Hey guys....I got a great motto for you:
"Democrats...refusing to protect America since 1976"
Scroll pass the troll.
Posted by at February 6, 2006 07:26 AMMr. Ex Rat,
Shredding the constitution is not protecting America. Those who object to Nix.. er.. McCarth.. er Cheney.. er President Bush willfully and repeatedly voilating the law and unilaterally revoking our right to be protected against unreasonable reasonable search and seizure are in fact protecting America. They are protecting the ideals, the essential rights and liberties upon which this country was founded and built upon. America is these rights and liberties, no more, no less.
If we let people like you rip up the constitution we will no longer need to protect ourselves from violent extremets. There will be nothing left of America left to protect. People like you are a clear and present danger to the United States of America.
As good ol' Bennie Franklin said - those who give up their liberties in the name of security will end up with neither. If unchecked, people like you will bring about exactly such a reality.
I leave you with the observation that you seem to be reading from the play book of the Third Reich. As I'm sure you are aware Hitler and his minions worked to move exactly the same term you use to refer to Democrats - RATS - into the popular culture of the time. Jews were refered to as RATS, dirty, scurrying in the dark, nefarious, and just dangerous enough to get rid of.
You also use the same strategy that Hitler's Reichsmarschal articulated and the NAZIS used to bring dishonest, uneeded war upon their people. This is a direct quote "Naturally, the common people don't wan't war, but they can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. Tell them they are being attached, and denounce the opposition for lack of patriotism and endagering the country."
Good job.
Posted by The Truth at February 6, 2006 07:31 AMss
"...at least these three have gotten favorable treatment from the government for the last five years..."
an important point.
i don't doubt it for a minute, but you could flesh that out a bit?
i assume it has to do with mergers, fcc regs, or something like that.
thanks
Posted by orionATL at February 6, 2006 07:31 AMThe (un)Truth:
your words are pretty close to treason.
Posted by A Former Democrap at February 6, 2006 07:42 AMOT, in the hearings, specter pinned down abu gonzales, got him to say he wouldn't object to ashcroft testifying to the committee. god help us, the fate of our republic is resting on the shoulders of arlen specter!
Posted by benjoya at February 6, 2006 07:51 AMScroll the idiots, you'll feel better for it. They're just the paid minions from hell anyhow, so it's not worth the fight.
As for the phone companies, I have no doubt they'll bend over backwards for the corrupt government that continues to give them handouts. I dropped my cell service a while back, and pretty much only use my phone for internet since telemarketers use the damn thing 24/7. Still, we know now that Bush was listening in from the beginning, using what info he gleaned to solidify his position as dictator. Total Information Awareness was never shut down, even after they said they'd stop. I never believed it then, I don't believe they care about national security now.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 6, 2006 08:05 AMWell Former - you shed one NAZI tactic but couldn't help yourself on the other. Progress I guess...
Posted by The Truth at February 6, 2006 08:06 AMThe EFF already has one lawsuit against AT&T...
Link:
http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/
Posted by Wordmonger at February 6, 2006 08:30 AMever notice how the Bush Admin, from Bush on down, always refuse to testify under oath? Funny, these are the guys that hold prayer breakfasts and court the Religious Right, but when its time to put their hand on the Bible and swear to tell the truth....they refuse. And why, you may ask. The standard answer by the WingNut Right when asked why not impeach Bush for WMD lies if they impeached Clinton for lying about an affair is, he (Clinton) lied under OATH, which makes it horrible. So, the Bush crowd just refuse to ever be under oath, then they can lie away without falling into the "Under Oath" trap they caught Clinton in.
Hypocracy - yeah, that is the definition of the GOP.
but when its time to put their hand on the Bible and swear to tell the truth....they refuse.
it's that 'put their hand on the bible' part - it would sear their skin.
Posted by benjoya at February 6, 2006 08:51 AMThe (un)Truth:
your words are pretty close to treason.
Posted by A Former Democrap at February 6, 2006 07:42 AM
*****
You, rat, deserve the fate of a traitor, and I'd be more than happy to mete it out.
You fucking pig. You're a disgrace to this nation.
Posted by God Of War at February 6, 2006 08:53 AM
following up on T2's comment:
it seems the radical republicans are starting yet another social movement:
the RIGHT TO LIE movement.
recall that the oil executives were not required to be sworn in in their congressional testimony.
why take this tact?
to prevent the public from knowing the truth.
if sworn in, the individuals testifying, like gonzales, would either have to perjure themselves or they would have to tell the truth.
telling the truth would not be good for the republican party and the white houses.
lying under oath would not be good for the individual republicans who would have to lie.
any other examples of this newly established official priviledge?
the
RIGHT TO LIE
to congress and the american people.
Posted by orionATL at February 6, 2006 09:27 AM(un)Truth: Godwins say: you LOSE!
God of War: I love how, like all members of the radical left, when you can't win a war of ideas, you resort to threats and intimidation.
