Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Quips, quotes and questions
Posted by: mcq on Thursday, September 27, 2007

Speaking of Ahmadinejad's UN speech:
Vali Nasr, an Iran expert at Tufts University's Fletcher School in Boston, said the speech was "boilerplate Ahmadinejad."

"This is third world-ism," Nasr said. "He's arguing that Iran is not an odd, rogue country with a deranged foreign policy but that Iran's foreign policy is very mainstream."
Reminds me of a particular commenter from Maine who's commentary could be described that way.

Divider

Daniel Ellsberg has joined the long line of those suffereing from chronic BDS. Discussing his theory of a probable attack on Iran and its aftermath ('detention camps' here in the US), he describes the rise of the present "regime":
Let me simplify this and not just to be rhetorical: A coup has occurred. I woke up the other day realizing, coming out of sleep, that a coup has occurred. It’s not just a question that a coup lies ahead with the next 9/11. That’s the next coup, that completes the first.
It was about here that I cut, pasted here and moved on. I'm sure this will play very well in certain realms of the blogosphere, however.

Divider

Investors Business Daily does a review of pop culture and finds:
Newly released books and films show a growing pop-culture bias against U.S. counterterror efforts. It's another sign the pendulum is swinging back to a 9/10 state of mind.
Given the coverage of the GWoT, I don't find that surprising at all. Couple that with the way such a war has to be conducted, you're more likely to hear about the mistakes than the successes and the outrages rather than the vast majority of daily security non-events. And, frankly, the counter-culture has always had its locus in the artistic community and its focus has always been to shock the dominant culture - whether the portrayals it cobbles together have any validity or not.

Divider

This will probably disappoint Daniel Ellsberg, but it appears the police state just can't get a break in court:
Two provisions of the USA Patriot Act are unconstitutional because they allow search warrants to be issued without showing probable cause, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as amended by the Patriot Act, "now permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment."
Pretty basic Constitutional stuff and any issuance of a warrant without showing probable cause, in my opinion, is unconstitutional. Obviously the court feels that way as well. That's a good thing and demonstrates that at least in this case, the checks on the various branches of government are still working.

Divider

The Jena Six story seems to be undeserving of the attention it has gotten, especially as more and more information comes to light (I think everyone agrees that the initial charges were overboard). As the District Attorney reminds us:
The victim in this crime, who has been all but forgotten amid the focus on the defendants, was a young man named Justin Barker, who was not involved in the nooses incident three months earlier. According to all the credible evidence I am aware of, after lunch, he walked to his next class. As he passed through the gymnasium door to the outside, he was blindsided and knocked unconscious by a vicious blow to the head thrown by Mychal Bell. While lying on the ground unaware of what was happening to him, he was brutally kicked by at least six people.

[...]

Only the intervention of an uninvolved student protected Mr. Barker from severe injury or death. There was serious bodily harm inflicted with a dangerous weapon — the definition of aggravated second-degree battery. Mr. Bell’s conviction on that charge as an adult has been overturned, but I considered adult status appropriate because of his role as the instigator of the attack, the seriousness of the charge and his prior criminal record.
Before we sanctify Bell it might be worth our while to keep in mind the nature of the crime he is accused of committing. This wasn't some school yard scuffle. It was a calculated assault, executed in ambush, and then the cowardly stomping when the victim was unconscious.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
This will probably disappoint Daniel Ellsberg, but it appears the police state just can’t get a break in court:
Two provisions of the USA Patriot Act are unconstitutional because they allow search warrants to be issued without showing probable cause, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as amended by the Patriot Act, "now permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment."
Pretty basic Constitutional stuff and any issuance of a warrant without showing probable cause, in my opinion, is unconstitutional. Obviously the court feels that way as well. That’s a good thing and demonstrates that at least in this case, the checks on the various branches of government are still working.
Daniel Ellsberg? Are you kidding me? What in the world does Daniel Ellsberg have to do with the Patriot Act? Good grief. How about you mock the Bush Administration for a change, instead of bleating on interminably about everything being the fault of "Lefties" and the "Liberal Narrative"? Read the article you cited. See what the Bush Administration is doing to American citizens. Then tell me who is more of a threat to civil liberties: George Bush or Daniel Ellsberg? The system is working? Pshaw! What is being done that no one even knows about? NSA security letters. Illegal wiretapping. Massive databases of information on American citizens. All that is OK with you, or is that all Daniel Ellsberg’s fault, too? Rememebr this: George Bush will only be the president for another year or so. Then — 75% chance — it will be Hillary Clinton. Will you still say the system is working when President Hillary has all these powers you so willingly grant to President Bush?
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
What i don’t get, is why the kooks go on and on about this so called "regime" yet Bush will not be here in a year, and shows absolutely no signs of trying to keep power in some way. So please explain how this makes him some sort of totalitarian leader bent on ruling over us? Unlike our buddy Mr. Chavez. I don’t get it. Then again there is a lot of talk about this war from the left that leaves me dumbfounded how they can believe it. I wish i could get in a real debate with someone who thinks like this, but im guessing they would just rather call me names. Even with my pidly knowledge i do have i could likely run circles around some of this nonsense.


