When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 34% approve and 60% disapprove.
Shocking. 3/5ths of Americans don't realize that the American economy is kicking ass!
Posted by dj moonbat at January 23, 2006 12:31 PMWe must remember that George W Bush won't be running again in 2007. He'll be back clearing brush on his ranch in Texas. So I'm not sure why this poll would mean all that much.
Posted by avaroo at January 23, 2006 12:41 PMavaroo,
Bush and the GOP are one in the same. Name one Republican who has not been a rubber stamp. Of course, they are all claiming now that they have been critical but it's funny that no one can find a record of them being critical. See Santorum, Rick.
"Bush and the GOP are one in the same."
That's no more true than it would be to say that Kerry and the dems are one and the same.
Let's be realistic here.
Posted by avaroo at January 23, 2006 12:46 PMAvaroo,
Name one Republican who has bucked Bush. Bet you can't. They have been rubber stamping the moron all over the place. Of course now, that's he unpopular, they "claim" that they aren't rubber stamps but the record shows differently.
"Name one Republican who has bucked Bush."
John McCain. On a number of issues.
Bush doesn't equal all republicans any more than Clinton does all dems.
Posted by avaroo at January 23, 2006 12:55 PMIt seems to me that the Republicans spent a lot of time and effort attacking Bill Clinton after he had been elected to a second term. They seemed to think opposing him was a political winner. And it seems to have worked out for them.
Opposing the unpopular and often illegal policies of George Bush, and pointing out (endlessly) his multitudinous and abject failures is good politics.
Even better, it's essential for the health of our democracy.
Posted by euzoius at January 23, 2006 12:59 PMMcCain slops from the same trough as bu$hco. Don't let his smile fool you!
Posted by bbtb at January 23, 2006 12:59 PMCertainly Trent Lott has been critical of the administration on some things
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4794-2004Dec16.html
Posted by avaroo at January 23, 2006 01:02 PMBush doesn't equal all republicans any more than Clinton does all dems.
But a heckuva lot of people voted for Bush because they didn't like Clinton. I can't tell you how many times I responded to my brother, "Um, Clinton's not running....."
Posted by ann at January 23, 2006 01:02 PM"But a heckuva lot of people voted for Bush because they didn't like Clinton."
Bush never ran against Clinton. GW Bush anyway
Posted by avaroo at January 23, 2006 01:03 PMOpposing Clinton WAS a political winner, at least opposing his record. But remember, the country wasn't at war when Clinton was president, it was before 9/11. That changed everything.
Posted by avaroo at January 23, 2006 01:05 PMBush never ran against Clinton. GW Bush anyway
That's my point. Bush won't be running in 2008, but I do know quite a few people who will be voting Democratic for the first time in response to Bush's incompetent job. Guilt by association works in this country.
Posted by ann at January 23, 2006 01:08 PMHey do you guys know your trackbacks are broken?
Posted by Jamison at January 23, 2006 01:08 PM"That's my point."
hmmmm, no. You said...."But a heckuva lot of people voted for Bush because they didn't like Clinton."
There was never a choice between GW Bush and Clinton.
avaroo, I'm not arguing with you on this one. If you can't get it, that's your problem.
No, GWBush and Clinton never ran against each other. But my brother stated his reason for voting for Bush because he didn't like Clinton. So, tell it to my brother.
Posted by ann at January 23, 2006 01:20 PM"But my brother stated his reason for voting for Bush because he didn't like Clinton."
Your brother really shouldn't even be voting if he doesn't know who's running. Neither should anyone else.
Posted by avaroo at January 23, 2006 01:22 PMI'll also add that many people at Microsoft voted for Bush because of the MS anti-trust lawsuit. They blamed the Clinton administration for the lawsuit even though Clinton wasn't running. Guilt by association.
Posted by ann at January 23, 2006 01:26 PMFrom Deborah Howell...
But it is profoundly distressing if political discourse has sunk to a level where abusive name-calling and the crudest of sexual language are the norm, where facts have no place in an argument. This unbounded, unreasoning rage is not going to help this newspaper, this country or democracy.
It's a shame you allow People like God of War to continue onthis BLOG but BAN me. It is typical -- silent those who disagree and silence all debate!!!
Wallow in IGNORANCE!!
Posted by Roof at January 23, 2006 01:28 PM9/11 appears not to have changed the Republicans' style of attack politics.
Unless it made them even more vicious and untruthful. I can't tell.
Posted by euzoius at January 23, 2006 01:30 PMIt's tough for me to recall the last time I came across somebody so dishonestly argumentative as 'roo. A veritable anti-Socrates, that one.
Posted by dj moonbat at January 23, 2006 01:32 PMYep, you're a shining beacon of enlightenment, Doof.
Posted by euzoius at January 23, 2006 01:33 PMthe six posts WAPO and Deborah Howell don't want you to see
Now, why wouldn't they want you to see these? Because there's nothing "crude" or "sexual" about them. I don't even see any swearing. And certainly no abusive name-calling.
Posted by ann at January 23, 2006 01:35 PMOh, wait, one person used the word, "bitch."
