Democrats cave AGAIN!!!!!

Email Print posted by KenTX 02/12/2008 06:03:51 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
Senate Democrats continue to follow orders from George Bush by guaranteeing immunity for telecoms.

There are only two possible explanations for why George Bush has easily defeated Democrats on every single issue since January 2001.

1. George Bush is right and Democrats are wrong.

2. Democrats are unfit to lead the nation.

Here’s a handy way to keep track of Democrat complicity in the actions of the Bush Administration.

All you need to do it take one of the following links, and plug it into one of the actions George Bush has taken that you don’t like.

 While you're playing, sing this song.

“Democrats cave”: 26,000 hits

"Democrats defeated": 9,000 hits

“Dems cave”: 9,000 hits

“Democrats surrender”: 7,000 hits

“Democrats roll over:” 3,000 hits

“Democrats capitulate:” 2,000 hits

“Dems surrender”: 700 hits

“Democrat losers”: 700 hits
< Fox's Julie Banderas calls Obama a "Halfrican" | Democrats cave AGAIN!!!!! >
 Display:
Democrats cave AGAIN!!!!! | 68 comments (68 topical, 0 hidden)
Which Democrats Supported Bush? (none / 0)
18 Democrats supported George W Bush!

Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Evan Bayh (D-IN), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Ken Salazar (D-CO), Tom Carper (D-DE), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Jim Webb (D-VA), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Kent Conrad (D-ND), and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)

Let's see now: 18 Democrats + 49 Republicans = a 67 seat majority of Great Americans in the Senate.

Hillary Clinton abstained on this vote!! She knew that voting for the bill was the right thing to do, but her kook base would flip out if she supported Bush.

I'm now thinking that Jim Webb would make a pretty good running mate for John McCain. What do you guys think?

by KenTX on 02/12/2008 06:15:31 PM EST

Ken? (none / 0)
Why is voting for this bill the "right thing to do?"

by jarett on 02/12/2008 06:23:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Not all Democrats voted with Bush (none / 0)

Not all Democrats voted with Bush.  All Republicans did.

Bush is unfit to lead the country.  Look at his record, look at the wreckage.

Thus, you have failed to present or consider the correct answer: all Republicans are unfit to lead the country, and some Democrats  are unfit to lead the country.

Our duty is to identify and support those who upheld their oath to defend and protect the Constitution, and to reject those who do not.

Our freedom was purchased with blood of brave Americans; cowards dishonor their sacrifice when they surrender it for nothing.

by Dogger on 02/12/2008 06:31:11 PM EST

Well put, Dogger. (none / 0)
Jim Webb has a lot to answer for.

by jarett on 02/12/2008 06:40:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yes and yes (none / 0)
I don't get average Joe Republican who's happy about this, even though I get the general idea that if you're part of Team Republican, you don't want your teammates to get busted.

Still, at what point do you say "fuck this, I'm disgusted and this hurts America" and quit rooting for the team?

It doesnt' mean you'd pick up the big foam finger with the Donkey on it (i.e., rooting for Democrats), but how about joining a movement to reform the unlawful Republican party (or at the VERY least go third party or refuse to vote until the party improves)?

Even if you think it's right to wiretap Americans, what kind of precedent does it set for presidents to ignore or make up the law as they go along?  Something tells me these absurdly loyal republicans will have a very different perspective once/if a Dem president abuses some of these powers.

by ihavenobias on 02/12/2008 06:57:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
There is a certain justification (none / 0)
Remember that these actions did not accuse the government.  they accused the telecom companies, who were given every level of assurance that what they were doing was entirely legal from the highest levels of government.

The question is not whether or not we will hold the telecom companies accountable.  It is whether or not we will hold Bush and co. responsible for what they told the telecom companies.

by jarett on 02/12/2008 07:48:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The problem is (none / 0)
the best bet for getting after the real lawbreakers here and finding out the truth was *trough* the Telecom companies.

