Who thinks...

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Jessica, The Constitution does not guarantee those rights during times of war.

If you think the Patriot Act has taken away civil liberties, you can blame Congress. They wrote the Patriot Act. By the way, Congress does have the right to write laws. The Patriot Act was a bi-partisan piece of legislation. It passed by a vote of 450-0 or something like that.

Our relations are beter than ever with most Arab states. We have great relations with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, the UAE, Turkey, the new Iraqi government, Pakistan, Libya, etc.

In terms of our actions inflaming the masses in the Middle East, I would agree that that is true. But that's not totally our fault. Those people get nothing but propaganda over there and are not given the truth. The press constantly bashes us over there and intentionally misleads the masses.

Rupert, for a man who wants people to deal in the facts, you're not very careful about checking your own...

The Sixth Amendment does not contain an exception for wartime. There have been cases that have argued there is an implicit exception, but if you're a strict constructionist, it ain't technically in there.

The two main drafters of the PATRIOT Act were Ass't Attorney General Viet D. Dinh and future Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff. I'd hardly call that "bi-partisan." And neither were Congressmembers when they drafted the PATRIOT Act.

Yes, it was passed with overwhelming support- 98-1 in the Senate and 357-66 in the House (100 Senators and 435 Representatives, for a total of 535 voting bodies. I guess some abstained. I'm uncertain where you got 450- please let me know if I'm wrong about the number of Reps we have). Many Representatives and Senators didn't even read the whole thing, since it was dropped on them fast and the vote brought up faster (doesn't excuse them for not reading it, but sure seems shifty on behalf of Bush & Co, eh? Where was the harm in letting people have time to read the darn thing before making them vote on it?). If they had read it, maybe they might have noticed provision 411, which makes any association with a terrorist EVEN IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW THE PERSON WAS A TERRORIST a deportable offense. How about that? Your coworker turns out to be an Islamic radical and suddenly you are shipped out of the country.

Sixteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, weren't they? As in "We have great relations with Saudi Arabia" Saudi Arabia? And most of those nations you list are not democracies, correct?

Speaking of the people "over there" getting propaganda and not the truth-- have you watched Fox News lately? Pot? Kettle. Have you met?

You're absolutely right to not want to accept opinion as fact, but it sometimes seems that you prefer to cut the right a break on facts and hold the left to a higher standard. And they should both be held to the same one (high). So be fair and balanced, why don' 'cha, since Fox News clearly won't be?

For everyone-- here's a link to Keith Olberman on 9/11-- he's become somewhat of a darling of the liberal blogosphere, which I find odd because he's hardly a liberal, but I guess in these right-winger times, a fair analysis seems like a left-leaning one...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=B_4ZmcPEcVY

But I'm still glad you're posting, Rupert-- it's no fun debating things when only like-minded people post (much as I love to read what they have to say). And Seattle-- dude, you crack me up. Nice "Casino" reference.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Rupert, for a man who wants people to deal in the facts, you're not very careful about checking your own...

The Sixth Amendment does not contain an exception for wartime. There have been cases that have argued there is an implicit exception, but if you're a strict constructionist, it ain't technically in there.

The two main drafters of the PATRIOT Act were Ass't Attorney General Viet D. Dinh and future Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff. I'd hardly call that "bi-partisan." And neither were Congressmembers when they drafted the PATRIOT Act.

Yes, it was passed with overwhelming support- 98-1 in the Senate and 357-66 in the House (100 Senators and 435 Representatives, for a total of 535 voting bodies. I guess some abstained. I'm uncertain where you got 450- please let me know if I'm wrong about the number of Reps we have). Many Representatives and Senators didn't even read the whole thing, since it was dropped on them fast and the vote brought up faster (doesn't excuse them for not reading it, but sure seems shifty on behalf of Bush & Co, eh? Where was the harm in letting people have time to read the darn thing before making them vote on it?). If they had read it, maybe they might have noticed provision 411, which makes any association with a terrorist EVEN IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW THE PERSON WAS A TERRORIST a deportable offense. How about that? Your coworker turns out to be an Islamic radical and suddenly you are shipped out of the country.

Sixteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, weren't they? As in "We have great relations with Saudi Arabia" Saudi Arabia? And most of those nations you list are not democracies, correct?

Speaking of the people "over there" getting propaganda and not the truth-- have you watched Fox News lately? Pot? Kettle. Have you met?

You're absolutely right to not want to accept opinion as fact, but it sometimes seems that you prefer to cut the right a break on facts and hold the left to a higher standard. And they should both be held to the same one (high). So be fair and balanced, why don' 'cha, since Fox News clearly won't be?

For everyone-- here's a link to Keith Olberman on 9/11-- he's become somewhat of a darling of the liberal blogosphere, which I find odd because he's hardly a liberal, but I guess in these right-winger times, a fair analysis seems like a left-leaning one...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=B_4ZmcPEcVY

But I'm still glad you're posting, Rupert-- it's no fun debating things when only like-minded people post (much as I love to read what they have to say). And Seattle-- dude, you crack me up. Nice "Casino" reference.

