Buy Text-Link-Ads here
Recent Comments

    follow OlbyWatch on Twitter

    In

    John Gibson Welcomes Back the Infamous, Deplorable Keith Olbermann

    tonyome wrote: <a href="http://twitchy.com/2014/07/28/voxs-laughable-praise-of-keith-olber... [more](11)

    In

    Welcome Back, Olby!

    syvyn11 wrote: <a href="http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/keith-olbermann-reviving-worst... [more](9)

    In

    Former Obama Support/Donor Releases Song Supporting Romney/Ryan: "We'll Take It Back Again" by Kyle Tucker

    syvyn11 wrote: @philly I don't see that happening. ESPN has turned hyper left in recent... [more](64)

    In

    Blue-Blog-a-Palooza: Ann Romney Edition!

    djthereplay wrote: By mkdawuss on August 29, 2012 6:17 PM Will John Gibson be having a "Red-B... [more](4)

    In

    No Joy in Kosville...Mighty Olby Has Struck Out

    djwolf76 wrote: "But the FOX-GOP relationship (which is far more distinguished and prevalen... [more](23)

    KO Mini Blog



    What's in the Olbermann Flood Feed?
    Subscribe to Olbermann Flood Feed:
    RSS/XML

    KO Countdown Clock


    Warning: mktime() [function.mktime]: It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'America/New_York' for 'EST/-5.0/no DST' instead in /home/owatch/www/www.olbermannwatch.com/docs/countdown.php on line 5
    KO's new contract with MSNBC ends in...
    0 days 0 hours 0 minutes

    OlbermannWatch.com "My Faves" Set

    OlbermannWatch.com Favorited Photos from other Flickr Users

    Got OlbyPhotos? See some on Flickr? DO NOT email us. Send us a FlickrMail instead. Include a link to the photo. If we like the photo you will see it displayed in the Olby Flickr Flood above.

    New to Flickr? Sign up for a FREE Flickr account!


    Got some OlbyVideo? See some on YouTube? DO NOT email us. Send us a YouTube Messages instead. Include a link to the video. If we like the video you will see it displayed in our favorites list in our YouTube page.

    New to YouTube? Sign up for a FREE YouTube account!

    Red Meat Blog
    Keith Olbermann Quotes
    Countdown Staff Writers

    If they're not on Keith's payroll...

    ...they should be...

    Crooks & Liars
    Daily Kos
    Eschaton
    Huffington Post
    Media Matters for America
    MyDD
    News Corpse
    No Quarter
    Raw Story
    Talking Points Memo
    Think Progress
    TVNewser
    Keith Lovers

    MSNBC's Countdown
    Bloggerman
    MSNBC Transcripts
    MSNBC Group at MSN

    Drinking with Keith Olbermann
    Either Relevant or True
    KeithOlbermann.org
    Keith Olbermann is Evil
    Olbermann Nation
    Olbermann.org
    Thank You, Keith Olbermann

    Don't Be Such A Douche
    Eyes on Fox
    Liberal Talk Radio
    Oliver Willis
    Sweet Jesus I Hate Bill O'Reilly

    Anonymous Rat
    For This Relief Much Thanks
    Watching Olbermann Watch

    Keith Olbermann Fanlisting Site I
    Keith Olbermann Fanlisting Site II
    Keith Olbermann Links
    Olberfans
    Sports Center Altar
    Nothing for Everyone

    Democratic Underground KO Forum
    Television Without Pity KO Forum
    Loony KO Forum (old)
    Loony KO Forum (new)
    Olberfans Forum (old)
    Olberfans Forum (new)
    Keith Watchers

    186k per second
    Ace of Spades HQ
    Cable Gamer
    Dean's World
    Doug Ross@Journal
    Extreme Mortman
    Fire Keith Olbermann
    Hot Air
    Inside Cable News
    Instapundit
    Jawa Report
    Johnny Dollar's Place
    Just One Minute
    Little Green Footballs
    Mark Levin
    Media Research Center
    Moonbattery.com
    Moorelies
    National Review Media Blog
    Narcissistic Views
    Newsbusters
    Pat Campbell Show
    Radio Equalizer
    Rathergate
    Riehl World View
    Sister Toldjah
    Toys in the Attic
    Webloggin
    The Dark Side of Keith Olbermann
    World According to Carl

    Thanks for the blogroll link!

    Age of Treason
    Bane Rants
    The Blue Site
    Cabal of Doom-De Oppresso Libre
    Chuckoblog
    Conservative Blog Therapy
    Conservathink
    Country Store
    Does Anyone Agree?
    The Drunkablog!
    Eclipse Ramblings
    If I were President of USA
    I'll Lay Down My Glasses
    Instrumental Rationality
    JasonPye.com
    Kevin Dayhoff
    Last Train Out Of Hell
    Leaning Straight Up
    Limestone Roof
    Mein BlogoVault
    NostraBlogAss
    Peacerose Journal
    The Politics of CP
    Public Secrets: from the files of the Irishspy
    Rat Chat
    Return of the Conservatives
    The Right Place
    Rhymes with Right
    seanrobins.com
    Six Meat Buffet
    Sports and Stuff
    Stout Republican
    Stuck On Stupid
    Things I H8
    TruthGuys
    Verum Serum
    WildWeasel

    Friends of OlbyWatch

    Aaron Barnhart
    Eric Deggans
    Jason Clarke
    Ron Coleman
    Victria Zdrok
    Keith Resources

    Google News: Keith Olbermann
    Feedster: Keith Olbermann
    Technorati: Keith Olbermann
    Wikipedia: Keith Olbermann
    Wikipedia: Countdown
    Wikiality: Keith Olbermann
    Keith Olbermann Quotes on Jossip
    Keith Olbermann Photos
    NNDB Olbermann Page
    IMDB Olbermann Page
    Countdown Guest Listing & Transcripts
    Olbermann Watch FAQ
    List of Politics on Countdown (by party)
    Mark Levin's Keith Overbite Page
    Keith Olbermann's Diary at Daily Kos
    Olbermann Watch in the News

    Houston Chronicle
    Playboy
    The Journal News
    National Review
    San Antonio Express
    The Hollywood Reporter
    The Journal News
    Los Angeles Times
    American Journalism Review
    Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
    St. Petersburg Times
    Kansas City Star
    New York Post/Page Six
    Washington Post
    Associated Press
    PBS
    New York Daily News
    Online Journalism Review
    The Washingon Post
    Hartford Courant
    WTWP-AM
    The New York Observer
    The Washington Post


    Countdown with Keith Olbermann
    Great Moments in Broadcast Journalism
    Great Thanks Hall of Fame
    Keith Olbermann
    MSM KO Bandwagon
    Olbermann
    Olbermann Watch Channel on You Tube
    Olbermann Watch Debate
    Olbermann Watch Image Gallery
    Olbermann Watch Polling Service
    OlbermannWatch
    OlbyWatch Link Roundup
    TVNewser "Journalism"

    July 2013
    September 2012
    August 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010
    December 2009
    November 2009
    October 2009
    September 2009
    August 2009
    July 2009
    June 2009
    May 2009
    April 2009
    March 2009
    February 2009
    January 2009
    December 2008
    November 2008
    October 2008
    September 2008
    August 2008
    July 2008
    June 2008
    May 2008
    April 2008
    March 2008
    February 2008
    January 2008
    December 2007
    November 2007
    October 2007
    September 2007
    August 2007
    July 2007
    June 2007
    May 2007
    April 2007
    March 2007
    February 2007
    January 2007
    December 2006
    November 2006
    October 2006
    September 2006
    August 2006
    July 2006
    June 2006
    May 2006
    April 2006
    March 2006
    February 2006
    January 2006
    December 2005
    November 2005
    October 2005
    September 2005
    August 2005
    June 2005
    May 2005
    April 2005
    March 2005
    February 2005
    January 2005
    December 2004
    November 2004

    Google

    Olbermann Watch Masthead

    Managing Editor

    Robert Cox
    olby at olbywatch dot com

    Contributors

    Mark Koldys
    Johnny Dollar's Place

    Brandon Coates
    OlbyWatch

    Chris Matthews' Leg
    Chris Matthews' Leg

    Howard Mortman
    Extreme Mortman

    Trajan 75
    Think Progress Watch

    Konservo
    Konservo

    Doug Krile
    The Krile Files

    Teddy Schatz
    OlbyWatch

    David Lunde
    Lundesigns

    Alex Yuriev
    Zubrcom

    Red Meat
    OlbyWatch



    Technorati Links to OlbyWatchLinks to OlbermannWatch.com

    Technorati Links to OlbyWatch Blog posts tagged with "Olbermann"

    Combined Feed
    (OlbyWatch + KO Mini-blog)

    Who Links To Me


    Mailing List RSS Feed
    Google Groups
    Subscribe to Olbermann Watch Mailing List
    Email:
    Visit this group



    XML
    Add to Google
    Add to My Yahoo!
    Subscribe with Bloglines
    Subscribe in NewsGator Online

    Add to My AOL
    Subscribe with Pluck RSS reader
    R|Mail
    Simpify!
    Add to Technorati Favorites!

    Subscribe in myEarthlink
    Feed Button Help


    Olbermann Watch, "persecuting" Keith since 2004


    June 25, 2007
    Countdown with Keith Olbermann - June 25, 2007

    "COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN" (8:00 P.M.-9:00 P.M. ET)

    Host: Keith Olbermann

    Topics/Guests:

    • V.P. DICK CHENEY: John Dean, fmr. Nixon White House counsel
    • 9/11 - WHITMAN VS. GIULIANI:  Jonathan Alter, Newsweek senior editor and MSNBC political analyst
    • JESSIE DAVIS MURDER: Clint van Zandt, fmr. FBI profiler and MSNBC analyst

    Another opening, another spiel. "Dick's World": he's "the de facto President". The latest Giuliani attack in Olby's ongoing Project Rudy. The Ohio murder case, the great Pants suit, and Harry Potter. A pretty thin bowl of soup...maybe explains his recent ratings.

    Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly book Culture Warrior

    #5: KO bumbled his way through the intro about why this is really the Cheney Administration. There's "empirical evidence", sez Olby. He threw around phrases like "legally questionable" and "morally reprehensible" and whined that Bush claims he doesn't have to obey his own executive order. Of course he doesn't, Olberdunce! It's Bush's order, and he can amend it, repeal it, interpret it, or make a new one any time he feels like it. The Wolffe Man skulked in, simpered about how secretive the Veep's office is, used his pet word "extraordinary", and then detailed that "empirical evidence" mentioned by Bathtub Boy. Well, no he didn't. So Olbermann laid out the "emperical evidence". Um, not exactly. They must have been short on time. As the banner read "Fun with Dick and Dick", Wolffie got Great Thanksed.

    Next up, Keith Olbermann's Criminal Rehabilitation Program met again to minister to KO's favorite felon, John Dean. The disbarred lawyer claimed Cheney was the "senior partner" in the administration, because Bush knew he couldn't handle the job. No transparency, it "got out of control", so Fat Ass compared "Dick" to Al Capone, summing it all up with the phrase of the day: it's "the ultimate scandal" [Ding!]. The criminal got Great Thanksed.

    #4: Project Rudy continued, playing up a disagreement between Giuliani and Christy Todd Whitman. Oralmann's task here is simple: flip 9/11, Rudy's greatest strength, and make it a liability. In other words, SwiftBoat him! According to Olbermahn, "Saint Rudy" is desperately attempting to 'salvage" his reputation. Lefty Alter was an enthusiastic puppet, tossing in the lie that Karl Rove was behind the SwiftBoating of John Kerry! That's the sort of thing they love on OlbyPlanet ("Snigger Snigger...He said Karl Rove...Snigger!").

    There was a top newsmaker where "Man on Fan" Olbermann creepily slobbered over some schoolkids who compiled a bunch of talking points from blue blogs. He even applauded them, in a limp, sissy sort of way. So followed #3: the Ohio murder case, analyzed by Van Zandt. #2: The Pants suit (regurgitated video from the future home of Rosie O'Donnell), plus Paris Hilton. #1: Keithy's theory on how the Harry Potter saga will end. We don't care about his theory.

    In the Media Matters Minute, Senator Inhofe (R) was attacked (Blue Blog Source: Talking Points Memo), with juvenile name-calling against Fox tossed in (to the delight of The Laughing Stagehand). Plus a bonus! Another Republican senator (Kyl) was attacked because he liked some ideas on the immigration bill he heard on eeevil talk radio (which is any talk radio to the right of Err America) (Blue Blog Source: Think Progress). Shame on Kyl for listening to that "right wing water carrier" Hugh Hewitt! Keith Olbermoronn, of course, is fair and balanced. Uh huh. Keith's not a left-wing water carrier--he lifts the jugs by the gross with a forklift! Only they're Kool-Aid.

    Stories Olbermann refuses to report

    Dogs that did not bark: This one is so obvious it's a wonder how he gets away with it. Oralmann has repeatedly attacked "Mister" Bush's Iraq policy, and sermonizes that the President is going against "the will of the people". But polls on OlbyPlanet are fickle; if they don't comport with OlbySpin all of a sudden the "will of the people" becomes irrelevant. So when surveys show that "the people" do not want the latest immigration bill, does Herr Olbermann launch a diatribe, blasting the Congress for contravening the desires of the American citizenry? Nope. He just ignores the issue.


    Latest Keith Olbermann Ratings Triumphs!

    Thursday: another stunning fourth place finish in the critical, beloved, all-important, coveted "key demo":

    O'Reilly: 2,572,000 (demo: 507,000)
    Nancy Grace: 1,070,000 (demo: 345,000)
    Paula Zahn: 518,000 (demo: 176,000)
    Keith Oralmann: 579,000 (demo: 168,000)

    Friday: a craptacular fourth place finish again!:

    O'Reilly: 1,907,000 (demo: 386,000)
    Nancy Grace: 841,000 (demo: 255,000)
    CNN SIU: 483,000 (demo: 199,000)
    "Man on Fan" Olbermann: 551,000 (demo: 179,000)

    MisterMeter

    Olbermann's book The book that bears Olbermann's name roars along at #6,908 at amazon.com, while "Culture Warrior" is #669. (It's that 2-for-$25 sale!) The OlbyTome remains sunken below the ranking radar at Barnes & Noble; O'Reilly's book is #1,093 there, and is one of the top five books of 2006 per Publishers Weekly. Tonight's MisterMeter reading: 4 [GUARDED]



    Posted by johnny dollar | Permalink | Comments (319) | | View blog reactions

    319 Comments

    Thank God Johnny's back. Now I can rest a lot easier and not watch the entire Hour oF Spin as Johnny D covers it better than anyone!

    GREAT THANKS!

    Thank you, J$ for highlighting Olbermann's ridiculously hypocritical use of the phrase "water carrier" (it's an Olby favorite). Thought I was the only one who noticed.

    It amazes me how Keith can name call people "right wing water carriers" with a straight face. Who is the man that invites only liberal guests to his show to parrot everything he says? Who is the man who lifts stories verbatim from left wing blogs? Who is the man who has devoted a ton of airtime to bashing Republican Presidential Candidates, but has never bashed any of the Democratic Presidential Candidates? Who is the man that referred to Republicans as "terrorists"? Who is the man that has compared President Bush to Nazis? Who is the man that defended Rosie O'Donnell when she called American Soldiers "terrorists"? After answering all of these questions, it's hard not to view Keith Olbermann as a "water carrier".

    Correction, please. We don't attack Olby by proxy. We attack him directly. And because you can't defend Olbermann or his twisted, diseased perversion of journalism, you change the subject to "Bush and his policies". If that's the best you can come up with to defend the infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann, you just might be an OlbyLoon.

    No doubt about it, they ARE an Olbyloon.

    Unlike many of pontificators on this site, I actually watched Olbermann tonight, and I have to admit it was a very, very good show. In fact, I was surprised at the quality. I generally find Olbermann a bit tedious and amateurish (on an absolute, not relative scale, as I find O'Reilly even more amateurish and O'Hannity absurd). The show was a surprisingly good mix of sound analysis and straight commentary with a clearer than usual dilenation between the two. There was also a good mix of the negative and the positive, the latter highlighted by the recognition of the presidential scholars and their marvelous letter to Bush (about which I earlier commented, prior to this evening's review). Even the WPITW (Kyl) was a good, well-deserved choice. I feared for a moment Olbermann would go "White Girl Gone Missing" a la O'Hannity, but he actually handled that story tastefully, without the guts and ghoul others seem to favor. If this pace, this tone can be maintained, which would be difficult, we may actually have a fairly high quality television product. I do hope that happens. We need an alternative to Paula's whininess and O'Reilly's mean-spiritedness.

    Water carrier?The orange putz is calling ppl water carriers?The most hated man on ESPN---who lifts his entire show from the web pages of move on and media matters---and that other huge olberman like failure--the huffigton post?Sigh---the orange putz rutted in last place night after night--the brian williams fiasco---lefty democrat boy brian it turns out--has lost more viewers then even that huge mistake--Katie Couric---and all due to one thi ng--the huge left turn NBC news made . NBC is a joke----it's a ratings disaster---keep bleeding viewers --keep belching the lefty dogma---get used to last place--just like our orange hued failure--olbytard.

    Water carrier?The orange putz is calling ppl water carriers?The most hated man on ESPN---who lifts his entire show from the web pages of move on and media matters---and that other huge olberman like failure--the huffigton post?Sigh---the orange putz rutted in last place night after night--the brian williams fiasco---lefty democrat boy brian it turns out--has lost more viewers then even that huge mistake--Katie Couric---and all due to one thi ng--the huge left turn NBC news made . NBC is a joke----it's a ratings disaster---keep bleeding viewers --keep belching the lefty dogma---get used to last place--just like our orange hued failure--olbytard.

    "Unlike yourself, Billy Bang Bang, Ko gets his information right off the wire, like all good newsmen do.
    If you actually read yourself just a bit, you and everyone would see that."

    The orange retard , err Olberman , gets every thought in his orange head off the blue blogs.Olbytard is a flunkie and a failure--hey--he is the most hated nam at ESPN.

    "I read the same stuff in my daily conservative newspaper."
    Like sayy- I dunno--The NY Times--USA Today--the LA Times---oh the list goeson and on--but the orange hack only gets his "news" from the George Sorros appoved sites-----and the orange tard lifts them word for word from these sites---like all good lefties--he follows orders from his political masters.Yup--one thing I can say about the Orange Olberst----he follows orders like the best of them. All good Nazis do.

    Thankfully, there are only 26% of you twisted ignorant Bushies left. The number drops daily.

    "The show was a surprisingly good mix of sound analysis and straight commentary"

    Posted by: Clucker at June 25, 2007 11:15 PM

    Clucker,

    Congratulations for having the intestinal fortitude to watch Meltdown wire to to wire. In your post above you speak of a "good mix" on the show. Tell us about the "good mix" that Olbermann brought to us in terms of opinions across the idelogical spectrum. You know, "a good mix" as in a diversity of ideas, differing viewpoints, debating opposing positions, guests who were invited on to challenge (and thus hold acountable) the basis for the host's opinions. What's that you say? There was no ideological diversity? Nobody disagreed with the host? The guests parrotted Orange Boy and never questioned his assumtions or analysis? Wow, now that sounds like Olby and his guests had a really fun time sucking up to each other. I am sorry I missed that.

    Again, Olby brings up the rear
    Nancy Grace and Paula will jeer
    Countdown is failing
    Viewers are bailing
    The ratings are perfectly clear

    Dumb Fuck NOBODY makes it clear
    Olby's the one he holds most dear
    Just an unhinged one note
    Bush bashing by rote
    Fair and balanced is all he does fear

    Countdown's "legal expert" John Dean
    The hypocrisy should be obscene
    Attorney disbarred
    A cell with armed guard
    Quazy Queef must feel mighty unclean

    "You mean you want him to tell some falsehoods mixed in with the truth about your criminal administration."

    No, I want Olby to stick by his promise that he was going to go just as hard after Democrats when they won control of Congress as he would Republicans. Olbermann's nightly cheerleading for the left wing fringe puts the lie to yet another phony Olbermann pronouncement.

    Olby and John Dean doing 69
    Says one to the other "You taste like a fine wine"
    Both love Dick unless the first name is VP
    Let's hope neither gives the other VD
    Olbyloons watching hoping for some of that brine

    "Fair and balanced.
    Cheney is abusing the law.
    Then you can have someone on who will say, "He's a great American !"

    You have the mental acumen of a third grader. When Olby trots out guests on his show who all agree with his VIEWPOINT that Cheney is violating the law, that is all well and good. However, but there are legal experts who believe that Cheney has acted in a perfectly legal way and would provide analysis to support this argument. Will you ever see such persons who disagree with Olby on Meltdown? Don't hold your breath.

    "The show was a surprisingly good mix of sound analysis and straight commentary"

    Posted by: Clucker at June 25, 2007 11:15 PM

    Spoken like a true olbyloon! What was the mix? Don't bother answeriing that, there was no "mix."

    "Keith's not a left-wing water carrier--he lifts the jugs by the gross with a forklift! Only they're Kool-Aid." Ed S.

    Couldn't have said it better myself!

    Sorry, Johnny, I gave credit to Ed not knowing you did the recap. My apologies.

    Spoken like a true olbyloon! What was the mix? Don't bother answeriing that, there was no "mix."

    Posted by royalking at June 26, 2007 1:16 AM

    -----

    It has been conclusively established, Jeff/royalking/poor mikey/various anons, et al: No one gives a damn about the opinion of a complete idiot. The only "mix" you know anything about is the the mixed feelings you have about staying with your parents or running off with Dr. Wiener.

    Since a certain gal on another thread claimed I could not be more annoying if I tried......Here I go trying.....

    "The Cheney Presidency," was the starting topic last night on COUNTDOWN..... Wow...what a scoop! Along with the evidence that impeachable offences have occurred at The White House (as documented by many on the 6/22 thread), I was SURE the Cheney coup would be the top story this morning on all the major networks and newspapers......So, let's check it out......

    cnn.com..........PARIS HILTON
    MSNBC.com...................PARIS HILTON
    foxnews.com...PARIS HILTON
    Today Show.......PARIS HILTON
    GMA...............................PARIS HILTON
    NYT...PARIS HILTON
    CBS News.................PARIS HILTON
    WASHPO.....PARIS HILTON
    My local news radio station...PARIS HILTON!

    Yes America.....Keith Olbermann, John Dean and his fans blew the lid off the shadow government better known as VPOTUS, and the story is ditched.....Why?......Paris Hilton has been released from jail!

    Will Keith Olbermann cover the Paris story tonight on COUNTDOWN? Will Keith Olbermann continue his hard hitting, cogent and in depth investigative reporting on the story of the year.....Dick Cheney is really our president?! I wait in breathless anticipation!

    And this is my post today, the 1,517th day since the declaration of Mission Accomplished in Iraq.....

    I am cee, good night and good luck.

    "I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden

    "There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administration's policies in Iraq. Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back." NYT 1/28/07

    "I think the Vietnamese are better off in Vietnam," George McGovern - NEWSWEEK

    "Lefties: Leave these pathetic drowning rats alone to stew in each other's juices. Get yourselves out in the street and fight this criminal administration in ways that really mean something, and that are noted by more than a handful of keyboard heroes!" Sir Loin of Beef

    "American liberals need to face these truths: The demand for self-government was and remains strong in Iraq despite all our mistakes and the violent efforts of al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias to disrupt it." DEMOCRAT Bob Kerrey

    "If we end up saying that because these people are committing these acts of terrorism in Iraq or Afghanistan, that we shouldn't have done the removal of Saddam or the removal of the Taliban, then we are making a fundamental mistake about our own future, about security, about the values we should be defending in the world." TONY BLAIR

    >>Of course he doesn't, Olberdunce! It's Bush's order, and he can amend it, repeal it, interpret it, or make a new one any time he feels like it.

    Dollar feels that the president is above the law. Did he feel that way during the Clinton lynching?

    I doubt it...

    Does anyone know what time Paris is being released?

    Blindrat,

    With regards to executive orders, it is clear that the order, from the executive, is his/her's to enforce....The interpretation to how, who and when the order is met ends at Bush's desk......

    This is not a law passed by Congress that Cheney is thwarting.....it is Bush's order....an order Bush does not follow himself, it is his legal choice and right.

    You guys love the seperation of powers when it comes to diminishing the power of the executive, but when the executive operates within the constitutional arrangement of the branches, you claim they are breaking the law......

    If congress is so concerned about Bush's executive order regarding classified information oversight, they should put their political necks on the line and pursue impeachment hearings against the VP for violating the law.

    Just like Iraq.....Democrats should have taken the small political risk to stop such an illegal and immoral war by cutting the war funds....

    But I guess working within the confines of our fine law is not what the left wants to really do....they just want to snipe from the hills and hide.....cowardly rhetorical assasins.

    Great leadership!

    clucker/asswipe/prick, why don't you e-mail Bob and have him tell you all of the names I post under? Royalking, that's it. The olbyloons are the ONLY ones that do the multiple names game. Now, get lost! Oh, sorry you don't have a car. Bike? Did you do any googling yet to find out if there is a subway in warsaw?

    I did that just to give you something to talk about, clucker. Don't go off on a tyrant.

    blindbat, cee is referring to ONE order, not all laws across the board. Nice word play, though......

    cee,

    I agree that Bush should've been impeached LONG ago; however, if you assume that he doesn't have to obey his own executive orders, you have me at a loss.

    You have a source for your opinion? An executive order has the same weight as a law, so I would imagine that there must be something somewhere that has convinced you that presidents and vice presidents are immune to laws that they themselves make. Strangely enough, that would make congress immune to laws that they make, eh?

