Sorry to digress right off the top but you have not seen THIS:
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashma.htm

Run, don't walk to see it...YouTube has already banned it once and will likely keep on banning it.

Damn, KO beeeeyotttch slapped those that still somehow believe we are "free" people with Bush's redrawing of our Bill of Rights.

What dead/missing blondes is Bill O talking about tonight?

Keiths piece on the Bush administrations destruction of Habeas Corpus was one of the best things I have ever seen on televison.

"YouTube has already banned it once and will likely keep on banning it."

They should. How would you like an ad that has Bush watching the towers going down, and chuckling about it: "Heehaw, no we can do anything we want!"?
That would be about as correct as what the ad shows or even implies.

Excuse me for being elitist, but why should anyone, even a liberal, care what Olbermann thinks about habeas corpus? What serious study of that body of law has Olbermann done that makes him qualified to spout off on it on national television? Last time I checked his undergraduate degree is in communications and he hasn't done any graduate or post graduate work at all, let alone in any subject matter related to constitutional law.

Olbermann is about as qualified to educate anyone on the murdering of habeas corpus as I am to educate him about sports.

He gets his schtick from the discredited Jonathan Turley...who is an utter failure

I really wish i could say i'm surprised that radmod wants something he doesn't agree with banned, unfortunately i can't because that is standard operating procedure for liberals. And in case you haven't noticed radmod, you tube is filled to the brim with bush bashing videos.

Justice prevails - you ought to explore more of your cable service's channel options. I think you have narrow viewing habits.

Fern, just checked out your site and thought you would be the right person to ask if habeas corpus was ever meant to apply to an enemy during wartime?

Keith's hairy knuckles distracted me to a point where I was unable to hear what he was saying.

I hear that they drag the floor when he walks (not quite upright).

I just want to know what olbermann is going to say the day after the elections when he finds out nobody paid any attention to his insane ramblings.
I am sure his little group of fringe left wing lemmings will be once again devestated learning that America still hates liberals.

Well, you guys aren't coming up with much. Were's the substantive critique of your self-imposed nemesis? All I see in this regard is: one puzzling non sequitur about Jonathan Turley; one straw-man digression about YouTube; and one spurious, elitist declaration that Olbermann doesn't have the credentials to hold opinions in regard to his most fundamental civil rights - (nice implication: "...and that goes for YOU, and YOU, and YOU...").

I gather from one or two other posts here that this "Fern R" is some sort of an expert in regard to habeus corpus and stuff like that there. She sure takes that tone with Olbermann, in any case. But where's her rebuttal? Nothing to say about Olberman's piece except that he isn't worth listening to. Sorry, but that's a pretty lame shave-tail excuse for an argument.

They're probably watching the baseball playoffs, which is exactly what i'm going to do now.

How does it feel that you all jerk each other off over Olbermann...how stupid you all must feel.

How does it feel that you all jerk each other off over Olbermann...how stupid you all must feel.

Yet you jerk off over us....how stupid do YOU feel?

I just want to know what olbermann is going to say the day after the elections when he finds out nobody paid any attention to his insane ramblings.
I am sure his little group of fringe left wing lemmings will be once again devestated learning that America still hates liberals.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 10, 2006 09:42 PM

I hate to break it to you but there are many people who believe that America stands for something besides hating liberals. You have been brainwashed in order for certain people to retain there power over your life. Wake up, it's still not to late. America is about a lot of things including the right to free speech and assembly. I don't have to buy into the necon or facist movements if I choose not to. I am an AMERICAN. We live in a DEMOCRACY. we have a CONSTITUTION and a BILL OF RIGHTS. I can VOTE. It will be shocking for you to understand that your way of viewing the world is not the only one. The republican party has ruled our country for years now. WE ARE NOT SAFER. WE ARE IN DEBT. It is time for republicans to throw off the chains of Limbaugh, Robertson, Dobson, Hannity, Coulter, etc... They have used up our military and our budget and have left the coming generations with a bundle of debt. IMPORTANT TO NOTICE!! They did not do what they told you they would do. They are liars and cheating bastards. Throw them out on their ass.

Just a suggestion Mister Dolor. Type your post without the hyperbole and unsubstantiated rebuttal material and if you still have anything left, go ahead and hit POST.

How does Jose Padilla fit into this habeas corpus argument? He was HELD FOR 3 1/2 YEARS WITHOUT CHARGES and is an AMERICAN CITIZEN. The scenario KO described is already happening. WAKE UP!

Johnny Dollar said:

"his provision only affects aliens determined to be enemy combatants. It says so, in plain English, right in the law."

BULLSHIT! Johnny, that is such egrigeous and rancid BULLSHIT that I can't beleive you, a licensed and practicing lawyer, would utter it.

"The compromise legislation, which is racing toward the White House, authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights." - Bruce Ackerman, Professor of Law, Yale University.

"But the really breathtaking subsection is subsection (ii), which would provide that UEC [Unlawful Enemy Combatant] is defined to include any person 'who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.'

Read literally, this means that if the Pentagon says you're an unlawful enemy combatant -- using whatever criteria they wish -- then as far as Congress, and U.S. law, is concerned, you are one, whether or not you have had any connection to "hostilities" at all." - Marty Feldman, Professor of Law, Georgetown University.

And lest we forget the strange case of Jose Padilla, an AMERICAN CITIZEN, who was held in a Navy Brig for 3 and a half years without charge, without the right of habeas corpus and for the first year and a half denied the right to counsel. All because the Administration declared him an "enemy combatant". In fact, the ONLY reason that Padilla was ever charged with anything (charges that even the Federal judge overseeing the case finds vague and insubstantial) was so that the Supreme Court could not rule on his case because it was moot.

I fully agree with the other Liberal posters here who ridicule and mock you Right-wing extremists...

Keith rightly points out that under this new law, the rights of Al-Qaeda will not be trampled on and they will now lose the very freedoms that our military fought for some 200+ years to protect.

When will you right-wingers learn that Al-Qaeda has rights!?

You dare to torture Al-Qaeda by making them stand for 4 hours at a time and subjecting them to rock music!?

OUTRAGEOUS!!

When the elections roll around, we will see which is the party that will protect Al-Qaeda's rights and which is the party who will trample on them.

*** Democrats in '06...standing shoulder to shoulder with Keith Olbermann to protect Al-Qaeda against the evil Republicans ***

The more I read this political masturbation (in which I participate) the more I realize how much I'm being manipulated by both sides. I've lost faith in this congress and this administration. I'll just vote the other way in Nov(maybe for McCain in 2008 though) and hope for some actual leaders to show up. I'm not holding my breath.

People who think it is funny and entertaining that there rights as an American have been taken away are going to be shocked to learn that they are the minority now. I still believe in America being the land of the free and the home of the brave. There are some people are to scared to live in that country.

Democrats had a stranglehold on America for 40 years . They started huge entitlement programs, interpeted the Constitution to suit their own leftist goals or just ignored it when they wanted to. You are correct that we live in a democracy and unfortunately for you and the rest of the left wing YOU LOST.
No wonder you are upset codas. The democrats had their way for so long you just cannot grasp that they are out of power. America came to it's senses in the mid 90's and saw what Clinton and the other liberals were doing and kicked them out.
You left wingers have now suddenly discovered the Bill of Rights and the Constitution when it is convient for you. Liberals still cannot comprehend that a big part of democrat losses came from liberals ignoring the second ammnedment and it looks like they have still not learned their lesson yet.
Everything you said codas I could also say. You say wea re not safer yet where is your proof? We have not been attacked since 9/11 so how are we not safer? Maybe when the democrats throw off the chains of moonbats like Olbermann, Kerry, Kennedy, Schumer, Streisand, Hollywood limousine liberals, Sheehan, Michael Moore and Pelosi they just might start winning elections again.
If, by some slim chance democrats do make some gains this fall it will not have been because of their ideas and ideology but because of mistakes made by republicans. Hell ofa way to win, not by your own salt but by somebodyelses misfortune and mistakes. The democrats thru all the Foley scandal and other trivialitiesSTILL have no coherent solidified message other than their hatred of Bush and their incmprehension at being the minority party.
I was a democrat for years until the far left fringe took over the party and I will never vote democrat again, not after clinton.

Why do you unthinking right winger kiddy-piddlers and crooks wallow around in your own filth and attack the right and true, and very handsome Keith Olbermann? You are like a cancer on America and humanity in general. If you don't like the constitution, LEAVE!

Why do you unthinking right winger kiddy-piddlers and crooks wallow around in your own filth and attack the right and true, and very handsome Keith Olbermann? You are like a cancer on America and humanity in general. If you don't like the constitution, LEAVE!

"Read literally, this means that if the Pentagon says you're an unlawful enemy combatant -- using whatever criteria they wish -- then as far as Congress, and U.S. law, is concerned, you are one, whether or not you have had any connection to "hostilities" at all."
* Posted by Anonymous at October 10, 2006 10:13 PM

Anonymous,

Correct, the statue defines what an Enemy Combatant is.

AND THEN IT SAYS:

"This chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try ALIEN unlawful enemy combat-ants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission."

"Any ALIEN unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter."

You can be declared an Enemy Combatant, but not necessarily be subject to trial by military commissions.

"We have not been attacked since 9/11 so how are we not safer?"

2700 dead service men and woman. Their safety matters to me as much as whether or not New York is safe as well.

anonpussy: Democrats had a stranglehold on America for 40 years.

And America became the most prosperous nation in the world over those 40 years. Why do you think that is? Breathing the fumes of your in-door BBQ, I can tell.

dms,

16,000 Americans are killed by other Americans here in America every year.

It appears you're not safe here either

2700 dead service men and women. 44,000 dead Iraqis. 2,973 people died on 9/11,

Let's see.

2700 + 2973 + 44000 = 49673 dead humans as a result of 9/11.

"Nobody could've predicted terrorists would fly into those Buildings" - Rice

"Nobody could've predicted the levees would break" - Bush

Yes they did, both times.

I loved Odormann's construction paper "Bill of Rights". I particularly loved how constitutional scholar Odormann labeled the Amendments as "Articles". Someone may want to inform Odormann that the United States Constitution has both Articles and Amendments. What Odormann labeled "Articles" are actually called "Amendments". Beautiful. I will wait for Odormann noting tomorrow that in the future he will abstain from commenting on things like the Constitution of which he knows nothing. Maybe he'll blame it on his staff of like-minded dupes.

JustTheTruth- you're right, more Americans have been killed by other Americans each year than during the Iraq War's 3 plus years. To be really safe maybe you should enlist as an infantryman and head over to Iraq.

2390 dead at Pearl Harbor

U.S. enter WWII

400,000 more Americans die.

48 million non-Americans die

2390 + 400,000 + 48,000,000 = 48,402,390 dead humans as a result of WWII

I think the "Liberal" moral to the story is...if someone attacks you and people die...don't attack back. That will only piss off your enemy and more people will die.

Brilliant!

Look, there are plenty of intelligent critiques of Guantanimo Bay and the way the Bush administration has interpretted habeas corpus and the Geneva Convention, etc. I just don't think you're going to hear them from a former ESPN sportscaster. Let's be real here, getting your constitutional law information from Keith Olbermann is like getting your news from Jay Leno's opening monologue. Olbermann should stick to what he does best, mainly witty remarks on the news items of the day, and leave political and legal commentary to someone who has actually bothered to study those things.

Is there no respect for what it means to be an expert anymore? To spend years studying one subject, reading other experts work on that subject, attending academic conferences and writing substantial works in the subject area? Or can just anyone with a bully pulpit spout off on whatever they want and those who are politically aligned with said person will fight to the death in support of him or her?! Come on! There are intelligent, well-spoken people on the left, you all need not damage your brains by listening to Olbermann's idiotic tripe.

To "Ispeakfortheleft", mostly:

The Republican party does nothing BUT roll over for terrorists:

-Iran/Contra arms for hostages deal; the Iranians' part timed to coincide with Reagan's inauguration.

-Reagan running from Hezbollah

-Bush I and II coddling anti-Castro Cuban terrorists despite office, ship, and passenger airliner bombings (Jose Posada Carrilles is about to be freed from a Texas jail, just has he was sprung by the CIA from a Venezuelan prison in the 1980's.

-Bush II capitulated fully to Osama bin Laden's only demand of the US (in his 1996 "declaration of war" and statements made subsequent to the 9/11 attacks) that we remove our troops and bases from the "Land of the Two Holy Places" (Saudi Arabia). What happend in 2003? Bush removed our troops and bases from Saudi Arabia and used them to overthrow the regime of Osama's secular/socialist adversary, Saddam Hussein.

We haven't been hunting Al Qeada all these years; we've been fulfilling our obligations in regard to a humiliating secret armistice agreement - of which Al Qeada's only apparent concession has been a cessation of attacks on American soil. Meanwhile he's gained a war that all 16 of our intelligence agencies agree has served him as a phenominal recruiting and training tool, swelling AlQeada's ranks from ca. 20,000 in 2003 to an estimated 50,000 today.

Its really quite pathetic.

But then again, who cares about listening to experts, after reading Sir Loin of Beef's most recent comment I see some among the left's camp have bigger issues, mainly discerning fact from fiction.

"We haven't been hunting Al Qeada all these years"
* Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 10, 2006 10:53 PM

When you spit on the men and women of the U.S. military, CIA and FBI who are to this day, continually hunting Al-Qaeda, do you even give it a second thought?

Or does the venom and vitriol you have for them and their efforts just come easily?

codas give us some real life examples of lost rights. should be easy as the bushies have done away with so many.

i will give an example of Democrap's infringing on the constitution. Chicago-ians have no second amendment rights. in california a business owner cannot chose to allow smoking in his own business. these are both leftist havens and both are devoid of simple freedoms by leftists. leftist supreme court allow private property seized if it benefits the tax base of the locality. those are examples. now you try.

Fern- you sound like the "elitist left" you seem to hate by making it seem like anyone without a law degree, or working on a law degree as you claim on your blog, cannot comment on what we are all allowed to as citizens of the United States. Also, you commenting on Keith being a sportscaster shows that you are not opposed to stereotyping.

I know you want one of your before mentioned "well-spoken people on the left" (in to other words "tame")to represent us, but it's not going to happen. If you didn't find KO a threat to the wingnut facade you hold dear you would not be on this blog, nor would Olbermannwatch ever been created. Keith's audience is growing. Get ready.

I wish someone would ask Keith to translate "habeas corpus" on air. That fumbling boob would have no clue.

Anyway, when Keith preaches about the danger to 'your' rights, he is pobably talking to the terrorists in his fan base. NBC executives should be fired for keeping this loon on air.

JustTheTruth,

"I...I don't kw where he is. In fact; I just don't spend that much time on him" (Your leader in 2004).

The soldiers I know who were in Iraq said they just hassled Iraqis in their houses; and caught shrapnel dished out by God knows who. Al Qeada has nothing to do with it: don't blame me, blame our crass, lying leadership who diverted the war into the Bush family fued.

indierik maybe you should head to the west bank and laydown in front of the bulldozers to prove your a pacifist.

indierik the moment of truth will be at hand soon and if you lose will you and alec baldwin move to france? please. get ready.

Fern R,

You've really got nothing, do you?

I missed first half of show-what's the deal w/ the headstone Habeus Corpus 1215-2006? Is that when Man Under Desk thinks the Constitution was ratified or what?

No, toddrico. The concept of Habeas corpus in English common law dates to the Magna Carta.

Yeah i realize that, but what does that have to do with the USA, except on Olbyplanet.

toddrico,

Keith blasted the Bush Administration's new policy which tramples on the Habeus Corpus rights of NON-American Enemy Combatants.

Don't ask me for an explanation...it's Olbylogic.

"Chicago-ians have no second amendment rights."

WRONG! The Supreme Court, in over 70+ years (both conservative and liberal) of decision-making have stated that the state and local governments have the power to REGULATE firearms so long as the right IN TOTAL is not banned.

"in california a business owner cannot chose to allow smoking in his own business."

That's an issue of comflicting rights (the business owner's rights vs. the non-smoker's rights). And the business owner's rights END when they conflict with the fundamental rights of another.

"leftist supreme court allow private property seized if it benefits the tax base of the locality."

Which ALMOST no rational liberal supports and many groups are actively trying to get overturned.

Now to answer your question - "Sneak and peek" warrants (which violate the right against unreasonable searches) and "free speech zones" (which infringe upon the rights of free speech and assembly) are two that I can think of off the top of my head.

This goes out to the those that will hold the Second Admendment up above all else. One of you claims that is the reason you switch parties yet the misinterpretation of that right for the few decades amazes me. Why is you republicans will allow sacrifice ervey one of our rights but defend the one you don't even have a clue as to what it really says. HERE"S A CLUE FOR YOU the NRA has lied to for years. The Second Admendment of the Contstution does not protect your right to OWN GUNS YOU DUMM A$$$ Look it up. The REAL second admendment Is "THe right to bear arms and for a malitia" In other owrds it gives us the right to pick up weapons and defend our country against an attack or threat. You know as in the like the army. So it is beyound me that you will defend this one without fully understanding why or even how it is supposed to be threatened. (It never has been by the way.) yet will allow the others to trashed.

Welfare- why don't you enlist as an infantryman to prove you think the Iraq War is a good idea? The fact that you didn't attack my points, but instead made some silly suggestions tells me that you cannot dispute my points.

P.S. Just because I like Olby and I'm against the Iraq War doesn't mean I'm a pacifist. I realize that there are many people out there that deserve to be killed.

