-judge court had been briefed on the program or knew of its existence.” (quoted from The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press @ http://www.rcfp.org/behindthehomefront/index.php)
and
“Five former judges on the nation’s most secretive court, including one who resigned in apparent protest over President Bush’s domestic eavesdropping, urged Congress on Tuesday to give the court a formal role in overseeing the surveillance program.”
(Quoted from the New York Times @http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/29/politics/29nsa.html?ei=5088&en=05fd2e9be10103fd&ex=1301288400&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1143640826-ZcwvgJQwmOe67iQrTCkAgw)
Let’s call a spade a spade: Kevin Carns aka “whatwillmariado” is a Goddamned liar.
9
There are no “closed shops” in the U.S. “Closed shops” are illegal under federal law. Get a fucking dictionary before you start throwing around terminology you don’t understand, you ignorant fuck.
10
“On a state level we do not have checks and balances in effect.
washington state NEEDS to have more republicans voted into office to equal the scales of justice in this state. Commentby momus— 3/31/06@ 12:39 pm”
We did until January 2005, when the Democrats had a majority in the Senate for the first time in over a decade. And what happened when Republicans held the Senate? Nothing got done, because of their obstructionism. We had to wait for the voters to give Democrats a majority in both houses of the legislature before our state saw any movement on critical transportation projects, creating more spaces in our public colleges, and providing health care to poor children.
While Republicans ran the senate, Washington’s bridges and highways fell into disrepair, our state fell to dead last in college space availability on a per capita basis, and the GOP’s most prominent budget initiative was to cut off health care for 40,000 children.
Washington voters finally had enough of two-party rule, and handed the job to this state’s only political party that is capable of governing or getting anything done.
Today’s WSRP is not Dan Evans’ GOP. Our state’s Republicans long ago purged their party of anyone with any sense or ability. They’re a collection of yahoos, wackos, and fundies who are incompetent to run a sandwich shop, let alone a government. They need to grow up before we can have two-party government in this state.
I used to read these comments for laughs. Some were clever, some were thoughtful, many were stupid. But usually, it was entertaining.
But now I see that, like the self-interested elected officials who take time out to Podcast or Drink Liberally, specific political campaigns now see the influence of bloggers like Goldy. So in this comment thread we now have what appears to be a bunch of paid staffers (like “whatwillmariado”) hawking their candidate’s line on every day’s posting.
So, for me, the fun is gone. I’ll just stick to reading what Goldy has to say, and ignore the comment thread populated by the political hacks on both sides. At least until November…
13
“we heed the calls of Democrats who would censure and impeach the President for fighting the terrorists”
Ken Mehlman is a fucking liar — that’s news? Tell us something we don’t already know.
Name ONE Democrat who would censure and/or impeach Bush for fighting terrorists. I dare you.
Memo to wingnut idiots: We’re not complaining about wiretapping foreigners or terrorists. We’re complaining about wiretapping American citizens who haven’t broken any laws without getting the FISA warrant the law requires. Why? Because we don’t think the NSA wiretapping program is limited to spying on terrorists. We think there’s a 99.9% probability it’s being abused to illegally wiretap Bush’s critics and political opponents. This is what Watergate was all about. This is what Republicans do when they get in power — they abuse power and violate the law to harass, intimidate, and spy on their political opponents.
Oh yeah, one more thing — for all the lip service you Republican liars pay to fighting terrorists, I have just one question: When are you going to START fighting terrorists? You’ve been lollygagging for almost 5 years now; isn’t it about time to finally get your asses in gear?
“I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority. I am truly not that concerned about him.” George W. Bush, March 13, 2002
Here’s some more info about how Republicans “fight” terrorism:
Nov. 14, 2001: Senate Democrats propose $15 billion for homeland security; the White House warns against “permanent spending on other projects that have nothing to do with stimulus and that will only expand the size of government.”
Dec. 4, 2001: Senate Appropriations Committee votes 29-0 in favor of $13.1 billion for homeland security; the next day, Bush threatens to veto it.
Dec. 6, 2001: Senate Republicans reduce homeland security funding by $4.6 billion.
Dec. 19, 2001: Under pressure from White House, House-Senate conferees eliminate another $200 million of funding for airport security, port security, nuclear facility security, and postal security.
June 7, 2002: Senate votes 71-22 for $8.3 billion of homeland security funding; the next day, Bush’s advisors recommend a veto.
July 19, 2002: Under White House pressure, homeland security funding is further reduced by cutting money for food security, cyber security, nuclear security, airport security, port security, drinking water security, coordination of police and fire radios, and lab testing to detect chem-bio weapons.
Aug. 13, 2002: Bush decides not to spend $2.5 billion appropriated for homeland security on the grounds of “fiscal responsibility.”
Jan. 16, 2003: White House reacts to Democratic efforts to increase homeland security funding by stating, “The Administration strongly opposes amendments to add new extraneous spending.” Later that day, Senate Republicans vote against funds for smallpox vaccine.
Jan. 23, 2003: Senate Republicans cut security funding for the FBI, FEMA, INS, TSA, Coast Guard, and National Nuclear Security Administration.
Feb. 3, 2003: Bush submits a 2004 budget cutting homeland security funding by nearly 2 percent.
Feb. 14, 2003: Senate Democrats request money for smallpox vaccine, police and fire radios, and public transportation security; no Republicans support it.
March 21-25, 2003: Republicans defeat 7 amendments to bolster homeland security.
April 2, 2003: Senate Republicans reject Democratic amendment to provide $1 billion for port security.
April 3, 2003: Republicans reject protection of commercial airliners from shoulder-fired missiles and four other pro-homeland security amendments.
June 2003: House Republicans reject Democratic proposal to raise $1 billion for homeland security by reducing tax cuts for 200,000 millionaires by an average of $5,000 each (from $88,000 to $83,000).
Source: James Carville
Most experts agree the gravest risk to the U.S. is that terrorists will sneak a nuclear weapon into the U.S. in a cargo container. Terrorists, after all, do not have bombers, ICBMs, or missile-firing submarines.
Yet … even as I type these words, Republicans in Congress are fighting Democratic proposals to increase funding for cargo inspection. Currently, only about 1/2 of 1% of cargo containers coming into the U.S. are inspected. Democrats want to increase inspection to 100%. Republicans are fighting efforts to inspect a modest 5% of cargo containers? Why???
Let’s see you wingfucks defend this one.
The Department of Homeland Security also was a Democratic proposal, resisted for over a year by Bush and the GOP congress. Why? Because they put a higher priority on DHS being a non-union agency than national security. Shows you where Republicans’ fucked-up priorities lie, doesn’t it?
Let’s see you wingfucks defend that one, too.
If an American city vanishes under a mushroom cloud, it will be the Republicans’ fault.
26
Roger Rabbit is a political hack, but not a paid one. Attacking the anti-American, Constitution-hating, traitorous wingfuck fascists is my patriotic duty. I’m happy to do it for free instead of for fee!
19
Wow, even Klake can’t come up with one thing the GOP has done right since taking power. It is that bad.
Commentby JDB— 3/31/06@ 11:34 am
JDB read the post above and make up your own mind. Post 13
By telling you anything, good about this administration would put you in complete denial. That depressing thought would make you postal, and whose funeral we would be going to tomorrow.
Commentby klake— 3/31/06@ 1:02 pm
JDB — you were right, he can’t.
20
You nailed it, ArtFart! Nothing good or constructive is possible while Bush remains in office. If we can’t impeach him, we’ll just have to wait him out. Bush as already admitted he can’t get us out of Iraq and the next president will have to do it. As the sign on his desk says, “The Buck Passes Here.”
TOP DELAY AIDE PLEADS GUILTY IN ABRAMOFF CASE
“WASHINGTON (March 31) — A former top aide to Rep. Tom DeLay pleaded guilty Friday to conspiracy and promised to cooperate with a federal investigation of bribery and lobbying fraud ….
“Tony Rudy, DeLay’s former deputy chief of staff, admitted to conspiring with convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff both while Rudy worked for DeLay and after he left the lawmaker’s staff to become a lobbyist himself.