    I think that you're stuck, cee...

    Try pikcin gup a newsppaer sometime, you might actually learn something and then not be so surprised when you see it on Countdown.
    Posted by: at June 25, 2007 11:35 PM
    Hey libby "genius" annon. why don't you try "pikcin gup" a dictionary you might actually learn to spell those hard words of the English language. Ahh the intellectual level of Loons.

    I wonder if the orange faced prick will cover this? Haditha trumped up by the old york times and madman murtha!


    NEW YORK Six weeks ago, at the military hearings probing the killing of 24 civilians in Haditha in November 2005, a Marine officer testified about his view of the initial questions about the incident, and possible coverup, raised by the Time magazine reporter who broke the case.

    The questions from Tim McGirk clearly provoked more rage than a determination to look into the evidence offered by eyewitnesses.

    First Lt. Adam P. Mathes, then the executive officer of Company K, said he other officers had dismissed the reporter's queries, feeling they were ''sensational'' and politically inspired -- McGirk clearly had an "antiwar agenda," he alleged.

    ''The questions were questionable,'' Mathes said. ''It sounded like bad, negative spin. We tried to weed out the grievances that Mr. McGirk had against the Bush administration....This guy is looking for blood, because blood leads headlines.''

    Troubling, and revealing, details on that view of McGirk – and likely any probing by any reporter into a possible massacre – surfaced this week when the Los Angeles Times and The New York Times published excerpts from a five-page memo produced by Mathes and three other officers in January 2006 in response to McGirk’s questions.

    Stonewalling by the military contributed to the Haditha story remaining largely unexplored by the press for several weeks after the sketchy revelations by McGirk in Time. Extensive coverage only ensued after Rep. John Murtha raised the issue in interviews in May 2006.

    But McGirk would accomplish what the memo writers most feared: that he would “spurn a reaction from the command that will initiate an investigation.” Later that year, the Marine Corps would charge three enlisted men with murder, and four officers with dereliction of duty for failing to determine how and why the Iraqis were killed.

    And here is the question that I am still waiting for an answer to from my post on the same thread @ 3:41 PM:

    "How far have we descended, according to you, on any scale you choose into the judicial murderous madness of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany."


    Well, Grammy; we haven't yet adopted the swastika or the fasces as our national symbols; we haven't given German or Italian names to all of our streets...

    ...that's what you've been asserting, isn't it? That we don't need to worry about the erosion of our liberties until we look exactly like the some of the most famous precedents of corporate tyranny? Such historical determinism is a recipe for national victimhood.

    Blindrat, your contention is that Executive Orders carry the same weight as the laws passed by the Legislature?

    You should let GWB know that he has the ultimate power to over ride every part of every law by Executive Order.

    I am on record as one who thinks a strong Executive (a la FDR and Ronaldus Magnificus) is the best way to govern ourselves and ensure that no one branch accumulates too much power for a sustained period of time. I think that this constant battle and ebb and flow is our system working well and what has kept us what we are for 200+ years.

    You don't think that your analysis is so far out of the main stream that it is downright kooky! Perhaps you are not fully aware of exactly what an Executive Order can and can not.

    From:

    http://www.thisnation.com/question/040.html

    "Executive Orders (EOs) are legally binding orders given by the President, acting as the head of the Executive Branch, to Federal Administrative Agencies. Executive Orders are generally used to direct federal agencies and officials in their execution of congressionally established laws or policies. However, in many instances they have been used to guide agencies in directions contrary to congressional intent."

    Or you might want to go here for a conservative analysis:

    http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/LM2.cfm

    "In the end, the constitutional separation of powers supports both sides of the argument over a President's proper authority. It reinforces a President's right or duty to issue a decree, order, or proclamation to carry out a particular power that truly is committed to his discretion by the Constitution or by a lawful statute passed by Congress. On the other hand, the constitutional separation of powers cuts the other way if the President attempts to issue an order regarding a matter that is expressly committed to another branch of government; it might even render the presidential action void. Finally, separation of powers principles may be unclear or ambiguous when the power is shared by two branches of government."

    This and other questions raised here and around the country are not based on a constitution chiseled in stone never open to interpretation scientifically inexorably only one predictable outcome.

    I am fast running out of ways to say that this ambiguity that was, I believe eliberately written into our Constitution in order to give us the best chance at realizing what we have had and still have that sets us apart from most of the world.

    Instead of my fumbling attempts lets go the source. The hope expressed in The Preamble to the Constitution of the USA:

    "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

    Do you think that we would have realized that hope as well as we have if The Constitution that followed The Preamble was a list of iron bound rules allotting this much and no more to each branch. I don't because by keeping the current holders of power continuously battling each other as our history demonstrates rather than using every ounce of power they have to oppress us.

    Grammie

    Grammie

    Goodness, the cat loving fan girls are going ga-ga over the fact the Olbermann has read the Harry Potty books. Finding his "dorkiness" just dreamy. I guess they don't realize that perhaps they are required reading when you live with a child. Katy just loves the bedtime stories...

    Grammie,

    From the article: "Executive Orders do not require Congressional approval to take effect but they have the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress.

    This indicates to me that an executive order is considered to have the same weight as a law.

    Blindrat,

    With regards to enforcement, President Bush wrote Executive Order 12958 to say the following....


    Sec. 5.2. Program Direction. (a) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in consultation with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and the co-chairs of the Security Policy Board, shall issue such directives as are necessary to implement this order. **These directives shall be binding upon the agencies.** Directives issued by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall establish standards for:


    (1) classification and marking principles;
    (2) **agency** security education and training programs;

    (3) **agency** self-inspection programs; and

    (4) classification and declassification guides.


    ###
    *I bring your attention to the sentence: These directives shall be binding upon the agencies.

    *And I bring your attention to the word AGENCIES

    AGENCIES....what are the agencies according to the US law.....

    5 U.S.C. §101. Executive Departments
    The Executive Departments are:

    The Department of State.
    The Department of the Treasury.
    The Department of Defense.
    The Department of Justice.
    The Department of the Interior.
    The Department of Agriculture.
    The Department of Commerce.
    The Department of Labor.
    The Department of Health and Human Services.
    The Department of Housing and Urban Development.
    The Department of Transportation.
    The Department of Energy.
    The Department of Education.
    The Department of Veterans Affairs.


    ###
    So, Bush's executive order may be interpreted to apply only to executive branch agencies.....Yesterday, you did not say VPOTUS is an agency....He is not....he is a specific constituional entity that has both functions in the executive branh (primarily and only because of historical decisions....not specifically listed in The US Constitution), and in the legislative branch (specifically enumerated in The US Constitution).

    If George Bush wanted the order to apply to himself and Cheney, he would have said so in the order.....he did not.

    Why is Waxman, a congressman, so concerned about rules that he has nothing to do with in his seperated branch?......

    Politics.....That is why you did not hear the words "broke the law," or "impeachment" form the coward's lips.....Waxman knows this is all just for show to tantalize the blue-terds, the true-believers, the radical left....

    Good luck with it, blindrat.

    cee,

    If you read the order, you must have read: "(i) "Agency" means any "Executive agency," as defined in 5 U.S.C. 105, and any other entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information."

    I draw your attention to ANY OTHER ENTITTY WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH...

    Balls in your court, cee...

    SLOB, your response above is stangely reminiscent of Chicken Blogger's response on the June 22 thread.

    In fact I think it might be the exact same response. The only difference I see is an additional ellipsis in the fourth paragraph in your post on this thread.

    I saw it the first time and declined to answer it because it was totally non responsive and tilting at straw men.

    But you, SLOB, impress me as a person with enough intelligence and education to realize that that that answer is just another straw man bromide.

    In a post based on the actual Al Marri ruling from which I cited certain facts that were contained in the ruling I made the argument that not only is our so called shredded Constitution alve and well but performing robustly.

    My closing paragraphs were:

    "No matter on what side the decision comes down we will have those who applaud and those who scream opposition. And then we all will work our way through the differences and live with it.

    We have been fortunate beyond belief to be one of the smallest minorities in the world's history to have lived in our country and enjoyed its freedoms and blessings. Yet we are bombarded daily by cries and screams of Tyranny, Dictatorship, Fascism, Gulags, Despotism by those who obviously have absolutely no concept of the gruesome reality behind the words they so blithely use."

    The answer I got from Whatizname was, to paraphrase, just because we haven't sunk all the way into Fascism and Nazism stupid Grammie thinks our Constitution hasn't been shredded.

    That was the genesis of this question:

    "How far have we descended, according to you, on any scale you choose into the judicial murderous madness of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany."

    "Well, we haven't yet adopted the swastika or the fasces as our national symbols; we haven't given German or Italian names to all of our streets...

    that's what you are asserting, isn't it? That we don't need to worry about the erosion of our liberties until we look exactly like the some of the most famous precedents of corporate tyranny?
    Posted by: at June 26, 2007 8:33 AM"

    No, that is not what I am asserting. My assertion is positive, much stronger, has less wiggle room and is based on the legal history of Al Marri. You are the one asserting that we are sliding rapidly into a Nazi Jurisprudence.

    That assertion is completely different from the QUESTION I asked for you to clarify where we are on that slide and give us some reasons and comparisons to back up your assertion.

    Pick a scale for the comparison and indicate where we are on that scale. Or, to rephrase it using your terms, how close are we to swastikas and renaming our streets?

    Grammie

    Balls in your court, cee...

    Posted by: blindrat at June 26, 2007 12:48 PM


    ..and, as always, cee's balls will swing in whatever new direction that he feels will help him appear to be right within the contexts of the tiny slice of time represented by his response. This is the Straussian method.

    Your interaction with him yesterday, Blindrat, re: the Nature of Cheney provided a pristine example of such devil-may-care postmodernism on his part.

    Mr. Beef,

    I've changed my mind since yesterday. I think that Cheney keeps changing branches of government to confuse the terrorists...

    Remember: If Cheney turns out to be in the executive branch, the terrorists win!

    clucker/asswipe/prick, why don't you e-mail Bob
    ---
    Because I am not a whiney-arsed, sneaking, sniveling, snot-nosed snitch. That is your forte.
    ---
    You do realize your most recent cut and paste endeavor, the McGirk/old york times (Ha! Ha! Ha! That humor again!) undercuts all of your usual belicose chicken hawk, "Go forth and die while I man the keyboard.," drum-beating, don't you? Irony is lost on you, isn't it? Sweet Mary, what a dolt!

    Blindrat, are you contending that every Executive Order can over ride any legislation and by extension obligate Federal Courts and The Supreme Court to make their rulings based on the primacy of Executive Orders over the other branches exercising their legitimate functions.?

    That is how your argument comes across.

    Or are you really arguing from the very narrow position that if GWB did it it has to an evil power grab.

    The complexity that we struggle with daily is exactly why it works. What came before sets precedents for today and what we today will set precedents also. These same battles will be fought over and over as long as our Republic survives.

    Just as in the past the power claimed and exercised by the various branches ebbs and flows. The day it becomes a tidal wave coming from one branch is the day we become an historical oddity.

    Have you ever wondered why all these burning issues from generation to generation are rarely decided on Constitutional grounds?

    My opinion is that none of the branches want a hard and fast rule that continually restricts here and expands there.

    Grammie

    Please copy this "Chicken Blogger" post which I have apparently emulated - if there is truly only a single "elipses" of difference between our comments this represents a remarkable coincidence reminiscent of the Monkeys/Shakespear bromide, and I would be most interested to see it (not interested enough, however, to slog through the OW backwaters to seek it myself).

    Perhaps these comments are so similar because of the starkness of the prima facie flaws in logic and the shallow grasp of historical processes that your position in this regard reveals. A very similar response may present itself automatically to any critically thinking person reading your argument.


    No one is asserting that we are "sliding rapidly into a Nazi Jurisprudence"; This is YOUR straw-man. We are unequivocally and categorically sliding into a fascist (small "f", that is - or "corporatist", if you prefer, to avoid any more historical misunderstandings) system of government particular to current global contexts. There are analogies to be drawn which are relevant and informative; but you insist on making point-by-point correlations a litmus test for the entire issue - a preposterous paradigm outside of the original "Star Trek" series. As I stated yesterday; you cannot use a binary juxtaposition beween Mayberry and Auschwitz as a guide for political interpretation and expet to be taken seriously.

    Grammie,

    The topic at hand was does Cheney have a right to ignore executive orders. Is an executive order more powerful than a standard law which has come through the legislature? I don't know...nor does it have any bearing on the current debate...

    I wouldn't worry so much about an EO preempting an existing law or vica versa. I would worry more about the president's affinity for rewriting legislation as he signs it (ie signing statements)...

    Blindrat,

    With regards to who The President intended the executive order to cover....

    I direct you to the spokesperson who clearly stated.....

    "No, I think that he was saying -- especially when it comes to the executive branch -- is that the duties that he is given are given to him solely by the President of the United States. And some Vice Presidents don't do as much as he does in the realm of national security or in policy development as this Vice President does. But this Vice President was given executive duties to handle --(interupted by reporter)

    "Q But how is being a part of another branch -- I guess it's debatable -- but how is that an out?"

    "MS. PERINO: It's not an -- that's irrelevant because the President never intended for the Vice President to be subject to the executive order."


    ###
    So from Bush's position, Cheney was not in violation of the order because he never intended him to be an "agency," and The US Constitution specifically names a vice president and never places him in a specific branch. Only historic influences, as I said yesterday, catagorizes VPOTUS as part of the executive branch....
    legally....constitutionally.......sorry, no dice, he has feet in two branches with only the stateds role to 1) fill-in if The President can't function and 2) to be lead The Senate in ceremonial and tie-breaking events.

    The President says what, how and why The Vice President gets to do things in the US Government.....and this only because previous presidents did such.

    And that is the other argument Cheney clearly points out in the ambiguity of The US Constitution Article II.....

    And if The President intended Executive Order 12958 to apply to the office of VPOTUS, he would have instructed Cheney to comply.....It is Bush's order.

    And again, you and Loin ignore my point about the language of your ruling class representative.....no move to impeach and hold accountable the very man you are accusing has broken the law....

    Why....

    Because he did not break the law. The executive who wrote the order says Cheney was not included in those entities required to follow the reporting.

    Who is going to say Bush is wrong and have it stick....a judge?....sorry, seperation of powers would prohibit that.....the stupid Waxman or Emanuel?.....only if they use their political capital to manipulate funds or start impeachment hearings.....

    You guys are just bitter because no one is reporting further action against the criminal Cheney. There is no case. All of this is just slime for the trough for those who feed off the fear and loathing of Cheney/Bush.

    If constitutional lawyers and intellegent people want to codify VPOTUS, let them do so....but try not to be so demogogic and condemning even before your pathetic and impotent leaders announce whether they are going to take REAL action against Cheney, gents.

    ...and Grammy, I have answered your "continuum" question over the past two days - but only by reframing it from the vapid historical determinism that envelopes it.


    We have an executive branch that has made attempts to sieze the power of the other branches of government: through the normalization of executive "signing statement"; the politicization of the Justice Department; and now through the metaphysical transmigration of the office of Vice President. In this efort the administration was for four years given the unquestioning support - in the form of abject abdication - of a lazy and negligent Republican congress; and now we are faced with a Demcratic congress of which many appear eager to see leaders of their own party living in this imperial palace of executive latitutude that was built for Bush, but which the Republicans appear unlikely to retain.

    The measure we need to use is the three-branch system of government and its essential checks and balances - for anyone with any familiarity wit US civics should be able to gauge the health of our system by looking at that context. We will never go down the "road of Mussolini or Hitler" - we will make our own history....and with a "Unitary Executive" beholden to the Military Industrial Complex, its likely to be a very horrible one indeed.

    You do realize your most recent cut and paste endeavor, the McGirk/old york times (Ha! Ha! Ha! That humor again!) undercuts all of your usual belicose chicken hawk, "Go forth and die while I man the keyboard.," drum-beating, don't you? Irony is lost on you, isn't it? Sweet Mary, what a dolt!

    Posted by: Clucker at June 26, 2007 1:20 PM

    chicken shit, explain this spew, please. How does it go against anything I have said? I have said numorous times the old york times is in bed with the enemy as well as madman murtha being on the side of the enemy. Elaborate, if you can......

    What is this Far Right desire for impeachment proceedings? Are you hoping the Democrats will shoot themselves in the foot like Gingrich did over the Clinton impeachment. There will be no impeachment, in part because there are not enough votes, but in part because what is point of impeaching someone whose approval ratings are in the mid-teens? Cheney is an oozing, festering sore that stinks up the Republican party. The stench drives voters away. My goodness, why would any Democrat want Cheney out? He is the gift that keeps giving.

    That is the cynical view. More likely, the Democrats saw the tremendous harm Gingrich and his sorry lot did to the nation in the Clinton proceedings, and they do not wish to inflict the same pain upon the nation they love. Cotainment will accomplish the same goal, without the pain. It is a caring, responsible, mature, patriotic response.

    blindrat,

    as your biggest fan i have to ask: did you have a stroke or is it just the dc heat?

    you've been getting your butt kicked on this topic for two days.

    i feel like i am watching superman wearing a kryptonite necklace.

    come on. pull it together and out logic this bitch.

    cee,

    I showed you the part of the executive order that covered Cheney. You've shown me a flunky's interpretation of that order.

    Cheney is covered as long as he has access to classified material. The fact that you are making excuses for its possible abuse indicates to me that you'd forgive treason...

    Dr. Savage,

    Please stop apologizing for only donating $10,000 to defend the wrongly accused marines in the two investigations currently going on. Rush Limbaugh, the big loud mouth, has never given a penny of his $150,000,000+ fortune to help the troops in any way. Other talk show hosts have donating money to the troops, although this was through promotions and then it was only for active duty troops, not the accused ones. Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly have donated money but Sean has to throw a concert to get it, and Bill O'Reilly give the proceeds from his website. Neither have dug into their own pocket. So hold your head high and be consoled in the fact that you are the only radio host who has the balls to put your own money where your ideals are. Only $10,000? That's ten thousand more than any one else has given. God Bless you Dr. Savage and may we all pray that He through some divine intervention, save this nation.


    Olbermahn has donated how much? 0!


    Wow, we have "the" manifesto of fear eloquently stated by Sir Loin of Milquetoast at 1:40PM followed two posts down by a fellow traveler content with the political expediency that is the reality in the left's ruling class....

    The poles are set.....allow the criminals to rule (yet contain them) verses halting the continuing evolution of a unitary executive beholden to that ever hungry MIC! Oh my, what are we to do, Dorothy?

    And Keith Olbermann feels Bush/Cheney use scare tactics.

    Well, SLOB, I'll report and you decide:

    "And here is the question that I am still waiting for an answer to from my post on the same thread @ 3:41 PM:

    "How far have we descended, according to you, on any scale you choose into the judicial murderous madness of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany."


    Well, we haven't yet adopted the swastika or the fasces as our national symbols; we haven't given German or Italian names to all of our streets...

    that's what you are asserting, isn't it? That we don't need to worry about the erosion of our liberties until we look exactly like the some of the most famous precedents of corporate tyranny?
    Posted by: at June 26, 2007 8:33 AM "

    "And here is the question that I am still waiting for an answer to from my post on the same thread @ 3:41 PM:

    "How far have we descended, according to you, on any scale you choose into the judicial murderous madness of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany."


    Well, Grammy; we haven't yet adopted the swastika or the fasces as our national symbols; we haven't given German or Italian names to all of our streets...

    ...that's what you've been asserting, isn't it? That we don't need to worry about the erosion of our liberties until we look exactly like the some of the most famous precedents of corporate tyranny? Such historical determinism is a recipe for national victimhood.
    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at June 26, 2007 12:14 PM "

    I'll concede that in addition to the additional ellipsis there is this added sentence at the end of SLOB's post:

    "Such historical determinism is a recipe for national victimhood (sic)."

    For two separate people to express the same idea in the exact words in a post with only a minor addition to the second post is a bit eerie. Perhaps you have a separated at birth identical twin out there. How exciting for you!

    Grammie

    Sarcasm is the last throes of a lost argument, cee...

    Well, Angels, do we have evidence to report back to Charley and Bosely that SLOB is definitely a or the only Chicken Blogger?

    I think we should gather at the pool in our skimpy bikinis and discuss it further. :)

    Grammie

    chicken shit, you have your democratic congress' approval rating mixed up with Bush's. Bush's is not in the teens as you lied about, it is just under 30%. That's what you get when you get your news from Olbermahn and media matters!

    No blindrat,

    I respect the authority of The President of The United States of America to deem and judge the application of his OWN executive order....

    The "flunky," is his spokesperson.....she says what he tells her to say and if he says it was not his intention to have VPOTUS be an "agency," then that's the way it is.....BECAUSE IT IS BUSH'S EXECUTIVE ORDER!

    And I would say the same thing if it was President Hillary Clinton's executive order or President LaRouche's executive order....

    It is Constitutional.....and I respect the law....unlike you, it seems. Go back to ARTICLE II and read it again, please!

    "What is this Far Right desire for impeachment proceedings?"

    Clucker,

    Cee thinks he is being clever; he thinks that by pointing out that Democratic leaders have fallen sort of their promises to their constituents that he is robbing us of our arguments. He simply cannot imagine a national political forum in which party leaders do not set the form and content of the debate, and do not serve as fetishes for their respective faithful.

    I've tried to tell him that criticisms of Hillary, Emmanuel, and Liebermann (cee actually cited him yesterday, as if it represented a coup de grace against lefties! Hah!) will only draw agreement from me and other progressives, but he persists.

    come on blindrat, don't let me down. she's starting to crack.

    bite me cee.

    2:01 was in response to your 1:48 post....

    To your 1:59 post I say.....

    I am always being sarcastic so you may want to rethink your call.....

    ...but CLucker,

    I have to disagree with you views of impeachment. Impeachment is an essential remedy DEMANDED by the constitution for lawbreakers and skalawags in high office.

    "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

    Did you catch that? "SHALL BE" doesn't leave much room for political strategizing or merciful forebearance.


    Clinton deserved impeachment for lying under oath - the process that elicited that lie was a partisan, decietful, and contemptible political witchhunt, and that is what damaged our nation, not the impeachment itself. The crimes of Bush and Cheney must be met with the full force of the constitution, or the document becomes a joke. Without mandatory legal accountability for our political leaders we are nation of doormats beneath contempt.

    ...but CLucker,

    I have to disagree with you views of impeachment. Impeachment is an essential remedy DEMANDED by the constitution for lawbreakers and skalawags in high office.

    "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

    Did you catch that? "SHALL BE" doesn't leave much room for political strategizing or merciful forebearance.


    Clinton deserved impeachment for lying under oath - the process that elicited that lie was a partisan, decietful, and contemptible political witchhunt, and that is what damaged our nation, not the impeachment itself. The crimes of Bush and Cheney must be met with the full force of the constitution, or the document becomes a joke. Without mandatory legal accountability for our political leaders we are nation of doormats beneath contempt.

    cee,

    If the law didn't apply to Cheney, or if the president could pick and choose, they wouldn't have said something as asinine as "the vice-president is not in the executive branch"...

    ...They simply would've stated that the law didn't apply to Cheney and there would've been no need for the cowardly back-peddling of the Bush administration...

    No Sir Loin of Milquetoast.....my observation that no consequences of 200 degree rhetoric in the form of war fund cuts, resignation, impeachment or constitutional crisis shows (and I predicted this very thing in 11/06 after the election) that the facts behind the rhetoric only place it at 32 degrees.

    If all was true what you say, what blindrat says, what Waxman says, what Dean says, etc......there would be a veto proof majority in the House, cloture easily obtained by the left in The Senate and no President Bush or VP Cheney because they would have resigned in total shame in the face of evidence-filled impeachment hearings......

    It has yet to happen, and my prediction is that it won't and 2009 will see a smiling George Bush shake the hand of his replacement in front of The US Capitol.

    The over-heated accusations and predictions of liberty loss is demogouery....nothing else.... and the lack of action proves me right every second of every day, gents.

    And this is my post today, the 1,517th day since the declaration of Mission Accomplished in Iraq.....

    I am cee, good night and good luck.

    "I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden

    "There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administration's policies in Iraq. Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back." NYT 1/28/07

    "I think the Vietnamese are better off in Vietnam," George McGovern - NEWSWEEK

    "Lefties: Leave these pathetic drowning rats alone to stew in each other's juices. Get yourselves out in the street and fight this criminal administration in ways that really mean something, and that are noted by more than a handful of keyboard heroes!" Sir Loin of Beef

    "American liberals need to face these truths: The demand for self-government was and remains strong in Iraq despite all our mistakes and the violent efforts of al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias to disrupt it." DEMOCRAT Bob Kerrey

    "If we end up saying that because these people are committing these acts of terrorism in Iraq or Afghanistan, that we shouldn't have done the removal of Saddam or the removal of the Taliban, then we are making a fundamental mistake about our own future, about security, about the values we should be defending in the world." TONY BLAIR

    "No one is asserting that we are "sliding rapidly into a Nazi Jurisprudence";"

    Actually, SLOB, that was Whatizname's essential contention. By his refusal to clarify or provide any factual basis for his comment I took a little liberty with what he said by adding the 'rapidly'.

    Ignore the rapidity or lack of and just point out where we are in relation to Nazi Jurisprudence and a few factual examples that underpin the argument. So, if you are going to answer for him make the answer pertinent to his assertion or join me in pointing out the fallacy of his views. You picked him as a client so you should defend him, not yourself.