I just checked the original vote on the Patriot Act. As you said it passed the Senate practically unanimously by a vote of 98-1. It passed the House by a vote of 357-66 as you said. That is pretty overwhelming and shows absolue bi-partisan support. I think that is nonsense that most Congressmen did not read it or were not aware of its contents. It was passed agian last year with a few minor chnages and it passed overwhelmingly with bi-partisan support. Your argumnet is ridiculous that the congressmen had no time to read it. How do you explain it passing so overwhelmingly last year after congressmen had 5 years to read it?

With regard to the media, you have it totally backwards. For years we had a media that was way left of center. I think the polls showed that over 90% of the media labeled themselves as liberal democrats. There was a huge liberal bias in the media. Now we have Fox News that is a little right of center, and you think that is awful. It's hilarious. Fox is no further right than the mainstream media has been to the left over the years. At least with Fox, all of their shows have guests from both sides. O'Reilly is definitely well right of center but he constantly brings on guests that are way left of center and debates them. What is wrong with that? Both sides get their say. Not only that, at least Fox News has plenty of liberal hosts and anchors. Geraldo is a democrat. Gretta is a democrat. Allan Colmes is a democrat. Name me a republican anchor at CBS, NBC, or ABC. There are so few republican reporters in the mainstream media that it is ridiculous.

I find it amusing that many liberals see Fox News as so far right-wing and yet they don't even recognize how left-wing the mainstream media is. You are so used to the left-wing media that when a news organization(Fox) comes along that is a little right of center, you think it's some crazy right-wing propaganda. It's hilarious.

By the way, if you're an American, you can't be deported for knowing a terrorist. I think you misunderstood that part. That only applies to people that are here on visas.

By the way, you are wrong about the Constitution. The Constitution specifically says that certain rights cannot be guaranteed during war time or emergencies.

[Downthestretch55]

The Constitution also states clearly how war can be declared.
Not that it's been followed since WW II.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I just checked the original vote on the Patriot Act. As you said it passed the Senate practically unanimously by a vote of 98-1. It passed the House by a vote of 357-66 as you said. That is pretty overwhelming and shows absolue bi-partisan support. I think that is nonsense that most Congressmen did not read it or were not aware of its contents. It was passed agian last year with a few minor chnages and it passed overwhelmingly with bi-partisan support. Your argumnet is ridiculous that the congressmen had no time to read it. How do you explain it passing so overwhelmingly last year after congressmen had 5 years to read it?

With regard to the media, you have it totally backwards. For years we had a media that was way left of center. I think the polls showed that over 90% of the media labeled themselves as liberal democrats. There was a huge liberal bias in the media. Now we have Fox News that is a little right of center, and you think that is awful. It's hilarious. Fox is no further right than the mainstream media has been to the left over the years. At least with Fox, all of their shows have guests from both sides. O'Reilly is definitely well right of center but he constantly brings on guests that are way left of center and debates them. What is wrong with that? Both sides get their say. Not only that, at least Fox News has plenty of liberal hosts and anchors. Geraldo is a democrat. Gretta is a democrat. Allan Colmes is a democrat. Name me a republican anchor at CBS, NBC, or ABC. There are so few republican reporters in the mainstream media that it is ridiculous.

I find it amusing that many liberals see Fox News as so far right-wing and yet they don't even recognize how left-wing the mainstream media is. You are so used to the left-wing media that when a news organization(Fox) comes along that is a little right of center, you think it's some crazy right-wing propaganda. It's hilarious.

By the way, if you're an American, you can't be deported for knowing a terrorist. I think you misunderstood that part. That only applies to people that are here on visas.

By the way, you are wrong about the Constitution. The Constitution specifically says that certain rights cannot be guaranteed during war time or emergencies.

Very well stated, Rupe.

Leftists can't tolerate the slightest dissent or criticism.

Just look at how Wee Willie Klinton and the mindless Klintonoids are squealing like greased pigs over a few scenes from a TV movie. And where are the howls of censorship from the usual leftist quarters?

Fifty years of absolute leftist media monopoly isn't enough for them. When AM radio turned to talk formats to keep from going out of business ... and right-wing hosts proved to be very popular ... again all we've heard is pig-squeals over reinstating the "fairness" doctrine in order to drive any and all right-wing commentary off the air.

And how about PBS and NPR ... funded by all taxpayers ... at least 50% of whom are rightists ... yet still spewing 100% leftist crapola for over 40 years. When a couple of right-leaning members were appointed to the board of directors ... again the lefties squealed and squealed.

Leftists are utterly bankrupt ... ever since their secular god ... the Soviet Union ... was thrown into the trash can by their nemesis ... Ronald Reagan ... these disillusioned lefties can think of nothing better to do ... than howl at the moon.

Just wait and see the screaming and gnashing that occurs when the cigars explode in their faces again this November.

Now that's entertainment!

[Downthestretch55]

I would be very happy to tell you where to put your cigar.
I'll even tell you how to light the fuse.
I'll watch. It should be very entertaining.
At least your budget will be spared the expense of all the preparation-h.
Hemmeroids?
What hemmeroids?
BOOM!

