The Democratic-led Congress this afternoon voted to put an end to the NSA spying scandal, as the Senate approved a bill -- approved last week by the House -- to immunize lawbreaking telecoms, terminate all pending lawsuits against them, and vest whole new warrantless eavesdropping powers in the President.
Submitted by gonzone on Thu, 2008/07/10 - 12:04pm.
Spineless ones bow to Dear Leader...
Senate bows to Bush, approves surveillance bill
By PAMELA HESS
WASHINGTON (AP) — Bowing to President Bush's demands, the Senate sent the White House a bill Wednesday overhauling bitterly disputed rules on secret government eavesdropping and shielding telecommunications companies from lawsuits complaining they helped the U.S. spy on Americans.
What a despicable bunch of cowards.
Got At&T money in your pocket guys?
Ever hear of the Constitution?
Yeah, that "piece of paper" you promised to defend when you took office?
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter S. Thompson
Submitted by Johnny Ringo on Thu, 2008/07/10 - 1:17pm.
I just think it's interesting that you're going to support a despicable coward in AT&T's pocket, who never heard of the Constitution he promised to defend. Knock yourself out.
With regard to the second comment, I disagree with the premise.
Submitted by R. Neal on Thu, 2008/07/10 - 12:12pm.
What I find fascinating about all this is that just a couple of weeks ago the US Supreme Court handed the 2nd Amendment brigades a huge and historical victory.
Yesterday, Congress dealt the 4th Amendment a serious blow (that probably wouldn't stand up in the US Supreme Court), which the 2nd Amendment was, in part, supposed to protect.
So, where are all the libertarian/conservative 2nd Amendment guys on this affront to civil liberties? They are strangely quiet. Or is it that they are mostly single issue voters/bloggers/pundits and they don't care?
(With apologies in advance for lowering myself to the usual rightwing tactic of criticizing bloggers/pundits for what they're NOT blogging/punditing about.)
Submitted by Johnny Ringo on Thu, 2008/07/10 - 1:32pm.
Can DC regulate the keeping and bearing of arms after Heller? Certainly. The decision makes that clear. The limits of that regulation will be hashed out in the hundreds of cases challenging various gun regulation laws across the country which are sure to follow. What's clear though is that while all 9 Justices found that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to keep and bear arms, all 9 also agreed the right was not unlimited.
So can Congress declare legislatively that the kind of intelligence-gathering procedures authorized by the FISA Amendments are not "unreasonable" searches? I dunno. Certainly SCOTUS will eventually have a say. The thing to remember is that no Constitutional "right" is unlimited. All are subject to "reasonable" restrictions. What contitutes "reasonableness" and what standard is used to judge the restriction on the right is the province of the courts.
Submitted by RayCapps on Thu, 2008/07/10 - 3:34pm.
I guess I've squandered enough of my core principles through the years that, politically, I might more accuratetly accused of being the most hated of all political stripes - a moderate. But philosophically, I'm still a libertarian at heart.
The Heller decision was a rare great day in the history of individual rights in this country. I now eagerly await the ACLU's response to this decision now that the cloak of "not an individual right" has been stripped away from their list of excuses for not defending individuals challenging laws unfriendly to the 2nd Amendment. Will they remain true to their stated principles and campaign vigorously for as expansive an interpretation of this right as possible or will they meekly follow the wishes of their overwhelmingly progressive - not libertarian - donor base? My money's on the latter.
FISA was a disaster. While I acknowledge the historical precedent of suspending some civil liberties in war time (Lincoln, Wilson, FDR and their respective congresses all did so), I haven't seen our declaration of war, yet. Given the type of war we are supposed to be fighting, I'd also like to see a clearer definition of what "victory" is supposed to look like so I'd have some idea when those civil liberties would be restored. Absent either, Patriot Acts I and II and this FISA bill are unjustified restrictions on civil liberties, unlawful (my opinion) invasions of privacy, and now they provide dubious (my opinion) legal cover to private enterprises for violating indivual rights.
Some may take the stand that gathering information is not in and of itself a violation of civil rights but rather what is done with that information that creates a violation of civil rights. I say hogwash.
I'm not a blogger, so maybe I don't count, Mr. Neal... but there's a libertarian/pro-second Amendment AMEN to those who decry the passage of the FISA bill.