    And you have finally skirted the original basis of my statement, which was that people who so carelessly throw around words like Nazi to describe every action of GWB et al can not have a clue to the gruesome realities behind these words.

    Grammie

    >It has yet to happen, and my prediction is that it won't and 2009 will see a smiling George Bush shake the hand of his replacement in front of The US Capitol.

    The over-heated accusations and predictions of liberty loss is demogouery....nothing else.... and the lack of action proves me right every second of every day, gents.

    Uh oh, it's Cee's massive artificially inflated EGO floating over OlbermannWatch like a Macy's parade float.

    What about your predictions about the war?

    Oh yeah, I forgot, rule no. 1 from the Huckster's Handbook...

    Advertise all the predictions you've made that have come true, and bury the rest!

    Cee is Priceless!

    Advertise all the predictions you've made that have come true, and bury the rest!

    Cee is Priceless!

    Posted by: at June 26, 2007 2:25 PM
    Can you name one prediction you've made that's been right? That's what I thought......

    Reread my post, blindrat.....The President said he never intended his order to include Cheney and then I said Cheney's argument regarding The Constitutional placement of VPOTUS (an ambiguous position) was his own....and a debatable one HISTORICALLY speaking (remember I answered your question yesterday in regard to MY opinion on what branch VPOTUS resides).

    But a debatable point, nonetheless IF President Bush decides to say Cheney must comply with EO 12958 and continues to say no......

    But guess what, blindrat, under our law, Bush can say this is how we are to interpret MY executive order and so far he is saying Cheney is alright in telling the National Archives he does not have to submit the reports.

    I hope I have been clear this time.

    "Reread my post, blindrat.....The President said he never intended his order to include Cheney..."

    Aren't you people EVER going to hold this bumblefuck president accountible for anything? If the fucking PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES doesn't intend to include something in an executive order, then he sure as shit should make sure that that particular base is covered when his lawyers write it for him. - particularly a president who has never cooperated with the opposition in any way whatsoever. Favors and charity are running thin....

    Its like the Republican Party has merged with the Judging Board of the Special Olympics or something; everybody gets a ribbon; everybody gets a mulligan.

    cee,

    In this country, if you have signed a legal document that states one thing and you decide to change your mind, it violates the document...even if Bush changes it, Cheney STILL violated the order as it stood, no matter what Bush's "intent" was. That is juvenille...

    2:25 is a certain olbyloon who has been debunked so many times by cee he won't use his real name anymore when making his little childish jabs! Too funny.....

    people who so carelessly throw around words like Nazi to describe every action of GWB et al can not have a clue to the gruesome realities behind these words.

    Grammie

    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at June 26, 2007 2:25 PM


    Oh, I agree completely, Janet, and I think a re-read of my last post to you will confirm this. But you must recognize that when people express alarm regarding growing FASCISM in this country, it is similarly disingenuous for defenders of the administration to start screaming "they are comparing Bush to Hitler!!"

    Nazis were fascists/fascists are not necessarilly Nazis

    Blindrat, based on The Constitution why don't you answer your own question re VPOTUS status.

    "Article I, Section three

    The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

    The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.


    Article 2, section one

    The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:"

    [one long section detailing the mechanics of the election was superseded by the 12 ammendment and the remainder (which laid out rules for the incapacity or other reasons he could not perform his duties)of a president was modified by 20 and 25].


    article2 section 2

    The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States,
    shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason,
    Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

    And that is the sum total of it.

    VPOTUS is neither all fish nor all fowl. Historically the power and activities of VPOTUS has ranged from VP Harry Truman to VP Dick Cheney. The pages in the White House probably knew more than he did. When FDR died it took hours to locate him at his poker game because he was a non entity to the Admin. He had never been included in a briefing or provided even memos of anything going on. Thank God he rose to the challenge superbly.

    VP Cheney is probably the most powerful VP we've ever had.

    How do we go from one extreme to the other and everywhere in between?

    Because The Constitution is silent on his Executive role, with one exception, thereby giving POTUS the ability to delegate or not or rescind any power granted on a whim if he wants. The exception is that the same requirements to depose a President apply to him. He is elected at the same time as POTUS and does not serve at the pleasure of the President.

    This site:

    http://www.usconstitution.net/

    is an excellent one I think.

    Grammie

    "In this country, if you have signed a legal document that states one thing and you decide to change your mind, it violates the document...even if Bush changes it, Cheney STILL violated the order as it stood, no matter what Bush's "intent" was. That is juvenille..."


    ###
    It sounds like an opinion to me, blindrat....No, if there is a question of interpretation/applicability someone who has jurisdiction makes the decision on how the rule/law is applied.....

    Constitutionally, EO's are a force of the executive and penalties/punishment would be in his/her realm....Bush has said he NEVER intended the EO to apply to him or the VP. Period. Who is going to, or even can, reverse this decision?

    Also sir, it is a matter of perspective regarding the original intent of the EO.....preservation of classified materials.....The democrats see this issue as exactly that, an issue, to keep the Libby story in the spotlight.....Waxman even mentions Scotter in his press conference and in his letter to Cheney.....Voila....it is a political story that is at that 32 degrees I mentioned in regard to criminality/immorality..... no impeachment, no punishment for the crimes of Bush Cheney. Only a 24 hour tidbit that gets the hearts of Olbermann, Loin and blindrat going and we have yet another "piece" of evidence that Cheney is evil and breaking the law.

    Nope, I do not buy it.

    Grammie,

    Cheney receives money from that earmarked for the executive branch. He is considered, by Bush, to be a member of the cabinet. If he goes away, Bush selects another one. He is in the executive branch of the government.

    We DO recall that he invoked executive privalege, don't we?

    cee,

    You are sounding dangerously like royalking...

    I never stated that Cheney should be impeached over this. He should, however, be impeached over many of his other crimes and even arrested for tax fraud considering where he claimed his residency was...

    If you want an executive branch that is above the law, might I recommend Cuba or Iran?

    As for the document that Bush signed, if he was free to decide he meant something different afterwards, he wouldn't have needed to issue it. A legal document is just that. Please don't pretend ignorance of the simplest of concepts...

    Anyone watch the Colbert Report last night? He played a brilliant game of "Rock/ paper/scissors/Cheney" to illustrate the VPs power grabs. One guy threw down "scissors", while Colbert thrust his hand under the desk (a "Cheney") and claimed victory. When asked how his play beat scissors, he responded that he couldn't tell, because it would hurt the nation, but that he clearly won.

    "[Cheney] should be impeached over many of his other crimes and even arrested for tax fraud considering where he claimed his residency was"

    Oy, blindrat.....show me one documented indictment brought up by a sitting official from any the branches of our federal government stating the crimes of Richard Cheney or George W. Bush......

    None.

    There have been articles of impeachment drawn up in little towns in upstate Vermont. Are you a resident there?

    You see sir, the words are pretty. The jokes on TV and The Special Comments on COUNTDOWN are also special. But until someone takes the political risk of failure to bring these bad men to justice, the words mean nothing....and they will mean nothing in history.

    We only see clips of John Dean's "cancer" testimony because there were people who actually lead the way to do what they thought was right....pursue punishment of accused crimes by the Nixon administration.

    Give me a break....even before the election your political leader, The Speaker, said there would be no impeachment hearings. Why? How does she know that Cheney and Bush did not and would not commit all of these crimes you and Loin are complaining about today?

    Why? Because there are no crimes and she does not have the political spine to take the risk of protecting our democracy.

    This is the democrat party.....political survival first, country second.

    You logic is nice too, and a constitutional lawyer will make your case. But my argument is just as valid because of the ambiguity of VPOTUS. Cheney is a patriot and took an oath to preserve and protect The Constitution....and there has been no evidence that he has violated the law or broken his oath, IMHO.

    But again, if we want this settled it will take impeachment because our great law requires it.....You claim he broke the law.....that is an impeachable offense.

    Bindrat, it is my understanding that Executive funding is an item by item allocation of funds not one big pot. There are funds allocated for The First Lady and various and sundry other operations that are not for The President and Vice President. You said:

    "Grammie,

    Cheney receives money from that earmarked for the executive branch. He is considered, by Bush, to be a member of the cabinet. If he goes away, Bush selects another one. He is in the executive branch of the government.

    We DO recall that he invoked executive privalege, don't we?
    Posted by: blindrat at June 26, 2007 3:22 PM"

    We DO ALSO recall that First Lady Hillary Clinton also was funded through the Executive Funding and claimed Exectutive Privilege, don't we? And prevailed in Federal Court.

    Do we now have a precedent that one can marry her way into Presidential Powers if one can't win an election for President oneself? And if that is the case what mechanism is there to remove her from her position? She certainly couldn't be impeached, the only remedy available for the POTUS or VPOTUS to be forcibly driven from office.

    Would FLOTUS have to have the Advice and Consent of the Senate to serve just as Cabinet Officers and other positions in the Executive except for the VP? Or would divorce do the trick.

    That sounds silly because broad sweeping statements such as yours lead to opening up such inane possibilities.

    I personally think based on the Constitution's almost afterthought pronouncements on the VP that ANY VP has a unique position from every other position and that he can move between the two roles in a way that other's can't.

    He is simultaneously the President of the Senate and also can have as much power delegated to him or not by the President, ANY President in office, chooses.

    Just one quote from:

    http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20020206.html

    "According to the D.C. Circuit, the difficult constitutional question was this: Does executive privilege extend to conversations between Executive officials and persons outside the government? If so, then FACA unconstitutionally violates that privilege by requiring those conversations to be disclosed. Had the court ruled that the First Lady was neither a government officer nor a government employee, it would have had to decide the difficult constitutional question--for FACA then would have required disclosure of deliberations between the (non-government) First Lady and the executive branch government officials on the commission.

    Why the Hillary Clinton Case Suggests Cheney's Privilege Claim May Prevail

    The relevance of this complex case to Cheney's situation is straightforward: The D.C. Circuit thought that executive privilege might extend to conversations between executive officials and persons outside the government. And any appeal in the Comptroller General's case against Vice President Cheney would go to the D.C. Circuit (before possibly going to the U.S. Supreme Court)."

    If FLOTUS is funded and uses Executive power I don't see why The VP wouldn't have equal weight.

    Grammie

    "This is the democrat party.....political survival first, country second."

    Cee,

    Let me ask you a question. President Bush has stated that the war on terror is "the greatest challenge of our time." he has said that exiting Iraq would be "Disastrous" Many Republicans have argued that if we fail in Iraq "They will follow us home." Other Republicans have argued that failure means civil war, a breeding ground for terrorist, that the revolution would spread to neighboring countries and so on and so on.

    My question is this: if failure in Iraq is that grave and we have troop shortages, why not call for a draft? This is the greatest threat of our time! Why not get a million American troops in Iraq and get this situation under control? Could it be that instituting a draft would guarantee the Republicans loose the Whitehouse in 08?

    Gosh there you go, Republican party first defending us from the greatest threat of our time second.

    Oh, Blindrat, I forgot this part of your post:

    "...Cheney...If he goes away, Bush selects another one..."

    The President, any President can't just make the VP go away and get a new one. Read The Constitution. It is unusually clear and didactic on that point.

    Grammie

    Welcome back, Major Sheridan Craigs.

    Grammie

    Hey Grammie,

    Good to see you!

    Yes craigs, the democrats do not do the bidding of their base because it would be political suicide in '08 (most Americans do not agree with the radical left and their views regarding the crimes of Buch Co.) and the republicans do not do my bidding (I am not claiming to be the base) because of the lack of pubic support for mandatory military service....

    I agreed with Charlie Rangel last year and if I remember, it was Sir Loin of Milquetoast who then started badgering me about volunteering for Iraq during that discussion.....So thanks for bringing it up, Sheridan, Loin is going to start flaming me.

    Yes, the two political parties have, increasingly, been for their own political survival. The ruling elite in this country has evolved to this stagnated state since the 1960's and now see the political stakes as so enormous that they seldom if ever stick their necks out.

    Solution....I would like to see term limits, especially in the Senate where the terms are so long, the elections so costly and the incumbants have such a strangle-hold. McCain/Feingold style campaign finance reform and now the latest progressive canard....public funding of elections.....are poor replacements for forced new blood in the ruling class and I oppose those measures...I appreciate George Washington's wisdom and wish patriots followed it in the legislature.

    Back to your point, Sheridan....required service would be a valuable component in shifting the priorities of young men and women who think serving their country is only for those who need to financially. Specifically, in Iraq, the erosion of support from the 70% we saw in 2003 to now makes it impossible for any leader to start a draft.

    J$:

    Great recap. I saw the moron last night....grasping for straws...as per normal.

    Thanks to all at O-watch that keep this thing alive.

    The deplorable one can run, but never escape Olbermannwatch.

    Little Feechie

    Hey Grammie, I have a question after reading through your posts.

    Cheney has said The “Vice Presidency is a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch.”

    What I am wondering is do you believe the VP is right and makes up a fourth branch of goverment, or do you think he is wrong and falls under the legislative branch?


    "Yes, the two political parties have, increasingly, been for their own political survival. The ruling elite in this country has evolved to this stagnated state since the 1960's and now see the political stakes as so enormous that they seldom if ever stick their necks out."

    That's an honest answer Cee which I appreciate. I also agree with you on term limits. When you have career politicians it becomes very difficult for them to actually lead and make the tough decisions. Instead we just get promises of "bread and circuses."

    Anyway, I enjoyed your objective analysis.

    cee,

    The issue of "Term Limits" is a chimera. Our "ruling class" is not centered in Washington, its various headquarters are located on Wall Street, in Houston, and in the offices of a number of chief military contractors in Virginia. The politicians are errand boys and cigar girls to the real decision-makers. Term limits would only speed up the revolving door through which corporate-owned elected scuttlebutts occupy their corporate-bought offices, and then retire to cushy "consultantships". The money is the root of the disease.

    You disdain public financing, for no particular reason. I tink that with adequate oversight it wold work.

    What about Instant Run-off Voting? Traditionally Gerrymandered districts would be lumped together into larger units with multiple representatives - say five to ten. Voters would file first, second, and third choices. If the first choice fails to recieve a certain percentage, then 2nd choice kicks in, and so on. Redistricting corruption would be a thing of the past, and the absence of binary "winnner-take-all" mentality would allow third, fourth, and fifth parties to have a chance at legislative seats.

    New blood - that's what you said you wanted, how about it?

    Term Limits don't work for one simple reason, cee. And that is because lobbyists gain much more influence since the "new fish" are much easier to sway.

    If you don't believe me, just go take a look at what happened in Nebraska when term limits kicked in, or when Nevada's term limit plan is implemented in the next 4 years.

    chicken shit, you have your democratic congress' approval rating mixed up with Bush's. Bush's is not in the teens as you lied about, it is just under 30%. That's what you get when you get your news from Olbermahn and media matters!
    -----
    Hey, Nimord, or Jeff/royalking/poormikey or whatever name or lack thereof you're posting under at the moment, I was responding to a query addressing primarily the impeachment of Cheney. I was addressing the impeachment of Cheney. Cheney's ratings are in the mid-teens. Read in context or go eat some paste.

    As for "just under 30," that was month's ago. Your boy is in the mid-20's and dropping faster than the cigarette out of Laura's hand when a camera approaches. But. if it is a source of pride to you to be supporting such a popular president, I'll call it "mid to upper 20's" just for you. Mary, what a dolt! Go cut and paste something from the Weekly Reader. If you haven't already eaten all the paste, that is.

    I have to disagree with you views of impeachment.
    ---
    The views are not about impeachment as a concept, but as a practical matter. We have a thoroughly obstructionist Republican minority. Impeachment will go no where. It should, because Bush is probably the Poster President for Impeachment. And, a War Crimes, too, I will add. But, it just can't happen. As such, I fail to see why we put the country through that agony.

    All your points are well-taken, however, Sir.

    Clucker says it is "inappropriate and obscene to make a death wish" with regard to a previous poster's expressing a death wish for John Gibson. Is it also inappropriate for Olbermann to display the same behavior (telling a heckler by e-mail to "Kill yourself" in June, 2006)) or does the Orange Hero get a pass?

    Actually, Major, I think he constitutionally is part of the Legislature and his only constitutional requirement in The Executive is to sit in the bull pen in case he is needed to step in for The President.

    After that he has all the duties and prerogatives that The President delegates to him or not as he sees fit. He is as strong or weak as The President wants him to be.

    That's why we see VPs having such divergent roles as Truman and Cheney and every line on the continuum over our History. I consider his position on this to be not only logical but also constitutional. By Constitutional Law the VP can change hats in his differing roles and has both the strengths and weaknesses inherent in both roles.

    Whether it is politically wise or not I'm ambivalent on this latest brouhaha. I honestly think that this is just a manufactured issue by the Dems in their continuing campaign to weaken GWB. When the Dems recapture The Presidency I think they will begin to backtrack. Or at least I hope they do. I believe that a stong Executive is better for our country no matter what party they belong to.

    I have been bringing up over and over that I think that three strong branches in a constant battle to preserve and acquire more power is our biggest strength. The power shifts to one, moves back, see saws one way and then the other throughout our history. If you think about it below the surface all Branches swear allegiance to The Constitution and it is their duty to uphold all the power granted to them by The Constitution.

    I believe that our Constitution is alive and robustly healthy as long as these types of battles continue.

    Long answer to a short question.

    Grammie

    Clucker says it is "inappropriate and obscene to make a death wish" with regard to a previous poster's expressing a death wish for John Gibson. Is it also inappropriate for Olbermann to display the same behavior (telling a heckler by e-mail to "Kill yourself" in June, 2006)) or does the Orange Hero get a pass?

    ---

    No pass.

    "By Constitutional Law the VP can change hats in his differing roles and has both the strengths and weaknesses inherent in both roles."

    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at June 26, 2007 6:26 PM


    Where in the hell is this clap-trap supposed to have come from?!

    I'm sure you wont mind citing the relevant statutes and opinions, and pasting the relevant sections.

    "Actually, Major, I think he constitutionally is part of the Legislature and his only constitutional requirement in The Executive is to sit in the bull pen in case he is needed to step in for The President."

    Grammie,

    So would you agree then that as a member of the legislative branch Cheney is subject to oversite from that branch?

    The reason I ask is, it seems when Cheney is stating he is not part of the legislative branch and not part of the excutive branch, he is claiming that he can do things in both branches or under of the office of both and yet is beholden to the authority of neither.

    If this is the case what makes the office of VP not a fourth branch of government?

    SLOB, this has been an ongoing discussion between Blindrat, Cee and I that started here:

    "Wow! Cheney is no long part of the executive branch? AMAZING what neocons will put up with if they are told to.

    Give a neocon a copy of the constitution and he'll use it as toilet paper the minute that you turn your back...
    Posted by: blindrat at June 25, 2007 11:01 AM "

    on the June 22 thread an continued here today.

    There are at least a few dozen posts and citations galore. If you search on Blindrat you should get them and not much else b/c Bindrat pretty much confined himself to this topic.

    When I first heard of the Cheney assertion I thought on the face of it it didn't sound too logical or defensible. Blindrat's post and Cee's response piqued my interest so I joined in. By researching and formulating responses to Blindrat my own opinion developed and you see it above.

    Characterize it as you will it is an arguable position on both sides. I feel the Cheney argument carries more weight and validity.

    Grammie

    >I'm ambivalent on this latest brouhaha. I honestly think that this is just a manufactured issue by the Dems. I feel the Cheney argument carries more weight and validity.

    Now there's a shocker!

    Hammy's secrets exposed once more:

    Start with Bush and Cheney can do no wrong, then spin like hell to defend that ridiculous assertion.

    chicken shit, have you googled to find out if there is a subway in warsaw, even though you've "been there?"

    You do realize your most recent cut and paste endeavor, the McGirk/old york times (Ha! Ha! Ha! That humor again!) undercuts all of your usual belicose chicken hawk, "Go forth and die while I man the keyboard.," drum-beating, don't you? Irony is lost on you, isn't it? Sweet Mary, what a dolt!

    Posted by: Clucker at June 26, 2007 1:20 PM

    chicken shit, explain this spew, please. How does it go against anything I have said? I have said numorous times the old york times is in bed with the enemy as well as madman murtha being on the side of the enemy. Elaborate, if you can......


    "Start with Bush and Cheney can do no wrong, then spin like hell to defend that ridiculous assertion."

    I disagree with grammie on this issue, but if you have a problem with her reasoning argue against it. Don't just do an ad hominem attack on her, especially when she didn't do one on you. It gets us nowhere

    Rk,

    I think you should read this.

    The difference between patriotism and nationalism is that the patriot is proud of his country for what it does, and the nationalist is proud of his country no matter what it does; the first attitude creates a feeling of responsibility, but the second a feeling of blind arrogance that leads to war. — Sidney J. Harris

    chicken shit, next time you "go there" you'll know where the subway is.

    Line 1 opened in April 1995 between its southern terminus Kabaty and Politechnika (11.5 km, all underground). On 26 May 1998 Centrum station was inaugurated as the largest station on the line, situated just north of an east-west railway tunnel built in the 1930's and close to the city's main railway station. Between Politechnika and Centrum another station called Plac Konstytucji was planned and might be built later to provide transfer to the future Line 3. An extension towards the north with two stations opened on 11 May 2001 - Świętokrzyska (future transfer to Line 2) and Ratusz (1.7 km). Initially Russian-built rolling stock (60 cars of 81-series, identical to those operating in Moscow, Prague, St. Petersburg, etc.) was bought, but in spring 1998 more than 108 new cars were ordered from GEC Alsthom. The first new cars were delivered in Oct. 2000.

    The current length of the line is 18.2 km with 17 stations (12/2006).

    OMG!

    I just heard a thud, a really BIG THUD!

    It sounded like it came from the ratings dept.

    It can't be Olby, he has that firm grip on second place.

    I thought this was a place to post things about Olby and 'Countdown?'

    Why do his kool-aid drinking fools keep changing the subject?

    Oh, I just saw the ratings, it looks like.

    NO ONES WATCHING!

    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

    HA!

    Gee Wizz,

    More Special Comments?

    Another attack on Mr. O'Reilly?

    Even the red meat he throws out to his zombie loons is looking a little green and rancid.

    I know, it's time for another msn fluff piece.

    he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    na·tion al ist
    n.
    1. Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.

    Noun 1. patriot - one who loves and defends his or her country

    craigs, thanks for the liberal point of view of what a patriot and a nationalist is. By definition, I must be both, I beleive in protecting our borders, language and culture. By definition, this eliminates olbyloons by and large.

    Cee,

    From my perspective, it is rather convenient for Cheney to claim status as part of the executive branch for purposes immunity from testifying but claim he is not part of the executive in the current debate. It hardly seems criminal to take advantage of the blended role of the VP but I agree with Cecelia that this issue seems rather weak to take on the task of strengthening the executive branch.

    Major, I think 'The Fourth Branch' is not what he is, any more than Hillary was in The DC Court opinion.

    She had one foot in her private life as FLOTUS and one foot in the Executive as an extension of Clinton's Presidential powers.

    When I use Cheney and The President I am talking in the abstract for any President or Vice President. The Constitution says what it says and we all know that the same fierce arguments over the same things have been raging for over two hundred years. I am, obviously, expressing my interpretation and conclusions as layman, not a lawyer.

    Cheney has one foot in the Legislature and one constitutionally powerless foot in The Executive. What little power he has that is not at the pleasure of GWB is in The Senate.

    You raised the question of his being subject to Senate oversight because if he is not part of The Executive but rather The Senate he is obligated to submit to their oversight. If I have misstated this let me know.

    I don't have very much knowledge of the historical perspective of The Senate in this matter or even what oversight role they have over their own members. Whatever that role is I would assume that when he performs his very limited function as President of the Senate he would be subject to that oversight.

    But, I don't think that is what he or GWB is claiming. Just as every aspect of Hillary's life and actions were not under that controlling legal authority :) as a result of The DC Court ruling that she was a part of The Executive and had the same privileges and obligations of The Executive extended beyond that one function before The Court.

    I think Cheney's claim is more analogous to Hillary's claim. I am not Constitutionally a part of The Executive unless I am functioning under a delegation of power by GWB.

    GWB has stated that in this case Cheney is his surrogate (and I believe him) and is as immune as I am from physical searches by an arm of The Legislature.

    The question than becomes does Cheney's Constitutional role in The Senate extend to everything he does or not. I think not. If it did no VP would be anything other than sitting in own isolated, walled off, no visitors allowed own little bullpen.

    I would absolutely love to hear your opinion and rebuttal of mine. An honest debate is becoming a very scarce commodity in today's world.

    Grammie

    Sharon, you just condensed a great deal of the contentious back and forth on this issue into one clause of one sentence:

    "It hardly seems criminal to take advantage of the blended role of the VP...."

    Your husband and kids are fortunate to have such a steady hand at the helm.

    Grammie

    I am not Constitutionally a part of The Executive unless I am functioning under a delegation of power by GWB. (Grammie)

    Logically, it makes sense but there remains that perceived cloud of deceit. Yet, the cloud will never dissipate from some anyway. Should this proceed somehow to a constitutional crisis and the Supremes rule in favor of Cheney, it will be seen in the same light as "Bush stole the election."

    Rk,

    One day an oppenet will post an argument and you will actually understand it. On that day your response (though it will probably still be moronic) will address the issue raised and may even attempt to refute it. Of course the point you understand will probably have something to do with the mickey mouse club, but I digress.

    The point of the quote is that blind obedience is not good for the country. The difference between you and I (other than I am ten times smarter that is) is that if George Bush invaded England next week you would you support him and denounce all as traiters who opposed. If it were my guy in i would not.

