In its legal analysis, the Justice Department contends that "the broad language" of Congress's authorization to use force "affords the President, at a minimum, the discretion to employ the traditional incidents of the use of military force," including the warrantless surveillance program.

That's all well and good, and maybe that argument could be made with a straight face if FISA was silent on its application during war time. But it would seem that Congress considered this when they passed the law, as it includes:

****
§ 1811. Authorization during time of war

Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.
****

So the Justice Department is arguing that an AUMF that made no specific mention of domestic surveillance trumps the specific language in the FISA law? Gimme a break.

These guys are just so scary!

I have the feeling that Herr Alito should be asked this question on Dim Son's Powers.. Does he feel that the President should have no oversight by Congress, and that he is free to torture, to deprive all people citizens and foreigners alike of their rights? These scum bags are trying to keep power in their hands by any and all means possible (to them).

I think the Osama re-appearance is just a tad too convient, especially since the repigs seem to very close to loosing the whole ball of wax..

Just this old chief's 2 cents

...following a declaration of war by the Congress.

Not to mention that such a declaration was never made.

Steve,

I tried to post the following comment before you shutdown the blog. Thank you for shutting it down. When these trolls sabotage the blog, can you block them?

eriposte,

I'm personally not into censorship but we should allow “dipshit” to dominate this blog with his "Clinton did it" noise. Instead of providing opposing views, this troll sabotaging this blog. He is “swift boating” the blog. Like most of the people with his ideology, he in too undeveloped to deal positively with other people (cleaning himself after he defecates is probably really traumatic for him). I think you should not allow him to sabotage discussion here with massive nonsense.

These guys are just so scary!

And dangerous too!

The Bush outfit today offered its fullest defense of the National Security Agency's domestic eavesdropping program, saying that congressional authorization to defeat 'Al Qaeda' after the Sept. 11 attacks "places the president at the zenith of his powers in authorizing the N.S.A. activities."

In a 42-page white paper, the Justice Department expanded on its past arguments in laying out the legal rationale for why the N.S.A. program does not violate federal wiretap law and why the president is the nation's "sole organ" for foreign affairs. (pgs.1,2&6)

Democratic Hearing on Domestic Surveillance on C-SPAN today. (11am EST)

I see this as the first rounds of Bu$hco going into extreme defense mode. As the Chief noted above, Bu$hCo is facing the loss of power if they continue to allow the normal course of the law to be followed. As this would put a serious dent in their plans, that has to be stopped.

The Great American Experiment is in its last days: students preparing to hold public 'reeducation' sessions like the Red Guard did (we're going to hear lots of angry Reich-wing caterwauling about 'that's what them damn commie pinko hippie fags used to do to our poor conservative professors back in the Sixties!', so get your ear plugs out!), people all over the country denied a fair vote, 'First Amendment' Zones, etc. All one needs to know is that the Dr.s Frankenstein who helped to launch the neo-con Power Derangers in the late Seventies (Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR); David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union; Paul Weyrich, chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation and Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation) have even come out in opposition to Bu$hCo because they feel it has gotten too extreme - and these guys are just about to realize the things they sought when they started!!!

I guess that's the proof of the maxim 'Be careful what you wish for - you might get it!'

Follow me on this one...

For the sake of argument they are right, and that the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force says they can. Congress can not make any law that violates the Constitution. Given that the Bush I-Spy program is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment, then it is safe to say that the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force is un-Constitutional!

I am not sure they want to really push this as an argument, because using the same convoluted logic, the war in Iraq is also un-Constitutional.

Just a thought.

I think the Osama re-appearance is just a tad too convient, especially since the repigs seem to very close to loosing the whole ball of wax..

Just this old chief's 2 cents

Ken, there is no such thing as a tinfoil hat anymore. Osama has always appeared just when Bush needs him the most. What is very sad is that his appearance should make the American people question why he has not be caught. Instead they let their fears supercede that thought.

that's "supersede."

One more thought. Another attack would give Bush the dictatorship he yearns for.

"I think you should not allow him to sabotage discussion here with massive nonsense."

Smooth, I agree and was glad to see the site shutdown, a first that I know of on TLC. If a poster is not interesting in exchange of civil discourse, then they need not be here.

Since AOL decided to give information to the Justice Department instead of refusing as Google did, I will be canceling my AOL account.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/20/technology/20google.html?hp&ex=1137733200&en=2452e6e9f4075968&ei=5094&partner=homepage

All of this talk about republicans being so afraid of the terrorists. It seems to me that everything that bush does sends you all into a tizzy. You all tremble afraid at what right will be taken away next. Lets count those lost so far.

1. You can't talk to a terrorist on the phone with out big brother looking over your sholder! Good God, what is the world coming to.

2. Big brother can look at what books I have read. Oh, except they haven't. BUT THEY COULD!!!

Get a grip. It's you all who sound scared, of the big bad bush that is.

Put things in context. Look at the history of america to find real instances of overreaching by executive power. FDR and the internment of japanise citizens, Linclon suspending Habius Corpus, Truman and the steel mills. All icons representing the best of our nations presidency, not one impeached.