regarding the Jena case, there is still so many conflicting reports i simply cant figure out the truth of the matter. Im not even sure where the best place for the truth is.
 
Written By: josh b
URL: http://
David S. wrote:
What in the world does Daniel Ellsberg have to do with the Patriot Act?
Oh that’s easy, Ellsberg wrote this:
Let me simplify this and not just to be rhetorical: A coup has occurred. I woke up the other day realizing, coming out of sleep, that a coup has occurred. It’s not just a question that a coup lies ahead with the next 9/11. That’s the next coup, that completes the first.
except this happened:
Two provisions of the USA Patriot Act are unconstitutional because they allow search warrants to be issued without showing probable cause, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.
Which shows Ellsberg—and David S.—to be hysterical idiots with no understanding of history.

And then theres’s the paranoia:
What is being done that no one even knows about?
Between the Congressional leaks, the CIA leaks, and the irresponsible press, d@mn little if anything.

David, when you have more than froth, do let us know.


Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com/
except this happened:
Two provisions of the USA Patriot Act are unconstitutional because they allow search warrants to be issued without showing probable cause, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.
So you are applauding the fact that a federal court has determined that the Bush Administration acted unconstitutionally in using the Patriot Act? You must have been ecstatic when a different federal court found that rthe Bush Adminsitration broke the law when it wiretapped in vioation of FISA. I suppose you posted here urging the Bush Adminsitration not to appeal the FISA decision? No? Then, no doubt you will urge Bush not to appeal re: the Patriot Act.
What is being done that no one even knows about?
Between the Congressional leaks, the CIA leaks, and the irresponsible press, d@mn little if anything.
Pathetically naieve. Trust the government. Believe the government. Assume the best. Yet you claim to be a Libertarian? Hah! Oh yes, that darn free press is the cause of our troubles. You know, that First Amendment junk. And if not the press, then the Congress, exersising its oversight responsibilities. You might have heard of it: that separation of powers stuff. Wait, maybe it’s really those activist liberal judges telling the executive what he can or can’t do to American citizens. Oh I forgot, we are pretending to applaud the judiciary this morning in a feeble attempt to reclaim our Libertarian bona fides. OK, this is what the judge wrote in the Oregon case:
"For over 200 years, this Nation has adhered to the rule of law — with unparalleled success. A shift to a Nation based on extra-constitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill-advised," she wrote.

By asking her to dismiss Mayfield’s lawsuit, the judge said, the U.S. attorney general’s office was "asking this court to, in essence, amend the Bill of Rights, by giving it an interpretation that would deprive it of any real meaning. This court declines to do so."
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
What in the world does Daniel Ellsberg have to do with the Patriot Act?
If you had basic reading comprehension you would have figured out what the ref to Ellsberg was. So much for the myth of university educated leftists.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Rumor is that this activist in this picture was David Shaughnessy.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
you would have figured out what the ref to Ellsberg was
Oh, I get it all right. The idea is to trot out Leftist boogeymen to blame everything on in order to deflect responsibility from the Bush Administration where it belongs. Clear as a bell. Carry on.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
Rumor is that this activist in this picture was David Shaughnessy.
Wrong. I always lead.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
Here’s the biggest logical flaw in the Left’s argument, and one that David S. illustrates too well.