>The law carves out a limited exception to the >general habeas corpus right. But here's the >key: this exception does not apply to American >citizens!

You are lying Johnny. Or misinformed one of the two.

`(26) WRONGFULLY AIDING THE ENEMY- Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct.

meaning this exception can be used against a U.S. citizen. meaning olbermann is right and the threat of goverment abuse of this bill is real. Meaning you owe Olbermann an apology.

JustTheTruth,

Where in the bill just passed by congress does the definition of an illegal enemy combatant specify "NON-American" as a criterion? It doesn't. When Bush signs that legislation he will literally be able to lable WHO HE WISHES as an illegal enemy combatant, and will be enabled to then incarcerate such people in any way he deems appropriate without any due process.

There is no other way to interperet this bill - short of making shit up. Now you could say "Aw, shucks...Presnit Bush wuttn't do that", and you may be right; but that sort of perception is irrelevant. The framers of the constitution were explicit in regard to the separation of powers being essential to keeping government an honest servant of the people.

Sir Loin of Beef,

Perhaps you can't read...so I will point it out to you again...follow along:

948b. Military commissions generally
- (a) PURPOSE. This chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try ALIEN unlawful enemy combat-ants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission.

948c. Persons subject to military commissions
- Any ALIEN unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.

I capitilized the word ALIEN twice so you could read it.

And to help you, I've also included a definition of the word ALIEN below:

Alien - foreigner: a person who comes from a foreign country; someone who does not owe allegiance to your country

some questins for codas and sir loin of beef based on some of their posts above:

loss of freedom of speech -- um hello scary uncle KO appears every weeknight with his "Network" brand of "journalism" or did i miss the news that he was taken away to Gimo for re-education

loss of freedom of assembly -- every assembly by Dems not only still occurs (most even with goverment issued permits) - but is splashed all over MSM no matter how few assemblers there are - meanwhile the counter protsters (who usually have larger numbers and back some portion of th eadministration) almost NEVER even get a mention by the MSM

Yes, you are Americans, you have the right to vote and dissent and speak and assemble and live and pursue happiness (the last seconf choice over property)...so please continue to do so...to paraphrase: I do not share your views, but I will defend to the death your right to speak them...has GWB taken you away....are you typing in your prison cell?

and finally...for cryin' out loud make a choice: are our soldiers in places like Iraq and Afghanistan poor souls who never thought that joining the military meant they would be put in harm's way and ae simply innocent victims of a cold cruel hearless administration as you profess one minute OR the bloodthirsty, rapists, thieves, thuggish arm of a right wing plot to take over the world? (I for one choose to believe that they ae bright shining examples of people who care enough for their country that they are willing to lay down their lives for another...they are the people who made our country great and will continue to do so)

finally as far as name calling goes, my Mom armed me with the most effective counter weapons against them...sticks and stone may break my bones, but words will never hurt me...or my big sister...i'm rubber you're glue whatever ou say bounces of me and sticks to you...Nyah

"Yeah i realize that, but what does that have to do with the USA, except on Olbyplanet."

Well, toddrico,

Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution states: "The Priviledge of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it". The US Constitution is pretty much agreed upon as being the fundamental legal document of our republic - so its sort of relevant.

Anonmous, please read one actual history book about the founding fathers...they were EXTREMELY leery of governments and the right to bear arms was developed to help one protect oneself from even the government itself

"Fern- you sound like the "elitist left" you seem to hate by making it seem like anyone without a law degree, or working on a law degree as you claim on your blog, cannot comment on what we are all allowed to as citizens of the United States. Also, you commenting on Keith being a sportscaster shows that you are not opposed to stereotyping."

Actually, I've never criticized anyone for being elitist on this thread, and I don't think I have on my blog either. I also didn't suggest that only lawyers or law students can discuss legal matters. What I did say is that if you're going to speak on national television about habeas corpus that you should be an expert on it. Whether the person gained their expertise from getting a degree in a related field (poly sci, legal studies, a J.D., etc) or by studying the area extensively, submitting their thoughts to peer reviewed journals and interacting regularly with other experts in that field, I don't really care. If advocating that people actually know what they're talking about before anyone take their ideas seriously makes me an elitist, then so be it.

"Fern- you sound like the "elitist left" you seem to hate by making it seem like anyone without a law degree, or working on a law degree as you claim on your blog, cannot comment on what we are all allowed to as citizens of the United States. Also, you commenting on Keith being a sportscaster shows that you are not opposed to stereotyping."

Actually, I've never criticized anyone for being elitist on this thread, and I don't think I have on my blog either. I also didn't suggest that only lawyers or law students can discuss legal matters. What I did say is that if you're going to speak on national television about habeas corpus that you should be an expert on it. Whether the person gained their expertise from getting a degree in a related field (poly sci, legal studies, a J.D., etc) or by studying the area extensively, submitting their thoughts to peer reviewed journals and interacting regularly with other experts in that field, I don't really care. If advocating that people actually know what they're talking about before anyone take their ideas seriously makes me an elitist, then so be it.

sir loin...here's another question...most Dems belive the constitution is a living breathing document that evolves and is subject to interpretation...(the second amendment actally means this...abortion is in there plain as day)...why would you be upset if it changed (which by the way it isn't)

I wasn't questioning the articles of the Constitution, i was only questioning the date 1215 & how it relates to our Constitution on Olbyplanet, since i missed the first part of the show.

Olberman can have his show, I have no problem with morons having a spot on the dial, but since "moonbat-satirenews-infotainment" now seems to be the permanent theme of of this folly, i would imagine it at best winding up with Maher on HBO or current tv perhaps. I wonder how big the checks are that Howard Dean and the DNC give to Dan Abrams are. Olberman's Show contains zero news and even less news analysis. It's beyond sad now.

Tautology, JustThe Truth, doen't cut the mustard.

You prove a section of the bill that explains how "ALIEN unlawful combatants" are to be dealt with. You conveniently ignore the overarching definition of "unlawful enemy combatants" that makes no distinction based on natonality or allegience, and allows the executive excessive latitude in interpretation and application (any person who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States). Do you understand your circular error in logic?

Tautology, JustThe Truth, doen't cut the mustard.

You prove a section of the bill that explains how "ALIEN unlawful combatants" are to be dealt with. You conveniently ignore the overarching definition of "unlawful enemy combatants" that makes no distinction based on natonality or allegience, and allows the executive excessive latitude in interpretation and application (any person who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States). Do you understand your circular error in logic?

Just the truth,

I wish things were that simple. but the fact is you are cherry picking from a 38 page bill. Just thinking aloud here but try this on for size. a surreal situation occurs in which an american does get declared an enemy combatant and the american says "But I didn't do anyhting?" So what now? how can he protest his imprisonment? he has no habeus Corpus rights. Once they have you they have you. if they are not playing by the rules.

From the bill:

No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

In other words, as long as the United States says you've been properly detained, you have. that's right there are no checks to insure that the goverment didn't fuck up.

Also you are ignoring the fact that there is an exception in the bill for U.S. citizens which I posted above. to quote a good frined of mine, "These types of laws rarely come right out and say, 'This applies to U.S. Citizens, and all your Constitutional Rights are gone.' But once you eliminate habeas corpus and due process for some, others are inevitably swept up in it."

If the second ammendment does not guarantee the right for individual citizens to own firearms then the first ammendment does not give them the right to free speech. If any of you anti- second ammendment zealots could actually read the Constitution instead of just interpeting it for your own little pet projects like abortion you would understand that the premise of the whole BOR is to protect individual rights of the citizenagainst government tyranny. You left wingers don't get it yet do yoy? You will never get elected until you drop the anti-second ammendment platform. The same liberals who just love the ACLU seem to have a problem with the NRA. Well the NRA is my ACLU. It protects my rights and values.
Jefferson said quite correctly on the importance of the second ammendment when he said that the second ammendment's real value will not be fully realized until the government tries to take it away.
The liberals attacks on the second ammendment during the clinton administration is what really cost democrats the Congress and the White House. Unfortunately (for them) it looks as if the fringe left wing of the democratic party has learned nothing.
And I don't care what you or kennedy or schumer, bloomberg or the Brady bunch say the second ammendment DOES guarantee the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. liberals fight this truth at their own peril and at the risk of imperiling this nation with civil war. Do the anti gun zealots think that we are just going to roll over and give them up without a fight? once again they would be terribly terribly wrong.
No wonder nobody really trusts liberals with the power of government . They are more worried about the rights of habeus corpus for enemy combatants who are not even citizens than they are worried about the rights of US citizens guaranteed under the Bill of Rights. Which leads me to the main question of the day. Just exactly whose side are the liberals on?

Sir Lion I have read a history book. SEVERAL IN FACT Along with Bios and the writings of those founding fathers. I have read several historical documents like the federalist paper and the antifederalists papers. I have read the great philisophical works of those that contributed to our democracy. However you are correct about our founders "they were EXTREMELY leery of governments" but wrong in your statement that the right to bear arm was in response to it. There are TEN BILL OF RIGHTS THAT PROTECT US AGAIST THE GOV-- LIKE I SAID THE REAL SECOND ADMENMENT STATES THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS AND FORM A MATILIA. as much as you and the NRA would like to leave off those last few words they are a part of the ratified historical contstitution our fathers wrote and our ancesters passed. However because of the distrust of the goverment they thought it very importment to protect out rights against unwarrented acts by that governement hense the reason why most of the bill of rights deal with justice and due process. Or did you not grasp that in your history class. Those other rights that you seem so intent to let this president trash are those ones that our founders enacted to protect us from the goverment because of their distrust of government. dispite what you believe the second admend was not the biggest deal to them. there are 5 admendments dealing with these rights. That should tell you the importance that our founders PLACED ON THEM. SO tell me why it is that you are willing to trash these 5 yet will stand behind one to the point of stupidity.

Sir Lion I have read a history book. SEVERAL IN FACT Along with Bios and the writings of those founding fathers. I have read several historical documents like the federalist paper and the antifederalists papers. I have read the great philisophical works of those that contributed to our democracy. However you are correct about our founders "they were EXTREMELY leery of governments" but wrong in your statement that the right to bear arm was in response to it. There are TEN BILL OF RIGHTS THAT PROTECT US AGAIST THE GOV-- LIKE I SAID THE REAL SECOND ADMENMENT STATES THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS AND FORM A MATILIA. as much as you and the NRA would like to leave off those last few words they are a part of the ratified historical contstitution our fathers wrote and our ancesters passed. However because of the distrust of the goverment they thought it very importment to protect out rights against unwarrented acts by that governement hense the reason why most of the bill of rights deal with justice and due process. Or did you not grasp that in your history class. Those other rights that you seem so intent to let this president trash are those ones that our founders enacted to protect us from the goverment because of their distrust of government. dispite what you believe the second admend was not the biggest deal to them. there are 5 admendments dealing with these rights. That should tell you the importance that our founders PLACED ON THEM. SO tell me why it is that you are willing to trash these 5 yet will stand behind one to the point of stupidity.

*** Democrats in '06...standing shoulder to shoulder with Keith Olbermann to protect Al-Qaeda against the evil Republicans ***

Posted by: ISpeakForTheLeft at October 10, 2006 10:14 PM

This is not about protecting Al Qaeda. Its about giving this president and every future president powers that the founding fathers limited at the very birth of our republic. They expressly limited the suspension of Habeas Corpus because it is one of the things the British did to us that they hated so much that they felt they had to start the Revelutionary war.

Read most any grown up book about Lincoln. He absolutely hated suspending Habeas Corpus during the civil war and in words more eloquent than we are capable of in this century, he expressed deep regret at having done so.

The biggest problem I have with your line of arguement:

How do you know the people in custody are al qaeda if you dont have Habeas Corpus? Answer: You dont.

This law allows the Predident and Sec Def to hold anyone forever without charge or trial as long as they say they are "enemy combatants".

So what your hoping by supporting this law is that this presedent and all future presidents never make a mistake, never use this new power for political gain and never abuse this power to settle personal vindettas.

THIS LAW IS A FUNDAMENTAL PERMANANT CHANGE IN THE WAY AMERICA WORKS.

You better be sure you like this new way of operating the judical system because there is absolutely no way of knowing who it will be used against in the future.

> You are lying Johnny. Or misinformed one of the two.

You overlooked another possibility. You don't know what you're talking about. That's the one I voted for.

The section you quoted makes no mention whatsoever of habeas corpus. I conveniently gave you a link to the act. All you have to do is go straight to the specific section in question. Here's a hint: it's the one entitled "Habeas Corpus Matters". That's because it deals with habeas corpus.

If you read Section 7 it spells out the conditions under which habeas corpus does not apply. There are only three paragraphs, so it shouldn't be too taxing for you to read (though it apparently was for Olbermann). The first two describe under what conditions habeas corpus does not apply, and IN EACH CASE it clearly restricts its applicability: ALIENS, NOT US CITIZENS. (The third paragraph give the effective date.)

It's not surprising that Olbermann didn't read any of this on the air. He does a "special investigation" on how the law "completely" destroys habeas corpus, and never says one word about what the law says. Particularly the habeas corpus provisions, which clearly have NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER on American citizens.

I can't explain, JT, why you couldn't grasp the plain English words in the statute. In Olbermann's case, the explanation is much simpler: he's a liar.

Then why, pray tell do two PROFESSORS OF LAW at such prestigious schools as YALE and GEORGETOWN disagree with YOU, Johnny?

Could it be that YOU are the one who is misreading the bill?

Oh, wow, two perfessors. And how many AGREE with me? Do you know?

JT It funny to hear you quote JEFFERSOn to bad you are so far out of context you its lauughable. Jefferson was in context to the fact that the fedetral whoud stop that indvidual states or others form forming malitias to protects itself agaisnt unwarranted gov action. You goe on and on aboutUs intrepreting the constiturion to suit us but in all the years I have listen to this stupis argument I have yet to here one valid and logical arguement of how those words equal to your right to own any type. You also have never explined how restricting certain guns that have no valid use for normal sane person would violate those words. How have certain measures to insure the protection of others would violate a lawful citizen in this country second admendment right---PLEASE explain to me how this has ever been viiolate or even threatened in anything but your pathetic mind. AND BY THE WAY I AM A GUN OWNER> I won three- registered- one 16 gage i use for hunting deer- 1 22 rifle i use to hunt samll game and a 410 for my teenager. As a law citizen i had no problem with the background check I was required to have. I have no problem iwth registering those guns. After I have to register my car and my truck do I not. My sister owns a hand gun. SHe had no problem getting a permitt to pack it. Tell me how any of these precaution does anything to prevent lawfull citizens from thier second admen

Earlier Anonymous posted this stupid bit of text:
"loss of freedom of speech -- um hello scary uncle KO appears every weeknight with his "Network" brand of "journalism" or did i miss the news that he was taken away to Gimo for re-education"

Hey, the law is only a couple of weeks old. The Bush family has a lot of enemies in front of Keith that they need to "disappear" into Gitmo. But I am sure he is on the list.

Thanks for that link johnny, not taxing at all to read. I even felt so perked up afterwards that I decided to read a bit more of the bill.

>If you read Section 7 it spells out the >conditions under which habeas corpus does not >apply. There are only three paragraphs, so it >shouldn't be too taxing for you to read (though >it apparently was for Olbermann). The first two >describe under what conditions habeas corpus >does not apply, and IN EACH CASE it clearly >restricts its applicability: ALIENS, NOT US >CITIZENS. (The third paragraph give the >effective date.)

This is fantastic! Great work! except, well... I got a bug up my butt and decided to read section 948a definitions.

Section 948a(1) defines an unlawful enemy combatant as

"(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces; or

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

Now I have to say I'm a little more concerned about section ii of this thingy. because under that section it seems all we need is a tribunal set up by Rumsfield or Bush to declare you an enemy combatant.

Luckily this only applies to aliens... except well, congress went and decalred that persons falling under section 948a are unlawful enemy combatants whether they are citizens or not. meaning the goverment could potentially detain
U.S. citizens as unlawful enemy combatants.

Oh and thanks for mentioning the part about plain english, it went a long way towards reassuring me there is no danger at all in this bill. I mean sure the language is vague in many places an open to interpretation but you don't thing lawyers would wrangle over the meaning of words do you? You don't think the Bush admistration would try to stretch it's power just a little? I mean they wouldn't stretch--oh for instance... the word "force" to cover spying or some such silly thing would they?

Not to mention, the 10% or so of this country who are not citizens have certainly been stripped of their right to Habeus Corpus.

Wow, this site has slid right down on the google search of "Olbermann" — not even on the first page anymore.