[Rupert Pupkin]

I'm not referring to anyone on this board, but I have found incredible hypocrisy amongst most liberals when it comes to civil rights, free speech, etc.

When a conservative speaker goes to a university to speak, the students will often times try to drown him out and not even allow him to speak. These are liberal students who are supposed to be in favor of free speech. In reality, they only want free speech for people they agree with.

In addition, what President was the biggest violator of people's civil rights? I'll give you a hint. He was the biggest liberal ever. It was FDR, who actually put Americans of Asian descent in internment camps during World War II.

I have this one friend who is a real liberal. He said that someone should kill Bill O'Reilly. It's amazing. My friend is a liberal yet he so desperately wants to silence O'Reilly that he wishes someone would kill him. My friend obviously does not belive in free speech even though he would claim that he absolutely does. The ironic thing is that O'Reilly is a big believer in free speech. O'Reilly is always brining people on his show who have the total opposite views and he debates them. Like O'Reilly, I like to let these idiots talk. The more they talk, they just end up making fools of themselves most of the time.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I'm not referring to anyone on this board, but I have found incredible hypocrisy amongst most liberals when it comes to civil rights, free speech, etc.

When a conservative speaker goes to a university to speak, the students will often times try to drown him out and not even allow him to speak. These are liberal students who are supposed to be in favor of free speech. In reality, they only want free speech for people they agree with.

In addition, what President was the biggest violator of people's civil rights? I'll give you a hint. He was the biggest liberal ever. It was FDR, who actually put Americans of Asian descent in internment camps during World War II.

I have this one friend who is a real liberal. He said that someone should kill Bill O'Reilly. It's amazing. My friend is a liberal yet he so desperately wants to silence O'Reilly that he wishes someone would kill him. My friend obviously does not belive in free speech even though he would claim that he absolutely does. The ironic thing is that O'Reilly is a big believer in free speech. O'Reilly is always brining people on his show who have the total opposite views and he debates them. Like O'Reilly, I like to let these idiots talk. The more they talk, they just end up making fools of themselves most of the time.

O'Reilly a believer in free speech? He tried to sue a comedian, Al Franken, over this issue. The guy is a stinken leftist comedian that got him so "riled" up that he took on a completely silly case. The case was so laughable it got thrown out immediately. He made a total joke of himself. OReilly is another very bright snake oil salesman just like many of those on the left. His ego is so large it holds an atmosphere. True conservatives with brains would want this guy lost. The conservative that makes the most sense to me by far is George Will. Dont even put O'Reilly close to George Will. They are made of completely different material. Whenever I see "fair and balanced" and "the spin stops here" I want to throw up. But I watch it anyway to see if some good stuff comes out an it does on occassion. O'Reilly reminds me of that liberal gal on the McGlau... (sp?) Group. Quick catchy comments that lack depth. Be fooled if you must Rupert. Got to find someone else, my suggestion, George Will.

Pat Buchanan also makes sense. So much sense I think he is dangerous. But at least he is straight up.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by pgardn

O'Reilly a believer in free speech? He tried to sue a comedian, Al Franken, over this issue. The guy is a stinken leftist comedian that got him so "riled" up that he took on a completely silly case. The case was so laughable it got thrown out immediately. He made a total joke of himself. OReilly is another very bright snake oil salesman just like many of those on the left. His ego is so large it holds an atmosphere. True conservatives with brains would want this guy lost. The conservative that makes the most sense to me by far is George Will. Dont even put O'Reilly close to George Will. They are made of completely different material. Whenever I see "fair and balanced" and "the spin stops here" I want to throw up. But I watch it anyway to see if some good stuff comes out an it does on occassion. O'Reilly reminds me of that liberal gal on the McGlau... (sp?) Group. Quick catchy comments that lack depth. Be fooled if you must Rupert. Got to find someone else, my suggestion, George Will.

Pat Buchanan also makes sense. So much sense I think he is dangerous. But at least he is straight up.

You missed my point about O'Reilly. I'm not saying that I'm a big O'Reilly fan. I actually think he's kind of a jerk. I certainly agree with him more often than I disagree with him, but I still find him obnoxious at times.

I agree with you that George Will is very bright.

With regard to his lawsuit aginst Al Franken, I don't remember the details so I can't really comment on it. I will say that Al Franken is not just a comedian any more. He is a liberal commentator and he he has said that he is seriously considering running for office. I think people do take him seriously, so if O'Reilly felt that Franken slandered him, I can understand why he sued him.

With regard to politicians that I admire, one of my favorite politicians is a democrat. I really like the congressman Harold Ford. He seems like a real straight-shooter who is pretty non-partisan. That's the kind of politican I like. I would vote for him if he was a congresman in my state. If he ever runs for President, I would consider voting for him. He seems like a guy who can work well with people on both sides of the aisle.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I just checked the original vote on the Patriot Act. As you said it passed the Senate practically unanimously by a vote of 98-1. It passed the House by a vote of 357-66 as you said. That is pretty overwhelming and shows absolue bi-partisan support. I think that is nonsense that most Congressmen did not read it or were not aware of its contents. It was passed agian last year with a few minor chnages and it passed overwhelmingly with bi-partisan support. Your argumnet is ridiculous that the congressmen had no time to read it. How do you explain it passing so overwhelmingly last year after congressmen had 5 years to read it?