Submitted by tin cup on Thu, 2008/07/10 - 12:13pm.
If only Jesse hadn't removed Barack's testicles, he might not have flip flopped on this issue and voted "yea." Standing by one's principles matters not. The only thing important now is moving to the center so he can get elected. The democrat way.............
It also violates the Fifth Amendment. As Sheldon Whitehouse said yesterday:
"I am aware of no precedent for the Congress of the United States stepping into ongoing litigation, choosing a winner and a loser, allowing no alternative remedy. And I believe the constitutional problem with doing that as a separation of powers matter is particularly acute where the cause of action that is being litigated in the judicial branch is a constitutional claim."
Submitted by tin cup on Thu, 2008/07/10 - 12:40pm.
I seem to recollect that Ob-Mama said he would filibuster this bill and not allow it to pass. Not only did he not do that, he voted "yea!" What changed besides the timing? Oops, when he made the filibuster statement, he was on his knees in front of Moveon.org and the rest of the lefties trying to beat Hillary. Now he has the nomination. Combine that with his medical problem* and we have another classic Barack flip flop.
Submitted by talidapali on Thu, 2008/07/10 - 6:08pm.
Submitted by tin cup on Thu, 2008/07/10 - 1:40pm.
I seem to recollect that Ob-Mama said...
The Fox News inspired rhetoric that harkens back to the odious FOX News scroll that labeled Michelle Obama "Obama's Baby Mama"? It was a clear appeal to the worst tendencies of some of the American public by Fox News when they used an urban slang insult towards her.
Calling Barack Obama "Ob-Mama" is beyond the pale when trying to engage in a civil discourse on politics or anything else. If you want to spew racist commentary take it to Free Republic or Stormfront or some such place like that. It makes everything you type immediately unworthy of true objective regard, and it makes all your arguments weak. If you have something to say, surely you can find a way to say it without resorting to scurrilous name-calling.
Or perhaps that is beyond your capabilities and intelligence level.
P.S. Sorry Randy, it was just getting on my last nerve.
_________________________________________________ "You can't fix stupid..." ~ Ron White" "I never said I wasn't a brat..." ~ Talidapali
My understanding of the FISA immunity deal for the TeleCon giants is that it does not prevents criminal charges from being made. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.
Submitted by Johnny Ringo on Thu, 2008/07/10 - 1:34pm.
"What a despicable bunch of cowards.
Got At&T money in your pocket guys?
Ever hear of the Constitution?
Yeah, that "piece of paper" you promised to defend when you took office?"
If you would prefer that I take your statements to mean that Obama's vote was bought by AT&T I'll be happy to make the correction.
Since you're quoting what I said, I'll assume you were addressing me and not Sven?
My comments were not pointed directly at Obama. I'll still vote for him, yes. What would do, elect McSame and let him have this new power?
Yes, the telecom companies spent about $30 million lobbying this bill last year and over $20 million this year so someone is most certainly benefiting financially, wouldn't you agree? And this goes not to just Dems but the GOP votes nearly wholesale for whatever the lobbyists want to buy.
The lesser of two evils rule exists always. No candidate or person is perfect. I'm hoping to reverse this disastrous bill in the courts. I gave money to the ACLU (who will fight this in court), did you? What will you do?
I think we agree this bill is wrong, all that's left is what to do about it. I personally do not recommend cutting off one's nose to spite their face.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter S. Thompson
Gonzone, it's one thing to say you don't have to agree on everything in order to vote for someone. I think it's a whole new ballgame when an presidential candidate goes from saying he'll filibuster a bill to voting for it in the span of a few months.
I'm sure the GOP will be accused of dirty politics and "swift boating" poor ole Barack when those ads come out.
You make a good point.
Barack flip-flopped in my view also.
I personally think it will come back to harm just as you seem to.
Notice how positions change depending on the number of candidates there are to hold others accountable?
I still miss Edwards, he held their feet to the fire for some time.
Speaking of the GOP, McSame certainly can't attack Obama for flip-flops very well as McBush agrees with everyone on every issue, just on different days.
"Swift boating" implies dishonest smears, or that's how I understand the phrase. Nothing is dishonest about Obama flipping on this issue as far as I can see. I think he'll have to take his lumps.