The constitution grants far reaching authority to the executive branch in the defense of our nation. Particularly in a time of actual conflict. Congress can pass all the laws they like, but they cannot over reach in turning back the power of the executive branch to defend the nation. It really is as simple as that. You can talk FISA court all day, but it is a phony pretense. It simply does not apply. The framers of the constitution realized that you couldn't run a war based upon a focus group (congress). That is why in most cases the courts have rightly interpreted the constitution to grant these powers to the executive. It is congress that grants authority to declare war however and they in effect did so with their authorization to use force.

As far as the congressional research service debunking the claim; they are an advocate for increased legislative power, just as the executive branch attornys advocate increased executive power. Ultimatly, it will be the supreme court that defines where the line is, not congress.

And finally, in my opinion the democrats are really helping the republicans continue to define them as soft on defense. The over the top alligations of bush somehow manipulating OBL to sway opinion or bring him up from his cave to help is pure tin foil hat land. But if it were true, it would constitute an impeachable offense. I wouldn't hold my breath on that one though.

Why is Osama on my TV, radio, and monitor?

Shouldn't that fucking devil be dead?

Here's the deal. If anything Al Quaida related happens to my family or friends (I have both in large cities across America), I'm going to be on the warpath, and neither Osama's boys nor the Neocons and their enablers will escape my wrath.

Fucking evil surrounds us from without and within. The trolls who haunt this site are proof of that.

Has Bush done anything since the Terrorist attacks that you liberals agreed with?

We need a strong and intellectual opposition party in the U.S., instead, we have the looney left screaming and hollering, so much so, that no one can hear nor understand you.

You hard core left, like micheal moore that even says the war in Afganistan was illegal, makes an honest debate impossible.

Now I read where Judith is going to cancel her AOL account since they honored the child pornographer's subpoenaes..(why did you stay with AOL anyway) but to let this be your reason for leaving? Gees, are you saying that a subpoenda, legally enforceable, obtained via judicial review is illegal? So when is a search warrant/subpoenae ever legal? Bush doesn't get them and thats illegal, the FBI gets them to help catch child porno criminals and thats still disgusting to you.

Please guys, find some consistent and logical dissent and keep the Republicans who are running this country honest. Cuz' no one is immunne from becoming powerful, nor from becomeing corrupt.

I think the looney left is so horribly corrupted with hate that they can't see the truth. Bush has done many good things on the war on terror, arguably he has done things you vehemently disagree with. But when you can't acknowledge anything good he has done, shows the limits of your ability to be a true and honest dissenters. You are not dissenters, just haters. Which is much easier, but less effective.

1. You can't talk to a terrorist on the phone with out big brother looking over your sholder! Good God, what is the world coming to.

Suspected terrorists, so they say. But who knows what they've been listening to really. It's already come out that they're spying on Quakers and other groups who are against the war. Would spying on political enemies be ok with you? I wouldn't put it past them. What the world is coming to is losing everything this country stands for.

Big brother can look at what books I have read. Oh, except they haven't. BUT THEY COULD!!!

How do you know they haven't?

Oh, but it doesn't matter because you have nothing to hide, right? I can't stand that pathetic argument. Why don't you move to North Korea.

Today Bush is saying no truce with bin Laden. Tough talking!

But back to this whole NSA illegal wiretapping. Bush claims that by making the program public, we've given too much information to the enemy because now they know we're listening in. I really doubt that the terrorists are very familiar with the 4th amendment or our constitutional rights not to be spied on by the government - heck, most Americans don't seem to understand it! Why in the world would the terrorists have ever thought they weren't being spied on in the first place?

But more to the point, Bush is going forward defending his illegal program instead of shutting it down? He's already said that we ruined it by putting it in the media because now they'll know we're spying. This makes no sense. Clearly his goals for spying and more than as stated.

Every time I try to apply logic to anything this government does, it simply doesn't work.

Steve,

I've always said, Goerge Bush needs Osama more than Osama needs George Bush. After all, Bush's entire MO is predicated on fighting the boogyman and just like the famous character in 1984, Goldstein, Bush's hold on power depends on frightening the public by dangling the rare video or audio tape of Osama to keep the public fearful.

Crappy,

Fuck you, asshole.

Here's who I hate: Motherfuckers who exploit their own failure and a national tragedy (9/11) so as to justify their rotten, greed-ridden, military-depleting, Osama-not-capturing, civil liberties-leeching, patriotic citizen-smearing agenda.

Fuck you. If Al Quaida does strike us again becuase of this government's negligent incompetence, I hope they get you. You certainly deserve it, traitor.

You are right about one thing: I do hate you. I hate you because you have enabled these traitorous, anti-American, Constitution-shredding thugs. Yes, I do hate you. But my hate is focused and narrow, and I know exactly who the object of said hate is. It gives me strength to destroy your kind and your buddies in the Islamofascist movement before you destroy this nation.

You're my enemy, crappy, as much as that devil Osama is my enemy, for you both strive for the same ends.

You look the same to me.

Sen L Graham coached a line of questions and responses with Judge Alito and then recited them at the confirmation hearings. They concerned the theory of a "unitary" executive (The Prez) as being supreme authority in some areas of Constitutional power. Alito concurred. He said Congress and the Judiciary are not "experts" in the conduct of war or military operations--that is the President's job; ergo, in military matters the President's powers trump everything. He can torture, eliminate privacy, limit the power of the citizenry and Congress, perhaps even ignore precedents set by the Supreme Court. The Republican Redcoat Enablers are counting on this argument and subsequent support from their new Supreme Court Judge Alito. They are on the verge of getting that judge. The Republicans are counting on people getting all tied up in statutes and codes, not the Constitution. The argument is War = Supreme Authority of Commander-in-Chief---all else be damned. Rep Conyers hopes his NSA hearings will generate broader coverage now that he will have C-SPAN's attention. Let us all hope he keeps his eyes on the big issue, not the minutiae.

