I believe I just got a "push-pull"

Email Print posted by MedfordTim 05/10/2008 01:25:16 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If you like this story, digg it!
I don't normally answer my phone before screening through an answering machine. This morning I was half expecting a call from someone, so when it rang I picked up. Damn if it wasn't a survey! Asked if I would participate, I agreed - if it was to be political in nature. After a moment of "Uh, I don't know, no, no, YES!" the questions started.

The standard stuff - Age, registration, party affiliation, ethnicity. One I found interesting, "Regardless of party affiliation, do you consider yourself more a Democrat, Republican, or Independent?" I liked that question. It's a good one to ask.

Then we got down to the gritty of the nitty...


After some easy to answer "Who you gonna vote for" and "Should Hillary get out?" types, the lady asked how I felt about Obama wanting to "stop the sale of handguns" and I put her brakes on. "Waitaminnet! I think that is a misrepresentation of his stance." She replied, "Well there is the memo from his time in Chicago in his own words in which he says that he wants to..." "Hold it, " I interrupted, "I've seen and read that memo, and there is a typewritten part and a handwritten addition - which part are you talking about?"

"Oh," she said, "I see you're pretty up on these things...you've done your research."

"Yeah, I try to keep up as much as possible..." I hear a male voice in the background and the lady says, "I've just been told that we already have our total for this survey and we don't need your input after all."

"Say, what?"

She repeated the same with the hurried addition of "My supervisor is right here, would you like to talk to him?" We bandied back and forth, until I realized I was hearing but not listening. She was giving me the universal minimum-wage phone bank caller plea for mercy, and I was ignoring it. She obviously was in an ugly situation not of her making and didn't need the hassle. That was why her boss was getting the "big bucks." Once I caught on, I said "Sure, let me talk to him."

I asked him, "Why is it that when I get asked a push-pull type question and have the facts at hand, the survey stops?" He gave me a story about the caller getting the wrong list. I poo-pooed the notion. So, I asked him what the name of the survey group is.

Ever see a movie where the guy attached to a lie detector just got asked a question he wasn't expecting, and really, really doesn't want to answer? I could almost see the guy reaching for his collar.

"Um, eh, ahh, PSA Inc." At least, I think it was an "A" on the end. I asked him to repeat it twice more and I still couldn't figure out whether he said "A" or "I." I asked him what it stood for.

"What?"

"What do the initials stand for?"

"Nothing."

"Nothing? Are you serious?"

"Right, they don't stand for anything, they're just letters  - like CBS"

"Like CBS?? CBS stands for 'Columbia Broadcasting System'! They aren't 'just letters'! What do yours stand for?"

"Nothing, nothing at all. We're sorry to have troubled you, thanksforyourtime," and he hung up.

Wish I knew what other questions they had...
< This is how you change the world for the better | Clean coal mythology >
 Display:
I believe I just got a "push-pull" | 80 comments (80 topical, 0 hidden)
God/FSM/Invisible Pink Unicorn bless you, Tim (none / 0)
Thank you for standing up for America and fighting bullshit and propoganda. May we all be as informed as you. I wonder if there is somewhere we can lodge complaints against false "polls" like this?

Keep up the fight, we will see a lot more and a lot worse coming soon.

by Weapon X on 05/10/2008 02:24:50 PM EST

push "poll" (none / 0)
But editing aside, you did good.  I guess they are trying to turn Oregon against Obama, but I think my home state will go overwhelmingly for him. 

by desertpear on 05/10/2008 03:42:40 PM EST

huh. (none / 0)
I thought it was a "push-pull" poll. Pushing and pulling you to the answer they want, but you make sense with the abbreviated edit.

by MedfordTim on 05/10/2008 04:02:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm an editor (none / 0)
It kind of sucks sometimes because I can't help but notice dopey little things like that ;)  I "wiki'd" it to make sure.

by desertpear on 05/10/2008 04:06:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
googling psi inc. (none / 0)

OK, here are a few likely suspects for your "PSA Inc."

This shady site

http://www.ctufty.com or... 

Public Strategies Inc. 

http://www.pstrategies.com

Partnership for a Secure America?--probably not

http://www.psaonline.org

 

by desertpear on 05/10/2008 03:49:55 PM EST

Thanks for the feedback. (none / 0)
Tim, it’s called a push poll, and I can tell that our employees at PSA Inc. need more training.

Barack Obama has no problem with confiscating every privately owned gun in America. I will circulate this information to our operatives.

Thank you for helping us improve the process.

Have a nice day.

by KenTX on 05/10/2008 04:44:12 PM EST

but (none / 0)
He specifiies "illegal guns."  I don't see anywhere that says he wants to "confiscate every privately owned gun in America."  Let alone the fact that such a feat would be an enforcement impossibility.  Are you maybe exaggerating just a teeny bit?

by desertpear on 05/10/2008 05:03:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
TrifeKta (none / 0)
Apparently we can add illegal guns to rape and racism to things Ken supports.

by ProfRich on 05/11/2008 01:35:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]
What is an illegal gun? (none / 0)
A gun that a group of liberals deemed "illegal"?

I trust the Supreme Court to settle this issue, like they recently settled the issue of Voter ID.

We're on a roll here!

by KenTX on 05/11/2008 01:46:43 AM EST

[ Parent ]
A ceramic gun with no metal parts (none / 0)

They have but one purpose, to get past metal detectors at places like airports or schools to hijack planes or shoot children.

Are you suggesting the deer have set up scanners by the blinds so you need these?

Are the geese hiding down at the airport?

Are the ducks camped out in the classrooms?

Is the burglar threatening your family carrying one of those stick metal detectors the old guys use at the beach when he breaks into your house? 

Why do you support these illegal guns, Ken? Why?

by ProfRich on 05/11/2008 02:24:17 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ken, John Lennon was JOKING (none / 0)
"What is an illegal gun? A gun that a group of liberals deemed "illegal"?"

I deleted my first response because I kept coming back to the specific wording of your questions. There is a sliver of an argument that there are no "illegal guns" if one wants to travel down a twisty road of questionable logic, so let me concede that train of thought.

Why concede? Because an argument can be made that the weapon itself cannot be deemed "illegal." Making it, having it, selling it, etc.; the actions of individuals can be illegal, but the weapon itself lends a gray area. Much the same as Marijuana, it's the having, manufacturing, selling processes that are actually violations of law, not the plant. Semantics at it's ugliest, I know, but common sense has little to do with legalese.

A variation of your question could be, "Who can be considered to have broken a law involving firearm restrictions?" That can be defined a little easier, if not completely.

The NFA makes certain conduct a criminal offense, including but not limited to: engaging in business as a manufacturer, importer, or dealer with respect to firearms without having registered or paid a special occupational tax; receiving or possessing a firearm transferred to oneself in violation of the NFA; receiving or possessing a firearm made in violation of the NFA; receiving or possessing a firearm not registered to oneself in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record; transferring or making a firearm in violation of the NFA; or obliterating, removing, changing, or altering the serial number of the firearm.

As far as who came up with whatever restrictions there are, it was a blend of idealogies, conservative and liberal, Democrat and Republican, over a number of decades because enough normal citizens from all walks of life got fed up with the destructive power available in small packages. It's too bad gun enthusiasts can't understand that part and offer a constructive compromise instead of having the tired old "we won't budge" mentality.