If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?
Selection 4

“Ugh... what the hell?” Sarah groaned as she lifted her head from the pillow in order to better view the catastrophe that seemed to be taking place in the normally dark area in front of the closet. “What are you doing?” She asked irritably of Zeke, who was rummaging through the closet, flash light in hand.
Zeke paused for a moment, considering the number of sarcastic things he could utter in response, but knowing the potential consequences of the ire he had already provoked, he simply said, “looking for something.”
“No sh**?” Sarah remarked now thoroughly awake, pushing the covers away. “Man, it was possible you were wrestling the boogeyman... What the (expletive deleted) are you doing?”
“Looking for something.” Zeke repeated with mock innocence.
Sarah smacked her forehead with her palm, noting the time on the alarm clock. “This couldn’t wait?”
“Uhmn, no.” Zeke mumbled.
Sarah coughed irritably, wishing with sleep deprivation that she could bore holes into the back of his head with her glare.
“I know, I know,” Zeke said wistfully, “you have to sleep because you have to go work your little fingers off tonight.”
“Then why are you rummaging through the closet — right now?” She wondered.
“I need my shiny black shoes.”
“Your shiny black shoes?” Sarah repeated irritably.
“Yes, my shiny black shoes.” Zeke repeated.
“I don’t really want to know, do I?” Sarah muttered, slipping back beneath the covers, and pulling them over her head.
“You’ll find out soon enough anyway.” Zeke suggested, looking over his shoulder. He was greeted with silence.
“I know you’re not asleep,” he chided.
“No,” Sarah groaned with exasperation.
“You know how you’ve always wanted some fat (expletive deleted) hiding outside in the bushes,” Zeke suggested open-endedly.
“I believe that’s your dream... I wanted to be a princess,” Sarah returned with ironic candor.
“Well, princess, there’s someone outside hiding in the bushes.”
“Is it a ball room dancer?” Sarah snarked.
“No, although that would be more fun.” said Zeke.
“Is it the quiet restful sleep fairy that doesn’t make your girlfriend who works the night shift bitchy with sleep deprivation?” Sarah wondered, without much of a sense of wonderment.
“No, but I suppose that would be more convenient.” Zeke suggested.
“It’d be more convenient if you could get to the point—quickly.” Sarah groaned, throwing the pillow over her head.
“Rob-bob’s here.”
“Billy-Bo-Bob who?” Sarah laughed deliriously.
“Rob-bob.” Zeke repeated, more emphasis on the bob.
“Again — quick and to the point.” Sarah giggled irritably.
“Captain man-crush from the right-wing site.”
“No, no,” Sarah muttered with a burst of laughter. “Johnny is Mr. Unrequited Man-crush, he’s the jock, after all. Rob-bob is the geek, the nerd, Herr HTML, if we ust give them titles.”
“Really, you think Johnny was a jock?” Zeke inquired.
“Yeah, totally, he’s the jock, the other one’s the nerd. I think anybody could pick that out from the relationship — in the way they write, the frequency, yada, yada, yada. You are forever who you were in high school.”
“And who were you again?” Zeke laughed.
“That girl that it seemed like it would be so easy to pick on that always took the time to pick back. Anyway, that (expletive deleted)-headed mother-(expletive deleted)-er is outside in the bushes?”
“Well, assuming that he can fit in the bushes.” Zeke chuckled.
“Your shoes are in the coat closet downstairs. Shine them up real good. Your black suit is also in the coat closet... the feather duster is in the linen closet. Make sure to tidy up.” Sarah giggled.
“Are you planning on inviting him in?”
“No, but when he sneaks in, and can’t you just see his fat (expletive deleted, even though this one isn’t really an expletive) wedged halfway through one of the windows. The comic value of the visual alone should be worth the price of a jar of crisco and a roll of paper towel.” Sarah giggled.
“That’s why I live in sin with you.” Zeke laughed, caressing her hair.
“Uhmn, yeah, now get the (expletive deleted) out of here, and keep it down.” Sarah muttered.

**to be continued.
© Sarah Knight, all rights reserved.

Hope you guys finally figure out if a US citizen can be considered an unlawful enemy combatant. When you have got it figured out you should write it up and send it off to the supreme court, I'm sure they are waiting for your input. Sorry for the sarcasm, but the legal point you guys are debating won't be dealt with until it gets tried in court - just like almost any other complex legal issue. The only problem being that if a US citizen is put in jail under this law, how does he get a court to hear his case. That is the real issue you should be talking about.

I, like a lot of others am no expert on the law or the constition. I am not a spokesperson for the "left" or anyone for that fact. I do know that I was taught that America is the land of the free and the home of the brave. I understand that you have to be brave to live free. I think Keith stated pretty well the case for the bill of rights being trampled on because our "leader" believs that protecting us is his only real job. He swore to uphold the constition. He is confused. If his administration is not wise and shrewd enough to face a world who doesn't share our values without throwing them away than he is not fit for the job. Again and again I keep hearing that we have not been attacked since 911 and this proves his methods correct. Everyday service men are killed in a foreign country. A country we intended to disarm. Isn't it ironic that the same people who defend the right to bear arms needed a war to disarm someone of their right to defend themselves. Iraq was not going to attack us. They are and were surrounded by enemies. Other countries are going to seek weapons to defend themselves. We live in a dangerous world. I want a strong America who values freedom and bravery. It's not a brave act to kill people who you think might attack you maybe someday and throw our values out the window to make us feel safer. Also, it is a complete delusion of some who think this country has decided forever to trust republicans with the leadership that they have abused, and that democrats don't have a plan. The only plan republicans have is to win elections. They are not leaders. They had their chance. They divided our country and left us in debt and at war. Fire them now!

"I, like a lot of others am no expert . . ."
"I am not a spokesperson . . ."
"I do know that . . ."
"I was taught that . . ."
"I understand that . . ."
"I think Keith stated . . ."
"I keep hearing that . . ."
"I want a strong America . . ."

And I want you to STFU you self-absorbed pompous onanistic blatherer.

Sarah dear, you are certifiable. You do realize you are a stalker on this site, right? Then you write this adolescent twaddle in which Johnny Dollar and Bob Cox are stalking you? What do J$ and Bob do next in your wacky world of projection? Do they end up straight jacketed in a mental institution for writing journals in their own menstrual blood while refusing to eat or bathe? Sarah, I dub thee Queen of the realm of insane suppositions.

"I, like a lot of others am no expert . . ."
"I am not a spokesperson . . ."
"I do know that . . ."
"I was taught that . . ."
"I understand that . . ."
"I think Keith stated . . ."
"I keep hearing that . . ."
"I want a strong America . . ."

And I want you to STFU you self-absorbed pompous onanistic blatherer.

In the words of your beloved VP. GO FUCK YOURSELF YOU FUCKING JERK OFF! How is that. Is that the kinda of language that a dumbass like you can understand?

I also noticed that the idiot that has a problem with my "pompous onanistic blatherer" didn't have much to answer my blathering with because you know you don't have any but insults. Thats weak.

hit a nerve there "Codas"?

Yeah you did actually.

I had to look up what "onanistic" means. Thats not very nice. Whats wrong with cumming on a pussy anyway?

It wasn't always 1938; first there was 1933, then 1934, then 1935...

I wonder if any of you right-wingers out there will even take note when your neighbors begin to disappear, or when entire classes of people start to be officially outlawed by executive proclaimation. All to keep the Fatherland...er, I mean the "Homeland" ...safe from International Jewry...er, I mean the "Terrorists".

A crazy person wrote: "I wonder if any of you right-wingers out there will even take note when your neighbors begin to disappear . . ."

Well, pal, Hillary hasn't won yet, so maybe this won't happen.

Doesnt matter what happens in Nov. If the Dems dirty tricks fail them in their quest for the House, Olby is just going to rant on about Diebold and disenfranchised voters.
All part of the moonbat playbook.
Its going to be a Black Helicopter November.

The arguements from the Malkin people who are posting here are so lame.

nya nya ny nya nya nya. I like my new name!

Larry Brock,

Your adherence to the Rovian script does you a disservice. I for one don't want to take anyone's guns. I myself am festooned with firearms, and don't view them in the possession of others as any particular threat. Your cognitive teleprompter is giving you false paradigms by which to interperet your world.

The danger I percieve comes from leader-worshipping goons who want to change or disregard the US constitution out of fear, boredom, or just to irritate their Liberal adversaries.

I wonder how it works. Does Krazy Kieth's staff allow interns or NBC employees to post on the web during work hours. Are they assigned to sites like this that expose his leftwing agenda and daily untruths?
I mean who in their right mind could read through 100 or 200 posts of warped liberal misinformation.
The left is full of hate and will attack rather then debate anyone who dares to disagree with them.

Well, Anonymous, I'm here for the debate - most righty websites are not open forums due to the fragility of their positions (kudos to this site for being so wide open), and few righties other than slippery trolls intent on sabotage visit lefty discussion sites.

WTF are YOU doing here?

Beef head: "The danger I percieve comes from leader-worshipping goons who want to change or disregard the US constitution out of fear, boredom, or just to irritate their Liberal adversaries."

Last I checled the Constitution was being altered by the leftists on the Supreme Court, as they cite foreign law and decide there is no such thing as private property. Keep focusing on the evils of Bush while you miss the thousand pound elephant sitting on your chest.

As for your absurd claim that "most righty websites are not open forums," I would like you to name the leftist sites that do not edit or erase comments based on political content. Places like this one or littlegreenfootballs.com never edit for political content. So, let's hear about the lefty sites. . . . [crickets . . . more crickets . . . wolf howls . . .]

most sites are not open PERIOD mostly because the of the angry left.

KfK,

"Last I checled the Constitution was being altered by the leftists on the Supreme Court, as they cite foreign law and decide there is no such thing as private property. Keep focusing on the evils of Bush while you miss the thousand pound elephant sitting on your chest."

You say the Constitution is being
altered by the Leftists on the Supreme Court? How exactly is that coming to pass? And how many "Leftists" currently sit on the Supreme Court?

What you are really saying is that you dislike the constitutional concept of judicial review - or rather someone has told you to diislike it. You prefer the quick, decisive arbitration of a single man - a dry-drunk, superstitious, grandiose little cocksucker of a fake Texan, at that. Don't you realize that if you get rid of judicial review, as the Republicans have successfully endeavoring, then you can kiss the USA goodbye. Without the delineated checks and balances, without the separation of powers, we are directly at the mercy of tyrany (Federalist 47, I think).

But you don't care, because for the moment, he's your tyrant.

Sir Loin of Beef

You said it so well.

Larry Brock said:

"The people of New Orleans were too stupid to see the failures of Nagin and they voted him back in office. They should really blow of the levees and make NO an oyster bed. Liberals are stupid. They are too stupid to vote."

I've NEVER seen a liberal advocate the destruction of an entire American city before, the way you just did. Who's the Goddamn Terrorist?

Fear, this is all I hear from people who attack the compromise bill that was PASSED by the congress without attempt of fillibuster by the loyal opposition.

IF (and IMO is DOES NOT) this bill suspend habeus corpus rights of US citizen, then those democrats who voted for cloture in the senate are a party to the passing of this bill. The EXTREME left of this country interprets this bill in ways that support their political agenda to strike fear in the people against the president to that they can score political points at the polls. And guess what Sir Loin.....there are extreme leftists that hold JD's an teach at "prestigious" schools of higher learning....give me a break.

J$ puts great documentation on the actual bill to rebut Olbermann's superficial coverage and you still critisize him. The bill, as it reads, leaves my rights intact and I am not worried about Olbermann, you or liberal dork down the street disappearing...it ain't gonna happen.

What will happen, if you lieftists have your way, is that enemy combatants will be allowed to kill and terrorize for the next 50 years as lawyers and judges argue and make billions litigating and pontificating on the TV with the likes of Olbermann. This is a sick debate that in the end only gives rights to individuals who should not have said rights.

What will happen, if you lieftists have your way, is that enemy combatants will be allowed to kill and terrorize for the next 50 years as lawyers and judges argue and make billions litigating and pontificating on the TV with the likes of Olbermann. This is a sick debate that in the end only gives rights to individuals who should not have said rights.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 11, 2006 08:18 AM

Who is using fear as a tatic with statements like that.

Annonymous,

Don't blame me for the actions of the Appeasement Democrats (appeasing the Neocon menace, that is, not the terrorists).

Eisenhower was a lefty compared with Pelosi and that shit-heel Joe Biden.

You say: "This is a sick debate that in the end only gives rights to individuals who should not have said rights." You illustrate precisely why there is a Bill of Rights in our Constitution, and why that Bill of Rights talks about "persons" and not "American citizens". It was to fend off our own Hugenot massacre or Krystalnacht. Its why it has been the case that America has celebrated the Rule of Law, and not the Whims of Annonymous Bloggers.

Beef head: "You say the Constitution is being altered by the Leftists on the Supreme Court? How exactly is that coming to pass? And how many "Leftists" currently sit on the Supreme Court?"

Read the Kelo decision. Private property can now be ceased and given to another private entity if the Government thinks it is a good idea. Only property owners need be concerned, so you don't have to worry beefy.

The following lawyers are leftists:

Bader Ginsburg
John Paul Stevens
Souter
Breyer

Kennedy is an idiot and sided with these lefties to produce the Kelo decision, which took your right to own a piece of property and threw it out the window. These clowns cite FOREIGN LAW to pervert the constitution.

Still waiting to hear about lefty sites open to political debate . . . [snoring . . . coughing . . . ]

Wars have never been fought in the courtroom....they are REAL events that have REAL consequences for actual people....DEATH! The gravestone Olbermann puts up is, in reality, is only used to mark the spot bodies are buried.....Sitting in his comfy studio in NJ, Olbermann makes the arrogant statement that my government has taken away my right to due process.....the law's provisions do not do that! He lies to make political points against a person he wants out of office....shameful!

Beef head: "I've NEVER seen a liberal advocate the destruction of an entire American city before . . ."

No, they just advocated the destruction of "red state America"! Who the Hell are you trying to fool?

Two seconds of Googleing yields this Beef head:

http://www.fuckthesouth.com/

Pathetic really.

KfK,

I have to agree with you about the Emminent Domain issue - private property has always been seizable through this mechanism to further public works, which is a neccessary evil recognized explicitly by our founders (I am facing an impending highway condemnation of my 10-acre woods as we speak - I am fighting it, by am resigned to accept the results of the process).

But taking private property in the interests of someone else's private enterprise is unconscionable.

I can only hope that this horrible decision will be struck down someday soon - perhaps in one of the many cases that are developing - but this does not prompt me to dismiss the entire crucial concept of judicial review.

By the way, your definition of "leftist" is apparently pretty lax.

KfK,

I don't hold you responsible for every skinhead neofascist blogger out there, I've tried to limit discussions to things you people actually write. Don't muddy up the water by asking me to account for every jackass website on the internet. Straw men - the only arrows in the right-wing quivver.

*************************************************************************************
OLBERGASM ALERT OLBERGASM ALERT OLBERGASM ALERT OLBERGASM ALERT
*************************************************************************************

Look for Olbermann to take the lastest phony study from leftists and run with it:

"Study: 655,000 Iraqis Died Due to War"
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/10/D8KM6GL80.html

Funny, this is the same crew that came out with a study before the last election with the same inflated death statistics! Maybe ONE BILLION died! Maybe EVERY INNOCENT IRAQ IS DEAD! See this nice debunking of this dumb story BEFORE you see Olby lie and spin:

http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/10/11/a-most-ghoulish-debate/

Beefy,

Good to see that you wake up when it happens to you. Now if you could just extrapolate . . .

Beefy: "I've tried to limit discussions to things you people actually write. Don't muddy up the water by asking me to account for every jackass website on the internet."

Then DON'T WRITE THINGS LIKE:

"I've NEVER seen a liberal advocate the destruction of an entire American city before . . ."

You took responsibility! If you don't want it, then don't claim to know what every liberal advocates. You make my points for me.

Look folks, I consider myself a civil libertarian. I'm extremely concerned with the preservation of the basic liberties we enjoy as American citizens. That being said, it's important that we engage in a substantive examination of this legislation, rather than the hysterical hand wringing we get from KO.
It is true that the definition of "unlawful enemy combatant", as defined in Section 948(a) (7), could include US citizens. However, Section 948(c) limits the use of military commissions to the cases of "Alien unlawful enemy combatants". It is apparent that if an unlawful enemy combatant is also an American citizen (and therefore not an alien), military commissions do not apply. Finally, Section 950(j), which prohibits bringing habeas corpus claims, does so only with respect to military commissions. In sum, habeas corpus is only eliminated in proceedings involving military commissions; and these commissions are only used to try non-citizens.
Finally, this interpretation of the legislation is entirely consistent with the September 28 statement of Senator Leahy (who led the opposition to the bill). It can be found here:
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/092806.html
It is very clear that he does not contemplate the suspension of habeas corpus in the cases of American citizens. He is concerned with the 12 million resident aliens here in the US, who could be subjected to military commissions under the bill. If you agree with him on that issue that's fine and we can debate it. But KO's report falsely suggested that this bill would eliminate the use of habeas corpus petitions by ALL Americans, citizens and non-citizens alike.
He has once again distorted the facts to make it appear that W has eviscerated the Bill of Rights. This is pure fiction and is unworthy of someone who calls himself a journalist. If O'Reilly pulled this crap we would be justifiably outraged. KO shouldn't be given a pass.

...You mean extrapolate like this?

Bush and his crew have created a war - which keeps the masses opiated even more effectively than does religion - which has allowed his boardroom cabinet and pet legislature to hand every bit of the record budget surplus built during Clinton's administration over to corporate cronies who are doing a magnificent pantomime of a "reconstruction" in Iraq in return. What's more, Bush has incurred more foreign debt than ALL PREVIOUS PRESIDENTS COMBINED and given this borrowed cash to his tiny and influential constituency as well for work that may or may not have ever been conducted.

This is Kelo-style Emminent Domain as practiced by a corporatist tyranny against 99% of Americans and their children and grandchildren, and it pisses me off. What's happening to me in regard to the highway project is difficult to bear, but its part of the federal process I believe in deeply and must bear it.

Beefy, try to stay on topic. I fear your Bush Derangement Syndrome is terminal.

Lefty's will you admit that the MSM is overwhelmingly reporting from the Left.
Question:
Had Chuck Schumer been a Republican would we still be bombarded on a daily basis with the criminal activity by his staffers illegally obtaining Steele's financial information with intent to destroy the dude?

That story got buried almost immediately in fact in many articles Chucky's name doesn't even appear. That is a slam dunk example of media bias!