Posted by ann at January 23, 2006 01:36 PMroo, You have nothing of value to say...You admitted poser you....as if anyone here is going to actually take anything you post here seriously....yeah right. Play your "argue with yourself and then pat yourself on the back for doing so" schtick on some other blog. You're boring, dull and your pathetic little semantic word games and debate tactics are no longer amusing and are quite predictable....yawn....
The only one you seem to be impressing/amusing is yourself here, but that is the only one! What a loser,you're the only one here getting a kick out of yourelf.
Oh, and ROOF, check the comment section on:
Pushing Back Against The Rove Lie Machine On The NSA Spying
Lots of debate and disagreement going on there.
Posted by ann at January 23, 2006 01:38 PMD'oh post at 1:37 is mine!
Roo you really need to get a life and quit playing with yourself so much.
We were banning ROOF? When did we do that, when he provides so much entertainment? And what happened to your middle caps ROOF?
Posted by Steve Soto at January 23, 2006 01:42 PMRemember, 'roo says that they're 50 states, including commonwealths.
Posted by rlp at January 23, 2006 01:44 PMApparently we are supposed to think that what people think about a President or what they believe might happen economically will actually trump how they feel about their own congressional representatives and how the economy actually does over the next few months. Oh and yes, Steve... sorry to tell you but congressional districts that are paved for a 70% victory for the incumbent will matter more come election time than the Bush approval rating.
But all of this would actually have a point if Bush was running for reelection and the Democrats were actually going to run on the economy. But he isn't and they aren't. So what we have is a lot of gloating about low approvals at the same time that Bush's Supreme Court nominee is getting ready to be confirmed.
Take your poll and I will take Roberts and Alito running the court for the next few decades. (and Ginsburgh and Stevens are both up in age - hope they make it another 3 years)
What do you suppose 'really' matters more?
Posted by C.H. Truth at January 23, 2006 01:47 PM50 states? wait a minute.....yup 50.
Posted by avaroo at January 23, 2006 01:48 PM"But all of this would actually have a point if Bush was running for reelection and the Democrats were actually going to run on the economy."
That's what people don't seem to understand. It only matters who the incumbent is if he/she can run again. Pointing out that people who vote against someone who isn't even running are not bright enough to even be voting shouldn't be all that subversive.
Posted by avaroo at January 23, 2006 01:50 PMOpposing Clinton WAS a political winner, at least opposing his record. But remember, the country wasn't at war when Clinton was president, it was before 9/11. That changed everything.
Posted by avaroo at January 23, 2006 01:05 PM
9/11 changed everyting ONLY if you're a bedwetting coward willing to throw away your civil liberties at the first sign of difficulty.
You fucking GOP sissies.
Posted by God Of War at January 23, 2006 01:55 PM"9/11 changed everyting ONLY if you're a bedwetting coward willing to throw away your civil liberties at the first sign of difficulty."
or if you had a relative who jumped out of the WTC or saw the people who did so on TV. AND you're not an imbecile, of course.
Posted by avaroo at January 23, 2006 02:09 PMSure... bed wetting liberals - running from the 2nd amendment all day long because they are afraid of a few law abiding citizens carrying a gun.
But lord forbid anyone would take away the rights of known terror suspects to talk to international terrorists in private. That would be a violation of the 4th amendments protection from unreasonable search and seizure... which of course doesn't protect the rights of an individual to not have their property seized by the government under emminent domain. (Thanks liberal justices!!) Certainly listening in on terror plots is unreasonable?
I guess it's all in who's rights you want to protect? The rights of law abiding American citizens... or the rights of known terrorists and their contacts.
Posted by C.H. Truth at January 23, 2006 02:15 PMi agree..the gop is a party of sissies...scaredy cat little shivering bastards...willing to follow that coward fraud in the white house letting him take away all the liberties brave men and women have died for...bush..cheney..rove..on and on chickenhawks all...they are repulsive and so is anyone who follows..it is a party of cowards
Posted by dennis at January 23, 2006 02:16 PM...running from the 2nd amendment all day long because they are afraid of a few law abiding citizens carrying a gun.
Who's trying to keep law abiding citizens from carrying a gun?
Posted by snark at January 23, 2006 02:18 PMroo, did you know anyone in the WTC on 9/11? I did, Tower One, and he died. I'm not interested in giving up any civil liberties, and he would be the last person to want me to. He was no imbecile and neither am I. So, please don't invoke 9/11 in any attempt to justify a government invasion into my life.
Posted by ann at January 23, 2006 02:22 PMI'm sorry... did I end up on the only anti-gun-control liberal site on the blogosphere?
Or is this just some more moving with the issues, abandon gun control Democrats to show everyone that we suddenly care about the constitution deal??
Posted by C.H. Truth at January 23, 2006 02:25 PMann...
thats exactly what they have been doing since the day they let 9/11 happen
Posted by dennis at January 23, 2006 02:26 PM"roo, did you know anyone in the WTC on 9/11?"
yes
"I'm not interested in giving up any civil liberties"
I'm not either
Posted by avaroo at January 23, 2006 02:26 PMSay Ann... unless you happen to have an Uncle in the Al Qaeda organization... the Government couldn't give a rat's ass about what you do in your private life.
