The American Spectator

Darin| 5.8.09 @ 7:40AM

The baseball umpire analogy is spot-on. Obama wants the umpire to rig the game. It's like Animal Farm - some animals are more equal than others.

Michael L. Hauschild| 5.8.09 @ 7:55AM

In order to placate the left the nominee replacement for Souter will have to be to his left, really not that difficult to push through, after all Souter was a "Republican" product. The court will not change direction with this particular choice, nor will it track right or left with the next if health issues become a Ginsberg concern. What needs remain in focus for the conservative practitioner is the economic ramifications of taxation, regulation, and the erosion of our rights. The grandstanding so ingrained in the Senate and enabled by the administration's allies in the MSM, always exists as a distraction what we cannot let it become is a diversion. Do not "take your eye off the ball."

Dave Mathewsinnerchild| 5.8.09 @ 9:00AM

You ignorant right wing Coulter puppets just don't get it.

We Opressed Victims of White American Males of European Descent - we heterophobes, we greenies, we feminists, we race baters, we unions and, last but not least, we Noblesse Oblige Narcissist Liberals - are now banded together as a bundle - a fasces, if you will. The lash that binds us together? RIGHTEOUS HATE, you Neanderthals. WE RIGHTEOUSLY HATE YOU AND EVERYTHING YOUR CRETINOUS AMERICA STANDS FOR.

What do we love? POWER. And thanks to the ascendance of The Big O, we are IN POWER. Quake before us, scum!

We are going to crush all of you myrmidons of Cheney with extreme prejudice, and it's gonna be more fun than a NAMBLA sleepover.

You want justice? I got your justice right here. And it's whatever I say it is. You can run, but you can't hide. We're gonna make the Rein of Terror look like a glee club picnic.

We've made it to the Presidency, the Supreme Court and Congress, you breeders, you odious Christians, you teabaggers who think you're entitled to the money you've worked your pathetic tradition-revering posteriors off to earn.

Your selfish expectation that you can live your lives somehow away from my bootheel infringes on my right to pursue happiness. And I will only be happy when your head is rolling away from a guillotine.

Oops. Gotta run. My welfare check is here. SUCKAH!

Doorgunner| 5.8.09 @ 10:15AM

http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1/
http://dmathew1.dailykos.com/
dmathew1@yahoo.com

The geocities homepage is priceless comedy gold.

Echelon| 5.8.09 @ 11:02AM

Dang Dave. At least you have the courage of your convictions. Think about you:
tree-hugger naturalist: check
anti-technology zealot: check
anti-humanity: check
raving egomaniac: check
neurotic need to express your desires that civilization goes down in flames: check

The only reason I know you aren't living in a shack in the woods like Ted Kaczynski is because you somehow manage to post here all day. But really, if I were you I'd be praying to whatever force in the universe you place your faith in that nothing or no one starts blowing up anytime soon because you have an "I am an eco-terrorist!" target painted on you that the FBI can see from Saturn and you're not that hard to find.

Anthony| 5.8.09 @ 11:21AM

You mean a not so nuclear option, a quasi-like filibuster, or filibuster lite? Filibusters of judicial nominees are unconstitutional. Problem is, there are no more R weasels to pull off a gang of 14 either, they're all in Obama's big tent. As said in the past, an arcane senate rule on cloture that requires 60 votes to get a vote on a nominee violates Art 2 Sec.2 of the Constitution, plain and simple.
That said, since the Democrats and Obama have no use for the rule of law, by all means go for it, as long as we recognize the intellectual vacuity of doing so. We conservatives can be radicals for a day... the ends justify the means....we demand a Schmuck Schumer like litmus test that demands Obama's nominees be "mainstream". Time for Rush and Levin to get all those Schmuck Schumer quotes out of storage. Let's blow this whole thing sky high, while we're at it. Hello Janet, time for another memo.

Dave Mathewsinnerchild| 5.8.09 @ 11:31AM

Well, Echelon, inner and outer child might be with you, but you lost middle child with the word "think."

That's hate speech to a liberal, you know.

Middle Child has already started the ball rolling on suing you for your insensitive, offensive, bigoted, homophobic, racist speech. I can't wait till all of you conservatives are silenced and thrown into the Tolerance Pit.

Maybe you've heard of Middle Child's lawyer: Sonia Sotomayor, who, praise be to Allah, is the most likely next Supreme Court Justice - and boy, is she qualified! She double- majored in Empathy and Marxist Theology at Lesbian - or was the Lesley? - College. Those Sister Schools always confuse me.

Serendipitously for her, both majors' requirements were satisfied by attending a single weekend seminar titled, "Militant Women's Militant Studies vis a vis White European Male Oppressors and the Rights They Have Denied Militant Lesbians."

Great course, but she was hoarse (horse?) after just reading the syllabus.

She's such an effective empath/lawyer that she once got a stop sign convicted for hate speech. But it was overturned when the Iowa Supreme Court decided the sign was exclusively addressing the right.

Gotta run. The Cub Scout has chewed through the duct tape. He's a fighter!

Bob Miller| 5.8.09 @ 1:14PM

It would be unseemly for two of the branches of our Federal Government to continue abrogating the US Constitution on their own. They need the third to join in now to make it all seem proper, and many Democrats in the judiciary stand ready for elevation to the Supreme Court to push this effort across the goal line.

The moral:

Americans let this crowd "educate" our children and grandchildren and we are now paying the steep price.

Oldefarte| 5.8.09 @ 1:35PM

The sick, pathetic mindset of liberalism can be seen from this semi-aborted, brainless imbicil, Dave Mathewsinnerchild! The bottom line of all of his/their arguments is a repeat of Obama's line to Plumber-Joe about wealth transfer, and the lifetime protection of morons such as Dave, by normal/sane people. As to Quin's excellent article, the sad part is that, try as they may, conservatives and other normal/moderate Americans now cannot prevent any court nominee which this empathetic idiot/President wants to put forth. As I've previously said, the only/proper time to stop Obama was 11/4/08----it too late now, and will be so until the 2010 and/or 2012 elections. Normal Americans have to now decide as to whether they like/want what they have awoken to realize is Obama's true, radically liberal self; or do they wish to return to traditional, middle-road politics? With all due respect to our friend, Quin, a congressional filibuster will not prevent Obama's desired outcome, but will only delay same. Unfortionately, normal American voters [and non-voters] will [and are] paying the price for their ignorance and apathy on 11/4/08!!!!!

grzmlyk| 5.8.09 @ 2:10PM

Hey oldefarte:

Read dave mathewsinnerchild's posts again. He's on your side. I think he's using satire to prove the absurdity of the liberal point of view.