“He faces up to five years in prison, but could receive much less based on the extent of his help with the investigation, U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle told Rudy at a court hearing in Washington. … ”
For complete story, see http://articles.news.aol.com/n.....8;cid=2194
(This article is copyrighted by somebody or other, but not by me, and I quote it under the “Fair Use” doctrine.)
klake is a nazi
So, Stefan, why aren’t you going to share the proceeds of your lawsuit against Dean Logan and KCRE with the generous donors to your “legal action fund” who paid for the lawsuit?
ROGER RABBIT POLL
Stefan won’t share the proceeds of his lawsuit against Dean Logan and KCRE with the generous donors to his “legal action fund” because:
[ ] 1. Stefan is a greedy prick;
[ ] 2. Stefan can’t hold a job and needs the money;
[ ] 3. Stefan won’t get any proceeds because his lawsuit is frivolous, devoid of merit, and will be dismissed;
[ ] 4. All of the above.
40 – I pick 4.
YOSSARIAN POLL
Stefan won’t share the proceeds of his lawsuit against Dean Logan and KCRE with the generous donors to his “legal action fund” because:
[ ] 1. He wants to pay for Roger’s sex change instead.
[ ] 2. He wants to have Roger whacked.
[ ] 3. He thinks Roger is a worthless piece of shit.
[ ] 4. All of the above.
LiberalRedneck, Detroit, Gary, Milwaukee, South Central LA, and Philly. Like Harare, Zinbabwe, all black liberal Hillary Villages. And ALL Democrat voter fraud shit holes. Advice: Stay far away from Democrat shit holes, as the animal Democrats are right out of “Lord of the Flies”.
You know those boys in Lord of the Flies came out of good Tory homes, idiot!
I coughed up for Darcy (ant my district any more) so no beer for you this month, Goldy.
Yossarian @ 42, I choose 5) He needs the money to keep his significant other, Yossarian, happy, even with the Republican meltdown.
whatwillmariado-win:
Actually, I have cited to many legal experts and the constitution. You have sighted to one federal magistrate in Northern Florida. As you well know, most legal scholars believe that FISA is binding and the president broke the law. Heck, even Wrongboy (Aka Pro-Impeachbush boy) thinks that is so.
Roger has nicely posted the truth. Please cite one article that indicates that a majority of legal experts believe as you do?
But it is nice to know you think citing to the Constitution is flailing one’s arms. Why do you hate the Constitution so much?
Klake:
Wow, after 24 hours, the best you can come up with is a broadcast email from Ken Mehlman? Wow, you are in worse shape than I thought.
Even worse, since the war on terrorism is going about as well as the war on drugs, and Bush has ignored it for three years while wasting our time and resources, not to mention our noble troops, in Iraq, it really isn’t your strongest argument, is it?
Now, come on Klake, surely you can think of something Bush hasn’t totally fucked up as President? As far as I know, the Whitehouse’s lawn is still in good shape.
and for all of you crying that the public wants all of the ilegal imigrants sent back to their countries:
Americans polled by TIME magazine show strong support for a guest-worker program and a process for undocumented workers to become citizens, but they take a tough stance on securing the borders. And most do not want illegal immigrants to have access to health care, public education or driver’s licenses.
In the telephone survey of 1004 adults, conducted Wednesday and Thursday, 79% say they favor a guest worker program that would allow illegal immigrants to remain in the U.S. for a fixed period of time — the main provision of the bill proposed by Senators John McCain and Edward Kennedy that is now under fierce debate in Congress. Only 47% of those polled say they support the tougher measure backed by some House conservatives, deporting all illegal immigrants back to their home countries.
http://www.time.com/time/natio.....17,00.html
Just found this amusing:
Number of times you can find the word “Bush” at http://www.mikemcgavick.com/
Answer: Zero
http://www.google.com/search?a.....afe=images
GEE THE QUEENS APPROVAL RATING IS @39%.AND YOU LEFTIES GOT THE BALLS TO TALK ABOUT BUSH.
And for all of you wingnuts that feel that Kaloogian is getting a bad rap, how about this endorsement he publishes on his website:
I’m no prude. And maybe I should be happy that social conservatives are getting more in touch with their bad selves. But when we were doing some due diligence today on congressional candidate Howard Kaloogian’s ‘endorsements’ list (he’d already fibbed on a few), I couldn’t help but notice that one of his endorsers is Gabrielle Reilly, who Kaloogian’s site identifies as an “International Political Activist & Swimsuit Model.”
http://www.gabriellereillyweek...../about.htm
Kind of nice, but not very ‘conservative’ for a NeoCON.
YO, the Queen of England has nothing to do with politics and running a govenment. Come to think about it, GWB has nothing positive to do with politics and obviously does not understand how to run a government either.
YO, if you, in your infinite wisdom, are calling Gregoire the Queen, you are wrong again….. Gregoire has a current rating of 47% positive, 46% negative for a net of 1%, and still climbing.
http://www.surveyusa.com/50Sta.....1State.htm
I just sent Darcy 25 bucks. That’s $25 I can’t spend at Hooters. For shame!
-GEE THE QUEENS APPROVAL RATING IS @39%.AND YOU LEFTIES GOT THE BALLS TO TALK ABOUT BUSH.-
YO is using internet “polling” again!
(FYI, kiddo: Gregoire ain’t the leader of the free world)
…it’s just that the reality is vaginas make us men .
Comment by GBS— 12/29/05 @ 5:44 pm
…vaginas do indeed make us men.
Comment by Donnageddon— 12/29/05 @ 5:55 pm
…how big a capacitator do we need to shoot MTR into orbit with a flashlight battery?
Commentby Roger Rabbit— 3/12/06@ 3:42 pm
Government exists to make private wealth possible.
Commentby Belltowner— 3/12/06@ 4:15 pm
I like Castro’s system better. He confiscates the employer’s property, shoots the employer, and the workers get quality health care for free. We need something like that in America.
Commentby Roger Rabbit— 3/19/06@ 3:42 pm
Don’t talk to me about “core beliefs…”
Commentby headless lucy— 3/25/06@ 7:07 pm
Does nobody know how to make a short link?
gcauthon,
Re: Short Link
Too much work! :-)
One
Two
Three
Four
Five
Six
Seven
Eight
Nine
Ten
Eleven
Splat
That’s how long he fell until he hit.
Now tell me why we shouldn’t kill every fucking one of them.
How long do we have to wait for a detail blog entry from the minnow on Rob McKenna (R-BIAW) ruling that the Seahawks don’t have to open their books to the public?
Surely just another sign of the great liberal conspiracy in this state to screw the people.
Or do you think that R in front of his name means that the minnow would rather just beat up on dead dogs and make D-student constitutional analysis?
I saw that guy Aaron Davis, Green Party candidate for Senator, interviewed on PBS last night. After listening to the interview for about 10 minutes, I concluded Maria Cantwell doesn’t have to worry about him being a spoiler in the 2006 election. He’s no threat to the Democratic base.
Mark the Yellowback:
Everyone of whom?
And if you want to kill Al Quaeda, I’m proud that you are finally going to be man enough to sign up for the Marines and support President Bush.
Speaking of which, is this war on Iraq is so important, how long until the twins enlist?
YO
Strategic Vision is a Republican polling firm, and is famous for not being very accurate. Plus their breakdown of the electorate makes no sense (they had only 17% independant in a state that trends about 40%)
Usually you have to add 10% to the dems and take it away from the GOP to get useful results.
Still, they show Gregoire improving, Cantwell winning with 10% and McGavick having no movement, and Bush with only 30% approval in this state. Think about what that means in reality?
BunnyBoy @ 24
Obviously, having a dictionary hasn’t helped you since you need a BRAIN to read it. You’re splitting hairs.
Washington State DOES permit de facto “closed shops” through the BS “agency” or “representation” fees. The difference for a state employee is only $4 (at least in one case I know personally). Are you honestly saying that the union spends every dime that person gave them on contract negotiation?? They only spend $4 per worker on political and other activities??? Bull.