In the mind of the Left, there are two incontrovertable facts:

First: George Bush is an evil mastermind who led a succesful coup against the rightful leaders of this country, the Democratic Party, by secretly subverting election laws. He also secretely subverted the Congress and lied to get us into a War with no end in sight. All of this was done with the sole help of four people who, apparantly, can manage the entire federal government without any underlings: Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Alberto Gonzalez. With the help of this Evil Cabal the likes of which can only come from the minds of Tolkien or Lucas, George Bush has been able to hold the most authoritative and secretive administration in the history of the mankind.

Second: George Bush is a bumbling bafoon who can’t be allowed to eat a pretzel for fear of kililng himself. This man has the speaking capabilities of an autistic 6 year old and the understanding of government functions as a chimpanzee. The guy couldn’t find his way out of a paper bag with a pair of scissors. This man couldn’t be anymore incompetent. He can’t even keep his own house in order, and has the leakiest White House in history. No secret is safe in the Bush White House.


The problem: There is absolutely no way any person can be both a maniacle Orwellian Genius with a Stalinist grasp on his underlings and a secret, yet tight, control over the populace and be, to quote Carlos Mencia, a ’Dee Dee Dee’ at the same time. The two are logically irreconcilable and yet, to the Left, represent George W. Bush.

How can you have a logical debate with people who contradict themselves that severely?

———————————-
David: you’re problem is that you’re a paranoid cynic. No, you don’t blindly trust anyone, especially the government. But you don’t blindly distrust it, either.

But there are problems you seem to be having here:

First, a Free Press leaves it open to criticism, something that it largely deserves. The Free Press becomes as much of a problem as the Federal Government for much the same reason: it can control what information comes out and how it is presented. If you don’t realize the problem that can present, then you need help.

Secondly, the courts have absolutely no authority under the constitution to decide the constitutionality of the law. Kindly show me where it is written, and I will concede the argument. Judicial Review was granted to the Court BY the Court. It’s akin to me saying "i am the King of the United States by Royal Decree" and means about as much.

Furthermore, while every now and then the Courts do make wise decisions, it doesn’t absolve them of their blatant disregard for the separation of powers and the boundaries they violate on a daily basis. It is NOT for the courts to create laws, that power lies with the legislature. If you cannot give criticism where it is due but only to an Administration you disagree with, then you become a partisan hack.

Thirdly, yes, it is important the the Congress provide oversight to the Executive, something that was severely lacking during the Republican Congress. But ’oversight’ does not mean ’fishing expedition’. It was the same ’oversight’ that ignored the actual leaker in the Valarie Plame none-issue that saw an innocent man become a felon for pure political gains. Unchecked oversight becomes a breach of separation of powers, much like Congress is doing in trying to micromanage a war, a power explicitely given to the Executive Branch, yet I don’t hear you lamenting that.

Now, here’s the final kicker: the FISA laws ammended by the Patriot Act where done by the overwhelming of approval of both the Executive AND the Legislative Branches, so to paint this as purely an invasion of the Executive is intellectually dishonest and blatantly false. But again, you’re sidelining the real issue here: a blatant abuse of legislative and executive authority into the lives of American Citizens was protected (albeit unconstitutionally) by the Courts, and while all three branches leave much to be desired, it is a success that should be lauded.

Give criticism where it’s due but also give credit where it’s due.

Also, you’re 75% figure is absurd and baseless. All current statistics show that Hilary can be beaten by any of the top three Republican contendors for President simply because she is Hilary Clinton and doesn’t have enough support in her own base and none in the Right.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
"So you are applauding the fact that a federal court has determined that the Bush Administration acted unconstitutionally in using the Patriot Act?"

Isn’t it saying the Act itself has problems, not Bush. The Congress passes the laws, the Executive executes them, and then the Judicial says if they are okay or not if challenged. Do you want them to run every law by the Supreme Court to "be sure it’s okay" or something?