Hermit| 5.8.09 @ 2:13PM

Not sure I agree with tactical filibuster however not sure in the end we will be able to stop a nominee anyhow because of the remaining RINOs.
I have read of but cannot find that there is a senate rule that requires at least one vote from the opposing part to move a nomination out of committee.
Our side has said repeatedly that a president should be able to nominate whom he chooses to the bench and they should receive an up or down vote. The Dems on the other hand sought to block, delay and smear every nominee that does not pass their litmus test, meaning everyone who doesn’t see the constitution as a living document.
Over the long haul adherence to this principled approach will result in more liberals on the bench.
I am certain in the end how to reconcile this dilemma, we play by the rules adhere to our principles and congratulate ourselves on our principled stand while the Men in Black decide on a daily basis which of our most precious rights must be adjusted to the modern requirements of the all powerful central government. If we allow the ends to justify the means as our adversaries we lose the high ground in future arguments.
Drip by drip we have lost this battle since FDR to the extent that the federal courts have changed the country beyond recognition.
I say we must delay, and educate. People need to understand in practical terms what is at risk. Rather than signaling how open we are to all many of candidates (Sessions) we need to signal that we intend to resist judicial activists. Schumer and company played that card well in the run up to each of Bush’s nominations, I think it altered who was nominated.
This nomination is not critical now in that it does not change today’s balance but who is to say 20 plus years out? A young justice will have many years to affect the balance.
We must recognize that the nature of our struggle has fundamentally changed. We are no longer disagreeing over the nuances at the edge but with the principles at the very core of our Democratic Republic. Our adversaries over the past several years have indicated clearly this is a war. As we weigh and consider the tactics and strategies we use we must give proper recognition to the ferocity and will of our opponents and decide whether we are prepared to win or lose.
Much rests on the choices we make now.

Oldefarte| 5.8.09 @ 2:40PM

grzmlyk: Possibly Dave's thoughts are satirical
[if so, my apologies], but the stated words are identical/typical of the lunatic fringe of the liberal/progressive/domestic terrorist movement that are heard, not only today, but during the radicalism of the 1960's, as well!!!!!

dave mathewsinnerchild| 5.8.09 @ 3:10PM

Oldefarte:

Let not your heart be troubled, my friend. :-)

Tom Paine| 5.8.09 @ 4:19PM

Thanks to the manner in which the president's remarks about his nominee were hacked by the right wing press -- in considerable bad faith -- it is understandable why many of you would be suspicious.

However, if you actually do listen to the entirety of his remarks, it is eminently clear -- you'd have to be deliberately ignoring it -- that Obama places the highest premium, the top priority, on a knowledge and understanding of the Constitution and a commitment to upholding the law.

Again, you could only construe his message to be a call for empathy as the most important trait of a jurist if you either listen to the edited loop on Fox or if you deliberately ignore yourself the rest of what he said.

Having said all this (and knowing how pointless this defence of Obama is around here), I would like to know exactly why "empathy" is seen as a problematic trait of a jurist.

You people make it sound as though the law were crystal clear: all one needs to do is open the Constitution and read and the instructions for how to interpret it will become instantly apparent. But if that were the case, why would the founders have provided for an independent judiciary in the first place?

The fact is, judges and justices bring their own life experiences, learning, and -- we hope -- wisdom to their interpretations of the law. A little empathy for those who are the least fortunate, the most vulnerable, can hardly be considered a bad thing.

Marc Jeric| 5.8.09 @ 4:27PM

Bravo - our new "David"! As for empathy being introduced into our Constitution I wonder how many more emanations from the penumbras will emerge to enlighten us.

Doorgunner| 5.8.09 @ 4:48PM

What supercilious twaddle. Tom Paine you, and the eponymous website, are an ass. Let us walk back. A little -or a softly racist load- of empathy should have nothing to with an estimation of an ajudged individual's compliance with the law. It's like pregnancy; you are or you aren't.

Now for the big second step. It is hardly the narrowly framed events that you describe in your first four paragraphs that make us here rednecks paranoid. It's that whole "living and/or organic document" thing we keep hearing about. Or the "modern interpretation". I'll take impartialality over "life experiences" and empathy, thank you very much.

Finally, as for your notion of an "independent judiciary", it seems you've forgot the checks and balances thing. The law arises from the will of the people, through their representatives. The judiciary administers it. Else, you have an imperious, rather than independent, judiciary.

And the imperiousness of liberals such as yourself is sufficiently nauseating.

dave mathewsinnerchild| 5.8.09 @ 5:29PM

(Way to go, Tom Paine!!! I love it! The audacity of rope-a-dope!)

Hey all you dumb conservatives! Listen to Tom Paine! Who you gonna believe, us or your lying eyes? Obama NEVER said that about empathy!

You probably think that on this video http://www.verumserum.com/?p=5247 Sonia Sotomayer said, . . . . "Court of Appeals is where policy is made, and I know this is on tape and I should never say that .”

We ALL know Dick Cheney manipulated that vdioe. What she ACTUALLY said was, "my, isn't it a lovely day? I think I'll lunch out of doors today."

When are you moronic conservatives going to understand that Obama is INCAPABLE of lying? He only wants what's good for Amerika! He is the Way! He is the Light! He is the HOPE! SEIG HEIL, MEIN FUHRER!

(Sorry Tom. Got a little carried away).

Tom Paine| 5.8.09 @ 6:14PM

Doorgunner --

You make it sound as though "empathy" should actually disqualify someone from consideration.

I think you over-idealize and considerably over-estimate "impartiality," something I'm very skeptical about. Generally we look at a decision as "impartial" if we agree with it.

You also make it sound as though interpretation of the Constitution is an easy, obvious, and transparent process. That does not reflect reality.

ds80| 5.8.09 @ 6:22PM

davemathewsinnerchild: pseudonym for Screwtape

:-) Keep on keeping on.