"Beefy, try to stay on topic. I fear your Bush Derangement Syndrome is terminal."

Well then, Don't ask me to extrapolate. That's how I see the war and always have - its the Military Industrial Complex warned of explictly by the magnificent Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Sul4627,

Well, we've yet to see Bush's "signing statement" framing this legislation. How do you think the interminable jailers of American citizen Jose Padilla will spin this one?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061011/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraqi_death_toll;_ylt=AnN01E2aN.ZrtT0tLUXWMDOs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

KfK sez:

"Funny, this is the same crew that came out with a study before the last election with the same inflated death statistics! Maybe ONE BILLION died! Maybe EVERY INNOCENT IRAQ IS DEAD!"

This "crew" is Johns Hopkins - the long-established standard for epidemiological studies in the world. The studies have been published in the "lancet", perhaps the most respected peer-reviewed medical journal anywhere.

But the scientific method can't stand up to right-wing preferrences and anecdotal wishful thinking. KfK would sooner accept the Pentagon's estimate - compiled from data that they acknowledge they have never bothered to collect, or to IraqBodyCount.com, which limits its estimation to data reported in more than one media source.

And no, they didn't come out with "the same inflated statistics" in 2004 - they reported a conservative estimate of 100,000 dead, with 80% being attributable directly to coalition actions. Obviously, these statistics have changed considerably in the intervening months.

Get out your leeches and onion pultice - rightwingers like KfK have just declared modern medical science null and void and a tool of the terrorists.

Beefy, did you read the study? Did you read the rebuttal? Of course not! No, it came from "Johns Hopkins"! No need to read the study! And lancet is infallible!

How 'bout this -- you read before you write. Extrapolate as well e.g. think before you write, cook food before you eat it etc.

JT sez: except well, congress went and decalred that persons falling under section 948a are unlawful enemy combatants whether they are citizens or not. meaning the goverment could potentially detain
U.S. citizens as unlawful enemy combatants.

That's very interesting, but what does it have to do with habeas corpus? NOTHING! It doesn't say one word about it, most notably it doesn't say one word about habeas corpus rights not applying. The only situation where habeas corpus rights do not apply is for combatants who are ALIENS. NOT for US citizens.

It's clear from the law that Olbermann deliberately misrepresented what it says. Even if you're an OlbyLoon you don't have to defend every despicable lie that he tells. Sometimes it's the better part of valor to just admit he's been caught on this one, and save a shred of credibility to live to fight another day.

Johnny Dollar wrote: "Even if you're an OlbyLoon you don't have to defend every despicable lie that he tells."

You are correct, Mr. Dollar. The DSM IV criteria for the diagnosis of "Olbyloon Disorder" clearly contain other options:

* 101.00A/2 Olbyloon Disorder / Olbermannia

A. A pervasive distrust and suspiciousness of non-leftists such that their motives are interpreted as malevolent, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by four (or more) of the following:

1. suspects, without sufficient basis, that non-leftists are exploiting, harming, or deceiving him or her

2. is preoccupied with unjustified doubts about the loyalty or trustworthiness of non-leftists

3. is reluctant to confide in others because of unwarranted fear that the information will be used maliciously against him or her by Olbermannwatch

4. reads hidden demeaning or threatening meanings into benign remarks or events

5. persistently bears grudges, i.e., is unforgiving of insults, injuries, or slights to Olbermann

6. perceives attacks on his or Olbermann's character or reputation that are not apparent to others and is quick to react angrily or to counterattack

7. Stubbornly defends every statement from Keith Olbermann.

B. Does not occur exclusively during the course of schizophrenia, a mood disorder with psychotic features, or another psychotic disorder and is not due to the direct physiological effects of a general medical condition.

Nobody taking anybodies goddamn right of habeas corpus away from them. It applies to the poor bakers & barbers at GITMO. But Mr. Demigod doesnt bother to mention that!

What makes this so dangerous is there are some pretty uneducated folks in this new left movement and they actually believe there rights are being taken away from them.

In my world I look around and I cant find ONE DAMN PERSON whom this has affected. Or ONE DAMN PERSON affected by the Patriot Act or any other goddamn thing this government is using to PROTECT ME.

In the past a statement like Oblys would be laughed off as coming from a wacko, nutjob. But in todays "Hate Bush at all cost" it ends up on some cable "news" show as if it was fact.

As a lifelong Democrat I'm ashamed at the direction my old party has taken. They have let the wackos take over the party.

PS If one of you fruitcake nutjobs know Personally of ONE DAMN PERSON who has had their rights taken away from them in the last 4 years LET US KNOW.

Nobody taking anybodies goddamn right of habeas corpus away from them. It applies to the poor bakers & barbers at GITMO. But Mr. Demigod doesnt bother to mention that!

What makes this so dangerous is there are some pretty uneducated folks in this new left movement and they actually believe there rights are being taken away from them.

In my world I look around and I cant find ONE DAMN PERSON whom this has affected. Or ONE DAMN PERSON affected by the Patriot Act or any other goddamn thing this government is using to PROTECT ME.

In the past a statement like Oblys would be laughed off as coming from a wacko, nutjob. But in todays "Hate Bush at all cost" it ends up on some cable "news" show as if it was fact.

As a lifelong Democrat I'm ashamed at the direction my old party has taken. They have let the wackos take over the party.

PS If one of you fruitcake nutjobs know Personally of ONE DAMN PERSON who has had their rights taken away from them in the last 4 years LET US KNOW.

We can thank the Liberal Madrassa's.... A.K.A. ....American Schools for the Hate/Blame America people of the USA!

When Olbermann started questioning Bill O'Reilly's college punting statistics, he lost ANY credibility he may have had. Pathetic. Why is the Foley scandal being called a "sex scandal"? Did any "sex" take place? I mean, the guy is a dirtbag but I don't understand. To quote some of the left wingers during the Clinton "sex scandal", "it was just a blow job" - well "it was just dirty, gay, text messaging". If W is remembered as the President who "makes up stuff" it would still be better than "the President who used a cigar as a sex toy on in intern in the Oval Office".

JT sez: "except well, congress went and decalred that persons falling under section 948a are unlawful enemy combatants whether they are citizens or not. meaning the goverment could potentially detain
U.S. citizens as unlawful enemy combatants."

johnny dollar sez: "That's very interesting, but what does it have to do with habeas corpus? NOTHING! It doesn't say one word about it, most notably it doesn't say one word about habeas corpus rights not applying. The only situation where habeas corpus rights do not apply is for combatants who are ALIENS. NOT for US citizens."

Johnny,

Where in the law (either this one or any other U.S. law) does it state that a U.S. citizen who is declared an unlawful enemy combatant retains his U.S. citizenship and, therefore, cannot be considered an alien?

The implication of how the left uses the horrible news about the Iraqi death toll is that these deaths are the fault of America...The same leftists ignore the fact that the same study says 31% are attributed to direct coalition military action. That leaves 69% from the other side or from disease. If the insurgency did not take place, and Al Queda did not get involved with civilian killings and the inflamming of religious strife, then these numbers would not be so high....including the continuing deaths of US soldiers.

Blame america is easy....stopping this violence without emboldening the terrorists is the tough job that has to be done so that millions do not fall under the oppression of islamo-fascists. No one ever blamed FDR and Churchill for the greater than 50 million civilian deaths during WWII...people correctly placed the responsibility where it belonged.....on those evil men who would not submit to the rules of the civilized world.

The Left in government sit on their hands when the hard decisions have to be made and then when the going gets tough they whine like 1st graders and claim they were lied to.

They have NO plan for the imminent terror threat to the west. If you don't think they want to kill millions of infidels in one huge attack you are very wrong.

"No one ever blamed FDR and Churchill for the greater than 50 million civilian deaths during WWII...people correctly placed the responsibility where it belonged.....on those evil men who would not submit to the rules of the civilized world."

...and who STARTED the war with unprovoked invasions rationalized through existential nationalist fear-mongering. Yeah - lets blame those guys!

JH- No matter what the topic wingnuts discuss it always goes back to Clinton. NEWSFLASH: President Bill Clinton has been out of the office for 6 years!

You really need to find a better retort than the tired old "B B B but Clinton".

"...and who STARTED the war . . ."

Duh . . . I don't know . . . I guess the tyrant who invaded a neighboring country, was defeated, then shot at our planes in the no fly zone, plotted to assasinate a sitting President, had 500 tons of uranium at his al Tuwaitha nuclear site (CONFIRMED AFTER THE INVASION) and refused weapons inspections?

In Afghanistan I guess it would be the Taliban and Osama who used the country as a base to attack us on 9/11?

Oh wait, I forgot the degree to which you suffer from BDS -- Bush did it all.

"The implication of how the left uses the horrible news about the Iraqi death toll is that these deaths are the fault of America...The same leftists ignore the fact that the same study says 31% are attributed to direct coalition military action. That leaves 69% from the other side or from disease. If the insurgency did not take place, and Al Queda did not get involved with civilian killings and the inflamming of religious strife, then these numbers would not be so high....including the continuing deaths of US soldiers."

You are correct in stating that the insurgency is responsible for the majority of the civilian deaths in Iraq. On the other hand, the incompetence of the way this war has been handled has caused it to drag on which has resulted in, and will continue to result in, more deaths of both U.S. soldiers and Iraqis. We have just enough forces in their to be an irritant or a target, but not enough to stop the violence. We have given the terrorists just what they want: Americans to shoot at.

"Blame america is easy...."

Really? Tell everyone that you meet today "America sucks" and tell me how easy your life becomes.

"stopping this violence without emboldening the terrorists is the tough job that has to be done so that millions do not fall under the oppression of islamo-fascists. No one ever blamed FDR and Churchill for the greater than 50 million civilian deaths during WWII...people correctly placed the responsibility where it belonged.....on those evil men who would not submit to the rules of the civilized world."

This statement illustrates exactly why we are having the problems that we are having. If we were fighting a war like WWII, we'd kick ass because that is what are military is designed for. Our military is not structured in such a way to deal with terrorism effectively. But, of course, when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. So the administration comes up with the term "state-sponsored terrorism", which is not even the problem, just so that they can frame the discussion to fit what they know that they can handle. Then, they go into Iraq because they think it will be easy and it will look good on television. A REAL war on terrorism involves covert work (which I hope is happening anyway, in spite of the debacle in Iraq). It takes small forces that will infiltrate enemy camps and neutralize them before anyone is the wiser. Of course, politicos can't sell that to the American people, so you get irrelevant wars, terror alerts, and rhetoric from both lefties and right-wingers who'd rather blame each other than get things done.

The war in Iraq has benefitted no one except the Kurds and they'd better be friggin' grateful for our sacrifice for them.

Sir Loin....The war was started decades ago with the killing of innocent Israeli atheletes in the olympic games by muslim fundamentalists. The west ignored the threat as it grew and now, finally, we have decided to confront the threat...I can argue with you all day about Iraq specifically regarding mistakes about WMD and Saddam's intentions with regards to funding/supporting radical islam....but I already know how you come down on that.

I disagree with the left's catagorizing the "war on terrorism." It is now obvious that Iraq is a central part of Al Queda's strategy to demoralize and weaken the west. You and those who want to abandon the Iraqi people will give into this strategy, just like the left did in Vietnam, and there will be negative results far worse in decades to come.

Saddam Hussein ignored resolutions of the UN and was justifiably removed. The ensuing insurgency promoted by his bathist supporters and Al Queda is now the issue and they must be defeated. The civilian deaths are the responsibility of those evil people who continue the car bombs, religious warfare and sabotage of infrastructure. Is it your claim that American soldiers are doing these acts of brutality?

If you don't like fighting for Iraq's freedom from radical Islam, vote for the cut and runners... maybe you'll win power...maybe the next president will do as Nixon did and withdrawl....Just remember to come back and discuss the result 30 years from now if we still are able to.

SULL4627-I borrowed your excellant post,without direct attribition,for use in educating the poor unfortunates at keitholbermann.org/forum.Thanks.

Cee,

..or maybe the war started in 1948, when Dayan sent a hundred thousand Palestinians on a death march to the nearest border? Or earlier, when the Stern Gang bombed the Jerusalem Hotel in Zionist zeal?

No, none of these options mark the start of America's war in Iraq - that started in 2003 when Bush invaded on exlicitly false pretenses. The other incidents cited by you and I are events involving other countries to whom we are NOT constitutionally bound.

Do you and KfK like being lied to? - or did your side all recieve little postcards saying: "We didn't mean that stuff about WMD or Democracy in Iraq, or any of that other crap we told the UN and everybody; this invasion is really a component of the global race war you've been itching for. Don't tell nobody"?

I'm currently watching your President perform. What a Goddamn monkey! This guy is so full of shit its leaking out of the USB port Rove had installed in his head. Where did he get so petulent? He is so lost on the North Korean developments its pathetic.

All I know is I just tried to watch some of the presidents press conference. I can't. The man can hardly speak in a complete thought. I feel sorry for him when I watch him. History will look back on him and people will wonder How? Why? What the hell were they thinking? It's not me being partisan. It is the truth and most of you know it. You support him because he is not a liberal democrat.

...ah, Bush just discounted the Johns Hopkins report out of hand. Good job, Numbnuts! Nope; Gen Casey thinks otherwise, and that trumps sound scientific methodology.

" I stand by the figure that a lot of innocent peole have lost their life. 600,000, that's not a valid estimate" he says. based on what? Wishful messianic thinking.

Sir Loin

Sorry for the delay in the response. I'm offline most of the morning. Let me say right off the bat that I'm on board with you on Padilla. I'm glad that the administration finally gave up the ghost and charged him. As for the signing statement, if W tries to expand the scope of this legislation to deny the right of habeas corpus to US citizens I'll be standing right along side of you.

But my post was really about KO's completely misleading description of this particular piece of legislation. First, he suggested that the habeas rights of US citizens were threatened by the bill. As Johnny Dollar indicated, this is pure fiction. Second, he presented a sound bite of Arlen Specter arguing against the Section 7 habeus provision. What he didn't mention is that Specter eventually voted for the bill. He also somehow forgot to mention the fact that the bill was approved in the House by a significant majority of 253-168 (34 Democrats supported it), and in the Senate by a 65-34 vote (supported by 9 Dems). Don't you think that any responsible presentation of this issue should have included the very significant fact that 20 percent of Senate Dems supported the bill?

Two or three nights a week I hold my nose and watch this guy deliver gross distortions and frenzied partisan attacks. Then I go on this site and read posts like this: "Keith's piece on the Bush administration's destruction of Habeas Corpus was one of the best things I have ever seen on television." (Justice Prevails at 8:59 PM). This is insanity. Responsible people on the left and right should condemn this guy. Instead he's held up as some kind of martyr for the truth.

CABLE NEWS RACE
MON. OCT., 9, 2006
VIEWERS

FOXNEWS O'REILLY 2,216,000
FNC SHEP SMITH 1,437,000
FNC HANNITY/COLMES 1,355,000
FNC GRETA 1,057,000
CNN KING 1,026,000
CNN DOBBS 813,000
CNN COOPER 767,000
CNN BLITZER 721,000
CNN ZAHN 697,000
MNSBC OLBERMANN 629,000

...ah, Bush just discounted the Johns Hopkins report out of hand. Good job, Numbnuts! Nope; Gen Casey thinks otherwise, and that trumps sound scientific methodology.

" I stand by the figure that a lot of innocent peole have lost their life. 600,000, that's not a valid estimate" he says. based on what? Wishful messianic thinking.

Also...

"There is still an Enemy that plots and plans". there always will be. We'll never be able to catch them, or even generally identify them, but they "lurk", and Bush is here to make you feel safe.

For God's sake read some Orwell.

...when is that dumbass ever gong to stop joking about reporters' suits? Its not cute; its embarrassing.

The more he talks about reporters, the more time he waist which is another way of getting out of having to answer anything.

Bush just said: "I think the characterization of 'stay the course' is about a quarter. 'Stay the course" means you keep doing what your doing as long as it works; if it doesn't you change what you're doing" We've just witnessed the official death of a moronic political mantra.

But he really put the gas on the "fight them there so we won't need to fight them here" doggerell.

Bush just said: "I think the characterization of 'stay the course' is about a quarter right. 'Stay the course" means you keep doing what your doing as long as it works; if it doesn't you change what you're doing" We've just witnessed the official death of a moronic political mantra.

But he really put the gas on the "fight them there so we won't need to fight them here" doggerell. Fear! Its our abject Fear that defines us as what used to be a proud American people.

Sir Loin- Thanks for the play by play on Dubya's debacle of a speech. It's much better than having to sit through it myself. I appreciate your sacrifice.

Sir Lion,
That 12:11 response addressed to you was from me. Sorry, I forgot to enter my name. And to Bill Brennan, thanks for the kind words.

KfK wrote:

"Beefy, did you read the study? Did you read the rebuttal? Of course not! No, it came from "Johns Hopkins"! No need to read the study! And lancet is infallible!"

It came from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (the leading school of public health in the world), using the SAME METHODOLOGY that is used by the Federal Government's Census Bureau and is currently being used to esimate deaths in Darfur. In fact, this study's analysis of pre-invasion Iraqi deaths came up the the same result as BOTH the CIA and U.S. Census Bureau's reports.

And "The Lancet" is one of the three most prestigous medical journals in the world. It is rigorously peer-reviewed and getting any article published in it requires the MOST stringent statistical analysis.

Unless you have PROOF that the study is flawed (other than some screed from a BIASED source), please to be shutting up now.