Hell, even in the Wild West there were towns which required people to check their guns in until they left. Gun control is a proud American tradition. Just ask J. Edgar Hoover.

by MedfordTim on 05/11/2008 03:23:41 AM EST

[ Parent ]
ok (none / 0)
I did a little more reading and it seems that Obama has relaxed his gun-control stance in the last four years.  I do believe people can change their stance, especially a young politician like Barack.  I'm satisfied with his position on guns personally (I own guns) and there are other issues that seem more pressing at the moment.  In all of my 47 years, I have never ever seen a serious threat to my right to own guns, aside from semi-automatic weapons that I can live without (fun as they are to shoot).  I would be more worried about abortion rights being taken away, although I am in favor of *some* changes in our abortion laws too. 

by desertpear on 05/10/2008 07:26:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Is it just me? (none / 0)

Am I the only who has noticed the pubs are essentially advocating a dictatorship (unitary executive) but these idiots think El Jefe is gonna let em keep guns? 

Remember when they were paranoid about Clinton spying on us and then they elected Bush and Bush is now spying on us?

They're like Wile E. Coyote.  They just never see it coming no matter how obvious it is. 

by ProfRich on 05/11/2008 01:45:07 AM EST

[ Parent ]
It's just you, (none / 0)
along with a small group of lame-brained liberals who have problems understanding the Constitution.

During time of war, the president is given far-reaching executive authority to prosecute the war. Even the Bill of Rights do not supersede this authority.

This is why George W Bush has won every showdown with Democrats. This is why the Supreme Court has his back.

Would you like for me to recount the times that presidents have trampled on the Bill of Rights during time of war?

by KenTX on 05/11/2008 01:55:30 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Misinformation are Ken (none / 0)

 

During time of war, the president is given far-reaching executive authority to prosecute the war. Even the Bill of Rights do not supersede this authority.

 

Thats not exactly true , no...for the sake of argument lets say it is true. With that authority is the assumption that the President has the judgment and obligation to use the authority prudently, against enemies of the United States and not against the citizenry, or most importantly, against his political opponents or for political purposes.

President Bush, if anything, has certainly politicized every aspect of the war for political and personal gain.

by MRFred on 05/11/2008 10:43:50 AM EST

[ Parent ]
look for little clues (none / 0)
Fred, shall I recount the number of times that Bush has won in showdowns against Democrats on issues related to the war? They roll over to him every time. The Supreme Court backs him every time.

When we are in the middle of a war, the Congress is supposed to back the president, and allow him to prosecute the war. It's in the Constitution.

by KenTX on 05/11/2008 04:20:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Not its not.... (none / 0)

 Ah ,the old "It's in the Constitution!" defense.

the Congress is supposed to back the president and allow him to prosecute the war....It's in the Constitution.

 No what's in the constitution is Article 2 Section 2

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States .

 

Article I, Section 8,  of the  Constitution, vests in the Congress the exclusive power:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.

**the reprisal section is the "self defense" aspect of the power.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions

  To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Please show us the clause in the Constitution that states

the Congress is supposed to back the president, and allow him to prosecute the war. 

or words to that effect.  The fact he is the Commander in Chief means he will prosecute a war...when military force will be used, is a matter of conjecture and subject to the War Powers Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-148) . And NO it hasnt been ruled unconstitutional regardless of what that idiot Limbaugh says.

Perhaps your talking about the Bush Cheney crack pipe called unitary executive theory?

by MRFred on 05/11/2008 05:27:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
you should be ashamed (none / 0)
Unitary Executive theory originates with the vesting clause of Article II which states "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

This means that the President is the Executive Branch. He doesn’t work for Congress. He is his own separate, and co-equal branch of government, and he does not answer to Congress. They are not the boss of him.

After Congress declares war, as they did with the AUMF against al Qaeda, the President is vested with absolute authority to prosecute the war and protect the citizens. These inherent powers cannot be bound by law. This means that while prosecuting a war, the President is actually above the law. The only congressional check on Presidential war making power comes from its power of the purse.

This is why Democrats have consistently lost on issues like FISA, Geneva, torture, Gitmo, habeas corpus, rendition, etc, etc, etc. This is why the Bush Administration has quietly asserted Unitary Executive, while Democrats have loudly protested. Bush is trying to defeat al Qaeda while maintaining the prerogatives of the Executive. Democrats are trying to politicize the war and thwart the war effort.

Democrats don’t care about defeating al Qaeda. Their objective is to defeat Bush.

Barack Obama has roughly a 50/50 chance of being elected president in 2008. If he wins, Republicans will support his efforts to destroy al Qaeda. We are very different from Democrats, and that makes me proud.
 
A hundred years from now, historians will still be studying the actions and motivations of George Bush, and comparing him with the Democrats who opposed him. You people are standing on the wrong side of history.

by KenTX on 05/11/2008 07:47:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ken your boy Gonzo doesn't agree (none / 0)
After Congress declares war, as they did with the AUMF against al Qaeda, the President is vested with absolute authority to prosecute the war and protect the citizens.

Well I can only rely on that great legal scholar and all around expert on Bush policy Alberto Gonzalez when he said

"GONZALES: There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force. I only want to clarify that, because there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you're possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force."

So was Alberto lying again or did he actually have half a clue as to what a declaration of war meant?

As to the the entire "right to bear arms" I will challenge you once again to give me an example of a single gun that you can't own. After an entire lifetime of listening to this argument about how the goon squads are coming for your guns, show me one example of a gun you can't own. Hell the police will sell you a gun that isn't available on the market any more if your looking.

by Hubble on 05/11/2008 08:52:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Gonzo is not my boy. (none / 0)
He is neither a constitutional scholar or a deep thinker. I refer you to his testimony before Congress.

My boy is John Yoo. He is all the things that Gonzo is not. He drafted the AUMF, and he says we are damn well at war. The Supreme Court has agreed with Yoo time after time after time.

by KenTX on 05/11/2008 09:59:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I dont what country you live in (none / 0)
but its obviously not the same one the rest of us live in. 

Your contention that the reason Democrats "have consistently lost on issues like FISA, Geneva, torture, Gitmo, habeas corpus, rendition, etc, etc, etc." is due to Unitary Executive theory is simply idiotic on its face and has no basis in reality.

They simply do not have a veto proof majority since the 2006 elections. They also want to protect the country without compromising our American values and Constitution but the  "unitary executive" is unwilling to compromise on even the simplest issue.

That fact that you reduce these deliberations to a mere "win" or "lose " proposition undermines the entire effort against al Qeada and shows your pride for what it truly is, politics pure and simple.

The politics of fear, played by Bush and the Republican simply to bludgeon a political advantage out of the fear  of terrorism to maintain a majority in Congress. With a majority you can reward the rich with more tax cuts at the expense of the war effort.

That being said, I am wondering, if , in your words, the President has absolute authority to prosecute the war and protect the citizens why is Congress required to do anything? Your inference that his constitutional mandate to protect the citizens also allows him to violate the constitution or existing law to do so is simply wrong.