With regard to the media, you have it totally backwards. For years we had a media that was way left of center. I think the polls showed that over 90% of the media labeled themselves as liberal democrats. There was a huge liberal bias in the media. Now we have Fox News that is a little right of center, and you think that is awful. It's hilarious. Fox is no further right than the mainstream media has been to the left over the years. At least with Fox, all of their shows have guests from both sides. O'Reilly is definitely well right of center but he constantly brings on guests that are way left of center and debates them. What is wrong with that? Both sides get their say. Not only that, at least Fox News has plenty of liberal hosts and anchors. Geraldo is a democrat. Gretta is a democrat. Allan Colmes is a democrat. Name me a republican anchor at CBS, NBC, or ABC. There are so few republican reporters in the mainstream media that it is ridiculous.

I find it amusing that many liberals see Fox News as so far right-wing and yet they don't even recognize how left-wing the mainstream media is. You are so used to the left-wing media that when a news organization(Fox) comes along that is a little right of center, you think it's some crazy right-wing propaganda. It's hilarious.

By the way, if you're an American, you can't be deported for knowing a terrorist. I think you misunderstood that part. That only applies to people that are here on visas.

By the way, you are wrong about the Constitution. The Constitution specifically says that certain rights cannot be guaranteed during war time or emergencies.

Rupert, you claimed the PATRIOT Act was written by Congress, which is wasn't. In addition, the Constitution does not contain an "emergency power" or "suspension" clause other than the clause allowing limited suspension of habeas corpus-- BUT-- that power is granted to CONGRESS, not the President (Article 9, Section 1). And it's been the White House, without Congressional knowledge in many cases, who has been orchestrating the secret prisons, the torture, etc. etc. Not that there haven't been cases decided in favor of eroding civil liberties, but the decisions weren't found in the Constitution.

The Patriot Act is 340 pages. The Senate was given just three days to read the bill before voting on it. Two days after the Sept. 11 attacks, Sen. Orrin Hatch found a pending appropriations bill due for a vote, and tacked on a slew of amendments servings as a sort of precursor to the Patriot Act — again, giving the Senate no time to actually read and discuss them.

You really think all 98 people who voted for the PATRIOT Act read it in its entirety and had time to consider it? In three days? But do you think they'd admit to it? And what does that say if they didn't vote to renew? Oh, gee, now that I've had a chance to actually read the thing I think I was wrong? Although some did-- the vote went 280-138 in the House and 89-10 in the Senate. (This year, by the way, not last year. It failed last year.)

In fact, Congress NOT reading legislation they have passed has gotten so bad several organizations are pushing for legislation that will require Congressmen and women to sign legal affadavits that they've read what they voted on. I kid you not. Fat chance seeing it passed, of course.

If you think mainstream media is liberal-- I don't even know how to address this one (I'm sure your Fox KoolAid is deeelicious, though!). Yes, many reporters identify as politically liberal. They aren't the ones who decide what stories get reported. It's the editors and the owners, who tend to identify as conservative. It doesn't matter one whit what political way you lean if you don't have the authority to decide what gets on the air.

And Colmes, or any of the other straw dogs Fox offers as "liberal viewpoints?" Oh please. I could stick a dildo on a desk next to Chris Matthews and claim it was a "Republican commentator" but that doesn't mean that it's going to be any good at commentating. If you can't see that they find the most incompetent idiots for O'Reilly to shout at and bully, you're kidding yourself (You call that debate? What he does?). But how can they claim to be "fair and balanced" unless they pretend to be giving both sides? Please. Oldest trick in the book, next to "Look at the monkey!" Call me when Fox puts on Joan Walsh or Sidney Blumenthal or someone good. I won't hold my breath.

Geraldo? Gimme a break. I can't believe you even typed that in any seriousness. It'd be like me assuming your Ann Coulter is the best you right-wingers can offer. Unfair and untrue of me to do so. Geraldo. Right. 'Fess up-- you meant that as a joke, right?

Please feel free to give me any examples of major news outlets showing a clear liberal bias in their reporting. As you have said, best to deal in facts and not opinions.

What, just because Section 411 doesn't apply to citizens, that makes it okay?

Thanks Rupert, as always, for the opposing view! Makes me do my homework, which I appreciate.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Rupert, you claimed the PATRIOT Act was written by Congress, which is wasn't. In addition, the Constitution does not contain an "emergency power" or "suspension" clause other than the clause allowing limited suspension of habeas corpus-- BUT-- that power is granted to CONGRESS, not the President (Article 9, Section 1). And it's been the White House, without Congressional knowledge in many cases, who has been orchestrating the secret prisons, the torture, etc. etc. Not that there haven't been cases decided in favor of eroding civil liberties, but the decisions weren't found in the Constitution.