Doesn't Osama's reappearence give bu$h (the great divider) more material for his State of the (non)-Union address? I'm sure it will be filled with more items for the neo-con agenda!

Also, I was glad that the site was shut down last night. It' imppossible to have a logical discussion when someone puts their fingers in their ears and goes nah, nah, nah, nah! Please trolls, give it a rest.

Clrly th lft cms dwn n th sd f dfndng th blty f trrrsts nd chld rpsts t prptrt thr vl crms fr f dtctn r fr f ccntblty, bng bscrd by th mspprprtd vl f lstc rghts nd prvlgs.

You hard core left, like micheal moore that even says the war in Afganistan was illegal, makes an honest debate impossible.

Again with Michael Moore.

Don't you get tired of typing that guys name? Can we modify Goodwins Law to cover Moore too?

I think the looney left is so horribly corrupted with hate that they can't see the truth. Bush has done many good things on the war on terror, arguably he has done things you vehemently disagree with. But when you can't acknowledge anything good he has done, shows the limits of your ability to be a true and honest dissenters.

Hate hate hate. Get over it. Disagreeing with where the Republicans are leading this country does not equate to hate. That is the lamest argument and you keep coming back with it. You accused Sen. Durbin of hating America and what was your proof? That he said that acts of torture were unbefitting of the proud history of our armed forces and more closely resembled the actions of our past enemies. Boo hoo!

The invasion of Afghanistan has quite often been lauded here as a "good thing that Bush has done". The fact that you overlook that speaks volumes to your intentions in posting here. Obviously, most here believe that he forfeited whatever benefit he got from that "good thing" by basically abandoning the effort prematurely to focus on Iraq. Now if you can't accept that people hold that view legitimately and it's not a result of hate then there is no point in responding to you.

Which brings me to yesterday's thread. My apologies for responding to dipshit. With that moniker it was impossible to resist. I did try to get around to my point with him as quickly as I could. That point being that it was Clinton's privacy that was invaded not the other way around. I shall however, with the exception of this comment, refrain from here forward from getting into such a give and take with trolls intent on simply derailing the conversation.

Again, my apologies.

Alito concurred. He said Congress and the Judiciary are not "experts" in the conduct of war or military operations--that is the President's job; ergo, in military matters the President's powers trump everything.

That means that only people who have served active military duty should run for office. Clearly, no one in the Bush WH has any military experience so they aren't experts, either.

Ken Jackson says, above, "I think the Osama re-appearance is just a tad too convenient..." (edited)

Very convenient, yes; and it struck me yesterday afternoon (as a captive audience member in a bar with Fox News -and Osama's face next to the bimbo on the big screen) that the Administration (and/or CIA) decided VERY quickly this time that the recording was, indeed, Osama.

In the past, have they not been skeptical or totally dismissive beyond reasonableness as to the identity of the speaker when these tapes surface?

They really need him now.

Dear Judith,

More examples of how Liberals hate America...

Read God of War. He is an excellent example. Now apparently, my libertarian, conservative views are deemed to be no different that OBL. Now he personally hates me and wishes me to be physically harmed.

And let me see,,,,, Steve shut down a list because someone hijacked it by talking about an off topic subject, but someone like GOW says things like this, and thats perfectly fine?

Same liberal logic, its not about freedom of speech, its about Freedom of Liberal speech.

Do you ever, ever feel ashamed?
Oh, and I see Mr. GOW is back to using the filthy language.

I think GOW has some problems expressing himself/herself....c'mon GOW, tell us how you really feel....

Dear Snark,

Yes I get tired of Michael Moore. I just wish the looneys that run the liberal Democratic party were tired of him too.

He spoke at your convention. He represents the views of the most active portion of your party. You can't deny him, and if you did, I'd have alot more respect for your party, but instead, it cheers Moore and slams Leiberman. Two complete opposites.

Your party has not won a Presidential Election in I dont' remember when. Clinton ran as a moderate. The looney left couldn't find a way to get anyone to beat the unbeatble Bush Sr., so they found someone who pretended to be a moderate.

Before that Was Carter, complete waste of energy.

The way the primaries are set up, only the extremes of either party make it to the show, and then, America moves to the right.

Find a moderate, not a nut-job and you might be able to win again......

oh and Dear god of war, do you hold your mother's hand with those fingers that type this vile everyday?

Judith, Good idea dumping AOL. I got so sick of their constant right wing drumbeat on the home page, I switched several months ago. Unfortunately Yahoo is only slightly better, but surprisingly, my computer runs smoother and faster since I eliminated (removed)all of AOL's proprietory software.

Dear Oaklander, I agree AOL is awful, but judith dropped it to "set an example" because of AOL's desire to help stop child pornographers.
According to the article, Yahoo agreed to the same subpoena and therefore wants to help stop child pornographers, so Judith would have nothing to do with yahoo. I don't know that Google offers internet service either. She may be having to go to the public library now to search for her child porn....