Posted by C.H. Truth at January 23, 2006 02:27 PMunless you happen to have an Uncle in the Al Qaeda organization... the Government couldn't give a rat's ass about what you do in your private life.
How do you know? Do you have a list of who they've been spying on? Don't tell me you *gasp* trust the government. Let me guess, you don't trust them with your social security money but you trust them to tell you the truth about their secret spying program? That's so naive, it's just precious.
Posted by ann at January 23, 2006 02:31 PMI'm sorry... did I end up on the only anti-gun-control liberal site on the blogosphere?
Have you read something about gun control here?
And gun control is not what you wrote. You wrote that people were "afraid of a few law abiding citizens carrying guns."
Gun control seeks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Do you have a problem with background checks? After all if you have nothing to hide why not allow a background check for anyone wanting to buy a gun? It's no different than allowing the government to monitor the phone conversations of people making international calls. They may catch a few would be terrorists. Background checks may prevent a few gun crimes.
Posted by snark at January 23, 2006 02:32 PM...if you had a relative who jumped out of the WTC or saw the people who did so on TV. AND you're not an imbecile...Posted by avarooI trust you are not referring to someone reading My Pet Goat while those poor souls were jumping. I mean someone who did nothing to prevent 9-11, who sat idly by while the tragedy was occurring, and who ran like a scared rabbit after? Posted by Mike at January 23, 2006 02:33 PM
"How do you know?"
your private life just isn't that interesting
"Do you have a list of who they've been spying on?"
Wouldn't that kind of defeat the purpose of spying if everyone knew who they were targeting?
"Don't tell me you *gasp* trust the government."
Don't tell me you *gasp* trust the terrorists
"Let me guess, you don't trust them with your social security money"
what social security money? I'll never see a penny of SS
"but you trust them to tell you the truth about their secret spying program?"
I don't even WANT them to tell anyone about their secret spying program. The word SECRET is the giveaway.
Posted by avaroo at January 23, 2006 02:36 PMActually Ann... they do have a list. You should read the book from the guy who 'blew the whistle'... They went through the information on those terrorist that they captured after 9-11. They checked phone records, email correspondence, etc... and came up with about 7000 people.
According to the whistle blower about 500 lived in the United States (oddly he never states that they are US citizens, just that they live here).
Those 500 are who the NSA has been listening in on. As I am sure you know (cough cough) the President has renewed this program every 45 days and briefed congressional leadership on numerous occasions.
Of course... I understand that a second program will be enacted to start monitoring Left Coaster commenters who are deemed to have no clue. You are a dead ringer for that program, so watch out, big brother will be watching you!!!
Posted by C.H. Truth at January 23, 2006 02:36 PMfrom ABC News:
President Bush has admitted that he gave orders that allowed the NSA to eavesdrop on a small number of Americans without the usual requisite warrants.
But Russell Tice disagrees. He says the number of Americans subject to eavesdropping by the NSA could be in the millions if the full range of secret NSA programs is used.
"That would mean for most Americans that if they conducted, or you know, placed an overseas communication, more than likely they were sucked into that vacuum," Tice said.
Posted by ann at January 23, 2006 02:42 PM....and briefed congressional leadership on numerous occasions.
As I am sure you are aware, Bush did not ask if he could spy, he simply told a very few in the congressional leadership what he was doing. He also told them they could not tell anyone about the spying. Many in the congressional leadership disagreed with what Bush was doing and told him so.
Posted by ann at January 23, 2006 02:45 PM"As I am sure you are aware, Bush did not ask if he could spy"
He didn't have to. How many Americans think the President CAN'T spy on our enemies?
"he simply told a very few in the congressional leadership what he was doing."
yup, that's what he did
"He also told them they could not tell anyone about the spying."
maybe to keep it, you know, a SECRET?
"Many in the congressional leadership disagreed with what Bush was doing and told him so."
Not that they can prove, they didn't.
Posted by avaroo at January 23, 2006 02:54 PMGee Ann... that is what a brief is.
Read Article 2 section 2 of the constitution. Matters that refer to the President acting as CIC are exclusive to the exectutive branch other than in the areas of treaties and certain appointees.
He only briefs congress to be polite and to basically follow constitutionally questionable laws created by the legislative branch to call for judicial branch oversight in areas that are specifically entrusted to the exectutive branch in the constitution.
Btw... Snark. I am not a gun nut. In fact I agree with most gun laws. But that is not the point. The 2nd amendment guarantees the right to own guns as a matter that would allow militias. What that means is that a citizen has the right (according to the 2nd amendment) to carry the sort of arms that would allow him/her to fight along side our own army (or against our own army if need be). You don't do that with a hunting rifle. Ask yourself how your Democratic leaders who are so all over individual freedoms have voted on gun control when it comes to automatic weapons and the like.
The truth is that gun control is a classic expample of our leaders putting public safety ahead of the explicit rights given in the constitution. Right wrong or indifferent, it is a precedent set... mostly by the Democrats. So it's simply disengenuine to be a Democrat who quotes Ben Franklin on freedoms or pretends that freedom is more important than public safety. Unless they are planning on joining up with the NRA and pushing to remove all gun control laws.