And please, the Ellsberg guy is talking about coup d’etat while at the same time the Dems took back the House in 2006. It’s simple left wing fantasy "Oh, look at me, I am a guerilla against the fascist dictator" and should be risible to anybody.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
George Bush is an evil mastermind who led a succesful coup against the rightful leaders of this country, the Democratic Party, by secretly subverting election laws.
I don’t think that is so.
He also secretely subverted the Congress and lied to get us into a War with no end in sight.
Absolutely correct. And history wil be Bush’s judge.
Also, you’re 75% figure is absurd and baseless. All current statistics show that Hilary can be beaten by any of the top three Republican contendors for President simply because she is Hilary Clinton and doesn’t have enough support in her own base and none in the Right.
Wanna bet?
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
Do you want them to run every law by the Supreme Court to "be sure it’s okay" or something?
Can’t. That’s illegal. I can’t remember the term right now, but a Justice/Judge is not allowed to comment on a law or possible law. He is only allowed to determine whether or not a law is constitutional once it is brought before them in a case.
———————————————————
Absolutely correct. And history wil be Bush’s judge.
So even though the evidence and justification to enter into this war dates to the mid 1990’s, and even though the US did what the UN should have done according to it’s own laws, we entered into this illegally?

I’ll tell you what: using only facts, can you prove to me 1. that Bush lied (not that he was wrong, that he actually lied) and 2. that he subverted Congress?
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
Wanna bet?
according to internal polls conducted by the DNC, even they don’t think she’s electable. So says a friend of the DNC, the Communist News Network
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
scratch that last link...it’s the wrong article.

Here’s the article, and it’s from the UK Times.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
From what I understand, the USA Patriot Act pretty much just allowed law enforcement to use tools against terror networks that they had been using all along against drug dealers. I wonder if the parts the court found unconstitutional had already gotten the green light when international cartels were the target.

I have no use for the Patriot Act myself, but this outrage from the Left about it when there’s really nothing new in there seems awfully convenient.
 
Written By: spongeworthy
URL: http://
according to internal polls conducted by the DNC, even they don’t think she’s electable
I realize that Hillary Clinton gives the Republicans the best chance at keeping the White House. Edwards, Obama, even Richardson, Dodd or Biden, would probably all win more easily. I know that the Republicans have been angling to set Hillary as the Dem nominee for just this reason. I just don’t think it will matter: Republicans are about to get swamped by a tsunami that will easily deliver Clinton to a win. IMO. of course. Incidentally, I do not look forward to a Hillary Clinton presidency and I’m not rooting for it. buit I think that reality is coming near.

By the way, I didn’t say that the Iraq War was "illegal." I’m not even sure that is a relevant term in such discussions. As for proof that Bush lied, give me 1/2 hour with Bush under oath and I’ll give you all the proof you need that he lied. Short of that unlikely possibility, you’ll have to read on your own to get the documentation. It will be there eventually. Congress was lied to, yes, but it subverted itself by trying to appease the warmongerers. So I blame Congress, too, not just Bush. But Bush was the initiator and the driving force (he is The Decider, after all). Congress just rolled over.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
From what I understand, the USA Patriot Act pretty much just allowed law enforcement to use tools against terror networks that they had been using all along against drug dealers.
You have it exactly backwards. The PATRIOT Act has given the government broad new powers which, although spurred by 9/11, are now being applied in non-terrorism investigations. That is the nature of government: Once it is granted power, it uses it as it will.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
As for proof that Bush lied, give me 1/2 hour with Bush under oath and I’ll give you all the proof you need that he lied.
So, you’ve got nothing.

You can’t name a single lie he told.

But in a mythical situation, then you’d have something.

You’re sad.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com/
By the way, I didn’t say that the Iraq War was "illegal."
I’m sorry, that’s the impression i came away with when you answered ’absolutely’ to what you quoted from my original post.