Hey carp...I'm with GOW too.

Carpe Diem:

Who got 550,000 more votes in 2000?

And since there has not been a poll on this, how do you know that Michael Moore represents the view of the most active portion of our party? Or is that your opinion?

Oaklander, aol software has always been shit, I can't believe anyone is still on it. When I buy a computer, it's the first thing I delete.

Why do you constantly persist carpe? We have had this dicussion before, we continue to run in circles. Give it a rest, dude. Please, ignore what we are saying and still come back with the same lame logic. Don't you get it, the perverse thought process of the neo-con is just that, perverse. I for one will never listen to it!

He spoke at your convention. He represents the views of the most active portion of your party.

He spoke at a forum during the convention. He did not speak on the floor at the convention. It's not my party anyway. I'm not a registered Democrat. And I'd like to see some support of your "most active portion" comment. Something other than a turd pulled out of your ass.

Your party has not won a Presidential Election in I dont' remember when. Clinton ran as a moderate. The looney left couldn't find a way to get anyone to beat the unbeatble Bush Sr., so they found someone who pretended to be a moderate.

Hate to break it to you but Clinton got elected as a Democrat. I'm sure you'd like to decide who's a Democrat and who isn't but you can't change the facts.

The way the primaries are set up, only the extremes of either party make it to the show, and then, America moves to the right.

Huh? So how did Clinton, running as a moderate, manage to make it through a primary process that only allows the extremes to get through? Clinton was a moderate. Or do you think Clinton was far left?

1593....number of days Osama has been forgotten since 9/11 (courtesy of Needlenose blog). Why Mr. Bush... why haven't you captured him yet? Yes Mr. Bush, Why is this fanatical mass murderer still roaming the face of the earth threatening more attacks around the globe and in the US? What the hell is taking so long? Why is Mr. Bush even still needing to strut out his tough guy macho rhetoric (No truce)in response to Mr. "Dead or Alive's" threats 4+ years later? You can talk the talk all you wish Junior, but you certainly haven't walked the talk!

Carpediem writes: "Has Bush done anything since the Terrorist attacks that you liberals agreed with?"

Why yes Carp he did, but the incompetent ass started losing me when he invaded Iraq.

I was very disturbed and ambivalent about the WMD issues. I was afraid for our military personnel and yet it did not make sense that Sadaam would anywhere near the capability that was claimed. When the WMD's did not materialize I was relieved and more disturbed.

As we know now, it was all bullshit and now we are removing a dictator or building democracy or some such.

At this point Bush has shown his true self as a man whose loyalty is to party first (isn't that rather totalitarian of him), money second (greedy) and everything else somewhere down the list.

He has no respect for the Constitution and has fallen into the same cycle of fear mongering and power grabbing that has bedeviled Presidents in this country since at least 1900.

He says he is fighting religious extremist abroad and kisses the ass of religious extremists in his own backyard.

His good old boy cronyism has contributed to the deaths of people in N.O. after Katrina.

He runs up debt for our country like the worst liberal is always accused of doing. He has cut taxes and does not ask the citizens in this country to make additional sacrifices to pay for it.

Money that has been sent to the greatest and most expensive social engineering project known to mankind has disappeared in the hundreds of millions.

He is the leader of a party that is shaping up to be the most corrupt since Nixon was in office.

Please spare me the whiny "Bush is being persecuted" garbage.

Dear BBTB, then why respond if you don't listen?

Dear Snark, Clinton ran as a moderate...he did not govern that way.
In 1991, during the Gulf War, Bush 41's poll numbers were astronomical. No democrat thought they had a chance to win.
Clinton, with those cute little elvis looks, and his loathesome wife, who ignored his sexual affairs, was able to fool the electorate.

But in 1991, we didn't have the same immediate news services, we didn't have blogs, and online websites (at least not to the extent we have today) Dean was the first to use these sites to his advantage. People like Kos are nobodies, but you on the left give him authority because he gets attention.

So now, the looney left clearly controls the party. Lieberman and Gephart never had a chance.

You may not like the system of primaries, and especially the way the news media concentrates on one candidate in IOWA and then crowns their king, but that is the way politics are currently run in America.

Then again, my opinions are vile and no different than OBL. I'm more of a threat to you guys than he is.....

I will say this, Harriet Meirs might be Supreme Court Justice if it werent for the right wing blogs that caused an uproar that the media highlighted. So I sort of like the fact that blogs like tlc and nationalreview have some authority in how our politics plays out...

More examples of how Liberals hate America...

Read God of War. He is an excellent example. Now apparently, my libertarian, conservative views are deemed to be no different that OBL. Now he personally hates me and wishes me to be physically harmed.

So God of War expressing hatred for you personally means he hates America?

So that would imply that any person expressing hatred for, sayyyyy gay Americans or immigrant Americans or liberal Americans, hates America too. Or does hatred for you in particular raise the hater to the level of America-hater?

Oh, and I guess Chris Matthews hates America as well since he equated Michael Moore's views with OBL too. Would you agree.

Sorry Carpe. I'm not convinced. You're gonna have to try a little harder to demonstrate that liberals hate America.

Dear J. swift, again, I know all of the bad you claim he did, but was there any good?
You did not mention afganistan, but inferred you were with him on that.