    But hey being a simpleton works for you and who am I to try and stop it? Carry on my wayward psuedo retarted son and remeber: M-I-C-K-E-Y M-O-U-S-E!

    Janet,

    Why, instead of responding to my points and question, do you keep citing the history and dates of who posted what on OW in regard to whatever issue may be at hand?

    You say that you've developed you opinion about Cheney's claims through "reasearch" driven by your "piqued interest"; so share some research with us. The "opinion" you shared is highly dubious at best, and downright ludicrous when you can't cough up a citation. Our previous exchage is posted below, and I can't wait to see how you back your claim:

    "By Constitutional Law the VP can change hats in his differing roles and has both the strengths and weaknesses inherent in both roles."


    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at June 26, 2007 6:26 PM


    Where in the hell is this clap-trap supposed to have come from?!

    I'm sure you wont mind citing the relevant statutes and opinions, and pasting the relevant sections.


    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at June 26, 2007 6:33 PM


    Thanks, Grammie. I'll try to get you my e-mail so that you can remind them of that! Better stop now, you know what happens every time we lighten things up, Kelley (I had to back and find your angel name).

    I beleive in protecting our language ....

    -----

    Neither you nor any of your pseudonyms speak or write our language. From whom will you protect it? Yourselves? Mary, what a dolt! But thanks for the subway cut and paste. You are really so good at this menial task. Frankly, I have not the slightest interest in the information, but should I ever find myself back in Warsaw without taxi fare, it might come in useful.

    Sir LOB,

    Is Cheney part of the executive when he casts his tie vote?

    SLOB, as the caveman said to his 'crossfire' opponent, 'WHAT'?

    Please forgive me if I missed all your posts on this subject. I thought you stated an opinion of my conclusion and asked for citations to back my opinion up. I gave you the time frame and the way to the developing points and citations. Please don't expect me to be your secretary.

    Hey, it's out there there and in a limited way, two threads. I also gave you a way to find it all very easily, Blindrat.

    I have no doubt that your mother would oblige you and spoon feed it to you. But, dear, I am not your mother.

    As always with anyone, all you have to do is point me in the direction of points and citations by you or others who you are in agreement with you and I will follow up on it.

    Grammie

    Grammie,

    My original issue was with blindrat's automatic belief that The US Constitution was landfill (yesterdays thread)....I was not even going to go near Cheney's supposed statement, (I think the press has said his chief of staff said, "The office of the vice president neither resides in the legislative branch or the executive branch"). I wasn't buying that line of argument but as I researched the issue I find that the documents say the chief of staff said something else....

    "The Office of The Vice President [has both]legislative and executive functions."

    http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20070621094929.pdf


    ###
    So, for people to automatically claim Cheney said he is under neither branches OR that he is claiming to be a fourth branch, is taking his argument to an illogical and self-serving end.

    So, for the press to imply Cheney wants to work outside the law is one possible interpretation, but I feel the actual facts show an aggressive executive (yes, I think he primarily functions in the executive branch) playing the role his President has assigned to him.

    It is constitutional because Article II is so vauge. The President could assign more duties to Cheney if he wanted to. It is the historical model.

    I just cringe at the knee-jerk reaction of some to these stories that grand constitutional violations are proven.

    Sir LOB,

    Is Cheney part of the executive when he casts his tie vote?

    Posted by: Sharon at June 26, 2007 8:46 PM


    Of course.he is. This duty is so rare as to be epiphenomenal, and the Gerry quote you posted last night clearly shows that the VP was made responsible for this function by our founders as an afterthought - he's the only top official with nothing important to do most of the time, so he's sure to be available once in a blue moon when a tie needs to be broken.

    Where does his office draw its funding? Executive. Where is his constituency? Nowhere. Of whom is he a representative? Nobody.

    But what are you suggesting, SHaron? that Cheney is part of the Legislative branch when he's breaking ties; but in the Executive when he's participating in cabinet or policy meetings? - or hiding behind "executive priviledge" when congress is seeking the identities of members of his Energy Task Force?

    This is a truly ridiculous rhetorical game you people are playing - please get serious.

    "I just cringe at the knee-jerk reaction of some to these stories that grand constitutional violations are proven."

    ....and the assumptions that I would be upset if a democrat executive did this....

    Hence the 3 Chicken blogger posts...

    g' night....

    Hey Grammie,

    I am not actually making the fourth branch claim so much because Cheney has invoked executive privilege (although I am not sure in principle I agree with the Hillary decision either) I am using it because Cheney himself is saying he is not part of the executive or the legislative branch; in effect saying that neither branch has any authority over his office. So what branch does he fall under?

    You have said the legislative, and have said Cheney is subject to the rules of the senate. I’m not a legal scholar either, but in principle that would not bother me. If I that is, I thought Cheney were willing to submit to the rules of the Senate. For example, the office of senate security has rules that staff must submit to inspections. All members of the Senate are subject to investigations by the ethics committee etc… if Cheney were to remain consistent on this issue and submit to the authority of Congress I’d be fine with his claim that he is not under the executive branch.

    For me the issue is fear of a VP doing whatever he wants and claiming no accountability. That is not partisan either. If Obama or Edwards or some other democrat gets the office in 08 I don’t want them independent of oversight either. In my opinion Cheney is claiming power in both branches without giving up any authority. This sounds like an independent branch argument to me.


    Anyway look forward to your response, I agree honest debate is so very rare anymore.

    Loin....

    May I suggest that the extra-constitutional powers assigned to VPOTUS over the last 200+ years make the situation a little more complicated than you suggest. VPOTUS is a member of the executive branch ONLY because The President says he is. If the next President said the VP was not a member of the cabinet and will have his office in a strip-mall in Bethesda, then that is the way it would be.

    Like I said yesterday, codifying the oversight and control of VPOTUS as he has gained more influence politically since the '50's deserves a rational and measured debate....not out-of-hand dismissal that suggests we have specific documents telling us how the VP is supposed to be treated and regulated.

    And Cheney exercising what he believes is his perogative as the eleced VP does not automatically mean he has violated law.

    "So, for people to automatically claim Cheney said he is under neither branches OR that he is claiming to be a fourth branch, is taking his argument to an illogical and self-serving end."

    Cee,

    Cheney's counsel has made this argument.

    “The Vice Presidency is a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch.”


    More top republicans are coming out against this War in Iraq every single day.
    GOP Senators Back Lugar's Call For Iraq Withdrawal...Warner: “I Hail What He Did”...Voinovich: US Needs “Gradual Military Disengagement"…Sessions: Troop Levels Should Be Reduced.

    Looks like Cee's love for this War in Iraq is starting to strangle him.
    The hourglass is emptying.
    Cee's days of pontificating are starting to draw to a close.
    The only thing left is for the fat lady to sing, and the little bald man to admit his mistakes( if he has the courage to do it. I'm betting he doesn't )

    His ranting about lefties is just making him look more ridiculous by the minute, when his own party is turning on him and joining the American people.
    Poor Cee.


    Posted by: Why do you care what my name is at June 26, 2007 9:44 PM


    So let me get this straight. When Dem pols didn't vote to withdraw troops or when John Kerry and HRC refused to back gay marriage or when Clinton backed NAFTA and GATT... any leftist who happened to disagree with these stands and saw them as votes based on political expedience should automatically have considered himself to be in the wrong?

    Poor you...if political or popular approval is the basis for your convictions.

    Chicken Blogger, The Executive (whoever is President at that time) is the only one able to claim executive privilege to safe guard his office that goes back to George Washington. Clinton claimed and got Executive Privilege status for his wife in 1993.

    Clinton also claimed Executive Privilege for his COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, Sydney Blumenthal,

    From:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/privilege052898.htm


    "Throughout the court papers, Clinton's lawyers cited the possibility of congressional impeachment proceedings as a justification for his claim of executive privilege, arguing that he needed candid, private advice from his aides about how to counter any effort to remove him from office."

    Please note, CLINTON"S LAWYERS, not the lawyers for his COMMUNICATIONS AIDE, argued the case. Guess what, CLINTON LOST, and Blumenthal testified.

    Are you deliberately ignorant of the historical record or does it not make a difference for you?

    Your opinion is worthless because it is a robotic repetition of talking points when the adults in the room are trying to hash out the parameters of the ever present leeway that our Constitution, by its nature, has so wisely left us as its legacy.

    Grammie

    Like I said yesterday, codifying the oversight and control of VPOTUS as he has gained more influence politically since the '50's deserves a rational and measured debate....not out-of-hand dismissal that suggests we have specific documents telling us how the VP is supposed to be treated and regulated.


    Posted by: cee at June 26, 2007 9:43 PM

    The right is pretending that this an actual academic question that in any form predates last week. They must have some very imaginative post-modernist beatniks dreaming this shit up for them; we know they have a compliant media that will "present both sides" as equivalent despite the utter fabrications coming from the right.

    Well, cee, I think you're a red-assed baboon with a dick growing out of its forehead - and I assert that this matter "deserves a rational and measured debate....not out-of-hand dismissal".

    The only difference between your assertion and mine is that those reading these posts actually have a substantial amount of data at hand refuting your claim - mine, I beleve stands as of yet undisputed.

    My eyes are rolling back into my bald head.....

    Just like the rationalizations people used when they changed their mind about Vietnam.....people are the same now and will come up with all sort of nicely formed excuses to why they were for something and then changed their mind and walked away.

    That's fine. It's human weakness. I succumb to it in my personal life everyday.

    But the values of honor, fidelity and sticking with a goal to its end are important and although not taught anymore, I know many still see the value in keeping the promises you made to a friend. The Iraq coalition government is a friend, they still request our help and if no one in The Senate and The House is willing to be faithful to help this struggling democracy that faces theocrats and anarchists it is a reflection on the state of character of our country.

    That helicopter pilot who air lifted that last person from the roof of the American embassy in Saigon believed in his mission for the South Vietnam people to the bitter end, Why, and I will be happy to be in his company with regards to Iraq.

    I'll now quote two totally different leaders that I ususally quote....McGovern and Blair.....

    "I think the Vietnamese are better off in Vietnam," George McGovern - NEWSWEEK

    "If we end up saying that because these people are committing these acts of terrorism in Iraq or Afghanistan, that we shouldn't have done the removal of Saddam or the removal of the Taliban, then we are making a fundamental mistake about our own future, about security, about the values we should be defending in the world." TONY BLAIR

    And this is my post today, the 1,517th day since the declaration of Mission Accomplished in Iraq.....

    I am cee, good night and good luck.

    "I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden

    "There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administration's policies in Iraq. Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back." NYT 1/28/07

    "Lefties: Leave these pathetic drowning rats alone to stew in each other's juices. Get yourselves out in the street and fight this criminal administration in ways that really mean something, and that are noted by more than a handful of keyboard heroes!" Sir Loin of Beef

    "American liberals need to face these truths: The demand for self-government was and remains strong in Iraq despite all our mistakes and the violent efforts of al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias to disrupt it." DEMOCRAT Bob Kerrey

    "Please note, CLINTON"S LAWYERS, not the lawyers for his COMMUNICATIONS AIDE, argued the case. Guess what, CLINTON LOST, and Blumenthal testified."

    Great! The system worked! Why do you want to dismantle it?

    OK, OK, I stand corrected: cee is a red-assed baboon with a dick growing out of its BALD forehead.


    When cee has nothing to say he hides behind his raft of quotes. - must admit some embarrassment in being enshirined alongside the likes of Sen. McGovern and a number of other bona fide American warriors. I do wish cee would get a little perspective when the urge hits him to offer me such undeserved honors.

    You want a scary world, Sir Loin of Milquetoast....Judgement of the opposing sides' cogent points and saying to the judge that we should not even hear them because, in my opinion, they are not as good/logical/rational as mine, makes for that society that was tried and failed in Eurasia....

    Wonderful leftist worldview....man, I am glad your type of thinking is marginalized.....You can express it all you want, (I would never say you don't have the right), and make your argument, but boy, you should really self-examine your motivation. It is disturbing, loin!

    Tell us, Janet, Why do you think it was unjust to force Sydney Blumenthal to testify?

    Tell us, Janet, Why do you think it was unjust to force Sydney Blumenthal to testify?

    "You want a scary world, Sir Loin of Milquetoast....Judgement of the opposing sides' cogent points and saying to the judge that we should not even hear them because, in my opinion, they are not as good/logical/rational as mine, makes for that society that was tried and failed in Eurasia...."

    sorry cee, but this newly minted spin re: Cheney has been run up the flag-pole and summarily torn apart. It is not censorship to change the subject when your oponent persists in spouting absurdities that have been decisively destroyed.

    Can you provide a single expression from any perspetive of this "special status" of VP that predates two weeks ago? Its a clever gambt, I'll give them that, but preposterous on its face.

    Come now Loin....you are with the greats Kerrey, McGovern and Blair!

    Your call to revolution is wonderful! I even hope to hear you claim violent revolution is necessary to achieve the beneficial goals of the masses you have deemed just!......

    Your call to revolution is wonderful! I even hope to hear you claim violent revolution is necessary to achieve the beneficial goals of the masses you have deemed just!......

    Posted by: cee at June 26, 2007 10:21 PM

    ...and when hiding in a forest of quotes doesn't work, he deleriously devises arguments for his oponent that he thinks he can win. Go to sleep, cee.

    "has been run up the flag-pole and summarily torn apart."


    ###
    It has? When did Bush announce that Cheney had to submit yearly reports to The National Archives?

    Loin, if someone wants to challenge Cheney on his position, let them have at it.....I said it yesterday....You do not listen....Who will judge the application of Executive Orders....An independent councel? Congressman Waxman? You?

    Come now, Loin....What's going to happen?

    My answer to your question is simple....Cheney has taken the natural evolution of the power of VPOTUS to a logical point....Afterall, the press was saying that Gore was the most powerful VP in history....Well guess who took it to the next step.....AND did it legally.....Richard Cheney, new grandfather, hunter extraodinaire and Pacemaker recipient!

    "Who will be the last soldier to die in Iraq for Bush's mistake"?

    I have a new one for you.....

    "Who will be the first Iraqi to die when no one is left to protect them?"

    "If the next President said the VP was not a member of the cabinet and will have his office in a strip-mall in Bethesda, then that is the way it would be."

    ...and his authority to direct in such a a way a member of the legislature would be found where? Pick a position, cee. You must be getting black eyes from the baboon forehead-balls smacking around as you wildly flip-flop.

    "...and when hiding in a forest of quotes doesn't work, he deleriously devises arguments for his oponent that he thinks he can win. Go to sleep, cee."

    Oh no Sir Loin of Milquetoast.....I am out there for everyone to see....I sign my post every time, and I am consistent....

    The post you refer to is just a compliment to you for being so committed to your world-view...You know, that fidelity thing I always bring up. No reason to believe I was trying to "win" anyting....Just like you misunderstood why I always bring up the lack of leadership in the left's ruling class (not cutting the funds/not impeaching Buch/Cheney), you misunderstand why I quote you. I LIKE CLARITY.

    "It has? When did Bush announce that Cheney had to submit yearly reports to The National Archives?"


    Announce? I don;t think he did. He did, however, issue an executive order that clearly encompasses Cheney, who felt it necessary to create a fabulous story in order to protect himself from the carelessness of his his puppet, W.

    You never get anything straight, Cecilia.
    Your premise is totally faulty.
    I don't stick my finger up in the air.
    You don't need a weatherman to tell you which way the wind blows.( but obviously you do)

    Posted by: Why Do you care what my name is at June 26, 2007 10:17 PM


    "Clinton card"? You've just today made the argument that one is intractable if you don't follow the whims of Sen Luger, Anne Coulter, or majority opinion, so I can only conclude that you'd feel that way about whatever stand a Dem pol makes too.

    Even in your silly attempts to deride someone, you should show some form of reasoning.

    "and his authority to direct in such a a way a member of the legislature would be found where?"

    You are confusing me with Grammie, Loin. I stated my opinion was that VPOTUS was part of the executive because of historical precident....Changing his daily activiry above and beyond his ceremonial role in The Senate (swearing in people, etc) would be the call of The President because that is where history has left us.

    Constitutionally, (read Article II), he could even sit at home most of the time if that was what was decided. All he is required to do is be present for Senate functions that require his presence and be The President if that is necessary.

    I LIKE CLARITY.

    Posted by: cee at June 26, 2007 10:38 PM


    I that why you defend Cheney's assertions that he can assume the mantle of a senator free from executive edicts when it is convenient, and as a replacement-president leading executive policy commitees with full executive privilege when that suits him? - only to claim that all of this its no big deal because the president could order him "to a strip mall in Bethesda" if he decided that was the thing to do?

    Clarity? please.

    ...and his authority to direct in such a a way a member of the legislature would be found where? Pick a position, cee. You must be getting black eyes from the baboon forehead-balls smacking around as you wildly flip-flop.


    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at June 26, 2007 10:34 PM


    I'm not following this. Cheney claimed that his office fell into the legislative branch of govt. He is not and has never claimed to a member of congress. He is the President of the Senate.

    The President cannot delegate executive authority to members of congress because the Constitution does prohibit that. Again, Cheney is NOT a member of Congress and has never claimed to be.

    I just recently read that Executive powers have been extended to members of the Judiciary with the example of the Chief Justice Jay negoticiating the Jay Treaty.

    "You are confusing me with Grammie, Loin. I stated my opinion was that VPOTUS was part of the executive because of historical precident....Changing his daily activiry above and beyond his ceremonial role in The Senate (swearing in people, etc) would be the call of The President because that is where history has left us."


    ...let me get this straight, cee: you have been defending Cheney by denying or ignoring the obtuse claims made by his office, and then by citing the very civic realities that have caught Cheney's spin doctors dead in their tracks?? Clarity, clarity, clarity...

    But what are you suggesting, SHaron? that Cheney is part of the Legislative branch when he's breaking ties; but in the Executive when he's participating in cabinet or policy meetings? - or hiding behind "executive priviledge" when congress is seeking the identities of members of his Energy Task Force?

    Actually, that is what I was suggesting. I said he was conveniently using the unique blend of his office. It may be rare but when making a tie vote, he is part of the legislative branch because he is performing a function of it; I don't even argue that the duty was initially given to provide the VP "with something to do." He did it for his own benefit but there was nothing criminal about it. If you read my comment with the obvious intent, I didn't agree with his tactics in this particular case. I don't see that strengthening the executive branch. Cheney isn't going to cooperate because he doesn't want to and his constitutional lawyer probably advised him that he doesn't have to. There seems to be some tension between Bush and Cheney because it is my understanding that Bush explained that his intent was to exclude Cheney from the order; Cheney's position makes that intent irrelevant.

    You say that the system worked in the Blumenthal example. I said the same regarding the enemy combatant case and was criticized. Although the case isn't over because of the appeals process, I would say that the system worked no matter what the final outcome.

    Major, not only did you you bypass some essential points I made you ignored the caveat "...I would assume that when he performs his very limited function as President of the Senate he would be subject to that oversight...." and skipped to this:

    "...If I that is, I thought Cheney were willing to submit to the rules of the Senate. For example, the office of senate security has rules that staff must submit to inspections...."

    The fact that anyone is a member of The Legislature does not, to my mind, either protect them from other lawful reasons [search warrants , supeonas (sp) etc] for searches nor does it grant The Senate the power to have access to every nook in their activities outside of The Senate to do with as they will with no civil protections afforded us all.

    My point is that once POTUS claims and gets Executive Privilege for an individual does that status reach into every aspect of his life or is it confined to the circumstances of the assertion of the privilege.

    Sharon made an incisive point on this:

    "It hardly seems criminal to take advantage of the blended role of the VP...."

    The sentiment so well expressed by The Bard has taken on new meaning for me in the last few days:

    "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers"

    That has taken on new meaning for me in the last few days. Reading and working through all of this has actually made my head hurt.

    I think there are good points on both sides of this issue. I suspect, though, that the determining factor for those of us who do some research and consider the different factors comes down to our underlying political beliefs and philosophy.

    Vive la difference!

    Grammie

    Grammie

    Flame on! Why is trying to make me cry!

    And Loin continues with his opinions.

    I am getting sleepy and bored because I have read all of this stuff previously.

    If I wake up and Waxman et al have drawn up articles of impeachment against Richard Cheney, VP, new grandfather, hunter extraodinaire and Pacemaker recipient OR W. has stated Cheney was wrong not to submit reports to The National Archives...I will gladly apologize to Sir Loin of Milquetoast for ever doubting his wisdom.

    And this is my post today, the 1,517th day since the declaration of Mission Accomplished in Iraq.....

    I am cee, good night and good luck.

    "Who will be the first Iraqi to die when no one is left to protect them?" cee

    "Lefties: Leave these pathetic drowning rats alone to stew in each other's juices. Get yourselves out in the street and fight this criminal administration in ways that really mean something, and that are noted by more than a handful of keyboard heroes!" Sir Loin of Beef


    "Cheney claimed that his office fell into the legislative branch of govt. He is not and has never claimed to a member of congress."


    Not yet anyway. But I believe you are correct. The disctinction, however, between my careless use of the word "legislature" where I should have said "legislative branch" is wholly irrellevant as neither such a classification could be bossed around by the president. This is the reason Cheney invented this context for his office when Bush carelessly failed to exempt Dick from his executive order.

    http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/vice_president.htm


    vice president - Under the Constitution, the Vice President serves as President of the Senate. He may vote in the Senate in the case of a tie, but is not required to. The President Pro Tempore (and others designated by him) usually perform these duties during the Vice President's frequent absences from the Senate."


    I'm not crazy about Cheney's argument to say the least.... But Cheney evoking his status as President of the Senate and saying his role falls under that branch of govt. is NOT tantamount to his suggesting that he is a the equivalent of a Senator.

    A"ctually, that is what I was suggesting. I said he was conveniently using the unique blend of his office. It may be rare but when making a tie vote, he is part of the legislative branch because he is performing a function of it;"

    Hmmm, interesting. I might even be led to agree that, in regard to matters on which he has cast a tie-breaker, some buffer could be considered for the VP from executive data-demands. But not materials regarding his duties explicitly under the executive rubric!

    If his status can be episodic, in the manner you have outlined, then so must be the shield.

    But Cheney evoking his status as President of the Senate and saying his role falls under that branch of govt. is NOT tantamount to his suggesting that he is a the equivalent of a Senator.

    Posted by: Cecelia at June 26, 2007 11:03 PM


    Agreed - but it is a bald-faced attempt to hide his secrets using a fresh-woven web of balderdash.

    SLOB,

    I don't think Cheney invented it but was advised
    by constitutional lawyers. I am surprised that you are not arguing it was Cheney's arrogance that was behind it rather than Bush's incompetence. That must have been a tough call for you!

    "Who will be the first Iraqi to die when no one is left to protect them?" cee


    What a stupid question. How about your concern for the many thousands that have died while we do protect them by occupying their country. Who was the first to die from collateral damge. Your only concern "as usual" is your political position not lives. Go get a gun and protect them cee.

    Not yet anyway. But I believe you are correct. The disctinction, however, between my careless use of the word "legislature" where I should have said "legislative branch" is wholly irrellevant as neither such a classification could be bossed around by the president. This is the reason Cheney invented this context for his office when Bush carelessly failed to exempt Dick from his executive order.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at June 26, 2007 10:59 PM


    Well, of course it IS relevant! If you're arguing that that the President has no authority to extend special privilege to a member of the legislative branch, then you'd need to prove that the Constitution relegated the "President of the Senate" -- VP in the same way that it did the legislators-- that were Constitutionally proscribed from such privileges.

    Frankly, there's nothing in the Constitution that would even hint at that and again Executive Privilege has been extended to members of the 3rd branch of govt before.

    This is a REAL legal question. Unfortunately one that will open a can of worms... but certainly not one that you can dismiss with backhanded obscene insults to Cee.

    Cheney is the worst Vice President ever. No doubt. Their is no arguement. Incompetant, paranoid, an out right liar, and a coward.

    The shield is rather active and by the time it is determined whether that shield is protective or not, the results of the surge and the aftermath will obliterate the whole issue. Even if it does come down to a constitutional case, it won't result in criminal action and as Grammie (I think) has said, the Democrats won't want a binding precedent when it is looking good for '08.

    Hmmm, interesting. I might even be led to agree that, in regard to matters on which he has cast a tie-breaker, some buffer could be considered for the VP from executive data-demands. But not materials regarding his duties explicitly under the executive rubric!

    If his status can be episodic, in the manner you have outlined, then so must be the shield.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at June 26, 2007 11:05 PM


    Don't look now but there's a penis growing out of your forehead...

    SLOB, what did I say and/or cite that led you to this asinine statement:

    "Tell us, Janet, Why do you think it was unjust to force Sydney Blumenthal to testify?
    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at June 26, 2007 10:14 PM "

    I didn't comment on the justness or lack of.

    I provided a link (you know, what you asked for) that only The President can claim Executive Privilege and sometimes he wins and sometimes he loses.

    I thought the decision in this case was correct. God help us all if the courts start granting extraordinary privileges to PR men.

    Although I didn't point it out I thought Clinton's unsuccessful attempt to shield him was indicative of his arrogance and completely out of line.

    Grammie

    Karma. Something Cheney should fear.

    SLOB, this statement by you absolutely floored me because I have always thought of you as an ACLU type that would never give up the struggle to keep law enforcement types feet to the fire.

    ""Cheney claimed that his office fell into the legislative branch of govt. He is not and has never claimed to a member of congress."


    NOT YET ANYWAY. ...