If could kindly clarify?
As for proof that Bush lied, give me 1/2 hour with Bush under oath and I’ll give you all the proof you need that he lied.
which is a euphamism for ’I don’t have any proof, I simply believe it to be true.’, contrary to all the evidence.
Short of that unlikely possibility, you’ll have to read on your own to get the documentation
well, no. You made an outrageous, possibly slanderous, charge. You have a burden of proof to back up your scandelous allegations. Without proof, it’s unsubstantiated rhetoric.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
You made an outrageous, possibly slanderous, charge.
Fine, let Bush sue me. Then I will get my cross-examination.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
As for proof that Bush lied, give me 1/2 hour with Bush under oath and I’ll give you all the proof you need that he lied.
So, you’ve got nothing.
Suffiicient proof to satisfy you? A Modern FlatEarther? I have better things to do. Like wash the dog.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
Then you are intellectually dishonest. You cannot make outrageous statements like that then not present anything to back it up, you’d have our heads if anyone tried that with something you didn’t like or agree with.

So, instead, you pull an Erb and start on the Logical Fallacies.

If you cannot debate intelligently, then go away. You’re wasting your time and ours.

And by the way, even if you do get a cross examination, trying to grill him on the war wouldn’t be allowed for a variety of reasons. If you have absolutely no proof of your charges before you make it, it’s slander. Trying to justify it after the fact doesn’t work in court. A pro bono lawyer fresh out of law school would eat you alive, let alone the lawyers he could afford.

Think before you type.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
Suffiicient proof to satisfy you?
Sufficient? One statement made by Bush which you can incontrovertibly show to be a lie would do it. You’ve got that much right?

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com/
And then the hilarious thing is, unless you can show he lied about something you’ve claimed he lied about, like WMD’s etc.—if you just caught him in a garden variety politician’s lie—even then you would only have shown he’s a politician no better or worse for that then Reid and Pelosi.

So you know what your gold ring is, if you can grab it—prove he lied about WMD’s in Iraq.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com/
And by the way, even if you do get a cross examination, trying to grill him on the war wouldn’t be allowed for a variety of reasons. If you have absolutely no proof of your charges before you make it, it’s slander. Trying to justify it after the fact doesn’t work in court. A pro bono lawyer fresh out of law school would eat you alive, let alone the lawyers he could afford.


Thanks for the tip. I put a lot of stock in your legal acumen.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
Perhaps, perhaps not: but that’s law 101. Don’t believe me, ask a lawyer. Any lawyer. you can’t go on a fishing expedition on cross examination. No judge will allow it, and no lawyer will, either. it would be objected, sustained, and you’d be screwed.

But going back to the actual point: are you going to substantiate your baseless claims, or just prove your irrelevance and dishonesty here?

Ball’s in your court.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
incontrovertibly
Incorovertible proof? To a FlatEarther? Ha! Ha! Ha!
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
As for proof that Bush lied, give me 1/2 hour with Bush under oath and I’ll give you all the proof you need that he lied.
and we all know, people HAVE to tell the truth under oath....
BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.

"I don’t recall"
"I’m afraid I have not recollection of that incident"
"I do not remember any meeting or discussion of that nature"

And the whole idea that suddenly the court system of this allegedly corrupted government is going to start functioning like a non-corrupt organization is just too funny for consideration.
If you seriously think putting someone under oath is going to help prove any allegations of wrong doing and fix things, then you don’t REALLY believe the very charges you’re making about wholesale corruption of government.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Incorovertible proof?
Sure. Just prove he knew there were no WMD’s stocks or unambiguous programs to develop them in Iraq before the 2003 invasion, and really felt that Saddam Hussein had no desire to have them, and you’ll have it.

Should be easy for you.

Except you have nothing.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com/
Incorovertible proof? To a FlatEarther? Ha! Ha! Ha!
What’s with all the personal attacks? It only belies the weakness of your arguments.
 
Written By: Jordan
URL: http://
So, David, who exactly is a ’Flat Earther’?

And secondly, this is your last chance: do you have any evidence or is it pure rhetoric. Do you have any shred of evidence that President Bush lied?
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
Of course not. It’s much easier to dance and deflect and change the subject than produce facts.
 
Written By: Buddy
URL: http://
I’m sure the irony of calling people Flat Earthers while refusing to back up your assertions with evidence is completely lost on you, David.
 
Written By: Jordan
URL: http://
and we all know, people HAVE to tell the truth under oath....
BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.

