Do you mean Charlie Rangel, the so-called Senator? The so-called leader of the Democratic Party? The so-called black man?

Do you mean Charlie Rangel, the so-called Senator? The so-called leader of the Democratic Party? The so-called black man?

No, I think he meant one of the members of the so-called political party that claims its serious about protecting America from the so-called terrorists.

The dems will use so-called security measures that have nothing to do with so-called reality to combat the so-called terrorists.

If the libs get control, we are in for a lot of trouble...well...so-called trouble.

The Democrats are dangerous.

From the few lines of the transcript you can easily see that O'Reilly is twisting words around and changing the question so Rangel appears to be saying something else.

Regardless, "so-called" terrorists is appropriate for anyone not yet convicted in a court of law with rights to due process. They are all "alleged" terrorists until proven otherwise.

Oh, I forgot. King George eliminated due process yesterday by signing the "Military Commissions Act" and declaring himself jusge, jury and excutioner.

We need protection from Republicans more than we need protection from terrorists.

Wade

Deleted, again, in response to complaint. Please don't try the patience of the blog.

Opuss, what's with the bu bu b/s? Grow up, girl.

Charlie (W)Rangel can say whatever he pleases; he's in a safe district in Harlem, propped up by his lemmings. The man will die in office, having accomplished nothing but keeping many in his own race in poverty. He's sold out his own people, in his quest for power.

You can help this puke live out his last days in retirement--get out and vote, and help the GOP keep the House, and Wrangeler will retire. Be nice to this old coot; don't let him die in office.

"Hi, my name is Opuss--bu bu bu." What a freaking joke you are, moron...

hey it's 1H8STR8sheep saying nothing and wasting time doing it

was there a point to your ramble or did not need something to do with your free hand now that your taking?

You guys keep talkin' but no one's listening. What's up with that?

Mr. Rangel was caught thinking what he truely thought about these terrorists (or in his words, "so-called terrorists"). This will only get play on conservative blogs, and maybe a select few indepedent blogs. But if I were a GOP-er in charge of ads, I'd prop this one up as another example about how the Democrats truely feel about the situation.

“Democrats have no plan for keeping America safe, or winning the war against the fanatics. They have opposed most of the Bush administration’s domestic surveillance methods. They have opposed aggressive interrogation tactics designed to get information to protect us, including opposition to the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where detainees are treated better than they could expect if they were detained in their homelands... The terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere don’t speak of timetables for withdrawal or bringing their fighters home in time for Ramadan. They’re in it for the long haul. They believe we are not. A victory by Democrats next month will validate their view and encourage them to fight harder. Republicans have been far from perfect in this war. They have barely approached mediocrity in their handling of domestic issues. But to change horses and leaders mid-war is a prescription for a longer engagement, because this is a confrontation that will end only in victory or defeat for one side or the other. That’s why the Republicans need to keep their majority and conservatives need to keep the pressure on them to get back to the original GOP principles that brought them that majority. That’s a better strategy than Republicans acting like Democrat-lite.” —Cal Thomas

was there a point to your ramble or did not need something to do with your free hand now that your taking?

Ummm, Opuss, could you decipher the above for me? It, just like you, makes no sense. Please, ma'am, decipher...

Thank God for Keith Olbermann.

Watching Libs pretzel themselves into bizarre and conflicting positions is so much fun. The same fellow travelers who adore "We don't need no steeenkin' jury" Murtha and find nothing whatsoever wrong with his public pronouncements that Marines who have not even been formally accused of crimes, much less tried and found guilty, are "cold-blooded murderers", can also spout "Regardless, "so-called" terrorists is appropriate for anyone not yet convicted in a court of law with rights to due process. They are all "alleged" terrorists until proven otherwise...." as Wade just did. Give the world a hug, Wade---at least the left side of it.

But, not sure that we quite grasp the lunacy of the radical Left, Wade goes on to inform us that "Oh, I forgot. King George eliminated due process yesterday by signing the "Military Commissions Act" and declaring himself jusge, jury and excutioner."