Even if it goes way above the heads of many, here.

dave mathewsinnerchild| 5.8.09 @ 6:49PM

Thanks, ds80. Fire with fire. :-)

You tell 'em Tom! (Well, of course, interpretation of the constitution is easy, obivous and transparent when it comes to our side - We of the Perpetually Pure and Good motives. I had a professor explain it to me once: Minority stance = oppression; oppression = grievance; grievance = civil right; civil right = constitutional right. ERGO - that's a legal term, right? - all we need to do as victims of European White Males Who Refuse To Admit It Is They Who Are Responsible for All of the Injustice That's Ever Been Perpretrated On This Planet is get in touch with our feelings, conjure an issue about which we might possibly be offended and Abracadabra, it's our constitutional right to have what we want!

I LOVE this game! Is this a great country or what (now that Big O is calling the shots)?

Like in Massachusetts, it's so obviously a constitutional right for welfare recipients to receive free cars and membership to AAA. Duh! A no brainer!

But mix a conservative with the law and, well, things become a lot murkier. Like many conservatives think they have a right to their own money, a right to worship as they please, a right to have their opinions about sexual orientation and a right to own the vehicles of their choosing - all without being harrassed!!

Where do they get off with that mumbo jumbo?

You and me, Tom. You and me.

dave mathewsinnerchild| 5.8.09 @ 7:03PM

I know what you pitiful conservatives are thinking. You're thinking, how can a free car, courtesy of the prostrate taxpayers, be a constitutional right?

See, Tom? We have to spell it out for 'em.

Ha! You tell, me, you hateful Nazis, how in the heck can anyone pursue happiness in Massachusetts without a sweet ride? Hmm? Pull up to them little chickies on a bicycle and they're like, "no window to roll down? How we gonna exchange digits?"

Yeah, silence from you right wingers. That's what I'm talkin' about. High five, Tom Paine. Thought up that one on my own.

Doorgunner| 5.8.09 @ 7:30PM

Mr. Paine,

"Critical Thinking." Come on, now. You're kidding me, right? You understand thesis statement and classical argument, right?

This is nothing more than we expect of an E-4 in theater.

This is nothing more than we expect of a traffis Patrolman in L.A.

This is nothing mnore than we expect in an E.R. triage, isn't it?

Empathy doesn't disqualify, but it might hinder. Grow up, there are actual decisions to be made: they affect more than you and...

Tom Paine| 5.8.09 @ 8:19PM

Doorgunner --

Your response is incoherent. I don't understand your point.

How would empathy hinder judgment? Please explain.

stmichrick| 5.8.09 @ 8:25PM

I read a lame column in the Wash Times by Lanny Davis saying how much he 'disagreed' with the tactics used by Kennedy against Bork and Alito...and how he hopes Republicans will be civil about the Lib that will be put forward by The One We've Been Waiting For.

I'd like to hear from others, but I'm for gloves off (in a fact based way) as we roast the 'eminently qualified' Obama nominee.

Curtis Rasmussen| 5.8.09 @ 8:26PM

I once had to work along side a delusional hippie leftover from the 70's. In his own mind, this guy considered himself a real savior, the father of the group that bestowed his activist wisdom on the rest of us minions. In reality, the entire group knew this guy was a turd that outputted problem plagued, substandard work, and avoided him at every opportunity.

The hippie modified his behavior depending on skin color as he could never treat as equals those that he viewed as beneficiaries lifted up by his early activism. Never mind that you busted your ass to get there.

This, my friends, is the origin of soft racism. Tom Paine's post reeks of it to the point where it sounds just like the hippie. Justice is blind except for Tom, who has to lift the blindfold to check the skin color of the plaintiff and defendant.

Racism is racism, from virulent hate to the more subtle forms played by the victomhood liberals.

dave mathewsinnerchild| 5.8.09 @ 8:51PM

Tom, are these people dumb or what? I don't know whether we should pity or fear them, but either way, we sure do hate them, don't we, Tom?

See, if you have a black person in, say, East Palo Alto, who walks up to a White Male of European Descent who is just minding his own business waiting for a bus, and this hypothetical black person whips out a knife and slits the throat of the aforementioned white person, you "justice oughta be blind" morons would look at that as a simple case of homicide. Case closed.

Au contraire, mon ami (a little French there, just to put them in their place, Tommy).

Ok, ACLU justice 101: Say you are Sonia Sotomayer and you are adjudicating this case. Naturally, as a proud and superior Marxist woman, you are filled with the wonder of empathy for the downtrodden, praise Gaia.

Are you following? Good. Now as Sonia, you would immediately recognize that,NO WAY is this is no open-and-shut case of murder because:
1) the white person was a symbol of the oppression of black people by whites since the beginning of time;
2) The white person was probably an interloper in the black person's neighborhood and who the heck does he think he is, anyway;
3) The white person was almost certainly a woman-hating, homophobic, bible-thumping racist who doesn't recycle;
4) the black person, if he committed any crime at all (and that's really only a matter of opinion) merely needs only be taken under the wing of a golden-tongued community organizer and, within a few spellbinding weeks, he could be Employee of the Month at ACORN.

So he slits a few more white throats. Go back to step one, rinse and repeat.

My god, Doorgunner, since when was Justice about establishing the facts of the case? I suppose you still believe in heterosexual marriage, don't you? I mean, have you no compassion after all?

Boy, Tom, these guys make it easy, don't they?

S.L. Toddard| 5.8.09 @ 9:58PM

Haha - Quin Hillyer is defending the Constitution and the Rule of Law! This is the same "writer", mind you, who supported immunization for telecoms who broke the law by helping the Bush administration spy illegally on law-abiding American citizens. Where, I wonder, was this respect for the Constitution back then, Quin? Does Mr. Hillyer's reverence for the Rule of Law - that bedrock of American liberty - extend beyond partisan boundaries - say, to Bush officials who ordered domestic spying in violation of the 4th Amendment and FISA? Does it compel him to support investigations of torture allegations as mandated by Article 6 of the Constitution and the Convention Against Torture?

The hypocrisy - really, it's revolting.

dave mathewsinnerchild| 5.8.09 @ 10:31PM

OMG! They spied on you, too? Gosh, everybody, until I read S. L. Turd's post, I thought I was the only one who knew THE TRUTH.