With this door closed, it looks like the lawbreakers will get away scott-free, and it sets a horrifying and depressing precedent for all future lawbreakers.

by ihavenobias on 02/12/2008 08:02:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
They shouldnt have gone along with it (none / 0)
Some of the Telecom companies didnt buy it. I know T Mobile and Qwest didnt. I think the other Telecoms that did spy on us  where all about what can the government do for them.

by Chinese Democracy on 02/12/2008 08:03:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Simply not true (none / 0)
You say the telecom companies "were given every level of assurance that what they were doing was entirely legal from the highest levels of government."

That is simply not true. One level of assurance is a court order. Indeed, that is the only reliable "level of assurance" to an attorney, and is especially important when the executive is out of control.

Qwest insisted on that. Anyone who had the bad judgment to act otherwise should fire their lawyers and make sure their insurance is paid.

by Dogger on 02/28/2008 07:39:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Something else to note (none / 0)
FTFA: The Senate today also rejected two other amendments aimed at diluting the immunity provision. One would have allowed the lawsuits to go forward but would have made the federal government--not the telecommunications companies--the defendant in those cases. The measure, co-sponsored by Sens. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), was rejected 68 to 30.

Wow.  Specter and Whitehouse, doing yeoman's work there.  That actually would have been a very, very good (and goddamn BALLSY) maneuver.

by jarett on 02/12/2008 06:43:08 PM EST

I love Ken's absolutist logic (none / 0)

ONLY 2 POSSIBLITIES!

 

The end.

 

by Randomambusher on 02/12/2008 06:47:09 PM EST

Bush rolls Democrats (none / 0)
"I love Ken's absolutist logic, ONLY 2 POSSIBLITIES!"

OK. Give me another possibility.

1. Bush is right and Democrats are wrong.

2. Democrats are unfit for leadership.

So how do you explain it? What's your possibility? Why have Democrats capitulated on every major issue since Jan 2001?

Democrats hold the majority in both houses of congress. For example, if they wanted to end the war in Iraq, all they would need to do is get 40 of 51 Democrat Senators to block funding, or a simple majority in the House to block funding. Then it's game over. No bucks, no Buck Rogers.

But every time, on every issue, George "The Chimp" Bush kicks their ass.

Is Bush smarter than Democrats?

Is Bush tougher than Democrats?

Is Bush more popular than Democrats?

Is Bush more right on the issues than Democrats?

by KenTX on 02/12/2008 10:34:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
More notable links (none / 0)
Republican criminals 508,000
Republican sex offender 228,000
Republican embezzlement 172,000

Ken is an idiot 473,000

by Juarez Traveller on 02/12/2008 07:23:16 PM EST

I don't ever get this (none / 0)
What does showing google results prove?  You can google anything and get a fair amount of hits.  What's the point? 
That said...
Ken is retarded
Bush is right about everything
Bush is wrong about everything
Limbaugh eats babies

by Spencer on 02/12/2008 07:48:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
hmm (none / 0)
looks like you need to take your dispute over to googlefight.

by mathcore on 02/12/2008 08:04:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Those where fun (none / 0)
Rush Limbaugh eats babies and lots and lots of Oxycotin. Its called Google bombing. Conservatives like it because its like someone telling them what to think.

by Chinese Democracy on 02/12/2008 08:06:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Republican criminals? (none / 0)

Republican criminals?

Shouldn't that be the total number of Republicans?

by Dogger on 02/12/2008 07:35:12 PM EST

Godfuckingdammit (none / 0)
Dick Durbin is the bestest whip evar.  Way to keep the GOP on their toes!

by mathcore on 02/12/2008 08:00:20 PM EST

Stabenow?! (none / 0)

Dammit. She voted for the Military Commissions Act, too. I *hate* it when my reps screw up like this.

I'm going to do my damndest to make sure she doesn't get re-elected the next time around. I just wrote her a letter to that effect. I hope it makes a dent.

by peteplace on 02/12/2008 08:03:30 PM EST

the name game song (none / 0)
I'm not quite sure I get the point of relating all this to the song, Name Game.  I did get a laugh from it however. Not nearly as big as laugh as KenTX got from the Democrats' capitulation. I think he is enjoying this too much.  

David

by yturks on 02/12/2008 08:09:09 PM EST

This is too easy (none / 0)

Yeah, the reason their polling numbers are so low is that they keep accomodating the Republicans.  What you can't seem to figure out is what that means for the Republicans.