We need more and BETTER Democrats in Congress and this bill proves it. This is not an exclusive Obama issue. Look how our TN legislators voted. That's where we need to focus, getting rid of those shameless corporate whores who lick Bush's boots while bowing lower than a worm to the murdering crook.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter S. Thompson
If you would prefer that I take your statements to mean that Obama's vote was bought by AT&T
Obama hasn't received any money from AT&T. McCain received $160,930 as of June 30.
What contitutes "reasonableness" and what standard is used to judge the restriction on the right is the province of the courts
Right. This is exactly what the Fourth Amendment says. Citizens have a presumptive right to privacy, but that right is restricted if the government has probable cause and a warrant. The alterations to FISA take the latter out of the equation entirely.
RayCapps, I like your analysis. I believe you make some very good points on both issues. I'm not totally comfortable with your "declaration of war" and "what does 'victory' look like" statements though. How can the USA declare war on a terrorist organization like Al-Qaeda per se? On the other hand, victory can probably be measured in several ways depending on who you're talking to. Here's one way: We were going along getting "hit" about every 18 months or so - World Trade Center bombing, African Embassy bombings, USS Cole and a bunch of planes crashing into the World Trade Center, Pentagon and Pennsylvania field to name a few. Since we went after them militarily in October, 2001, we've not been hit. Granted, there was the Madrid train bombing and the incident in London. But most experts will tell you that we've annihilated Al-Qaeda in Iraq and probably Indonesia. Certainly, most of the media don't like to report that but it's true. It's not over and we need to go back and clean up Afghanistan and Pakistan. But does the end justify the means? As you point out, most reasonable people believe it did in past wars. There's good debate points on both sides of FISA. What chaps me though is that many of the same hypocrite liberals who whine about stepping on civil liberties with the FISA bill have no problem supporting the so-called "fairness doctrine." This is the most blatant attack on first amendment rights ever and there's Pelosi and Reid cheerleading for it. Sickening if you ask me. Maybe Jesse should threaten to castrate all of them!
Submitted by RayCapps on Fri, 2008/07/11 - 7:53am.
How can the USA declare war on a terrorist organization like Al-Qaeda per se?
A declaration of war is a formal committal of your nation's military and other resources to the destruction of an enemy identified within the declaration. There was/is nothing preventing the POTUS from requesting a declaration of war against Al-Qaeda or other para-military or para-state organization. It is just a formal recognition of an official diplomatic state of being. Of course, that would bring captured Al-Qaeda operatives under the auspices of the Geneva Conventions, wouldn't it? It would also narrow the focus of all this expanded surveillance to groups and individuals who may have a tie specifically to Al-Qaeda rather than the squishily defined and very broad net that is cast by such a general phrase as "war on terror."
If we are at war with "terror," am I to presume a suspension of my civil liberties until the "Real IRA," the Chechyns, the ETA, FARC, Hezbollah, Hamas, et al have all been destroyed? If a government proposes taking the drastic step of suspending civil liberties, a formal declaration of war against specific enemies seems little enough to demand. As it stands now, in the absence of a formal war, our liberties are being taken away without reference to specific events or conditions which should trigger their restoration. I don't know about you, but that's a lot more than I'm willing to swallow. But then, I'm from that archaic school of thought where our individual liberties were believed to be inherent, not merely granted to us by the benevolence of a government.
Submitted by Yellow Dog on Thu, 2008/07/10 - 8:09pm.
Like some of the commenters here, I was extremely disappointed in the vote on FISA, and I disagreed with Obama's stance on the issue. But one of the most vocal opponents of the legislation, Russ Feingold, in an interview with Rachel Maddow, made me feel slightly better, citing his own support for Obama despite their disagreements on this piece of legislation.
MJR
"It was a clear appeal to the worst tendencies of some of the American public by Fox News when they used an urban slang insult towards her."
When Obama won his Senate seat (beating then carpet-bag, substitute candidate Alan Keyes who had not one chance of winning) wasn't it Michelle Obama who introduced him at his victory speech as 'my baby's daddy'? Doesn't she still sometimes introduce him that way at campaign stops? I think there are You Tube videos which show it. Seems we now know the source of some of this discourse.
Submitted by talidapali on Fri, 2008/07/11 - 4:24pm.
making an obviously inside joke and a NEWS network using racially charged urban slang slurs about a candidate's wife. In what setting is it appropriate for you, CBT, to use the N word? Even if you were a reporter on Fox News?