You’re either stupid, naive, a liar or all three.
“Terrorists”? Take one look at a missile and tell me you’re worried about terrorists! Righties are only interested in stirring up the rubes to keep the defense industry going. Why bother with your crap on HA? Your constituency will never read it anyway and you can’t make any points here. Why bother?
Government doesn’t work. Just elect us Republicans and we’ll prove it to you!” P.J.O’Rourke
I hope P.J. O’Rourke is dead. I think he drank himself to death — and he’s gay…
49
“GEE THE QUEENS APPROVAL RATING IS @39%. AND YOU LEFTIES GOT THE BALLS TO TALK ABOUT BUSH. Commentby YO— 3/31/06@ 3:26 pm”
Who did the Queen kill?
49 (continued)
“Yo” is a contraction of “Yahoo;” like a typical wingfuck, Y’o can’t even spell his own fucking name.
49 (continued)
So what does Y’o have against Elizabeth II? Besides her screwy kids, I mean.
As Nancy Reagan said: “Just say ,’YO’!!!!!!!!”
Reagan’s kids are all basket cases. They were raised by parent surrogates and try to earn a living on the Reagan name. What a pathetic family…
58
“Now tell me why we shouldn’t kill every fucking one of them. Commentby Mark The Redneck— 3/31/06@ 4:33 pm”
If you’re referring to the terrorists responsible for 9/11, I’m sitting here wondering when you guys are going to start?? After all, you’re the government. (Temporarily, anyway) Here’s how Republicans “fight” terrorism:
1. Attack the wrong country and get bogged down in a military fiasco
2. Vote against homeland security funding
3. Sell our port security to an Arab country
4. And, not least, DON’T catch the perp …
“I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority. I am truly not that concerned about him.” George W. Bush, March 13, 2002
It’s easier for these chickenshits to torture and murder defenseless Iraqi women and children than to chase real terroristgs.
The Reagan family is the poster family for Republican dysfunctional families. GOD only knows about the religeous right. They probably assassinate their rebellious youth.
63
“Washington State DOES permit de facto “closed shops”
W-r-o-n-g
“You’re either stupid, naive, a liar or all three. Commentby (The Real) Mark— 3/31/06@ 4:44 pm”
How about we say you’re too stupid to be lying about this one. I repeat, CLOSED SHOPS ARE ILLEGAL IN THE UNITED STATES. All of them. Including Washington.
Since you’re too fucking lazy to look it up, and obviously need help, I’ll spell it out for you.
Open shop — Employees are free to join or not join a union
Union shop — Employees do not have to belong to a union to get hired, but must join the union within a certain time after being hired, or alternatively, may pay “shop fees” in lieu of joining the union
Closed shop — Employees must be union members before being hired, and must remain union members as an ongoing condition of employment. The 1947 Taft-Hartley Act outlawed closed shops in the U.S.
So there you have it — Roger Rabbit is neither naive, nor stupid, nor a liar, but (The Real) Mark has his head up his ass because he’s too lazy to do a 5-second search on the internet.
Next time try looking up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_shop, dumbass!
63 (continued)
Oh, and one more thing, Dumb Mark — never get into an argument with a lawyer over the meaning of a legal term unless you enjoy looking like a fool.
I nominate (The Real) Mark for the Dumbest Post of the Thread prize.
So if Nixon had been warned about having operatives breaking the law he would not have had to resign…That is laughable
#73 From Headless Lucy
Your post is one that I agree with….(but only this time)
Roger and Gang more reading material.
Chairman’s Corner
In an opinion that opens the doors to nearly 50,000 felons suddenly having the right to vote, King County Superior Judge Michael Spearman overturned Washington State law concluding that rights of felons who could not vote because they had not paid their court fines and victim restitution was a violation of the equal protection clause of the Washington State Constitution.
If you look at this reasoning behind this ruling it simply does not make sense. Felons who have not paid their court-ordered fines have not paid their debt to society and it is unfair to the average law-abiding voter to have their votes diluted by individuals who are clearly ineligible to vote under Washington State law. The Washington State Legislature, as representatives of the people of Washington, made the decision that felons who have not paid their legal financial obligations for their crimes should not be able to vote.
In addition, the Court’s opinion attempts to create an artificial distinction by concluding that felons who pay their financial obligations are wealthy and those who do not make the financial commitment are indigent. This extension of equal protection to felons who are ‘in possession of sufficient resources to pay the obligation immediately’ and someone who cannot pay immediately is a distinction that has no basis in law or the real world.
Wednesday’s decision by Secretary of State Sam Reed and Attorney General Rob McKenna to appeal the ruling was commendable. Their actions are clearly in the best interest of the voters of this state, and I have no doubt that this ruling will be overturned.
Web site: http://www.wsrp.org
Roger and Gang check this out.
Mike McGavick Calls for complete approach to immigration reform
Border security and flexible worker program go hand in hand
Our country is badly in need of meaningful immigration reform and increased border security, Mike McGavick said Mike McGavick on Wednesday. The U.S. Senate is set to begin debate on a variety of immigration proposals as soon as this afternoon.
“We now have concrete evidence that our Canadian border is not as secure as it needs to be,” McGavick said referencing recent news that investigators from the Government Accountability Office snuck radiological material across the Canadian border into Washington using forged documents downloaded from the internet. “This incident points to the threat that unsecured borders, and ill equipped border agents, present to our communities.”
Since he announced his candidacy, a central theme of McGavick’s campaign for the U.S. Senate has been the need to increase border security. In speeches across the State, McGavick has discussed the burden that an influx of illegal immigrants place on America’s social services as well as the threat to national security created by an unsecured border.
“At the same time,” McGavick said, “we must address what we will do with illegal immigrants who pose no threat, who are already living here, and who are integrated into our economy. There are jobs, especially in the agricultural communities of Eastern Washington that depend on a reliable and affordable work force.
“There need to be penalties for people who have broken our laws. Amnesty is not an answer I will accept. At the same time, we must create a process that will lawfully integrate workers and give them a path toward citizenship. Increased border security and a flexible guest worker program can go hand in hand. Enforcement by itself is not a complete answer.”
“Any bill that does not shore up security on our borders while allowing for meaningful guest worker programs will do our country, and this state’s economy, a disservice.”
Mike McGavick Calls for complete approach to immigration reform
Border security and flexible worker program go hand in hand
Our country is badly in need of meaningful immigration reform and increased border security, Mike McGavick said Mike McGavick on Wednesday. The U.S. Senate is set to begin debate on a variety of immigration proposals as soon as this afternoon.
“We now have concrete evidence that our Canadian border is not as secure as it needs to be,” McGavick said referencing recent news that investigators from the Government Accountability Office snuck radiological material across the Canadian border into Washington using forged documents downloaded from the internet. “This incident points to the threat that unsecured borders, and ill equipped border agents, present to our communities.”
Since he announced his candidacy, a central theme of McGavick’s campaign for the U.S. Senate has been the need to increase border security. In speeches across the State, McGavick has discussed the burden that an influx of illegal immigrants place on America’s social services as well as the threat to national security created by an unsecured border.
“At the same time,” McGavick said, “we must address what we will do with illegal immigrants who pose no threat, who are already living here, and who are integrated into our economy. There are jobs, especially in the agricultural communities of Eastern Washington that depend on a reliable and affordable work force.
“There need to be penalties for people who have broken our laws. Amnesty is not an answer I will accept. At the same time, we must create a process that will lawfully integrate workers and give them a path toward citizenship. Increased border security and a flexible guest worker program can go hand in hand. Enforcement by itself is not a complete answer.”
“Any bill that does not shore up security on our borders while allowing for meaningful guest worker programs will do our country, and this state’s economy, a disservice.”
Mike McGavick Calls for complete approach to immigration reform
Border security and flexible worker program go hand in hand
Our country is badly in need of meaningful immigration reform and increased border security, Mike McGavick said Mike McGavick on Wednesday. The U.S. Senate is set to begin debate on a variety of immigration proposals as soon as this afternoon.