My point is that there were many on the left that even opposed that.

IN Atlanta, Bush came and spoke. I went. Outside your looney left brothers and sisters were shouting. Calling Bush baby killers, saying no war for oil. America is an imperilistic nation. . . etc. ad nauseum.

They were protesting in the days Leading Up to the invasion of Afganistan, not Iraq, but Afganistan.

They are your brothers and sister in arms. They're comments are consistently represented here.

Again, nothing bush has done is correct in your view, nothing. You are so angry you can't even type one or two things that he did.

Clinton did several, several wonderful things in office, not the least of which was to enjoy the fine taste of a good cigar in the oval office.

Why does anyone both with Carpe? He lost all credibility when he said that the Republicans our the party of responsiblility. I still laugh when I think about it.

both= bother

Clinton ran as a moderate...he did not govern that way.

Really! Please. Some examples.

But what you said was that the primaries only allow the extremes to pass through but that Clinton ran as a moderate. That's a contradiction.

What about CLinton is it that leads you to believe he is really far left? I'm intruiged.

The rest of what you wrote is garbage. I expressed no opinion on the primaries. You did. I didn't exuate you with OBL. Someone else did. I didn't even mention blogs. You did. You like the influence of rightist blogs and complain about the influence of leftist blogs. Another contradiction.

You are the loony one and I'm done with you.

Most liberals hate Bush (the administration, the policies, even the man in some cases.) Since Bush is the self-appointed supreme leader of the nation, with unlimited powers to "protect" the nation in a time of war (a "war" which even the administration says will last many, many years), he "is" America. That is why anyone that is opposed to Bush hates America.

Before that Was Carter, complete waste of energy. posted by Carpe

Crappy, Carter was the leader in Energy Conservation. It was Carter's efforts that led to all of the low energy appliances. Wasn't the first thing that Reagan did when taking office was to remove the Solar Panels that Carter had installed?

I think that one could say the Carter was an energy conservationist - not a waste.

"But the results of our latest military incursion into a foreign country should not be ignored. Those who dwell on pragmatic matters should pay close attention to the results so far.

Since March 2003 we have seen:

Death and destruction; 2,100 Americans killed and nearly 20,000 sick or wounded, plus tens of thousands of Iraqis caught in the crossfire;

A Shiite theocracy has been planted;

A civil war has erupted;

Iran’s arch nemesis, Saddam Hussein, has been removed;

Osama bin Laden’s arch nemesis, Saddam Hussein, has been removed;

Al Qaeda now operates freely in Iraq, enjoying a fertile training field not previously available to them;

Suicide terrorism, spurred on by our occupation, has significantly increased;

Our military industrial complex thrives in Iraq without competitive bids;

True national defense and the voluntary army have been undermined;

Personal liberty at home is under attack; assaults on free speech and privacy, national ID cards, the Patriot Act, National Security letters, and challenges to habeas corpus all have been promoted;

Values have changed, with more Americans supporting torture and secret prisons;

Domestic strife, as recently reflected in arguments over the war on the House floor, is on the upswing;

Pre-emptive war has been codified and accepted as legitimate and necessary, a bleak policy for our future;

The Middle East is far more unstable, and oil supplies are less secure, not more;

Historic relics of civilization protected for thousands of years have been lost in a flash while oil wells were secured;

U. S. credibility in the world has been severely damaged; and

The national debt has increased enormously, and our dependence on China has increased significantly as our federal government borrows more and more money.

How many more years will it take for civilized people to realize that war has no economic or political value for the people who fight and pay for it? Wars are always started by governments, and individual soldiers on each side are conditioned to take up arms and travel great distances to shoot and kill individuals that never meant them harm. Both sides drive their people into an hysterical frenzy to overcome their natural instinct to live and let live. False patriotism is used to embarrass the good-hearted into succumbing to the wishes of the financial and other special interests who agitate for war.

War reflects the weakness of a civilization that refuses to offer peace as an alternative.

This does not mean we should isolate ourselves from the world. On the contrary, we need more rather than less interaction with our world neighbors. We should encourage travel, foreign commerce, friendship, and exchange of ideas-- this would far surpass our misplaced effort to make the world like us through armed force. And this can be achieved without increasing the power of the state or accepting the notion that some world government is needed to enforce the rules of exchange. Governments should just get out of the way and let individuals make their own decisions about how they want to relate to the world.

Defending the country against aggression is a very limited and proper function of government. Our military involvement in the world over the past 60 years has not met this test, and we’re paying the price for it.

A policy that endorses peace over war, trade over sanctions, courtesy over arrogance, and liberty over coercion is in the tradition of the American Constitution and American idealism. It deserves consideration."

Re last night's shutdown: it seems to me that the problem revolves more around the method of "communication" that childish taunters and baiters like dipshit, assaroo and others use. Essentially their posts devolve into:

"That didn't happen."

Yes, it did.

This is then repeated, in various forms, 40-60 times on a single thread. (When one sees a thread with 180 or more "entries", it's a no-brainer that assaroo has been having a field day with the TLC gang).

No one needs to comment 60 times on a particular thread---it's an abuse of the site, ruins the thread for others, and simply demonstrates these posters' monstrous conceit and arrogance. Frankly, they need therapy.