"I don’t recall"
"I’m afraid I have not recollection of that incident"
"I do not remember any meeting or discussion of that nature"
You forgot one of the best ever...

"It depends on what your definition of ’is’ is..."
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
"Let me simplify this and not just to be rhetorical: A coup has occurred. ...... That’s the next coup, that completes the first"

Sounds coup coup to me.


"Given the coverage of the GWoT, I don’t find that surprising at all. Couple that with the way such a war has to be conducted, you’re more likely to hear about the mistakes than the successes and the outrages rather than the vast majority of daily security non-events."

Well, we could always conduct the GWoT like we did ’The Good War’, with censorship and a large government propaganda bureaucracy called the Office of War Information.

***************************

"and we all know, people HAVE to tell the truth under oath...."

Rats, Looker beat me to it. It is always nice to start the day off with a good laugh.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
unambiguous programs to develop them
unambiguous programs to develop them
Moving the bar, much? Maybe we would have invaded because Saddam dreamt about WMDs. But that’s not we were were told. Mushroom clouds. Aluminum tubes. Portable truck delivery systems. Any of that BS sound familiar?
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
who exactly is a ’Flat Earther’?
Global warming deniers. I’ve been this road before with these guys. It’s like the prosecutor in L.A. trying to convince the O.J criminal jury. Hopeless. Useless.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
You still haven’t offered any evidence of lying. Every major intelligence agency in the world agreed with out assessment. Were they lying to?
 
Written By: Jordan
URL: http://
What’s with all the personal attacks?
Review the thread. I didn’t start the personal attacks. I responded to them.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
Yikes. Sorry for the typos.
Global warming deniers. I’ve been this road before with these guys. It’s like the prosecutor in L.A. trying to convince the O.J criminal jury. Hopeless. Useless.
How convenient.
 
Written By: Jordan
URL: http://
Every major intelligence agency in the world agreed with out assessment.
Nobody else launched a preemptive war. The degree of certainty is a bit higher for that.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
How praytell, can one be more certain than that? Perhaps we should be omniscient?
 
Written By: Jordan
URL: http://
Maybe we would have invaded because Saddam dreamt about WMDs. But that’s not we were were told. Mushroom clouds. Aluminum tubes. Portable truck delivery systems. Any of that BS sound familiar?
Very. It was supplied to us by the French, Russians, and British. So unless there was a massive, global conspiracy to take out Saddam, you don’t have a leg to stand on. Remember that the argument at the UN was about whether to forcibly remove him or not, not whether he had wmd’s or not. Everyone ’knew’ he had them.
Global warming deniers.
I see. You’re piling up your Fallacies today.

So let me ask you this: If there are so many scientists coming out in droves distancing themselves away from the UN report: if all the modules completely leave out vital precipitation models from the Global warming models: if NASA releases evidence that Mars’ Icecaps are shrinking at a similar rate to ours, and as of yet, we haven’t found SUV’s on Mars...does that make all those people Flat Earthers?

Don’t be ridiculous. There’s enough evidence against man made Global Warming to cause serious pause. In fact, there’s actually no evidence to support your ’Bush lied’ statement.

So, it would appear you’re at least consistant: ignoring stated and incontrovertable facts in favor of petty name calling and logical fallacies.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
Nobody else launched a preemptive war. The degree of certainty is a bit higher for that.
or the cost of doing illegal business outweighs the moral responsiblities.

keep in mind the same countries who said ’no’ where the ones profitting from the Oil for Food Scandal.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
The earth has survived at least one Extinction Level event. If you think WE can kill Mother Earth, you’re a bigger egotist than Michael Moore.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
I realize that Hillary Clinton gives the Republicans the best chance at keeping the White House. Edwards, Obama, even Richardson, Dodd or Biden, would probably all win more easily.
I doubt it.

Edwards simply can’t win in a general election, he’s a loon. If he can’t beat clinton in the primary, how is he going to win when the adults are voting?

Obama isn’t ready for prime time yet. Even with his fundraising he can’t keep up with Clinton in the primary. How can he expect to do better in the general?

Richardson is the only one I see who would do better in the general election. Hell, I’d probably vote for him if he was up against, say, McCain. He’s the only one with executive experience, he has a good NRA rating, and is the only Democrat I see who’s economic IQ is in the upper two digit range.