But there are a few others, as I learned when I started reading the authoritative texts on the topic. You know, The Daily Kos, Huffington Post, Jeanine Garafalo's diary (she loves the Jonas Brothers, BTW!).

Dudes, I'm totally serious. Bush recorded every single phone call of every single American. And he took notes, too. Gosh, if Americans only knew how severely their private lives had been compromised, they'd decapitate Bush RIGHT NOW! AND I'D BE HAPPY TO HOLD THE MACHETE!
What? You conservatives counter that there were exactly ZERO private lawsuits emanating from this crime? You are SO gullible. You know why no lawsuits were filed?

Because they've all had their memories STOLEN. SL Turd and I know because - how can I put this - we are a cut above most people, if you get my drift. Just a little smarter. We used superior focusing techniques taught by Deepak Chopra to combat the memory thieves and expose the evil plot.

And why did Bush PERSONALLY listen to billions and billions of banal, mundane phone calls? Why did that evil idiot (Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays)/idiot (Tuesdays and Thursdays) spy on every single American?

If you respond, "To keep millions of ungrateful, whiney, vain, preening self-important, narcissistic, liberal posers from being blown to bits" (don't nod, SL TURD, I'm not talking about you!), WRONG ANSWER.

If you respond, "To try to compensate for hopelessly outdated wiretap legislation that predated digital communications that was undertaken with the full knowledge and guidance of the justice department," WRONG ANSWER.

HA. If you believe those answers, you believe Johnny Carson and Eartha Kitt WEREN'T on the grassy knoll when Kennedy was shot.

Bush - or, more accurately, I suspect, the EVIL CHENEY (and SL Turd can back me up on this), spied secretly - from the closet of the Oval Office, according to Jeanine's diary- because they wanted to know where I was ordering my PIZZA from!!!! WHY GAIA, WHY? Sigh. To those to whom so much is given, so much must be endured.

ARE YOU HAPPY, DICK? ARE YOU HAPPY, GEORGE? I LIKE PEPPERONI FROM PAPA JOHN'S, OK? I SUPPOSE YOU'RE GOING TO WATERBOARD ME FOR THAT. YOU barbarians!!

Damn those spying telcoms. Damn the Bush administration. Damn my new medication. It makes me feel funny and I'm all bloated.

Gosh, SL Turd, I feel so much better. Now you share your horror story of abuse at the hands of government wiretaps. Go on, bud. You're among people who UNDERSTAND.

The truth shall set you free.

Go ahead, it's not like they don't know about 1-900-tranny anyway.

S.L. Toddard| 5.8.09 @ 11:06PM

I'm not quite sure what you're even trying to say, if anything. Is it your contention that telecoms did not break the law at the Bush administration's behest? Do you recognize that such a contention is proved categorically false, merely by the fact that the telecoms were immunized from prosecution? Entities are not immunized from crimes they did *not* commit. I'm not sure what that rather odd post was meant to convey, other than a misunderstanding of the issue at hand. That Bush did not personally listen in on the calls, or that literally every American was not eavesdropped on are rather obvious, infantile straw-men and besides the point. And look at the amount of time and fury you put into that post - now that the neoconservatives have left the GOP a marginalized, discredited, regional party it seems the nerves have been rubbed raw.

What an odd young man you are. Some advice, so that when finish middle and high school and (perhaps) college you will be better equipped to engage in serious debate: read outside of the usual partisan outlets which only tell you things you want to hear. I, for instance, daily read news and opinions from non-conservative outlets - like this magazine, Commentary or NR - even though as a conservative I disagree on a fundamental level with their political philosophy. It helps to keep one well rounded, and helps to prevent one from getting all riled up and pounding out hysterical, long-winded, uninformed screeds and embarrassing oneself as you've just done here.

The issue at hand is quite simple: there is such a thing as the Rule of Law in this country. It exists for our protection. FISA is incredibly flexible and gives the government enormous leeway to investigate potential threats. It is also remarkably clear. There is no doubt that FISA was violated - that is simply not in contention, not by any serious legal authorities - not even really in the neoconservative venues from which you've rather clumsily gathered and misunderstood certain tidbits of this issue. FISA and the 4th Amendment were violated by the Bush administration and the telecommunications whom Congress then immunized so they could not be held accountable for their crimes. None of that is in contention, as I've said. The issue at hand is Mr Hillyer's rather selective reverence for the "Rule of Law". As far as Mr Hillyer is concerned, the Rule of Law seems to be a thing to be invoked only when it restricts the actions or options of a "liberal" politician, but not so when it does the same for a neoconservative.

That is what we - and by "we" I mean "speakers of the English language" - call "hypocrisy".

Oh, and "but they broke the law for a good reason!" is not - however it seems to a young person like yourself - a valid defense for egregious lawbreaking. Domestic spying is the sort of thing the KGB did. Although, for Stalinistic neoconservatives I suppose that might not be as damaging an accusation as conservatives such as myself consider it.

Anyway, run along, do a bit of reading (again - not just from big-government neoconservative propaganda organs!), *lay off the video games and the rap music* and come back in a few years. We'd love to have you participate in a discussion when you're able.

S.L. Toddard| 5.8.09 @ 11:17PM

Oh - one other thing: I agree with the essence of Mr. Hillyer's piece. Whether a judge can feel "empathy" for any particular aggrieved special-interest groups should be entirely immaterial. All a Supreme Court Justice need be able to do is effectively interpret the Constitution as per the original intent of the founders as expressed in the text with additional insight provided by attendant/related works ( such as the Federalist Papers, Articles of Confederation etc) and determine whether such and such legislation comports with or violates that text and that text's intent. Originalism is, I think obviously, the only *legitimate* Constitutional philosophy, and the idea that the Constitution is a "living document" means, in essence, that it is a *meaningless* document - literally. It has no fixed meaning to a proponent of the "living document" philosophy, as it means whatever one wishes it to mean according to the time one lives in and one's own personal philosophy. It's a recipe for lawlessness - which is, quite frankly, what we have now.

So yes I agree with Mr Hillyer in this instance, but it is patently ridiculous and hypocritical for him to toe this line now after defending serial lawbreaking in the Bush Administration. Any true originalist would be outraged at the violations of our Constitution perpetrated by the Bush administration. As is any true conservative.

dave mathewsinnerchild| 5.8.09 @ 11:23PM

Hey big brain, why you point gun at kimosabe?