The etymology of baby daddy or baby mama is here. If you take the time to read the article you will see that the term began in the hip-hop culture as an INSULT.
Just because Michelle Obama introduced her husband as her baby's daddy does not mean that anyone else can use the term about him or her. And correct me if I'm wrong but she is married to him and he is the father of her two children...if she wants to emphasize that he is firstly the daddy to her two girls, and secondly a candidate or Senator or presumptive nominee for President, then that is HER right...not FOX News or anyone else.
_________________________________________________ "You can't fix stupid..." ~ Ron White" "I never said I wasn't a brat..." ~ Talidapali
Lighten up, Talidapali. I didn't know you got to decide what's racist and what's not. This has nothing to do with Fox News or racism. It's my own little fun play on the spelling, much like McSame or McBush. But if you're not smart enough to read beyond names you're not OK with, then I'll stop.
Submitted by talidapali on Fri, 2008/07/11 - 4:01pm.
EXACTLY what you are trying to say in the name.
And for your info...I have never used the term McSame or McBush. I feel the same way about those terms that I do about Ob-Mama. I also didn't care for Obama supporters calling Hillary Clinton "Billary" during the primary race. If you can't speak about or to a person without corrupting their name to make yourself feel superior, then it proves that you are NOT. What you don't seem intelligent enough to grasp is that some of us can see what you are trying to do, so cut it out. You keep making the small arguments of a diminutive mind.
_________________________________________________ "You can't fix stupid..." ~ Ron White" "I never said I wasn't a brat..." ~ Talidapali
Submitted by tin cup on Fri, 2008/07/11 - 10:19am.
I found the perfect response for you, Tadpole. It was the winning entry in an annual contest put on by Texas A&M University whereby they ask for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term. This year's term was political correctness. The winner wrote:
"Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the propostition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
Submitted by talidapali on Fri, 2008/07/11 - 4:11pm.
with "political correctness" and everything to do with common courtesy and civility. You wouldn't like it very much if someone was going around corrupting your name to all and sundry.
And you wouldn't like it if someone was making misogynistic or sexually disgusting remarks about your wife or girlfriend.
And my name is Talidapali...Miss Talidapali to you. If you cannot spell it...well...what does that say about you now?
_________________________________________________ "You can't fix stupid..." ~ Ron White" "I never said I wasn't a brat..." ~ Talidapali
Now you've done it, Talidapali....er, excuse me, Miss Talidapali. You've made me feel so bad for my misguided, political incorrectness and name calling. You really did it when you reminded me that I certainly wouldn't want may name corrupted to all and sundry..............WHAT?!
Spineless ones bow to Dear Leader...
What a despicable bunch of cowards.
Got At&T money in your pocket guys?
Ever hear of the Constitution?
Yeah, that "piece of paper" you promised to defend when you took office?
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter S. Thompson
So you're voting for Nader then?
Why would you think that?
I don't have to agree with everything they do in order to vote for a person. If that were the case, I'd never get to vote.
I think my pointing out how AP covered the story is most appropriate, as were my comments. Is there anything incorrect?
So you all for shredding the Constitution then?
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter S. Thompson
I just think it's interesting that you're going to support a despicable coward in AT&T's pocket, who never heard of the Constitution he promised to defend. Knock yourself out.
With regard to the second comment, I disagree with the premise.
Not voting for Nader but am going to vote Green Party Link...
McCain going to win TN. Cast a vote that means something.
What I find fascinating about all this is that just a couple of weeks ago the US Supreme Court handed the 2nd Amendment brigades a huge and historical victory.
Yesterday, Congress dealt the 4th Amendment a serious blow (that probably wouldn't stand up in the US Supreme Court), which the 2nd Amendment was, in part, supposed to protect.
So, where are all the libertarian/conservative 2nd Amendment guys on this affront to civil liberties? They are strangely quiet. Or is it that they are mostly single issue voters/bloggers/pundits and they don't care?
(With apologies in advance for lowering myself to the usual rightwing tactic of criticizing bloggers/pundits for what they're NOT blogging/punditing about.)
Can DC regulate the keeping and bearing of arms after Heller? Certainly. The decision makes that clear. The limits of that regulation will be hashed out in the hundreds of cases challenging various gun regulation laws across the country which are sure to follow. What's clear though is that while all 9 Justices found that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to keep and bear arms, all 9 also agreed the right was not unlimited.