The Patriot Act is 340 pages. The Senate was given just three days to read the bill before voting on it. Two days after the Sept. 11 attacks, Sen. Orrin Hatch found a pending appropriations bill due for a vote, and tacked on a slew of amendments servings as a sort of precursor to the Patriot Act — again, giving the Senate no time to actually read and discuss them.

You really think all 98 people who voted for the PATRIOT Act read it in its entirety and had time to consider it? In three days? But do you think they'd admit to it? And what does that say if they didn't vote to renew? Oh, gee, now that I've had a chance to actually read the thing I think I was wrong? Although some did-- the vote went 280-138 in the House and 89-10 in the Senate. (This year, by the way, not last year. It failed last year.)

In fact, Congress NOT reading legislation they have passed has gotten so bad several organizations are pushing for legislation that will require Congressmen and women to sign legal affadavits that they've read what they voted on. I kid you not. Fat chance seeing it passed, of course.

If you think mainstream media is liberal-- I don't even know how to address this one (I'm sure your Fox KoolAid is deeelicious, though!). Yes, many reporters identify as politically liberal. They aren't the ones who decide what stories get reported. It's the editors and the owners, who tend to identify as conservative. It doesn't matter one whit what political way you lean if you don't have the authority to decide what gets on the air.

And Colmes, or any of the other straw dogs Fox offers as "liberal viewpoints?" Oh please. I could stick a dildo on a desk next to Chris Matthews and claim it was a "Republican commentator" but that doesn't mean that it's going to be any good at commentating. If you can't see that they find the most incompetent idiots for O'Reilly to shout at and bully, you're kidding yourself (You call that debate? What he does?). But how can they claim to be "fair and balanced" unless they pretend to be giving both sides? Please. Oldest trick in the book, next to "Look at the monkey!" Call me when Fox puts on Joan Walsh or Sidney Blumenthal or someone good. I won't hold my breath.

Geraldo? Gimme a break. I can't believe you even typed that in any seriousness. It'd be like me assuming your Ann Coulter is the best you right-wingers can offer. Unfair and untrue of me to do so. Geraldo. Right. 'Fess up-- you meant that as a joke, right?

Please feel free to give me any examples of major news outlets showing a clear liberal bias in their reporting. As you have said, best to deal in facts and not opinions.

What, just because Section 411 doesn't apply to citizens, that makes it okay?

Thanks Rupert, as always, for the opposing view! Makes me do my homework, which I appreciate.

You obviously don't watch Fox. They have Senators and Congressmen on from both parties all the time. Equal time is given to both sides.

You must be kidding about the networks. Dan Rather was allowed to do a negative story on President Bush that was based on forged documents. they didn't check their sources at all. If they would have done even a minimal amount of homework, they would have known that the documents were forged. How were they allowed to do this story if the higher-ups were conservative? The higher-ups have never been conservative at the networks. Where did you come up with that? If the higher-ups were conservative, why s it that they never hire conservative journalists?

I'm not sure I understood your comments about Chris Matthews. I assume you know he is a democrat but I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't. He worked for Jimmy Carter for many years.

I agree with you that Alan Colmes is not some left-wing nut. He is a relatively conservative democrat. With regard to Ann Coulter, I have no problem when she represents the right. She can hold her own. She's articulate.

Anyway, you obviously don't watch Fox. They have the Joe Bidens and the Sidney Blumenthals and all the articulate democrats on there all the time.

[Rupert Pupkin]

[quote=GenuineRisk]Rupert, you claimed the PATRIOT Act was written by Congress, which is wasn't. In addition, the Constitution does not contain an "emergency power" or "suspension" clause other than the clause allowing limited suspension of habeas corpus-- BUT-- that power is granted to CONGRESS, not the President (Article 9, Section 1). And it's been the White House, without Congressional knowledge in many cases, who has been orchestrating the secret prisons, the torture, etc. etc. Not that there haven't been cases decided in favor of eroding civil liberties, but the decisions weren't found in the Constitution.

That is not true. The 5th ammendment does make exceptions during "time of war" or "public danger".

[GenuineRisk]

[quote=Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Rupert, you claimed the PATRIOT Act was written by Congress, which is wasn't. In addition, the Constitution does not contain an "emergency power" or "suspension" clause other than the clause allowing limited suspension of habeas corpus-- BUT-- that power is granted to CONGRESS, not the President (Article 9, Section 1). And it's been the White House, without Congressional knowledge in many cases, who has been orchestrating the secret prisons, the torture, etc. etc. Not that there haven't been cases decided in favor of eroding civil liberties, but the decisions weren't found in the Constitution.

That is not true. The 5th ammendment does make exceptions during "time of war" or "public danger".

I think that's referring only to people serving in the military, active duty: "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger." I think that's what's meant by "land" or "naval forces"

Here are some choice Ann Coulter comments.

"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband's deaths so much." -on 9/11 widows who have been critical of the Bush administration

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity."