See, this is what happens when schools drop civics class in favor of Diversification Studies or other such pap. There is just no understanding of how the system works. There is no concept of how bills are introduced, debated, voted on, and passed, by our elected representatives in both houses----and then sent to the President. They seem to think, if such a word can be applied to the convoluted mental process that passes for thinking in those murky little minds, that the President just DOES things, all by his own self.

But then they have to try to figure out how to play both sides.

Let the President veto a bill passed by both houses of Congress and he is, to the loony left, King George, overriding the will of the people in his mad dash for unlimited power. Let him sign a bill passed by both houses of Congress, and he is King George, blah blah blah.

Wade also makes it clear that membership in the far far radical left requires, in addition to dedication to ignoring or denying facts, a willingness (eagerness) to parade one's ignorance and even glory in it.

I have less problem with the tinfoil hat brigade, who truly believe the garbage they are fed by the callous manipulators of the gullible and simply stupid, than I do with the Wades of the world, who probably do understand on some level that they are lying, but continue to do so because their hatred somehow makes them above the rules. In Wadeworld, and that of O'Pus, and their kind, truth is immaterial---it is wallowing in blind hatred that matters, spewing vile and nasty comments, and glorying in negativity that counts. Truth is what they want it to be. So of course Wade can regurgitate some goofball comment about Bush being "judge, jury, and executioner"---it FEELS good to emote like that, to express the true misery that is Wade, and facts are not even speed bumps on the Road to Hatred.

raker opines; "..Thank God for Keith Olbermann."

This same Keith Olbermann, I assume, whose credentials as a "journalist: include his description of Chris Wallace as "..a monkey posing as a journalist.."

Yep, I can see how Keith would have great appeal to those whose capacity for intellectual political discourse are in line with his.

Almirasheep,

you can't be serious, you’re trying to defend the end of our rights as we know it by saying Wade (and I'd assume all libs) needs a civics lesson? Both houses have been in lock w/ bush for the last six years, what he says...goes...and this bill does make him judge, jury and executioner...He decides who is an enemy combatant, not just on the battle field...EVERYWHERE, He has the final say on incarcerations and punishment....

That bill says Bush can declare YOU,a US citizen, an enemy combatant, hold YOU without telling you on what charges, deny YOU counsel and hold YOU indefinitely without a trial...

but it's the libs that need a civics lesson?

this is why you’re a sheep, you defend just because…no reason…just because…

Opus,

You do realize that the guys in the strategy room deep in the bowls of the White House monitor this blog. They probably already know where you live, and surely you qualify as an enemy combatant. I suggest you find a safe, secure place ASAP, and hide there until after the election.

retired sheep,

and yet you didn't disagree with what I said,

so you point is?

Hey Opus,

As discussed on another thread, the Military Commissions Act applies ONLY TO ALIENS WHO ARE ILLEGAL ENEMY COMBATANTS. Sorry about the shouting, but the cement was leaking out your ears and I wanted to make sure you heard me.

So, are you an alien? I know you live in an alternate universe, but are you a citizen of the United States? If so, the Military Commissions Act does not apply to you.

If you are an alien, are you taking up arms against the United States a member of the armed forces of a state (we don't mean one of the United States, we mean foreign country. "State" is diplo-speak for country.)? If so, you are a "legal enemy combatant" and the Military Commissions Act does not apply to you.

But, if you are an alien and are you taking up arms against the United States and are not a member of the armed forces of a state, you are an "illegal enemy combatant". Look out we're coming after you.

A-sheep,

really? only Aliens?
Section 948a(1) defines an unlawful enemy combatant as
"(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces; or

(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense."

the alien issue only pertains to a specific secion of the MCA...

But that's ok, you really don't care because you don't understand...

Opus,

Read the whole act:

Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions

`Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.'

Does it say that non-alien unlawful enemy combatants are subject to trial by military commissions? NO.

Does it say that alien lawful enemy combatants are subject to trial by military commissions? NO.

Does it say that non-alien lawful enemy combatants are subject to trial by military commissions? NO.

It says that the only people who are subject to trial by military commissions are alien unlawful enemy combatants. That would mean non-US citizens, not in uniform or aligned with a nation-state, and participating in hostilities against the US. Your typical terrorist falls into this category. US Citizens do not. Soldiers, in uniform, from other countries do not.

Now, who doesn't understand?