So I guess what I'm wondering is can the technology limit a particular poster to a particular number of entries per thread? Say 8-10. That would stop the swift-boating and the contrarian baiters who are essentially here to frustrate the despised "liberals" and shit up the threads.

And Crape, you really have got to get over yourself. Do you really think this lame-ass, banal, platitudinous "conservative" shit you write is interesting to any intelligent person? God, you must hang out with fools if they can bear to put up with your repetitive, unoriginal blather.

Carp,

I would have to agree with snark that for the most part clinton governed as a moderate. Those times he attempted to swing hard to the left, he was beaten badly (universal healthcare), but the majority of the time he was in the middle, thus the term "triangulation" was coined.

So I guess what I'm wondering is can the technology limit a particular poster to a particular number of entries per thread?

No. It's an excellent idea, though.

it seems to me that all of this comes down to one question. Why NO oversight. Why does this administration feel that it cannot withstand oversight by any other branch of government. Republicans control congress. They've stacked the judiciary w/ conservative judges. If they quite literally own the government, then why can't they withstand the scrutiny of oversight? Repeat, Why no oversight from ANYONE? That's the real question that must be asked over and over.

You did not mention afganistan, but inferred you were with him on that.

Afghanistan? You're going to claim that as a Bush victory? Everyone and their brother was calling for war against Afghanistan after 9/11. So, we went and bombed the desert and the Taliban ran out of town. Osama bin Laden was long gone by the time we got there - not that he cared what we did to Afghanistan. Of course now that we've abandoned Afghanistan, the Taliban is coming back. I hear OBL is in Pakistan these days yet we consider Pakistan an ally?

why not just convert the site into a group that requires membership, they you can exclude anyone not a part of the liberal hate bush echo chamber. Otherwise flaming happens, it sucks, but it happens. GOW and others obviously like the ability to spew profanity at those they disagree with. Simply don't respond to those you don't want to talk to. I am quite sure that outsiders such as my self respond poorly to being abused by profane attacks and figure why not respond in kind. How you talk to someone (or not) can resolve over half of the problem.

why not just convert the site into a group that requires membership, they you can exclude anyone not a part of the liberal hate bush echo chamber.

You know redstate.org requires registration and states very clearly in their rules that you can only contribute positive comments towards their conservative agenda. Is that the model you were thinking of?

If liberals hated America.....we'd vote Republican!

Then my dear caliman, you will have to put up with my incessant, flippant, one liners!!

If the technology can't limit the number of postings per thread then declare there is a posting limit per thread and ban entirely any taunter and baiter that violates it.

caliman, your posts are not and never have been (to my obervation) the problem. You're always wrong, but you are able to communicate in a mature fashion---you can play well with others. These "problem posters" cannot.

I will even grant that they are quite good at infuriating others; indeed, at least one of them is quite a clever person. But his frequent goal here is baiting and taunting others and he derives pleasure from that.

Of course, just not responding to baiters can work as well.

Of course, just not responding to baiters can work as well.

I'm reformed.

Promise.

Ann,

You know redstate.org requires registration and states very clearly in their rules that you can only contribute positive comments towards their conservative agenda. Is that the model you were thinking of?

I was just pointing out your options. You can go to the extreem you pointed out or (a better choice in my mind) simply ignore those you don't want to talk to. Killing them with kindness so to speak. Those that are flamed by profanity most likely figure why not respond in kind. It's really a personal choice for everyone. Just pointing out the obvious.

why not just convert the site into a group that requires membership, they you can exclude anyone not a part of the liberal hate bush echo chamber. Otherwise flaming happens, it sucks, but it happens. GOW and others obviously like the ability to spew profanity at those they disagree with. Simply don't respond to those you don't want to talk to. I am quite sure that outsiders such as my self respond poorly to being abused by profane attacks and figure why not respond in kind. How you talk to someone (or not) can resolve over half of the problem.
Posted by caliman at January 20, 2006 08:24 AM

*****

I spew profanity at traitors and enablers/apologists for a criminal regime.

I am more than willing to civilly discuss a myriad of issues, from economics to religion to international affairs.

I will not, however, grant the privelege of civilized discourse to those who come on here and lambast patriotic Americans in the name of a criminal regime.

Those of that ilk deserve destruction, not courtesy.

euzoius

I declare that the world is round!

Now you can't say i'm always wrong ;)

Last post was mine

GOW.........well put.

GOW,

Like i said, it's your choice. Freedom of speech and all that. But like I said, for every action there is often an equal and profanity laced reaction.

I declare that the world is round!

Let's hope it's not the last time!

That you're right that is.

I declare that the world is round!

The transnational corpratists say that it is flat. Then again, they are in favor of 14th century working conditions aren't they? It all fits together.

Anybody starting out his discourse with a question, is baiting, plain and simple. It happens way to much. IMO, it's not genuine in the course of debate.
The "kiling them with kindness", comes off as phony and condescending, be real.

BTW, your fucking right, GOW!

We know that George W. has been spying on us illegally by bypassing the FISA courts, however I'm wondering if anybody has bothered to ask, or can know, if he uses the FISA court at all? Is there any way to know the current number of FISA warrants executed during the last 4 years vs. a prior time period?

jim, josh marshall did a comprehensive overview of the number of FISA warrants (talkingpointsmemo.com). about a month ago IIRC.