"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'"---Hannity & Colmes, 6/20/01

To a disabled Vietnam vet: "People like you caused us to lose that war."---MSNBC

"I think there should be a literacy test and a poll tax for people to vote."---Hannity & Colmes, 8/17/99

"If you don't hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don't love your country."---George, 7/99

"I think we had enough laws about the turn-of-the-century. We don't need any more." Asked how far back would she go to repeal laws, she replied, "Well, before the New Deal...[The Emancipation Proclamation] would be a good start."---Politically Incorrect 5/7/97

"The swing voters -- I like to refer to them as the idiot voters because they don't have set philosophical principles. You're either a liberal or you're a conservative if you have an IQ above a toaster."

Hey, Rupert! Ann Coulter says you're an idiot! (You said you disliked both parties) Boy, she's articulate, isn't she?

Hmm... but now I think I know who BB really is! Please, BB, gain some weight already-- you're looking awfully scary on TV these days...

I just cited Chris Matthews because he is one of the talking pundits and "Chris Matthews" sounds funny next to "dildo." My husband suggested I use "rubber duck" which is also funny. Yes, I did know he worked in the Carter Administration. And I find it ironic that he calls his show "Hardball" since I rarely see him actually play hardball on it. (that's him, right?) I can't stand his laugh-- like nails on a blackboard for me.

Yes, Rather put up sloppy reporting and it cost him his job. In the wake of all the attention given the same summer to the "Swift Boat" nonsense by legitimate media, including CBS, no one having been fired as a result of that, I hardly find Rather getting humiliated out of his job a sign of liberal bias. If anything, the opposite.

My issue with Colmes has nothing to do with how liberal he might or might not be, it's just think he's a crummy commentator. But explain to me how having a conservative democrat paired with a radical right-winger is "fair and balanced"? Wouldn't it be more balanced to have a left-wing nut to balance out Hannity's right-wing nuttiness? Just asking.

The Dixie Chicks song "Not Ready to Make Nice" includes references to death threats they got after their comment about Bush in 2003. Does that mean all conservatives are violent wack-jobs? No, any more than one friend of yours who hates Bill O'Reilly and says stupid things is an indicator of all liberals.

And I remember Richard Gere getting shouted down when he pleaded for tolerance during the concert for 9/11 (what; he's a Buddhist; what did they think he would say?). Shouting down things you don't want to hear goes both ways-- I hardly think that's limited to liberals. Bad and rude behavior, whoever does it.

[GenuineRisk]

[quote=Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Rupert, you claimed the PATRIOT Act was written by Congress, which is wasn't. In addition, the Constitution does not contain an "emergency power" or "suspension" clause other than the clause allowing limited suspension of habeas corpus-- BUT-- that power is granted to CONGRESS, not the President (Article 9, Section 1). And it's been the White House, without Congressional knowledge in many cases, who has been orchestrating the secret prisons, the torture, etc. etc. Not that there haven't been cases decided in favor of eroding civil liberties, but the decisions weren't found in the Constitution.

That is not true. The 5th ammendment does make exceptions during "time of war" or "public danger".

I think that's referring only to people serving in the military, active duty: "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger." I think that's what's meant by "land" or "naval forces"

Here are some choice Ann Coulter comments.

"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband's deaths so much." -on 9/11 widows who have been critical of the Bush administration

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity."

"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'"---Hannity & Colmes, 6/20/01

To a disabled Vietnam vet: "People like you caused us to lose that war."---MSNBC

"I think there should be a literacy test and a poll tax for people to vote."---Hannity & Colmes, 8/17/99

"If you don't hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don't love your country."---George, 7/99

"I think we had enough laws about the turn-of-the-century. We don't need any more." Asked how far back would she go to repeal laws, she replied, "Well, before the New Deal...[The Emancipation Proclamation] would be a good start."---Politically Incorrect 5/7/97

"The swing voters -- I like to refer to them as the idiot voters because they don't have set philosophical principles. You're either a liberal or you're a conservative if you have an IQ above a toaster."

Hey, Rupert! Ann Coulter says you're an idiot! (You said you disliked both parties) Boy, she's articulate, isn't she?

Hmm... but now I think I know who BB really is! Please, BB, gain some weight already-- you're looking awfully scary on TV these days...

I just cited Chris Matthews because he is one of the talking pundits and "Chris Matthews" sounds funny next to "dildo." My husband suggested I use "rubber duck" which is also funny. Yes, I did know he worked in the Carter Administration. And I find it ironic that he calls his show "Hardball" since I rarely see him actually play hardball on it. (that's him, right?) I can't stand his laugh-- like nails on a blackboard for me.

Yes, Rather put up sloppy reporting and it cost him his job. In the wake of all the attention given the same summer to the "Swift Boat" nonsense by legitimate media, including CBS, no one having been fired as a result of that, I hardly find Rather getting humiliated out of his job a sign of liberal bias. If anything, the opposite.

My issue with Colmes has nothing to do with how liberal he might or might not be, it's just think he's a crummy commentator. But explain to me how having a conservative democrat paired with a radical right-winger is "fair and balanced"? Wouldn't it be more balanced to have a left-wing nut to balance out Hannity's right-wing nuttiness? Just asking.

The Dixie Chicks song "Not Ready to Make Nice" includes references to death threats they got after their comment about Bush in 2003. Does that mean all Bushies are violent wack-jobs? No, any more than one friend of yours who hates Bill O'Reilly and says stupid things is an indicator of all liberals.

And I remember Richard Gere getting shouted down when he pleaded for tolerance during the concert for 9/11 (what; he's a Buddhist; what did they think he would say?). Shouting down things you don't want to hear goes both ways-- I hardly think that's limited to liberals. Bad and rude behavior, whoever does it.

As always, thanks for your response!

[Rupert Pupkin]

[quote=GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think that's referring only to people serving in the military, active duty: "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger." I think that's what's meant by "land" or "naval forces"

Here are some choice Ann Coulter comments.

"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband's deaths so much." -on 9/11 widows who have been critical of the Bush administration

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity."

"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'"---Hannity & Colmes, 6/20/01

To a disabled Vietnam vet: "People like you caused us to lose that war."---MSNBC

"I think there should be a literacy test and a poll tax for people to vote."---Hannity & Colmes, 8/17/99

"If you don't hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don't love your country."---George, 7/99

"I think we had enough laws about the turn-of-the-century. We don't need any more." Asked how far back would she go to repeal laws, she replied, "Well, before the New Deal...[The Emancipation Proclamation] would be a good start."---Politically Incorrect 5/7/97

"The swing voters -- I like to refer to them as the idiot voters because they don't have set philosophical principles. You're either a liberal or you're a conservative if you have an IQ above a toaster."

Hey, Rupert! Ann Coulter says you're an idiot! (You said you disliked both parties) Boy, she's articulate, isn't she?

Hmm... but now I think I know who BB really is! Please, BB, gain some weight already-- you're looking awfully scary on TV these days...

I just cited Chris Matthews because he is one of the talking pundits and "Chris Matthews" sounds funny next to "dildo." My husband suggested I use "rubber duck" which is also funny. Yes, I did know he worked in the Carter Administration. And I find it ironic that he calls his show "Hardball" since I rarely see him actually play hardball on it. (that's him, right?) I can't stand his laugh-- like nails on a blackboard for me.

Yes, Rather put up sloppy reporting and it cost him his job. In the wake of all the attention given the same summer to the "Swift Boat" nonsense by legitimate media, including CBS, no one having been fired as a result of that, I hardly find Rather getting humiliated out of his job a sign of liberal bias. If anything, the opposite.

My issue with Colmes has nothing to do with how liberal he might or might not be, it's just think he's a crummy commentator. But explain to me how having a conservative democrat paired with a radical right-winger is "fair and balanced"? Wouldn't it be more balanced to have a left-wing nut to balance out Hannity's right-wing nuttiness? Just asking.

The Dixie Chicks song "Not Ready to Make Nice" includes references to death threats they got after their comment about Bush in 2003. Does that mean all Bushies are violent wack-jobs? No, any more than one friend of yours who hates Bill O'Reilly and says stupid things is an indicator of all liberals.

And I remember Richard Gere getting shouted down when he pleaded for tolerance during the concert for 9/11 (what; he's a Buddhist; what did they think he would say?). Shouting down things you don't want to hear goes both ways-- I hardly think that's limited to liberals. Bad and rude behavior, whoever does it.

As always, thanks for your response!

I don't always agree with Ann Coulter. She's made some pretty outlandish comments over the years. With regard to Sean Hannity, I'm not a big fan of his.

With regard to the Richard Gere incident, the audience simply booed for a few seconds to let him know they disagreed with them. They didn't try to drown him out. He was allowed to finish his speech. That is totally different from when a conservative goes to a college to make a speech and is not allowed to speak. The students will yell so loud that the speaker can't be heard. They actually can't give their speech and are forced to walk off the stage. This isn't a one-time deal either. It happens all the time at the liberal campuses. It's absolute hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Rupert, you claimed the PATRIOT Act was written by Congress, which is wasn't.

It's very welcome that you take an interest in current affairs ... and that you engage so enthusiastically in these debates ...

... but, honey ... you really appear silly ... and deflate the value of all your arguments ... when you make nonsensical assertions like that.

All federal legislation is created in Congress ... that's why it's called the LEGISLATIVE branch of the government.

It's impossible ... totally and completely ... for legislation to originate anywhere else. The President has an ancillary role to play in that he can attempt to forestall laws approved by Congress through his veto power ... but if 2/3 of the Congress disagrees with him ... the law gets enacted anyway. He can also use his political power to propose legislation ... and to convince members of Congress from his party to introduce legislation based on his proposals. But the fact still remains that all Federal laws ... each and every one of them ... are created and enacted by the two houses of Congress.

Please continue to vigorously state your positions ... but be careful not to demean yourself with such silliness.

Its hard to believe that we have as many brainwashed liberals in this country as we do. Its the scariest thing that I have ever seen.
The nazis had great propaganda, but the US media and its large left base has succeeded in brainwashing many folks over the past 30 years.
Its just incredible that people can't see that in a time of war, that what matters is not political parties, but the safety and protection of the United States and its law abiding citizens.
I have to label a complete moron or a terrorist anyone who fears being dragged from their home and taken away to confinement or interrogation.
Does anyone here honestly feel that? Or is it just a way to strike out at Republicans. How many folks do you know who get up and go to work and abide laws that are ever gonna get dragged from their homes?
The liberals are trying very hard right now to use "rights of US Citizens" to cloud and confuse the issue of whats going on. Whats going on is the most dangerous period in the history of the United States. Its a period in which millions of folks are rising each morning and trying to figure out how to destroy us and kill our people.
The founding fathers knew nothing of terrorism, at the time the Constitution was drafted, people still engaged in duels as a means of settling dispute. There was honor among men, and the notion that cowards would attempt to murder innocent people was not even a thought in their minds.
Innovations or adjustments are born of necessity. Its common sense really.
I think that 9/11 didn't really hit home with a lot of people, because they only saw it on tv, like a horror movie. They hadn't ever been to the World Trade Center, and they didn't know anyone who worked there. They havn't seen the destruction.
These folks are not going to quit, they are going to continue to try and kill as many innocent Americans as they can each and every day. It is the toughest job ever given any President and the intelligence agencies to prevent this. The other side only has to succeed one time.
How can any American not understand why things have changed and why its a necessity that they have changed?
Does anyone really believe that the intelligence agencies who are now monitoring emails and phone calls of American citizens are looking to use that info to arrest someone for a non terrorist related offense? The folks charged with these duties go to work each and every day and listen to the intelligence that we have which updates them on the newest suspected plots and then get the joyous task of realizing that if they screw up, thats thousands or even millions could die because they didn't do their jobs correctly.
If most people screw up at work, maybe a project is delayed or a deadline is missed, maybe a sales quota isn't hit. If these guys and gals screw up then people die. Does anyone honestly believe that the people who have this burden are looking to harass innocent Americans or even harass Americans committing small time or even big time crime unless its terrorist related?
Unfortunately, many liberals or gullible folks will not realize the gravity of the situation until the next attack comes and more people die. Until that happens its just a political football to kick around and attempt to win elections with, and its sickening and traitorous.

Originally Posted by oracle80

Its hard to believe that we have as many brainwashed liberals in this country as we do. Its the scariest thing that I have ever seen.
The nazis had great propaganda, but the US media and its large left base has succeeded in brainwashing many folks over the past 30 years.
Its just incredible that people can't see that in a time of war, that what matters is not political parties, but the safety and protection of the United States and its law abiding citizens.
I have to label a complete moron or a terrorist anyone who fears being dragged from their home and taken away to confinement or interrogation.
Does anyone here honestly feel that? Or is it just a way to strike out at Republicans. How many folks do you know who get up and go to work and abide laws that are ever gonna get dragged from their homes?
The liberals are trying very hard right now to use "rights of US Citizens" to cloud and confuse the issue of whats going on. Whats going on is the most dangerous period in the history of the United States. Its a period in which millions of folks are rising each morning and trying to figure out how to destroy us and kill our people.
The founding fathers knew nothing of terrorism, at the time the Constitution was drafted, people still engaged in duels as a means of settling dispute. There was honor among men, and the notion that cowards would attempt to murder innocent people was not even a thought in their minds.
Innovations or adjustments are born of necessity. Its common sense really.
I think that 9/11 didn't really hit home with a lot of people, because they only saw it on tv, like a horror movie. They hadn't ever been to the World Trade Center, and they didn't know anyone who worked there. They havn't seen the destruction.
These folks are not going to quit, they are going to continue to try and kill as many innocent Americans as they can each and every day. It is the toughest job ever given any President and the intelligence agencies to prevent this. The other side only has to succeed one time.
How can any American not understand why things have changed and why its a necessity that they have changed?
Does anyone really believe that the intelligence agencies who are now monitoring emails and phone calls of American citizens are looking to use that info to arrest someone for a non terrorist related offense? The folks charged with these duties go to work each and every day and listen to the intelligence that we have which updates them on the newest suspected plots and then get the joyous task of realizing that if they screw up, thats thousands or even millions could die because they didn't do their jobs correctly.
If most people screw up at work, maybe a project is delayed or a deadline is missed, maybe a sales quota isn't hit. If these guys and gals screw up then people die. Does anyone honestly believe that the people who have this burden are looking to harass innocent Americans or even harass Americans committing small time or even big time crime unless its terrorist related?
Unfortunately, many liberals or gullible folks will not realize the gravity of the situation until the next attack comes and more people die. Until that happens its just a political football to kick around and attempt to win elections with, and its sickening and traitorous.

Bingo!

Oracle80 ... more than just an encyclopedic thoroughbred analyst ... but also a man of brilliant insight and unerring common sense.