Anybody who supports this moron and his war needs to suit up for it pronto! If there were a war going that I believed to be a legitimate response to an existential treat to our country I would sign up for the most dangerous duty that I'd be allowed to. I guess cmfortable right-wingers think differently.

What's with all the shopping, "Survivor"-watcing, and getting on with your own business? My town's full of young, healthy, Republican business-school students who love the war, but just don't see themselves taking part in it. Draft Them, I say, a watch how fast the war screeches to a halt.

...Bush just stated emphatically that is "not willing to live with a nuclear-armed North Korea. Well, things being as the are, what are his plans? Is he going to finally shoot himself?

Bush derangement syndrome....you guys and gals need to take something...hatred fogs the brain.

Sir Loin, if you believe that fundamental islam's goal is not to grow in strength geopolitically, then I have nothing more to say to you. You have blindly bought into the anti-Semitic, anti-American propaganda of a very small leftist minority who wants their worldview imposed on the U.S. Good luck with that.

cee,
Please define "Fundamental Islam". Do you mean any Muslims anywhere who happen to live on healthy oil reserves? Do you mean strictly secular totalitarians like Saddam, who was an avowed enemy of Al Qeada? Or do you mean the tiny, fractuous cells of militants that were given life through boluses of CIA money during the Russian/Afghan war, and who numbered ca. 20,000 in 2003 and around 50,000 today?

... because. cee, these distintins make a difference in my response. If you mean any Muslim anywhere, who just want to raise families and get on with life, then I answer "no", they are not gaining geopolitical power. Are the inensly militant cells gaining ower? - I'd have to say yes, based on the intelligence report of a coule of weeks ago that found that the war in Iraq was proving to be a powerful recruiting tool for such groups.

Bush just stated emphatically that is "not willing to live with a nuclear-armed North Korea. Well, things being as the are, what are his plans? Is he going to finally shoot himself?

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 11, 2006 12:40 PM

Thank you. I needed that laugh!

Funny how Sir Loin did not mention Israel in the questioning....Fundamental Islam encompases many divergent sects and worldviews....simply stated....any Muslim who, through terrorist activity, wants to annex territory or kill non-Muslims falls under the term as I am using it....You can continue with the liberal talking points about Saddam, CIA, fractuous cells, etc. The only final conclusion that counts is defining who is the enemy and what do they want to accomplish NOW.

BTW....Do you think Israel has a right to exist?

Like Olbermann or not, why does someone who is a journalist leave out the specifics of the law they are critisizing if they aren't pushing an agenda?
Olberman fans, even if you agree with the guy, why don't you see a problem with him leaving out the perinant info regarding 'Enemy Combatants"?

Hmm. I did take note when many of my Neighbors in Ct and NYC dissappeared after 9/11.

You see your point is hypothetical speculation, my point is reality.

Dude,

Your neighbors were killed by Al Qeada - the crowd that Bush has abandoned any real attempt at battling in 2003(unless you count keeping our troops holed up in a Balkan-style civil war in Iraq as somehow representing a strategy for fighting a Saudi/Wahabi criminal organization).

Reality? How about the fact that the non sequitur occupation of Iraq has strengthened Al Qeada by an estimated 150%? How about the fact that Bush gave Osama the ONLY THING the Al Qeada leader ever demanded of us in regard to his 9/11 extortion when he removed all US troops from Saudi Arabia (The additional fact that Bush used these troops to oust Osama's "secular/socialist" adversary, Saddam, was the shiny silver ribbon on this birthday presaent to bin Laden).

Don't you people remember being told - with straight faces by official representatives of this callow executive - that the war wouldn't last outside of six months; that we'd be greeted as liberators; that our expenditure of treaure on the war would in no case excede two billion dollars? Oh yeah, I almost forgot about WMD and the fabled Iraq/Al Qeada connection -and probably a number of other adminstration lies as well. Do you not care you were lied to? Do you think the proper means of governance in a democracy involves outright deception of the electorate?

Your country has been hijacked, and for some reason some Americans are happy to let their innate xenophobia get the best of them, leading them to support the corporate/government (i.e. "fascist") rape of our treasury and large chunks of the rest of the world just beccause it has been labled for them as a global race-war. You people are really starting to make me sick.

Note on post above - in case you weren't aware, the war in Iraq has now cost a confirmed $350,000 BILLION DOLLARS.

Sir Loin....I wasn't lied to by this administration....in 2003 Saddam Hussein was thought to have WMD's by many experts, including the last Democratic Presidential nominee, John Kerry. You so quickly dismiss actions with the comfort of hindsight and you make NO suggestions for going forward.

In fact, I am sensing you are of the opinion that there is no war on terrorism based on the last paragraph. I guess that is the problem.

Well, I disagree with you. 9/11 was enough for me to realize that these radical islamic fundamentalists would kill themselves in order to promote their cause. If this is xenophobia, then I'll plead guilty.

You are blind to the fact that hatred for the U.S. and Israel has been taught to millions of children in schools through-out the middle east for decades. Hatred in the fundamentalist muslim was there long before Iraq.

Sometimes I think the Bush administration are Democrats in disguise and have infiltrated the Republican party with intentions of destoying it forever. Let me explain- back in the 60's Cheney, Bush and other draftdoggers they surrounded themselves with were passing the bong saying "how can we ensure that the Democratic Party will be the dominant power next century"? They concluded they needed to become Republicans, gain power and then fuck things up so badly that it would forever bring the party to its knees. What followed was an unneccessary war, Katrina, the butchering of our civil rights, et cetera.

Unfortunately, what they never anticipated was the unshakable support of the followers that would follow them barefoot down a 100 mile highway of broken glass. The last 6 years have showed me why the tragic end at Jonestown was possible.

Hey indierik....did you have this vision after the LSD or the LYSOL sniffing?

Hatred in the fundamentalist muslim was there long before Iraq.
Posted by: cee at October 11, 2006 02:56 PM

Then what great thing will be acomplished by staying there? Do they like us now?

"Well, Anonymous, I'm here for the debate - most righty websites are not open forums due to the fragility of their positions (kudos to this site for being so wide open), and few righties other than slippery trolls intent on sabotage visit lefty discussion sites."

I had to respond to this one...How long does anyone that doesn't toe the line and echo the lefty rhetoric last at DU or KOS? Personal experience says 6 minutes.

had to respond to this one...How long does anyone that doesn't toe the line and echo the lefty rhetoric last at DU or KOS? Personal experience says 6 minutes.

Posted by: IllinoisRepublican at October 11, 2006 03:29 PM

Maybe because of the fact that they are probably swamped with right wing fanatics who want to have them hung for treason for questioning our leader.

cee- since you like to stereotype left leaning folks, like me, as drug users you'd be really disappointed to know that the only substance I abuse is the caffeine in my coffee. I've always had short hair and shaved daily, too.

I'll be back soon. I have to go get another "fix" in the break room.

cee, you are completely full of shit. Comfort of hindsight? I was listening to professional weapons inspectors like Scott Ritter, Bush's hand-picked man on the ground David Kay,and others who were trying to convey to an unresponsive nation that THERE WERE NO WEAPONS during the run-up to the war. Kay's own career has yet to recover from the swift-boating he got from the Bush gang after his disobedience in this regard.

I don't have any ideas of what to do next? Bite my ass! It wasn't me or even the Democrats (some of whom are, nonetheless, Bush-appeasers)that fucked up this train-wreck. The left does have ideas of what to do, but nothing - absoltely nothing - is going to turn out well in the near future no matter what measures we take as a nation. That ship has sailed. The methodical way in which the occupation has nurtured chaos has ensured that fullblown balkanization is going to take place in Iraq one way or another, with shit-tons of death and misery and revenge as a salient component.

America has to get its dignity back, and that's gonn be tough. People need to stand to account for their crimes, negligence, and profiteering.

I inhaled a lot!

KFK, I am going to ask you do something completely antithetical to your nature: quit dumbing down the debate. Try instead to see if you can respond to the points of a particular post –- you know, refute the people you disagree with... if you can.

Johnny:

When I looked at your post at first for some reason I thought you were arguing that an American could not get detained as an enemy combatant as well as habeus Corpus which is what my last post was in regarsds to. However, I’m not sure you are entirely right when it comes to Habeus Corpus. Oh the bill specifically says only “alien” unlawful combatants will lose the right; that is true. But assume for a moment someone whom the government deems to be an alien unlawful enemy combatant gets arrested by mistake. If he pleads with his captors, "but I'm a U.S. citizen," what good does it do him, if he can't bring a habeas writ anywhere? That's the inherent problem. Once they've got you, they've got you, and to whom do you appeal if they're not playing by the rules. (Which is why Habeas is the Great Writ, without which all other rights are pretty much null and void - like the right not to be tried in a military commission if you're a U.S. Citizen.)

After all, in the bill itself - Section 7(e)(1) - says:

No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

In other words, as long as the United States says you've been properly detained, you have. Meaning if you get caught in the system you’re fucked.

Nevertheless, the question isn't rhetorical. In all seriousness, to whom can one appeal? What are the measures built in?

Under Section 950c, any guilty verdict gets automatically appealed within the military commission, to some other part of the tribunal established for these special trials. Great. Fat load of good that'll do.

The DC Circuit has "Exclusive Jurisdiction" over appeals from the military commissions to the regular federal courts (and the Supreme Court can theoretically overturn the DC Circuit as well). [See Section 950g] Those appeals, however, are limited to (1) whether the final decision was consistent with the
standards and procedures specified in this chapter; and(2) to the extent applicable, the Constitution and the laws of the United States.

Finally, even if Keith is wrong and this bill doesn’t threaten Americans. It is still a reprehensible piece of legislation. Around 10% of the people in this country are not U.S. citizens. They HAVE lost Habeus Corpus if detained and charged. I’m sorry but I have friends that are Indian, Chinese, Pakistani and a huge assortment of other nationalities. The fact that they can mistakenly be picked up and “coercively” questioned, indefinitely without the government ever having to give any evidence, scares the hell out of me. Not to mention the fact whatever information they give to stop the ‘coercive’ questioning can be used against them in their trial, without any right to appeal.

Man, I bet Nixon would have loved this, back when John Lennon was a pain in his ass.

great discussion, JT

An anonymous pest wrote: "Unless you have PROOF that the study is flawed (other than some screed from a BIASED source), please to be shutting up now."

Ah, I love it when lefties ignore links, dismiss sources as "biased" with no intellectual assessment of the facts, then demand that spurious papers that claim 12X the death toll of other sources must be disproven on their terms. Anyway, here are some excerpts from a debunking I linked to above:

http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/10/11/a-most-ghoulish-debate/

"A team of American and Iraqi public health researchers has estimated that 600,000 civilians have died in violence across Iraq since the 2003 American invasion, the highest estimate ever for the toll of the war here."

"The figure breaks down to about 15,000 violent deaths a month, a number that is quadruple the one for July given by Iraqi government hospitals and the morgue in Baghdad and published last month in a United Nations report in Iraq. That month was the highest for Iraqi civilian deaths since the American invasion.

"First of all, the Times makes a common mistake by lumping civilians, insurgents, and Iraqi Police and Army units all together and simply referring to them as “civilians.” In fact, the study makes absolutely no effort to differentiate between civilians and insurgents, Police and army. All the researchers asked were the number of dead over the last 3 years."

"This is the same crew whose 2004 study showing 100,000 Iraqi dead was thoroughly debunked by a wide variety of experts from both sides of the debate."

READ THE REST and no, I will not be quiet and let this propaganda circulate unchallenged.

Sir_Loin, I am so glad you and your ilk did not exist in large numbers during WWII....Pearl Harbor would not have moved you to action....Chaos and death are a part of war and like it or not, this war has killed thousands through the decades and will continue to.

In all of your bloviating you never identify the evil that is Islamic Fundamentalism. It is a basic foundation of your point of view that Islamic Fundamentalism is not a threat.

Bingo, end of discussion. Well, I think you're wrong. There is a war on terrorism, it is real and I look at the N.Y. skyline everyday as a reminder.

You can keep going on with the talking points with regards to the run up to the war, but it does not change the fact that A MAJORITY of politcal leaders in this country and in Great Britain thought Hussein was violating UN resolutions and had WMD's. Like it or not, you are operating in a would-a could-a world....a world that NEVER exists.

In the would-a, could-a world, I could have said in 1939, "Well, we created Nazi Germany with post WWI penalties that radicalized the population and allowed Hitler to rise to power. I don't think we should stop his advance and threats because, after all, it's really our fault they hate us." I am glad FDR had the knowledge of right and wrong and say the inherent evil that was Nazism and Japanese Imperialism.

Please, remain behind your computer keyboard, Sir_Loin, a spot that's perfect for a coward.

JT had the nerve to write: "KFK, I am going to ask you do something completely antithetical to your nature: quit dumbing down the debate. Try instead to see if you can respond to the points of a particular post –- you know, refute the people you disagree with... if you can."

I guess you can't read JT. My posts are full of pesky facts and links and other tidbits, and they often are in response to other commenters like yourself. If you read them instead of dismissing them like a petulant child, you might actually learn something.

Now I am no lawyer, so Mr. Dollar will have to school you as needed on the issues you raised in your last post. You want to discuss the new Lancet article, then argue the facts. I have also talked about the Kelo decision, and that might excite you as well. Otherwise, I bid you good day my moonbat friend.

KfK, I read that link. It's a Right-Wing HIT JOB, you know it's a HIT JOB and yet you want top bring it to the table as EVIDENCE? *sound of muffled laughter*

Here's how the study worked - they compared the pre-invasion mortality rate of Iraq (5.5 people per 1,000) to the post-war mortality rate (13.1 people per 1,000). Then they calculated out what the mortality rate would have been had the status quo continued. From that, they came to the number 650,000.

Using this methodology, there is a 95% probability that they were accurate. And even if they were inaccurate by a wide margin, the lowest result possible would be in the 300,000-400,000 range. That's still a significant number out of a country of 26 million.

cee said:

"I am glad FDR had the knowledge of right and wrong and say the inherent evil that was Nazism and Japanese Imperialism."

ENOUGH with the World War II comparisons! This is NOT WORLD WAR II and no amount of RIGHT-WING WINGNUT SPIN is going to make it that way!

cee- you know what's interesting is that you referenced Pearl Harbor not moving folks to action when this particular war has moved very few people into action. Particularly those on the right that are all for the Iraq War when their asses, like your own, are warm and safe behind their keyboards here in the United States. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any substantial #'s of people that were not for going into Afghanistan to take out those that attacked us in '01. The Bush administration started losing us when he started making claims that Iraq was an imminent threat to our security. I'll be honest, I thought Saddam had WMD too. What I doubted was that he had any intentions of attacking us. For a guy (Saddam)that likes to be in power, it would have been a suicide mission for him to even consider attacking us. Also, even if he had WMD he had no method of delivering the weapons to our shores. That silly "aluminum tube" argument was a joke from the start.

It's very easy to talk tough when it costs you nothing. So who's the coward, cee?

Anonymous,
Is it only acceptable when it is compared to Vietnam?

> Finally, even if Keith is wrong and this bill doesn’t threaten Americans...

A rather sneaky and indirect way of saying, yes, Olbermann lied and, yes, Olbermann Watch was correct all along. But we'll take it!

All war is about good and evil, Anon. But with most of the leftists in this country using postmodernism to make their moral judgements, it does not surprise me that see-no-evil is your conclusion.

No spin by me Anon.....I see using commercial jets as a missles as evil and the threats to do similar things again is evil. Strapping bombs to a body and exploding the bomb on buses and in restaurants to kill civilians is evil. And when evil behavior is on a mass scale/when large groups of people support the evil, war is used to stop it. Basic facts of life that many in our safe and comfy USA just want to ignore.

You can CAPS lock all you want, put your fingers in your ears and yell, "la, la, la, la, la." It does not change the eality that millions of people on this good earth want to see the United States and Israel cease to exist and support people with the power to make it happen.

kfk and the rest of the Rushiban,
There are seven Republican-nominated S.C. Justices and two Democratic-nominated S.C. Justices. This has been the case for years. How are leftist Supreme Court Justices deciding anything?

cee,
What do the crooks in the Republican Party use to make their moral judgments?

Hey "anonymous," you must be a statistician!

"there is a 95% probability that they were accurate"

Really? Here are their numbers:

"We estimate that as of July, 2006, there have been
654,965 (392,979–942,636) excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war, which corresponds to 2.5% of the population in the study area. Of post-invasion deaths, 601,027 (426,369–793,663) were due to violence, the most common cause being gunfire."

Now, let's just consider these stats. Notice anything funny?

Between 392,979 and 942,636 deaths? What kind of an "estimate" is that? They act like the numbers are significant to six digits for God's sake! At least try to maintain some credibility and say something like "between 400,000 and 1,000,000 deaths." What a complete joke! A 600,000 death "gray area" and you are telling me there is a "95% probability of accuracy"?

How about I state, "you earn between one dollar and ten billion dollars a year." I bet I am 100% accurate.

This study is a joke.

KO reality check...

CABLE NEWS RACE
MON. OCT., 9, 2006
VIEWERS

FOXNEWS O'REILLY 2,216,000
FNC SHEP SMITH 1,437,000
FNC HANNITY/COLMES 1,355,000
FNC GRETA 1,057,000
CNN KING 1,026,000
CNN DOBBS 813,000
CNN COOPER 767,000
CNN BLITZER 721,000
CNN ZAHN 697,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 629,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 552,000

BTW, with regards to costing something....What has any of your freedom since you have lived in this great country cost you? Nothing! None of us who live now paid anything for the grace we receive in living in this free country.