“We now have concrete evidence that our Canadian border is not as secure as it needs to be,” McGavick said referencing recent news that investigators from the Government Accountability Office snuck radiological material across the Canadian border into Washington using forged documents downloaded from the internet. “This incident points to the threat that unsecured borders, and ill equipped border agents, present to our communities.”
Since he announced his candidacy, a central theme of McGavick’s campaign for the U.S. Senate has been the need to increase border security. In speeches across the State, McGavick has discussed the burden that an influx of illegal immigrants place on America’s social services as well as the threat to national security created by an unsecured border.
“At the same time,” McGavick said, “we must address what we will do with illegal immigrants who pose no threat, who are already living here, and who are integrated into our economy. There are jobs, especially in the agricultural communities of Eastern Washington that depend on a reliable and affordable work force.
“There need to be penalties for people who have broken our laws. Amnesty is not an answer I will accept. At the same time, we must create a process that will lawfully integrate workers and give them a path toward citizenship. Increased border security and a flexible guest worker program can go hand in hand. Enforcement by itself is not a complete answer.”
“Any bill that does not shore up security on our borders while allowing for meaningful guest worker programs will do our country, and this state’s economy, a disservice.”
This month it is a toss up for the monthly ‘DOM’ Award here on HorsesAss. It is a tough choice between MTR, RUFUS, Puddybud, JCH and Mr. Cynnical. Place your votes now for our monthly Dildo Of the Month recipient!
81 – DOOFUS gets my top vote.
Another banner day for the righties. John Dean, former big shot republican says Baby Bush should be punished. The biggest coward in the universe Tom DeLay came one step closer to finding out he’s about to spend the rest of his days bent over for a big black guy in the slammer. The righties are fighting among themselves over immigration. Things don’t get much better than this!
81 My vote is for the factually deficient Puddybud
Yet … even as I type these words, Republicans in Congress are fighting Democratic proposals to increase funding for cargo inspection. Currently, only about 1/2 of 1% of cargo containers coming into the U.S. are inspected. Democrats want to increase inspection to 100%. Republicans are fighting efforts to inspect a modest 5% of cargo containers? Why???
Let’s see you wingfucks defend this one.
Commentby Roger Rabbit— 3/31/06@ 1:45 pm
Depends on how you fund it. Through tax increases fuck no. Cut social welfare programs hell yes. Start by cutting food stamps.
Electing one more Democrat in our state won’t accomplish a damn thing. Electing 15 more Democrats to the House of Representatives nationwide will not only restore checks and balances, but also rationality and respect for the Constitution and law, to our national government.
Commentby Roger Rabbit— 3/31/06@ 1:07 pm
We already did that in 2004 when Bush was elected and we got two contitutionlists on the SCOTUS. A great success indeed!!!!
77
“So if Nixon had been warned about having operatives breaking the law he would not have had to resign…That is laughable Commentby silly guy— 3/31/06@ 6:14 pm”
So Nixon, a lawyer, needed lawyers to tell him whether he was breaking the law? You’re right, that’s laughable.
79
“In an opinion that opens the doors to nearly 50,000 felons suddenly having the right to vote” Commentby klake— 3/31/06@ 6:31 pm
Why would WSRP want to disenfranchise felons? That’ll wipe out half their base.
81
The Real Mark
81
The Real Mark is a real dumbass
83
“Another banner day for the righties. John Dean, former big shot republican says Baby Bush should be punished. The biggest coward in the universe Tom DeLay came one step closer to finding out he’s about to spend the rest of his days bent over for a big black guy in the slammer. The righties are fighting among themselves over immigration. Things don’t get much better than this! Commentby KlakeSucksDick— 3/31/06@ 7:27 pm”
I agree the news has gotten more interesting, but I have a feeling the best is yet to come!
85
“Depends on how you fund it. Through tax increases fuck no. Cut social welfare programs hell yes. Start by cutting food stamps. Commentby RUFUS— 3/31/06@ 8:16 pm”
I’m surprised you didn’t suggest funding it by cutting body armor for the troops in Iraq. That’s your speed.
TWO REASONS WHY YOU SHOULD VOTE DEMOCRATIC THIS FALL
Reason #1: “Depends on how you fund it. Through tax increases fuck no. Cut social welfare programs hell yes. Start by cutting food stamps. Commentby RUFUS— 3/31/06@ 8:16 pm”
Reason #2: http://www.globalpeacesolution.....losion.JPG
Yep, that’s right folks, you ain’t seen nuthin yet!! The next GOP fuck-up could be the Big One: A U.S. city vanishing in a fireball and mushroom cloud.
And all because Doofus doesn’t want to pay a penny or two of taxes a year to inspect cargo containers.
And all because Doofus doesn’t want to pay a penny or two of taxes a year to inspect cargo containers.
Commentby Roger Rabbit— 3/31/06@ 8:45 pm
Take from the inner city crack dealers who use food stamps to trade for drugs. Yeah it would piss off the democratic base but why would I care.
Yep, that’s right folks, you ain’t seen nuthin yet!! The next GOP fuck-up could be the Big One:
Hillary as president. I would have to move to my bomb shelter if that ever happened.
Electing one more Democrat in our state won’t accomplish a damn thing.
With the KCRE counting 1/3 of the vote democrats are elected? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
More like appoint, Stalin ran a more honest election then these rats. Of course what do expect from donks. They cheat!!!!
Oh brother. There goes RUFUS with his wingnut conspiracy theory again.
Get help, Rufus…get help.
Bushco are crooks. Anyone who still supports them is a crook too — and deserves to be shot as a traitor.
Fuck all Bush Republicans . They should all be rounded up and shot like dogs.
Bushco are crooks. Anyone who still supports them is a crook too — and deserves to be shot as a traitor.
Commentby headless lucy— 3/31/06@ 9:21 pm
Ahhh- Let it all out. It the commie in you. I know you want to kill 60 milion people but you are not in power. You need to win elections first and to do that you have to do a better job cheating.
Oh brother. There goes RUFUS with his wingnut conspiracy theory again.
Get help, Rufus…get help.
Commentby dj— 3/31/06@ 9:20 pm
Oh brother….. This coming from a moonbat who believes that diebold voting machines stole the election in 2004.
Of course I dont blame you moonbats. If my party lost elections like yours I would make shit up too.
Roger and Gang there is some admission of mistakes, but you all have to look at the big picture. That is too much to expect from those who are blinded with rage because they are defeatist. Now what are you?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12091571/
No warm welcome for Rice in Britain
Protesters mark secretary of state’s visit to foreign secretary’s hometown
BLACKBURN, England – Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice conceded Friday that the United States probably has made thousands of “tactical errors” in Iraq and elsewhere, but said it will be judged by its larger aims of peace and democracy in the Middle East.
The U.S. diplomat met loud anti-war protests in the streets and skeptical questions about U.S. involvement in Iraq at a foreign policy salon Friday, including one about whether Washington had learned from its “mistakes over the past three years.”
Rice replied that leaders would be “brain-dead” if they did not absorb the lessons of their times.
97
“Hillary as president. I would have to move to my bomb shelter if that ever happened. Commentby RUFUS— 3/31/06@ 9:01 pm”
Don’t let the door hit your ass on your way out.
101
“Fuck all Bush Republicans . They should all be rounded up and shot like dogs. Commentby headless lucy— 3/31/06@ 9:23 pm”
That’s the trouble with liberals! We’re too soft! Burn ’em at the stake.
105
“Roger … you all have to look at the big picture.”
I am, and I don’t like what I see.
Bungled military operation
Probability of ultimate defeat in Iraq
Osama still at large
$1 trillion war cost
2300 American soldiers dead and counting
Massive budget and trade deficits
Probability of high inflation and high unemployment in future
No-bid contracts; cronyism; massive corruption
No occupation plan; no exit strategy; Bush says next president will have to get us out of Iraq
No functioning government in Iraq
No functioning electricity or drinking water in Iraq
Torture, atrocities, killings against innocent Iraqis
Open borders; insurgents and weapons pouring into Iraq
Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan
Off-budget accounting gimmicks to conceal real size of budget deficit
The big picture is one of incompetence, lies, corruption, dishonesty, and failure.