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at June 26, 2007 10:59 PM"

    Caps are mine.

    Are you now in favor of making judgments about people because they MIGHT or are LIKELY to do something in the future and slap them down judicially before they do it?

    How disappointing!

    Another icon bites the dust.

    Grammie

    Where did all the Republicans go?
    -----
    I don't know, but we need to find them. I'll put OJ Simpson on it.

    "Who will be the first Iraqi to die when no one is left to protect them?" cee

    This has GOT to be the most disingenuous statement I've EVER read on OW (and that's saying something!)

    And now we got Cee quoting HIMSELF?

    Good Grief, and they call the Libs moonbats.

    "Who will be the first Iraqi to die when no one is left to protect them?" cee

    Like it or not codas, Commis, anyone else insulted by this statement...it is just as valid as what it is the response to....

    "Who will be the last soldier to die in Iraq for Bush's mistake?"

    And just as demogogic....

    And just as productive....

    I truly believe the struggle to achieve a stable democracy in Iraq is a right mission. The terrorists who use civilians as shields and targets for propaganda purposes are responsible for their deaths, not the great US soldiers serving us and the Iraqi perople! How can intellegent people blame their own country's soldiers for the murders of Iraqi civilians?

    Oh yeah....it serves their ideological purposes....Americans are responsible for all of the deaths in Iraq....never mind the roadside bombs are from Iran, the plans are hatched by Al Quada in Iraq and some radicals in the fringes want anarchy....

    Is it not a fact that at this very moment areas in Iraq are guarded by American troops, successfully, and those individuals being protected will no have the luxury if the US troops are prematurely withdrawn?

    Another example....The American Embassy in Saigon....Thousands of South Vietnamese wishing to live in freedom were OUTSIDE the gates as helicopters came back and forth and tried to carry as many of them out as possible.....

    The democratic congress cut funds to protect that embassy in a country we had promised to protect from a totalitarian regime....Many in our country (the precursors to Why, Loin, codas, Commis, Mike and others on this board) agreed with the world-view of that totalitarian regime and actively changed the American policy to allow them to succeed.....

    So, do any of you leftists know the name of the first freedom-loving South Vietnamese that was killed after the last helicopter left the roof?.....

    No....I didn't think you would because you don't care about that individual.....

    Without googling....Do any of you leftists know the name of the last soldier who died in Vietnam?......

    Be honest now....do you?....No googling...no wiki.....Especially you Why.....You asked the question!

    In fact, Why, codas, Commis, abundant Chicken bloggers....you really don't care about the last soldier who dies in Iraq either. All you care about is the issue....the ideology....the '08 election that the slogan,

    "Who will be the last soldier to die in Iraq for Bush's mistake?"

    fits so well......

    Do you like the demogouery? Do you like the manipulation of people's emotions to attain political power. Fear? Loathing?

    The left IS THE KING of these manipulative practices....Bush/Cheney can not compete!
    I cannot compete with the propaganda that Olbermann-types use to try to sway the less informed or the gullable to ACTUALLY support regimes like North Vietnam and now the entities of radical islamic theocracy....OBL himself!

    Yes gents, you support the goal of OBL just like those who supported the goal of The North Vietnamese....Totalitarianism over Democracy. Period.

    All anyone can do when their fellow countrymen are wrong is remain true to themselves.....not change their mind because it is the popular thing to do (I have been out of high school for a while now), and do not allow the hatred of the otherside make them bitter.

    I will be glad to remain in the 30% who support democracy in Iraq....even if it goes down to 10%, it doesn't make the ideal any less right.

    And this is my post today, the 1,518th day since the declaration of Mission Accomplished in Iraq.....

    I am cee, good night and good luck.

    "I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden

    "There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administration's policies in Iraq. Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back." NYT 1/28/07

    "I think the Vietnamese are better off in Vietnam," George McGovern - NEWSWEEK

    "Lefties: Leave these pathetic drowning rats alone to stew in each other's juices. Get yourselves out in the street and fight this criminal administration in ways that really mean something, and that are noted by more than a handful of keyboard heroes!" Sir Loin of Beef

    "American liberals need to face these truths: The demand for self-government was and remains strong in Iraq despite all our mistakes and the violent efforts of al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias to disrupt it." DEMOCRAT Bob Kerrey

    "If we end up saying that because these people are committing these acts of terrorism in Iraq or Afghanistan, that we shouldn't have done the removal of Saddam or the removal of the Taliban, then we are making a fundamental mistake about our own future, about security, about the values we should be defending in the world." TONY BLAIR

    No, AAP, I have been saying the above since coming to this board and noting the same logic that was seen in the fall of american values in the late 1960's and 70's....

    Logic shows that if one blames the deaths of Iraqi civilians on Americans, one is saying the terrorists are not responsible for their deaths.

    Logic shows that if one blames the deaths of the South Vietnamese on Americans, one is saying the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese army were not responsible.

    Logic shows that if you are willing to support military action to remove the totalitarian regime of Saddam Hussein and then abandon the government who replaced him (while they are still asking for your help), you are not loyal/you are not keeping your promises.

    Logic shows that if you cut funds to support the troops protecting a country/even an embassy, and the place falls to a totalitarian regime, the cutting of those fund was the reason.

    So AAP, I am not unhinged...I am consistent in my belief that the posters I mentioned in my 8:36 post cannot face the truth that using slogans like "Who will be the last soldier to die in Iraq for Bush's mistake?" leaves one vulnurable to the same emotional, blatently self-serving attacks.

    I would not like to go down a road of demogoguery and emotionalism....as you can see by my measured arguments on the 6/22 thread and this thread....but the flame wars busted out late last night and I enjoy using the same tactics simply to show how destructive, childish and silly they are.

    The paradism has not changed in the last 48 hours. Bush is still President, Cheney is still VPOTUS (despite the claim by the left that he has violated the law!), and The Congress is still funding the war in Iraq.....

    I am confident the Congress still does not have the spine to cut the funds....The ONLY Constitutional way to satisfy the left's demand for immediate troop withdrawl while W is President.

    What do you think?

    paradism = paradigm......

    Oh, George Bush himself could pull the troops out of Iraq tomorrow and I know it would still be immoral and not the right decision with regards to the security of The United States.

    Having a minoirty opinion somethimes does not make the opinion incorrect.....

    Just ask Tony Blair today!....

    "If we end up saying that because these people are committing these acts of terrorism in Iraq or Afghanistan, that we shouldn't have done the removal of Saddam or the removal of the Taliban, then we are making a fundamental mistake about our own future, about security, about the values we should be defending in the world."

    SLOB,

    I don't think Cheney invented it but was advised
    by constitutional lawyers. I am surprised that you are not arguing it was Cheney's arrogance that was behind it rather than Bush's incompetence. That must have been a tough call for you!

    Posted by: Sharon at June 26, 2007 11:10 PM


    I know its hard for a binary manicheaen to understand, but the two are not mutually exclusive.

    "Cheney claimed that his office fell into the legislative branch of govt. He is not and has never claimed to a member of congress."


    Not yet anyway. But I believe you are correct. The disctinction, however, between my careless use of the word "legislature" where I should have said "legislative branch" is wholly irrellevant as neither such a classification could be bossed around by the president. This is the reason Cheney invented this context for his office when Bush carelessly failed to exempt Dick from his executive order.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at June 26, 2007 10:59 PM


    ...and all Janet can muster is feigned shock at my opening joke "Not yet anyway", which was clearly a comment on the shameless lengths this VP as gone to to keep EVERYTHING HE DOES on our time and on our dime secret from the American people.

    SLOB, I missed your joke but you missed mine that another Icon bit the dust.

    Grammie

    Oh, and AAP, Why and the rest that were breathless over Lugar's statement....Your blogosphere elite are deflating that balloon a tiny bit.....

    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/6/27/9516/35085


    ###
    You see, the radical left wants IMMEDIATE withdrawl....The recent republicans cited on COUNTDOWN last night and here do not want to abandon the Iraqis like that.....

    Cut those funds, democrats, to please the daliy kos crowd! Please!

    Cut the funds, get the troops home now!
    Impeach the criminals, Bush and Cheney!

    Hey hey.....We are getting ACTION, (finally) over fourth brancher-Richard Cheney VP, new grandfather, hunter extraordinaire and Pacemaker recipient.....

    "Democrats threaten to strip Cheney funding"

    http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/26/cheney.secrecy.ap/index.html


    ###
    Hurrah...finally a Constitutional showdown!....

    Will it pass? Does the left have the guts?

    Oh I hope so....I do hope so.

    Cut the funds, get the troops home now!
    Cut the funds, stop Dick!

    Except for the Major no one has expressed any opinion one way or the other about President Clinton claiming Executive privilege for his wife and The DC Circuit Court (citations included) granting it.

    I mentioned it several times in varying contexts and besides the Major SLOB keyed in only on the example of Blumenthal.

    BTW, SLOB, I think that claiming Executive Privilege for your PR guy was a laughable desperation move.

    These were the main points I attempted to make:

    Only The President can claim Executive Privilege.

    That that Privilege did not carry over to her across the board except in the one instance of her Health Care debacle.

    That the VP's status should be afforded at least the same weight and consideration as any President's wife..

    Also, I am glad to see that you finally came round to the idea that the function is very determinative to any decisions made, ie when Cheney is exercising delegated power from GWB his role, not his status, is key as in Hillary's case.

    Grammie

    Cee, Whatizname, I think, brought it up last night and when I googled some key words his fave, Raw Story, had a piece on it.

    Rahm Emanuel (sp?) is leading the charge.

    Grammie

    below average clinton c**k smoker is living up to his reputation, can't make a post w/out bring up Dr. Savage. A funny side note, Ann Coulter was just an ignorant right winger before, now, the left wing moonbats are piling on her band wagon! Ron Paul, Luger and now Coulter! That's almost enough wagons to make a train! Who's next?

    Well Grammie, rhetoric matched with action is all I ever want....Congressman Emanuel is doing the right thing in brining it up for debate and passage. Now we should see which representatives agree with his theory that Cheney is not a part of the executive branch and if they succeed then we have a new day!

    Cut the funds, stop Dick!


    Sir Loin's whole contention is that Bush cannot waive an Executive Order for Cheney or grant Cheney executive powers if Cheney IS part of legislative branch.

    However, from what I'm reading on the web, the Constitution only prohibits members of Congress from holding executive offices concurrently.

    The VP is President of the Senate but not in the sense that he is a legislator. So it is NOT a foregone conclusion that the President could not extend some executive power to him.

    The other issue is whether the President could verbally amend an EO. Arguably, it would only be commonsense that a verbal amendment is not prohibited by the Constitution. Situations could arise where that would be entirely necessary. It's certainly a debatable issue, to say the least.

    I think Cheney's argument about the VP being part of the Legislative Branch was unnecessary and guaranteed to make a two day story of Waxman huffing into a big political controversy.

    Cheney should have simply explained that the President had waived the E.O. in his case. It's not the first time he's been given special privilege. The President had already given him the ability to declassify info. When the whole issue came up over a year ago Bush should have amended the E.O. in writing then.

    However, it's extremely doubtful that Cheney's actions could be ruled as criminal and Cheney's argument is not some specious fluff as Sir Loin has suggested.

    But then, we have a board full of folks here who often illogically claim that there is only one way to rightly regard any issue-- THEIR way...and that any debate to the contrary is tantamount to arguing that the earth is flat.

    I agree with Cee. Many of the people who attack him really don't like politics, they don't like issues, they don't like the national dialogue or even discussion, really... all they really care about is their own opinion and their own way. Anything that is not instrumental or potentially instrumental in their getting THAT way sends them into "but it's undebatable and you suck if you don't agree" mode.

    I am an easy target because it seems I am a Bush synchophant.....

    (Boy, will I get it now)

    However, I am not....really, I'm not.

    If siding with the administration's position on Cheney is SO ludicrous that the opposing side will not even entertain the argument, then well I guess Mr. Cheney will continue to do what he is doing....

    Thank goodness someone on Capitol Hill has the sense to bring the argument forward.

    If siding with the administration's position on Cheney is SO ludicrous that the opposing side will not even entertain the argument, then well I guess Mr. Cheney will continue to do what he is doing....

    Thank goodness someone on Capitol Hill has the sense to bring the argument forward.

    Posted by: cee at June 27, 2007 12:15 PM


    Yesterday, I read a Jonah Goldberg column in the LA Times where Goldberg wrtes that the reason Cheney doesn't mind bringing things "forward" is that he will not be running for office and that if he were, perhaps he would be a more PR savvy than he's been.

    Consider that the thing with the E.O. and the National Archives has been going on for a couple of years. Consideer too that it's been well-known that the Washington Post was coming out with a piece about Cheney's and his unprecedented influence (the WP story admits that the powers and influence of the VP office has been expanding in every administration since Carter) and all the media is getting out their most unflattering snapshots of Cheney to run.

    Consider now the timing of the public exposure of the National Archive E.O kerfluffle....

    Typical politics. But what does Cheney do? He adds nitroglycerine to what might have been a cherry bomb....

    Goldberg has a point...

    "Yesterday, I read a Jonah Goldberg column in the LA Times where Goldberg wrtes that the reason Cheney doesn't mind bringing things "forward" is that he will not be running for office and that if he were, perhaps he would be a more PR savvy than he's been."


    No, nearly all of the jaw-dropping fabrications brazenly put forth by this administration throughout the past six years have been in the interests of keeping Cheney's secrets regarding criminal conflicts of interest. Cheney has designed his career of public "service" to create vast wealth for himself and his associates. I, for one, want to have access to this information

    Okay. Here we go, want an argument against Cheney claiming that executive oversight doesnt apply to him? This is the case because he is also president of the senate? HE CLAIMED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEDGE IN 2001. http://movies.crooksandliars.com/TDS-Cheney-DickMove.wmv the quote is about 5 minutes in. Heres another. Ever heard of Checks and Balances? How the fuck is our system of 3 governmental bodies supposed to work if one of the branches refuses the system? Or better yet, claims to be out of the system and a seperate entity all together.

    I cant believe the same people that are now defending this ...thing are the same people that wanted Clinton out of office for a blowjob. Sex = Bad, Helps the Terrorists. Not Allowing the American People to Know What This Administration Does = Good, Letting People Know Would Help the Terrorists.

    Gosh, How could I be so dumb to think that the right wingers would use logic. Man in important political position that we voted him into needing to explain his actions in said office to the public...Nah. Man in important political position that we voted him into needing to explain a white stain on a dress..FUCK YES!

    I agree with Cee. Many of the people who attack him really don't like politics, they don't like issues, they don't like the national dialogue or even discussion, really... all they really care about is their own opinion and their own way. Anything that is not instrumental or potentially instrumental in their getting THAT way sends them into "but it's undebatable and you suck if you don't agree" mode.

    Posted by: Cecelia at June 27, 2007 11:55 AM

    Attacking cee's opinions is what I would consider myself doing, not attacking him. He is VERY politically motivated. He constantly states wrongly so that by opposing policy people like me are blaming the soldiers for the death of innocent Iraq people. This is a down right slanderous lie. I know what a soldiers job is. It is to do the bidding of his commanders. cee is under the influence of many books and preachers and He is of the "You suck if you don't agree mode". Not to mention he also blames people of a different political party for terrorism and everything else evil in the world. I wouls say to him "Physician, Heal thyself."

    Cee is a guy? Wow...i always thought he was a girl. Its the name, cee...its just a feminine name

    An argument is an argument, codas. I was not the one who notched up the debate with the very poltiical statement.....

    "Who will be the last soldier to die in Iraq for Bush's mistake?"

    If your side, and you too, actually practiced what you preached at 1:31, then perhaps the over-heated rhetoric on your opposing side would not ratchet it up too.

    Please show me how it is not right to point out that those who say the mission in Iraq is immoral sullies the actual agents of that mission.....the troops.

    Your spinning on the head of a pin with regards to placing the blame of civilian deaths at any member of the armed forces....from Bush to a soldier on the ground, is illogical. Wrong is wrong.

    Those troops following the orders to protect the Iraqi people are doing a great deed. The terrorists are the ones killing the civilians either directly or indirectly by using guerilla tactics and hiding among the population.

    Our guys have uniforms, the terrorists do not. Our guys engage with rules, the terrorists do not. So, for you to say Bush is responsible for the civilian deaths is not accurate.

    Please read the exchanges prior to the flame war last night dear codas.....Sir Loin of Milquetoast accused me of having disgusting items growing out of my head and then someone throws, ""Who will be the last soldier to die in Iraq for Bush's mistake?" in the mix.....

    Do you support the statement, codas?

    Oh, and will SOMEONE from the opposing side answer my questions from 8"36 AM!

    Was their a point in that "drivel?"

    Oh, and will SOMEONE from the opposing side answer my questions from 8"36 AM!

    Posted by: cee at June 27, 2007 1:59 PM

    I'll answer it, if you post it again. I don't have time to go hunting down your delusions.



    Who was the fool that spewed 70% of the people favored this immigration bill?


    As the Senate prepares to resume debate the “comprehensive” immigration reform bill, the legislation continues to face broad public opposition. In fact, despite a massive White House effort, public opinion has barely moved since the public uproar stalled the bill just over two weeks ago.

    The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 22% of American voters currently favor the legislation.

    A portion, Loin.....


    Without googling....Do any of you leftists know the name of the last soldier who died in Vietnam?......

    Be honest now....do you?....No googling...no wiki.....Especially you Why.....You asked the question!

    In fact, Why, codas, Commis, abundant Chicken bloggers....you really don't care about the last soldier who dies in Iraq either. All you care about is the issue....the ideology....the '08 election that the slogan,

    "Who will be the last soldier to die in Iraq for Bush's mistake?"

    fits so well......

    Do you like the demogouery? Do you like the manipulation of people's emotions to attain political power. Fear? Loathing?

    "Yes gents, you support the goal of OBL just like those who supported the goal of The North Vietnamese....Totalitarianism over Democracy. Period."

    So are you suggesting that we go into every single totalitarian regime and overthrow the dictator? Or only the ones with untapped Oil reserves?

    Who will be the last to die in Iraq? I dont know...In all honesty I hope its the (if you go by the average of this month) 3.5 people that will die today.

    I dont know the last soldier that died in Vietnam, I'm sorry that he did, we knew he shouldnt have, and we spoke out against it then, too. We didnt just sit idly by.

    Im glad your part of the 30% that dont think this war is an absolute, total failure and a waste of time and resources. Not to mention to loss of life that it incurs.

    Im glad that you're part of the 30% that dont see anything wrong is attacking a soverign country on false pretenses with no real strategy and now 6 years later we're seeing "progress" when last month we had 131 casualties in Iraq, one of the deadliest months since the INVASION. Good thing we "surged" up the troop numbers. Its really helping.

    Im glad that you're part of the 30% that think that invading a country, throwing its ruler that held the country united out of office then leading the entire region into turmoil was a good idea.

    Im glad that you're part of the 30% that think that bringing Democracy over there is a worthwhile endeavor when it hardly even works over here.

    Enjoy you're 30%, it'll drop down to that 10% mark soon enough

    Are you happy now that someone responded?

    "So are you suggesting that we go into every single totalitarian regime and overthrow the dictator?"

    No

    "Or only the ones with untapped Oil reserves?"

    No

    "6 years later?"

    Saddam Hussein was removed from office in 2003, so I think your math is a little off. BTW, stability on The Korean Peninsula was obtained after 3 years and over 30,000 US troop deaths.

    And this one is a gem.....

    "Im glad that you're part of the 30% that think that bringing Democracy over there is a worthwhile endeavor when it hardly even works over here."

    Mmmm, not working here? So the alternative you would like to live under is what, StealThisOpinion?

    Oh, I forgot.....

    "Are you happy now that someone responded?"

    Yes, thank you.

    SOUTH LAKE TAHOE — The mood of the crowd jammed into the meeting room was angry.

    Many had lost their homes to the forest fire that swept through the Sierra Nevada just south of Lake Tahoe.

    They said they were angry at liberals and environmentalists who made cutting of trees and clearing of land difficult. There was always too much red tape, they said, and now it was too late. They weren't even allowed to cut down trees that were dead! Liberalism hard at work......

    "Let the witch hunt begin!" says waxinhisass. The subpoenas are flyin' in Wash! Tax dollars, hard at work....

    So, AAP, you are saying The Vietnam War was America "governance at gun point."

    Flawed premise. I understand that leftist historians want the masses to believe The Vietnam War was only American hegemony vs. nationalism....They are wrong and their conclusions are only a result of their flawed political ideology.

    i believe the Vietnam conflict was ideological......Communism versus Capitalism....better yet....Totalitarianism v. Democracy.

    Leftists in The United States that chose sides based on The South's government desire to remain a free market began undermining the support for the war even before the public began to lose faith....It was a concerted effort at every level of the government and the democrat party bought into it 100% by the late 60's. Fine, choosing an ideology is every american's right.

    And those who have chosen sides based on their ideology in the current conflict have made their choice.

    Do not try to sell me propaganda that is such garbage. Defending freedom (BOTH economic freedom in the form of capitalism AND Democracy) is what Vietnam was about (freedom failed....The Communist totalitarians invaded and took over South Vietnam). Now Iraq stands as an entity with the same forces.....

    Totalitarians (Theocratic Islamists) vs. a DEMOCRATIC government millions of Iraqis
    voted for and want stablized.

    The other sides.....the North Vietnamese and the islamists HAD/HAVE GUNS! The communist north succeeded - so your,

    "History shows that 'governance at gun point' rarely succeeds."

    is not true....

    Cuba and North Korea are other examples, AAP (and what are their economic and government philosophies? LEFTIST!)

    cee, who doesn't know someone who was/is in the service of our country? If I disagree with policy should I for the sake of "patriotic" pride say nothing so that our soldiers will not be offended, or more likely that your ilk will not be? This is a democracy cee. We are not ruled by allegiance to our military leadership or a king. Freedom of thought and a free press is something you have to live with until like a lot of people in this country you just shrug your shoulders and believe whatever "they" tell you. You are offended by remarks and what you see as attacks against you for your patriotism. You slander whole groups of people by placing them against America in your mind. I love America, and it is because I do that I never will forget the idiocy that was allowed to happen when the U.S.A was led by a incompetant con man who duped God fearing people "like yourself cee" into his failed and murderous attempt at revenge for 911.

    "Without googling....Do any of you leftists know the name of the last soldier who died in Vietnam?......"


    OK I lied - I'm not going to answer your stupid fucking question. What petulent child you are, so smug in the self-deciet that you interperet as cleverness.

    If only you held any real beliefs that your felt like living up to you would enlist for service in Iraq - and perhaps your much-needed medical skills would help to save the life of that last soldier that would have died for Bush's lies which you hold in such high esteem; and maybe you could save the next "last soldier"...and the next. Finally, one would actually be the last to die in this misbegotten occupation, and then at least you might be privileged to know the his or her name and face - and finally have some concept of what you are so glibly quipping about.

    I am not insulted by your opinion, codas....I just will not allow you to be disingenuous about the reality of your position. When people call a mission immoral, murderous, failed, dangerous...those volunteering to shoot the guns to make that mission a success are the biggest part, yet you try to say your position in no way diminishes the possibility of their success....The other side is fighting the war of attitrition for that sole purpose!

    You can have any opinion you want, codas, and, like you characterize my position, I can characterize your position....and your position supports the victory of those allied against democracy in Iraq....and they just happen to be terrorist islamic totalitarians!

    So, just as the left allied themselves with communist totalitarians in Vietnam, the left has allied themselves with theocratic totalitarians now.

    Don't blame me, Loin. Your fellow traveler, Why do you care what my name, stated last night....

    "And as far as the idiot, Cee.....
    Let me take some liberties with the most popular quote from the Vietnam era :
    Who will be the last soldier to die in Iraq for Bush's mistake?"


    ###
    I am assuming this is an anti-war slogan....

    It made me sick last night, I swallowed the bile that resulted and I asked just as repugnant a question this morning.

    I am sorry it struck a nerve and caused you to return to the baseless rants regarding my sacrifice for a cause you feel is immoral.

    We actually had a pretty decent back and forth up until late yesterday.

    Cee.

    My alternative is a freaking democracy. We dont live under one. A democracy is a country that bends to the will of the people. A country that listens to the people. 70% of the population want us out of this war. Why are we still there again? Oh yeah, we're bringing them a democracy. But wait, they dont want us there either. A democracy is a system of government that the people have control over and have a say in. A democracy is a system of government in which the leaders can be kept in check, and must tell the people of their inner-workings. (Im talking about President and VP FourthBranch, the branch of government thats not subject to oversight) A democracy is a country that is honest with its people about things that have happened and continue to happen. 9/11, Bush blocked the investigations from starting for months. Iraq War, they lied about why we should go, why we should stay, everything.

    I say we should live under a democracy, what say you?

    "I say we should live under a democracy, what say you?"

    I say we already live in a democracy.....the closest, workable one to pure mob rule....a democratic republic....

    And it is working. I do not buy your hyperbole regarding the current executive administration (but you already knew that). Our constitution specifically places the responsibility of keeping the republic safe against foreign enemies in the hands of one person....the executive.

    George Bush did not lie about Iraq and the reason we are there now is clear....to help the Iraqi government establish itself despite an enemy that wants it to fail.

    The Constitution does not allow for war by poll....it is a workable system that uses representatives of the people.....Those representatives can influence the executive by stopping the funds necessary for him to continue the war.....that's how your democracy is supposed to work.

    And if Bush and Cheney have violated the law they should be impeached....that's how our democracy is supposed to work.