Posted by C.H. Truth at January 23, 2006 02:54 PMIf it's any consolation, ann, I'm sure that every al qaeda member is also against NSA spying.
Posted by avaroo at January 23, 2006 02:57 PMJuly 17, 2003
Dear Mr. Vice President,
I am writing to reiterate my concern regarding the sensitive intelligence issues we discussed today with the DCI, DIRNSA, and Chairman Roberts and our House Intelligence Committee counterparts.
Clearly the activities we discussed raise profound oversight issues. As you know, I am neither a technician or an attorney. Given the security restrictions associated with this information, and my inability to consult staff or counsel on my own, I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse these activities.
As I reflected on the meeting today, and the future we face, John Poindexter's TIA project sprung to mind, exacerbating my concern regarding the direction the Administration is moving with regard to security, technology, and surveiliance.
Without more information and the ability to draw on any independent legal or techical expertise, I simply cannot satisfy lingering concerns raised by the briefing we received.
I am retaining a copy of this letter in a sealed envelope in the secure spaces of the Senate Intelligence Committee to ensure that I have a record of this communication.
I appreciate your consideration of my views.
Most respectfully,
Jay Rockefeller
Rockefeller isn't "disagreeing with what Bush is doing" as you claimed. In fact he specifically says..."As you know, I am neither a technician or an attorney. Given the security restrictions associated with this information, and my inability to consult staff or counsel on my own, I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse these activities."
If he can't even evalutae the activities, then he surely cannot disgaree with them. THINK BEFORE YOU POST
Now, do you have anything from anyone who was briefed that says they actually disagree with what the administration was doing or are you ready to admit that no one can actually prove they said any such thing when they were actually briefed?
Posted by avaroo at January 23, 2006 03:04 PMThe guy can't testify before Congress!
Posted by bbtb at January 23, 2006 03:09 PMSteve,
I agree that allowing the trolls can be interesting. But this is an excellent example of what can happen when they descend en masse on a thread. I fail to find anyting interesting or illuminating in their posts.
One thing I really like about your site is the fact that you allow diverse opinions. Sometimes, though, it's truly counterproductive. No suggestions, just an observation.
Roof, you never debated an issue in your life on this Blog. All you do is snip and run away like the coward you are.
Posted by Judith at January 23, 2006 03:26 PM"9/11 changed everyting ONLY if you're a bedwetting coward willing to throw away your civil liberties at the first sign of difficulty."
or if you had a relative who jumped out of the WTC or saw the people who did so on TV. AND you're not an imbecile, of course.
that's why bush is so beloved in new york. as i've said before, if bush ran for reelection on 9/12/01, he still wouldn't have had a prayer of carrying NY. my dead buddy (r.i.p. darren) would have been fighting the chimp just as i am, and not just because the chimp let it happen, let the perp get away and continues to play kissy-face with the terror-lovin sauds.
fucking bedwetters. many of them live in places a terrorist couldn't find on a map, and they're the experts.
what do you call someone who uses fear to advance their agenda? there must be a word for it . . .
Posted by benjoya at January 23, 2006 03:27 PMYeah, and now we have a new troll, C.H. Truthiness.
Posted by Judith at January 23, 2006 03:46 PMNSA monitoring details from inside the NSA... http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2006/01/hayden012306.pdf
Posted by at January 23, 2006 03:58 PM...running from the 2nd amendment all day long because they are afraid of a few law abiding citizens carrying a gun.
i am a progressive, but W's misadministration has made me a firm believer in the loosest possible interpretation of the Second Amendment. If we are not able to keep arms, how will we take our country back if these neo-fascists further debase our constitution and rig future elections via electronic voting?
Posted by david ramsauer at January 23, 2006 04:10 PMBy CH Lies analogy the NRA is a terrorist organization. After all, they helped instate laws that made it easy for Osama's minions to buy AK 47's. Must be the fault of the NRA that the those copters are being shot down in Iraq.
What a bunch of knee jerk fundamentalist cowards! I laugh at them constantly! All we need is Toby here to discuss his search for WMD's in Syria. LOL!
If you are concerned about the ignorant voting, then you must be awfully concerned about the fundamentalists who showed up in 2004 because they believed that Jr. was the second coming of Christ! LOL! You can take away about 6 million plus votes with that one!
Posted by Ga6thDem at January 23, 2006 04:13 PMBenjoya,
Jr. should go stand on a street corner in NYC and see what would happen. How many NYCer's would be trying to rip him to shreds because of his incompetence. Osama still on the loose. Little ninny coward would never do something like that. He's a scared little boy who needs his daddy! waaaaa
I don't normally comment on polls but since Osama seems to be getting the impression they matter, just a quick note... the results in this poll are the opinions of 1,100 people spread across the Continental US which has in excess of 200,000,000 people. In other words regardless of what the authors of the poll claim - it is a statistically meaningless sample. (a .0000055% sample) Change 11 people's answers and the numbers jump by 1%, but the authors claim they are accurate to within 3%... for example I find it interesting that they sample a much higher % of democrats then republicans, 4% difference in fact which means that if they call 44 more republicans to even up the #'s and they get the existing 78% approval (that they say is accurate to within 3%) his percentage will jump by 3+% or just outside their supposed margin of error.