No matter, consider the term Unitary Executive theory. Operative word...theory. In fact it is a theory of Constitutional interpretation. In that regard the only thing you said in that whole passage that has any basis in truth is that he doesn’t work for Congress.

 the President is vested with absolute authority to prosecute the war and protect the citizens. These inherent powers cannot be bound by law.

Not true . The President is bound by the laws of the land just as the rest of the citizens in the Republic. What is true is that the President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to attacks on the United States. The powers can and have been "bound"by law in form of  the War Powers Act.

In the law Congress acknowledged the inherent executive power in  the  but under the act, the President can only send combat troops into battle or into areas where ''imminent'' hostilities are likely, for 60 days without either a declaration of war by Congress or a specific Congressional mandate.

After Congress declares war, as they did with the AUMF against al Qaeda...

Nice try, but not true . No declaration of war was ever made by the United States Congress. What is true is

"that the President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001. " JOHN C. YOO Deputy Assistant Attorney General Office of Legal Counsel

Now back to the question you dodged. 

the Congress is supposed to back the president and allow him to prosecute the war....It's in the Constitution.

Please show us the clause in the Constitution that states

the Congress is supposed to back the president, and allow him to prosecute the war. 

or words to that effect.

One more thing

If he wins, Republicans will support his efforts to destroy al Qaeda

is utter and total bullshit. We'll see. I give it two weeks after the inauguration until the Republicans are not  backing  the President.

 

 

by MRFred on 05/11/2008 10:12:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Fred, I'm glad you asked! (none / 0)
“Your contention that the reason Democrats "have consistently lost on issues like FISA, Geneva, torture, Gitmo, habeas corpus, rendition, etc, etc, etc." is due to Unitary Executive theory is simply idiotic on its face and has no basis in reality. They simply do not have a veto proof majority since the 2006 elections.”

Perhaps you require additional clarification. Democrats have repeatedly failed to defeat the Bush Administration on issues like FISA, Geneva, torture, Gitmo, habeas corpus, rendition, etc, etc, etc because the Supreme Court is beating them down like the unconstitutional political hacks that they are.

These issues eventually move to the Supreme Court, where the position of the Bush Administration is ultimately upheld as constitutional. There are several examples of recent Bush victories and pending Bush victories before the Court.
FISA
Torture
Gitmo
Habeas Corpus

Democrats are consistently losing significantly historical constitutional battles that will damage the reputation of the party for decades.

by KenTX on 05/11/2008 11:54:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Welcome to Kenworld (none / 0)

Where the Supreme Court is showing us what "unconstitutional political hacks" the Democrats in Congress are.

We are through the looking glass people.

Ken, I am going to try and help you here.  Before you make your next post on this thread I am going to ask you to consider two very important words in Supreme Court History.  Dred Scott.  Taney might be a good thing for you to google too.

You were jumping our little canucklehead for getting into your alleged wheelhouse (CO2).  You might consider staying there.

by ProfRich on 05/12/2008 12:02:06 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Who's who in the war on al Qaeda. (none / 0)
The objective of the Supreme Court is to interpret and uphold the Constitution.

The objective of the Bush Administation is to prosecute the War Against Al Qaeda, and protect the citizenry.

The objective of Democrats in Congress is to defeat the President's efforts in the War Against Al Qaeda, so they can expand their majority.

by KenTX on 05/12/2008 12:22:09 AM EST

[ Parent ]
War on Terror (none / 0)

How's the hunt for Osama Bin Laden coming?

Any idea where he might be?

Any updates on our latest efforts to get him?

I mean really Ken, who the hell do you think you are kidding here Ken? 

by ProfRich on 05/12/2008 01:43:30 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Rich let me help you (none / 0)
Go back and reread 1984, and you will understand Con logic when it comes to the "War on Terror".

One day the country is at war with Eurasia then without blinking the country is at war with Eastasia, and according to the government it has always been Eastasia.

Osama Bin Laden? Like people in 1984 he has been wiped from the history books, never existed and we never even mention him.

It's not important to win the war. Hell it would be a horrible thing to actually win. What's important is to constantly wage war, and always have that boogie man out there to keep the sheaple afraid.

Don't believe me? How often have you heard people confuse Osama and Saddam?

I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace." - George W. Bush, June 18, 2002

"War is Peace" - Big Brother in George Orwell's 1984

Hope this helps.

by Hubble on 05/12/2008 06:05:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I believe you. (none / 0)
How often have you heard people confuse Osama with Obama? Its going to happen a lot this fall.

by KenTX on 05/12/2008 07:43:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]
This fall? (none / 0)
Try the next four to eight years.  On Fox News anyway.

by ProfRich on 05/12/2008 09:47:39 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Nice non response, Ken (none / 0)

by ProfRich on 05/12/2008 01:44:28 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Whos Who in Spin (none / 0)
and Bush has done such a great job...

Spin:

The objective of the Bush Administation is to prosecute the War Against Al Qaeda, and protect the citizenry.

 

 

 


 Now for Reality, after a promising start in Afghanistan in 2002...the Republicans and Bush snatched defeat from the jaws of victory...a lot like Mr Bushes bussines ventures...

2004:  Marc Sageman, a counter-terrorism adviser to the U.S. government and author of Understanding Terror Networks, says the United States has largely succeeded in eliminating the leadership of al Qaeda as it stood in 2001. But he says new leaders have emerged to guide the terrorist network, which has evolved into a looser affiliation of groups with common goals. 

2005: U.S. Aborted Raid on Qaeda Chiefs in Pakistan in ’05  A secret military operation in early 2005 to capture senior members of Al Qaeda in Pakistan’s tribal areas was aborted at the last minute after top Bush administration officials decided it was too risky and could jeopardize relations with Pakistan, according to intelligence and military officials.

2006: US intelligence report: Iraq war breeding more terrorists A classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) contends that the war in Iraq has increased Islamic radicalism, and has made the terror threat around the world worse.

2007: Qaeda Is Seen as Restoring Leadership

2007: Experts say they still see Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia as largely independent of Al Qaeda’s hub in Pakistan but that they believe the fighting in Iraq will produce future Qaeda leaders.

2008 The State Department's annual report on terrorism includes some sobering news about al-Qaeda, which is said to have "reconstituted some of its pre-9/11 operational capabilities" by exploiting the lack of governance in Pakistan's tribal areas. Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's..

2008: The United States Lacks Comprehensive Plan to Destroy the Terrorist Threat and Close the Safe Haven in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas

 I must stop with the last one...there are simply to many more to post!

by MRFred on 05/12/2008 01:00:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
My wheelhouse. (none / 0)
My wheelhouse is any issue that liberals want to debate. I can take on the entire forum with ease.

One Riot. One Ranger.

by KenTX on 05/12/2008 12:30:05 AM EST

[ Parent ]
"Victories" = Spin by KenTX (none / 0)
Perhaps you require additional clarification. Democrats have repeatedly failed to defeat the Bush Administration on issues like FISA, Geneva, torture, Gitmo, habeas corpus, rendition, etc, etc, etc because the Supreme Court is beating them down like the unconstitutional political hacks that they are.

I'm not sure how "Democrats" in congress , or in general are associated with the Supreme court refusing to hear a cases. Your great stretch of logic is farly transpearent, and simply wrong,  to associate Democrats en mass with court rulings. I hear HRC is looking for new staff...your ability to spin a "victory" out of nonevents is something to behold.