So can Congress declare legislatively that the kind of intelligence-gathering procedures authorized by the FISA Amendments are not "unreasonable" searches? I dunno. Certainly SCOTUS will eventually have a say. The thing to remember is that no Constitutional "right" is unlimited. All are subject to "reasonable" restrictions. What contitutes "reasonableness" and what standard is used to judge the restriction on the right is the province of the courts.
I guess I've squandered enough of my core principles through the years that, politically, I might more accuratetly accused of being the most hated of all political stripes - a moderate. But philosophically, I'm still a libertarian at heart.
The Heller decision was a rare great day in the history of individual rights in this country. I now eagerly await the ACLU's response to this decision now that the cloak of "not an individual right" has been stripped away from their list of excuses for not defending individuals challenging laws unfriendly to the 2nd Amendment. Will they remain true to their stated principles and campaign vigorously for as expansive an interpretation of this right as possible or will they meekly follow the wishes of their overwhelmingly progressive - not libertarian - donor base? My money's on the latter.
FISA was a disaster. While I acknowledge the historical precedent of suspending some civil liberties in war time (Lincoln, Wilson, FDR and their respective congresses all did so), I haven't seen our declaration of war, yet. Given the type of war we are supposed to be fighting, I'd also like to see a clearer definition of what "victory" is supposed to look like so I'd have some idea when those civil liberties would be restored. Absent either, Patriot Acts I and II and this FISA bill are unjustified restrictions on civil liberties, unlawful (my opinion) invasions of privacy, and now they provide dubious (my opinion) legal cover to private enterprises for violating indivual rights.
Some may take the stand that gathering information is not in and of itself a violation of civil rights but rather what is done with that information that creates a violation of civil rights. I say hogwash.
I'm not a blogger, so maybe I don't count, Mr. Neal... but there's a libertarian/pro-second Amendment AMEN to those who decry the passage of the FISA bill.
If only Jesse hadn't removed Barack's testicles, he might not have flip flopped on this issue and voted "yea." Standing by one's principles matters not. The only thing important now is moving to the center so he can get elected. The democrat way.............
It also violates the Fifth Amendment. As Sheldon Whitehouse said yesterday:
I seem to recollect that Ob-Mama said he would filibuster this bill and not allow it to pass. Not only did he not do that, he voted "yea!" What changed besides the timing? Oops, when he made the filibuster statement, he was on his knees in front of Moveon.org and the rest of the lefties trying to beat Hillary. Now he has the nomination. Combine that with his medical problem* and we have another classic Barack flip flop.
*no balls
The Fox News inspired rhetoric that harkens back to the odious FOX News scroll that labeled Michelle Obama "Obama's Baby Mama"? It was a clear appeal to the worst tendencies of some of the American public by Fox News when they used an urban slang insult towards her.
Calling Barack Obama "Ob-Mama" is beyond the pale when trying to engage in a civil discourse on politics or anything else. If you want to spew racist commentary take it to Free Republic or Stormfront or some such place like that. It makes everything you type immediately unworthy of true objective regard, and it makes all your arguments weak. If you have something to say, surely you can find a way to say it without resorting to scurrilous name-calling.
Or perhaps that is beyond your capabilities and intelligence level.
P.S. Sorry Randy, it was just getting on my last nerve.
_________________________________________________
"You can't fix stupid..." ~ Ron White"
"I never said I wasn't a brat..." ~ Talidapali
So, Ob-Mama is beyond the pale but McSame and McBush are both still within the acceptable code of conduct? Just checking.
Here's some refreshing news for all the Hillary fans:
Senator Clinton voted the correct way!
Credit where credit is due. You go Hillary!
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter S. Thompson
My understanding of the FISA immunity deal for the TeleCon giants is that it does not prevents criminal charges from being made. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.
in AT&T's pocket
Care to explain that one?
"What a despicable bunch of cowards.
Got At&T money in your pocket guys?
Ever hear of the Constitution?
Yeah, that "piece of paper" you promised to defend when you took office?"
If you would prefer that I take your statements to mean that Obama's vote was bought by AT&T I'll be happy to make the correction.
Since you're quoting what I said, I'll assume you were addressing me and not Sven?
My comments were not pointed directly at Obama. I'll still vote for him, yes. What would do, elect McSame and let him have this new power?