Since the days of Lenin, you people haven't changed.
AFDR, That's since Karl Marx to you. Show some imagination!
Posted by bbtb at February 6, 2006 09:57 AMAFD
In looking at your IP address, how many IDs have you used? Looks like four at least. Can you at least get over your identity crisis and pick one, if the meds allow you to?
Posted by Steve Soto at February 6, 2006 09:58 AM(un)Truth: Godwins say: you LOSE!
God of War: I love how, like all members of the radical left, when you can't win a war of ideas, you resort to threats and intimidation.
Since the days of Lenin, you people haven't changed.
Posted by A Former Democ Rat at February 6, 2006 09:28 AM
*****
No, you hideous little fuck, you're once again 180 degrees from reality. You've lost on the law, you've lost on the facts, your "ideas" are lies, fear, and propaganda... so you call the honest and patriotic "traitors." So fuck off and rot, you lying, dishonest, parasitical little piece of shit.
You want to see a filthy traitor? Go find a mirror.
Posted by God Of War at February 6, 2006 10:00 AMGodwin's law applies to only his blog, that's his choice. Everywhere else, Goodwin's law be damned, Nazis are Nazis and must be called out as such.
Hey you Rat, why don't you call yourself Al anymore. We know who you are!
Posted by rlp at February 6, 2006 10:57 AMrlp, who cares who they are, really? Some kid playing clever nazi, thinking he's shinier than Hannity's shit. And they are nazis. But until we get thrown in jail, we can still speak on a blog and ignore their hitler-wannabe asses. They have no brains, no dignity, no opinions unless they come directly from the junkie limbaugh's ass. They're swarming because they want a paycheck, and Rove says "provide Abu Gonzales with cover."
Posted by iamcoyote at February 6, 2006 11:22 AMrlp, who cares who they are, really? Some kid playing clever nazi, thinking he's shinier than Hannity's shit. And they are nazis. But until we get thrown in jail, we can still speak on a blog and ignore their hitler-wannabe asses. They have no brains, no dignity, no opinions unless they come directly from the junkie limbaugh's ass. They're swarming because they want a paycheck, and Rove says "provide Abu Gonzales with cover."
Posted by iamcoyote at February 6, 2006 11:22 AM
*****
If they try to throw me in jail, there will be fewer Nazis to deal with. Guarantee it.
Posted by God Of War at February 6, 2006 11:32 AMDon't worry about Demo-whatever. He's on that Broke Back Mountain liberal Hollywood Lesbian supporting gay-liberal-faggot political kick that's popular at the moment with the far right loon-mobiles. This wouldn't have happened if his mastubatory imagry didn't always return to his best friend in high school. He's obviously gay and ashamed of it.
So tell me, demo-whatever. Did you actually have sex with him, or just always long to?
Posted by phidipides at February 6, 2006 02:00 PM(un)Truth: Godwins say: you LOSE!
Godwins law became quaint on 9/11 which of course changed everything and the Bush Administration took it upon themselves to use that tragedy as a opportunity to use racist fearmongering and fascist tactics to impose their conservative and fascist ideology on the people of the U.S.
There is something very wrong with this story. First, AT&T is no longer AT&T. AT&T has ceased to exist and was replaced with SBC that adopted AT&T's name. Similarly, MCI has been supplanted by Verizon. Both of these decline to comment officially and give the usual snow job, "We cooperate with legal requests and do not comment on national security matters". One question is why USAT still refers to them as if they still exist in their previous configurations, even though they mentioned the mergers in the body of the article. Second question is what kind of divining rod do they have to figure out that declining comment is the same as cooperation.
Sprint is different. Sprint is claimed to have refused cooperation. Take a look at the CNET story on the subject. If this is true, combined with the first two questions, this would put the entire story in doubt. What is worse, we don't even know the exact nature of surveilance. In most instances, NSA would not even need the cooperation of the telecom companies. USAT story cites unnamed "intelligence officials" when claiming cooperation.
There are also questions about the other three points of the process. More to the point, Abu claimed today that he's basically too lazy (or the people in his office are too lazy) to jump through all the hoops to get a warrant. But the description offered for the decision resulting in a warrantless surveylance looks remarkably similar to the description offered by Abu during the hearings. So it is not mere laziness and desire to avoid some of the procedural hoops--the circumvention is not procedural.
Finally, Hayden claimed that "identity is supressed and the content of the communication is destroyed" if the conversation contained no usable information. After the recent disclosures of various rogue surveylance that was not destroyed (by other agency) please forgive me for being skeptical on this account. NOTHING is destroyed--it's just filed somewhere deep in the archives where it cannot be accessed on a whim.
In a real democracy, the Senate would have ordered the arrest of Abu as soon as he opened his mouth, because no matter what comes out, it seems to be consistently a lie. And one need not be under oath to be in contempt of Congress. So they could arrest him if they wanted to.
Posted by buck turgidson at February 6, 2006 11:57 PM