BTW, I like the economic survey was done over the period of the dow's latest hiccup... don't expect those numbers to last longer then a week or two. I realize you'd like Osama to mention your polls again Steve - but most of America is learning just how meaningless such polls are and laughing when people try to use them to make bad policy. We've grown past the "Well maybe I'm the only one who thinks that's a bad idea." stage of poll reaction.
Posted by OutsideTheEchoChamber at January 23, 2006 04:26 PMStv, dn't gt ll xctd bt lttl Bsh's lw nmbrs. Ths gys hv ll ths psd/qs ‘thnk’ tnks, ll crprt snctnd mplys wth svrl PhD, Lw, Mdcl, nd mst prbbly bsnss dgrs (tht ll hv n thng n cmmn: lck f cmmn sns nd vr-th-tp g drvs, whch mns tht thy r bght nd pd fr jst lk ny thr pppt: ndvdl, gvrnmnt, whr, r thrws), tht cntnsly psh t th ppr. ll th rms f ppr dd p t n g-ld pltcl dcptn ndr th lbl, ‘t b sd n th vnt f lw pplrty.’ Brfly, crt th ‘scl mrgncy’ s tht ll th frdy-cts, (r r-hd vtrs) wll rlly rnd th flg nd fllw th rwlln ldr f th dy vr th clff. My bg wrry s tht f lttl Bsh ht’s th lw 30’s, thn w my hv smthng lk th Hymrkt ffr tht lnchs s nt ttl wr wth th srvvng grlls nd thr dnkys n bth rq nd whtvr thy s fr trnsprttn n rn. Rmmbr, th stks r strnmcl: th l brrl prc wll sn b s hgh tht r crn-wmn wll b wrng ly scrvs rnd thr ncks, wrsts nd nkls, t shw hw sxy thy thnk thy r, whlst thrwng thr gld n th sm hp s thr wrthlss Fdrl Rsrv Nts.
Ths gys r mst srs; thy hv th msss f vtrs lrdy prmd nt dlsnl md wth ll th scl crp, (tlvsn, flm fntss nd th dstrctn f th nstttns f fmly, rlgn, mrrg, dctn, tc) s tht nc r vtrs ntr nt th bgy-mn mnd-st, thy wll lk t wh t trst? r gvrnmnt! Th vry srvnts f th crprtns tht stnd t prft. Nw, tht’s dmcrcy.
Dn’t lk t r fft Dmcrts t hlp th wrkng ppl; thy r ccntbl t n vry smll grp: th crprt lgrchy. nyn n th Hll tht dsn’t ndrstnd ths fct s cmpltly wtht th blty t grsp bstrctns rtchtd slghtly hghr, (ths mns tht thy fxtd pn th blf tht thr nly rsn fr xstnc s t ps s f thy knw smthng!). Jst grt; mjrty tyrnny f th vtrs n ctn.
"....and amazingly, even as exit polling indicates a Democratic sweep, the Republican Party has triumphed again...."
Courtesy of ES&S and Diebold.
Posted by brisa at January 23, 2006 05:03 PMA total of 14% of Americans say the national economy is getting better, which is down from 30% in December and 52% say the national economy is getting worse, which is up from 40% in December. When asked about the national economy a year from now, 15% say it will be better, which is down from 28% in December, and 62% say it will be worse, which is up from 39% in December.
Well, the media keeps telling us day in and day out about how horrible the economy is. It looks like folks are watching the news on their HDTVs and broadband internet connections, before they head out to the Outback Steakhouse for dinner, and believing that this is the worst economy since Hoover. If you repeat a lie often enough, I guess folks will believe it.
Of course, the reality is exactly the opposite. We're in the longest economic expansion EVER.
Posted by muckdog at January 23, 2006 05:07 PMIt is typical -- silent those who disagree and silence all debate!!!
Shhh!
C.H. Truthiness = Al Qaeda It's a simple connection to make. These guys are like flowers. God put them here for us to enjoy, then cut at the roots and hang upside down to dry.
The results presented here are based on 1,100 completed telephone interviews
That explains why the results are so skewed. The average Bushco supporter can't pay their phone bill, especially since the crack down on meth labs.
Posted by phidipides at January 23, 2006 05:08 PMUh, scout, could I introduce you to the concept of paragraphs? Or, like, a theme? I mean, really, I can't tell if you're saying something interesting or stupid, you bounce around so much. Does anyone here read "scoutese?"
I'm sure that every al qaeda member is also against NSA spying.
Actually, moron, I'm sure AQ had figured they were being monitored long before it finally dawned on you. In fact, Orrin Hatch spilled the beans on 9-11, but I don't hear anyone reporting that little factoid. It's how Clinton caught the guys who blew up the WTC the first time. We're still waiting for Bush to catch the guy who did it the second time, or any terrorists at all, with his little spy game. Doesn't seem to be very effective at all, unless you count on a guy in Bumfuck, Nebraska who's gonna knock down the Brooklyn Bridge with a blowtorch.