It also means that in general, the Democrats are more bipartisan as a rule than the Republicans. 

Try these google searches:

"Bush Lies"                                       203,000  hits

"Bush Sucks"                                     157,000 hits 

"I Hate Bush"                                    154,000 hits 

"Republican Corruption"                    56,000 hits

"Republicans Suck"                             23,000 hits 

"Stupid Republicans"                         18,300 hits 

"Bush is the worst president ever"    13,300 hits

"Chimp in chief"                                 10,600 hits 

"Republican Perverts"                        6,250

"Iraq war has made us less safe"       2,930 hits

"Botched war on terror"                     2,580 hits

"Cheney Darth Vader"                         2,530 hits 

"KenTX Deluded"                                 2 hits  

by bfaul on 02/12/2008 09:15:01 PM EST

one final one (none / 0)

Here's one more interesting search:

"Gay Republicans"     106,000 hits

"Gay Democrats"     &nb sp; 17,700 hits

 

To quote Cenk:  I'm not sayin' anything, I'm just sayin'.

(With apologies to any gay persons on the forum, for equating them with Republicans) 

by bfaul on 02/12/2008 09:26:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
After looking around a little (none / 0)

Replace "Republicans" with "Democrats" or "Bush" with "Clinton" in any of these searches.  It's not even in the same ballpark.  We're talking 10-to-1 differences in a lot of cases.

You sure you want to play this game KenTx? 

by bfaul on 02/12/2008 09:43:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hey Funny Man.... (none / 0)
You stealing my material! Geez

by MRFred on 02/12/2008 10:19:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Fred, (none / 0)
why don't you send a private message to bfaul, ihavenobias, Juarez Traveller, jarett, spencer, randomasshole, and Chinese Fruitfly, and the eight of you can make this a group project.

Here's the question again:

Why do Democrats continue caving to George W Bush on every issue?

Let me know when you guys come up with something.

And please, don't hate me just because I'm beautiful. I can't help it.

by KenTX on 02/12/2008 10:51:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Because Democrats suck? (none / 0)
Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh were singing the same song about the Republicans back before they got their respective acts together.

by jarett on 02/13/2008 12:08:32 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Chimpy McChimperson (none / 0)
Jarett, how can a president with average intelligence keep kicking Democrat azzz?

by KenTX on 02/13/2008 12:58:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]
That's an easy one, my friend (none / 0)
Because it's not him doing the kicking, obviously.

by jarett on 02/13/2008 01:56:12 AM EST

[ Parent ]
No Jarret (none / 0)

It's bigger than that. Who really wins on this one? George W, Democrat politicians, Republican politicians who are throwing their public careers away, Limbaugh and the rest and the Telecoms and that is it. This position is just another that is wildly unpopular with the American people and W is more than willing to take the blame.

Let me explain. Bush is about to run out of the White House after successfully covering his tracks, making his family and friends a lot of money and destroying his own party in the process.

Republican House incumbent number 29 announced his retirement today and most likely has a sweet deal lined up in the private field. Screw the party, they are getting what is coming to them after throwing their political carriers away on Bush.

Obviously the Telecoms are getting what they want.

Rush gets to boost his ratings by having someone to bash for the next 4 years regardless of what happens. Being an apologist doesn't work in his field.

Democrats get huge campaign contributions and still get to point the finger at someone else for the blame.

Oh, I forgot, there are two more.

Ken gets to play the role of pigeon and root on Bush and support him while he watches Bush destroy the Republican party.

We get to sit here and laugh at Ken for being such and easy mark. 

by z1p101 on 02/13/2008 01:08:51 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Zippy loses again, (none / 0)
and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again.

"Democrats get huge campaign contributions and still get to point the finger at someone else for the blame."

Democrats voted overwhelmingly to support George Bush on this issue. In fact, pick any issue, and Democrat lawmakers have supported the President.

Combine that reality with the fact that George Bush is not running for reelection, and you start to understand the denial in zippy's little world.