Why do Republicans (e.g., The Surreal Mark) like “right-to-work (for less)” laws?
1. Because they’re CHEAP LABOR CONSERVATIVES http://www.conceptualguerilla......php?id=103
2. Because they’re FREELOADERS (they want the benefits of union-bargained wages and working conditions without paying for them)
First of all, U.S. Labor Department data show that workers in so-called “right-to-work” states consistently earn less. Wages in only 1 of the 22 RTW states exceeds the national average. In addition, workplace deaths are over 50% higher in RTW states. CHEAP LABOR CONSERVATIVES support RTW laws so they can pay lower wages to workers. It’s that simple.
Secondly, rightwingers in wage jobs don’t want their union-level wages and working conditions to go away. They only want their union dues to go away. These FREELOADERS want someone else to pay the costs of getting these wages and working conditions. They want the benefits of union membership; they just don’t want to pay for it.
THE TRUTH ABOUT “RIGHT TO WORK (FOR LESS)” LAWS
“What does ‘Right to work’ really mean?
“It means that unions and management cannot negotiate a union security clause in their collective bargaining agreement. A union security clause states that a worker covered by the agreement must at least pay a fee for the services they receive from the union.
“What’s The Real Purpose Of ‘Right To Work?’
“The ‘right to work’ provision was never meant to make sure a person could keep a job. It was designed to weaken and destroy … collective bargaining. …
“Supporters claim that ‘right to work’ is good for the state’s economic development and that we should tout it as an attraction to business. … Data from the U.S. Department of Labor shows that annual pay for workers in ‘right to work’ states ranks consistently below the national average. …
“It’s Really A ‘Right To Work For Less’
“It’s no coincidence that some employer groups, big business and ultraconservative lawmakers back ‘right to work’ laws because such laws weaken unions and … depress wages. Studies show that workers in ‘Right to Work’ states earn significantly less …. A primary reason is that workers with a union contract earn higher pay — weakening unions lowers average pay. Workers of color and women workers who are union members make significantly higher wages.
“The average worker in Idaho earns about $5,655 less a year than workers in other states (Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Dept of Commerce 2003)
“Hispanic union members earn 45 percent ($180) more a week than nonunion Hispanic workers. (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Jan. 2002)
“African Americans earn 30 percent ($140) more a week if they are union members. (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Jan. 2002)
“Union women earn 30 percent more ($149) a week than nonunion women. (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Jan. 2002)
“During the past five years the average loss in Idaho per capita income has been $5,655 per year. So, in the 18 years since ‘Right to Work’ passed in Idaho, each person has earned $101,790 less than the national average. Each person has lost more than 4 years of income based on Idaho average income of $25,057 in 2002.
“Right to Work Facts
“Workers in Right to Work states earn on average $3,500 – $5,300 a year less than workers in free bargaining states.
“Only one Right to Work state out of 22 has per capita personal income above the national average.
“Of the 15 states with the highest average hourly earnings for manufacturing workers 14 or 93% are free bargaining states.
“Workers with health care coverage in free states is 23% higher than Right to Work states.
“Unemployment benefits are 20% more in free bargaining states.
“Workers compensation benefits for injured workers in Right to Work states are 20% less than free states.
…
“The Right to Work law does not create jobs or stimulate the economy.
“The rate of workplace death is 51% higher in Right to Work states.
“Right to Work states spend $1,699 less on elementary and secondary students than free bargaining states.
…
“Impact on Worker Environment
“In addition to the economic impacts of Right to Work, it has spawned an anti-worker environment in Idaho. This has resulted in the following rules taken out of the Idaho Department of Labor Wage and Hour Section. Idaho Law Does Not Require:
a. Vacation, holiday, severance, or sick pay
b. A discharge notice or reason for discharge
c. Rest periods, breaks, lunch breaks, holidays off, or vacations
d. Premium pay for weekends or holidays worked
e. Pay raises or fringe benefits
f. A limit on the number of hours an employee can work per day or week for those 16 years of age or older
“It’s Not Just About Unions, But Communities Too
“‘Right to work’ laws reach far beyond wages. Quality-of-life issues such as health care, education, worker safety and poverty suffer greatly in ‘right to work’ states.
“’Right to work’ states 21 percent more people are without health insurance compared with those in free-bargaining states. Source: State Rankings 2000, A Statistical View of the 50 United States, (Morgan Quinto Press)
“’Right to work’ states spend $1,699 less per elementary and secondary pupil than other states. (Source: Education Vital Signs, 2000–2001 school year)
“The infant mortality rate in ‘right to work’ states is 17 percent higher than in other states, and the poverty rate is 12.5 percent compared with 10.2 percent in other states. (Source: State Rankings 2000, A Statistical View of the 50 United States, Morgan Quinto Press; U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March 2002)
“The rate of workplace death is 51 percent higher in ‘right to work’ states. (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2001; AFL-CIO, ‘Death on the Job,’ April 2002)
“What Is The History Of Right To Work?
“Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935 an employer and the union that represents their employees are allowed to negotiate a union security clause into their collective bargaining contract. In 1947 the Taft-Hartley Act provided a loophole that allowed states to forbid negotiation of union security clauses. Iowa and twenty other states passed such laws. The Taft-Hartley Act also banned the ‘closed shop,’ making it illegal throughout the country to force anyone to join a union before getting a job.
“The United States Supreme Court has ruled that a union must represent all employees in a bargaining unit whether or not they are members of the union. A failure to do so constitutes a breach of the union’s duty of fair representation and subjects the union to suits for breach of duty and substantial potential liability for damages. Thus, in a right to work state non-members are required by law to get all the benefits of union representation, but pay none of the costs.
…
“If the employer and the union (by a majority vote of the members) agree to a contract that includes a union security clause, employees would be required to at least pay a fee for the services they receive.
“If workers object to dues money being used for non-collective bargaining activity, they may request and receive a rebate for that portion of their dues or fee that goes for non-collective bargaining purposes. If they have religious objections to paying dues or joining unions, they may make contributions to charities instead.
“‘Right to Work’ States Are Really Restricted Rights States
“It’s not a right to a job. ‘Right to work’ has nothing to do with a right to a job or employment. The deceptively named ‘right to work’ laws ban workers — who by a majority vote decided to form a union in their workplace — and employers from negotiating union security clauses. By law, unions must represent all workers — members and nonmembers — in contract negotiations and other workplace issues. A union security clause does not force workers to join a union but simply means they must pay a fair share for the economic benefits they receive because of union representation — such as health insurance, pensions and wages that are on average better than those for nonunion workers.
“A ‘right to work’ law would allow nonmember workers to get all the benefits of union membership and pay nothing, while forcing unions and their members to foot the bill for those not willing to pay their share. The result is weaker unions with inadequate resources to represent members.
“In the 28 non-‘right to work’ states, federal law protects those workers who do not want to join the union. Workers in those states are required to pay only a fair share to cover the costs of their union representation, but not the cost of a union’s political, legislative, social or charitable activities.
“Conclusion
“It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out why anti-worker business groups love ‘work for less’ and that’s because it means lower wages and ineffective or nonexistent state labor laws to protect working Americans. But keep in mind that when wages fall, state income and sales tax revenues fall. And that means that a state will have far less funding available to finance education, transportation, and other programs that are vital to attracting new industries and businesses.
“Employment, unemployment, job growth and the future of the national and state economies will continue to be impacted by many factors including external forces beyond the states’ control. All too often states that are beset by economic problems are among the most easily enticed by the illusory, quick fix promise of ‘work for less’. But in reality, it’s the worst kind of public policy gimmickry that will only lead to erosion of workers’ rights and wages while causing deep divisions within the community.
“In these times of economic transition and tough choices, state and local governments that work in partnerships with their business, labor, education and civic constituencies to devise consensus public policies to deal with these issues will continue to be among those that are the most successful in stimulating economic development and jobs. On the other hand, those that take the low road – pursuing the gimmick, the quick fix and the simple solution will lag behind, victimized by their own lack of creativity and vision.”
http://www.fairwage.org/
THE TRUTH ABOUT “RIGHT TO WORK (FOR LESS)” LAWS
“What does ‘Right to work’ really mean?