As for the SECRET being leaked, bfd. The real scandal would be if Bush weren't monitoring terrorists; that would be a real secret, wouldn't it? The scandal would be if Cheney and gang were monitoring people not associated with terror, people actually against the war... Well, whaddaya know?
Finally, I think AQ is delighted about the NSA spying. Bush is always saying Osama hates our freedoms, and to watch our country start whittling away our rights is a delight to everyone who hates the US.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 23, 2006 05:11 PM. We're in the longest economic expansion EVER.
Not unless you call the largest spending bill the same as economic expansion. Your buddy has borrowed more money than anyone in the history of this country.
I guess people are starting to realize that you can't trust a republican with money.
We're in the longest economic expansion EVER.
Yeah, I guess that non recessionary period form 1961 to 1969 doesn't count anymore. How long's this "great" economy been going muck, three years? It's only got 5 more to go to match the boom that was the sixties.
Posted by rlp at January 23, 2006 05:34 PMIt looks like folks are watching the news on their HDTVs and broadband internet connections, before they head out to the Outback Steakhouse for dinner,
All on credit and the bills are coming due.
Posted by phidipides at January 23, 2006 05:52 PMRead over at kos that USA/Gallup poll said that 58% wanted/supported an independent prosecutor to investigate Bush's illegal spying.
fucking bedwetters. many of them live in places a terrorist couldn't find on a map, and they're the experts.
Absolutely true. No terrorist gives a fuck about Dogpatch, Idaho.
Oh yeah, and for all you tough guy Bush supporters, you should know thanks to the NRA even the most bleeding heart liberal has guns, and knows how to use them.
Posted by Monica at January 23, 2006 06:34 PMOne thing Bush II has accomplished is to settle the second amendment debate. We're gonna keep our guns.
Posted by rlp at January 23, 2006 06:37 PMMuckd, come on now, what are you talking about? Longest expansion ever?
And this is your area, man!
The "Clinton" expansion lasted from March 1991-March 2001-----120 months, the longest in our history.
Obviously that cannot yet have been matched, whenever the current expansion started.
Nor has the current "expansion" (which has its share of historic weaknesses and oddities) matched the 106 month expansion of the sixties rlp references above.
Posted by euzoius at January 23, 2006 06:38 PMrlp, Monica - darn tootin' I know how to use them, prolly a better shot, too.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 23, 2006 06:40 PMDear Trolls,
Thanks for contributing. I would advise a few points to the group of trolls so that our visit it will be most enjoyable.
1.) Be patient. Its not easy for these liberals to fully appreciate something new. Their entire lives have been inundated with only liberal friends, liberal teachers, liberal parents. They have been living the 60's since, well the 60's. So give them time.
2.) Don't give up. Sure they will get snide, (I enjoy some of my own sarcasm from time to time)we are playing in their sandbox. But keep up the debate.
3.) Bring facts with you from time to time when appropriate, but don't expect them to respond in kind. They only believe in antedotal evidence, and they don't recognize empirical evidence. Again, liberalism is evolving and dying by the feelings and mores of the annual members of the senior class at Berkley.
4.) Don't let the courtsey of a few of them, or the rudeness of many of them, effect your opinion of them. Sometimes the passion erupts in different ways. We have many rude people on our side too. I've been known to be a GD liar, I've been threatened, and well, even informed that my parents weren't married. So take it in stride.
5.) Acknowledge the truth whether it accidently or intentionally falls from the mouths of these libs. No one knows everything. So come here, give your opinions and facts, and give their opinions that same courtsey that you would have them give yours.
I know we strongly believe we are correct. Typically religion and politics bring about strong emotions, but they believe they are right too. Sometimes, we both are wrong, sometimes we both are right, but usually, they are just mis-guided, and no amount of evidence or facts will change them.
And finally, just as I posted yesterday, be ready for the Bush=Nazi arguments. This is a classic and favorite of the left. They did it to Bush 41, (as I posted the links), and they will do it now to Bush 43. They will even believe thier intellectual superiority is why they are so able to fashion a comparison between Bush/Hitler and then explain why our biases blind us from the concentration camps that Bush is currently building in Texas.
So enjoy them while we can, because the liberal party is slowly becoming an endangered species.
Posted by carpediem at January 23, 2006 06:40 PMChew on this carpe,
He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, science for him the spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, deplorable love-of-country stance, how violently I hate all this, how despicable an ignorable war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder." - - - Albert Einstein
Posted by bbtb at January 23, 2006 06:52 PMAnd finally, just as I posted yesterday, be ready for the Bush=Nazi arguments.
Carpe always seems to come through with a nazi reference.
Posted by snark at January 23, 2006 06:56 PMIn an amusing turn, crappy demonstrates how a whole lotta words arranged in meticulously ordered, bullet-point formation cannot fully disguise his obvious inadequacy. The only thing left to do is point and laugh.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 23, 2006 07:02 PMDear Snark,
Comparing opponents with the world's worst despots is something you raskelly wrabbits have been doing for decades.