Back to the topic at hand.

With the issuance of this outrageous, lunatic, extremist nonsense by the DOJ advocating that Nero Jr is constitutionally empowered to do literally anything he wishes in conducting the "worre on terra" (no limits are identified), the Justice Department has abdicated its role as an objective analyst of the law, and become utterly an advocate and apologist for Nero Jr.

If we do not get the Congress to demand a special counsel to investigate this lawbreaking by the president, as Gore demanded, an American form of dictatorship will arise.

How any Republican member of Congress feels like anything but a shivering, neutered, beaten dog cowering at the legs of BushCo. at this point is beyond me. It's shameful the abdication of duty that is taking place in this country.

Dear Carpediem,

I apologize, I do not know what happened to my earlier post at 7:54 am. I must have hit post before finishing attribution of the quote.

I wanted to offer you a quote from just one more of the "America Haters."

Let me reattempt this:

"But the results of our latest military incursion into a foreign country should not be ignored. Those who dwell on pragmatic matters should pay close attention to the results so far.

Since March 2003 we have seen:

Death and destruction; 2,100 Americans killed and nearly 20,000 sick or wounded, plus tens of thousands of Iraqis caught in the crossfire;

A Shiite theocracy has been planted;

A civil war has erupted;

Iran’s arch nemesis, Saddam Hussein, has been removed;

Osama bin Laden’s arch nemesis, Saddam Hussein, has been removed;

Al Qaeda now operates freely in Iraq, enjoying a fertile training field not previously available to them;

Suicide terrorism, spurred on by our occupation, has significantly increased;

Our military industrial complex thrives in Iraq without competitive bids;

True national defense and the voluntary army have been undermined;

Personal liberty at home is under attack; assaults on free speech and privacy, national ID cards, the Patriot Act, National Security letters, and challenges to habeas corpus all have been promoted;

Values have changed, with more Americans supporting torture and secret prisons;

Domestic strife, as recently reflected in arguments over the war on the House floor, is on the upswing;

Pre-emptive war has been codified and accepted as legitimate and necessary, a bleak policy for our future;

The Middle East is far more unstable, and oil supplies are less secure, not more;

Historic relics of civilization protected for thousands of years have been lost in a flash while oil wells were secured;

U. S. credibility in the world has been severely damaged; and

The national debt has increased enormously, and our dependence on China has increased significantly as our federal government borrows more and more money.

How many more years will it take for civilized people to realize that war has no economic or political value for the people who fight and pay for it? Wars are always started by governments, and individual soldiers on each side are conditioned to take up arms and travel great distances to shoot and kill individuals that never meant them harm. Both sides drive their people into an hysterical frenzy to overcome their natural instinct to live and let live. False patriotism is used to embarrass the good-hearted into succumbing to the wishes of the financial and other special interests who agitate for war.

War reflects the weakness of a civilization that refuses to offer peace as an alternative."

-HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS (R)
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
December 7, 2005

Sincerely,
Michael Moore

Just curious ...
Let's assume that the 'looney-left' exists and that it 'controls the party.' And for the sake of argument let's pretend that they get mad as hell, won't take it anymore and elect Michael Moore President in 2008!
Now ... oh I don't know ... when Michael Moore's FBI demands that your local library supply them with a list of the books you checked out will you still be writing posts insisting that the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act is such a good idea? Because, you know, the War on Terrorism, according to the current Administration, will last for generations and, given the Justice Depatment's opinions, the President retains powers during war that over ride everyone else's.
Now ... when Michael Moore's FBI determines that you have checked out and thus been contaminated by the ideas in ... oh I don't know ... Atlas Shrugged and The Turner Diaries and the then President, using the powers granted him by the current President, decides to label you an Enemy Combatant, will you still be writing posts insisting upon the President's inherent infallibility?
Now ... when Michael Moore's CIA ... oh I don't know ... rendites you into the tender mercies of one of our stalwart allies will you still be writing posts (carved with a nail in your cell wall) declaring that that that President, pursuant to the Congress' authorization to use force, is doing something that liberals should agree with?
And now ... when Michael Moore's erstwhile lackeys ... oh I don't know ... are cranking electricity into you will you being screaming at the top of your voice your praise for how that President has decided to conduct our country's affairs?
... or will you be whimpering that you deserve the rights and freedoms our Founding Fathers so wisely crafted for us?
OK ... story time has ended.
It seems to me that the Magna Carta was pressed upon the English king not to protect Englishmen from the Germans or French or Chinese but rather to protect them from their own government.
It seems to me that the Declaration of Independence was written not to protest the treatment of Englishmen by the Germans or French or Chineses but rather to protest their treatment by their own government.
It seems to me that the Bill of Rights was not added to the Constitution to protect Americans from the Germans or French or Chinese but rather to protect them from their own government.
It seems to me that the basis of centuries of Anglo-American law is the realistic understanding that the greatest danger to citizens comes not from external enemies but from their own government.
Yes ... the language used at this site and others ... on both sides of the aisle ... is sometimes uncivil and extreme ... that emotions frequently run hot ... we're human beings, after all, not rocks ... but it seems to me that the core issue for those of us who 'agree' with the general thrust of the commentator's at this site is that power corrupts. We remember, as our opponent's seem to forget, that absolute power, whether in the hands of a Bush or a Roosevelt or a Truman, will be used absolutely. If you give a man a tool, no matter how saintly he is, he will use it. The only way for free people to remain free is to jealously guard our freedoms ... to never give them away because we may not be able to regain them ... and to allow their abridgement only sparingly and only in the most extreme circumstances. It has been ever thus and more than once before free men have become slaves for failing to fight tyranny.