Everytime Bush wins another battle, zippy dies a little more. When he finally snaps and goes postal, I don't want to be around. That day will happen if John McCain wins in November.

by KenTX on 02/13/2008 01:23:06 AM EST

[ Parent ]
LOL (none / 0)

Dude, the second blue wave in 2 years is coming. The Republican rats are all jumping ship. 29 Republicans are retiring out of the House and experts are saying there will be more.

They are all taking what is theirs and leaving it to be taken by Democrats and at best for you a Republican president who hates your tax cuts.

Even you know Rush sees whats coming.

"Rush Limbaugh doesn't give a damn if the GOP wins in 2008. He gets much higher ratings when Democrats are in the White House. He wants Hillary to win, and he wants to maintain control of the Republican Party opposition to Hillary."

You have sucker stamped on your fore head, cheap fiddle written on your chest and neo con bitch tattooed on your ass.

Do you really need to be a Northern city kid to understand when you are being played? 

by z1p101 on 02/13/2008 01:42:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I forgot (none / 0)

there is one more thing.

"Democrats voted overwhelmingly to support George Bush on this issue."

Overwhelmingly would mean at least half wouldn't it?

Sorry Ken, the Democrats will take those Telecom campaign contributions and  lock their seats and buy new ones to give them even a larger (and worth while) majority and still get to blame Bush. Bush did lobby for it big time in the SOTU speech, didn't he?

by z1p101 on 02/13/2008 02:08:38 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh yea (none / 0)

if anyone else is questioning who I think looses in this deal I will tell you.

It is us, all of us. Regardless if you are a Democrat or Republican. Our politicians sold us out for political and financial gain.

I know most of the people here understand that but can you explain it to our local "libertarian, Goldwater conservative" pigeon.

 

by z1p101 on 02/13/2008 02:28:30 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Because... (none / 0)
They have telecom money in their pockets.  Any other time they cave it's because of some latent daddy issues that won't allow them to rebel.  Something like that anyway.  Or maybe it's just because they hate America... could it be?

by Spencer on 02/13/2008 02:25:08 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You know the answer .... (none / 0)

....its called  "60 votes". Its the same answer since...well...1980 or so..except when the Rethugs for a brief shining moment had a bullet proof majority and pissed it away on Terry Schivo, defending marriage, passing flag amendments and going after obscenity at the Super Bowl. As a result Frist got fried...quit like a pussy and is making commercials with James Carvel

Anyway, you should be so proud that the social conservatives rule the roost in Rethug land. I'll bet that makes you very very happy. 

I dont hate you Ken. I don't hate anyone who is less fortunate than myself.

See you in church 

 

 

by MRFred on 02/13/2008 09:30:56 AM EST

[ Parent ]
MRFred (none / 0)

" You stealing my material! Geez"

No, I think we cross posted.  But I'll admit that while I was doing the searches I was thinking:  "MRFred is probably busy doing Google searches of his own".  You didn't disappoint me. 

by bfaul on 02/13/2008 11:00:45 AM EST

[ Parent ]
bfaul asks a good question (none / 0)
As a bayou boy, he knew I would be back to check the crab traps and see how many big blues I caught.

"Replace "Republicans" with "Democrats"  in any of these searches.  It's not even in the same ballpark.  We're talking 10-to-1 differences in a lot of cases."
OK. Let's see which political party concedes most often to the other political party.

“Democrats cave”: 25,800 hits
“Republicans cave”: 2790 hits

“Dems cave”: 9,290 hits
“Reps cave”: 74 hits

“Democrats surrender”: 6,360 hits
“Republicans surrender”: 802 hits

“Democrats roll over:” 3,160 hits
“Republicans roll over:” 441 hits

“Democrats capitulate:” 2,920 hits
“Republicans capitulate:” 125 hits

You're right. It looks like roughly 10-to-1 differences. Thanks bfaul!

by KenTX on 02/12/2008 10:23:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Except... (none / 0)

It just doesn't matter.  Nobody is fooled about who is doing what.  It'll all get rolled back in the next 4 years anyway.  The Republicans are probably headed for their smallest minority in several decades.  The Iraq ball and chain is firmly around their necks now.  It's looking like the economy is going to tank on top of that. I've never seen a party burn itself down so completely.  Have you ever seen the rats swarm off the ship in such numbers?  There will be no balance left between left and right.  If Bush had any kind of ability to compromise he might have salvaged some kind of legacy before that happens, but he's a victim of his own obstinance now.  Nobody in either party has a lick of respect for him anymore.