I is you friend but I is not smart like you. I dropped on head as baby. One must engage in Noblesse Oblige, mustn't one? Thank one.

I'm a good liberal - in fact, being dropped on my head puts me in line for Chicago Alderman!

Of course, I don't say things like "besides the point," which (and this is just between us) would embarrass a precocious 12th grader and totally undermine my supposed intelligence, but you carry it off. I think you are sooooo much smarter than last moron who posted here.

I'm on your side! I hate conservatives too! Filthy, ignorant creatures who -get this - fail to genuflect before my intelligence!!!!! And you're even smarter than me!!!!

Hey, I have liberal bona fides! I have a dart board with Bush's face on it! I like to wrap myself in a bunch of meaningless jargon I don't understand too! Hey, I think BOTH you and Robert Gibbs are ideal spokespeople for liberal propaganda. I mean dogma. I mean truth. You know what I mean.

Well of course you do! You know how old I am (or DO you?). You aren't wiretapping me, are you? HA. I kid because I love.

We're two peas in a pod, you and I: superior beings of towering intellect who engage nightly in ego onanism by flattering ourselves that we are condescending to these idiot conservatives who aren't fit to lick the bottom of Michelle Obama's $540 sneaker!

My gosh, when someone's brain is as big as yours, you might want to share it a little bit.

Where's the love? I ask you? Please, continue with your startling and totally original line of thought.

Old Texican| 5.8.09 @ 11:32PM

Roll On The Floor Laughing My Arse Off. (grin)
Tom and Davey why don't you guys quit pussy footing around and tell us what you really FEEL?
Heh!
Thankyou for ya'll's remarks. I've been sort of congested today, and I have laughed so hard I cleared out both my sinuses and my lungs.
OK
Now once again to adult conversation: Children with loaded guns are dangerous. I taught my son to say: "put that down" then run as fast as you can to home. Don't argue! Just say it one time and run.
Davey and TomP are children with a loaded gun.
Please, put it down!
I'm leaving while they shoot themselves.

But before I go, I remind myself that they have no loaded guns, but only limp Johnsons. Heh!
How many of you guys have heard the phrase..."line in the sand"? How many of you know the first time it was spoken...and drawn...was at the Alamo by a MAN by the name of Travis?
Colonel Travis with about 180 men stood off about 5,000 Mexican troops for thirteen days at the Alamo. In the meantime Sam Houston was rallying thousands of farmers to San Jacinto, (two hundred miles east).
WE captured the Mexican general, clobbered his troops, and won the Republic of Texas.
There were no Tom Ps or Daveys there. They were busy being limp.
So laugh with me on St. Crispins' day. Join with me and thank God for real big brass dangley ones...live or die....and laugh.

dave mathewsinnerchild| 5.8.09 @ 11:41PM

Hey, Yosemite Sam:

Maybe ya'll wunna loosen y'all's collar. Gol durnit, ya'll ain't gitt'n enough oxygen to y'all's brain.

FYI, y'all, that's the part of y'all's anatomy that's a-holdin yer 10-gallon hat afixed atop yer haid.

As my pappy said just before he died from takin' a bullet fer Davey Crockett, "Son, beware of them'uns who's all hat and no cattle."

I'm here to help. Really.

Old Texican| 5.8.09 @ 11:43PM

No survivor could know what Colonel Travis actually said when he drew that line in the sand. There were no male survivors. But: Shakespear spoke the truth about it :
St. Crispen's Day Speech
William Shakespeare, 1599
Enter the KING
WESTMORELAND. O that we now had here
But one ten thousand of those men in England
That do no work to-day!

KING. What's he that wishes so?
My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin;
If we are mark'd to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires.
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England.
God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more methinks would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is call'd the feast of Crispian.
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam'd,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian.'
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say 'These wounds I had on Crispian's day.'
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words-
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester-
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

dave mathewsinnerchild| 5.9.09 @ 12:05AM

Ah, that's spelled "Shakespeare" and I caught the reference.

Y'all cut and paste real good. Yer the fastest cutt-er-and-paster this side of the Mississippi.

Yea, verily I say unto you, the bard hath touched me many a time and oft
he hath lifted my countenance and furrowed my beetled brow.

A rousing call to the troops and a beautiful chunk of writing, ok, but what relevance it has to any topics discussed here, well, maybe it's the Texas chile. Maybe it's all the Shakespeare you know.
Look at King Lear; maybe it's more apt for you?

Maybe a spot of Hamlet:
What a piece of work is a man
How noble in reason
How infinite in faculties
In form and moving how express and admirable
In action, how like an angel
In apprehension, how like a god
The beauty of the world; the paragon of animals
And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust?

Or maybe MacBeth floats your boat:
Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools the way to dusty death;
Out, out, brief candle; life is but a walking shadow
A poor player that struts and frets
his hour upon the stage and then is heard
no more; it is a tale told by and idiot
Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Old Texican| 5.9.09 @ 12:06AM

Well shucks, Limp Johnson. Who would have thought you would be sober this time of night?
(smile)
Just how cheap do you hold your manhood?
"This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here."
Shakespear said it best, so I quoted him again. You limp johnsons can do your thing all day long, but Shakespear's words will ring down through the ages for us.
See, we built the scene where you could spout off.
If not for us, you would be busy tending turnips for a Soviet.
Your words compared to Shakespear are a truly funny childish joke. Go kiss mommy and go to bed now.

Old Texican| 5.9.09 @ 12:18AM

Sonofagun...you still sober?
Night night. I'm going to bed.
Kiss mommy and say good night. I will let the readers decide. 'sides that...if you win...you lose.
You spout off words hiding behind your user name and your computer....but I have found you...OOPS!

Obama is the king of repugs| 5.9.09 @ 12:23AM

The proper conservative response to any nominee forwarded by Obama under such criteria is to demand, and force, extended and illuminating public debate in the Senate.

You can force stuff? Not really. Quiet.

Right Hand| 5.9.09 @ 1:27AM

Republicans have failed utterly.

dave mathewsinnerchild| 5.9.09 @ 1:50AM

Ok, turd, I'll bite. I've had a few. Believe it or not, I've been of legal age for a very long time. So when you said, "run along," I figured you were doing some weird daddy/son sexual thing.