The WWII veterans, like my Grandfather - Marines/Okinawa , only asked for respect and care. Friends of mine who are Vietnam Vets.... same request. We have freedom because others sacrificed and continue to sacrifice in the volunteer army. You so flippantly cast aside the duty and honor of millions of your fellow Americans who died or were maimed since the revolution because of your hatred of Bush.

Patriotism is the value of seeing what is right about this country even when mistakes are made. You, and the deranged left in this country, want to use such shallow and insensitive arguments like, "if you support the war, go fight it," to regain power and influence. Terrific.

Sorry, Okanowa.

I can't speak for all republicans, but when I hear "good vs. evil," I know that it is not a postmodern thinker.

I can only speak for myself...the basis of my moral reasoning is based on The Bible.

Colbert squeeked: "There are seven Republican-nominated S.C. Justices and two Democratic-nominated S.C. Justices. This has been the case for years. How are leftist Supreme Court Justices deciding anything?"

Souter is not conservative just because H.W. Bush nominated him. Are you serious? Several times Republicans have nominated poor candidates, while the lefties have stuck with their guns and nominated tactivists like former ACLU lawyer and severe leftard Bader Ginsburg. Get it?

As far as Limbaugh, I do not listen to him. Why do you lefties assume everyone is under marching orders from Karl Rove or Limbaugh? Are you such lemmings yourselves that you assume everyone else is a follower too? All signs point to yes.

KfK said:

"This study is a joke."

The only joke here is YOU, KfK. The methodology is sound and has been PROVEN OVER AND OVER as it is used to estimate mortality in famines and following natural disasters. It has been used in Darfur, the Congo and Kosovo and resulted in accurate numbers. The National Institute of Health uses it to track immunizations, the Census Bureau uses it to track trends.

Will it be precise? No, because precise numbers are NEVER possible in a combat situation. But are you trying to tell me that, even if you accep their LOWEST possible number, 300,000 deaths is "acceptable"?

As for your "one dollar to ten bilion dollars" crack, it's a CHEAP SHOT and only damages your credibility because it makes you sound like a snide little person.

kfk,
If Republicans have nominated poor candidates, why not complain about the Republicans?

It's assumed Republicans are in lockstep because your leaders brag about it. They bash Democrats for not all having the same message. "How dare Democrats disagree? Our Fearless Leader doesn't allow us to disagree."

"Please, remain behind your computer keyboard, Sir_Loin, a spot that's perfect for a coward."

What a weird thing for someone to type on a computer keyboard.

I'll make it quick. It seems like the issue today is habbeas corpus. I don't know what the obsession-inspiring Olbermann said about this specific law--if he claimed that it specifically and formally removed HC from citizens, which seems to be what J$ is claiming.

Regardless, the point that JT makes is imo a complete de facto destruction of J$ general argument. The proof is in Padilla's torture pudding. JT's case of the "mistaken" ignorance of a citizenship claim is probably the most generous scenario. What you have to ask is whether, under the Patriot Act, being an "illegal combatant" (which is a legal status that can be decided unilaterally by the president) is grounds for removal of citizenship. It is hard to argue that it would not be. So what you would have (supposing you weren't just treated as Padilla and locked up illegally with no recourse or repercussions) is a civil hearing to review citizenship, where the defendent would have to argue that being an illegal combatant against the United States (a status he cannot challenge) does not constitute committing a wrongful act with the intent to relinquish his citizenship.

J$ if you are bowler-hatting Olbermann again, as ususal, then you may have made another correct but meaningless observation. If, on the other hand, you are claiming that citizenship still remains a guarantor of HC in light of this law and Patriot II in general, then you are pretty clearly wrong. Citizenship might get you HC. That is one option. Another is that you will be legally stripped of citizenship based on your enemy combattant designation. A third obvious option (which seems to be the admin's real-life preference) is simply that you will be illegally detained and tortured. The point is that once you are designated an illegal combatant you are pretty much in a legal no-man's land.

But as always, you can just run back to the "this site is Olbermannwatch" defense and claim that you have no point other than to show Olbermann made a technically false statement. Maybe. So what?

"If Republicans have nominated poor candidates, why not complain about the Republicans?"

What does that have to do with the fact that the activists are molesting the constitution? Sure, Reagan shouldn't have nominated Souter, but that was a direct result of the Bork fiasco.

The problem is a bipartisan one with the supreme court. Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution, and the desire by activists to "interpret" the Constitution to include the protection of abortion has politicised the court. That stupid issue has been a bain on us all, and should be left to the states to decide. I am no religious yahoo in love with blastocysts, but I don't want to piss on the Constitution to pretend that the founding fathers considered the topic hundreds of years ago.

I wasn't going for weird, EBO, I was going for irony.

Spongebob mops the floor with O'Reilly, and is only half as funny. Ratings do not equate with being correct or based in reality. I honestly used to watch O'Reilly, but after 2 years, it was the same thing the same way. And he is kinda stupid. Olbermann is at least entertaining (for now), and I get his inside Simpsons and Family Guy references. He doesn't have anybody on that he disagrees with, true, but he also spends much less time chasing dead white women and giving advice to his opposition (hire Phil Donahue back, anybody?). Olbermann may get old eventually, but for now at least he beats the alternatives. "Am I wrong here?"

>I guess you can't read JT. My posts are full of >pesky facts and links and other tidbits, and >they often are in response to other commenters >like yourself. If you read them instead of >dismissing them like a petulant child, you >might actually learn something.

yes your DSM IV post was quite full of facts and informational tidbits. which is why I reesponded to you in the first place.

>Now I am no lawyer, so Mr. Dollar will have to >school you as needed on the issues you raised >in your last post.

Nor am I. I just read through the bill and thought for myself. you should try it, instead of leting johnny do it for you. As for johnny he doesn't seem interested in continuing the discussion.

>You want to discuss the new Lancet article, >then argue the facts.

I have no desire to discuss the lancelot article. I could care less about it. I also haven't seen you begin to format an argument. When you do so, If i am interested i will respond.

>Otherwise i bid you good day my moonbat friend.

I don't remember becoming friend but good day to you as well. i hope to see much less of you.

cee asked- "What has any of your freedom since you have lived in this great country cost you?"

I think your penchant for stereotyping is clouding you from thinking of the possibilty that maybe I know what it is like to sacrifice. I've slept in shit, eaten MRE's, even looked down the business end of some pretty ugly weapons.

You mentioned your grandfather is only looking for "respect and care". I don't know what kind of care he is getting, but I know the my local VA hospital has a 10 month waiting list for an eye examination. This "respect and care" can be traced back to the veteran budget cuts used to finance this stupid war.

kfk,
Your post makes it obvious you don't understand what the Bill of Rights or Constitution is. The Founding Fathers claimed we the people had all the power. By ratifying the Constitution we agreed to delegate specific powers to the government. All other powers were kept by us. The government doesn't give us any rights. We already had those rights before the government existed. The Founders were leery of having a BoR because they feared simpletons, like you, would not understand my above points. They feared you would be so stupid as to assume the rights specifically mentioned in the BoR were the only rights we have.

>>>>>"> Finally, even if Keith is wrong and this bill doesn’t threaten Americans...

A rather sneaky and indirect way of saying, yes, Olbermann lied and, yes, Olbermann Watch was correct all along. But we'll take it!">>>>>>>

A rather sneaky and indirect way of showing that you concede the substance of the argument. We'll take it.

"See, right there, a man in a bowler hat. So I've proven that was a lie when you said no one wears them anymore!! We win again! We're so darned smart! Elect more republicans!" - L'Espirit d' J$

> A rather sneaky and indirect way of showing that you concede the substance of the argument.

Really? I said Keith was wrong about habeas corpus. JT disagreed with me. I cited the law. JT finds nothing in the law to substantiate Olbermann's lie. Ergo, the substance of the argument--that KO was wrong about habeas corpus--goes to me. Correct again.

I have spoken.

>The problem is a bipartisan one with the >supreme court. Abortion is not mentioned in the >Constitution,

Nor is getting a hot poker stuck up your ass specifically prohibitted if you are convicted of a crime. Some of us think that gets covered under cruel and unusual punishment.

>but I don't want to piss on the Constitution to >pretend that the founding fathers considered >the topic hundreds of years ago.

The founding fathers didn't consider lots of topics two hundred years ago. in fact they knew they couldn't consider all the topics so they stuck to larger principles.

You know KFK some of the founding fathers were worried that if you had a bill of rights, people who were less enamored with freedom might argue the only rights people had were the ones specifically listed out.

A rather sneaky and indirect way of showing that you concede the substance of the argument.

>Really? I said Keith was wrong about habeas >corpus. JT disagreed with me. I cited the law. >JT finds nothing in the law to substantiate >Olbermann's lie. Ergo, the substance of the >argument--that KO was wrong about habeas corpus->-goes to me. Correct again.

Wow, you get to be judge and prosecutor. Bet you wish you were allowed to do that all throughout your career. I pointed out some flaws in the system that would allow keith's dire predictions to come to true which you seemd to have ignored meaning the case isn't quite closed. btw johnny,I'm gonna take a stab in the dark that you are pro-gun. Ever seen a piece of legislation come right out and say "The right to Bear arms has been stripped away?"

You also seem to have ignored the ethical implications I brought up. meaning you seemd inclined to end the discussion.

Nice listening to you speak though.

You can CAPS lock all you want, put your fingers in your ears and yell, "la, la, la, la, la." It does not change the eality that millions of people on this good earth want to see the United States and Israel cease to exist and support people with the power to make it happen.

Posted by: cee at October 11, 2006 04:54 PM

You say millions of people want to see us cease to exist. Let me ask you in a pratical way what you think we should do about that. Say it outright if you think it. Kill every last one of them. In the process no doubt we will kill a few who by accident get in the way but that's their fault for living with the terrorists anyway. How do we kill them all? Should we nuke the middle east? I think that would do the job. Thas to be a wiser way to deal with this don't you think? What kind of world are you making? I understand that there are people out there who do want us dead. Is there somebody that can give a rational and civilized way to deal with them? I haven't heard it yet.

Sarah says Olbermann Watch has dropped off the front page of Google search results?

Seems like we are still up there in the #4 spot over all, and #1 for blogs.

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=olbermann&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

kfk - you DSM comment is now part of the FAQ.

bwsapobfkac,

The world as I know it is full of wars, inhumanity and death. The result of a falable human beings...However, the population of the modern United States has been graced to have been protected from war in our towns and cities since The Civil War. Then, 3000 people were killed in a surprise attack and a group identifying themselves with Islam took responsibility and made demands. Others sympathetic to their demands also have stated their purposes. Among them, the elimination of Israel and a pan-muslum middle east. They have stated clearly that terrorism is their mode of warfare.

The United States, in uniform and with declared intentions and plenty of warning, has legally pursued eliminating the threats. This is how man ultimately must stop evil. Standing fast against it and hoping your adversary loses enough to realize they will not be triumphant. Force is what ended the evil of WWII, and threat of force and mutually assurred destruction is what kept the evil Soviet Union from world-wide domination. Now a fanatical force, (who is willing to use suicide bombers, woman and children as shields, WMD on civilian populations and terrorist fear) has challenged civilization and the left of this country can't seem to see the necessity of force to stop it. OK, fine.....then I can only conclude that,

1 Protection of our way of life is the top priority of the federal government.

2 I support how this has been executed and understand the mistakes that have been made.

3 I do not trust the left of this country to be as diligent, logical and successful as the current administration. Nothing they have said or done in the last 25 years has shown me they are capable of effectively protecting my family.
I do not trust the left with my life and freedom.

If you don't understand my position now, then I guess you never will.

cee: The only thing that makes your position non-understandable is that you are defending the party that has not been keeping us safe in the first place... v v v v

Gee Robert, maybe you could put some knock knock jokes in as well.

cee- you want the Repubs in office because they protect your family, huh? And who was the president when 3000 US citizens were burned/crushed/jumped to their deaths? Obviously I don't know where you live, but I will make a conclusion that I will bet my house, 2 cars, and motorcycle on- you are not a citizen of New Orleans. Those citizens didn't look too safe as they chanted "HELP" in unison outside the dome just over a year ago. Well maybe the Repubs do a good job protecting the children, right? Parents are really big on saying "what about the children" these days. Ah shit, here we go again- it looks like the GOP were trying to hide the details about the degenerate/child enticer Foley just so they could hold onto one lousy seat in Congress.

Yeah cee, I don't understand your position now and I guess I never will.

I'm sure you were just waiting with bated breath for my post yesterday. Sorry.
"KO highlighted all the bad news for Republicans including: Gallup: Does your representative deserve re-election? Yes: 59%, No: 33%"
Why highlight that particular one? Especially since, I can't ever recall you posting actual numbers. Why not use the one that says Dems (47%) are more trusted than Reps to handle terrorism (41%) that's certainly closer. Could it be because this question makes it seem like the Reps are doing well, even though (what was it?) that these numbers are the worst ever for incumbents?
Speaking of polls, I noticed you referenced the Allen-Webb polls. I see you 'cut and run' from using the Zogby poll after I informed you of its possible inaccuracies. However, you still felt it okay to slip it indirectly by saying that Allen had a 5 pt. advantage in polls. Now those of us in VA know that Webb probably won't win, but we also know it's closer than that. Why? Because since you are including that wildly varying poll it makes Allen look better. How does Zogby wildly vary? 6 out of 8 polls swing towards the right from 3 to 10 pts. away from other polls, averaging over 5 pts. difference. The two that swing leftward are off the average by 9 and 8 pts.

Unfortunately, I had more, but time and tide wait for no man so I couldn't finish. Oh, well.

"And who was the president when 3000 US citizens were burned/crushed/jumped to their deaths?"

And I would add "where was the president when 3000 US citizens were burned/crushed/jumped to their deaths?" Certainly, not leading that's for sure. If he had, then the Pentagon likely would not have been hit.

Well... I do not know... I would rather have a Keith Olbermann that would report all news good or bad for the Democrats, then go in to detail on what to do with that situation... but we have got to go with the Keith Olbermann that we have --- and we have a very nice Keith Olbermann, sans Paris Hilton, and we should just stick with him.

Peer Pressure
Just for kicks see who the DUMBASS really is it cannot be speeled out any clearer. The TRUE HISTORICAL 2nd admendmend STATES the right to bears arms and form a malitia shall not be abridged. Its what was ratified by our ancesters. Funny thing is I went to the library and looked it up. HA HA DUMBASS get a histiory lesson.

JT and Codas,

Nice posts! The Bill of Rights guarantees the right to an abortion? As I said, the Constitution does not address abortion, and sticking a finger in the breeze while sensing what should have been in the Constitution is not too wise. As I said, I am all for abortions, but violating the Constitution and playing politics with the court is stupid. Read this:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/krauthammer042205.asp

Now here is the dumbest statement of all, from JT of course. Here he argues why the Contitution should be violated by nine lawyers:

"The founding fathers didn't consider lots of topics two hundred years ago. in fact they knew they couldn't consider all the topics so they stuck to larger principles."

These nine lawyers are sworn to uphold the Constitution, not imagine what should have been in it. You have no clear understanding of what a SC Justice does. You are not alone, of course -- the "living Constitution" idiots legislate from the bench. What are you going to do when the majority does not think the way you think? You know it goes both ways.

KfK and cee,

"U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Monday that the Afghan war against Taliban guerrillas can never be won militarily, and called for efforts to bring the Islamic militia and its supporters into the Afghan government. The Tennessee Republican said he learned from briefings that Taliban fighters were too numerous and had too much popular support to be defeated on the battlefield."

- reported by the Associated Press after last week's visit to Afghanistan by Bill Frist.

I just had to share this as it caps off quite a few short exchanges I've had on this site today regarding the wisdom and righteous awesomeness of Bush's war-waging.

Beefy,

Your plan in Afghanistan was and is . . .? Let's hear your words of wisdom. And please do tell me what you think of the MULTINATIONAL force in Afghanistan. After all, that invasion was not a controversial one, or was it? And are you a limey? If so, why don't you work for Galloway and / or find a hero over there?

HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHAHA! Who wants to see the guy who edits "The Lancet" in action? He is certifiable and a complete and total loon:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7BzM5mxN5U&eurl=

Now tell me again that his study is accurate. This guy needs to be fired. By the way, physicians read the journals for their specialty. They generally do not read Lancet.

>As I said, the Constitution does not address >abortion, and sticking a finger in the breeze >while sensing what should have been in the >Constitution is not too wise.

Please KFK if you could, point out to me where the constitution prohibits the chopping off of your hand for stealing. Don't see it? I guess the constitution doesn't address chopping of limbs as punishment. Must mean the government can do it by your stupid line of reasoning.

Of course they do have that whole 8th amendment thingy. Goes like this:

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Now you see it is up to courts to decide what actually constitutes “cruel and unusual.” I'm pretty sure the courts would interpret the hacking of limbs as a violation of the 8th amendment but you see how it works? Probably not.

>Now here is the dumbest statement of all, from >JT of course. Here he argues why the >Contitution should be violated by nine lawyers:

Actually I think you might mean the nine justices. And what I argued was clearly over your head.

>These nine lawyers are sworn to uphold the >Constitution, not imagine what should have been >in it.

The role of the Supreme Court is to INTERPRET the meaning of the constitution. Here is Alexander Hamilton on the subject.

"The constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute."

>You have no clear understanding of what a SC >Justice does.

I think I have a far greater understanding than an idiot such as yourself will ever achieve.

>You are not alone, of course -- the "living >Constitution" idiots legislate from the bench.