    So, just because you do not like the legal results of the democratic system does not mean it is not a democratic system.

    I say we should live under a democracy, what say you?

    Posted by: StealThisOpinion at June 27, 2007 4:06 PM

    The truth is cee and his ilk hate democracy. Witnessed by the fact that he must still continue to place people who disagree with the current policy as terrorist loving hate America first enimies of the state. It's laughable if so many hadn't died for his neocon dream. Bush, his wife, his dog and cee. I think that's about all that will be left. cee will still be supporting even if Bush's dog gives out.

    cee,
    Do our military and political leaders swear an oath to protect and defend the constitution or the presidents policies?

    cant believe the same people that are now defending this ...thing are the same people that wanted Clinton out of office for a blowjob. Sex = Bad, Helps the Terrorists. Not Allowing the American People to Know What This Administration Does = Good, Letting People Know Would Help the Terrorists.

    Gosh, How could I be so dumb to think that the right wingers would use logic. Man in important political position that we voted him into needing to explain his actions in said office to the public...Nah. Man in important political position that we voted him into needing to explain a white stain on a dress..FUCK YES!

    Posted by: StealThisOpinion at June 27, 2007 1:02 PM


    Because whether Cheney is in the Executive Branch or whether he is in the Legislative Branch via his role as President of the Senate, the President of U.S.A. has the authority to exempt him from an Executive Order.

    As for the Lewinsky thing, you may want to brush up on that.

    Paula Jones went to the Supreme Court and got a ruling that a private citizen could sue a sitting president.

    She sued. Her team deposed Monica Lewinsky because it's ground zero in this sort of suit to prove that the boss looks for love in all the wrong places.

    Clinton got his best friend to take Lewinsky to sign a false affadavit saying she did not have sexual liassons with Clinton.

    Clinton lied in his deposition to the Paula Jones team.

    Clinton misled Starr's Grand Jury and later had his law license suspended for that.

    Clinton called his secretary Betty Currie into the WH on the Sunday before she was to testify before the Grand Jury that week, in order to "refresh her memory" in a false memory-- "We (he and Lewinsky) were never alone, right..."

    When you're talking about the little guy taking on power, you can't get more clueless than to argue that it was no big deal that Clinton perjured himself and witness tampered because the case was about sexual impropriety i(n the workplace) and was championed by his political enemies.

    Why are you New Clowns of afraid of sandal wearing goat herders?
    "Because they hate us for our freedoms"

    Be afraid, be very, very, very afraid.


    Posted by:below average mexican patty at June 27, 2007 4:00 PM

    patty, we're not worried about the "sandal wearing goat herders," we're worried about their relatives. The ones that wear the black hoods sporting 3' machetes who will slash your throat for no reason except to watch your blood pour on the ground, dope!

    You want to talk about Propaganda?
    Why are you New Clowns of afraid of sandal wearing goat herders?
    "Because they hate us for our freedoms"

    Be afraid, be very, very, very afraid.

    Posted by: Average American Patriot at June 27, 2007 4:00 PM


    Oh, come on! Even you aren't that ridiculous!

    "The truth is cee and his ilk hate democracy. Witnessed by the fact that he must still continue to place people who disagree with the current policy as terrorist loving hate America first enimies of the state."


    ###
    Once again, codas confuses democracy with totalitarianism (I know it is hard for you to hear an opinion that does not agree with you so you would rather not hear it).

    If I said you were not allowed to believe and publically state you, "disagree with the current policy [because you are] terrorist loving hate America first enimies (sp) of the state," then I would not be supporting democracy.

    Dear codas, I have a right to frame and opine what I see your world-view is and means for me and my family.....just like you do regarding my point of view....And we both can say it publically without fear.....

    Cheney and Bush will not have you arrested and labeled enemy combatants if you do either.....VOILA! DEMOCRACY!

    I am not so sure about Clinton and the rest of the democrats, though.....they have started to talk about reinstating the fairness doctrine......VOILA! TOTALITARIANISM!....the left's favorite system because it gets rid of those pesky dissenters!

    Oh and codas....all members of the military swear an oath to protect The Constitution, including the leader....The President. They are of ONE MISSION....defend America....So that is why when you try to thread that needle and say the troops got nothing to do with the policy.....it's a rationalization.... and it don't mean a thing on the ground. The troops are 100% invested in stopping the enemy you say has nothing to do with killing Iraqi civilians. In fact, you also say America is responsible for the civilian deaths, not the terrorists.

    Cut the funds.....bring the troops home!
    Cut the funds, stop Dick!
    Impeach the criminals Bush and Cheney!

    I am sorry it struck a nerve and caused you to return to the baseless rants regarding my sacrifice for a cause you feel is immoral.

    We actually had a pretty decent back and forth up until late yesterday.

    Posted by: cee at June 27, 2007 3:39 PM


    Really? A "decent back-and-forth"? I spent much of the time describing you as a "red-assed baboon with a dick growning out of its bald forehead", if you recall; and describing the black eyes you must be getting from the bouncing forehead testicles when you flip-flop. That's really horrible stuff.

    How is my plea that you sacrifice something of yourself for the cause for which you ask terrible sacrifices from so many others so much more offensive to you than that was?

    Oh, I see - the comment today regard your failure to back your own pious rhetoric is actually TRUE; whereas the baboon stuff was gratuitous trash-talk. Cognitive dissonance hurts.

    So as not to allow confusion, the first sentence should have been....

    Oh and codas....all members of the military, including the leader....The President, swear an oath to protect The Constitution.

    "George Bush did not lie about Iraq and the reason we are there now is clear....to help the Iraqi government establish itself despite an enemy that wants it to fail."

    So, why did we Invade? I thought it was because they were harboring terrorists? Or was it the weapons of mass destruction? Or was it Saddam's(Who we did catch) intricate relationship with Osama(Who we never caught)? Bring Democracy? Steal the Oil?

    "The Constitution does not allow for war by poll....it is a workable system that uses representatives of the people.....Those representatives can influence the executive by stopping the funds necessary for him to continue the war.....that's how your democracy is supposed to work."

    Yeah, but the constitution also states that the president is the representative of the people and right now Bush isnt exactly a representative...Hes actually more of an outlaw than anything.

    "And it is working. I do not buy your hyperbole regarding the current executive administration"

    So its working. Who won the 2000 Election? Was that Gore, oh yeah, it was. Whos the shithead in office?

    And are you saying that Cheney didnt claim that they are above oversight? Go look at a news channel aside from Fox News. Or maybe a blog. Or maybe fucking open your eyes, this administration is a bunch of politically motivated crooks who will stop at nothing to make their policies law, even if that means using the constitution as toilet paper all in true right-wing, christian clad form.

    "Oh and codas....all members of the military, including the leader....The President, swear an oath to protect The Constitution."

    How exactly is suspending Habeus Corpus, Condoning Torture, Fighting a war without Merit, Creating a wall of secrecy in OUR Government by Claiming to be a fourth branch of government that is outside oversight among other things, and hiring and firing based on political affiliations "protect[ing] the constitution"?

    I would hate to see what these guys would do if they were sworn to destory it.

    cee claims to be a doctor. There is a war on in Iraq that cee feels is a noble undertaking well worth thousands of American deaths and tens of thousands of maimings. The American soldiers being maimed require dotors, and the military medical system has been stressed for personnel since the occupation began. cee scoffs at the suggestion that he lend his medical expertise to the cause he energetically - almost religiously - supports.

    He says I shouldn't tell him to enlist because I think our invasion of Iraq was immoral. Well. I don't think its immoral for doctors to patch up wounded soldiers, and I dont know of anyone who would.

    This breakdown helps me understand a running argument, and compells me to register a correction to some of my statements of the past couple days:

    cee is a red-assed baboon with a big pussy on his forehead.

    >SOUTH LAKE TAHOE — The mood of the crowd jammed into the meeting room was angry.

    Many had lost their homes to the forest fire that swept through the Sierra Nevada just south of Lake Tahoe.

    They said they were angry at liberals and environmentalists who made cutting of trees and clearing of land difficult. There was always too much red tape, they said, and now it was too late. They weren't even allowed to cut down trees that were dead! Liberalism hard at work......


    Posted by: royalking at June 27, 2007 2:32 PM


    Thanks Royal Douche for providing more evidence that you:

    1.) Don't keep up with science

    2.) Believe everything the Gov't tells you

    and

    3.) Are afraid of the Liberal Boogyman, the source of all YOUR problems

    U.S. Forest Fire Policies Get Flamed

    Paul D. Thacker

    Sometime this summer or maybe late fall, news programs will fill with images of catastrophic wildfires ravaging forests in the American West. And if the trend holds from the past two fire seasons, hundreds of homes will burn to the ground, causing billions of dollars in property damage. Next year will likely yield the same results, because the underlying issues are not going away. The western states are experiencing the worst drought in 500 years, and a combination of past timber-cutting practices and fire suppression in the United States has allowed the forests to become thick and overgrown. When fires come through these dry, overgrown forests, they burn at much higher temperatures and are more difficult to control.

    To handle this problem, President Bush has put forth a host of policy changes called the Healthy Forest Initiative, which culminated last December in the passage of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA). When the President signed the act, he remarked, “[W]e will help to prevent catastrophic wildfires, we’ll help save lives and property, and we’ll help protect our forests from sudden and needless destruction.” Specifically, the Bush agenda calls for more thinning of the national forests and a streamlining of appeals, public involvement, and environmental analysis to speed the process.

    While many experts agree that the national forests have become tinderboxes, there is strong disagreement even within the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) on how to handle the issue. Officially, the USFS prefers to thin trees mechanically and remove the wood instead of using prescribed fire.

    The chief of the USFS has authority over the agency, but the man who really maintains control is Mark Rey, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Deputy Under Secretary of Natural Resources and Environment. Prior to joining USFS, Rey served as vice president for the American Forest and Paper Association, a timber industry lobbying group that supported passage of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act.

    Rey told ES&T that the USFS has solid research that shows thinning can control western wildfires. He added that reducing fuels on that national forest will save both lives and property. “It’s not going to save every home, but it will mitigate the issue,” he says.

    But scientists, both inside and outside the USFS, say the research on the effectiveness of thinning is itself quite thin. “The Forest Service doesn’t have a clue about how to thin the forest to control fire,” says former USFS chief Jack Ward Thomas. “We’ve done thinning for silviculture enhancement and pest control. So we do have a lot of research on thinning, just not related to fire.”

    An assistant professor of Fire Science at the University of California, Berkeley, Scott Stephens agrees and says that any research to mitigate forest fires is maybe six years old at best. “I’m afraid the Forest Service thinks solutions are already known, and they are now going to implement them on a large scale,” he says.

    One of the first projects to provide good quantitative data on fire mitigation is the federally funded Fire and Fire Surrogate Project. The project encompasses 13 different forest types across the nation, and each site has four different plots of land to examine different fire control strategies, including prescribed fire, mechanical thinning, and mechanical thinning followed by prescribed fire. Other plots remain untreated to serve as controls.

    Stephens heads up the project site at Berkeley’s Blodgett experimental forest three hours east of San Francisco in the foothills of the Sierra Mountains. Now in its fourth year, the Blodgett study has found that the most effective means to reduce fires is not thinning trees but removing surface fuels such as brush. The second-most important component to remove is the “ladder fuels” such as small trees and tall shrubs, and the final component is crown fuel in the tree canopy.

    While the ecosystem in Berkeley is different from places recently scorched by catastrophic fires, such as Los Alamos, N.M., and southern California, Stephens says treating the surface fuels through prescribed burns would still be the best strategy to mitigate fire.

    Critics also fault the USFS for failing to concentrate fire reduction programs in the wildland–urban interface—areas close to forests where people live and own property. The HFRA calls for $476 million to be spent this year on hazardous fuels reduction, but according to Rey, less than half the acreage thinned will be in the wildland–urban interface.

    In fact, the expert on protecting property from forest fires is USFS researcher Jack Cohen. His studies found that the best way to save homes from wildfires is to treat all vegetation within 100 feet of buildings, an area he terms the “home ignition zone”.

    Critics also charge that Rey is focusing too many thinning projects in old-growth forest and roadless wilderness. They see this as a sign that the USFS is reversing a recent trend toward environmentally sound management and reverting back to policies that favor industry. As an example, the environmentalists point to a recent operation on the northeast rim of the Grand Canyon on the Kaibab National Forest. One of the last few stands of old growth in the Southwest, the logging was stopped after litigation by environmental groups. The closest home was 48 miles away.

    These types of logging operations raise warning flags that the HFRA is less a means to protect homes and property than a policy to open up the forests to business exploitation.

    According to Ward, “[Rey] makes no bones about it. He wants to bring the Forest Service more in line with production of commodities.”

    To help orchestrate commodities production, the first thing Rey did early in the Bush Administration was streamline the process for USFS projects. Streamlining was needed, he claims, because incessant appeals and litigation by environmental groups has slowed the USFS’s ability to protect the forests by thinning trees and has resulted in “analysis paralysis”.

    But a 2003 report by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) found that only 3% of USFS thinning projects was actually litigated by environmental groups. Further, the report also discovered that the USFS did not even have a database to back up its claim that litigation was impeding thinning projects.

    “The Forest Service is a case study in spin,” says one author of the GAO report.

    A recent study by Hanna Cortner, associate director of the Ecological Restoration Institute at Northern Arizona University, found that a broad spectrum of groups appealed USFS projects, including individuals, tribes, business interests, and environmental groups [J. For. 2004, 102 (2)]. She also questions the USFS’s claims about litigation, by environmental groups since she found that the agency lacks a national database of appeals and litigation. From her point of view, the USFS is just playing political games.

    “I think the Bush Administration has done a wonderful job of turning those who we think of as saviors of the environment into those we now think of as threats to the environment,” she says.

    Former chief of the USFS, Mike Dombeck, says that streamlining the process for thinning projects has left environmentalists feeling locked out of the process, which will probably lead to even more litigation. “Ultimately, if you don’t let people play in the game, the next time you’ll see them is in court,” he says.

    This article first appeared in the Online News section of Environmental Science & Technology.



    http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20070621095118.pdf

    Fact sheet on how Cheney has tried to avoid Congressional oversight since 2001 by Rep. Henry Waxman

    The condensed easyreader version for the Neocons who are allergic to reading:

    The misconception:

    They said they were angry at liberals and environmentalists who made cutting of trees and clearing of land difficult. There was always too much red tape, they said, and now it was too late. They weren't even allowed to cut down trees that were dead! Liberalism hard at work......

    The facts:

    But a 2003 report by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) found that only 3% of USFS thinning projects was actually litigated by environmental groups. Further, the report also discovered that the USFS did not even have a database to back up its claim that litigation was impeding thinning projects.

    So, the forest fires burn while Royal Douche plays on his Sit N Spin.

    Nice!

    My reaction to StealThisOpinion's, codas' and Sir Loin of Milquetoast's last posts....

    Eyes rolling backward into phallus adorned bald head....

    Hyperbole and half truths, Steal....I am not even going down the road of the 2000 election or the pre-war intelligence and who said what when and why. They both are favorite red herrings for you guys and I am not taking the bait.

    I will simply say that your reading of The Constitution is pretty infantile....NO WHERE does it say "The President is the representative of the people," or "The President works for you Joe Sixpack!" He is an EXECUTIVE accountable to the people and REQUIRED, NO...he is CHARGED to LEAD. And as far as I can see Bush and his entire administration have fulfilled their legal obligations with regard to oversight and accountability in a very difficult and dangerous environment. An environment that is toxic politically, with partisan snipers hiding in the hills ready to scream "IMPEACHMENT!"

    But nada happens.

    And Loin, good night fella.....You were ok until the baboon comment at 10:00pm last night and then splat, head explosion. But rest assured, neither the red-ass baboon post or the umpteenth time rant about "my patching up the troops so they can go back and shoot more innocent civilians," hurts my feelings....In fact they reflect your psychic tension at not being able to handle truths about the consequences of your radical ideology.

    And codas.....until I hear John Conyers open an impeachment hearing of the two executives, your silliness is hyperbole too....and a plus it ain't true.

    And this is my post today, the 1,518th day since the declaration of Mission Accomplished in Iraq.....

    I am cee, good night and good luck.

    "I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking a good game, but they're not even doing that. Everybody in Congress has to understand something: If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the President who owns it. They own it, too." Sgt. Liam Madden

    "There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administration's policies in Iraq. Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back." NYT 1/28/07

    "I think the Vietnamese are better off in Vietnam," George McGovern - NEWSWEEK

    "Lefties: Leave these pathetic drowning rats alone to stew in each other's juices. Get yourselves out in the street and fight this criminal administration in ways that really mean something, and that are noted by more than a handful of keyboard heroes!" Sir Loin of Beef

    "American liberals need to face these truths: The demand for self-government was and remains strong in Iraq despite all our mistakes and the violent efforts of al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias to disrupt it." DEMOCRAT Bob Kerrey

    "If we end up saying that because these people are committing these acts of terrorism in Iraq or Afghanistan, that we shouldn't have done the removal of Saddam or the removal of the Taliban, then we are making a fundamental mistake about our own future, about security, about the values we should be defending in the world." TONY BLAIR

    Remember waaaaaay back when Republicans were for transparency in Government. I believe it was 1992-2000.


    I guess that wasn't all that long ago, was it.

    Eyes rolling backward into phallus adorned bald head = Cee's psychic tension

    You're an ignorant buffoon. You know what all this government is charged with. You know what they have done. YOU KNOW THEY'VE DONE IT. And you call it bait. Thats all it is. They are doing this with my tax money. Your tax money. They work for us, dumbshit.

    Red Herring, get off your fucking horse asshole, you're starting to piss me off. You know Bush lost the election in 2000. You know the war is being fought on the backs of our men and women based on lies, more lies, and some stretched truths. But you, and the right wing, still defend, "OMG, hes a leader, a rogue, a rebel" "hes trying to make this world a better place" Yeah, a better place only if you can pay the fee to get in the club. He's shitting on the rest of us. hes shitting on the environment. Hes shitting on our reputation. Hes shitting on the constitution. Hes shitting on our national debt.

    I entertained you, you asked for someone to answer your post. So heres my charge. Answer this:

    How exactly is suspending Habeus Corpus, Condoning Torture, Fighting a war without Merit, Creating a wall of secrecy in OUR Government by Claiming to be a fourth branch of government that is outside oversight among other things, and hiring and firing based on political affiliations "protect[ing] the constitution"?

    Actually, I'll give you a choice, if you cant handle the first question, try this one:

    Why are we in Iraq? Is it because we want to make Iraq a better place and if thats the case why did we let the war in Afghanistan and the real terrorists fizzle out? Is it because of the original reasons stated that are all now debunked? Or is it because they have alot of oil that we can get for real cheap?

    Good Night, and Good Luck, asshole.

    I've got a quote for PhalluCee :

    'Bush Iraq Strategy Not Working' Sen. Richard Lugar (REPUBLICAN)

    Oh Yeah, i guess you didnt see this post.

    http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20070621095118.pdf

    Fact sheet on how Cheney has tried to avoid Congressional oversight since 2001 by Rep. Henry Waxman

    They've been trying to avoid transparency for about 6 years now(for real this time, haha) I did miscount on the last quoted time period.

    cee just doesn't listen - it is now established to be a vagina-sporting head.

    I love the way he makes his perception of my moral compass into his excuse for malingering. What a self-loving little coward.

    But a 2003 report by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) found that only 3% of USFS thinning projects was actually litigated by environmental groups. Further, the report also discovered that the USFS did not even have a database to back up its claim that litigation was impeding thinning projects.

    So, the forest fires burn while Royal Douche plays on his Sit N Spin.

    Nice!

    Posted by: Commission Accomplished! at June 27, 2007 6:01 PM

    Dope, the USFS has notta to do with the houses that aren't IN the USF that got burned because the land owners were not allowed to cut any trees or thin on their OWN property w/out risking fines incorporated by the left wing tree huggers! Hope yopu didn't waste too much of your time scouring the internet for that left wing cover up/article.

    "But rest assured, neither the red-ass baboon post or the umpteenth time rant about "my patching up the troops so they can go back and shoot more innocent civilians," hurts my feelings...."

    see what I mean? cee says that I - an amoral lefty Soviet throw-back- cannot be in favor of the recovery of our wounded troops and remain consistent to my amoral, lefty Soviet throw-back world-view.....and this is truly his only excuse for not feeling compelled to make his actions match the trajetory of his political franchise - which flly and emphatically supports the ongoing occupation.


    But actually, cee, it is only recently that severely wounded soldiers have been sent back into action following their recovery. Up until now they could rest assured that they were through with hazardous duty. But shortfalls in recruiting and the ongoing surging of the surge have introduced the recycling of injured soldiers.

    cee, what would we do w/out people like stoic to tell us that Bush lost the election in 2000. He was just spewing on the other thread how he "backs up" everyting he says with facts. Funny, don't see any facts backing that "left wing moonbat" claim. He must be still crying in his beer about losing in 2000 while he watches the view. Oh, rosie got laughed off, that's right. What to do....

    RoyalKing, shut up and go home.

    Or you can give us a source on what you just said.

    I imagine you'll just ignore this post though.

    He must be still crying in his beer about losing in 2000 while he watches the view. Oh, rosie got laughed off, that's right. What to do....

    Posted by: royalking at June 27, 2007 6:30 PM

    No. The crying is being done by the thousands of humans who are left to live out their lives without their loved ones who were lost because of a bunch of moralistic, hypocrite, punk bastards who think they are above the law, our constitution and oversite.

    Maybe royalking can help, since cee can't answer: Why would cee - and you, for that matter - feel comfortable with your failures to sacrifice and serve in this military crucible you so energetically support? Is it just rank cowardice? Do you - like I know cee does - feel that you are too smart and important to risk? Is there some more honorable reason that I haven't thought of?

    I am really very curious.

    http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

    There ya go asshole. Look at the number of votes cast. Oh yeah, not to mention all the disinfranchised voters in the state of florida...ya know, the ones that arent white

    >cee, what would we do w/out people like stoic to tell us that Bush lost the election in 2000.

    Posted by: royalking at June 27, 2007 6:30 PM

    What to Do? How about eating up the spin coming out of your hero 'Great American' Sean Hannity?

    The Document Sean Hannity Doesn't Want You To Read

    June 16, 2004

    Speaking at the Take Back America conference on June 3, American Progress CEO John Podesta said, "I think when you get so distant from the facts as -- as guys like Limbaugh and Sean Hannity do, yeah, I think that tends to -- it kind of -- it tends to corrupt the dialogue." Apparently he struck a nerve with Fox News' Sean Hannity. Hannity challenged Podesta to "defend and explain one example where I -- where I said something that was so false." Since choosing just one of Hannity's distortions is too difficult, here are fifteen examples:

    All Hannity quotes from Hannity and Colmes unless otherwise noted.