You say, “There is no doubt that FISA was violated - that is simply not in contention, not by any serious legal authorities.”
Really? Does that include the judge who co-authored FISA and headed the Justice Department’s oversight of the Bush administration’s wiretapping for several years? No doubt you know more than Judge whatshisname Kornblum, but he told the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2006 that, “If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally.”
In fact, as I recall, all five judges agreed. Yes, they said the president does so at his peril if he is later found to have violated statute, and certainly the AP and others like those bastions of impartiality like Media Matters made a stink about it, but the fact is, your argument is not the slam dunk you assert – unless Russ Feingold and the New York Times are your idea of “serious legal scholars.” Oh, and you, of course. You must be privy to a lot of the documentation that is still shrouded in secrecy.
I’m sure you know that a traditional FISA application requires literally hundreds of man-hours of preparation. Doesn’t make a lot of sense to apply stage coach era traffic monitoring in the jet age, does it? When we are at war? You do realize that there are human lives at stake, don’t you?
Hang with me here: I know it’s hard for you to pay attention when your not pontificating about how smart you are. Suffice it to say that FISA - again, written prior to the Internet age - covers surveillance of communications that originate or terminate in the U.S. As I’m sure you know, modern digital communications that have nothing to do with U.S. citizens (in which, say, a person in Iraq calls up a Web site in Iran) may pass through the US. Is this covered by FISA? Please. This kind of digital packaging wasn’t even envisioned in 1978.
The problem is that there’s a gap there both in the law and in the surveillance technology; hence the “outdated” reference I made earlier and which you seemed to find so callow. The truth is that the pipes that carry these information packets capture hundreds of thousands of them in a single fiber-optic pulse; some are domestic, some are foreign (as a great deal of worldwide Internet traffic moves through the U.S.).
Technically, if the evil-doers at the Bush administration were to scoop up some of these meta-packets because they have reason to believe an Al Qaeda member was trying to contact a sleeper cell outside the US (or inside, for that matter), they would be scooping up some domestic packets as well. Nevertheless, the administration had in place a “minimization” filtering process by which it attempted to sort out strictly domestic traffic. This is very difficult, technically, to do, as I’m hoping your infinitely superior mind can grasp.
In fact, the Bush administration’s position was that this surveillance was not in fact directed at domestic US citizens, and I’d like you to provide me of a single instance where a domestic citizen with no ties to terrorists was arrested or even harrassed. And in any case, as you know, the 4th amendment bans only "unreasonable" searches and seizures and allows for exceptions within a president’s war powers. Moreover, the Bush administration argued – with great credibility – that the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists acts superseded FISA concerns.
The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists acts explicitly states that, “the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”
One last thing: I love it when you ridiculously assert that, “Entities are not immunized from crimes they did *not* commit.” Really? You really want to be taken seriously when you advance an argument that sophomoric? Ever hear of political persecution? The shifting sands of public opinion? Does Scooter Libby ring a bell? So by your reasoning, no trial is necessary; if an entity receives immunization, they are ipso facto guilty! Ah, I think not, and I think most legal scholars would take my side. These were 38 PRIVATE companies who were helping the government keep Americans safe; without that immunity, and in the face of zealots like yourself, do you think that, in the future, such private companies will be willing to help the government, knowing they’ll be sued by opportunists even if they are providing a service to their country? But you guys all sing the same tune: In your fetish for abstraction, you wouldn't give a damn if real people died, as in the ludicrous waterboarding arguments. Hey - by the Geneva Convention, these people are UNLAWFUL combatants, it ain't torture and, frankly, even if it were, I wouldn't give a damn. War is not fought in anticeptic debate halls but on battlefields with real patriots dying for assholes like you.

dave mathewsinnerchild| 5.9.09 @ 2:04AM

Again, Yosemite Sam, you are a good cutter and paster. I imagine you excelled in kindergarten.

Oh I get it! You're going with the old-school spelling of Shakespeare! Funny! Wow! You're an originalist. I say this with all sincerity: You are the smartest ahole in Texas.
Now stick in your thumb, pull out a plum and tell yourself what a good boy you are.

Since you're an expert, how come you didn't accommodate me with the original spelling of the rest of that monologue on which you are so strangely fixated? Couldn't find a suitable Web site?

Question: When you are lucid, are you lucid?

Why would I want to kiss your mommy? It was a one-night stand, get over it. And her check bounced. Please send me the $500 she owes me.

So you know who I am? Why not regale me with your personal information, big man? Put us on a level playing field? Isn't that how you Shakespearean Texans do it? You know, ten paces and all that. And why are you fixated on my Johnson?

S.L. Toddard| 5.9.09 @ 9:28AM

“Does that include the judge who co-authored FISA and headed the Justice Department’s oversight of the Bush administration’s wiretapping for several years? No doubt you know more than Judge whatshisname Kornblum, but he told the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2006 that, “If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally.”

Straw-man. No FISA application was refused in the relevant cases because *none was made* which renders this point entirely irrelevant. Americans were spied on in circumvention of FISA – and that is a clear and rather obvious violation of the law. And that’s not to mention that “in the period of 1979-2006 a total of 22,990 applications for warrants were made to the Court of which 22,985 were approved (sometimes with modifications; or with the splitting up, or combining together, of warrants for legal purposes), and only 5 were definitively rejected” – having a FISA application refused is hardly a pressing concern, is it?

http://epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html

“I’m sure you know that a traditional FISA application requires literally hundreds of man-hours of preparation.”

False. And besides, one need not submit a FISA application *before* surveillance begins. Surveillance may commence *immediately* in any case, and then a FISA application can be prepared and submitted and have a 99.7825% chance of being approved. And I’m not making that figure up – do the math.

“The problem is that there’s a gap there both in the law and in the surveillance technology”

No, there isn’t. The law requires a warrant be issued for a government agency to wiretap an American citizen – it does not require necessarily that one be issued *before* surveillance commences, however. It’s really quite simple and not the least “outdated”. What an absurd notion - that the terrorist threat is so severe that we must literally give up our Fourth Amendment rights? That the government *should* be able to wiretap American citizens with no judicial oversight? The notion should be revolting to any free American.