 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Evan Bayh would have been the Democrat’s saving grace: he could easily win, and he has both Legislative and Executive experience.

but he’d never win in a primary.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
Moving the bar, much?
Not even slightly. Funny, you claim you know he lied, but you don’t even know what he said. In fact, to quote the man:
Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations.
Empahsis mine. The goalposts are right where they’ve always been, all 14 of them (I believe all 14 are in here).

So what have you got?
Maybe we would have invaded because Saddam dreamt about WMDs. But that’s not we were were told. Mushroom clouds. Aluminum tubes. Portable truck delivery systems. Any of that BS sound familiar?
I remember lots of good reasons to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and the attitudes towards non-consensual government which gave rise to him—that purpose requires invasion, occupation, and a period of civil administration by the occupying power. Of those many good reasons, only a few involved WMD’s.

Just because you can’t remember the other reasons doesn’t mean I’m moving goalposts and it doesn’t make the President a liar.

Oh, and Global Warming (TM)—it doesn’t exist. While the world is warmer, Global Warming (TM) is the ill-supported by evidence theory that humanity is (A) a very large fractional cause of the warming, and (B) that it is self-evidently worthwhile to do something to minimize our contribution to that warming, even though there is no mathematically rigorous characterization of our influence on the climate.

Sure the world is warmer, but there is no good evidence for Global Warming (TM).
I didn’t start the personal attacks. I responded to them.
Sure. Just not with evidence.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com/
Rememebr this: George Bush will only be the president for another year or so. Then — 75% chance — it will be Hillary Clinton. Will you still say the system is working when President Hillary has all these powers you so willingly grant to President Bush?
I’d rather we have Bush’s Patriot Act than the anti-terror law crap the Democrats were pushing during the Clinton administration.

It isn’t like we have a choice between Patriot and nothing; and you are mostly being hysterical about Patriot.

There are plenty of rules and regulations that f**k with me, and over 95% were put in place by Democrats. The Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Endangered Species Act are worse intrusions than the Patriot Act, and were inacted with less justification or reason.

Likewise, the GW hysteria you push is more likely to impact my rights than Patriot or anything the Republicans have on the table.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Nobody else launched a preemptive war.
Yeah but the French, Russians and Germans were enjoying their relationship with Saddam, as someone previously noted. And besides that, no one else has the US capacity to do the heavy lifting, and the US is the world’s moral leader these days as well (once that was England, alas no more).

The moral and economic superiority of the US make it a leader, not a follower.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
You have it exactly backwards. The PATRIOT Act has given the government broad new powers which, although spurred by 9/11, are now being applied in non-terrorism investigations.

Seeing how well you’ve acquitted yourself in this thread, forgive me if I don’t take your word on this. I’m not defending the Patriot Act, but you lefties said f*&%-all when the Clinton Administration did the same things to the drug cartels.

You don’t care a whit about the Patriot Act. It’s just another club you pick up to bang on the Bush Administration. Ever wonder why nobody pays any attention to you?

Too many clubs, no substance to any of them.
 
Written By: spongeworthy
URL: http://
Ever wonder why nobody pays any attention to you?
I dunno, we do pay a little attention to him.

’Course that’s ’cause we’re pwning him.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com/
Yeah, we paid attention to him here as well.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Ellsberg was a well-known perv who sent Polaroids to his State Dept friends of himself & young boys from Bangkok bordellos.

We should take advice from this compleat idiot?
 
Written By: daveinboca
URL: http://www.daveinboca.blogspot.com
Dave...that’s also a logical fallacie: because he did something stupid or wrong doesn’t make what he’s saying untrue.

argue for or against his positions on their merits or flaws, not on whether or not he’s a kiddy fiddler.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
not on whether or not he’s a kiddy fiddler.
No need to be mealy mouthed if you don’t have to, call a pedophile a pedophile.

And it does call his judgement into question, doesn’t it?

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com/
Isn’t it saying the Act itself has problems, not Bush. The Congress passes the laws, the Executive executes them, and then the Judicial says if they are okay or not if challenged. Do you want them to run every law by the Supreme Court to "be sure it’s okay" or something?