    HANNITY: "You're not listening, Susan. You've got to learn something. He had weapons of mass destruction. He promised to disclose them. And he didn't do it. You would have let him go free; we decided to hold him accountable." (4/13/04)

    FACT: Hannity's assertion comes more than six months after Bush Administration weapons inspector David Kay testified his inspection team had "not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material" and had not discovered any chemical or biological weapons. (Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03)

    HANNITY: "Colin Powell just had a great piece that he had in the paper today. He was there [in Iraq]. He said things couldn't have been better." (9/19/03)

    FACT: "Iraq has come very far, but serious problems remain, starting with security. American commanders and troops told me of the many threats they face--from leftover loyalists who want to return Iraq to the dark days of Saddam, from criminals who were set loose on Iraqi society when Saddam emptied the jails and, increasingly, from outside terrorists who have come to Iraq to open a new front in their campaign against the civilized world." (Colin Powell, 9/19/03)

    HANNITY: "And in northern Iraq today, this very day, al Qaeda is operating camps there, and they are attacking the Kurds in the north, and this has been well-documented and well chronicled. Now, if you're going to go after al Qaeda in every aspect, and obviously they have the support of Saddam, or we're not." (12/9/02)

    FACT: David Kay was on the ground for months investigating the activities of Hussein's regime. He concluded "But we simply did not find any evidence of extensive links with Al Qaeda, or for that matter any real links at all." He called a speech where Cheney made the claim there was a link "evidence free." (Boston Globe, 6/16/04)

    HANNITY: "[After 9-11], liberal Democrats at first showed little interest in the investigation of the roots of this massive intelligence failure...[Bush and his team] made it clear that determining the causes of America's security failures and finding and remedying its weak points would be central to their mission." (Let Freedom Ring, by Sean Hannity)

    TRUTH: Bush Opposed the creation of a special commission to probe the causes of 9/11 for over a year. On 5/23/02 CBS News Reported "President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11." Bush didn't relent to pressure to create a commission, mostly from those Hannity would consider "liberal" until September 2002. (CBS News, 5/23/02)

    HANNITY: "First of all, this president -- you know and I know and everybody knows -- inherited a recession...it was by every definition a recession" (11/6/02)

    HANNITY: "Now here's where we are. The inherited Clinton/Gore recession. That's a fact." (5/6/03)

    HANNITY: "The president inherited a recession." (7/10/03)

    HANNITY: "He got us out of the Clinton-Gore recession." (10/23/03)

    HANNITY: "They did inherit the recession. They did inherit the recession. We got out of the recession." (12/12/03)

    HANNITY: "And this is the whole point behind this ad, because the president did inherit a recession." (1/6/04)

    HANNITY: "Historically in every recovery, because the president rightly did inherit a recession. But historically, the lagging indicator always deals with employment." (1/15/04)

    HANNITY: "Congressman Deutsch, maybe you forgot but I'll be glad to remind you, the president did inherit that recession." (1/20/04)

    HANNITY: "He did inherit a recession, and we're out of the recession." (2/2/04)

    HANNITY: "The president inherited a recession." (2/23/04)

    HANNITY: "The president inherited a recession." (3/3/04)

    HANNITY: "Well, you know, we're going to show ads, as a matter of fact, in the next segment, Congressman. Thanks for promoting our next segment. What I like about them is everything I've been saying the president ought to do: is focusing in on his positions, on keeping the nation secure in very difficult times, what he's been able to do to the economy after inheriting a very difficult recession, and of course, the economic impact of 9/11." (3/3/04)

    HANNITY: "All right. So this is where I view the economic scenario as we head into this election. The president inherited a recession." (3/16/04)

    HANNITY: "First of all, we've got to put it into perspective, is that the president inherited a recession." (3/26/04)

    HANNITY: "Clearly, we're out of the recession that President Bush inherited." (4/2/04)

    HANNITY: "Stop me where I'm wrong. The president inherited a recession, the economic impact of 9/11 was tremendous on the economy, correct?" (4/6/04)

    HANNITY: "[President George W. Bush] did inherit a recession." (5/3/04)

    HANNITY: "[W]e got [the weak U.S. economy] out of the Clinton-Gore recession." (5/18/04)

    HANNITY: "We got out of the Clinton-Gore recession." (5/27/04)

    HANNITY: "We got out of the Clinton-Gore recession." (6/4/04)

    FACT: "The recession officially began in March of 2001 -- two months after Bush was sworn in -- according to the universally acknowledged arbiter of such things, the National Bureau of Economic Research. And the president, at other times, has said so himself." (Washington Post, 7/1/03)

    HANNITY: "The Hispanic community got to know him in Texas. They went almost overwhelming for him. He more than quadrupled the Hispanic vote that he got in that state." (9/16/03)

    FACT: Exit polls varied in 1998 governors race, but under best scenario he increased his Hispanic vote from 24 to 49 percent – a doubling not a quadrupling. He lost Texas Hispanics to Gore in 2000, 54-43 percent. (Source: NCLR, NHCSL)

    HANNITY: "Look, we've had these reports, very disturbing reports -- and I have actually spoken to people that have confirmed a lot of the reports -- about the trashing of the White House. Pornographic materials left in the printers. They cut the phone lines. Lewd and crude messages on phone machines. Stripping of anything that was not bolted down on Air Force One. $200,000 in furniture taken out." (1/26/01)

    TRUTH: According to statements from the General Services Administration that were reported on May 17, little if anything out of the ordinary occurred during the transition, and "the condition of the real property was consistent with what we would expect to encounter when tenants vacate office space after an extended occupancy." (FAIR)

    HANNITY: "I never questioned anyone's patriotism." (9/18/03)

    FACT:

    HANNITY: (to attorney Stanley Cohen) "Is it you hate this president or that you hate America?" (4/30/03)

    HANNITY: "Governor, why wouldn't anyone want to say the Pledge of Allegiance, unless they detested their own country or were ignorant of its greatness?" (6/12/03)

    HANNITY: "You could explain something about your magazine, [the Nation]. Lisa Featherstone writing about the hate America march, the [anti-war] march that took place over the weekend..." (1/22/03)

    HANNITY: "'I hate America.' This is the extreme left. There is a portion of the left -- not everybody who's left -- that does hate this country and blame this country for the ills of the world..." (1/23/02)

    HANNITY: (speaking to Sara Flounders co-director of the International Action Center) "You don't like this country, do you? You don't -- you think this is an evil country. By your description of it right here, you think it's a bad country." (9/25/01)

    HANNITY: "It doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution this idea of the separation of church and state." (8/25/03)

    FACT: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." (1st Amendment)

    "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." (Article VI)

    HANNITY: "You want to refer to some liberal activist judge..., that's fine, but I'm going to go directly to the source. The author of the Bill of Rights [James Madison] hired the first chaplain in 1789, and I gotta' tell ya' somethin', I think the author of the Bill of Rights knows more about the original intent--no offense to you and your liberal atheist activism--knows more about it than you do." (9/4/02)

    TRUTH: The first congressional chaplains weren't hired by James Madison--they were appointed by a committee of the Senate and House in, respectively, April and May, 1789, before the First Amendment even existed. James Madison's view: "Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative." (James Madison)

    HANNITY: "But the Alabama Constitution, which Chief Justice Roy Moore is sworn to uphold, clearly it says, as a matter of fact that the recognition of God is the foundation of that state's Constitution." (8/21/03)

    FACT: While the preamble of the Alabama Constitution does reference "the Almighty," section three provides: "That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles." (Alabama Constitution, Section 3)

    HANNITY: Betsy, they're not going to lose it [public housing], because if you work less than 30 hours a week -- if you work more than 30 hours a week, you don't have to do it. If you're between the ages of 18 and 62 and you're not legally disabled and you have free housing -- in other words...

    BETSY MCCAUGHEY: No. Wait a second, Sean. Let me correct you. Most people in public housing are not receiving free housing. Many of them are paying almost market rates.

    HANNITY: Betsy, that is so ridiculous and so false, it's hardly even worth spending the time. (10/23/03)

    FACT: Residents of public housing pay rent scaled to their household's anticipated gross annual income, less deductions for dependents and disabilities. The basic formula for rent is 30 percent of this monthly adjusted income. There are exceptions for extremely low incomes, but the minimum rent is $25 per month. No one lives in public housing for free. (Department of Housing and Urban Development)

    HANNITY: "The Kerry campaign wants to cut taxes on people who make two hundred thousand dollars. She [Teresa Heinz Kerry] only paid 14.7 percent of her income in taxes, because their plan doesn't go to dividends, only income. So they don't want to tax themselves." (5/12/04)

    FACT: Kerry's plan would "Restore the capital gains and dividend rates for families making over $200,000 on income earned above $200,000 to their levels under President Clinton. (Kerry Press Release, 4/7/04)

    HANNITY: "He's [Kerry's] flip-flopped all over the place... on the issue of Iraq. All the munitions that we have built up, most of them wouldn't be there." (1/30/04)

    HANNITY: "But he wanted to cancel��???every major weapons system. Specific votes that he would have canceled the weapons systems we now use." (2/26/04)

    FACT: "In 1991, Kerry opposed an amendment to impose an arbitrary 2 percent cut in the military budget. In 1992, he opposed an amendment to cut Pentagon intelligence programs by $1 billion. In 1994, he voted against a motion to cut $30.5 billion from the defense budget over the next five years and to redistribute the money to programs for education and the disabled. That same year, he opposed an amendment to postpone construction of a new aircraft carrier. In 1996, he opposed a motion to cut six F-18 jet fighters from the budget. In 1999, he voted against a motion to terminate the Trident II missile." (Slate, 2/25/04)

    HANNITY: "If he (Kerry) had his way and the CIA would almost be nonexistent." (1/30/04)

    FACT: John Kerry has supported $200 billion in intelligence funding over the past seven years - a 50 percent increase since 1996.

    Kerry votes supporting intelligence funding:

    FY03 Intel Authorization $39.3-$41.3 Billion
    [2002, Unanimous Senate Voice Vote 9/25/02]

    FY02 Intel Authorization $33 Billion
    [2001, Unanimous Senate Voice Vote 12/13/01]

    FY01 Intel Authorization $29.5-$31.5 Billion
    [2000, Unanimous Senate Voice Vote 12/6/00]

    FY00 Intel Authorization $29-$30 Billion
    [1999, Unanimous Senate Voice Vote 11/19/1999]

    FY99 Intel Authorization $29.0 Billion
    [1998, Unanimous Senate Voice Vote 10/8/98]

    FY98 Intel Authorization $26.7 Billion
    [1997, Senate Roll Call Vote #109]

    FY97 Intel Authorization $26.6 Billion
    [1996, Unanimous Senate Voice Vote 9/25/96]

    Dope, the USFS has notta to do with the houses that aren't IN the USF that got burned because the land owners were not allowed to cut any trees or thin on their OWN property w/out risking fines incorporated by the left wing tree huggers! Hope yopu didn't waste too much of your time scouring the internet for that left wing cover up/article.

    Posted by: royalking at June 27, 2007 6:26 PM

    Perhaps you missed the part about:

    A.-There's no proof that thinning helps, and

    B.-There is something they could have done to help, and didn't.

    Go back and re-read the article and have your mom help you with the big words if you run into trouble.

    (And don't worry if she teases you because you move your mouth when you read, it's one of the reasons why she loves you so much!)

    Coulter's Words Help Edwards Raise Cash
    By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
    2 hours ago

    WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said Wednesday that conservative author Ann Coulter's attacks are hurtful and it's important that he respond to them.

    While Edwards made his first comments to The Associated Press in response to Coulter's suggestion that she wished he would be "killed in a terrorist assassination plot," his campaign was also using her remarks to bring in donations in the final week before the next fundraising deadline.

    It's not the first time Coulter has given the Edwards campaign a financial boost. In March, she called Edwards a "faggot" and the campaign used video of the comment to help raise $300,000 before the end of the first quarter.

    The campaign has sent two e-mails to supporters this week, asking them to send donations to defy her remarks and help Edwards meet his goal of raising $9 million in the second quarter ending Saturday. The first e-mail from campaign adviser Joe Trippi showed a clip of Coulter on ABC's "Good Morning America," where she said Monday that she wished Edwards would be killed by terrorists.

    When Coulter appeared Tuesday on MSNBC's "Hardball," Elizabeth Edwards called in to ask Coulter to stop making personal attacks on her husband. The exchanged deteriorated, with Coulter shouting over Mrs. Edwards and demanding that the campaign stop using her name to raise money if they want her to stop personal attacks. Response to the controversy was so large that it repeatedly crashed the server for MSNBC's political blog Wednesday.

    Mrs. Edwards followed up with an e-mail to supporters Wednesday morning that included a clip of their exchange and a donation request. The campaign said they raised more money this week than from any previous e-mail campaign, but declined to give a total.

    "I think when they engage in these attacks and use the language of hate, it's very important to stand up," Edwards said. "What happens if you are silent when this kind of hateful language is used _ not just by her, but by anyone _ hate gets a foothold."

    Edwards pointed out that Coulter's attacks haven't been limited to him, but also included his rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination. Coulter has made fun of Hillary Rodham Clinton's legs and compared Barack Obama to terrorists because his middle name is Hussein.

    "What she said about Senator Clinton and Senator Obama is outrageous," Edwards said. "And somebody has to stand up when she makes these kind of attacks."

    If Coulter didnt want Edwards to raise money she should keep her horribly distasteful comments to herself.

    >If Coulter didnt want Edwards to raise money she should keep her horribly distasteful comments to herself.

    Posted by: StealThisOpinion at June 27, 2007 6:57 PM

    In the 'Marketplace of Ideas' the NeoCons would be the 'Unintended Consequences 'R' Us'

    Instead of Geoffrey the Giraffe, they'd have Cheney the Great White Elephant.

    I like how Cheney doesn't want to held accountable for anything he's done in filling his role in an 'elected office' as 'public servant.'

    Makes me grow fond of the good old days when he only invaded sovereign countries, tortured people and got liquored up and shot his friend in the face.

    What happened in 'Indiana Jones' to the eveeeel black hooded muslim wielding a scimitar (not machete, you moron. At least get your bigotry straight)

    ROFLMAO!!

    THE BLACK HOODS SPORTING 3' MACHETES ARE COMING!!!
    RUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUN!!
    HIDE THE BOVINES AND GOLD DIGGING HARPIES FIRST!!


    Posted by: Average American Patriot at June 27, 2007 5:36 PM


    I suppose what happened to them was that they managed to start going abroad and killing people.

    But let's briefly touch on the fact that you're typing from a computer largely made of petroleum products and that it's probable that all the things surrounding you are too.

    It's statements such as yours that prove Cee right in his contention that you don't care much about anything really, but some sort domestic squabble with the right.

    Therefore, I'll state this in a way that might cause you concern. Imagine that James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and all the members of the Christian Coalition owned the most geopolitically vital region on earth. Your independence from what they have, even with your best efforts, is still a generation or more away in terms of broad viability.

    Guess what... James and Pat are pretty ...eh... rigid....types... who now that they have your complete attention, won't share very much with you unless you agree to teach kids Creationism in school.

    There's your kind of Caliphate, AAP. Maybe it will hold some concern for you and not be such a matter of mere paranoia when its put in terms of your own scrawny little enemies...

    Then didnt tell the president that he shot a man in the face. He found out via news reports. What a good vice president.

    Uh, cecelia. Its still two muslims sects fighting. NO matter who wins its still gonna be a case of one school of thought forcing upon the other school of thought.

    Just a thought.

    I agree with Cee.

    Posted by: Cecelia at June 27, 2007 5:20 PM

    Noooooooooooooooooooo

    What a surprise !

    Posted by: at June 27, 2007 7:08 PM


    And you don't?

    I'm shocked!

    Uh, cecelia. Its still two muslims sects fighting. NO matter who wins its still gonna be a case of one school of thought forcing upon the other school of thought.

    Just a thought.

    Posted by: StealThisOpinion at June 27, 2007 7:11 PM


    Is this what you tell yourself when get in a voting booth?

    No, when I get in the voting booth I think that we need to do something about these fucking crooks in office. What do you tell yourself? Tell yourself that these guys have your best interests at heart? That they are doing what they do under the direct of God?

    No. The crying is being done by the thousands of humans who are left to live out their lives without their loved ones who were lost because of a bunch of moralistic, hypocrite, punk bastards who think they are above the law, our constitution and oversite.

    Posted by: codas at June 27, 2007 6:37 PM

    1.Should I post the list of dumbocrats that voted for the war? Are they immune from any responsibility through your goggles?

    2. Slob, aren't you tired of throwing the "why don't you serve" spew around? I'm too old, ok? Otherwise, I would be GLAD to go and throw some lead!

    3. STOIC, I live right on the edge of the EL Dorado NF and you don't have a clue about living in the forest since you live in a concrete jungle. Yes, thinning helps, you f'ing idiot. In my county (conservative) we are required to keep a 100' defensible space around any dwelling. There was huge fire on the other side of the mountain from me last summer and guess what, idiot, no homes were burn't. Proof, you idiot, thinning works!

    I'm so proud of you, you actually have something to back up what you say! Its like watching a kid ride his first bike...Dont fall off!!

    No, when I get in the voting booth I think that we need to do something about these fucking crooks in office. What do you tell yourself? Tell yourself that these guys have your best interests at heart? That they are doing what they do under the direct of God?

    Posted by: StealThisOpinion at June 27, 2007 7:17 PM

    Will what would it matter if we had Dems in, it's all just two sets of folks vying to have their way, as you've stated.

    Bush and Cheney are criminals... but tolitarian dictators over countries that really are little more theocracies and sitting on regions that are the most vital on earth, merely get an expression of the sort of relativism that most eight year olds would be too smart to utter.

    So thats why we invaded Iraq? Because of the totalitarian dictator that was sitting on our oil? What about Hugo Chavez? INVADE Venezuela!

    Yes, it would matter if we had dems in. I do not follow party lines based on party lines. Crimes are Crimes, whether they are crimes against humanity or your country, or legal crimes.

    I asked you a question:

    What do you tell yourself? That these guys have your best interests at heart? That they are doing what they do under the direct of God? That you should always support the GOP??

    So royalking is too old to serve - as good a reason as there is.

    cee isn't. I think he said he was 38 or something. And his being a doctor would probably allow induction at much greater ages - I've read of such cases.

    but tolitarian dictators over countries that really are little more theocracies and sitting on regions that are the most vital on earth, merely get an expression of the sort of relativism that most eight year olds would be too smart to utter.

    Posted by: Cecelia at June 27, 2007 7:29 PM


    I'm confused, STO; is she talking about Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and Saudi Arabia?

    So thats why we invaded Iraq? Because of the totalitarian dictator that was sitting on our oil? What about Hugo Chavez? INVADE Venezuela!

    Yes, it would matter if we had dems in. I do not follow party lines based on party lines. Crimes are Crimes, whether they are crimes against humanity or your country, or legal crimes.

    I asked you a question:

    What do you tell yourself? That these guys have your best interests at heart? That they are doing what they do under the direct of God? That you should always support the GOP??


    Posted by: StealThisOpinion at June 27, 2007 7:33 PM


    It depends on who you talk to and what day if you want to know the reasons for why we invaded Iraq.

    But one of the reasons-- that if things don't improve in the Middle East that it will threaten the West and democracy in general, in a way that will make the Soviets look cute-- is a valid.

    I stated this in answer to AAP's idiotic statements that this concern is mere paranoia.

    You can disagree with any plan to try and democracize the region, worry that we havemade things worsse and gods knows you can disagree with the Iraq War as a means for doing it.

    What you can't do is act like it's ridiculous to be gravely concerned as AAP did.

    That's beyond stupid. It's suicidal.

    I'm confused, STO; is she talking about Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and Saudi Arabia?

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at June 27, 2007 7:37 PM

    We're lucky they're friendly to us currently and we've been smart to cultivate that. That could change over night with an assassination. That's the nature of these sorts of regimes.

    I'm all about democracy in the middle east, what I am not about is forcing democracy or for that matter, forcing any idea upon a group of people...Especially using military force to do so.

    Once again, I ASKED YOU A QUESTION:

    WHAT DO YOU THINK WHEN YOU ENTER A VOTING BOOTH?

    Are you fucking blind?

    Yeah, things need to get better over there, but whos the blame for the situation that is going on over there right now...Yeah, thats US. We're not helping over there.

    I'm all about democracy in the middle east, what I am not about is forcing democracy or for that matter, forcing any idea upon a group of people...Especially using military force to do so.

    Once again, I ASKED YOU A QUESTION:

    WHAT DO YOU THINK WHEN YOU ENTER A VOTING BOOTH?

    Are you fucking blind?

    Yeah, things need to get better over there, but whos the blame for the situation that is going on over there right now...Yeah, thats US. We're not helping over there.

    Posted by: StealThisOpinion at June 27, 2007 7:55 PM


    I do what you do in a voting booth. I vote for the people i think will be best for the short and long term interests of our country.

    What I don't do, and what you seem to reserve only for those bad guys who don't have (R) after their names, is to view things from the standpoint of our and their moral equivalency.

    So you consider suspending Habeus Corpus, Condoning Torture, Fighting a war without Merit, Creating a wall of secrecy in OUR Government by Claiming to be a fourth branch of government that is outside oversight among other things, and hiring and firing based on political affiliations in the best interest of this country in the short and long term?

    Interesting point of view...please, tell me more.

    No, I already told you, I dont follow party lines. I vote for whos not gonna be a fucking crook. I vote for those who have my best interests in mind, not the best interests of the companies I buy shit from.

    So royalking is too old to serve ....

    Not really. Just too chicken to serve. He'd knock over an entire squadron running back to the barracks, knees knocking and the damp stain spreading on the front of his trousers, the first time he saw an Iraqi woman with a butter knife. But, I am glad he is a coward. Can you imagine how badly the war would be going if he were active? We're better off with him setting in his parents' basement, in the middle of the forest, of course, emitting clarion calls to battle to entire armies of plastic soldiers and urging his President to send thousands or real soldiers to their deaths. No wonder he likes Cheney and Dr. Wiener so well. All of them are a cowardly lot of big blowhards. And, thank all the Marys in Heaven fewer than 30% of all Americans take him or them seriously anymore. Happy days are (almost) here again! They'll be no more fear again.

    Stand down, Private royalking/Jeff/poormikey/the Factor, etc., etc. It's Bosco and time for you.

    mexican patty, even though your posts make absolutely no sense, whatsoever, you still make me laugh. For that, I thank you!
    Thanks, Patty!

    Stand down, Private royalking/Jeff/poormikey/the Factor, etc., etc. It's Bosco and time for you.

    Posted by: Clucker at June 27, 2007 8:37 PM

    I've asked before and I'l ask again. Where and when did you serve?

    President Clinton claimed Executive Privilege for his wife and prevailed.

    President Clinton claimed Executive Privilege for his PR guy, Blumenthal, and lost.

    My memory fails me sometimes so I would appreciate anyone with a better memory correcting me if this didn't happen

    Didn't he claim Executive Privilege for Monica Lewinsky on the grounds that she was part of The Executive and served him AT HIS PLEASURE in the Oval Office? :)

    Did he win that one?

    Grammie

    I've asked before and I'l ask again. Where and when did you serve?

    Posted by: royalking at June 27, 2007 8:52 PM
    -----
    In a magnificient white palace on the edge of a forest inhabited by woodnymphs and satyrs and big soft bunnies, much like your special place.

    Alas, Wienerenvy, I was old enough for Vietnam but only did my time in JAG. I can't say I was interested in "throwing some lead," but I have no great stories of valor to share, no great excitement. I regret I have to confess I was never wounded. One just does what one is called to do, however mundane, although I suspect it is a damn sight better than you have ever done.

    ....but tolitarian dictators over countries that really are little more theocracies and sitting on regions that are the most vital on earth, merely get an expression of the sort of relativism that most eight year olds would be too smart to utter.

    Posted by: Cecelia at June 27, 2007 7:29 PM

    I'm confused, STO; is she talking about Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and Saudi Arabia?

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at June 27, 2007 7:37 PM

    We're lucky they're friendly to us currently and we've been smart to cultivate that. That could change over night with an assassination. That's the nature of these sorts of regimes.

    Posted by: Cecelia at June 27, 2007 7:49 PM


    So... YOUR moral relativism...is ...good? - or was it "moral equivalency?

    Keep trying, Cecelia, maybe I'll get it some day.

    So, you cooked? Swabbed decks? Don't think I didn't already know what you were going to say. I know your former name, too. I was just confirming and you opined, we'll make it our little secret. Although, regulars probably have figured it out by now.

    Didn't he claim Executive Privilege for Monica Lewinsky on the grounds that she was part of The Executive and served him AT HIS PLEASURE in the Oval Office? :)

    Did he win that one?

    Grammie


    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at June 27, 2007 8:55 PM

    Grammie, its always a good thing when our government officials are forced to give up their secrets - whatever party.

    Swabbed decks?
    -----
    You watch too much television. JAG is not just Navy, and although I look smashing in white ....
    But enough about me.
    How did Group go today?

    So... YOUR moral relativism...is ...good? - or was it "moral equivalency?

    Keep trying, Cecelia, maybe I'll get it some day.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at June 27, 2007 9:21 PM


    So you want invasion...

    I'm not sure you'll ever to be able to "get it" if you believe that trying to stay friendly with the few friends we do have in the region, because it's in our national interest to do so, is a sell-out of some sort.

    I'm not sure you'll ever to be able to "get it" if you believe that trying to stay friendly with the few friends we do have in the region, because it's in our national interest to do so, is a sell-out of some sort.

    Posted by: Cecelia at June 27, 2007 10:40 PM


    Um...but Cecelia, you were the one who said that the reason for our enmity against Iraq and Iran was because they are/were led by "tolitarian dictators over countries that really are little more theocracies and sitting on regions that are the most vital on earth". .

    You have already tacitly concurred with my application of your criteria above to other countries on the region that your leaders describe as our dear friends and allies. Niether Iraq or Iran has ever attacked or feasibly threatened the US, any more than have Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and Saudi Arabia (arguably consideraly LESS than Saudi Arabia). So on what basis do you cheer military assaults on Iran and Iraq, yet nod in "realist" contentment regarding our close association and financial support of other countries entirely morally equivalent with our current enemies, except for the fact that we haven't yet started wars with these latter nations?

    Cecelia. You said that when you go into a voting booth you keep "think whats best for this country in the short term and long term". Well, since you missed this one...

    Do you consider suspending Habeus Corpus, Condoning Torture, Fighting a war without Merit, Creating a wall of secrecy in OUR Government by Claiming to be a fourth branch of government that is outside oversight among other things, and hiring and firing based on political affiliations to be in the best interest of this country in the short and long term?

    Sir Loin. The answer is so easy. It lies with the nickname "Bandar Bush" or that picture of Dubya holding hands with a member of the Saudi Royal Familiy. Or the 3.5 Billion dollars they have given Bush and his family.

    All Saddam ever did was "try to kill [Bush's] daddy"

    Um...but Cecelia, you were the one who said that the reason for our enmity against Iraq and Iran was because they are/were led by "tolitarian dictators over countries that really are little more theocracies and sitting on regions that are the most vital on earth". .

    You have already tacitly concurred with my application of your criteria above to other countries on the region that your leaders describe as our dear friends and allies. Niether Iraq or Iran has ever attacked or feasibly threatened the US, any more than have Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and Saudi Arabia (arguably consideraly LESS than Saudi Arabia). So on what basis do you cheer military assaults on Iran and Iraq, yet nod in "realist" contentment regarding our close association and financial support of other countries entirely morally equivalent with our current enemies, except for the fact that we haven't yet started wars with these latter nations?

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at June 27, 2007 10:54 PM


    This is what I said in the context of AAP implying that it is paranoia to consider "the guys in sandals" a threat:

    "Therefore, I'll state this in a way that might cause you concern. Imagine that James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and all the members of the Christian Coalition owned the most geopolitically vital region on earth. Your independence from what they have, even with your best efforts, is still a generation or more away in terms of broad viability.

    Guess what... James and Pat are pretty ...eh... rigid....types... who now that they have your complete attention, won't share very much with you unless you agree to teach kids Creationism in school.

    There's your kind of Caliphate, AAP. Maybe it will hold some concern for you and not be such a matter of mere paranoia when its put in terms of your own scrawny little enemies..."