Yes, the telecom companies spent about $30 million lobbying this bill last year and over $20 million this year so someone is most certainly benefiting financially, wouldn't you agree? And this goes not to just Dems but the GOP votes nearly wholesale for whatever the lobbyists want to buy.
The lesser of two evils rule exists always. No candidate or person is perfect. I'm hoping to reverse this disastrous bill in the courts. I gave money to the ACLU (who will fight this in court), did you? What will you do?
I think we agree this bill is wrong, all that's left is what to do about it. I personally do not recommend cutting off one's nose to spite their face.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter S. Thompson
Gonzone, it's one thing to say you don't have to agree on everything in order to vote for someone. I think it's a whole new ballgame when an presidential candidate goes from saying he'll filibuster a bill to voting for it in the span of a few months.
I'm sure the GOP will be accused of dirty politics and "swift boating" poor ole Barack when those ads come out.
You make a good point.
Barack flip-flopped in my view also.
I personally think it will come back to harm just as you seem to.
Notice how positions change depending on the number of candidates there are to hold others accountable?
I still miss Edwards, he held their feet to the fire for some time.
Speaking of the GOP, McSame certainly can't attack Obama for flip-flops very well as McBush agrees with everyone on every issue, just on different days.
"Swift boating" implies dishonest smears, or that's how I understand the phrase. Nothing is dishonest about Obama flipping on this issue as far as I can see. I think he'll have to take his lumps.
We need more and BETTER Democrats in Congress and this bill proves it. This is not an exclusive Obama issue. Look how our TN legislators voted. That's where we need to focus, getting rid of those shameless corporate whores who lick Bush's boots while bowing lower than a worm to the murdering crook.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter S. Thompson
If you would prefer that I take your statements to mean that Obama's vote was bought by AT&T
Obama hasn't received any money from AT&T. McCain received $160,930 as of June 30.
What contitutes "reasonableness" and what standard is used to judge the restriction on the right is the province of the courts
Right. This is exactly what the Fourth Amendment says. Citizens have a presumptive right to privacy, but that right is restricted if the government has probable cause and a warrant. The alterations to FISA take the latter out of the equation entirely.
A humorous take on this issue.
How to profit from FISA.
Link...
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter S. Thompson
RayCapps, I like your analysis. I believe you make some very good points on both issues. I'm not totally comfortable with your "declaration of war" and "what does 'victory' look like" statements though. How can the USA declare war on a terrorist organization like Al-Qaeda per se? On the other hand, victory can probably be measured in several ways depending on who you're talking to. Here's one way: We were going along getting "hit" about every 18 months or so - World Trade Center bombing, African Embassy bombings, USS Cole and a bunch of planes crashing into the World Trade Center, Pentagon and Pennsylvania field to name a few. Since we went after them militarily in October, 2001, we've not been hit. Granted, there was the Madrid train bombing and the incident in London. But most experts will tell you that we've annihilated Al-Qaeda in Iraq and probably Indonesia. Certainly, most of the media don't like to report that but it's true. It's not over and we need to go back and clean up Afghanistan and Pakistan. But does the end justify the means? As you point out, most reasonable people believe it did in past wars. There's good debate points on both sides of FISA. What chaps me though is that many of the same hypocrite liberals who whine about stepping on civil liberties with the FISA bill have no problem supporting the so-called "fairness doctrine." This is the most blatant attack on first amendment rights ever and there's Pelosi and Reid cheerleading for it. Sickening if you ask me. Maybe Jesse should threaten to castrate all of them!
A declaration of war is a formal committal of your nation's military and other resources to the destruction of an enemy identified within the declaration. There was/is nothing preventing the POTUS from requesting a declaration of war against Al-Qaeda or other para-military or para-state organization. It is just a formal recognition of an official diplomatic state of being. Of course, that would bring captured Al-Qaeda operatives under the auspices of the Geneva Conventions, wouldn't it? It would also narrow the focus of all this expanded surveillance to groups and individuals who may have a tie specifically to Al-Qaeda rather than the squishily defined and very broad net that is cast by such a general phrase as "war on terror."