by bfaul on 02/13/2008 01:43:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]
asdf (none / 0)

Democrats cave; Republicans spelunk.

by desertpear on 02/13/2008 12:02:43 AM EST

HIlarious (none / 0)
Because spelunking is just a touch more classy.

by Spencer on 02/13/2008 02:26:56 AM EST

[ Parent ]
This latest move shows (none / 0)

That fear still has its grip on the so-called leaders in Washington and that they don't have faith in Democracy and the rule of law.

And guess what that means? The terrorists are winning. 

by Andrew Koenig on 02/13/2008 12:13:01 AM EST

Too true, Drew (none / 0)
Unfortunately, no amount of voting spineless cowards out of office seems to fix it.

by jarett on 02/13/2008 01:57:49 AM EST

[ Parent ]
So tell us, Ken... (none / 0)


Do you think it's a good thing or a bad thing that Bush, Cheney, and the telecoms will get away with breaking the law?

Or do you deny that they broke any laws?

by Juarez Traveller on 02/13/2008 01:05:05 AM EST

You answer first, (none / 0)
and then I will reciprocate.

Why did Pat Fitzgerald not indict anyone for outing the identity of Valerie Plame?
 
Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, Richard Armitage all admitted to disclosing her identity to reporters. And yet there were no indictments.

Why?

by KenTX on 02/13/2008 01:13:59 AM EST

[ Parent ]
One word. (none / 0)
Power.

by jarett on 02/13/2008 01:58:20 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Two words. (none / 0)
Constitutional Authority.

I'm waiting for JT to throw his card, so I can throw my trump card.

by KenTX on 02/13/2008 02:01:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Jeezus, Ken. You can't be that stupid. (none / 0)


No.  I don't play idiotic children's games.  Answer my questions or don't.  Either way, you display your lack of ethics plainly for all to see.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/13/2008 03:37:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You were wise to avoid my trap. (none / 0)
The reason that Fitzgerald never indicted anyone for outing the identity of Valerie Plame is because she was no longer covert the minute Cheney declared her declassified.

I love this 90 second exchange between Tim Russert and Dick Cheney. Pay particular attention to the last 15 seconds. How do you like his cute little smile?

What this means is that Dick and George and their trusted henchmen had the legal authority to declassify and expose the identity of Valerie Plame. This is why there was no underlying crime, and why nobody was ever indicted by Pat Fitzgerald.

The same logic holds for warrantless wiretapping of al Qaeda. After Congress handed War Powers to the President by passing two AUMFs, he had the authority to prosecute the war against al Qaeda. Nothing gets in the way of that authority. Not habaeas corpus. Not the fourth amendment. Nothing.

Congress knows it. The Supreme Court knows it. You need to buy a vowel from Vanna, so you can get a clue and know it also.

George Bush is his own seperate and co-equal branch of government. He doesn't work for Congress. The only thing Democrats can do to block progress on the war is to cut funding, and they don't have the nerve.

So why are Democrats not initiating impeachment hearings on George Bush? For the same reason that Pat Fitzgerald didn't indict anyone for outing Valerie Plame.

The Executive Branch has enormous power, especially during time of war. Put a couple of thoughts behind it. 

by KenTX on 02/13/2008 03:59:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ken, you are a very stupid man. (none / 0)

You believe that there are conditions and situations in which the President is omnipotent.

If you aren't more careful and you continue to denigrate the authority of the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, then you might just get your wish.

You should be very afraid of that possibility.  But you continue to show that you really aren't very bright.  Fortunately, there are enough of us who are so that we can protect even idiots like you.  It's just too bad that I can't count on you to protect my freedom as I would protect yours.


by Juarez Traveller on 02/13/2008 04:59:09 AM EST

[ Parent ]
they dont have much good news (none / 0)
With news like this the conservative trolls and Limbaugh have to come up with something else to talk about.