    It is not simply a matter of their ONLY being dicatorships and theocracies. They are dictatorships and theocracies in a region that is of global importance to the West.

    They are all the above WITH resources that could be used to pressure us to the point that we must change radically and in ways that you wouldn't find too pleasant.

    I also stated:

    "You can disagree with any plan to try and democracize the region, worry that we havemade things worsse and gods knows you can disagree with the Iraq War as a means for doing it.

    What you can't do is act like it's ridiculous to be gravely concerned as AAP did."


    The notion that maintaining friends with dictorships when you can and when it is in your national interest to do so, because you might just get something worse.... if you don't.... shouldn't be too hard for you to comprehend, with your views...now should it...

    "But rest assured, neither the red-ass baboon post or the umpteenth time rant about "my patching up the troops so they can go back and shoot more innocent civilians," hurts my feelings"


    Notice that cee put in quotes as something I said something I've never said. The first part of the quote is close enough to my frequent admonitions for cee to back his own play; but "...so they can go back and shoot more innocent civilians" is entirely cee's typical kneejerk spin on my statements in this regard. This is how he rationalizes his white-feather display - by hiding behind his twisted impressions of MY moral judgment...I know, its weird.

    He is free to add such editorialism, but the invented quotations reveal the fundamental dishonesty in his seething cowardice.

    Little dilletante Dr. Goebels cowers in a bunker far from the action, writing whatever he has to in order to make himself feel better.

    Cecelia. You said that when you go into a voting booth you keep "think whats best for this country in the short term and long term". Well, since you missed this one...

    Do you consider suspending Habeus Corpus, Condoning Torture, Fighting a war without Merit, Creating a wall of secrecy in OUR Government by Claiming to be a fourth branch of government that is outside oversight among other things, and hiring and firing based on political affiliations to be in the best interest of this country in the short and long term?

    Posted by: StealThisOpinion at June 27, 2007 10:57 PM


    STO, in the midst of your doing a moral equivalency thing about "Muslim sects" fighting each other, when I mentioned something of our national interest, I asked you if you were unable to make such distinctions in a voting booth.

    Well, of course you do not. There are no other bad guys in the world but Bush/Cheney and you showed yourself unable to engage in even one post where you addressed my topic-- which was the one you had replied to in the first place.

    You then demanded that I tell you what I think in a voting booth, and I explicitly stated that I think as you think--- who is the best person for our country.

    Unfortunately, it's not enough for you to know what I think when voting..... I must also think as you do.

    Just as I am not supposed to focus, and you are completely unable to focus, for even one post, on any bad guys other than the ones running THIS country...

    You give such credence to the GIST of Cee's words:

    "In fact, Why, codas, Commis, abundant Chicken bloggers....you really don't care about the last soldier who dies in Iraq either. All you care about is the issue....the ideology....the '08 election that the slogan,

    "Who will be the last soldier to die in Iraq for Bush's mistake?"

    fits so well......"

    "They are all the above WITH resources that could be used to pressure us to the point that we must change radically and in ways that you wouldn't find too pleasant."

    You lack so much imagination and courage that could so easily be yours, Cecelia, I pity you for the rock you hide under.

    Pleasant? I find my photovoltaic roof and compost-enhanced heat pump to bring extremely pleasant and harmonious feelings to my household. Jeffersonian self-reliance and liberty in the 21st century! What could be more American.

    The ultimate unpleasantries are comprised of lost profits, and are anticipated with terror by the carbon mongers who own our politicians and enslave our society with helpless fears like those you echo. Your entire post was a wet dream for the neo-mercantilist mandarins who crave, and nearly hold, tyanny over us all.

    We already fight wars to ensure their control over the resources they sell right back to us - hell you've been saying as much yourself for the last several posts.

    Pleasant? I find my photovoltaic roof and compost-enhanced heat pump to bring extremely pleasant and harmonious feelings to my household. Jeffersonian self-reliance and liberty in the 21st century! What could be more American.

    The ultimate unpleasantries are comprised of lost profits, and are anticipated with terror by the carbon mongers who own our politicians and enslave our society with helpless fears like those you echo. Your entire post was a wet dream for the neo-mercantilist mandarins who crave, and nearly hold, tyanny over us all.

    We already fight wars to ensure their control over the resources they sell right back to us - hell you've been saying as much yourself for the last several posts.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at June 28, 2007 12:01 AM


    You right THIS and then say I lack imagination?

    In your fervert wish to see it all come crashing down, Sir Loin, let me caution you that the majority of the suffering won't be among those who hold stock in Halliburton... and that the turn our world does take very likely will not be towards an ecologically self-supporting paradise and especially not towards some Marxist utopia.

    It's very possible that we'll be bartering with some folks who make Jerry Falwell seem like Voltaire.

    In your case, that would indeed be "karma".

    "In your fervert wish to see it all come crashing down, Sir Loin, let me caution you that the majority of the suffering won't be among those who hold stock in Halliburton... and that the turn our world does take very likely will not be towards an ecologically self-supporting paradise and especially not towards some Marxist utopia."

    Take note: the goal of self-reliance, particularly in the form of local or residential production and ownership of the energy by which we run our modern lives is anathema to Cecelia's conception of American liberty.

    Mercantilism (i.e. a society being forced by government coersion or governmental market-manipulaton systemic monopoly to purchase an essential commodity from a government-allied orporate entity) is Cecelia's answer to stave off totalitarianism. Apparently clean energy independence helps the terrorists/islamo-commie-fascists, or whatever...

    But I'm a tree-hugger, what do I know.

    ...correction, it was utter economic collapse, and not totalitarianism, that Cecelia was casting as the boogieman in her admonition that we must continue to enrich our energy-peddling mandarins. Sorry for the confusion.

    Take note: the goal of self-reliance, particularly in the form of local or residential production and ownership of the energy by which we run our modern lives is anathema to Cecelia's conception of American liberty.

    Mercantilism (i.e. a society being forced by government coersion or governmental market-manipulaton systemic monopoly to purchase an essential commodity from a government-allied orporate entity) is Cecelia's answer to stave off totalitarianism. Apparently clean energy independence helps the terrorists/islamo-commie-fascists, or whatever...

    But I'm a tree-hugger, what do I know.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at June 28, 2007 12:30 AM


    Take note that to Sir Loin, an understanding that it is unlikely that we'd be energy independent to the point that withholding petroleum would not completely destablize our economy, even if Ralph Nader were crowned King for the next fifty years.... is tantamount to rejecting energy conservation, on his cartoon planet.

    ...correction, it was utter economic collapse, and not totalitarianism, that Cecelia was casting as the boogieman in her admonition that we must continue to enrich our energy-peddling mandarins. Sorry for the confusion.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at June 28, 2007 12:44 AM


    For those paranoid types who take the threat of Islamic fundamentalism seriously in the Middle East-- Sir Loin advises--- wrong boogeymen....

    Cecelia. Im not trying to get you to "think like me" as you put it. I was just wanting to know if you could justify your decision to support the men you voted into office. I never in any way said that BushCo were the only crooks out there, they definately make up a good portion but there are corrupt members of congress too, but D's and R's.

    I addressed every point that I saw made in your posts then presented my own questions. You are the one that would skip over my questions when I gave you the courtesy of answering almost the exact same questions.

    Can you explain your view to continue supporting this administration? And can you explain how they are good for "the short and long term" of this country?


    Cecelia. Im not trying to get you to "think like me" as you put it. I was just wanting to know if you could justify your decision to support the men you voted into office. I never in any way said that BushCo were the only crooks out there, they definately make up a good portion but there are corrupt members of congress too, but D's and R's.

    I addressed every point that I saw made in your posts then presented my own questions. You are the one that would skip over my questions when I gave you the courtesy of answering almost the exact same questions.

    Can you explain your view to continue supporting this administration? And can you explain how they are good for "the short and long term" of this country?

    Posted by: StealThisOpinion at June 28, 2007 3:14 AM

    Well, of course you are insisting that I think like you. That is why you took a question that I asked you--- do you take the same relativism that you express about the warring factions in the Middle East, into the voting booth here... (Of course you don't....it's not just two equals....in this case---rich white guys... vying for power...in this case...) and then turned that question into a demand that I answer this:

    "So you consider suspending Habeus Corpus, Condoning Torture, Fighting a war without Merit, Creating a wall of secrecy in OUR Government by Claiming to be a fourth branch of government that is outside oversight among other things, and hiring and firing based on political affiliations in the best interest of this country in the short and long term?"

    Nice frameup...

    Yes. That's historically true for enemy combatants.

    Yes, if by torture you mean waterboarding. Yes, too, to more, depending on what's at stake at the time.

    That's not exactly what Cheney claimed and I've already stated my feelings on Cheney's argument.

    Yes and no--- Yes, such people serve at the behest of the president. He is an elected official who was elected with a view of the world and what he feels is important that was known to the public before they entered the voting booth. No-- if appointments are asked to step down in order to protect cronies who have committed criminal acts.

    Those are my views and I vote that way. I trust you do the same based on yours.


    Take note: the goal of self-reliance, particularly in the form of local or residential production and ownership of the energy by which we run our modern lives is anathema to Cecelia's conception of American liberty.

    Mercantilism (i.e. a society being forced by government coersion or governmental market-manipulaton systemic monopoly to purchase an essential commodity from a government-allied orporate entity) is Cecelia's answer to stave off totalitarianism. Apparently clean energy independence helps the terrorists/islamo-commie-fascists, or whatever...

    But I'm a tree-hugger, what do I know.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at June 28, 2007 12:30 AM


    Take note that to Sir Loin, an understanding that it is unlikely that we'd be energy independent to the point that withholding petroleum would not completely destablize our economy, even if Ralph Nader were crowned King for the next fifty years.... is tantamount to rejecting energy conservation, on his cartoon planet.

    Posted by: Cecelia at June 28, 2007 12:47 AM

    So Cecelia clearly states as her last ditch defense of the invasion and occupation of Iraq; a rationale that when criticized in 2001 from the left and true conservative sectors of America was ridiculed and attacked from the right as radical and paranoid: OIL.

    So if Reagan had not destroyed the far-sighted energy-independence measures proposed and initiated by Carter then we would not be in this mess across the middle east, certainly not to the degree to which are? I fully agree.

    And if oil-man Bush, at the beginning of his had not allowed oil-man Cheney to erase the timid positive measures taken by Clinton and his disturbingly silent VP during their disapointing eight years and frame the current administration's energy policy around the desires and dictates of other honchos in the oil industry, then we would also be in better shape to ignore pressures from petroleum-producing banana republics.

    Cecelia appears to realize that our continued reliance on oil causes our troubles. But she ridicules and attacks my admonitions that we energetically retool our energy production into renewable, local, and residential paradigms. SHe asserts that we just gotta keep throwing our money at the corrupt and amoral industry that drives us into predatory wars, or "it" will all come "crashing down".

    Her argument is a synopsis of modern conservative policy and integrity: create a crisis or quagmire through policies sold with ephemeral rhetoric, and then - when the whole country is neck deep - declare "well here we are; what else are we supposed to do but stay the course?"

    You people are dangerous children who endanger our national security.

    Once again Sir Loin of Milquetoast projects his own inadequecies....

    This is your quote, is it not Loin?......

    "Lefties: Leave these pathetic drowning rats alone to stew in each other's juices. Get yourselves out in the street and fight this criminal administration in ways that really mean something, and that are noted by more than a handful of keyboard heroes!"


    ###
    This like many other manifestoes that litter OW from the valiant Sir Loin show a true believer....a man of deep conviction and passion. A man that has been against this war from the beginning....in fact I believe other posts even reveal aversion to the cooked-up, "global war on terror." This canard is only another tool to justify the military industrial complex that only serves to create the wealth that feeds the bloated coffers of the capitalists. Am I close Loin?

    For Loins paradigm, this war machine must have functioning parts...cogs....grunts, commanders, pilots, support personnel and yes, medical personnel.....Their individual efforts, although rhetorically exempt from judgement because they are simply following orders, contributes to the functioning of that great machination that produces the very wealth and power that is then lauded over all mankind.

    Oh, the dilemma.....

    The ture believer can simply attack the creators and beneficiaries of the MIC or work their hardest at thwarting the millions of cogs that are required for the behemoth to function....Almost a religious vigor is needed to convince the cogs of their misplaced devotion to the greater machine...a sermon of great passion is at the ready to logically present the tricks and lies used to keep the cogs applied to the task.....and Sir Loin of Milquetoast has such a cog on his list for conversion......

    cee....

    Oh to destroy this cog with splendid rational discourse that springs from the billions of neurons encased in the prize of Darwinian evolution (tear in eye!)....But wait.....he has another angle......

    Loin may destroy this cog with insults that, although he demands the transformation of a small (actually toothless) part into a contributing part to the great machine as one who actively contributes to the production of death and pain, serve to dismiss and humiliate! Yes.....by exposing the actual toothless nature of cee in his blind devotion to the MIC, Sir Loin of Milquetoast may actually destroy it!

    And yes....the object is "it." The dehumanizing nature of Loin's world-view relegates the person to the cog, the it....

    ......No Loin, your self-indulgent evaluation of people's souls in the name of justice only results in making you look all the more foolish. The imagined machine you want millions to march against is actually not the problem. Your hubris and stubborness has resulted in a person (like so many), that is so easily tricked into believing his own superiority. The prejudice and narrow-mindedness you claim to hate is actually what you have seemingly become, based on your posts as of late.

    "Rats," "red-assed baboon," cogs, a faceless MIC....your view of humanity (which includes me) is a dangerous one, Loin.....Remember the rhetoric that predated the pogroms of the 1930's and 1940's as well as the eloquent rhetoric of Lenin and Stalin......

    6/28/2007 8:18:20 AM
    Drug Rehab

    Enough bullshit about me, cee;

    Why aren't you fighting in your beloved war?

    I love the way cee and Cecelia's post have both at roughly the time begun to frantically and directly argue that economic slavery fed and enforced by war is the true pillar of our society, and it is our duty and in our best interests to pay homage to the system that they clearly acknowledge as predatory and exploitative. The corner they are backed into must be getting pretty tight.

    "Why aren't you fighting in your beloved war?"

    Loin, your answer for this question from last night will stand unchallenged based on the reasoning of my 10:06AM post.

    Loin, your answer for this question from last night will stand unchallenged based on the reasoning of my 10:06AM post.

    Posted by: cee at June 28, 2007 10:31 AM


    Reasoning? You basically say "things are in place, and it is pointless to comment". The laziest form of adolescent conservatism.

    Sir Loin,

    I'd hardly know what I thought if I weren't told it by leftward opponents on the board.

    I had no idea that in the midst of arguing that the situation in the Middle East is not a paranoid fantasy or propaganda disseminated by Big Brother, that I have also dismissed energy conservation and research AND made a last ditch effort to justify neoconservative premises.

    It's interesting that in the course of a discussion where you have dismissed my argument that we are truly under threat with references to your compost-enhanced heat post and pondered nothing more than your daily denouncement of capitalists.......you've implied that I'm the party toadie and ideologue and called me unimaginative.

    So I'll leave you to these thoughts of yours. I'll encounter them again, I'm sure, no matter the topic. They'll stray no further than where they lie.

    Well, Cecelia, apparently someone needs to clarify the implications of your beliefs for you - you clearly have no grasp on the matter.

    Let me make it easy for you, Loin....

    "The imagined machine you want millions to march against is actually not the problem. Your hubris and stubborness has resulted in a person (like so many), that is so easily tricked into believing his own superiority. The prejudice and narrow-mindedness you claim to hate is actually what you have seemingly become, based on your posts as of late."


    ###
    Or in other words......Further commenting on your premise for the inferiority of my opinion compared to your opinion would only suggest I believe your premise was real and not imaginary.

    I would be glad to discuss real issues, (even about myself), if you have any.

    ...in retrospet of cees's post from 10:06, I have to agree with one point - he is not worth arguing with.

    "he is not worth arguing with."


    ###
    What am I "worth," oh wise Loin?......

    The $3.89 of raw materials that comprises the human body.....

    Or perhaps I am actually a parasite on your universe that has yet to recognize the danger that I truly pose.

    When you get personal Loin, all sorts of nasties can spring forth from a supposed rational brain.

    6/28/2007 9:30:30 AM
    Drug Rehab

    "Yes, if by torture you mean waterboarding. Yes, too, to more, depending on what's at stake at the time."

    You're pathetic.

    What about putting inmates in cuffs, force them to stand on a bucket, put a hood over their head and then let a dog try to attack them but be held about 6 inches away...I would find that a little unnerving. Or what about being forced to create a human pyramid while covered in your own shit and naked? Or what about just being covered in your own shit? Do you condone any of that? We've done it

    Have you seen ANY of the pictures from the Abu Ghraib prison?

    http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444

    theres a website with them if you want to know what you vote for to continue. Waterboarding is one of the least of our worries.

    "Yes. That's historically true for enemy combatants."

    So who gives a shit about liberty for all, gotcha.

    Oh yeah, what about this man that we BEAT TO DEATH...http://www.antiwar.com/rothschild/?articleid=2615

    Im so glad that you feel compelled to protect your fellow man, you really make this world a better place.

    What am I "worth," oh wise Loin?......

    The $3.89 of raw materials that comprises the human body.....

    Or perhaps I am actually a parasite on your universe that has yet to recognize the danger that I truly pose.

    When you get personal Loin, all sorts of nasties can spring forth from a supposed rational brain.

    Posted by: cee at June 28, 2007 11:12 AM


    Its sad when one's rhetorical opponent crumbles into a heap of self pity, but what can be done?

    One last thing...Wasnt one of the major reasons we wanted Saddam out because he condoned and used Torture? Does that same standard not apply to us?

    Looks like Dollar is blocking me from the 27th of June board...

    ...at least royalking got through...

    I'll answer my question for you then, Sir Loin of Milquetoast....

    As one of your "pathetic drowning rats," I guess I am the latter in your evaluation....the parasite.....

    I guess the next logical question would then be...."When will Darwinism eradicate the petulant parasite off the teat of the universe?"

    STO,

    Perhaps you missed it last night night, but Cecelia has retreated to the "its all about the oil, but that's alright" position. She stated clearly that is is fine that we support rotten oil dictators in the region as long as they are our rotten oil dictators, and has unequivocally stated that our wars are waged to the end of preserving the access to oil of American energy companies.

    For example, we FINALLY decided to help some of the smaller tribal countries in Africa...guess what? We did it only after a week after one of the oil fields was attacked...Who saw that one coming? Oil is the only thing that will get our government moving. Oh, that and wanting to spy on and torture our people.

    So we've figured out that Cecelia pretty much just supports whatever this administration throws out there, blindly i might add, then comes up with half ass defenses for her beliefs. I see it all now, Cecelia is obviously I highly paid executive for some company that Bush's horrible policies are to the advantage of. "I can see clearly now the rain has gone..."

    So we've figured out that Cecelia pretty much just supports whatever this administration throws out there, blindly i might add, then comes up with half ass defenses for her beliefs. I see it all now, Cecelia is obviously I highly paid executive for some company that Bush's horrible policies are to the advantage of. "I can see clearly now the rain has gone..."

    Posted by: StealThisOpinion at June 28, 2007 11:57 AM


    You didn't "figure out" anything, you asked me, because this only thing you find relevant in any disucssion.

    I had already stated that the reason you asked was because it's not enough for you to know that I vote my conscience or that I assume you do too.

    BTW-- I like your stereotypal boogeyman label much better than the gold-digging trophy wife one some other truth-seeker handed me.

    Oh no! Nicky has figured us all out! What will we do?

    My names not nick, dumbfuck.

    And two, Wasnt one of the major reasons we wanted Saddam out because he condoned and used Torture? Does that same standard not apply to us?

    Three, Have you seen the pictures from Abu Ghraib, I cant imagine anyone condoning what we have put HUMAN BEINGS through in there. Well, unless you're a spinless, heartless, bitch.

    Four, Vote on consience? is that a joke? Whats wrong with your consience to think that torture, lies, and wrongfully imprisoning people is a good thing?

    >Oh no! Nicky has figured us all out! What will we do?

    Posted by: royalking at June 28, 2007 12:32 PM

    Just do what you always do...

    Run from actual debate and go milk the bulls...

    >Its sad when one's rhetorical opponent crumbles into a heap of self pity, but what can be done?

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at June 28, 2007 11:31 AM

    Crumbling into self-pity is slightly better than crumbling into self-loathing, which is what PhalluCee usually does during debate.

    One- Hussein was torturing people at random, chucking them into wood chippers, gassing entire villages. Big difference then what we're doing, oh defender of the enemy.

    Two, being put in a pyramid and having your picture taken is not as bad as being thrown in previously mentioned wood chipper. Is it? 3 meals a day, all the praying to allah they can handle. Visits from Red Cross on a regular basis, free medical care, what's so bad about that? Call me spineless.

    Three, wrongfully detained? They were shooting at and killing our troops, the same ones you claim to be defending by keeping track of their deaths. That's wrongfully detained? Should we give them medals?

    One, I dont give a fucking shit who it is that is being tortured. Its happening. Its wrong. Do you feel no compassion? I bet you call yourself a christian and go to church every week, dont you?

    Two, You're an idiot. We hid prisoners from the Red Cross so they couldnt be helped. And yes, it is still wrong, no matter what else we do. Just because they get food doesnt mean we should shit on them too.

    Three, Jose Padilla. What about that Canadian citizen that we scooped up, tortured, then dropped off without any charges every being brought? No we should not give them medals. But we shouldnt cover them in shit and let dogs have their way with them.

    Defending Padilla? Wow! No surprise.

    Yes, Ill defend jose Padilla...He needs it, he wasnt allowed counsel for two years. Has he been found guilty of anything? No? I didnt think so, he's been held for over 5 years now. Was transferred as an enemy combatant to Guantanamo(family nor attorney was notified, he just disappeared to them) and nothing has come of it. Ill defend him. What about the canadian citizen? Does he matter?

    >Hussein was torturing people at random...

    And how do you know it was random? How do you know that Saddam didn't declare the people he tortured 'enemy combatants?'

    >Wrongfully detained? They were shooting at and killing our troops...

    Okay, Jeff, I realize you have a short memory, but please allow me to ring your bell. Remember when I PROVED you wrong a few months ago when you said all Gitmo prisoners were caught 'red handed' making bombs or holding guns by copying a defense department report saying some indeed were simply 'rounded up' and many have been 'let go' because of that?

    >Being put in a pyramid and having your picture taken is not as bad...

    Okay, I'm not going to ask how you KNOW how bad being stripped naked and put in a pyramid and having your picture take is... some things I just don't want to know about you Jeff...

    (One question, though: You do let the cows be on the bottom when you make a pyramid, don't you?)

    Bush isn't Evil and Cheney isn't Dumb

    What a good name. So true and so ironic. For rk, et al: The irony is Bush is Dumb and Cheney is evil.

    I thought the same thing. I was going to say something but I figured it would be fun to let the Right-Wingers think that the name was a defense of their hero's

    Bush isn't evil, bla bla bla-I don't remember anyone by your name "proving" me wrong. Because it never happened! Was it one your deranged split personalities "proving" me wrong with a media matters or moveon cut and paste?

    Okay, I'm not going to ask how you KNOW how bad being stripped naked and put in a pyramid and having your picture take is... some things I just don't want to know about you Jeff...

    -----

    Jeff's Weiner fantasies. Enough said.

    -----

    I don't remember anyone by your name "proving" me wrong.

    -----

    That's because at last night's Liberal Meeting we decided to assume you're wrong and try to prove you right on the rare occassions when, by dumb luck, you might be correct. I took the first shift. 22 March 2012, 0900 to 1700 Hours.

    Wow, you olbyloons claim the "pyramid" crap at Gitmo a "horrible crime" now you are making lite of it. Which is it, horrible or ok? Liberal hypocrisy, indeed.

    now you are making lite of it.
    ----
    Actually, we are make light of you. No one laughs with you, we all laugh at you. That sort of nervous, unsettled laughter, like when someone farts in the receiving line at a formal wedding or returns from the restroom with a wet spot on the front of his pants. I'm sure you've done both many times, so you understand what I am saying.

    now you are making lite of it.
    ----
    Actually, we are making light of you. No one laughs with you, we all laugh at you. That sort of nervous, unsettled laughter, like when someone farts in the receiving line at a formal wedding or returns from the restroom with a wet spot on the front of his pants. I'm sure you've done both many times, so you understand what I am saying.

    You sound like you are experienced in that area. Who will you be next week?

    I hope you arent talking to me when you say that "I don't remember anyone by your name "proving" me wrong"...And When i post my websites I try not to use a notably liberal source...I figured you would just scream it was some bullshit site that isnt real and blah blah blah. I know I've used a few, but only when they are citing another source for the article...Ya know, citing your source, somethign I've never seen you do.

    Ahh, it's the appearance of another liberal loon who insists on using dubious "sources" they think are REAL news sources. I know that watching Olbermann makes them THINK that DU, Kos, etc. are real news sources, but sorry, not here in the real world.

    Instead of stealing an opinion-why don't you steal a clue instead? It sounds like you could really use one or two.

    Wow Brandon did you come up with that all by yourself? So, you want real sources, Ive never posted a dailykos reference, ive posted one media matters that I can think of. Ive posted a couple from fox, a couple from the WSJ, a few from the WaPo, one from ABC News.

    Are those real sources?

    Will Puss Gut Moore be going to "Cooba" for his next round of lypo surgery, since things are so good over there? I highly doubt it. Your point to that post was?