Not to get your pocket picked by greedy unions and have the money spent on screwball democrats.
THE TRUTH ABOUT “RIGHT TO WORK (FOR LESS)” LAWS
“What does ‘Right to work’ really mean?
Making it possible to build a car without being 3k in the hole before you even turn the first bolt becasue of excessive pension and healthcare costs.
THE TRUTH ABOUT “RIGHT TO WORK (FOR LESS)” LAWS
“What does ‘Right to work’ really mean?
It means that we can keep more jobs here in the USA instead of having to outsource everything. Think Boeing.
“’Right to work’ states spend $1,699 less per elementary and secondary pupil than other states. (Source: Education Vital Signs, 2000–2001 school year)
Public schools are overfunded already. How much money do you need to teach a kid how to put a rubber on a cucumber anyways.
“The infant mortality rate in ‘right to work’ states is 17 percent higher than in other states, and the poverty rate is 12.5 percent compared with 10.2 percent in other states. (Source: State Rankings 2000, A Statistical View of the 50 United States, Morgan Quinto Press; U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March 2002)
Does this include all the babies slaughtered inside the womb? Isnt a higher infant mortality rate good news for democrats?
The average worker in Idaho earns about $5,655 less a year than workers in other states (Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Dept of Commerce 2003)
Wow. And we all know how expensive the cost of living is in Idaho. But seriously $5,655 is a lot of money. It could almost pay your property taxes for a house in Seattle. Gotsta edumacate the next generation of KCRE ganstas ya na.
Unemployment benefits are 20% more in free bargaining states.
That is because most of them are laid off.
-Mike McGavick Calls for complete approach to immigration reform-
ALL NONWHITE, BALDING ANGRY MIDDLE-AGED WHITE REPUBLICAN GUYS MAKING UNDER $7 MILLION PER YEAR MUST LEAVE THE COUNTRY AT ONCE!!
Done.
Impact on Worker Environment
“In addition to the economic impacts of Right to Work, it has spawned an anti-worker environment in Idaho. This has resulted in the following rules taken out of the Idaho Department of Labor Wage and Hour Section. Idaho Law Does Not Require:
a. Vacation, holiday, severance, or sick pay
b. A discharge notice or reason for discharge
c. Rest periods, breaks, lunch breaks, holidays off, or vacations
d. Premium pay for weekends or holidays worked
e. Pay raises or fringe benefits
f. A limit on the number of hours an employee can work per day or week for those 16 years of age or older
“It’s Not Just About Unions, But Communities Too
It is about communism. Commies have done such a great job running their societies that they are the envy….. ah nevermind.
-Mike McGavick Calls for complete approach to immigration reform-
ALL NON-WHITE, BALDING ANGRY MIDDLE-AGED WHITE REPUBLICAN GUYS MAKING UNDER $7 MILLION PER YEAR MUST LEAVE THE COUNTRY AT ONCE!!
Simple! Thanks, Mike McGavick!
And thanks for making a fool of the MinnowBlog cult by shooting all your idiotic campaign ads in (hated) Seattle!
Rufus @ 103
“Oh brother….. This coming from a moonbat who believes that diebold voting machines stole the election in 2004.”
I do?????? That’s interesting. I’ve never discussed Dibold machines on this (or any) blog.
More made up bullshit from mentally unstable Rufus!
RUFUS @ 104
‘Of course I dont blame you moonbats. If my party lost elections like yours I would make shit up too.”
But, of course, you are the idiot making shit up!
Haaaa, ha, ha, ho, ho, he, he, he, he.
What a fucking MORON!!!!
Oh thats right DJ, I was think of another moonbat. You are the moonbat that says that Kerry’s military medical records were made public when he release them to his home town paper and no one else was able to look at them. My mistake.
Wasn’t that you that said John Kerry released his military medical records to the public? I know I can find that post if need be.
It is alright DJ…. I dont blame you. Kerry is a looooser and the only way to make him look good is too lie. Come out with it. It is OK, we understand.
Reason #17 as to why Bush should be impeached (should the Dems take back the House and Senate):
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/.....HUTB81.DTL
Memo details Bush’s resolve to invade Iraq
“Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning,” David Manning, Blair’s chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Bush, Blair and six of their top aides.
“The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March,” Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. “This was when the bombing would begin.”
—————-
“I want to remind you that it’s (Saddam’s) choice to make as to whether we go to war.” The American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war.”
-George Bush, March 6th, 2003
“This is a dangerous time. I wish it wasn’t this way. I wish I wasn’t ‘the war President.’ Who in the heck wants to be a ‘war President?’ I don’t”
-George W Bush, August 6th, 2004
“To assume I wanted war is just…is just flat wrong. No president wants war.”
-George W Bush, March 21, 2006
RUFUS @ 124
“Wasn’t that you that said John Kerry released his military medical records to the public?”
Ummm…there you go again, making shit up. I said he authorized the records to be released (which is true). Of course, the newspaper that got the records pointed out that the records were nearly identical to what Kerry released on his campaign web site…. But, RUFUS, dipshit, don’t let the truth get in the way of your imaginary wingnut world! (It would help if ya stayed away from wingnut radio.)
As I recall, you even cited some of the information from the paper.
Wahhhhhh, haaaaaa, haaaa. What a fucking dipshit!
Silly Union Hack Wabbit @ 74
I said it is a de facto “closed shop” when the “representation fees” are almost identical to the union membership dues. Nothing more, nothing less. When the fee is 1/3 of the union dues, THEN you can say it is a “union shop.” Otherwise, it is merely semantics and union-friendly legal language.
If you actually are/were a lawyer, it is clear that you were a “twist the words in the law for my own purposes” type, not one who actually cared about justice. You probably thought the scales were for measuring your drugs. The blindfold was because it sickened her to see that you had a bar card.
“No president wants war”
Bush’s caveat should have included “or, at least, nobody wants a war that goes terribly wrong.” “It seemed like a good idea at the time, with a vast majority of Americuns thinking that Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11, and all…”
Roger Rabbit The Dimwit:
In another thread the true and legal sworn testimony of the five former FISA judges wee posted by Whatwillmariado and Puddybud. Puddy placed the actual words from the five judges saying it was legal and actionable by the POTUS. You villified the source. Yes, typical liberal. When the facts are true, villify the source. Are you and For the Clueless relatives? Or, as I think the case is, you all follow the lead of Michael Moore, who throws out 50+ lies in 9/11 Fahrenheit and when caught doesn’t deny but impugns the questioner as a plant! Google it HorsesAsses!
Since it was sworn Senate testimony, innuendo and feel goodisms are all you have. Do you actually have the memory of a rabbit as accused by Puddy? Or, are you a KLOWN as accused by Cynical? Or, are you just dumb as accused by XMasGhost? My answer to all three questions are YES!
Factually, JDB whips out the fourth amendment as his argument ad nauseum. He doesn’t deny the judges words but accuses Puddy of highlighting the wrong part of the sentences. JDB if and when the judges say he broke the law, I’ll join in. Until then, all you liberal HorsesASSes have is speculation. X speculates this; Y speculates that. Provide me the law, not innuendo and liberalspeak! Don’t qouteth me the NY Times. I kinda remember the Jayson Blair affair!
Factually Roger Rabbit; your logic, like much of your lawyering is flushable. You choose to read the New York Times and reporter Mr Lichtblau which Puddy proved beyond the shadow of a doubt a liar. Lichtblau put words in the judge’s mouth of which the judge speaketh not! Other newspapers printed what the judges said to that fine specimen of democratic senatoring Dianne Feinstein. She was so perturbed that she said she wanted to poll the other judges. When she didn’t get the answer she wanted she tried to change the question’s focus.
BTW Rabbit, Ex-SF Mayor Feinstein is shocked at the behavior of SF Mayor Gavin Newsom and his blatant attempts of illegality with gay marriage rites in the statehouse. She said she doesn’t recognize her city anymore! Google it!