If we are at war with "terror," am I to presume a suspension of my civil liberties until the "Real IRA," the Chechyns, the ETA, FARC, Hezbollah, Hamas, et al have all been destroyed? If a government proposes taking the drastic step of suspending civil liberties, a formal declaration of war against specific enemies seems little enough to demand. As it stands now, in the absence of a formal war, our liberties are being taken away without reference to specific events or conditions which should trigger their restoration. I don't know about you, but that's a lot more than I'm willing to swallow. But then, I'm from that archaic school of thought where our individual liberties were believed to be inherent, not merely granted to us by the benevolence of a government.
Like some of the commenters here, I was extremely disappointed in the vote on FISA, and I disagreed with Obama's stance on the issue. But one of the most vocal opponents of the legislation, Russ Feingold, in an interview with Rachel Maddow, made me feel slightly better, citing his own support for Obama despite their disagreements on this piece of legislation.
MJR
"It was a clear appeal to the worst tendencies of some of the American public by Fox News when they used an urban slang insult towards her."
When Obama won his Senate seat (beating then carpet-bag, substitute candidate Alan Keyes who had not one chance of winning) wasn't it Michelle Obama who introduced him at his victory speech as 'my baby's daddy'? Doesn't she still sometimes introduce him that way at campaign stops? I think there are You Tube videos which show it. Seems we now know the source of some of this discourse.
making an obviously inside joke and a NEWS network using racially charged urban slang slurs about a candidate's wife. In what setting is it appropriate for you, CBT, to use the N word? Even if you were a reporter on Fox News?
The etymology of baby daddy or baby mama is here. If you take the time to read the article you will see that the term began in the hip-hop culture as an INSULT.
Just because Michelle Obama introduced her husband as her baby's daddy does not mean that anyone else can use the term about him or her. And correct me if I'm wrong but she is married to him and he is the father of her two children...if she wants to emphasize that he is firstly the daddy to her two girls, and secondly a candidate or Senator or presumptive nominee for President, then that is HER right...not FOX News or anyone else.
_________________________________________________
"You can't fix stupid..." ~ Ron White"
"I never said I wasn't a brat..." ~ Talidapali
Lighten up, Talidapali. I didn't know you got to decide what's racist and what's not. This has nothing to do with Fox News or racism. It's my own little fun play on the spelling, much like McSame or McBush. But if you're not smart enough to read beyond names you're not OK with, then I'll stop.
EXACTLY what you are trying to say in the name.
And for your info...I have never used the term McSame or McBush. I feel the same way about those terms that I do about Ob-Mama. I also didn't care for Obama supporters calling Hillary Clinton "Billary" during the primary race. If you can't speak about or to a person without corrupting their name to make yourself feel superior, then it proves that you are NOT. What you don't seem intelligent enough to grasp is that some of us can see what you are trying to do, so cut it out. You keep making the small arguments of a diminutive mind.
_________________________________________________
"You can't fix stupid..." ~ Ron White"
"I never said I wasn't a brat..." ~ Talidapali
I found the perfect response for you, Tadpole. It was the winning entry in an annual contest put on by Texas A&M University whereby they ask for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term. This year's term was political correctness. The winner wrote:
"Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the propostition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
Ob-Mama would be proud.........
with "political correctness" and everything to do with common courtesy and civility. You wouldn't like it very much if someone was going around corrupting your name to all and sundry.
And you wouldn't like it if someone was making misogynistic or sexually disgusting remarks about your wife or girlfriend.
And my name is Talidapali...Miss Talidapali to you. If you cannot spell it...well...what does that say about you now?
_________________________________________________
"You can't fix stupid..." ~ Ron White"
"I never said I wasn't a brat..." ~ Talidapali
If you can't speak about or to a person without corrupting their name to make yourself feel superior, then it proves that you are NOT.
Misappropriating Lewis Carroll:
He only does it to annoy
Because he knows it teases.
Really, tho, this obsessive need to hang nicknames on everybody and everything is pretty childish.
But then, George Bush does it too.
Oh wait....
Now you've done it, Talidapali....er, excuse me, Miss Talidapali. You've made me feel so bad for my misguided, political incorrectness and name calling. You really did it when you reminded me that I certainly wouldn't want may name corrupted to all and sundry..............WHAT?!
"all and sundry"
This idiom is a way of emphasizing 'all', like saying 'each and every one'.
_________________________________________________
"You can't fix stupid..." ~ Ron White"
"I never said I wasn't a brat..." ~ Talidapali
Post new comment