"Barack Obama didn't just beat Hillary in Virginia. He didn't just get more votes than John McCain. In "red" Virginia, Obama got 142,000 more votes than all the Republicans put together. And that was with Hillary Clinton taking 100,000 more votes than John McCain."

by Chinese Democracy on 02/13/2008 09:08:56 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Chinese Math (none / 0)
You keep comparing the GOP primary turnout with the Democrat primary turnout. Let me explain a couple of things to you.

1. The GOP race is over. McCain won. Nobody is voting in that primary.

2. The Democrat race is neck-and-neck and very exciting. Everybody is voting.

3 Republicans (like me) are voting in the Democrat Primary so we can influence the outcome.

4. If Hillary somehow wins the nomination, the Democrats will be so depressed that turnout will be seriously impacted.

by KenTX on 02/13/2008 05:02:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Regular math (none / 0)

If anyone is keeping count, this is Ken's 254th hair brain scheme to get somebody, anybody with am R behind their name elected in the last 90 days.

Sounds like desperation to me. 

by z1p101 on 02/13/2008 05:23:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
informal polling (none / 0)
I can't find the post, but I think you've admitted that it will be much more difficult to get Hillary elected in November than Barack Obama. Her negatives are off the chart.

GOP voters will walk barefoot through broken glass to vote against her.

Independent voters like her less than Republicans.

At this point, I'm trying to determine how many Barack-lovers would be willing to vote for Hillary. The number is far below 87%.

by KenTX on 02/13/2008 05:29:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
American History For Dummies (none / 0)
“You believe that there are conditions and situations in which the President is omnipotent.”
American History is replete with examples of where the Executive trampled on civil liberties when they came into conflict with the objectives of war efforts.  

Japanese American internments
Ex Parte Quirin
Lincoln’s treatment of Peace Democrats
Lincoln’s military tribunals
Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus.
Alien and Sedition Acts
Espionage Act

The Supreme Court found some of these actions were in violation of the Constitution, but the rulings always occurred long after the war ended. In the heat of conflict, the Executive is given broad and sweeping powers to prosecute the war. Concerns for civil liberties are examined much later.

In the words of Alberto Gonzales:
“This Nation has a long tradition of wartime enemy surveillance. And for as long as electronic communications have existed, the United States has intercepted those communications during wartime, and done so, not surprisingly, without judicial warrants. In the Civil War, for example, telegraph wiretapping was common and provided important intelligence for both sides. In World War I, President Wilson authorized the military to intercept all telegraph, telephone, and cable communications into and out of the United States; he inferred the authority to do so from the Constitution and from a general congressional authorization to use military force that did not mention anything about such surveillance. See Exec. Order No. 2604 (Apr. 28, 1917). So too in World War II; the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt authorized the interception of all communications traffic into and out of the United States. The terrorist surveillance program, of course, is far more focused, since it involves the interception only of international communications that are linked to al Qaeda.”

A Democrat controlled Congress made warrantless wiretapping of al Qaeda communications with American citizens the law of the land. All George Bush had to do was sign what Reid and Pelosi laid on his desk.

I don’t expect you to respond to this post. You usually run away after every thumping.

by KenTX on 02/13/2008 10:20:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Your idiocy knows no bounds. (none / 0)

"Run away".  Hmmm....  Well.  I won't bother to post the links to the messages where others accuse you of running away.  But for my part, I simply lose interest in you.

By the way, it's obvious that you condone those violations of our Constitution, the document that defines our country.

Why do you hate America?

by Juarez Traveller on 02/13/2008 11:26:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ask what you can do for your country. (none / 0)
I guess I need to explain the concept to you in parable form. Let’s say that you’re an ACLU lawyer living in Las Cruces and war breaks out with Venezuela.  One day the Marines show up at your residence and explain that the enemy is coming across the border, and they need to search your residence, without a warrant. After the search and the all clear, the commanding officer explains that you’re being drafted for 2-3 weeks to help construct defenses. Furthermore, the military needs to “borrow” your pick up trucks for operations.

Since you’re an ACLU lawyer, you start arguing about your civil liberties. After a rifle butt to the ear you get the message that these guys aren’t fooling around. Your throbbing ear helps you understand that your constitutional rights are a benefit of winning the war and securing sovereignty and freedom. Without victory, you won’t have any constitutional rights, or any constitution.
 