April 1st. April Fools Day. The Holiday celebrated by all libruls as their rite of passage day. Librul think: “Today of all days we can say anything!”
Before I forget: Happy Birthday For The Cluesless! Oh you mean it’s NOT your birthday? Well blow me down. Since almost all of the crap you post is foolish, I thought the memo said today.
Happy Fools Day Libruls!
Hmmm…looks like
moonbat greed sorta backfired. Can’t rob Stewart and 90 taxpayers gone.
Queen kinda overreached huh?
Your buddy Tom Stewart is the greediest of republifucks. He was still PISSED that the neighbors wouldn’t let him commute from VASHON ISLAND on his fucking HELICOPTER. Typical nouveau riche republifuck…gimme what I want…fuck the neighbors. Another (Dino) SORE loser. The Craswell factioons gonna lose a BIG BOOSTER. Is that what’s bothering you marko??? You sure don’t care about “other people’s jobs”.
Good fucking riddance. Don’t let the door hit ya on the way out, Tommy boy. Here’s yer hat, what’s yer hurry. Take your fucking HELICOPTER with you.
I knoW he’s your hero, MtR. Try to get over it…or better yet, MOVE TO ARIZONA.
Mikewebsucks:
You shouldn’t be a total fool and try to stick up for wrongboy (aka Pro-ImpeachBush boy).
First of all, he quotes one small pieces of testimony, and that piece doesn’t even say what he thinks it says (wrongboy aka Pro-ImpeachBush boy is famously bad when it comes to the law, sort of like the minnow). Simply put, he quoted a section where two judges stated a truism, that Congress cannot limit the President’s powers under Article II. That is called Separation of Powers. Hence why I cited to the Steel Seizure case, the base case for separation of powers law. Interesting case, that. The President claimed that he had inherient powers, during war (and this was a real war), to seize the steel industry. Congress had acted to allow the president to do so, but he had to jump through a few hoops. The President didn’t want to follow Congress’ rules.
Ruling of the Supreme Court: The President was just plain wrong.
Sound familiar?
This, along with the questionable idea that a President can violate the Fourth Amendment just because he feels like it is why most legal scholars, and apparently most members of the FISA court think that the president is just plain wrong.
And the best you can do is say that the Fourth Amendment doesn’t mean anything and cite to a small section of a Republican Federal Magistrate testimony (who is not a member of FISA), and even he agrees that the courts get to decide the issue in the end. And then you ignore all the other evidence and claim that it is all speculation. Boy, no wonder you are just plain wrong.
Now, it is interesting that you have missed both Roger’s and my posts citing to the New York Times reporting on five FISA judges saying that Bush was just plain wrong. You apparently missed the fact that I quoted Senator Specter saying that Bush was just plain wrong. So, like Wrongboy (aka Pro-ImpeachBush boy), you are just plain wrong.
111
““What does ‘Right to work’ really mean? Not to get your pocket picked by greedy unions and have the money spent on screwball democrats. Commentby RUFUS— 3/31/06@ 10:40 pm”
Bullshit. Complete, total, utterly FALSE … B U L L S H I T
The truth is: (1) No one is required to belong to a union as a condition of hire or continued employment in the United States. (2) While employees of a “union shop” can be required to pay “shop fees” as a fair-share financial contribution to the cost of bargaining for wages, benefits, and working conditions, anyone (union member or non-member) who objects to paying for the union’s lobbying and political activities has the right to “opt out” of the (usually very small) portion of member dues or shop fees that go to paying for these activities.
Rufus is a LIAR. Like all rightwingers, Rufus uses LIES to promote the wingnut agenda. That’s because people support that agenda only because they’ve been misled by rightwing LYING.
Anyone who receives union wages, benefits, and working conditions as a result of the efforts of a union and refuses to pay union dues or shop fees is a
F R E E L O A D E R
enriching himself out of the pockets of others.
Wingnuts = F R E E L O A D E R S
113
“It means that we can keep more jobs here in the USA instead of having to outsource everything. Think Boeing. Commentby RUFUS— 3/31/06@ 10:58 pm”
B U L L S H I T
Jobs are going overseas because of pro-globalization trade policies, tax laws that reward outsourcing, and an anti-worker administration in D.C. Millions of U.S. jobs have gone overseas under Bush, while CEOs who laid off American workers, broke union contracts, looted pension funds, and paid themselves gargantuan salaries are rewarded with multi-billion-dollar tax breaks. Blame Bush for loss of U.S. jobs, not unions!
Rightwingers are LIARS.
114
“Public schools are overfunded already. How much money do you need to teach a kid how to put a rubber on a cucumber anyways. Commentby RUFUS— 3/31/06@ 11:02 pm”
Hey Doofus, I nominate you for Mike McGavick’s public spokesperson. You are such a good mouthpiece for the rightwing cause! You should be on TV every night promoting Republicanism in your own inimitable style.
DOOFUS HATES CHILDREN, AND HATES CUCUMBERS TOO. SO HE PROBABLY ALSO HATES THE FARMERS WHO GROW CUCUMBERS. ALMOST CERTAINLY, DOOFUS HATES THE FARMWORKERS WHO PICK CUCUMBERS, AND THE GROCERS WHO SELL CUCUMBERS.
HEY DOOFUS! WHY DO YOU HATE KIDS AND KUKES?
HEY DOOFUS! DID YOU HAVE A BAD EXPERIENCE WITH A CUCUMBER WHEN YOU WERE IN GRADE SCHOOL? DID YOUR CHUMS HOLD YOU DOWN AND SHOVE A CUKE UP YOUR ASS?
115
“Does this include all the babies slaughtered inside the womb? Isnt a higher infant mortality rate good news for democrats? Commentby RUFUS— 3/31/06@ 11:05 pm”
Of course not! “Red state” infant mortality rates would go through the roof if they counted abortions:
” … people need to have their face rubbed in the fact that abortion is actually most common in communities that oppose it. It isn’t the blue states which have the highest abortion rates, it is the red states. And the redder the state, the more abortions are going on.”
http://agonist.org/ian_welsh/2.....ion_outing
Does anyone else find it ironic that Democrats are defending the right of Republicans to have abortions?
Those of us who remember how things were before Roe v. Wade know what will happen if abortion is outlawed again in the U.S. — the Republicans who most indignantly declaim against abortion will send their wives, mistresses, and girlfriends to foreign spas to get abortions. They’re not against abortion per se, they’re only against poor people who can’t afford foreign junkets getting abortions.
117
“Unemployment benefits are 20% more in free bargaining states.
That is because most of them are laid off. Commentby RUFUS— 3/31/06@ 11:15 pm”
B U L L S H I T
119
Ahhh, here we go! When a LYING WINGNUT is confronted with the FACTS about “right-to-work (for less)” laws, he pulls out the “C” word! When all else fails — when nobody believes his LIES anymore, and he has run out of arguments — a true wingnut screams “communism!” Never fails.
When a LYING WINGNUT starts calling people “commies,” it’s a sure sign you’ve won the debate.
123, 124
Hey Doofus, why don’t you release YOUR military records to the news media? (Mine are none of your fucking business.)
125
Speaking of looooooosers, what do you call a faux-president who can only get “elected” by disenfranchising black voters and locking voting machines in warehouses? Republicans make Russian elections look good!
130
“In another thread the true and legal sworn testimony of the five former FISA judges wee posted by Whatwillmariado and Puddybud. Puddy placed the actual words from the five judges saying it was legal and actionable by the POTUS.”
Really? I missed that post. My internet search produced numerous hits, ALL of whom said five former FISA judges testified that Bush’s wiretapping is NOT legal. What planet are you googling on, Alpha Centauri 13?
MWS @130
Here’s an Earth-based link to get you started:
New York Times: “Five former judges on the nation’s most secretive court, including one who resigned in apparent protest over President Bush’s domestic eavesdropping, urged Congress on Tuesday to give the court a formal role in overseeing the surveillance program.” http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03.....ref=slogin
Now, I’m aware of course that the Washington Times (a rightwing propaganda sheet owned and subsidized by Moonie cult leader “Rev.” Sun Myung Moon) and rightwing blogs are telling a totally different story — that the five judges testified Bush’s warrantless spying was legal. Well, MWS, if you used real news sources instead of relying on rightwing bullshit, maybe your brain wouldn’t be so addled.