“Technically, if the evil-doers at the Bush administration were to scoop up some of these meta-packets because they have reason to believe an Al Qaeda member was trying to contact a sleeper cell outside the US (or inside, for that matter), they would be scooping up some domestic packets as well. Nevertheless, the administration had in place a “minimization” filtering process by which it attempted to sort out strictly domestic traffic. This is very difficult, technically, to do, as I’m hoping your infinitely superior mind can grasp.”

Irrelevant. We know now also that the government literally eavesdropped – listened in on American’s phone conversations – without warrants, in cases in which neither party was implicated in any crime, never mind terrorism. You’re trying to narrow your argument to one specific sliver of the crime – this is not merely an issue of data mining, so please spare us.

“In fact, the Bush administration’s position was that this surveillance was not in fact directed at domestic US citizens”
Hitler’s position was that the Final Solution was in the best interest of the German people. Perhaps you are not aware, but when persons in a position of power violate the law, pretty excuses do not literally excuse them from accountability.
“and I’d like you to provide me of a single instance where a domestic citizen with no ties to terrorists was arrested or even harrassed.”

Why would I do such a thing? It’s irrelevant to the discussion. We are discussing the illegal warrantless wiretapping program, in which the Bush administration ordered – in violation of US law – eavesdropping on American citizens. What they did with that information is not germane.

“And in any case, as you know, the 4th amendment bans only "unreasonable" searches and seizures and allows for exceptions within a president’s war powers.”

The 4th Amendment and FISA demand that a warrant be issued if an American’s phone is tapped. I’m sorry, but there is no wiggle room there.

“Moreover, the Bush administration argued – with great credibility – that the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists acts superseded FISA concerns.
The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists acts explicitly states that, “the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

With great credibility? Are you kidding? The Supreme Court rejected that argument in Hamdan v Rumsfeld. Pathetic.

“One last thing: I love it when you ridiculously assert that, “Entities are not immunized from crimes they did *not* commit.” Really? You really want to be taken seriously when you advance an argument that sophomoric? Ever hear of political persecution?”

Hahaha. Yes, of course – these massive, unimaginably wealthy telecommunications companies are victims of political persecution. Do you have any clue how ridiculous you sound?

“These were 38 PRIVATE companies who were helping the government keep Americans safe; without that immunity, and in the face of zealots like yourself, do you think that, in the future, such private companies will be willing to help the government, knowing they’ll be sued by opportunists even if they are providing a service to their country?”

Good lord this is tiresome. That is the entire POINT. If a government asks a private company to commit an illegal act - such as spying without warrants on American citizens – (and as your failed “argument” has demonstrated, it was indeed illegal beyond any doubt) they *should not* be willing to do so. That is why we have things called “laws”.

Now, when I said run along and do some reading before you come back and embarrass yourself again do now you understand why? You ignored me and look what happened.

Michael L. Hauschild| 5.9.09 @ 11:08AM

Replace Souter - no change. Next replace Ginsburg due to health issues - no change. All this takes time and 2012 is looming. Ram through the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 2009 (circa 1937) - big change.

Quin| 5.9.09 @ 2:45PM

Mr. Toddard is laughable obtuse. The telecoms received clear assurances from the Justice Department that they were breaking no law. It is still quite likely that they were breaking no law. They got immunity from CIVIL lawsuits -- which is far from an admission that they broke any law in the first place, but rather a safeguard against some jackpot justice lawyers going forum shopping and convincing a jury that is far from cognizant of the complicated issues involved that somehow some civil rights were violated even though they patently were not.

Oldefarte| 5.9.09 @ 3:45PM

To S.L., Dave, and All: This legalalistic back-and-forth concerning FISA, wiretapping,etc. is asinine, ludicrous and irrelevant! The U.S. is at WAR, or simply, it is a question of KILL OR BE KILLED! Did the terrorists obtain any kind of international or FISA court permission before they flew planes into office buildings on 9/11/01 and burning alive, decapitating, crushing, and otherwise killing 3000 innocent Americans civilians? Why S.L., are you and other liberals so concerned with what our country has [and will] do in this war? Why are you NOT concerned with what the terrorists have, are and will forever do[their conduct] in this war? Why are you not concerned that they purposely attack innocents in order to achieve their TERRORISTIC result [which is PANIC and FEAR by civilian populations of their enemy]; so that same will stop/prevent their political leaders from fighting a war against them[i.e. the train bombings in Spain which caused a defeat of Spain's politicians and a evacuation of its military from Iraq]? These Muslim terrorists do not attack our military personnel [they know they would lose that fight] according to standard and traditional rules of war, because they are simply cowards. Instead they kill innocent women and children[both ours and their own] to further their insane cause. Why S.L., are you so concerned with supposedly how this country's laws and constitution are being manipulated toward infringment of these Muslim terrorists rights? Do you not understand that our laws/constitution do not apply to foreigners or to enemy combatants? What about our rights to LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS? Do you think that the 9/11 victims, Daniel Pearl, etc had their rights taken away [or abused] by the terrorists' actions that killed them? Or, more directly, are you purposely, in screaming about the supposedly abuse of our laws and constitution, attempting to destroy and handcuff this country's efforts to defend itself. In essence, are you traitors or traitorous sympathizers? Are you an enemy of this country, along with these Muslim terrorists? There are many of us that are of the opinion that the latter case is the truth, or very close to it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

S.L. Toddard| 5.9.09 @ 4:06PM

"The telecoms received clear assurances from the Justice Department that they were breaking no law."

Irrelevant. The Justice Department does not write laws. If President Bush's Justice Department advises someone that it is legal to commit an illegal act and that person commits it, then that person has still committed an illegal act - in other words, a "crime".

"It is still quite likely that they were breaking no law."

Actually it's not at all likely. Under FISA the gov't has two options, both of which they circumvented. They may either apply to a secret FISA court for a warrant (before or after initiating surveillance) or may authorize surveillance in the following fashion and if the attendant conditions apply:

(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and
if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/1802 a 1 .html#14778446757181407970

And those conditions above obviously do NOT apply, as this was a broad, sweeping program. So as I said - it's quite clear. The President is *required by law* to follow these procedures and DID NOT (and no one is arguing that they did, if you've noticed). He ordered surveillance of domestic targets without any warrants or other judicial authorization - which are *required by law*, he did so with the assistance of the telecoms, ergo both *broke the law*.