The moral to the story: Protect the Constitution first, then enjoy civil liberties it provides later. Consider it deferred gratification.

by KenTX on 02/13/2008 11:58:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Okay, just one more. (none / 0)

You've made at least two more stupid assumptions (but we're used to that from you):  You assume that I wouldn't understand that the Constitution provides for that circumstance, and you assume that I'm not a loyal American who would not work to defeat an enemy of my country.  Nothing that you described violates our Constitution.

But our conversation was about things that do violate the law and the Constitution.  In fact, you have described many other activities that dojust that.  And you have not criticized them.  In fact, you describe those activities with what seems to be glee.  You seem happy that our Constitution -- that precious document which is the foundation of America and is the reason that America exists -- has been weakened and violated so terribly.

So I ask again, why do you hate America?

by Juarez Traveller on 02/14/2008 12:35:35 AM EST

[ Parent ]
"The Game" (none / 0)
“I promise that I never will reply to you again.” 
Don’t make a promise that you can’t keep. When you post something, and I reply with a clever zinger, you’ll be compelled to respond. You can’t help it because its in your nature. You’re stuck with me, so you might as well learn how to deal with me.

I’ve been around this forum for a few years, and I’m employing the tried and true process that we call bronco bustin’. You supply all the energy, and I let you wear yourself down. Eventually, you’ll break, and become a reasonable, friendly, fun-loving forum participant. I’ve been patiently waiting, and I think you’re at the breaking point. (MedfordTim can tell you the story about how he and DenverAdam broke me back in 2004.)
bronc bustin

I trade zingers with everyone in the forum. It’s give and take, like towel snapping in a locker room. If you try to win every argument, or allow yourself to become angry and offended, you won’t have any fun. And fun is what this forum is all about.

Visualize this as an Irish Pub, where we come to pour a pint and debate politics. You're always welcome at my table.

“Nothing that you described violates our Constitution.”

See, that’s how it works. Now we’re having a conversation.

In my parable, how many violations can you count in the following links?
Third Amendment
Fourth Amendment
Fifth Amendment  (just compensation)

by KenTX on 02/14/2008 01:32:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Fred, Tim, Zippy, Hubble, Jarett, Jesse (none / 0)
Tell the new guy that we're just playing around here.

Group hug.

by KenTX on 02/14/2008 01:42:41 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ken's almost entirely right (none / 0)

Except on a few key things:

  1. The facts of nearly every issue (foreign and domestic).
  2. His interpretation of the word "clever" is suspect.
After that, he's a great guy.  It didn't take me long to realize that he at least has a decent sense of humor.  But it's never a good idea to just stop responding to someone because you disagree (unless it's acroso, because that's hopeless).  Sure, arguments can take unhealthy turns now and then, but it's politics and as Omar would say "It's all in the game."

by Spencer on 02/14/2008 01:46:18 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Interest (none / 0)

I have no problem in talking with someone with whom I disagree a lot.  My girlfriend is a good ferinstance.  She's interesting, she never lies, her logic is flawless, she gets her facts straight, we disagree about everything, and our meals are always a joy.  The argument that we had about Michigan and Florida -- I'm with Cenk and she would agree with Michael Shure -- was as hot as the one on TYT today.  It's a good thing that she likes my cooking.

KenTX is at best amoral, wouldn't know logic if it bit him in the ass, uses facts that argue against his case but ignores the contradiction, can't follow the simplest idea from hypothesis to its logical conclusion, is dishonest, and is no fun to argue with because he has no ideas that he hasn't gotten from transparently manipulative and flawed right-wing propaganda.  If a fact gets in his way, he simply ignores it.  I also think he is disloyal to America because he clearly supports the abrogation of the Constitution.  What's more, he demonstrates a significant if not total lack of concern for the well-being of his countrymen.

He's part of the problem, and because of his idiotic intransigence, I consider him to be a waste of my time -- until he becomes dangerous idiot, that is.  I'll be happy working to assure that his voice no longer matters.