Apparently the rightwing bullshitters think they can get away with this by challenging the credibility of the NYT’s reporting. There’s no comparison between the credibility of the NYT and the WT or rightwing blogs — not on this planet, anyway — but I don’t have to ask HA readers to take the NYT’s word for it. Let’s apply logic to this situation.
Let me ask you a couple of questions.
1. First of all, if the NYT misreported what the five former FISA judges said, why aren’t the judges crying foul?
2. Secondly, if the five former FISA judges testified that Bush’s warrantless spying is legal, why did …
“Several Republicans argued that whatever the legal status of the spying program, it did not deserve punishment because, unlike
Nixon, Mr. Bush had acted in good faith. ‘This is apples and oranges,’ Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, told Mr. Dean. ‘Anybody who believes that Richard Nixon was relying on some inherent-authority argument is recreating history.'” (Source: http://www.anonymousliberal.com/)
Well okay, I took that quote from a liberal blog — but you don’t have to take my word (or the blog’s word) for it. If you don’t believe GOP Sen. Graham said that, this shouldn’t be too hard to verify. Just call or e-mail his office.
3. Here’s another alleged quote from the judges’ testimony that gives names: ” … Judge Harold Baker told the Committee ‘the president was bound by the law “like everyone else.” If a law like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is duly enacted by Congress and considered constitutional,’ Judge Baker said, ‘the president ignores it at the president’s peril.’ For more than three hours, Baker and his counterparts ‘discussed in detail their views on the standards of proof required by the court, its relations with the Justice Department, and the constitutional, balance-of-power issues at the heart of the debate over the NSA program.'” http://www.themoderatevoice.co.....2562.shtml
Once again: If what Judge Baker said has been misreported, why isn’t he crying foul? If YOU think Judge Baker has been misquoted, why not go to the source and ask his office? Why haven’t the rightwing blogs done that?
Somebody’s bullshitting, all right, but it ain’t the New York Times.
P.S. — MWS, I saw your mama on Jerry Springer today!
Roger:
Actually, MWS, Wrongboy and mariawillwin are great examples of normal wingnut thinking.
Take the following sentence:
In a study of 100 people who hit themselves in the head, 1% says it was a very pleasant experience.
The Washington Times, Free Republic, and NewsMax would publish a story about how studies show that people enjoy hitting themselves in the head, and MWS, Wrongboy and mariawillwin would use that to justify hitting themselves in the head.
That’s wingnut logic for you.
I said he authorized the records to be released (which is true). Of course, the newspaper that got the records pointed out that the records were nearly identical to what Kerry released on his campaign web site…. But, RUFUS, dipshit, don’t let the truth get in the way of your imaginary wingnut world! (It would help if ya stayed away from wingnut radio.)
As I recall, you even cited some of the information from the paper.
What information would that be. Fucking Moron. Kerry is afucking liar. If he wasnt then Fox news would have been able to look at them.
The truth is: (1) No one is required to belong to a union as a condition of hire or continued employment in the United States. (2) While employees of a “union shop” can be required to pay “shop fees” as a fair-share financial contribution to the cost of bargaining for wages, benefits, and working conditions, anyone (union member or non-member) who objects to paying for the union’s lobbying and political activities has the right to “opt out” of the (usually very small) portion of member dues or shop fees that go to paying for these activities.
Tell that too the teachers unions. Ask a public school teacher if they have a choice.
DOOFUS HATES CHILDREN, AND HATES CUCUMBERS TOO. SO HE PROBABLY ALSO HATES THE FARMERS WHO GROW CUCUMBERS. ALMOST CERTAINLY, DOOFUS HATES THE FARMWORKERS WHO PICK CUCUMBERS, AND THE GROCERS WHO SELL CUCUMBERS.
HEY DOOFUS! WHY DO YOU HATE KIDS AND KUKES?
Commentby Roger Rabbit— 4/1/06@ 10:59 am
Libs dont like it when you tell the truth about public eduction do they. That is one pissed wabbit.
Yeah, right JDB, Why did Lichtblau attribute something directly to Judge Baker in the article and Baker said something else. And you know many a time the NYT says something and the person wronged just ignores it. So if I posted his actual words from the Senate visit that day and Lichtblau claimed he said something else (through attribution) the same day at the same time, which is correct JDB? Hmmm…?
Or better said who is lying; the words from Judge Baker’s mouth or Lichtblau reporting Judge Baker’s words?
Wrongboy (aka Pro-ImpeachBush boy)
Actually, you didn’t post his actual words, you posted the edited words that you took from the Washington Times or Powerline, who edited them and took them out of context.
Even then, Judge Baker said:
1) That the Presdient can be bounded by the law
and
2) That if Congress had acted to limit his authority, he acted at his peril.
So why are you and the Washington Times lying about what Judge Baker said.
Well, the Times is a propaganda organ, and I assume you are just plane ingnorant. I also assume you are working from circle logic, since you keep assuming that what the president did was constitutional. However, even Magistrate Kornblum stated (strange that you don’t quote this):
“I am very wary of inherent authority” claimed by presidents, testified U.S. Magistrate [and FISA] Judge Allan Kornblum. “It sounds very much like King George.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200.....esdropping
Also strange that you and Powerline and the Washington Times don’t quote this from the Magistrate:
The presidential authority that is being used today is being used unilaterally. I think all of the judges agree with me that when the president operates unilaterally, his power is at its lowest ebb, as has been mentioned in judicial decisions.
. . .
But when Congress passes a law, such as one authorizing the surveillance program targeting communications networks — when the Congress does that and the judiciary has a role in overseeing it, well then the executive branch’s authority is at its maximum. What that means is they can do things, I believe, under an amended FISA statute that they cannot do now.
Which clearly implies that you need to amend FISA to allow the Persident to do what he wants. It is also the holding of the Steel Seizure case, which you still h aven’t read.
What about Judge Stafford’s testimony:
FISA was created by Congress to clarify that the president had the authority to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance, but that the president would do so through a court composed of judges who had been nominated for lifetime appointments by a president and confirmed by the Senate as provided in Article III of the Constitution. This arrangement seems to have worked well for everyone.
Wow, the more you look at it, the more it becomes clear that the Washington Times, Powerline, and their useful idiot Wrongboy (aka Pro-ImpeachBush boy), are just plain wrong.
That is probably because “the claims by The Washington Times, predictably parroted by Powerline and company, are based on several transparent myths that one can believe only if one has a complete lack of understanding as to how our system of government works.”
. . .
“Let’s repeat what Gonzales said for those unwilling or — in the case of Powerline — unable to process it: “the fact that the president, again, may have inherent authority doesn’t mean that Congress has no authority in a particular area.”
That’s 8th Grade civics. The three branches of Government share responsibility for the functions of Government. So the fact that the President can engage in surveillance to defend the Nation doesn’t mean that Congress can’t regulate how that power is used against American citizens on American soil. FISA was in place and adhered to by every Presidential Administration – Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton. Nobody ever suggested it was unconstitutional — including the Bush Administration — until they got caught violating it and needed an excuse.
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.....-said.html
Here is another good article showing you why you are wrong.
http://www.mahablog.com/2006/0.....clamation/
So, in the end, what do we have. 1) The New York Times article is accurate, and the articles you sight to ignore the records and are wrong. 2) That you have not read the Steel Seizures case and don’t know the law on this subject, and so you analysis (actually, the analysis you stoled from the Washington Times and Powerline) is wrong. And 3) That you apparently don’t know basic civics, and think that the President can do anything he wants and ignore the Fourth Amendment, which, clearly, is just plain wrong.
However, since your own logic means we should impeach Bush, I guess that a broken clock is right twice a day. Amazing, in trying to ignore the truth and in being so wrong, you ended up being more radical than Howard Dean. Welcome to the party.
So, how hard is it to be constanlty truth-slapped Wrongboy?