Lets look at your "scorecard" without the spin

 FISA     &nb sp;    Not Heard by the court
Torture    &nb sp;  Not Heard by the court
Gitmo    &nb sp;     Ruling In July, after extensive Bush defeats in lower courts...

Habeas Corpus   Hardly an outright "victory" in typical Bush/Republican fashion it took  Bush 3 tries before he "won"

In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), re-confirmed the right of United States citizens to habeas corpus even when declared an enemy combatant. The Court affirmed the basic principle that habeas corpus of a citizen could not be revoked.

In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. ___ (2006), Salim Ahmed Hamdan petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging that the military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay "violate both the UCMJ and the four Geneva Conventions. In a 5-3 ruling the Court rejected Congress's (REPUBLICAN CONGRESS) attempts to strip the court of jurisdiction over habeas corpus appeals by detainees at Guantánamo Bay. 

In the bigger picture, your post demonstrates precisely why this country is on the road to disaster.
The attitude that "victory"  is a result in and of itself.

You are never are concerned by what is right. As long as it results in a tax cut, all is well.

But...psssst let me let you in on a secret...the next president ( Obama or Clinton ) will appoint new justices...enough to swing the court to a new "point of view" So even your moronic spin and premise about the court and democrats could be reversed.

Democrats Republicans are consistently losing significantly historical constitutional battles that will damage the reputation of the party for decades.

By the way piñata boy, back to the question you dodged. 

the Congress is supposed to back the president and allow him to prosecute the war....It's in the Constitution.

Please show us the clause in the Constitution that states

the Congress is supposed to back the president, and allow him to prosecute the war.


by MRFred on 05/12/2008 10:46:21 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Great job Fred (none / 0)

I also find it hilarious that Ken thinks the Supreme Court (particularly this court) rulings will damage any party's reputation whatsoever.  Like the average Americans are sitting there reading court cases and thinking, "Those stupid Dems, they believe in habeus corpus when Clarence clearly doesn't.  I think so much less of them."

If anything this court this far more likely to be remembered as the Taney Court has been.  A crooked obstructionist backwards-ass impediment to freedom.  And of course the Taney Court is right at the front of voters minds, right?  Oh wait, no one but us bloggers gives two shits about the Supreme Court and our minds are made up anyway.  Oh well. 

I think we should create a travelogue of Kenworld.

I am learning it is a place where no one pays any attention at all to issues like failed wars and disastrous economies and rampant corruption but are riveted by Supreme Court rulings and complex arguments about the production capacity of our oil infrastructure.  These GOP types sure have become sad little twisted monsters when forced to defend the results of their complete control of the government, haven't they? 

by ProfRich on 05/12/2008 11:12:28 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Brief response (none / 0)
Because I'm Cincy, I'm busy, and I'm a member of the 20% minority of citizens who are making the Americ an Economic Engine work.

Whenever Fred says "not heard by the Court", that's just his shorthan d for "The Supreme Court refused to hear the case and upheld the lower court ruling, thereby confirming the legal concept of Unitary Executive, and rejecting the liberal notion of judicial activism".  

by KenTX on 05/12/2008 03:07:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The SPIN TRACK 5000 (none / 0)

Liar!

No its not its not shorthand at all. Is simply what it is

The cases were not heard by the court.

Lets track the spin progression on the Eyewitness News SPIN TRACK 5000! ( and Doppler radar)

 

1. First the spin was that the Bushies are above the law , because the Supreme court "has his back." Oh those macho Justices!

 During time of war, the president is given far-reaching executive authority to prosecute the war. Even the Bill of Rights do not supersede this authority.This is why George W Bush has won every showdown with Democrats. This is why the Supreme Court has his back.
2. When called on this bit of spin, reminding him about the math of the legislature and the thin majorities, it morphed into the old tried and true "It's in the Constitution" defense.

Fred, shall I recount the number of times that Bush has won in showdowns against Democrats on issues related to the war? They roll over to him every time. The Supreme Court backs him every time.When we are in the middle of a war, the Congress is supposed to back the president, and allow him to prosecute the war.It's in the Constitution.

3. Challenged to show where exactly (where the rule that states that the Congress must do exactly what the president says during a time of war)  was in the constitution, rulings or other documnets( Ken has yet to respond)  I, me, myself,  mentioned the Unitary Executive Theory that , by the way, Ken had never heard of before. Suddenly, like a life ring to a drowning man ,the spin transformed into this laugher: the Bush Administration has quietly asserted Unitary Executive...Democrats are trying to politicize the war (!!!!) and thwart the war effort.

 This is why Democrats have consistently lost on issues like FISA, Geneva, torture, Gitmo, habeas corpus, rendition, etc, etc, etc. This is why the Bush Administration has quietly asserted Unitary Executive, while Democrats have loudly protested. Bush is trying to defeat al Qaeda while maintaining the prerogatives of the Executive. Democrats are trying to politicize the war and thwart the war effort.

4. When reminded about the facts in regard to the Unitary executive among other things, and question on exactly how the Democratic Congress inserted itself in the court system: back to the Supreme court , like a a kid runs to his  mama : beating them down like the unconstitutional political hacks that they are.

Democrats have repeatedly failed to defeat the Bush Administration on issues like FISA, Geneva, torture, Gitmo, habeas corpus, rendition, etc, etc, etc because the Supreme Court is beating them down like the unconstitutional political hacks that they are.

5. When asked exactly how the evil Democrats  accomplished all of this magic, the argument morphed yet again to the ever hilarious  Judicial Activism ( Gasp!) Defense...(Wait a minute, didn't the Supreme Court have "Bushes back"?  What liberal activist judges are we talking about? The liberal activist judges that upheld the "Bush victories" and therfore were not reviewed by the courts? Those "hacks"?)

Whenever Fred says "not heard by the Court", that's just his shorthan d for "The Supreme Court refused to hear the case and upheld the lower court ruling, thereby confirming the legal concept of Unitary Executive, and rejecting the liberal notion of judicial activism". 

Finally, congratulations are in order, to myself and my esteemed opponent.

In 4 posts we have "confirmed the legal concept of the Unitary Executive",  a feat that 230 years of legal briefings, historians, scholars, and the Courts themselves can't consistantly define or even agree on.

Damn I'm good.

 

 

 

 

by MRFred on 05/12/2008 06:44:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
the proof is in the pudding (none / 0)
Fred, take another look at the issues that are near and dear to the hearts of Democrats.

"Democrats have repeatedly failed to defeat the Bush Administration on issues like FISA, Geneva, torture, Gitmo, habeas corpus, rendition, etc, etc, etc because the Supreme Court is beating them down like the unconstitutional political hacks that they are."

Dick Cheney has been doing these things for eight years. He is still doing these things today. He is laughing at you.

Democrats in Congress have been unable to stop Cheney because they don't have a veto-proof majority, or they are weak and powerless, or more likely, they are simply wrong on the law.

The Supreme Court hasn't prevented Cheney from doing what he likes. There are more rulings pending before the Court. We will watch the developments and debate the outcome.

by KenTX on 05/13/2008 01:28:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Legal Question, Ken? (none / 0)

Is it legal for a SC Justice to except extremely valuable gifts from a defendant (Cheney) in the form of vacations and then sit on cases involving said defendant?