I showed the link to many of those comments regarding Bush 41. I know it bruised your egos for me to trounce your little psychotic world with real facts. I.E. you were wrong for Bush 41 and wrong now.
Then you had to go and say I was the one bringing it up. So I googled comments about calling Reagan a Nazi.
You see, liberals are the same, year after year, after decade, after decade.
You have no substance, you have no message, other than the other guys are evil....
sad, so very sad.
FROM 1984
. . . any of you notice a family resemblance of a Reagan campaign rally and
a Nazi war rally, I would urge you to invest a few minutes to call your
favorite TV station or the White House at (202) 456-1414. Ask them why
do Reagan's campaign apperances resemble Nazi war rallys from 1938 or 39.
http://groups.google.com/group/net.politics/browse_thread/thread/17499057327a05f9/b89ac83478c6a11b?lnk=st&q=reagan+nazi&rnum=4&hl=en#b89ac83478c6a11b
Posted by carpediem at January 23, 2006 07:03 PM
Do any of you have any original thoughts?
Posted by carpediem at January 23, 2006 07:05 PMShorter carpe: Love letters to my fellow bedwetters:
My dearest compatriots,
Liberals are meanies and some use baaaadd words and call me names. Be brave, stay strong! XXOOXX,
carpeKoolaid.
>>>>>>>>>
What wanker carpe..GEt a room! Or if you won't do that ...start your own blog where you can put all your heartfelt emotions and feelings and pat yourself on the back for your perceived kickassedness there. I'll promise not to visit!
Muckdog, what planet do you live on?
Posted by Judith at January 23, 2006 07:20 PMDear emal,
From now on, we should start all our comments in this manner to impress everyone with our erudition and civility.
Love,
Coyote
Well carpe, since we aren't your kind of people, why do we anger you so much? I can only think some thing inside you keeps you coming back to try and change us. Do you think you are some kind of self professed messiah? Perhaps you should spend more time comtemplating as to why you would want to spend so much time around people you so obviously think are a hateful dying breed.
Posted by Monica at January 23, 2006 07:23 PMavaroo writes:
"He didn't have to. How many Americans think the President CAN'T spy on our enemies?"
Not one Dem. or Lefty is arguing he can't spy on his enemies. You love creating straw men all the time, don't you? The issue at hand is the President spying on Americans without the legal FISA court order to do so. He completely circumvented the process and bypassed it altogether.
He is not above the 4th Amendment. Article 2 did not give him the power to circumvent FISA courts, and members of Congress including Republican members of Congress implicitly stated as such. Tom Daschle mentioned that Bush attempted to insert language in his bill at the last minute that would have made his use of military force apply to the United States, but this attempt was rebuffed:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/22/AR2005122202119.html
He knew Congress would not give him the power to circumvent FISA courts. And Article 2 also requires a formal Declaration of War by Congress. If memory serves, no formal Declaration has occurred, has it?
And again, let's be sure not to make this a liberal vs. the President argument. There's a good healthy number of prominent Republicans that are questioning the legality of the matter, including Senator Brownback, Senator Specter, Senator Graham, Senator Lugar, and Senator McCain. Conservative scholars also believe it's illegal, as well as the NONPARTISAN Congressional Research Service, which you can about in my reply here:
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/cgi-bin/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=6607
Finally, let's also keep in mind that it's not the enemies that Bush and the NSA is spying on. They are spying on Americans, illegally without the proper court order to do so.
So again I ask all the Bush-apologist trolls this simple question:
explain to me how illegally wiretapping American citizens somehow protects us versus obtaining a warrant up to 72 hours AFTER starting a wiretap on alleged Al Qaeda suspects.
IOW, why would you believe that we could not obtain evidence under our current FISA laws legally when we have a 72 hour window RETROACTIVELY (after the initial wiretap) to obtain such a warrant? Can you help me out with that one? Can you tell me how wiretapping Americans ILLEGALLY without a warrant rather than Al Qaeda members somehow protects us better versus legally obtaining a warrant up to 72 hours AFTER the initial wiretap?
Posted by MisterOpus1 at January 23, 2006 07:23 PMBbtb, thanks for the quote by Einstein. I concur with his belief.
Posted by at January 23, 2006 07:39 PMNo carpe, your the only one!
Posted by bbtb at January 23, 2006 07:39 PMDo any of you have any original thoughts? Posted by carpediem
AHHHHH HA ha ha ha, haaa!!!
That's hysterical!!! Good one. Ha ha. Pot/kettle. haha
*wipes eyes*
Posted by Sharon at January 23, 2006 07:42 PMCarpe writes:
"Do any of you have any original thoughts?"
All the time, and I believe I express them here whenever possible. But having original thoughts does not entail those thoughts are necessarily logically or factually correct.
But it is kinda funny hearing this coming from a Republican who's talking points are dispersed right down from:
Rove->WeeklyStandard/Heritage/Newsmax->
Limbaugh/Hannity/O'Reilly/Church/Reagan/Liddy/etc
->FauxNews->Mainstream Media
Rinse and repeat.
Rinse and repeat.