I mean really - how about a little empathy for the Constitution and the rule of law?

S.L. Toddard| 5.9.09 @ 7:13PM

"Hey - by the Geneva Convention, these people are UNLAWFUL combatants, it ain't torture"

You sure?

*****

Harold E. Fischer Jr., an American Flier Tortured in a Chinese Prison, Dies at 83

Col. Harold E. Fischer Jr., an American fighter pilot who was routinely tortured in a Chinese prison during and after the Korean War, becoming — along with three other American airmen held at the same prison — a symbol and victim of cold war tension, died in Las Vegas on April 30. He was 83 and lived in Las Vegas.

From April 1953 through May 1955, Colonel Fischer – then an Air Force captain – was held at a prison outside Mukden, Manchuria. For most of that time, he was kept in a dark, damp cell with no bed and no opening except a slot in the door through which a bowl of food could be pushed. Much of the time he was handcuffed. Hour after hour, a high-frequency whistle pierced the air.

After a short mock trial in Beijing on May 24, 1955, Captain Fischer and the other pilots – Lt. Col. Edwin L. Heller, First Lt. Lyle W. Cameron and First Lt. Roland W. Parks – were found guilty of violating Chinese territory by flying across the border while on missions over North Korea. Under duress, Captain Fischer had falsely confessed to participating in germ warfare.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/08/us/08fischer.html?scp=1&sq=Harold Fisher&st=cse

*****

This American Hero who fought for his country, who shot down 11 MIGs in 175 missions, who won the Silver Star and the Distinguished Service Cross, who was captured and brutally tortured - so brutally in fact that he gave a false confession - you'd tell this American Soldier what? That he wasn't tortured? That you received worse in a frat initiation? That the treatment that broke this man of honor wasn't so bad? I mean after all it's not like he had his skin peeled off with hot tongs or anything. Here's how he described his captivity:

“I was grilled day and night, over and over, week in and week out, and in the end, to get Chong and his gang off my back, I confessed to both charges. The charges, of course, were ridiculous. I never participated in germ warfare and neither did anyone else. I was never ordered to cross the Yalu. We had strict Air Force orders not to cross the border.”

“I will regret what I did in that cell the rest of my life,” the captain continued. “But let me say this: it was not really me — not Harold E. Fischer Jr. — who signed that paper. It was a mentality reduced to putty.”

You must thing this guy was a coward, no? I mean what - he stays in a room that's doesn't have a water-bed and listens to a little whistling now and then? Someone asks him questions? And THAT left his "mentality reduced to putty" People ask ME questions all the time - am I being tortured?

What a pussy, right?

Oldefarte| 5.10.09 @ 11:18AM

S.L., you're simply an idiot! Do you suppose that there could be a DIFFERENCE between having your fingernails extracted with a pair of pliars; your testacles cut off and shoved down your throat; your eyeballs removed with a knife; or your tongue cut off at the back of your throat; AND "WATERBOARDING"??? The former is what our enemy combatants [be they Nazies, Japanese. Viet Cong or now, Muslim terrorists] have ALL done to our soldiers historically. Think I fabricating facts-----ask any of our war veterans, dumbass!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

melvin polatnick| 5.10.09 @ 11:27AM

It would be great to have an openly gay Atheist as a supreme court justice. She should be loud and have her voice heard every morning. It would be better than having the quiet types that now sit on the bench.

S.L. Toddard| 5.10.09 @ 12:27PM

"S.L., you're simply an idiot! Do you suppose that there could be a DIFFERENCE between having your fingernails extracted with a pair of pliars; your testacles cut off and shoved down your throat; your eyeballs removed with a knife; or your tongue cut off at the back of your throat; AND "WATERBOARDING"???"

Between those things and being drowned until you break? Yes, there are superficial differences. The point, though, is that there are also differences between waterboarding/drowning and the other torture methods we used and the ones used on Col. Harold E. Fischer Jr by the Chinese - and the difference is that the US has treated prisoners captured in the "War On Terror" far worse than Col Fischer was treated. He was never waterboarded, was he? No - all that happened to him was that he stayed in a room that wasn't quite The Ritz, listened to some whistling and was asked some questions. Sounds pretty tame doesn't it? And that reduced this guy's "mentality to putty". He must be a pussy right? If this American hero ever said he'd been tortured you'd laugh him out of the room and call him a coward, no? It's funny, because at the time the whole country considered what the Chinese did to him as torture and considered him a hero for enduring it. Isn't that ridiculous? Don't you Neocon Warriors consider this guy a weakling? Wouldn't you tell Col. Harold E. Fischer Jr that what he went through wasn't torture, and that it was no worse than a fraternity stunt?

Oldefate| 5.10.09 @ 3:24PM

S.L.: ANYONE [I repeat, anyone] who serves this country as a military member, is a hero; and anyone involved in war is TORTURED [the very meaning of war is torture]. Veterans that were not captured, but who returned home have suffered phychological, hellacious nightmares from what they did, saw, experienced,etc. So what? It's a cost of war, unfortionately. What's the alternative----to be exterminated [is this torture?] by fanatical/radical Nazies or to be burned alive from exploding airplanes or bombs at the hands of radical Muslim terrorists? Quit being a enemy sympathizer and support your country in ints efforts to protect all of us! Do you wish the terrorists to succeed now, and did you wish the Nazies and Japanese to succeed in WW!!? Well, dummie, that is the alternative to what you're now critisizing your country for now! Do you want to live under the rule of UBL and his radical Muslims? Make a choice----you can't have it both ways. Which is worse, waterboarding by our military, or killing, decapitating, burning the corpse and hanging the body of our soldiers from bridges in Iraq, as the Muslim terrorists are [and have been] doing? Answer the question-----which is worse and which needs to be condemned??????????????

Wholesale Lingerie| 9.5.09 @ 9:52PM

sexy lingerie lingerie

chocolate| 9.8.09 @ 2:53AM

[url= http://www.sneakergood.com/ ]uggs shoes[/url]
[url= http://www.sneakergood.com/ ]ugg women shoes[/url]

Wedding Dresses| 9.10.09 @ 1:08AM

I never buy from outlet, the priceWedding Dresses
Designer Wedding Gowns
is expensive and I always bought online.