What's that? It is if the crooked judge says so?

You have a strange understanding of the law, Ken. 

by ProfRich on 05/13/2008 01:56:50 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Rich, I don't remember you complaining (none / 0)
about the Clintons, and their legal problems. In fact, you were recently talking about how you were going to vote for Hillary if she won the nomination.

Bob Herbert of the New York Times is a loyal, lifelong Democrat, and a former fan of the Clintons. But look what he said this week about the Clintons.

The last time the Clintons had to make a big exit was at the end of Bill Clinton’s second term as president — and they made a complete and utter hash of that historic moment. Having survived the Monica Lewinsky ordeal, you might have thought the Clintons would be on their best behavior.

Instead, a huge scandal erupted when it became known that Mrs. Clinton’s brothers, Tony and Hugh Rodham, had lobbied the president on behalf of criminals who then received presidential pardons or a sentence commutation from Mr. Clinton.

Tony Rodham helped get a pardon for a Tennessee couple that had hired him as a consultant and paid or loaned him hundreds of thousands of dollars. Over the protests of the Justice Department, President Clinton pardoned the couple, Edgar Allen Gregory Jr. and his wife, Vonna Jo, who had been convicted of bank fraud in Alabama.
hugh
Hugh Rodham was paid $400,000 to lobby for a pardon of Almon Glenn Braswell, who had been convicted of mail fraud and perjury, and for the release from prison of Carlos Vignali, a drug trafficker who was convicted and imprisoned for conspiring to sell 800 pounds of cocaine. Sure enough, in his last hours in office (when he issued a blizzard of pardons, many of them controversial), President Clinton agreed to the pardon for Braswell and the sentence commutation for Vignali.
tony

Hugh Rodham reportedly returned the money after the scandal became public and was an enormous political liability for the Clintons.

Both Clintons professed to be ignorant of anything improper or untoward regarding the pardons. Once, when asked specifically if she had talked with a deputy White House counsel about pardons, Mrs. Clinton said: “People would hand me envelopes. I would just pass them on. You know, I would not have any reason to look into them.”

It wasn’t just the pardons that sullied the Clintons’ exit from the White House. They took furniture and rugs from the White House collection that had to be returned. And they received $86,000 in gifts during the president’s last year in office, including clothing (a pantsuit, a leather jacket), flatware, carpeting, and so on. In response to the outcry over that, they decided to repay the value of the gifts.

So class is not a Clinton forte.

But it’s one thing to lack class and a sense of grace, quite another to deliberately try and wreck the presidential prospects of your party’s likely nominee — and to do it in a way that has the potential to undermine the substantial racial progress that has been made in this country over many years.

The Clintons should be ashamed of themselves. But they long ago proved to the world that they have no shame.

I don't remember Rich's concerns over legal issues related to the Clintons.

by KenTX on 05/13/2008 09:53:49 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Three things (none / 0)

1) I am astonished to hear this.  There shouldbe an investigation.  Paid for by the taxpayers.  No expense should be spared.  Every person the Clinton have ever brushed up against should be interviewed.  Millions of documents should be pored over.  Congress should get involved.  We could even publish the findings in book form.  Certainly if we did that we would be able to prove at least some corruption on the Clinton's part and throw them in jail where they belong.  If only we could have an investigation of the evil, evil people.  Then we would get 'em for sure.

2) So even if they are corrupt.  If all of this is true they are about 2% as corrupt as Bush/Cheney Inc.  McCain has been censured for worse than this three times!!!!  ANd that doesn't even address his wife-beating, cheating, drunk, violent, abusive personal life.  I am a pragmatist.  I vote for my best choice.  Give me a choice between two crooks and I will take the less crooked one with better policies.  Other people on this board fall for this, "your guy (girl) is not a saint so therefore vote for my demon" line of argument.  I don't sit around waiting for the messiah. 

3) My attitude towards Bush malfeasance is the same as mine towards Clinton's.  Let him stand up to the largest investigation in the history of the world and be found innocent of any government corruption or abuse of power and I will let it go.  What is your stance?  It was right to investigate Clinton but we shouldn't even breathe a word about your guys troubles?  And you call me a hypocrite?  Grow up.

Oh, and I didn't even read this post.  I don't care.  She is not the nominee.  Its not even relevant. 

by ProfRich on 05/13/2008 10:33:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
answering (none / 0)
1. The Clinton cash-for-pardons occurred during their last week on the job. Congress thought it was best to let them go so the country could be rid of them. 2. I don't recall McCain being accused of rape, and worse crimes. That's Bill Clinton territory. 3. Democrats conrol Congress. They can investigate and subpoena to their heart's content, and Republicans can't do anything about it. And yet they don't, because they have nothing.

by KenTX on 05/13/2008 11:13:02 AM EST

[ Parent ]
wow (none / 0)
As I reread this post, which was typed with one thumb on my blackberry, while driving, I realize how easy it is to defeat Rich with a few words and a logical argument. He really is a lightweight.

by KenTX on 05/13/2008 11:30:51 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Does Ken wear a bowtie? (none / 0)

Ken is now responding to his own posts with declarations of victory.

You are the coolest person EVER!

Seriously.  You should run for president.   Tucker can be your running mate.  It will be like Fonzie and Hasselhoff on the same ticket.
Allow the entire country to bask in your greatness, Ken.

by ProfRich on 05/13/2008 12:23:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Whatever (none / 0)

1) Democrats conrol  Republicans controlled Congress. They could have investigated and subpoenaed to their heart's content, and Republicans Democrats couldn't do anything about it. And yet they don't, because they have nothing.

2. "I don't recall McCain being accused of rape, and worse crimes. That's Bill Clinton territory."

Do you recall Clinton being exonerated of rape?  Investigations and trial being dropped because there was no evidence? 

This discussion is about government corruption.  McCain is corrupt.  He gets paid to do corporate interests bidding.  In terms of courruption (which we are discussing) this is worse.  Mostly because he has been found culpable and made to apoligize mutltiple times.

3. "Democrats conrol Congress. They can investigate and subpoena to their heart's content, and Republicans can't do anything about it. And yet they don't, because they have nothing."

How do we know they have nothing without an investigation.  I am pretty openly disgusted with the refusal of these Dems to practice oversight.  The centrists and blue dogs need to go.  We need more progressives.

Oh, and they have subpeonaed as you well know.  The crooked ass pubs jsut refuse to answer subpeonas, I guess because they are so law abidiing?

Anyway this is all neither here nor there.  No one but the most tax cut loving bibile thumping Kool-Aid drunk conservatives believe the Repbulicans aren't crooked.  Its the #1 reasons for the 06 ass-kicking and polls show the belief has only intensified.  You are always going to say whatever you have to say to get your tax cut.  You don't believe it and we all know it.  No one else believes it either.  Like all true Republicans, you are just a whore for money.

by ProfRich on 05/13/2008 11:36:56 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Clinton the Rapist (none / 0)
There was no investigation. There was no trial. There was no exoneration. He was the Governor of Arkansas at the time, which is like being the Dictator in a banana republic. You don't accuse the dictator of anything. There is no speculation about whether or not his is a rapist and a sexual predator. That many women cannot be lying.

by KenTX on 05/13/2008 11:58:44 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Nonsense (none / 0)

First, that many women (2?) can't be lying but the twelve who have now filed complaints against KBR are all liars, huh?

Second, what is the statute of limitations on rape in Arkansas?  Certainly more than four years or whatever it was before Huckabee took over right?

Huckabee became governor on a "Hate Clinton" platform!!!!!  He pardoned a serial rapist and murderer becuase the guy raped a distant relation to Bill. (which in light of the new Republican pro-rape platform makes a lot more sense).  You telling me dictator Huckabee couldn't even ask a few questions about Juanita Bordrick?

Let it go, man. Clinton is gone and Hillary lost and the defenders of rape are now the Bushies.  If you want to keep talking about Bill and rape please post it to a 90s nostalgia board.

Oh, and I am sure Starr never bothered to look into this.  I mean he had such a tight focus on that investigation, right?

This is stupid. 

by ProfRich on 05/13/2008 12:29:54 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Holy Shit (none / 0)
This is just insane.

by ProfRich on 05/11/2008 11:48:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ken's new battlecry, "I am WeakSaucio!! 1 (none / 0)

"Barack Obama has no problem with confiscating every privately owned gun in America." - KenTX

Since you weren't specific, I guess the passages you thought I'd find relative are:

"As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms."

"I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families."

"Q: When you were in the state senate, you talked about licensing and registering gun owners. A: I don't think that we can get that done."

"We've got to enforce the gun laws that are on the books."

Here's a better link for info. Scroll to the bottom and work your way up to see a timeline of how certain positions have evolved as he contemplates the issues.

I know, I know - you prefer people who think the exact same things in their 30's as they do their 40's and beyond, but I haven't found that to be so around people who can think.

by MedfordTim on 05/10/2008 09:05:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The Soul of Barack (none / 0)
Obama tips his hat to the Second Amendment, but then he says:
“Just because you have an individual right (to keep and bare arms) does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.”

Then, when he was asked about Rush Limbaugh’s right to broadcast on the radio he said:
“Just because Rush Limbaugh has an individual right to free speech does not mean that the federal government can't constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.”

Look for this to become a campaign issue in 2008. It probably won’t play well with “bitter redneck yahoos who cling to their bibles and guns”.

by KenTX on 05/10/2008 09:23:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
look for these to be campaign issues in 2008 (none / 0)
  • McCain pledged in February 2008 that he would not, under any circumstances, raise taxes. Specifically, McCain was asked if he is a "`read my lips' candidate, no new taxes, no matter what?" referring to George H.W. Bush's 1988 pledge. "No new taxes," McCain responded. Two weeks later, McCain said, "I'm not making a `read my lips' statement, in that I will not raise taxes."

  • McCain claims to have considered and not considered joining John Kerry's Democratic ticket in 2004.

  • In 1998, he championed raising cigarette taxes to fund programs to cut underage smoking, insisting that it would prevent illnesses and provide resources for public health programs. Now, McCain opposes a $0.61-per-pack tax increase, won't commit to supporting a regulation bill he's co-sponsoring, and has hired Philip Morris' former lobbyist as his senior campaign adviser.

  • McCain's first mortgage plan was premised on the notion that homeowners facing foreclosure shouldn't be "rewarded" for acting "irresponsibly." His second mortgage plan took largely the opposite position.

  • McCain vowed, if elected, to balance the federal budget by the end of his first term. Soon after, he decided he would no longer even try to reach that goal.

  • McCain's campaign unveiled a Social Security policy that the senator would implement if elected, which did not include a Bush-like privatization scheme. In March 2008, McCain denounced his own campaign's policy.

  • In February 2008, McCain reversed course on prohibiting waterboarding.

  • In November 2007, McCain reversed his previous position on a long-term presence for U.S. troops in Iraq, arguing that the "nature of the society in Iraq" and the "religious aspects" of the country make it inevitable that the United States "eventually withdraws." Two months later, McCain reversed back, saying he's prepared to leave U.S. troops in Iraq for 100 years.

  • McCain used to champion the Law of the Sea convention, even volunteering to testify on the treaty's behalf before a Senate committee. Now he opposes it.

  • McCain was a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants' kids who graduate from high school. Now he's against it.

by Chinese Democracy on 05/10/2008 09:49:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
McCain's Secret Weapon (none / 0)
McCain shares a common position with every voter in America on every issue.  No matter what your position is, left or right, mainstream or extreme, McCain agrees with you.  Its brilliant.  No one can say their position differs from McCain's about anything because he has taken every side of every issue.  Beat that Obama!

by ProfRich on 05/11/2008 01:52:17 AM EST

[ Parent ]
as an originalist (none / 0)
I believe that the writers of the constitution were referring to muskets when they wrote the phrase "right to keep and bear arms". Therefore the second amendment clearly prohibits any infringement on the right to keep and wield muskets. God Bless America.

by hazmat on 05/10/2008 10:05:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The mystery will soon be over. (none / 1)
We are very close to a definitive interpretation of the Second Amendment.

By the way, a Kentucky Rifle was both deadly and accurate. The British were using muskets, and they were far outgunned.

by KenTX on 05/10/2008 10:24:51 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Shooting from grave to grave (none / 0)


By the way, a Kentucky Rifle was both deadly and accurate.

Who cares?  Over the years, Kentucky Fried Chicken has killed more people than Kentucky rifles have.  Don't pretend that sensible gun control puts America in danger of losing a valuable portion of its heritage.  The country is growing up, and gun control opponents have Peter Pan syndrome.

by OneHitKill on 05/11/2008 12:00:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]
cultural divide (none / 0)
Jesse, I agree there's a cultural divide on the issue of gun control. There is a similar divide on issues such as drilling for oil; and the War on al Qaeda; and gay marriage; and tax increases.

I'm hoping that Barack Obama comes out and declares that he is in favor of strict gun control; gay marriage; ban on oil drilling; complete withdrawal of U.S. forces from the Middle East; 100 MPG mandate for all automobiles; and higher taxes for every wage earner.

Democrats should loudly and proudly declare what they stand for. Then we can let the people decide in November.

by KenTX on 05/11/2008 12:17:17 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Why wait till November (none / 0)
McCain wants to stay in Iraq 100 years            

As of 4/30/08.. 68% oppose the U.S war in Iraq

The people have already decided.

 On the subject of gay marriage. It cannot be used as a wedge issue again as no one -- not the public at large, and not even the GOP's religious base -- seems to think that it's among the most pressing issues facing the country today.

Conservatives should realize they are dead in the water and shut the fuck up.

by Chinese Democracy on 05/11/2008 12:36:23 AM EST

[ Parent ]
agree (none / 0)

Democrats believe we should have a war on Al Qaida. Its too bad we've effectively disengaged. Now we're being told that the real danger is Iran, which is an enemy of Al Qaida. Let's walk through the logic here:

No wait they're (Iran) helping the government we support in Iraq, right? No wait, I get it: actually we're fighting a war on a faction in Iraq that is against the government we support in Bagdad, which has no connection to Al Qaida. Wait but Iran supports them too. No, here it is Iran supports them exclusively!!! Hold on I think I can get all the lies straight and internally consistent...

The war on terror, and specifically the war on Al Qaida is on the borders of Pakistan and in Afghanistan. The only people actually fighting in that war are the pro-democracy electorate of Pakistan, whose rights and freedoms have been actively opposed by this Bush administration for 7 years.

Republicans, and everyone who supports the republican party agenda have taken a principled stand against the real war on terror. Instead, Republicans believe in having a war on balanced budgets, the constitution, and common sense. And freedom.

by hazmat on 05/11/2008 01:19:37 AM EST

[ Parent ]
people fighting the war (none / 0)
and of course the undersupported marines and armed forces in afghanistan.

by hazmat on 05/11/2008 01:21:33 AM EST

[ Parent ]
No coincidence (none / 0)

Isn't it odd? I mean, the timing is soooo..how shall I put this? Ah, yes. Typical Republican politics - dredge up a side "issue" which really isn't one and affects practically no one, put it out stage center so the Press gang will have something to chew on, even though there is no nutritional value. Like good little lap dogs. Distraction, distraction, distraction. No clue as to why "good sportmanship" would (or should) come into play - that's not the Republican way! Win at all costs! Who cares if there is nothing but barren wasteland left behind, we WON, goddammit!

Nothing suspicious about a Conservative bench taking up an issue which hasn't been addressed since 1939 (no need). If they had simply declined to hear the case, the lower court ruling of "unconstitutional" ; would stand. Since that IS the outcome expected (even Liberal scholars agree with that likely eventuality) there is no pressing need for them to hear the case in June, which would mean that their decision will come down in September or early October. How fuckin' convenient, huh?

Oh, and it's been said that, "...legal scholar(s) I've talked to thinks that the court will overturn the D.C. gun ban. Not because of the court being more conservative now, but because even these highly liberal scholars would overturn it themselves, given the chance, and then specify the meaning of the right to bear arms as definitively as possible.

"It's worth mentioning that these liberal legal scholars largely want this outcome so that the NRA will have nothing to fund raise on ever again."

Oops! Better be careful what you wish for - you might get it!

by MedfordTim on 05/11/2008 12:56:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Misreading (none / 0)
No "right to keep and bear arms" refers to your right to have a small fortified castles with the arms of bears in it.

by ProfRich on 05/11/2008 01:53:39 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I'll accept (none / 0)

either definition :-)

by hazmat on 05/12/2008 01:59:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Disprove your own point, much? (none / 0)
Cool, so you agree that he doesn't have any calls out to take away everyone's handguns. Good for you! That wasn't hard, now, was it? To just admit that your first post was WAY off base without a kernal of truth.

“bitter redneck yahoos who cling to their bibles and guns”.

Hey, nice phrase! You think that up all by yourself? Are you sure they weren't bitter redneck Googles? It'd easy to mix the two up when creating false quotes.

Sure am glad that there is no requirement in the Democratic party that all members march in lockstep and think exactly the same way the presumptive nominee does. It allows us to have differing opinions on Free Speech - which we are happy to expound upon in our caged "Free Speech Zone" which the Republicans have set up for the police department's convenience. It's right over there, twelve miles from the event the "Speech" is regarding. How thoughtful!

As far as Rush goes, he is painting himself into a corner with his "I want riots, I want overturned cars" bullshit. Inciting riots is NOT "Free Speech." If Al Sharpton said the exact same things in regard to the Republican convention, the Right would be calling for his head on a pike. And not a Jill Pike!

Ken, look past your paranoia - just long enough to realize that you guys HAVE to run on 2nd Amendment issues. The Bush Regime has already torn the rest of the Bill to shreds. There isn't much there for a Liberal (even an "almost" Liberal, like Obama) to mess with - the Republicans already gutted it.

You're not going to win this time.

by MedfordTim on 05/11/2008 12:24:55 AM EST

[ Parent ]
let me be honest with you (none / 0)
If you re-read my first post in this thread, you'll realize that I was jokingly admitting that I was responsible for the push poll calls, not Barack Obama.

But back to Rush Limbaugh, here is exactly what he said on the subject of riots and burning cars in Denver this August. I've heard much worse than this from Mike Malloy, Randi Rhodes, and even Cenk.

Tim, allow me to introduce you to a new concept. It's called free speech.

It's a right that we extend to Rush Limbaugh when he says outrageous things, just as we extend the right to Mike Malloy when he says outrageous things.

It's a right that we extend to Bill O'Reilly when he says outrageous things, just as we extend the right to Keith Olbermann when he says outrageous things.

When you liberals try to abridge the right of the opposition to voice their opinions, it makes me all the more certain that you have absolutely no business in power. For once, I'm not kidding.

by KenTX on 05/11/2008 12:47:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Free Speech? You're kidding, right? (none / 0)

You are against dems because your love of free speech?

Bush loves free speech so much he has a "free speech zone".  Which is far from the area around him where you can only say pro-Bush things.

And we all remember the politicization of the FCC.  Their crusade against Howard Stern comes to mind.  Evidently no one told the FCC that Stern occasionaly made questionable comments on his low profile radio show, I forget where it boradcasted at the time, until he criticized Bush.  Then, in an amazing coincidence, the FCC found some things on the show they felt were worthy of concern.  Massive fines followed.

And doesn't firing federal prosecutors who are investigating Republicans count as a free speech issue?

What about detaining people indefinitely without letting speak to lawyers or anyone else?

What about that Australian guy they let out but made him swear to talk to no one about his detention?

But the oblique reference to LOCAL control (thought Ken was a federalist?) of the PUBLICLY OWNED airwaves and Ken turns up his nose and claims the moral high ground.  Nice.

Any other examples of Bush and his love of free speech, guys?

Damn, Ken will say anything to get that tax cut.

Viva la Tax Cut! 

by ProfRich on 05/11/2008 02:16:52 AM EST

[ Parent ]
explaining the Constitution (none / 0)
"What about detaining people indefinitely without letting speak to lawyers or anyone else?"
Non-citizens who have never set foot on U.S. soil have no consitututional rights.

"What about that Australian guy they let out but made him swear to talk to no one about his detention?"
Non-citizens who have never set foot on U.S. soil have no consitututional rights.

"But the oblique reference to LOCAL control (thought Ken was a federalist?) of the PUBLICLY OWNED airwaves and Ken turns up his nose and claims the moral high ground.  Nice."
U.S. citizens have constitutional rights. The Fairness Doctrine was put out to pasture in 1987. Try to abridge the right of free speech for Rush Limbaugh or Howard Stern or Mike Malloy and see how far you get.

by KenTX on 05/11/2008 02:34:38 AM EST

[ Parent ]
What? (none / 0)

Your guys went after Stern.  When did our guys fine Rush?

Humdee and Padilla were citizens in the US.

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?  Pick up a fucking paper or stop lying, Ken. 

by ProfRich on 05/11/2008 02:48:57 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Is this your "Humdee"? (none / 0)
humdee

Because this is a Hamdan, and he's not a citizen.

by KenTX on 05/11/2008 03:07:05 AM EST

[ Parent ]
nice humvee (none / 0)
sorry about your penis size

by Chinese Democracy on 05/11/2008 11:30:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Tiny, please. (none / 0)
Some things should be kept private, just between the two of us.

by KenTX on 05/11/2008 04:14:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Not Hamdam (none / 0)
Forget how to spell his name but is pronounced Humdee ( think) but regardless this completely fails to address Padilla who we agree was a US citizen, right?

by ProfRich on 05/11/2008 11:29:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Padilla (none / 0)
Padilla is a citizen, but the Supreme Court does not care about him.

by KenTX on 05/11/2008 11:43:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
So we agree then (none / 0)

The Republicans shit on our civil rights at will and supress our freedom.  Glad we cleared that up.  Did you forget the argument in the middle of it again, Ken?

Tough loss, kid. 

by ProfRich on 05/11/2008 11:58:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Now get honest with yourself (none / 0)
"If you re-read my first post in this thread, you'll realize that I was jokingly admitting that I was responsible for the push poll calls, not Barack Obama."

Yeah, I caught that first time around, got a laugh, and pretty much ignored that the rest of the discussion. If you're referring to "any calls out", that wasn't about polls, that was "Obama has not made a public declaration calling for."

"But back to Rush Limbaugh, here is exactly what he said..."

Yup! Wanting to spread chaos aimed at a particular group, disrupt and sabotage the process, and seeks wanton violence at the Democratic convention in Denver. Again, you make MY point. Thank you. He truly is despicable, isn't he?

Tell you what - put Rush in a "Free Speech" cage in the middle of nowhere, take away his fucking microphone, and I am very happy to let him bleat his hatred and nonsense all day long. Otay?

"When you liberals try to abridge the right of the opposition to voice their opinions, it makes me all the more certain that you have absolutely no business in power. For once, I'm not kidding."

Well, if you're not kidding, then it's time to jump off that high horse of indignation and utter hypocrisy and start accepting responsibility for the actions of those you champion. Voice opinions about the process? Want to say outrageous things? Fine and dandy, but Freedom of Speech does NOT carry with it a license to stir people into an angry mob, ready to cause violence. Flat out lying is not Free Speech, although the Right seems to think so.

Here's the difference: "Femenazis are all ugly women who can't get laid." Outrageous, sure, but only an ugly stick-up-her-ass feminist is going to have issues. No problem.

"Now, this is Michael J. Fox. He's got Parkinson's disease. And in this commercial, he is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He is moving all around and shaking. And it's purely an act." An example of pure, evil, a bald faced lie.
 
Then comes the crap which SHOULD result in him losing his license: "The dream end ... I mean, if people say what's your exit strategy, the dream end of this is that this keeps up to the convention and that we have a replay of Chicago 1968, with burning cars, protests, fires, literal riots, and all of that. That's the objective here. And there has been nothing that's happened on the battlefield for my vision of this to change."

When confronted, he reacts in his usual manner - lies about what he said and tries to sluff it off on someone else's plate: "But the fact is that the Democrat Party has members in it that have already said, "There will be riots," or something to that effect. Al Sharpton. "

Except, as is usual, Rush doesn't bother to give an exact quote, let alone a realistic description of what was actually said. In this case, on that bastion of left-wing thought, the O'Reilly Factor. I wouldn't want to be accused of an "out of context" posting, so I'll present the whole relevant exchange. Notice how O'Reilly is not satisfied with any of Al's answers and how O'Reilly badgers him trying to get him to say what Bill-O wants to hear:
 
O'REILLY: All right. It looks like, and this has been a crazy race so anything can happen obviously, but it looks like Barack Obama will roll into the convention with more popular votes and more elected delegates. That's what it looks like.

But I'll tell you what: The Clintons aren't going to step aside. So let's just say — we don't usually do this, but I think this is educated speculation — let's just say Hillary Clinton gets the super delegates and gets the nomination, and Barack Obama is angry. What do you do? Are you going to get out there and demonstrate?

SHARPTON: Well, it's not a matter of just what do I do. It's what a lot of people…

O'REILLY: No, but I want to know what you do. You're a big Democrat. Come on.

SHARPTON: Well, I mean.

O'REILLY: Come on, you're a good guy. Are you going to be out there with signs?

SHARPTON: There will be many reactions. There will be many reactions.

O'REILLY: But yours? What is yours going to be?

SHARPTON: Mine will be based on if she legitimately wins it.

O'REILLY: No, just the scenario I gave you. Just the scenario I gave you. Barack Obama has got more popular and more elected delegates come convention time. He's denied it because of the deals of the super delegates. What does Al Sharpton do? Do you take to the streets? What do you do?

SHARPTON: Well, if he is denied the selection of the nominees by super delegates making backroom deals, not by the voters, well, you not only would see people like me demonstrating, you may see us talking about whether or not we can support that ticket. A lot would depend on what Senator Obama and those involved in this campaign say. But I would be prepared to talk about how can we support a process that we thought the conservatives against him in Florida — you can't have one man, one vote as your theme…

O'REILLY: All right.

SHARPTON: ...and then change it to say one's super man, one vote.


Okay, so what's missing? Why, that would be anything CLOSE to what Limbaugh asserts was said:

"'There will be riots,' or something to that effect. Al Sharpton. "

Us realists keep trying to hammer the point home, even though the Righties have their hands over their ears, eyes shut, and making "la-la-la-la-I-can't-h ear-you-la-la-la" sounds:

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They are NOT entitled to their own set of facts.

by MedfordTim on 05/11/2008 02:22:39 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Lets really be honest... (none / 1)
When you liberals try to abridge the right of the opposition to voice their opinions, it makes me all the more certain that you have absolutely no business in power. For once, I'm not kidding.

 

You know, you sure spend a lot time and energy worrying about free speech when the very people you defend rail at George Soros, Media Watch and other outlets as the root of all evil and have tried to get Olberman thrown off MSNBC, Daliy KOS banned and other "liberal" media otherwise restricted.

By the way...your conservative buds are trying to get Penthouse and Playboy pulled from the military PXs, BXs...when appeasing their Bible thumping crowd base your pals sell out the Constitution in a nanosecond.

So lets cut all the pretense Ken...all your really worried about is more tax cuts.

If shutting down ever liberal news and media outlet got you a little more money in you pocket, dollars to donuts you would forget you high minded defense of the Constitution and go for the cash.

by MRFred on 05/11/2008 02:36:31 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Amen brother (none / 0)
Can I get a witness?

by z1p101 on 05/11/2008 02:39:28 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Here's a challenge (none / 0)
"The very people you defend rail at George Soros, Media Watch and other outlets as the root of all evil and have tried to get Olberman thrown off MSNBC, Daliy KOS banned and other "liberal" media otherwise restricted."

I can offer you numerous examples of liberal organizations trying to shut down Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Fox News, Bill Bennett, Bill O'Reilly, and other conservative sources of information. I'm not talking about complaints. I'm talking about efforts to put these commentators out of business.

Would you like to try to match your conservative examples against my liberal examples? It might be enlightening.


by KenTX on 05/11/2008 03:16:59 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Umm Ken (none / 0)
I haven't been posting much lately but I think his point went whizzing over your head.

by z1p101 on 05/11/2008 03:24:52 AM EST

[ Parent ]
He got the point alright (none / 0)

he just chooses to ignore it and keep on