Well said Paul.

I think this is apropos;

First They Came For the Jews.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller

Bravo, Paul! Eloquent, even.

The Reactionary Right cannot perform even the simplest thought experiment:

"How would you, as a "conservative", have reacted if Bill Clinton had admitted undertaking these FISA violations?"

Try to be honest with yourself, shitbrain rightwingers.

"Your party has not won a Presidential Election in I dont' remember when."

Jeeze Carp, you make it sound like we haven't held the Presidency in 40 decades. LOL

I am going to try to ignore the trolls. However, my parting question to Carp is why do you believe that liberals hate America? What do you base that belief on. When you are ready to give me a legitimate answer, let me know.

Oaklander, I am very disturbed by any organization or company that gives out my personal information without my knowledge or permission. We have become a Country where our personal lives are continuously being invaded by those who seek personal information. When I am asked to give my phone number, I refuse or give a phony number. When asked what my social security number is, I tell the person asking that I will not give them the account number to my retirement fund, and in fact, it is illegal for you to ask. Google has challenged the Justice Department on behalf of those of us who use their site, and justifiably so.

In case anyone here did not know this.

"Federal law protects you from being compelled, even by the state, to use your Social Security number for identification purposes, and substantial risks are involved in giving out your confidential Federal Retirement Account Number to everyone who asks."

This message is to crappie-day and his ilk, although I doubt he has a real answer...

Please let me know - what has Bush done that is so great?

I'm very sorry you voted for him, but the time has come to face facts. Everyone here is open minded and understands that everyone makes mistakes. It's not your fault. Please join us in moving forward and repairing the damage we have all incurred.

I and many others are not a "looney left", screaming and hollering. Do you read the posts? What do you consider those of us in the middle? The "LOONEY MIDDLE" - screaming/hollering/traitorous centrist heathens?

I for one am tired of hearing that kind of crap... I also feel sorry for REAL and NORMAL Republicans that are concerned about fiscal responsibility and smaller government. Especially when you have this complete idiot speaking for you.

I start to shake. I understand why God of War types what he does - He's fed the F**K up! I'm about to take Aikido to deal with my tension - at least he doesn't have to go that far.

You're a goon. What in your opinion did Carter or Clinton do right? You capped on Carter and want us to consider what Bush has done right? puleeeze. Carter still has interests and finds meaning in his life - Bush is still looking for his first meaning... or feeling...

Hi Jorge, Google this, "George Bush is a worthless chump".

Thank you, President Bush, for creating the "no call" list. Telemarketing was a grievous invasion of our privacy. We know how concearned you are for our sacred privacy, keep up the good work. Now , could you please use your "Supreme Commander of the Universe" unlimeted, unquestioned power to inflict universal health care on the masses, whether they want it, or not?

Ann: You forgot to mention the all time record opium crop in Afghanistan. Yer do'in a heck of a job, Bushie!

euzoius: Isn't the world an ELLIPTICAL sphere? (As a member of the "Flat Earth Society" it is a moot point)

Thank you, Leftcoaster, for many salient points regarding John Kerry. Let's not waste the great resources we have in the party any longer. As a letter to editor said:

Dear Editor,

American society/culture has been accused of being a disposable one at least since the 1950s. Our craven surrender to throwaway packaging, diapers, lighters, cameras, and so forth; shallow entertainment; and even acceptance of the planned obsolescence of what should be durable products such as automobiles, certainly bears this judgement out.

Not content to get rid of only inanimate things prematurely, far too many Americans are willing and even eager to dispense with talented, useful individuals merely because they have lost their novelty value, or, in the case of political candidates, their cachet has been devalued due to losing an election. The puerile, mocking signs that insulted, quite unfairly, winning candidates Gore and Lieberman, calling them "Sore-Loserman" after the shamefully unethical 2000 Supreme Court ruling, sums up the situation. "Citizens" who took that churlish view betrayed their intellectual inadequacy.

Having totally wasted a wonderful asset in Vice President Gore, someone who not only would have handled the Sept. 11 mess far more intelligently than did Bush, and who would have prevented the rollback of environmental protections carried out by Bush's corporate cronies, we are now on the road to wasting another fine choice for national leader, simply because of the absurd
notion that having "lost" once (a moot point) makes a candidate less likely to win in future. Something not really accurate, given Nixon's famous comeback.

As news-people continually harp on the idea of a Clinton/Rice or Clinton/McCain contest, mainly because they think it would be "fun" to cover it, there is a dangerous risk that we will neglect the truly qualified candidate: Sen. John Kerry. Besides the fact that he was already well-suited to lead our nation
before the campaign of 2004, that race gave him even more credibility and valuable experience. To think we might "throw him away," out of childish scorn for past "losers," is a tragic idea.

Pay attention, America, and try to use your brain next time!

Sincerely,

Eileen Fay

Kind of strange that OBL comes out on 1/19, turn it around it's 911. These numbers are turning into something.