Say KFF How about summing up the living constitution argument. It is clear you don't understand it. Hell for that matter it is clear you don't understand originalism either.

>What are you going to do when the majority does >not think the way you think? You know it goes >both ways.

Well I know you think you made a point but the only thing you proved is what a colossal idiot you are. The idea of the living constitution suggests a document whose meaning is often dependent on the age and society in which it applies. It has nothing to do with a majority anything.

You need to learn a bit more about the courts KFK. I would suggest you start with a school house rock on the subject and work your way up from there.

KfK,

You are like a rotten-spoiled little girl who has broken a large exotic fish-tank by tapping on the glass with a hammer, despite having been told repeatedly by her older brother to stop. When her older brother starts yelling at her for having so wantonly destroyed the tank, she snaps back "well what's your plan" with her her hands on her chubby little hips and her nose curled up.

We were in Afghanistan on the actual trail of AlQeada, when retard-President was cajoiled by the evil bastards around him to fucking lie to the American people about the role of Saddam in 9/11 and the additional threats that he posed to us. Rumsfeld and Cheney have never wanted to to do anything but invade Iraq, and they got to. As a direct result of that invasion we dropped the Aghanistan ball and let gangs, warlords and the Taliban take control of everything but Kabul. Its like the old "Hill" story from Vietnam ("we took the hill, then we left; then we had to take the hill again the next week") but on the scale of an entire nation. Only now even the other members of Bush's Republican Mafia realize we don't have the goods to take Afghanistan a second time.

...in short, my plan would start with bringing our leaders to justice for intentionally fucking up the world for the loot and their own tiny-penis reasons. And yes, an international approach is essential.

is your "tiny penis" comment a result of in depth examination and personal experience or just a subliminal observation of your own shortcomings mr Beef boy?
why does everything with liberals always lead to genitalia? Myabe if the left wingers started using their big heads instead of their little heads they might gain some crediblity.
Give up mr sir loin of beef you have been exposed and now you are the queen of ground round.

KfK,
I see you don't know the first thing about journals, so just to let you know, the Lancet is one of the top 20 journals. Yes, there are doctors who stick to their "specialty", but many also pick up JAMA, New England JOM, and, yes, Lancet. Oh, and Lancet is ahead of one of the two others in Impact Factor (i.e. importance). I worked at a library in school and my wife is a doctor, so I know of where I speak (I picked up many a copy of Lancet).

Oh, and as for Supreme Court justices. In general, they do stick a finger in the wind, otherwise they wouldn't represent us and our ideals. That is the entire point of having our "vague" constitution. "Strict interpretation" is the same thing as "sound science"; a made up term to legitimize one sides views. The terms sound science and strict interpretation are products of think tanks, not scientists or judges.

Wow, good one Anonymous. I guess you got me there.

mjtimber,

I have to disagree. "Sound science" to my mind refers to adherance to a legitimate methodology - that is, the series of logical steps required to answer a carefully circumscribed question. There's lots of "sound science" around. A term like "scientific truth" might fall under the rubric you discuss.

A moron wrote: "I worked at a library in school and my wife is a doctor, so I know of where I speak (I picked up many a copy of Lancet)."

Really? You worked in a library? I also know a bit about the topic, and I can tell you lancet is a piece of crap, and useless to physicians except for novelty articles. Now, did you see the editor of Lancet speak? Perhaps you should before wagging your tongue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7BzM5mxN5U&eurl=

You did say something very true:

"Oh, and as for Supreme Court justices. In general, they do stick a finger in the wind, otherwise they wouldn't represent us and our ideals."

That is why they are dangerous.

JT,

Your posts are quite annoying. Congrats, as that is the pinnacle of Olbermanniacal success on this site. Now, let's address your post.

#1. You keep babbling about hands being chopped off and pokers being inserted in orifices when discussing abortion. Since you are a constitutional scholar, explain how Roe v Wade was decided. Tell me where the Constitution addressed the matter. Don't give me your BS about how you know but you won't waste your time or how it is obvious, because both answers are lies.

#2. I called your beloved "justices" lawyers to prove a point, and you have helped me further. They are LAWYERS! They are not supermen in black robes. They went to law school and managed to get jobs on the public dime. Too many gullible people (like yourself) consider these goons infallible because they were given a lifetime appointment and a fancy title. They are lawyers and nothing more, get it dummy?

#3. You wrote: "Well I know you think you made a point but the only thing you proved is what a colossal idiot you are. The idea of the living constitution suggests a document whose meaning is often dependent on the age and society in which it applies. It has nothing to do with a majority anything."

So, who decides what the meaning is for the age dummy? The nine superhuman lawyers? The politicians? Is it divined through magic you extremely dense, annoying pseudointellectual leftist? Or is it decided by the tyranny of the majority? You have no idea what you are talking about. You want a document to bend and twist and morph based on arbitrary criteria, hence you may as well toss the Constitution in the toilet. I suuggest you look up the difference between "interpret" and "invent," as you have no idea of the difference.

I hope you enjoyed having your ass handed to you dummy.

Sir Loin Of Beef,

This paragraph, which you provided, tells us alot about you:

"You are like a rotten-spoiled little who has broken a large exotic fish-tank by tapping on the glass with a hammer, despite having been told repeatedly by her older brother to stop. When her older brother starts yelling at her for having so wantonly destroyed the tank, she snaps back "well what's your plan" with her her hands on her chubby little hips and her nose curled up."

Not only is the paragraph excessively wordy and poorly written, it says nothing.

You have no plan for Afghanistan, of course. Claiming that Iraq has "taken our eye off the ball" in Afghanistan is absurd. Troop levels are adequate, and we are NOT THE ONLY NATION THERE. It is a multinational effort. You are barely able to articulate leftist talking pointsso I suggest that in the future you avoid ad libbing.

Hear that whooshing sound KFK? that is the sound of my argument going over your head. you've heard it before no doubt. in the future that whooshing sound should serve as a reminder that you are not grasping something. When you hear it buckle down and concentrate.

>#1. You keep babbling about hands being chopped >off and pokers being inserted in orifices when >discussing abortion.

Man you are really not getting it are you? I wasn't discussing abortion.. I was discussing the role of the court. you know how they determine things. I even gave an example for you. but clearly you don't get it. I hate to break it to you but you are the only one who doesn't understand.

>Since you are a constitutional scholar, explain >how Roe v Wade was decided. Tell me where the >Constitution addressed the matter. Don't give >me your BS about how you know but you won't >waste your time or how it is obvious, because >both answers are lies.

Wow, KFK, that's amazing! you know what I know and what I don't know! When did you develop this gift? You should go work for the circus.

before I can address Roe V Wade We have to make sure you did your homework. Did you read the bit from Hamilton I gave you? You probably heard that whooshing sound if you tried and may need to read it again. Make sure you address this in the next post I want you to demonstrate your understanding of the subject or there is no point in continuing. I can't explain roe V Wade to you until you demonstrate you understand the basics.

>#2. I called your beloved "justices" lawyers to prove a point, and you have helped me >further. They are LAWYERS!

Now they are justices. if your point was they are human and capable of making an error you should say they are human beings.

>They are not supermen in black robes. They went >to law school and managed to get jobs on the >public dime. Too many gullible people (like >yourself) consider these goons infallible >because they were given a lifetime appointment >and a fancy title. They are lawyers and nothing >more, get it dummy?

Wow, Hey Johnny did you get your education on the public dime? Well I guess “goons” Like Thomas and Scalia don't matter as well right?

>So, who decides what the meaning is for the age >dummy? The nine superhuman lawyers? The >politicians? Is it divined through magic you >extremely dense, annoying pseudointellectual >leftist? Or is it decided by the tyranny of the >majority?

Wow, you are not getting it. The meaning is decided by justices based on their INTERPRETATION of the constitution. I thought I covered this. You are free to disagree with their interpretation I do it all the time. But your argument on why Roe is not constitutional demonstrates you don’t even understand the subject.

>You have no idea what you are talking about. >You want a document to bend and twist and morph >based on arbitrary criteria, hence you may as >well toss the Constitution in the toilet.

Wow there is that gift again. You have no idea what my judicial philosophy is and wouldn't understand it if you did.

The really funny part is you think we are having an Argument on Roe V Wade.

Anyhow there is no point in continuing this discussion till you demonstrate you understand the basics. Here is your homework.

1) demonstrate you understood that little bit from the federalist papers I gave you on the role of the court. ( This is the most important part )
2) demonstrate a basic understanding of orginalism, the judicial philosophy that you are trying to argue but not understanding. You don’t have to go to law school but demonstrate you get the basics. Please give examples to show you get it.

3) Demonstrate understanding of the living constitution. Again Please give examples to show you get it. You keep slamming it without knowing what it is. If you still hate it after you understand it that is ok. but you have to get it first.

Until you show you understand these topics. I see no reason to continue speaking with you.

Sir Loin,

I wouldn't recomend arguing with KFK anymore he doesn't even understand your posts and frankly trying to teach him is like tying to teach Koko the signing gorilla Chinese. I asked him to quit dumbing down the argument but I see now that is like asking a bird not to fly.

JT,

You are one stupid arrogant Olbermanniac. You are correct, there is little point in arguing with you, as you have no idea what I am talking about. You blather and sputter, claiming that you have proven points with absurd examples. You then claim that you only want the Constitution "interpreted," but that you adhere to "the idea of the living constitution [which] suggests a document whose meaning is often dependent on the age and society in which it applies." Unfortunately, you are too stupid to understand that there is no defined way to apply your swell idea, and hence it invalidates the document. Nine lawyers can whimsically decide what the "age" requires. They can cite foreign law if they so desire. Hell, they can legislate from the bench. Still don't get it? Of course you don't.

Perhaps you should do some remedial reading. Start with "Men in Black" by Mark Levin. It doesn't have any pictures, so you'll have to wade through text without any help. Maybe you could have Beefy over to your studio and the two of you could try to work through the book together?

And a word of advice -- don't argue with Johnny Dollar. He makes you look like a circus monkey.

Whoosh!

Right over your head -- we know.

For thos interested in the topic I have been discussing and JT has been attempting to discuss, read this:

http://www.nationalreview.com/levin/levin200503140754.asp

While I am pro-abortion, I still find the argument valid. As for you JT, don't bother to read it.

Still missing the point I see.

Oh and that was not the topic we were discussing.

You are correct. It was not the topic YOU were discussing. I stated:

"Nice posts! The Bill of Rights guarantees the right to an abortion? As I said, the Constitution does not address abortion, and sticking a finger in the breeze while sensing what should have been in the Constitution is not too wise."

You became apopleptic and began screaming about the right to not have pokers stuck in nether regions. In short, you are a simpleton and did not understand what I was saying, We never got to the "right to privacy," which was the next stage of the discussion. Just read Levin and you will know where I stand on the issue. (Or you stick with your "dumbed-down" rhetoric -- it suits you well.)

Right because your statement indicates you know NOTHING about how the courts work. That is why you are an idiot.

Well, we will let the readers decide that now, won't we JT?

>Well, we will let the readers decide that now, >won't we JT?

I thought you were against a tyranny of the majority KFK. But oh what the hell. before we start let me make one point.

If you had argued that you believed the court is wrong in how broad privacy rights actually are and that in your opinion their ruling that the 9th and 14th amendments are broad enough to include abortion is incorrect. I wouldn't have even gotten involved in the discussion.

Instead you said:

>As I said, the Constitution does not address >abortion...

To which I replied well duh. It also doesn't address whether you can roof your house. You have to infer it from things the bill of rights actually does say. You can disagree with how much you can infer from the text if you like, but you do have to infer some things. Christ even the strictest of judicial philosophies wouldn't argue against that.

So if someone thinks that ruling on Roe V Wade is wrong. I don't have a problem with that. If you think Roe V Wade is morally wrong I also don't have a problem with that. If you think that roofing your house isn't a right because it isn't addressed in the constitution then you can side with KFK.

Wow. KfK, I'm actually embarrassed for you. At least Johnny Dollar hasn't tried to quote the 4th Amendment yet.

JT,

You mean you are so literal-minded that you thought I was saying, "the Constitution does not have an abortion section"? Are you a retard? All signs point to yes.

Indeed, the Constitution does not address abortion. The "right to privacy" argument was a means to an end for the SCOTUS. Blackmun knew how he wanted to rule and worked backwards. I again point readers here, and I cagain state that you are an idiot JT.

http://www.nationalreview.com/levin/levin200503140754.asp

Here is a blurb from Mark Levin:

"1973 that its recently created constitutional right to privacy also included a new constitutional right to abortion. If you look in the Constitution, however, you will find no general “right to privacy” any more than you will find a right to abortion — and for good reason: It’s not there. The framers assumed no general right to privacy because, to state the obvious, criminal and evil acts can be committed in privacy. Criminal codes are full of such examples — from murder to incest to rape and other crimes."

>Wow. KfK, I'm actually embarrassed for you. At >least Johnny Dollar hasn't tried to quote the >4th Amendment yet.

I have to say non I went after KFK with sadistic glee. But I'm actually starting to feel sorry for him.

kfk, you really should consider taking a course on the rules of logic. Finding someone who agrees with you does not make you right.

jt made you look bad. Your name calling just makes your arguments that much weaker.

OK geniuses! Here is a question for you!

The Constitution seems to address abortion in your minds. This is a controversial medical procedure. Now, how about female circumcision? How is that to be resolved? Under the right to privacy? It must be legal, right? I mean, it must be AT LEAST legal prenatally! After all, if you can perform a late term abortion legally, what's a little genital mutilation? "Oh, that is such a stupid question" you cry! Is it really?

As I said before, I am pro abortion. It saves hapless kids from being raised by drug addicts and irresponsible leftists like yourselves. However, pretending the Constitution speaks to all things is foolish. So who decides what medical procedures are sanctioned or not sanctioned, and why was that not good enough for abortion? I will guess what you are thinking right now -- "duhhhhhhhhhhh . . ."

As for your "pity" JT, you might want to reserve it for yourself, and borrow a fair sum from your lame compatriots.

As I said before, I am pro abortion. It saves hapless kids from being raised by drug addicts and irresponsible leftists like yourselves.

=================================================

KFK: Wrong answer:

The Conservative playbook is specific:

When the issue is bad parenting.. always go to adoption as the only answer!!!

KFK gets points taken away. Possibly even his "clear thinker" merit from Olbermann Watch.

To understand your position on this and other issues I have one question for you KfK:

What do you think is the job of the Supreme Court Justices?

I will argue with a few stupid people, but I have to draw the line somewhere Nonfactor.

I wish the 2000 SC decision on the Florida election recount was considered to be so sacrosant...

You are quite the sharpie C --

Well, it doesn't take much to see through these mutton-chops...

I ask you a simple question and instead of giving an easy answer you feel the need to use insults. What happened to you ask a kid to be this anti-social as an adult?

It's not an argument, it's just a question. What do you think is the job of the Supreme Court Justices?

Gosh darn it, people, Nonfactor has merely asked a "simple question"! Can't you at least do him the courtsey of cooperating by following him out and off whatever rhetorical cliff he hopes to push off!

Cecelia, I understand your want, maybe even your need to get involved with a discussion I'm in, but just this once you're going to need to keep to yourself.

Nonfactor,

There are no private exchanges in what is a public forum.

Unless you and KfK take it private via email, IM, or phone, I'll respond to whatever I see posted here, whenever I like.

So there.

>What do you think is the job of the Supreme >Court Justices?

You can't expect him to answer that non, that would require him to demonstrate a degree of knowledge about the judicial branch.

JT,

You have no idea what you are talking about, and it shows. Answer my question from my post at 8:58 PM or shut your yap.

You have no idea what you are talking about, and it shows. Answer my question from my post at 8:58 PM or shut your yap.

KFK I thought I told you we can't have a discusion until you

1) demonstrate that you undersand the paragraph I gave you from the federalist papers.

2) demonstrate you unsderstand the basics of the living constitution

3) demonstrate you understand orgionalism.

till then I can't respond to anything you've written because you won't undertand it.

>I wish the 2000 SC decision on the Florida >election recount was considered to be so >
>sacrosant...

Cecelia for a smart person that was a pretty stupid statement.

I disagree with the SC decision of 2000 the way you are free to disagree with Roe V wade.

No one has argued that the justices are infallible or that their decisions are “sacrosanct.” They are the rulings of men, who I sometimes agree with and sometimes disagree with.
But their job is too MAKE those ruling based on THEIR interpretation of the constitution.

If you think their ruling is wrong on a decision, more power to you. I think it all the time.

My problem with KFK is not that he believes the court overstepped itself in Roe V wade. my problem is that he is arguing orgionalism without understanding the basics of it.

Then he attacks the living constitution (again without understanding it.)

Finally He wheels out an article by Levin, as though that proves his view that the ruling is incorrect. As though the opinion of one man who views the constitution a certain way proves anything. I mean big deal. Plenty of legal scholars take a strict view of the constitution. Plenty take a loose view. Finding one who falls on one side of the other proves nothing. It’s not KFK’s view on the constitution that annoys me. It is his retarded way of arguing a point.

"It’s not KFK’s view on the constitution that annoys me. It is his retarded way of arguing a point."

Oh, and here I thought it was a discussion about the Constitution and SC rulings...

My bad...

"It’s not KFK’s view on the constitution that annoys me. It is his retarded way of arguing a point."

Oh, and here I thought it was a discussion about the Constitution and SC rulings.

My bad...