Repeat and repeat.
Repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat..........
Then the next thing ya know, Saddam was behind 9/11 all along!
Posted by MisterOpus1 at January 23, 2006 07:47 PMany of you notice a family resemblance of a Reagan campaign rally and
a Nazi war rally, I would urge you to invest a few minutes to call your
favorite TV station or the White House at (202) 456-1414. Ask them why
do Reagan's campaign apperances resemble Nazi war rallys from 1938 or 39.
http://groups.google.com/group/net.politics/browse_thread/thread/17499057327a05f9/b89ac83478c6a11b?lnk=st&q=reagan+nazi&rnum=4&hl=en#b89ac83478c6a11b
Posted by carpediem at January 23, 2006 07:03 PM
****
As to your assertion, Crappy, that liberals in general called Reagan a nazi, well, that's a load of crap. There may have been a miniscule amount of left-based people that did that, but that's all it was, a miniscule amount. Now, the current Bush has displayed fascist-like tendencies. I support this argument with two words "Loyalty Oath", you know, the thing you have to sign before attending a Bush rally. For most people, the word fascism means the disallowance of dissent and blind obedience to a cause or leader. Reagan use to invite dissent, he was fairly crafty with his rebuttals, and he certainly didn't require a loyalty oath. Perhaps you can explain that to us, Crappy, love to hear your answer.
"Tom Daschle mentioned that Bush attempted to insert language in his bill at the last minute that would have made his use of military force apply to the United States, but this attempt was rebuffed."
MisterOpus1, what does George Walker Bush have to do to get the attention of the GOP, Democrats and the people of America? Are they waiting until he calls for martial law, rounds up dissenters, closes the airports, makes us wear badges on our forearms with a "L" signifying we are enemies of the State, and declare himself Dictator of America? I was unaware of this last minute effort to further his control (don't know how I missed that attempt). What the hell is Congress waiting for? Impeach this SOB and throw him in prison.
Posted by Judith at January 23, 2006 08:08 PMI posted this earlier on the open thread but the photo is to good to pass up.
Posted by bbtb at January 23, 2006 08:11 PMDear SF,
I've been to numerous Bush events, I guess I was properly screened by the NSA so that they knew they didn't need a loyalty oath.
Judith writes:
"What the hell is Congress waiting for? Impeach this SOB and throw him in prison."
I realize this was a rhetorical question, but I fully anticipate these hearings in February to end up being a lotta pre-hype hoopla, followed by a few long hours of Biden listening to himself speak ad nauseum, followed by certain Republicans who had initial reservations (like the ones I've already mentioned) eventually cower under Rove's iron grip on their collective nutsacks.
A GOP-run Legislative branch who's done nothing but the bidding of this Administration from day 1, and who the White House itself despises any Legislative rules and laws in the first place is likely not going to get shit done in terms of impeachment. So I think it's just wishful thinking.
However, tie this around their necks like an albatross coupled with Iraq (which polls are consistently and continually getting worse for Bush), the Abramoff scandal, the overall economic sentiment, thrifty spending with outrageous borrowing habits, the healthcare flop, and so on - this may very well be enough to make some serious changes in Congress and the Senate. Perhaps not a total swing in either House, but a pretty significant step heading to 2008 isn't out of the question at all.
And the emphasis should definitely be coupled with Abramoff. We're only seeing the tip of the iceberg with that puppy.
Posted by MisterOpus1 at January 23, 2006 09:12 PMDear SF,
I've been to numerous Bush events, I guess I was properly screened by the NSA so that they knew they didn't need a loyalty oath.
Posted by carpediem at January 23, 2006 09:07 PM
****
Dear Crappy,
It's well-documented about people needing to sign loyalty oaths at GOP rallies. Your flip answer speaks volumes as to my point about fascist tendencies.
Dear sf,
I believe the only reason carpe didn't need to sign a loyalty oath is because he is kkKarl's cabana boy.
Posted by emal at January 24, 2006 04:26 AMI'm sorry... did I end up on the only anti-gun-control liberal site on the blogosphere?
Or is this just some more moving with the issues, abandon gun control Democrats to show everyone that we suddenly care about the constitution deal??
Posted by C.H. Truth at January 23, 2006 02:25 PM
*****
I fully embrace the 2nd Amendment, you stupid fuck, and that's bad news for you.
Posted by God Of War at January 24, 2006 05:22 AMGod of War....You don't happen to work for the Post Office do you?
Seriously, does it make you feel superior to make these threats on a public post. Now you make a veiled threat about owning guns and how this is bad news for a troll....
I still think you are some sort of pimpled headed little geek who has never had a girl friend and your only adventure in life is posting on these websites....
Again, I suggest you get laid, find a women that acts like your mommy and takes good care of you. Your testosterone levels must be either so high, or you are tyring to over compensate for having a tiny wee wee.
Posted by carpediem at January 24, 2006 05:28 AMWell, I think we all know who has the tiny wee wee. He sits in the WH.
Posted by Judith at January 24, 2006 07:13 AMDear crappy,
We know your secret, denials only get you laughed at even more.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 24, 2006 07:47 AM