Harun, you should know better than this. The Patriot Act was submitted to congress by the Department of Justice, run by people appointed by President Bush. Congress voted for it, so blame them if you want, but don’t kid yourself about who masterminded it.

I can’t believe how incredibly blase you are about this, Q. I can’t believe how blase you’ve been the whole time. Six years of the total negation of the constitutional right to privacy, and a district court rejects it, and hey, for you, the system works, right?

What if said judge hadn’t rejected it?

What if that lawsuit never happened? What if President Bush "interpreted" the law as allowing him to detain people to prevent them from filing lawsuits against the law? They’re already doing something very close to that- using the state secrets priviledge to insist that the cases be immediately thrown out.

Who would have stopped him?

You think this system works?

It’s not a coup. But it’s several steps away from the existence of genuine checks and balances. The Chinese and Russian governments sometimes listen to popular opinion as well, but they face no genuine opposition from inside their own governments. We are moving in that direction, though we are not there yet.

 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
C’mon now, glasnost: comparing us to the Russians and Chinese? That’s ignorant and unnecesserily alarming.

Look, there are some basic things you need to remember: the Constitution, first and foremost, specifically lists which privacy rights it protects. It either says something, or it doesn’t.

The fact is, while the policies are highly questionable and uncomfortable, the President has the right to ask for it, and it falls to our elected representatives to ’check’ him. They, after all, speak with our voice, and reflect that.

If they do not do so, then it is OUR responsibility to replace them with people who will.

The fact is, the system DOES work, and this proves it. It’s gone on this long becuase the people allow it to. If it ever became unpopular, like Prohibition, it would be repealed very, very quickly.

 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
What you forget is that under FDR and Woodrow Wilson, Civil Liberties were curtailed far, far beyond what we enjoy today: and each time they’re brought right back up, and Wilson was a white supremacist who force segregation on the military.

So if we can survive Wilson, we’ll be fine under Bush.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
You think this system works?
Two provisions of the USA Patriot Act are unconstitutional because they allow search warrants to be issued without showing probable cause, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as amended by the Patriot Act, "now permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment."
Sounds like it worked to me. Just because it didn’t work as fast as you’d like doesn’t mean it didn’t work.
What if said judge hadn’t rejected it?
What if that lawsuit never happened? What if President Bush "interpreted" the law as allowing him to detain people to prevent them from filing lawsuits against the law? They’re already doing something very close to that- using the state secrets priviledge to insist that the cases be immediately thrown out.
Who would have stopped him?
Jimminy, you’d think you’d know better than to wander off into the ’what if’ weeds.
It works, it just showed it works, and all you have is a string of ’what if’s’ to come back with?
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
lol that’s true. You cant look at an actual situation and compare it to a hypothetical as proof of it working/not woring
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
Six years of the total negation of the constitutional right to privacy, and a district court rejects it, and hey, for you, the system works, right?
Which one is the "right to privacy" again?

NFA ’34 has been violating my Second Amendment rights since before I was born. And you are worried about "rights" that are not even listed?
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
It’s in the Penumbra. That’s the section where they ran out or normal ink, and used special ink, you have to know how to hold the Constitution up to the light to see that section.
Many people think it’s just blank space, but that’s where the right to ’privacy’ is guaranteed.

One would think they would have actually used the same ink they used to write the 4th amendment to make that clearer.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
I always thought you had to hold the constitution in a hat in the desert, stand there on your own, and the spirit of Ruth Bader Ginsburg will translate it for you.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
From what I understand, the USA Patriot Act pretty much just allowed law enforcement to use tools against terror networks that they had been using all along against drug dealers.
See commentary by former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy:
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200311130835.asp

He notes, for example:
"Yet, while roving taps were uncontroversially available in even minor drug and fraud investigations, they were not equally available in national security investigations. Patriot cures that anomaly."
 
Written By: anonymous
URL: http://
"How praytell, can one be more certain than that?"

Divine intervention, of course. A burning bush, perhaps. (That’s SMALL b, bush as in vegetation, for all you BDS sufferers).
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider