Kind of an obtuse thing to say, with no basis in facts.

Just because Dems don't run around suggesting a need for a Unilateral Executive(Dictatorship) in response to an attack, doesn't mean they're soft on terror at all.

I wonder what The Repubs's response would have been had Clinton claimed such absolute executive powers after Right Wing terror groups blew up the Federal building in Oklahoma.

Luckily Clinton was in power back then. Otherwise Tim McVeigh would still be at large.

It was Bush and Co who forgot about 9/11 and went marching off to Iraq, leaving Osama to get away at Tora Bora.

Republicans are only good at making promises they don't intend to keep and writing bad checks.

Congrats, TinyWang--you hit every talking point in short order. Now scurry on over to minnowhead's blog so's you can "brag" that you "kicked ass over at B4B" again. Bwahahahaha!!!

What a loser, and from the great Palmetto State, to boot. Oh well, every state has it's kooks, I guess. DAV and Fritz Hollings--two peas in a pod...

In response to the little guy DAV in Columbia:

People on the Left and the majority of democrats are so poisioned with hatred for their own country it's beyond insanity; it's a true sickness, liberalism, that is. You think you're a "cutsey" with the term, "repub." You say "republicans are good at making promises they don't intend to keep...."--yada, yada, yada....

Little guys on the Left like you are good at hating their country. Power for the people first!...country be damned, right?

Being a patriotic American requires some simple truths: support and prayer for our soldiers, a willingness to put politics aside during wartime, which is a show of "support" for the troops and unity as a nation , will power, and an intense love of country. These are part of the American mind--something you Lefties don't seem to understand. That's what makes you so un-American. I also live in the Palmetto state. Your comments are an embarrassment to SC and a slap in the face to our forefathers. Think about that, Bro...

Yeah Katrina will cause them trouble
also,

Iraq
the Plame case
administrative leaks
the debt
the medicare drug bill
tax cuts for the rich
the trade imbalance
illegal immigration
homeland defense child porn guys
Duke Cunningham
Abramoff
Delay
Rewriting of Science
Putting industry shills as head of their industries overseeing agency
Lobby abuse
Supreme court nominees
Haliburton
Contractor scandals
Bush saying. "I'm the Decider"
Climate change
Gas prices
Oil industry profits
No WMD
Pre war lies about WMD
weakened environmental laws
neglected national parks
Cheney shooting people
Chickenhawkism
Rumsfeld
Iran
The drop in our world standing
Neglect of terrorism pre 9-11
Osama bin Laden
Zarkowi ?sp
Afghanistan Taliban
Spying
Gitmo
hidden prison camps
War vets running for office as Dems
women's rights
stem cell research
evolution
science
Veteran benefits
labor unions
Geneva convention violations
Humvees with out armor
Soldiers without armor
Going to war with the Army you have comment
Ignoring advice of generals
ignoring real intelligence for false intelligence
rising number of insured
increased cost of health care
gay bashing
not dealing with Korea
not dealing with immigration
endorsing outsourcing
ignoring small business
not enforcing tax laws
allowing greater media consolidation
attacking NPR
No VETOs
underfunding No Child left behind
giving away public lands
undermining democracy
using the religious right as tools
undermining true free markets
2300+ dead soldiers
17,000+ wounded soldiers
500 billion wasted on a civil war
promoting terrorist training camps in Iraq where none existed before
just being a general jerk

Yeah Katrina will cause them trouble
also,

Iraq
the Plame case
administrative leaks
the debt
the medicare drug bill
tax cuts for the rich
the trade imbalance
illegal immigration
homeland defense child porn guys
Duke Cunningham
Abramoff
Delay
Rewriting of Science
Putting industry shills as head of their industries overseeing agency
Lobby abuse
Supreme court nominees
Haliburton
Contractor scandals
Bush saying. "I'm the Decider"
Climate change
Gas prices
Oil industry profits
No WMD
Pre war lies about WMD
weakened environmental laws
neglected national parks
Cheney shooting people
Chickenhawkism
Rumsfeld
Iran
The drop in our world standing
Neglect of terrorism pre 9-11
Osama bin Laden
Zarkowi ?sp
Afghanistan Taliban
Spying
Gitmo
hidden prison camps
War vets running for office as Dems
women's rights
stem cell research
evolution
science
Veteran benefits
labor unions
Geneva convention violations
Humvees with out armor
Soldiers without armor
Going to war with the Army you have comment
Ignoring advice of generals
ignoring real intelligence for false intelligence
rising number of insured
increased cost of health care
gay bashing
not dealing with Korea
not dealing with immigration
endorsing outsourcing
ignoring small business
not enforcing tax laws
allowing greater media consolidation
attacking NPR
No VETOs
underfunding No Child left behind
giving away public lands
undermining democracy
using the religious right as tools
undermining true free markets
2300+ dead soldiers
17,000+ wounded soldiers
500 billion wasted on a civil war
promoting terrorist training camps in Iraq where none existed before
just being a general jerk

OOPs but probably worth mentioning twice.

"Little guys on the Left like you are good at hating their country. Power for the people first!...country be damned, right? "

33% of Americans agree with you....

Dissent is the essence of what it means to be an American. Romans: 19 is not anywhere in the Constitution, and oddly if it applies for Bush, why not Clinton?

I'm sorry I struck a nerve with you my fellow Palmeto stater, when I reminded you American Right wing groups in fact blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma, and that the main culprit, Tim McVeigh, was captured and executed. Just to say it again: Bin Laden is still at large.

You have a very wrong idea of what it means to be an American. Blind allegiance leads to totalitarianism.

weakened environmental laws
neglected national parks

muriego, I could match the length of your list with environmental problems for the admin, but I suppose they would fall on deaf ears *sigh*

Being a patriotic American requires some simple truths:

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?...you're half a step away from crowing George and makeing us all goose-steppers...
YOU ARE A TRAITOR to the what our soldies are fighting for..

-support and prayer for our soldiers
tell that to the ultra right protesting at soldiers' funerals...show me anyone on the left not supporting our soldiers

-a willingness to put politics aside during wartime
Sure thing chairman Mao!

-These are part of the American mind--something you Lefties don't seem to understand

No these are parts of the ultra right "Please, somone tell us what to think" easily controlled mind

-That's what makes you so un-American.

Find a mirror...That's un-American

-Your comments are an embarrassment to SC and a slap in the face to our forefathers.

and yours would have made Stalin proud

Hey, I hear China is looking for some more blind loyalist...have any time on your hands?

"and yours would have made Stalin proud"

As you would have made Hitler proud, Opus

His comments were about totalitarianism in general Ash.

Ash,

um...how?

**********
"I wonder what The Repubs's response would have been had Clinton claimed such absolute executive powers after Right Wing terror groups blew up the Federal building in Oklahoma."
***********

Guess you have decided to overlook the warrantless wiretaps initiated by Clinton, on white supremacist group members, after OKC. (P.S. ---THAT is "domestic spying".)

How about the illegal surveillance of supremacist camps, using low-flying aircraft and infrared equipment, so they could see exactly where each person was in the compound? Surveillance which was later ruled to be illegal and a violation of the Constitution.

Oh, and by the way, just to inject a note of factuality into your rant, "Right Wing terror groups" had nothing whatsoever to do with OKC. Two men, possibly with the help of one or two others, did the deed. No investigation uncovered any HINT of any organized "group" and if you can provide anything linking McVeigh to any "right wing terror group" you can tell us all about it---and then maybe tell the Feds why you kept this news to yourself.

McVeigh, like most impotent nut cases, was full of seething and mostly undirected rage. He found a focus for that rage in the unconstututional and unlawful siege, and eventual slaughter, of the Branch Davidians outside Waco. There is no indication that he was particularly political, or that he would not have done the same thing years later to "protest" something like invading Iraq.

But Clinton claimed all sorts of "executive powers" before and after OKC, as well as justified, by him, by OKC. Remember, your boy Clinton claimed exactly the same "executive powers" claimed now by Bush. Inconvenient, ain't it?

"In July 1994 Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick told the House Select Committee on Intelligence that the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes." According to Gorelick, the president (or his attorney general) need only satisfy himself that an American is working in conjunction with a foreign power before a search can take place."

Almiranta: Are you saying you're against survellance of terror groups?

Let's look at Katrina from a different perspective. Remember, we had several natural disasters last year, and Katrina was the only one with such devastating consquences. Plenty of people in other places, from Mississippe to North Dakota, suffered greatly and lost all they had. What was different about New Orleans?

What if the American public looks at Katrina as an indictment of the welfare system and institionalized racism?

What if the American public looks at Katrina and sees the consequences of decades of (Democratic)political corruption, which turned a blind eye to bribes for fake inspections of inadequate levees, and/or the misappropriation of federal funds designated to build adequte levees?

What if the American public looks at Katrina and sees the impact of such total incompetence on the local level that no one could even tell federal workers where to go to look for stranded people, or arrange for refugees to be allowed to exit the bridge into Mississippi, or line up drivers for buses to evacuate people who had no transportation?

What if the American public looks at Katrina and New Orleans and sees a political system so corrupt that entire sections of the city were unsafe for anyone, police or military, to even enter to attempt rescues, being known for being under the total control of armed gangs---an accepted state of affairs long before the hurricane?

What if the American public looks at Katrina and New Orleans and sees a (Democratic) mayor who, instead of preparing his city for a disaster, instead moves his entire family to Texas, into a lavish home (guess the mahor's job pays pretty well) and placing his children in new schools? And a (Democratic) senator who repeatdly refused federal help? And a complete state and local government so inept and dithery that they could not even issue a mandatory evacuation order, in spite of requests to do so from the President himself? And who, when one was finally issued, said "mandatory" did not mean "mandatory"?

What if the American public looks at Katrina and wonders why they are not being expected to foot the bill for everyone in Mississippi who suffered equal damage, or in Florida every year?

What if the American public looks at the press coverage of Katrina and decides that it is time to put a halt to such blatant misrepresentation of the facts, in service of one party over the other?

What if the American public looks at Katrina and realizes that keeping an entire population subjugated in a modern version of a plantation, afraid of white people, hating white people for imagined insults, yet totally dependent on those same people, is a recipe for helplessness, incoherent rage, and a feeling of entitlement instead of independence?

In other words, what if the American public looks at Katrina, and New Orleans, as a microcosm of the effects, intended or otherwise, of a welfare state, a welfare mentality, and manipulation of racial prejudices and fears for the purpose of shoring up a power base?

Bad for Bush? In your dreams.

Besides, I doubt that many are going to vote for Bush again next year anyway.

Let's look at Katrina from a different perspective. Remember, we had several natural disasters last year, and Katrina was the only one with such devastating consquences. Plenty of people in other places, from Mississippe to North Dakota, suffered greatly and lost all they had. What was different about New Orleans?

What if the American public looks at Katrina as an indictment of the welfare system and institionalized racism?

What if the American public looks at Katrina and sees the consequences of decades of (Democratic)political corruption, which turned a blind eye to bribes for fake inspections of inadequate levees, and/or the misappropriation of federal funds designated to build adequte levees?

What if the American public looks at Katrina and sees the impact of such total incompetence on the local level that no one could even tell federal workers where to go to look for stranded people, or arrange for refugees to be allowed to exit the bridge into Mississippi, or line up drivers for buses to evacuate people who had no transportation?

What if the American public looks at Katrina and New Orleans and sees a political system so corrupt that entire sections of the city were unsafe for anyone, police or military, to even enter to attempt rescues, being known for being under the total control of armed gangs---an accepted state of affairs long before the hurricane?

What if the American public looks at Katrina and New Orleans and sees a (Democratic) mayor who, instead of preparing his city for a disaster, instead moves his entire family to Texas, into a lavish home (guess the mahor's job pays pretty well) and placing his children in new schools? And a (Democratic) senator who repeatdly refused federal help? And a complete state and local government so inept and dithery that they could not even issue a mandatory evacuation order, in spite of requests to do so from the President himself? And who, when one was finally issued, said "mandatory" did not mean "mandatory"?

What if the American public looks at Katrina and wonders why they are not being expected to foot the bill for everyone in Mississippi who suffered equal damage, or in Florida every year?

What if the American public looks at the press coverage of Katrina and decides that it is time to put a halt to such blatant misrepresentation of the facts, in service of one party over the other?

What if the American public looks at Katrina and realizes that keeping an entire population subjugated in a modern version of a plantation, afraid of white people, hating white people for imagined insults, yet totally dependent on those same people, is a recipe for helplessness, incoherent rage, and a feeling of entitlement instead of independence?

In other words, what if the American public looks at Katrina, and New Orleans, as a microcosm of the effects, intended or otherwise, of a welfare state, a welfare mentality, and manipulation of racial prejudices and fears for the purpose of shoring up a power base?

Bad for the GOP? In your dreams.

Once you filter out the lib MSM and dem party BS, I think President Bush was one of the few heroes of the Katrina hurricane. President Bush saved thousands in New Orleans by getting the incompetent governor and mayor to issue an evacuation order, after he begged them to do so. The feds could have gotten there 2 days earlier once they realized how badly and incompetently the governor and mayor had dropped the ball. But I think the governors failure to authorize the federal troops had something to do with it. What I saw were the federal troops come in and rescue those poor people. It was laughable listening to the mayors changing story why he didn't use the 300 flooded school buses to evacuate everyone, or why he didn't take amtrak on their offer to evacuate people or why he refused to let the Red Cross bring food, water and supplies to the Superdome and Convention Center. Meanwhile, the lib media did everything they could to spin the story to protect the mayor and governors sorry butts. It was great watching that Nightline program right after President Bush's speech in New Orleans. All the residence of New Orleans who were interviewed were pissed off at the mayor and governor and thanked President Bush for helping them. It was nice watching ted koppels face turn pale. I hadn't seen that since election night 2004. Other than blaming President Bush for the weather, all the dems and lib media have to offer is one forged document story after another. Remember that Iraq ammo dump nonsense they tried to pull right before the election. The dems and their october surprises.

Mark...your system for blocking some posts is resulting in double posts, even when the "post" symbol is not hit repeatecly.

DAV...Of COURSE I think surveillance of terror groups is necessay. I am just rired of the same old rant that Bush is doing something wrong by doing so, and the belief that Saint Bill would never have done such a thing.

I am tired of the misrepresentation of electronic monitoring of select communications as "wiretapping"

I am tired of the bithcin' and moanin' about supposed transgressions and invented crimes, when no one on that side will address the real question. Why don't you take a crack at it?

What would YOU suggest we do, if we are monitoring a terrorist overseas, and he makes a call to someone in the United States?

Hang up, because one party is in this country?

Apply for a warrant, as the conversation goes on for three minutes and then ends?

Continue to listen, and then submit the recording to a judicial review committee to make sure the information you got is used correctly?

Use information about planned attacks to thwart those attacks, and throw out information about domestic crimes because, acquired without a warrant, that information cannot be used in a US court of law?

Juzt how would YOU handle a situation in which you have minutes, or even seconds, to acquire information from terrorist conversations, some of which have one terrorist physically present in the United States?

muirgeo,

A few more and you might as well have posted a copy of Webster's dictionary.

Did you just copy a page out of the Dims' playbook of randomly generated phrases? How often do the liberal Dims update their propaganda handbooks? You and Ash might want to check, because I believe both of you are using an older, outdated version. And while you are at it, check the computer software (programs) you use to generate your random phrases, "thoughts", and "comments". I think you have the old Beta version of that too!

We could go through each of your "word groupings" -- AGAIN -- as we have on past topics and attempt to educate you -- AGAIN -- on the facts, but it hasn't done any good yet, and it won't do any good now. It would be a waste everyone's time! Besides, trying to educate liberal Dims on ALL of these "topics" at once would overload and short circuit their gray matter!

I was going to suggest you select one topic for now, but no, I'll just wait for future threads. I'm sure we will see the same phrases repeated again (and again) and can comment on those for others who may be reading this blog at that time.

"Just being a general jerk" applies more to our liberal Dims; although, that IS putting it very mildly and politely!!!

I do have a few comments to say about Katrina, but I'm running short of time for now, and besides Almiranta is doing an excellent job and holding down the fort better than I could.

Almiranta,

Excellent! Glad you are on our side!!!

Now we just have to get the American public to see the real facts surrounding Katrina... before, during, and after. Unfortunately, with the liberal media against us, that won't be easy.

AAR

murky, we are tired of hearing your gripes.

That's quite a list. How about telling us what YOU would do regarding each of those items?

I'm sure your insights into "dealing with Korea" would be invaluable. And a definition of "chiceknhawkism" would at least be entertaining.

It's just so easy to be against, and so much harder to be for. It's so easy to slam everything everyone else does, and so much harder to have an idea youself, or to do anything yourself.

But you have clearly found the shortcut to the Higher Moral Ground, and seem to like it up there. In a world divided betwen the Doers and the Sneerers, you have certainly staked out your spot.

So you don't think a law enforcement officer should have to get a warrant before he searches your house?

Why don't you guys try just ONE TIME to not call someone a name when adressing them? Think for maybe about 1 to 2 posts you could not act like children?

So you don't think a law enforcement officer should have to get a warrant before he searches your house?

Posted by: DAV at April 22, 2006 03:13 PM

Yes, a law enforcement officer is required under the 4th Amendment to obtain a warrant before searching your house (Except when Bill Clinton is President and your snooping on Aldrich Ames).

But intelligence personnel are not required to get a warrant when intercepting communications to gather foreign intelligence (at least, thats what five seperate courts have ruled).

Apples and oranges. We're intercepting communications to detect and stop terrorist attacks. We get warrants when we are gathering evidence for a prosecution.

"So you don't think a law enforcement officer should have to get a warrant before he searches your house?"

Huh???

I started to answer this and then realized it is just hopeless. it's the Straw Man tactic all over again.

DAV was asked some very simple and straightforward questions. He has the ABILITY to answer them, because they are not very hard or complicated. But he lacks the WILL to answer them, because there is only one correct answer to each question, that answer is obvious, and that answer is the exact opposite of DAV's faith-based position.

So he has to totally invent an issue, one which does not exist and cannot possibly be discerned by anything I said, and then mount a defense against that. Well, not much of a defense---more like a feeble retort, along the intellectual lines of "Oh, yeah??"

Question 1; Clarly the only reasonable thing to do is to continue to listen even after the guy on the other end proves to be located in the United States. To fail to do so could unnecessarily endanger many innocent lives.

Question 2: Obviously there is no time to get a warrant. Even with a judge in the room, most or all of the conversation would be lost by the time the paperwork was done.

Question 3: To comply with the intent of the Constitution the product of such surveillance should be subjected to judicial review---it is just after the fact instead of before, for the clealy stated and inarguable reasons given. Which is, by the way, the way it is handled now.

Question 4: As the Constitution was designed to provide domestic protection, it would be consistent to continue the policies of the Administration and not use any information gained in warrrantless monitoring in domestic criminal cases. Using that information to stop attacks, save lives, and even prosecute terrorist actions against this country or its inhabitants, is different---not only consistent with the Constitution but a stated responsibility of the President.

DAV has no other answers. So he refuses to answer.

And a warrantless search of my home, or his, or anyone's, by law enforcement or the military or anyone else, would be unconstitional---just as it was when Clinton authorized warrantless searches of public housing. People actually walking into houses, DAV. Actually searching them. Physically present. Right there. Not just listening in from hundreds or thousands of miles away. Really there. Bad then. Would be bad now. But not happening now. No one is searching peoples' homes, or even accused of doing so, not even by the looniest of the left.

Wonder where that puts DAV.

And, steve, didn't see any name calling. Noticing gross inconsistencies and inaccuracies is not the same as name calling. Just because it made you FEEL stupid doesn't mean anyone called you that. Got to get over this irrational conclusion-jumping.

I'll have a go at muirgeo.

Iraq - 25,000,000 liberated from a dictator, democracy taking hold. Was the moral and right thing to do.

the Plame case - A contrived scandle. She was "outed" in the 90's by Aldrich Ames, then later by the Cubans. You can't "out" someone who was already outed.

administrative leaks - You mean Mary McCarthy at the CIA. A democrat, who was fired recently for leaking information to the press. Or are you trying to imply that when the President authorized the release of information, it is a leak?

the debt - And your point is?

the medicare drug bill - Crafted by Democrats, signed into law by the President. If it is a failure, both parties are to blame.

tax cuts for the rich - And for the middle class and the poor. You mean the ones that have resulted in the "rich" paying an even greater share of the income tax burden? As an aside, I fall into the top 10% bracket, so I guess I'm "rich". But I don't qualify for Student Loan or IRA deductions, or Child or Education Tax credits. I'm "too rich". Those tax cuts are reserved for the middle class and the poor. So much for "tax cuts for the rich".

the trade imbalance - We've had a trade inbalance for decades. So.

illegal immigration - Needs to be handled. Clearly a bi-partisan issue (By the way, exactly how did President Clinton resolve the problem during his 8 years in office? Oh, wait, he didn't)

homeland defense child porn guys - Who is a Democrat.

Duke Cunningham - He was wrong. He resigned. He's serving time. When is Ted Kennedy going to own up to killing of Mary Jo Kopechne?

Abramoff - Who diverted or contributed money to both Democrats and Republicans.

Delay - Who is being railroaded by a Democratic DA.

Rewriting of Science - Say what? Is that anything like the liberal attempts to rewrite history?

Putting industry shills as head of their industries overseeing agency - Doesn't it make sense to have people who understand the industry, oversee the industry?

Lobby abuse - Proof?

Supreme court nominees - Who are strict constructionists, who interpret the law, and do not legislate from the bench. That would be a good thing.

Haliburton - Which has unique abilities to perform some contracted jobs.

Contractor scandals - I'm afraid I don't know what you are talking about.

Bush saying. "I'm the Decider" - It's a intransitive noun. Look it up in Webster's.

Climate change - As it has been changing since the creation of the earth. Are you suggesting the President should be trying to stop climates from changing? Wouldn't that be bessing with Mother Nature.

Gas prices - Which are still lower than in the 70's, adjusted for inflation.

Oil industry profits - Do you want them to lose money? You criticize them for making a profit. Oh, that's right. You socialists hate capitalism and businesses being successful. By the way, the Oil Industry profit margin is just under 6 cents on the dollar. The profit margin for banks is around 18 cents on the dollar and drug companies nearly 20 cents on the dollar. Should we be advocating a "windfall profit tax on them too?

No WMD - There were WMD, we have found them, just not in the quantities everyone expected. Saddam used them on his own people and the Iranians. The question is: Where did they go? Buried in the desert? Destroyed? Shipped off to Syria?

Pre war lies about WMD - By whom? You mean the laundry list of Democrats that stated that Iraq possessed WMD and needed to be disarmed?

weakened environmental laws - You mean the ones President Clinton invoked by Executive Order just before leaving office as a political ploy, knowing that they were unreasonable and that President Bush would have to rescind them once he took office?

neglected national parks - Proof?

Cheney shooting people - As I understand the ACCIDENT, there was only one person he accidently shot, not "people". And he apologized for the accident. Has Ted Kennedy apologized for getting drunk and driving off the bridge, drowning Mary Jo Kopechne?

Chickenhawkism - Lets see: Bush was a fighter pilot in the Texas Air National Guard, Cheney was beyond draft age and was a married father so he was deferred, Rumsfeld was a pilot in the Navy and retired from the Naval Service in 1989 after 35 years of service, former Secretary of State Colin Powell was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Need I go on?

Rumsfeld - Who will go down in history as one of the best SecDef's in history, regardless of what 6 or 7 disgruntled generals think.

Iran - Which became a problem under Carter, was not dealt with by Clinton, and we are trying to resolve diplomatically. Are you suggesting that President Bush is responsible for Iran's lunatic President and their attempt to acquire nuc's?

The drop in our world standing - Only in the minds of leftists.

Neglect of terrorism pre 9-11 - By Bush? Who was only in office for less than 9 months. Or by Clinton, who did nothing after the first WTC bombing, bombing of our embassies, Somalia, the USS Cole, and who had several chances to capture or kill OBL, but did nothing?

Osama bin Laden - Whose terrorist organization has been decimated by our War on Terror and is either dead or living in a cave.

Zarkowi ?sp - Your point.

Afghanistan Taliban - Who rose to power during the Clinton administration and was removed from power by the Bush Administration. 25,000,000 Afghans are now experiencing freedom.

Spying - You mean signal intercepts of terrorists to gather foreign intelligence or the domestic spying authorized by President Clinton?

Gitmo - You mean the place we are housing (in conditions better than they have ever experienced) some of the worst terrorists we have captured? The place where the MSM fabricated a story (flushing of the Koran) which resulted in riots overseas, killing over 15 people. Where should we be housing these terrorists? Next door to your house? I'd rather rather than in my back yard. Or are you suggesting that we shouldn't remove these terrorists from the terror battlefield? Should we let them go free so they can come over here and attempt another 9/11, maybe where you work?

hidden prison camps - First, recent investigations by European countries have failed to find any. Second, would you rather have them housed next to your home?

War vets running for office as Dems - So?

women's rights - Whose? The millions of Afghan women who can now vote, go to school, etc? Or the "right" to kill their un-born babies?

stem cell research - Which is authorized to be conducted. The federal ban is on spending federal funds on expanding the lines of stem cells. Private funding of stem cells is not affected.

evolution - How is "evolution" a problem for the GOP.

science - ???

Veteran benefits - You mean the VA budget that has gone up 69% since President Bush took office?

labor unions - ???

Geneva convention violations - Proof?

Humvees with out armor - Which weren't designed to be armored. They were designed to be a replacement for the M151 1/4 ton jeep. Once is was discovered that the terrorist's were resorting to IED's, we "up-armored" the Humvees.

Soldiers without armor - They had armor. They probably needed more, which they got.

Going to war with the Army you have comment - You have a problem with the truth?

Ignoring advice of generals - You mean the 4-5 generals who are complaining, or those who wrote the war plans and then executed them. Are you suggesting that Rumsfeld ignored the general's advice and wrote the war plans on his own? He obviously took the advice of those who advocated the war plan's that were implemented. One of the generals, Gen Zinni, retired in 2000, before Rumfeld was appointed. As a 27 year veteran of the military and a current DoD contracted employee, I can assure you that former generals are usually not brought in during the planning phase of War Plans.

ignoring real intelligence for false intelligence - Exactly what real intelligence was ignored?

rising number of insured - That would be a good thing.

increased cost of health care - Are you suggesting the President Bush is responsible for the rising cost of health care? I know he responsible for Katrina, global warming, sun spots, and the increase in cow flatulence, but I wasn't aware he single-handedly was responsible for increase the cost of health care. I thought that unlimited lawsuits (like the ones John Edwards specialized in) has driven the malpractice insurance sky-high, which has helped increase the costs of health care.

gay bashing - I don't remember any national GOP figure bashing gays. Perhaps you can provide some quotes.

not dealing with Korea - Perhaps he should do what President Clinton and Secretary Albright did, give them the nuclear technology so they could develop nuclear weapons. The last I checked, we along with Japan, South Korea, China, etc, were dealing with Korea.

not dealing with immigration - Immigration is okay. Illegal imigration is not.

endorsing outsourcing - Which helps create jobs in the US.

ignoring small business - Proof?

not enforcing tax laws - Proof?

allowing greater media consolidation - Should the government regulate everything? Besides, with the liberal slant of most of the media, I would think you would like this.

attacking NPR - Which leans far to the left. Taxpayers should not be paying for a liberal soapbox. Nor should they be paying for a conservative soapbox, if there were one.

No VETOs - Since the GOP controls both houses of Congress, he has supported all legistation coming out of Congress. Perhaps this is not a good thing, but it is a non-story.

underfunding No Child left behind - Exactly how is it underfunded? If it is underfunded, all Congress has to do is vote in increased funding. Bu then the President could veto the legislation, which would make your previous point meaningless. Constitutionally, the Federal Government has no business funding education. It is a state and local responsibility.

giving away public lands - Proof?

undermining democracy - By spreading democracy worldwide?

using the religious right as tools - What's wrong with that?

undermining true free markets - Proof?

2300+ dead soldiers - Who voluntarily gave their lives to free the oppressed and provide a chance for freedom in the Middle East. Not to diminish their sacrifice, but the combat deaths need to be put in context. Over 6,600 died on D-Day, June 6th, 1944. Over 6,800 died taking Iwo Jima. Over 10,000 died in the three day battle at Gettysburg. In that perspective, 2300 over three years is quite low. Hats off to the military.

17,000+ wounded soldiers - A decieving number. Because of the improvement in medical treatment and the speed at which we can evacuate casualties, our ratio of killed to wounded has tipped towards the wounded. Plus, many of the 17,000 are returned to duty within a short period of time.

500 billion wasted on a civil war - A matter of opinion. I say money well spent to help eradicate terrorism, spread freedom, and stabilize the Middle East.

promoting terrorist training camps in Iraq where none existed before - What universe do you live in? Have you not heard of Salmon Pak, where Saddam trained terrorists from throughout the Middle East? It had been operating since the mid-90's. Or the terrorist training camp on the outskirts of Baghdad where recruits were taught how to make bombs and what to do if they got captured. Or the ones at Samarra and Ramadi.

just being a general jerk - Which is far better than being a liberal a**hole.

What will cause the Dems problems this year and into the future?

Obstructing judicial nominations

Leaking classified intelligence by Senators (Leahy and Rockefeller)

Pelosi's illegal campaign donations

The theft and destruction of top secret national security documents by former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger

Rathergate

Theft of Lt. Gov. Michael Steele's credit report by staffers on Sen. Chuck Schumer's Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee

Hillary Clinton's illegal campaign contributons

Robert "KKK" Byrd

Incompetence by Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco in handling Katrina

Cynthia McKinney assault and battery

The Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, Sean Penn crowd

Judicial confirmation memos

Cut and Run

John Conyers ethics violations

Changing election laws to influence elections

Howard Dean

Blocking Social Security reform

"We killed the Patriot Act", Senator Reid (D) NV

CIA leaks by democrat employees

Legislating from the bench

Suppressing free speech on campus by conservatives

Media bias and fabricated stories

Weak on National Defense

Playing the race card whenever possible

Widespread voter fraud

Opposing Partial Birth Abortion ban

Legalizing gay marriages

Union corruption

Opposing tax cuts

Trying to make a scandle out of everything

No agenda

Contractor scandals - I'm afraid I don't know what you are talking about.

A-10

This reply of yours says it all in a nutshell. You're simple uninformed and mis-informed. I seriously suggest you listen to both sides. Do you listen to NPR or any Air America....ever watch NOW on PBS, Bill Maher, The Daily Show..if not you should.

I regularly listen to KSFO the local right wing station, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and Sean Hannity.

And I mostly participate in right wing blogs to see if anyone has a challenge for me and also to piss you all off with factual and logical arguements.

muirego just got A-BOMBED by A-10! I'm lovin' it!

muirego just got A-BOMBED by A-10! I'm lovin' it!

muirego just got A-BOMBED by A-10! I'm lovin' it!

I don't think so Ellsworth.

using the religious right as tools - What's wrong with that?

Soldiers without armor - They had armor. They probably needed more, which they got.

Iraq - 25,000,000 liberated from a dictator, democracy taking hold. Was the moral and right thing to do. Yea, only a couple tens of thousands of civilians killed, and of those only a couple of thousands killed by the U.S. Replaced relative peace with relatively few persecuted compared to now, we did the moral thing. We have brought far more death to the country and instigated chaos for their families. IT WASN'T GOOD AND MORAL. Sitting there in your leather chair and talking about morals. Every day people die from lack of food and water, and you sit there and call yourself good and moral. I am not sitting from anywhere higher than you, but I am not proclaiming my goodness.

Cluster bombed at that, way to go A-10. Is that the only response you got George! Come on, you usually drivel alot better than that!

Hey Dav, you and your bro's patting each other on the back and claiming to have been banned from B4B! Give me a friggin break! If your bro's have been banned it was for a very good reason. personally, i would have banned littlewangUSSR a long time ago. But hey, your still here! Does that mean you are in on this conspiracy of posters at B4B! you guys are pathetic! I hope that MBA yields a whole bunch of taxes, it obviously isn't doing a damn thing for your mind!

Why don't you guys try just ONE TIME to not call someone a name when adressing them? Think for maybe about 1 to 2 posts you could not act like children?

Posted by: steve at April 22, 2006 04:10 PM

Steve you Smuck!

Steve, you can't proclaim right & wrong, moral & immoral when you don't believe in right & wrong, moral & immoral!

Oh I dunno about that BearmanUSMC, that debate should be for another time over a brew, or a cup o' joe.

The whole universal morals debate that is.

"I hope that MBA yields a whole bunch of taxes, it obviously isn't doing a damn thing for your mind!"

Actually Steve those Tax Cuts Bush keeps wanting to make permanent will be mostly for my Income Bracket.

I fart in your general direction

"Contractor scandals - I'm afraid I don't know what you are talking about."

A-10

You just show that you don''t even know the issues. How can you not know about these? Well here are just some of them pertaining to this one issue. I could take you down factually on just about all of those issues listed above.

I mean you actually need proof that are markets are undermined by Corporate influence??? You want a flat tax don't you? Guess why you're not getting it even though the Republicans have full control? They haven't even come close to talking about.

The richest corporations love the convoluted tax system because it allows them to control markets and get out of paying a lot of taxes they owe. It is in fact why you can say your stupid quip ..."but the wealthiest pay most of the taxes." Of course they do you dunderhead because they game the system on the income side and make a disproportionate amount of income shafting the working class who are really responsible for our great productivity....THAT'S YOU DING DONG....you're voting against your own best interest and you think you're some sort of genius. You're not you're a dang FOOL.

5. Halliburton's No-Bid Bonanza

The scandal: In February 2003, Halliburton received a five-year, $7 billion no-bid contract for services in Iraq.

The problem: The Army Corps of Engineers' top contracting officer, Bunnatine Greenhouse, objected to the deal, saying the contract should be the standard one-year length, and that a Halliburton official should not have been present during the discussions.

The outcome: The FBI is investigating. The $7 billion contract was halved and Halliburton won one of the parts in a public bid. For her troubles, Greenhouse has been forced into whistle-blower protection.

6. Halliburton: Pumping Up Prices

The scandal: In 2003, Halliburton overcharged the army for fuel in Iraq. Specifically, Halliburton's subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root hired a Kuwaiti company, Altanmia, to supply fuel at about twice the going rate, then added a markup, for an overcharge of at least $61 million, according to a December 2003 Pentagon audit.

The problem: That's not the government's $61 million, it's our $61 million.

The outcome: The FBI is investigating.

7. Halliburton's Vanishing Iraq Money

The scandal: In mid-2004, Pentagon auditors determined that $1.8 billion of Halliburton's charges to the government, about 40 percent of the total, had not been adequately documented.

The problem: That's not the government's $1.8 billion, it's our $1.8 billion.

The outcome: The Defense Contract Audit Agency has "strongly" asked the Army to withhold about $60 million a month from its Halliburton payments until the documentation is provided.

8. The Halliburton Bribe-apalooza

The scandal: This may not surprise you, but an international consortium of companies, including Halliburton, is alleged to have paid more than $100 million in bribes to Nigerian officials, from 1995 to 2002, to facilitate a natural-gas-plant deal. (Cheney was Halliburton's CEO from 1995 to 2000.)

The problem: The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act prohibits U.S. companies from bribing foreign officials.

The outcome: A veritable coalition of the willing is investigating the deal, including the Justice Department, the SEC, the Nigerian government and a French magistrate. In June, Halliburton fired two implicated executives.

9. Halliburton: One Fine Company

The scandal: In 1998 and 1999, Halliburton counted money recovered from project overruns as revenue, before settling the charges with clients.

The problem: Doing so made the company's income appear larger, but Halliburton did not explain this to investors. The SEC ruled this accounting practice was "materially misleading."

The outcome: In August 2004, Halliburton agreed to pay a $7.5 million fine to settle SEC charges. One Halliburton executive has paid a fine and another is settling civil charges. Now imagine the right-wing rhetoric if, say, Al Gore had once headed a firm fined for fudging income statements.

10. Halliburton's Iran End Run

The scandal: Halliburton may have been doing business with Iran while Cheney was CEO.

The problem: Federal sanctions have banned U.S. companies from dealing directly with Iran. To operate in Iran legally, U.S. companies have been required to set up independent subsidiaries registered abroad. Halliburton thus set up a new entity, Halliburton Products and Services Ltd., to do business in Iran, but while the subsidiary was registered in the Cayman Islands, it may not have had operations totally independent of the parent company.

The outcome: Unresolved. The Treasury Department has referred the case to the U.S. attorney in Houston, who convened a grand jury in July 2004.

11. Money Order: Afghanistan's Missing $700 Million Turns Up in Iraq

The scandal: According to Bob Woodward's "Plan of Attack," the Bush administration diverted $700 million in funds from the war in Afghanistan, among other places, to prepare for the Iraq invasion.

The problem: Article I, Section 8, Clause 12 of the U.S. Constitution specifically gives Congress the power "to raise and support armies." And the emergency spending bill passed after Sept. 11, 2001, requires the administration to notify Congress before changing war spending plans. That did not happen.

The outcome: Congress declined to investigate. The administration's main justification for its decision has been to claim the funds were still used for, one might say, Middle East anti-tyrant-related program activities.

Hey,

Ellsworth,

You a Cheerleading twit or what? You got your Pom Poms with you because ya sure are fresh out of any ability to debate the facts you dimm bulb. You do yourself every darn day don't ya and you think you actually got something.

God ignorance must be BLISS!

I fart in your general direction

Posted by: DAV at April 23, 2006 12:15 AM

I'm not so sure you know which direction to fart in!!!

I've got ammo to spare on a guess.

Bearman you should debate with me on my blog about that Universal morals issue.

I didn't say anything about tax cuts...

"Yea, only a couple tens of thousands of civilians killed, and of those only a couple of thousands killed by the U.S. Replaced relative peace with relatively few persecuted compared to now, we did the moral thing. We have brought far more death to the country and instigated chaos for their families. IT WASN'T GOOD AND MORAL. Sitting there in your leather chair and talking about morals. Every day people die from lack of food and water, and you sit there and call yourself good and moral. I am not sitting from anywhere higher than you, but I am not proclaiming my goodness."

Posted by: steve at April 22, 2006 11:14 PM

Do you actually think that over 100,000 Iraqi citizens being murdered by Saddam and his henchmen each year was "relative peace"? Do you think that breaking into one's home, tying up the father, raping his wife and children in front of him, then killing them. Then feeding the father, alive, through a plastic shredder is "relatively few persecuted"? Or gassing the Kurds?

Did you know that the 30,000 Iraqi dead include the terrorists, and those the terrorists have killed, not just those killed during the liberation of Iraq. The US military has taken great precaution to minimize deaths.

While every loss of life is tragic, put it into perspective. Even if all 30,000 were killed by Coalition forces, or about 10,000 per year, that is a 90% reduction from the terror under Saddam. That would be a good thing. Also, did you know that between 35,000 and 100,000 were killed on 13-14 Feb 45 when the British bombed Dresden? Or that on March 9-10, 1945, an estimated 100,000 people killed in a single night of bombing on Tokyo?

So you think the "good and moral" thing to do was to continue to let Saddam murder his own people? You obviously live in an alternate universe.

"The richest corporations love the convoluted tax system because it allows them to control markets and get out of paying a lot of taxes they owe. It is in fact why you can say your stupid quip ..."but the wealthiest pay most of the taxes." Of course they do you dunderhead because they game the system on the income side and make a disproportionate amount of income shafting the working class who are really responsible for our great productivity....THAT'S YOU DING DONG....you're voting against your own best interest and you think you're some sort of genius. You're not you're a dang FOOL."

Posted by: muirgeo at April 23, 2006 12:49 AM

Ya know, muirgeo, I had to read this three time in an attempt to decypher what you were trying to say (try a comma once in a while to seperate phrases and clauses). Your logic makes no sense at all. And you're calling me a fool.

So voting in Republicans, who will cut my taxes, is "voting against my own best interests"? Sorry, I fail to see how paying lower taxes is a bad thing.

You are obviously a socialist. I'm sorry, but here in the US (I'm assuming you live here) we live in a capitalist society. If you don't like it, move. I'll even help you pack.

muirgeo,

By the way, thanks for enlightening me on all those horrible Contractor scandals. It looks to me like the FBI and other government agencies are hot on the trail correcting the situation.

I'm 100% sure that there has never been a "contractor scandal" involving a Democrat. Can anyone say "The Big Dig" in Boston. $13,600,000,000 spent to build 7.5 miles of highway and tunnels that no one wanted. Except Tip O'Neill (D), Ted Kennedy (D), and John Kerry (D).

"This reply of yours says it all in a nutshell. You're simple uninformed and mis-informed. I seriously suggest you listen to both sides. Do you listen to NPR or any Air America....ever watch NOW on PBS, Bill Maher, The Daily Show..if not you should."

Posted by: muirgeo at April 22, 2006 10:48 PM

Air America? The radio talk show that stole hundreds of thousands of dollars from a New York Boys & Girls Club? Are they still on the air? If I were to listen to Air America I would boost their listenership by 100%. Fortunately, there are no radio stations in my market that air it.

I would listen to the other side, if they had something to say. But all I hear is how Bush is evil and Hitler reincarnated. How the GOP has a "culture of corruption" while Dems are paying fines for campaign finance violations. How "we're not in power, so we don't have to have an agenda. It is our duty to oppose the President" (Howard Dean paraphased). I hear how they want to "cut and run" and surrender the Middle East back to the terrorists. All I hear is their hatred for President Bush. They have nothing positive to say about anything. Why should I listen to that?

I'm still waiting on your proof or calrification on the following:

Lobby abuse

neglected national parks

evolution

science

labor unions

Geneva convention violations

ignoring small business

not enforcing tax laws

giving away public lands

undermining true free markets

Or were those just wild accusations without any substance, like most utterances from the left?

Do you actually think that over 100,000 Iraqi citizens being murdered by Saddam and his henchmen each year was "relative peace"?

Posted by: A-10

You don't just get to say stuff like this on a whim....source please....of course Saddam was terrible but don't use that as a false excuse to go to war. There's lots of dictators the world round...many much worse then Saddam.

"I would listen to the other side, if they had something to say."
A-10

So you admit you are a closed minded person who doesn't listen to the other side. Too bad I always listen to the other side.

That you seem to be perfectly happy with multinational corporations buying elections, policy and shielding themselves from true competition it can only be out of sheer ignorance and your unwillingness to listen to the other side or different opinions.

There are plenty of books on the subject written by conservative minded people....

From Kevin Philips,

"Most American conservatives take it as an article of faith that the less governmental involvement in affairs of the market and pocketbook the better. The rich do not, whatever they might say--for much of their wealth comes from the "power and preferment of government."

The Battle for the Soul of Capitalism (Hardcover)
by John C. Bogle

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man
by John Perkins

Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich - and Cheat Everybody Else
by David Cay Johnston

Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich by Kevin Phillips

raed dude read.....you country needs you

muirgeo,

Do a little research "dude":

The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Also according to Human Rights Watch, "senior Arab diplomats told the London-based Arabic daily newspaper al-Hayat in October [1991] that Iraqi leaders were privately acknowledging that 250,000 people were killed during the uprisings, with most of the casualties in the south."

From the BBC: "US officials say there may be as many as 260 mass graves in Iraq, containing the bodies of at least 300,000 people."

How much more evidence do you need?

Further,

I do not admit to being closed minded. I have had to listen to the other side for decades. I just don't like what I hear:

Encouraging and supporting dictators and oppressive leaders.

Providing aid and comfort to our enemies.

Increased government regulations that stiffle economic growth.

Socialist/Communist economic and social policies.

Increased taxation that stiffles economic growth.

Encouraging class warfare.

Playing the race card whenever possible.

Deterioration of the cultural and historical family unit.

Encouraging the "Welfare State" to maintain their electoral base.

Constant attacks on GOP admininstrations without articulating a plan of their own.

I did catch a few minutes of the Randy Rhodes show once while I was out of town for business. I couldn't believe my ears. Nearly every word out of her mouth was a documented lie:

"Iraq never possessed WMD" - They did. They gassed their own people and the Iranians. They even admitted they possessed them.

"Saddam had no ties to terrorism" - He openly offered $25,000 to Palistinians to commit suicide bombings against Israel. He trained terrorists at Salmon Pak, Samarra, and Ramadi.

One telling observation is that whenever a leading Democrat has the podium, you can count on a screaming rant, bordering on lunacy. Picture Al "I invented the Internet" Gore screaming how President Bush "mislead the country. He played on our fears". Or Howard Dean's Iowa scream. Or Hillary Clinton's various rants. Or Ted "swimmer" Kennedy calling the President a "liar" on the Senate Floor. The Democrats have no class. When is the last time you saw a leading GOP figure literally screaming about the opposing party? I'll tell you when, never. We can't afford to let the screaming lunatics back into power. They are damaging the country enough as the minority party.