JT, you immensely stupid Olbermanniac,

I have made my points clearly. I do not need to explain Hamilton to you -- that was the job of your GED instructors (a job they failed miserably). By the way, the apssage you chose in no way endorses the concept of a "living Constitution," but of course you know that, right?

I have clearly stated what the "living Constitution" implies. Just because you don't understand what I am talking about doesn't mean I will change my answer. Furthermore, I do not need to copy and paste definitions of "orgionalism" [nice spelling] as it serves no purpose. You clearly are unable to discuss a topic rationally. This was proven first by Johnny Dollar and now by me. Indeed, you are Nonfactor's intellectual equal.

By the way, I am not arguing "orgionalism without understanding the basics of it." [Same bizarre spelling twice, eh? Seems you may have an organic mental disorder of some sort?] Like a true weak-minded individual, you must label things. Instead of responding to arguments, you try to place thought in a box with titles like "orgionalism" and "living Constitution." When I describe the implication of a "living Constitution," you become befuddled and change the topic or scream "you don't even know what a living Constitution is." You, sir, are a dope.

So Cecilia, perhaps we should discuss the topic?

Alright.

I'm all for orgionalism...

Funny post by JT, with commentary:

"Finally He wheels out an article by Levin, as though that proves his view that the ruling is incorrect." [Yes JT, one should never cite scholarly work to back up one's claims.]

"As though the opinion of one man who views the constitution a certain way proves anything." [Ummmm. . . weren't you just quoting Hamilton and screaming about the need to appreciate his passage? Was he one man or was he many?]

"I mean big deal. Plenty of legal scholars take a strict view of the constitution. Plenty take a loose view. Finding one who falls on one side of the other proves nothing." [Oh yeah! The Constitution is like an impressionist painting! Some people see land ownership as protected, others see swirly colors and poppies!]

"It’s not KFK’s view on the constitution that annoys me. It is his retarded way of arguing a point." [Now THAT is scholarly discourse!]

I went to a meeting of orgionalists and left sorely dissapointed (emphasis on the sorely). One thing about those "orgionalists," they believe in a loose constitution.

Did you mean: define:origionalism

No definitions were found for orgionalism.

Suggestions:

- Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
- Search the Web for documents that contain "orgionalism"

No standard web pages containing all your search terms were found.

Your search - orgionalism - did not match any documents.

Suggestions:

* Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
* Try different keywords.
* Try more general keywords.

And those strict constructionists leave welt marks for weeks...

>JT, you immensely stupid Olbermanniac,

Yes but I'm virile and I've been fucking your wife. That is one nasty crack hoe.

> I have made my points clearly. I do not need to explain Hamilton to you

KFK in order to explain something one must understand it. You never will.

-- that was the job of your GED instructors (a job they failed miserably). By the way, the apssage you chose in no way endorses the concept

Well Goshly KFKF maybe you mean "passage." (nice spelling) and least I can pass the GED

>of a "living Constitution," but of course you know that, right?

This is why you are the biggest fucking idiot on the planet. I never endorsed the living constitution. I said you don't understand it. Which you don't. The Hamilton post was to explain the process of judicial review to you which also don't understand.

>I have clearly stated what the "living >Constitution" implies. Just because you don't >understand what I am talking about doesn't mean

I understand completely what you said. Unfortunately it does not fall under the idea of the living constitution, which proves my point that you don't understand it.

>of "orgionalism" [nice spelling] as it serves no >purpose. You clearly are unable to discuss a >topic rationally. This was proven first by >Johnny Dollar and now by me. Indeed, you are >Nonfactor's intellectual equal.

Trust me when I say I'd rather be nonfactor's equal than yours. Frankly I'd rather be the equal of a baboon's ass than yours. No difference in brain power and the baboon's ass is better looking.

>By the way, I am not arguing "orgionalism >without understanding the basics of it."

Yes you are.

[Same bizarre spelling twice, eh? Seems you may have an organic mental disorder of some sort?]

>Like a true weak-minded individual, you must >label things.

Said KFK while labeling me.

>Instead of responding to arguments, you try to >place thought in a box with titles >like "orgionalism" and "living Constitution."

You know? Theories of judicial thought.

When I describe the implication of a "living Constitution," you become befuddled and change the topic or scream "you don't even know what a living Constitution is."

That is because the ideas you attribute to the living constitution haven’t a thing to do with it. Which does befuddle me, because how did you get so stupid?

>You, sir, are a dope.

Your mama is a whore.

[Yes JT, one should never cite scholarly work to back up one's claims.]

I'm sorry your right. one legal scholar's OPINION
is proof. In your moronic worldview.

"As though the opinion of one man who views the constitution a certain way proves anything." [Ummmm. . . weren't you just quoting Hamilton and screaming about the need to appreciate his passage? Was he one man or was he many?]

Uhh, Dummy, There is no debate on judicial review. all judges pretty much accept it. From Thomas to Scalia, to Roberts to Alito. I figured that Alexander Hamilton (e of the fathers of the constitution) might explain it better to KFK. perhaps to you as well. Now on the judicial theory regarding on how to apply judicial review there is much debate.

"I mean big deal. Plenty of legal scholars take a strict view of the constitution. Plenty take a loose view. Finding one who falls on one side of the other proves nothing." [Oh yeah! The Constitution is like an impressionist painting! Some people see land ownership as protected, others see swirly colors and poppies!]

Some see a document that is meant to be reviewed in more elastic way (loose constructionist.) some see a document that should be viewed in a more rigid way ( strict constructionist) some think that the intent of the founding fathers should be looked at when making a decision (original intent) some think the meaning of words in the day they were written should be the criteria (original meaning) Some think you are a moron.

"It’s not KFK’s view on the constitution that annoys me. It is his retarded way of arguing a point." [Now THAT is scholarly discourse)

I tried that. it went over his head. Much like this post is likely to go over yours.

>I'm all for orgionalism

While we are on the subject of spelling

>I wish the 2000 SC decision on the Florida >election recount was considered to be so >sacrosant...

the word is sacrosanct

"the word is sacrosanct"

I'm all for that too...

"Frankly I'd rather be the equal of a baboon's ass than yours. No difference in brain power and the baboon's ass is better looking."

Would you change your mind if KfK got a tattoo on his?

Cecilia, that post by JT made me wonder what kind of a woman bore and raised him. I'm sure she tried but just had a loser from day one and couldn't teach him any better. Poor thing. This charmer must be a blessing in her old age.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Janet,

I hope JT gets hold of himself before he starts posting in all caps...

Cecilia,

We have achieved our stated goal of driving JT insane(r)! All hail the evil right wing Olbywatch conspiracy!

>"I have made my points clearly."

Yet you refuse to answer a few simple questions.

>"I do not need to explain Hamilton to you"

He obviously doesn't need it explained to him. You, however, have yet to prove you understand the papers.

It's funny how you can say so much, and say nothing at the same time.

Please continue to avoid simple questions while trying to uphold that you've already addressed them. Another laughing stock.

Is KFK the stupidest person on the planet?

Frequent readers of Olbermann Watch expect stupidity when they visit the site. “That’s the best reason to come!” said one insider. Who described how making fools of the regulars is a cathartic experience bordering on the spiritual. “It ego building!” she went on to add. “I never thought I was very bright until I discovered Olbermann Watch.”
While being dumb is clearly a requirement for getting labeled an Olbermann Watch “clear thinker” (a term obviously used facetiously), many have expressed dismay at the dumbing down of the site to below kindergarten levels by the most stupid of regulars- KFK. A man so stupid that even the dumbest yokels feel smarter than him.

“KFK forced a pretty big reality check for me,” said Lance Burner, an 11th grade drop out and roller derby champion. “I was like whoa, I am not dumb. This guy is dumb!”

Still, despite the fact the fact many gloat over the stupidity of KFK, some thoughtful readers have began to wonder whether KFK is in fact the stupidest person alive. The debate stems from the latest edition of the Guinness book of world records, which lists KFK as having the lowest recorded IQ in history. A fact no one has disputed. Yet given that so many factors that can lead to a person performing at less than their best during such a test, I decided to investigate. Is KFK the stupidest person on the planet? I aimed to find out.

My investigation started with an examination of KFK’s posts on Olbermann Watch. Having personally debated the man/beast I skimmed through our recent arguments looking for evidence. “Appeal to authority…circular reasoning …sweeping generalizations,” I murmured while reading through his arguments. To be sure there was evidence here. But was it enough? I looked back down. “A naturalistic fallacy…a few non sequiturs…” I stopped. “That’s it?” I was stunned. To be sure this was only one post. But calling a man the dumbest ever seemed both cruel and unjust based on such flimsy evidence.

Perhaps there was something I’m missing, I thought. Deciding that investigating KFK’s background was the next logical step. And quite possibly the key to clearing his name. I boarded a red-eye to Kentucky to visit parents. Upon arriving I hired a local guide to take me deep into the backwoods of Kentucky where KFK is from. “You don’t want to go there,” the guide said, “That’s Deliverance country.” “I have to find the truth,” I answered. “An innocent man’s reputation may be at stake.”

Upon arriving in the hills I found KFK’s parent’s lounging on the porch of the little shack in which they lived. KFK’s father, one Benjamin Buford Poone, introduced me to his wife, Myrtle. A women with one protruding tooth. “Hello,” I said. “Want some moonshine, Sonny?” Myrtle asked. Declining politely I proceeded to ask questions about KFK’s background. “Well he was uncommonly weak-minded,” his father said. “Once lit a match to look inside a gas can.”

Agreeing that KFK’s obvious stupidity was not in question, I proceeded to ask the tough question: “Is your son the dumbest man on the planet?” Buford leaned back thoughtfully in his rocking chair. He took a quick swig of moonshine before answering. “Meybey,” he said. ‘Just meybey.” Realizing that I wouldn’t get much further here and deeply disturbed by the sight of Myrtle French-kissing a hog, I began the long, slow trek back to civilization.

There has to be someone else who can give me some background on KFK,” I thought upon arriving home. Deciding to make my weekly visit to KFK’s house I drove to his apartment to see if I could find some answers there. His wife greeted me at the door. “How dumb is KFK?” I asked “MAWAHHWAHAHH” She said, while sucking my cock. “What’s that? You do think he is the stupidest person alive?” “WAHWAHAHAmmmmm” she answered. Realizing that I was going to get nothing here but a bad case of the clap, I carefully wiped my jizz on her forehead and exited the house. Upon arriving home I slumped in defeat. Maybe he is the stupidest human being. Everyone seems to think so. Unable to shake the empty feeling in my bowels and feeling a bit hungry, I went out to grab some Chinese down the street in the hopes of finding some inspiration. Hungrily devouring my chicken Chow Mien I tried to think of who else I could ask about KFK, but no ideas came. I paid my bill and got ready to exit the restaurant, opening my fortune cookie as I did so. “Seek his master and all will be revealed,” the cookie said. “Seek his master?” I thought. “What the fuck does that mean?” Opening my wallet to tip the waitress a thought hit me like a thunderbolt, as I pulled out a one dollar bill. “Seek his master…Johnny Dollar!” Racing down to the red light district I searched desperately for Johnny Dollar. Looking frantically from corner to corner I finally spied him across the street from a strip club. He was dressed in a purple polyester suit with large felt cap on his head. The cap was covered with feathers but clearly identified Johnny’s profession. I ran over to greet him before seeing that KFK was on leash next to him. Taking a moment to take in this strange sight, I again asked the question: “Johnny Dollar, is KFK the stupidest person on the planet?” “Say now my brotha,” Johnny said. “If you want to PLAY you got to PAY.” Reaching in my pocket and giving the man a fiver I repeated the question. “Well that depends on how you look at it,” he said. “Heel, KFK!” “Some might say yes, some might say no.” “What do you think Johnny?” I asked. After a few moments of deliberating he gave his verdict. “No, I’d have to say Pat Fegan holds that honor But KFK is a damn close second.”

To all and sundry, I claim the 'Stupidiest Person in the World' award for myself! MINE! MINE! ALL MINE!! I just read the last 3 posts by JT and that makes me the WINNER!

It also made me queasy and revolted. I think I now have an idea of what hell must be like. You get to spend eternity in JT's mind.

I have to give him his due. He managed to puke out three moderately long posts in two minutes.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Look, Johnny! KfK has acquired his own Sarah!

Cecilia,

JT must be a performance artist. Just looking at the last three walls of text made me laugh out loud. Looking through the thread, one can see JT's descent from Olbermanniac to plain old maniac! One day I might read his last three posts, but for now I will save them for a special occasion.

I love the smell of JT's burning synapses in the morning. The smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole blog . . . smells like... victory.

Janet,

I'm with you on this language business. JT makes fun of Kentucky, but with his language you wonder if he hails from Gomorrah. I remember rightwing Riverdog well, but why is it that the vast majority of liberals routinely toss off speech that might be considered out of place in a men's locker room?

Trust me when I say I like mature conversation and a sophisticated "adult", as opposed to bland McDonald's, apporach to life. When I was a teenager I was 16-going-on-30 and was accused of being born with a martini glass in one hand and a Frank Sinatra record in the other...BUT... do these folks talk like this around THEIR children? If not, why do they talk like this when someone else's children might read it?

Actually, now that I think about it, they probably do bad language around their kids. Their parents probably did the same with them.

JT teaches classes on how to be a creepy stalker at the learning annex.

Guys I'm flattered. I was really hoping my work would offend you.

>I have to give him his due. He managed to puke >out three moderately long posts in two minutes.

Thanks Grammie,

I just want to let you that you were the inspiration for myrtle.

>I have to give him his due. He managed to puke >out three moderately long posts in two minutes.

Thanks Grammie,

I just want to let you that you were the inspiration for myrtle.

One day I might read his last three posts, but for now I will save them for a special occasion.

Here is the best part for you!

Deciding to make my weekly visit to KFK’s house I drove to his apartment to see if I could find some answers there. His wife greeted me at the door. “How dumb is KFK?
I asked “MAWAHHWAHAHH” She said, while sucking my cock. “What’s that? You do think he is the stupidest person alive?” “WAHWAHAHAmmmmm” she answered. Realizing that I was going to get nothing here but a bad case of the clap, I carefully wiped my jizz on her forehead and exited the house.

>Trust me when I say I like mature conversation >and a sophisticated "adult",

What like this?

>We have achieved our stated goal of driving JT >insane(r)! All hail the evil right wing >Olbywatch conspiracy!

>I'm with you on this language business. JT >makes fun of Kentucky,

Hi Cecily!

I also make fun of you, KFK and most of the regulars on this site. And only the backwoods of Kentucky btw.

JT,

At the rate you're going, I sincerely hope you don't own any guns and that there's no tall buildings where you live.

>At the rate you're going, I sincerely hope you >don't own any guns and that there's no tall >buildings where you live.

Actually I've never felt better. As the man said "I've never felt so good--So pure."

Have nice day cecily.

JT is > an unhinged > Olbyloon with a mental >problem who puts strange > symbols in his post since he is too >dumb to properly edit himself.

Perhaps we are seeing JT cycle into a manic period? After all, he loves Olbermann, and studies have shown that 100% of Olby lovers suffer from mental illness.

That shows how stupid you are cecily. there is actually only one real curseword in the entire story. "damn" there are also two other words that I suppose or borderline and that's it!

>I'm with you on this language business. JT >makes fun of Kentucky, but with his language >you wonder if he hails from Gomorrah. I >remember rightwing Riverdog well, but why is it >that the vast majority of liberals routinely >toss off speech that might be considered out of >place in a men's locker room?

>Perhaps we are seeing JT cycle into a manic >period? After all, he loves Olbermann, and >studies have shown that 100% of Olby lovers >suffer from mental illness.

If you are going to try and be funy KFK come up with your own Joke. I used the DSM IV line eons ago. On you actually.

Tell your wife I said hi!

Poor JT! Again with the multiple > bizarre > objects > inserted into his post.

As for use of the DSM IV criteria, I have been doing that here at Olbywatch for YEARS. Yes indeed, YEARS. I believe you became enraged when I posted some criteria at the beginning of this very thread (10/11/06 at 10:19AM to be precise).

I am quite funny. You are funny as well, JT, except you are not "ha ha" funny. Your kind of funny is the "isn't there a funny smell in here" kind. Or "that guy has a funny way about him."

I can't believe you are so upset with me. after all I proved that Pat Fegan, not you, was the dumbest human being alive. You came in second.

Poor JT! Again with the multiple > bizarre > objects > inserted into his post.

that's the best you can do? I accused you of coming from Deliverance country.

Show some true wit.

That is true wit? "Deliverance country"?

Did you forget I haven't read your rants? I have done you a favor and read your one liners, all of which make me think you are in Junior High. Tell you what, why don't you relax, get some hot chocolate from your Mom, and go to sleep. In the morning, you might have a good day and be able to rationally communicate.

>Did you forget I haven't read your rants? I >have done you a favor and read your one liners, >all of which make me think you are in Junior >High.

Do you think, I honestly expected you of all people to read something that long? That was for everyone else's benefit. I try to keep my exchanges with you short, Experience having taught me anything over a few lines you won't read.

Also I'm more than ready to have a rational discusion, when you are open to listening to an opposing point of view. We can keep trading insults. I'm having fun either way.

"I'm more than ready to have a rational discusion, when you are open to listening to an opposing point of view. "

WOW! Delusional is too kind a word for you JT.

>WOW! Delusional is too kind a word for you JT

Nope just much smarter than you.

Ahh, you would rather continue trading insults. That’s good. insulting you is far easier than reasoning with you. Reasoning with you is cumbersome because you never understand the argument. Ridiculing you is easy because you never understand the argument.