It is not a difficult task, since he does so well at it himself.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/14/2008 03:46:20 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I guess the olive branch didn't work. (none / 0)
So you and your girlfriend argue about which one of you is more liberal, and which one of you is more feminine. I'm impressed, however, in this forum we talk about topics of a broader range.

When you offer your bullshit liberal talking points, prepare to be challenged. If you don't like it, tuff shit. You certainly have the right to not respond. It will make you look even more foolish than you already are.

by KenTX on 02/14/2008 07:22:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Jeezus, Ken (none / 0)
Your entire first paragraph is semantically null.  It's as if you never actually wrote those words -- except that they describe your incredible delusion of relevance.

And if you actually offered a challenge...

<yawn!>

I am actually sad that you don't comprehend what's going on here.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/14/2008 10:07:21 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh, and by the way... (none / 0)

I just went back an looked at the threads where I was demonstrating what a hipocritical idiot you are (all of them in which I replied to you).

Guess what percentage of our conversations in which we have two or more exchanges each end with a direct reply from me to you vs. a direct reply from you to me.

(I'll wait here while you look.)

It seems that I can also add "coward" to your list of character defects.

But if it makes you happy, I surrender.  I give.  You can have every last word from now on.  I'm done.  The field is yours.  I promise that I never will reply to you again.  You can say the stupidest, most dishonest thing you can come up with, and I won't say a word.  It do esn't matter how completely illogical or shallow your thinking is, I'll say nothing -- and that will be a challenge, because your thinking always is illogical and shallow.

Uneducable morons just aren't worth the effort.  The only thing you can do is make sure they get enough food and don't soil themselves -- Oops!  I see that I'm too late.

Better go change your underwear, little boy.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/14/2008 12:21:31 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Wow! (none / 0)

"I love this 90 second exchange between Tim Russert and Dick Cheney. Pay particular attention to the last 15 seconds. How do you like his cute little smile?"

You love that?  You have to think that what they did to Plame, whether legal or illegal, was morally wrong though right?  They outed her (even if she was declassified) because they were mad that her husband didn't play ball.  Keep in mind it was her husband.  Not her.  Why did she deserve that?  This is one of those things where I think you're just reveling in being an evil prick.  Like Dick Cheney is such a cool motherfucker for outing someone who's been serving her country for years, just because he wanted his illegal war.  Fucking asshole.

They've been spying on us illegally (hence immunity) and you want to let them out of it because of a goddamn loophole.  Real cute.  Love the way you guys are able to put politics aside for the good of the country. 

by Spencer on 02/13/2008 05:15:39 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Not this bullshit again... (none / 0)

grow up, will you. This isn't a schoolyard where you can compare sizes of you kickballs....

Eventually, one day, and from your posts I suspect in a very painful and personal way, you will learn that just having the ability (or power ) to do something doesn't always make it the right thing to do.

In the big scheme of thing the Plame affair will be just a footnote in history and little more than one of many validations of the hubris exhibited by the Bushies. Will it matter? Who knows.

I'm sure that the VP and Presidential admins are busily deleting emails, destroying hard drives, erasing tapes, comparing stories prepping for the next administration.

However, cover ups are rarely successfully simply because there's nothing to prove if you do the right thing.

One day after the inauguration either Obama or McCain will be sitting in the oval office when an aide will come to them with some documents. They will read the documents and make a decision.

Obama will turn them over to Attorney General Edwards, Mc Cain will turn them over to Attorney General Crist.

Pres Obama will say follow this where it leads. Pres McCain will " "Fuck the bastards" thinking back to SC in 2000

Either way  ,regardless of the source, payback is a bitch. 

by MRFred on 02/13/2008 09:15:59 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Does something being legal make it right? (none / 0)
Just a lil' sump'n to think about.

by jarett on 02/13/2008 09:50:30 AM EST

[ Parent ]
no but (none / 0)
Ya know, I really don't think Rove gave a half second consideration as to whether what he was doing was legal or not. Considering all the laws Bush has broken ,I get the impression that they all thought they where above the law.

by Chinese Democracy on 02/13/2008 03:04:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Democrats cave AGAIN!!!!! | 68 comments (68 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: