Cue Republican Whining and Posturing on Feingold

According to Progress Now, Senator Wayne 'Whiny' Allard, Republican of Colorado, accused Feingold of 'siding with terrorists' by introducing his censure resolution.  They have a petition up demanding Allard apologize.  Frankly, Senator Whiny Allard should be expelled from the Senate for accusing a colleague of treason.

Senator Feingold, you are a man of integrity and a real Democrat.  I'm proud of your strength and your leadership.

Senator Allard, your weak, cowardly nature means that you don't know what it means to fight the fear that terrorists seek to spread.  You and conservatives like you enable terrorists with your weakness and posturing.  May I recommend Depends brand undergarments, in case you soil yourself in the Senate as you cower in the corner?

Tags: Russ Feingold (all tags)

Comments

76 Comments

Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing on Feingo

Nice work, with the "Depends" comment.  Could not be more accurate.

by jfrankesq 2006-03-14 11:06AM | 0 recs
He won't survive 2008...

If he decides to run again.

by Liberal 2006-03-14 11:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing on Feingo

Matt, since when do we do product placements?

;-]

by Pachacutec 2006-03-14 11:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing on Feingo

Lemme guess:  Wayne Allard, just like Bill Frist, opposes censure for Republican wartime presidents but votes to impeach Democratic wartime presidents?

Of course he did!

by Phoenix Woman 2006-03-14 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing on Feingo

Allard is coming up for re-election in 2008 and he will be running against Mark Udall (my current congressman). CO is turning BLUE in a big way and Allard will be out of a job.

by theatheist 2006-03-14 11:52AM | 0 recs
Go careful with those adjectives

I'm not sure what his name recognition is like, but I don't know Allard from a hole in the ground.

His national media profile may be lower than Barney the presidential pooch.

No doubt he chases cats and smells dogs' behinds. (Barney, that is.)

And Allard - likewise - is just doing what GOP hacks do. (Dozens of them are doing it as I write, probably.)

We can't bawl them all out. (Even if it is a charmingly tongue-in-cheek way of getting in a sponsor's announcement!)

by skeptic06 2006-03-14 11:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Go careful with those adjectives

Allard introduced the "Federal Marriage Amendment" in the Senate, attempting to define marriage as between a man and a woman.  Ofcourse, he supposedly supports smaller government and states rights.  What a hypocrite.

Allard is finally going to have a real political fight come 2008.  This is not 1996 anymore, or 2002 for that matter.  

by Eric11 2006-03-14 11:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Go careful with those adjectives

No doubt he chases cats and smells dogs' behinds.

Considering Sen. Allard is a veterinarian your statement may be more accurate than you thought.

by em dash 2006-03-14 01:59PM | 0 recs
I recommend "Oops! I Crapped My Pants"
"Oops! I Crapped My Pants" outperforms every bladder and bowl control product on the market today.
http://bluejersey.net/images/diary/oops.jpg">
by jmelli 2006-03-14 11:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing

jmelli,

How do you know so much about Oops I crapped my pants?

by park 2006-03-14 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing

Because I'm wearing them, and I just did.

by jmelli 2006-03-14 12:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing

Oh my God, I've never before witnessed a blog comment set-up that effectively executed. Kudos to both of you.

by Scott Shields 2006-03-14 12:23PM | 0 recs
Another Republican Whiny Ass Titty Baby

Allard's not only dumb, he's stupid.

Let's start the ball rolling to bust his ass out of congress now: Jay Fawcett is today's Fighting Dem feature on Kos.

by zappatero 2006-03-14 12:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing on Feingo

I just spoke to a staffer in Allard's office.

I asked if Allard was saying that Feingold is "traitor," or that he is guilty of "treason."

I was told the senator had not made that remark.

I then quoted the senator's actual remarks to the staffer, and the staffer suggested the senator would be issuing a clarification of his statment later today.

I remarked that this would be a good idea, because the stament as it stand clealry carries an allegation of treason, and if that is the senator's intent, then he should say it clearly and proceed with full scale charges of treason.  If not, then an apology is in order.  I suggested senator Allard "crap or get off the pot."

The staffer then asked for my name again and place of residence.

Niceties exchanged by way of conversational conclusion.  All very polite.

by Pachacutec 2006-03-14 12:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing

Wow, praise from Caesar.

[blush]

by park 2006-03-14 12:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing on Feingo

How do we find another Senator to introduce the explusion resolution, if that's the remedy allowed, for this jerk?

Treason has a specific meaning.

by BigDog 2006-03-14 01:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing

This should be grounds for a libel case.

by grays 2006-03-14 01:30PM | 0 recs
Cue Republican Whining and Posturing on Feingold

LMSAO!!!!!

by onhoth2o 2006-03-14 01:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing
How can letting terrorists communicate within the US not help them? If the Senate's decision is in favor of Feingold's censure then it will weaken our homeland security. Does he just want the US government to sit back and wait for another terrorist attack? Feingold deos not even have an argument. The Patriot Act was passed and allows this to happen, which means that no law is broken. Oh i've got it, what is Bush thinking hindering the terrorists' communication? They should be able to communicate and devise an attack. Why should the government protect its people and stop this from happening?
How can one call him a real democrat nevertheless a logical person. The conservatives are really enabling the terrorists, especially when they are the ones doing everything to stop them. They aren't the people that want to let terrorists communite within the US. If you were a terrorists, wouldn't the use of a telephone help you?
by sox111489 2006-03-14 02:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing

The Patriot Act does not give the President to spy on Americans without a warrant. Getting a warrant from the FISA court is very easy to do. No one I know of is saying that Americans can't be spied on, there is a legal procedure in place that protects our civil liberties. It's a basic process and this administration has offered no valid legal argument that they have the authority to do this. I don't know what else to tell you but your animosity and sarcasm are misplaced because they are rooted in an idea that is simply, untrue.

by CitizenBing 2006-03-14 03:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing

So your saying that terrorists deserve civil liberties like normal Americans. The fact is that Bush is not spying on everyday Americans. He does not pick names out of a hat and say, lets see what this person is talking about today. Obviously, the government has leads on these people and taps them for a reason that links them to terrorists. So your also saying that you would not give up a civil liberty so save American lives, very considerate of you. Do you think that there is no reason that Bush did not get warrants, do not be ignorant, there has to be reasons. We have not heard the whole side of the government's story, but there are reasons why they have not said this. It seems as though democrats think that the government did this for no reason and they wanted to ignore the law. The point is that when it comes between giving up a civil liberty, and saving American lives, I would choose saving American lives, obviously the democrats' would choose former, this is why they are weak on homeland security.

by sox111489 2006-03-14 04:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing

Sox, sox, sox...you're making all my points (see below) for me.

"So your saying that terrorists deserve civil liberties like normal Americans."
Since CitizenB never once used the words "terrorists," you're putting words in your opponent's mouth.  This technique is called strawman: you change your opponent's words and then argue against the change that only YOU made. Wrong, unfair, and juvenile, sox.

"The fact is that Bush is not spying on everyday Americans. He does not pick names out of a hat and say, lets see what this person is talking about today."
Sox, while the word picture certainly is absurd, it is again YOUR word picture. Reporting on this topic shows that we don't know that your first three words "The fact is" are true. That's our problem.

"Obviously, the government has leads on these people and taps them for a reason that links them to terrorists."
Obviously?  The FBI doesn't think so (see link above). Not that the FBI has particularly clean hands in this regard.

"So your also saying that you would not give up a civil liberty so save American lives, very considerate of you."
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.  Thomas Jefferson

"Do you think that there is no reason that Bush did not get warrants, do not be ignorant, there has to be reasons. We have not heard the whole side of the government's story, but there are reasons why they have not said this."
Blind faith, sox. Would you accept this blind faith if it were President Gore or President Kerry in office?

"It seems as though democrats think that the government did this for no reason and they wanted to ignore the law."
Yes. When you've made the point that the government hasn't given us reasons, we tend to conclude that there are no good reasons. And we should be critical when we're given no good reasons: I call upon my fellow citizens everywhere to cooperate with me in making this the most efficient and the cleanest example of public enterprise the world has ever seen. It is time to provide a smashing answer for those cynical men who say that a democracy cannot be honest and efficient. If you will help, this can be done. I, therefore, hope you will watch the work in every corner of this Nation. Feel free to criticize. Tell me of instances where work can be done better, or where improper practices prevail. FDR...and...To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Theodore Roosevelt  

"The point is that when it comes between giving up a civil liberty, and saving American lives, I would choose saving American lives, obviously the democrats' would choose former, this is why they are weak on homeland security."
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.  Benjamin Franklin

by DaphneDixie 2006-03-14 05:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing
I see the problem. CitizenB uses "Americans" in a way to exaggerate the problem. Though we can easily deduce the fact that the government is spying on corrupt people. My oppenent doesn't have to clearly state "terrorists," but through any logic in anyone's mind we would believe that the government would spy on terrorists, hence why this is used in the war on TERRORISM.
ok next, how do you think the government received the names of the people that they eavesdropped on? Even though they had were not terrorists they must have had some information involving these people. Sorry, but use simple logic. Do not plead ignorancy. We would not be spending our tax dollars to find out what these people are talking about for no reason. Do not bring up the argument that that I am assuming this, any logical mind would see that there would have to be a reason. Your blind faith argument is ridiculous. Honestly if Kerry was the president I would believe that he would have reasons too. Its logic. Its like a proof, its given information, I should not have to prove something that is given to start off with. It seems as though your playing devil's advocate and a weak one at that, especially blind faith, is that your only argument, actually it is, because its the only argument that can be made, illogical as it is.
Have you ever thought that the government is not giving us reasons because it would compromise an operation currently going on or something that frankly, we shouldn't know and will put other Americans in danger.
You cannot use Frankin's quote here and now. It is a different time period, with different enemies. This is not conserning "little temporary safety," this is not little, this concerns the lives of possibly thousands of Americans.
I'm am sick of you using worst case scenarios and pessimism as last chance arguments.
by sox111489 2006-03-14 06:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing

Did you even read the links I provided?

They're in blue print, and you can click on them.  If you don't trust me and think that I might send you to a site that will give your computer a virus, you can first right click on the link, scroll down the box that appears to the word "Properties" and click on that.  It will show you that the link goes to a legitimate site. The first one, from the Washington Post, is particularly pertinent.

Its like a proof, its given information, I should not have to prove something that is given to start off with. Here you are confusing "proof" with "axiom" or "postulate." You have not constructed a proof, sox. You don't even have an accepted axiom.

And I can't use quotes from the founding of our country because things are different now almost 230 years later? How about this one then: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. George Santayana

(I'm boggled over the idea that saying "American" rather than "terrorist" is exaggerating the problem.)

by DaphneDixie 2006-03-14 07:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing

Go back to school study the history of our country and why the Constitution was written the way it is. Then study just a little bit about the FISA law. Maybe throw in a short course in logic.

Why?

Not because I say so but because you are utterly clueless as to the issues of this discussion and are just taking up thread space.

by Pericles 2006-03-14 07:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing
Yes, because saying that the Americans' lives are more important than giving up a simple freedom in which you are not even effected by is very illogical. I am the person that is giving up these freedoms because of my heritage and I, as well as all the people of Middle Easten descent that I know, are the people that are really affected by this. Maybe you should look at the freedoms in which you are giving up, sorry the freedoms in which I am giving up, and see if there is a logical inbalance between the two issues leaning in favor the loss of these freedoms.
Hah, using the name Pericles. Labeling yourself as him lowers his name into the depths of Charles the I. Pericles would laugh in you face at you because you put something that doesn't even effect you in front of protecting your country.
by sox111489 2006-03-16 11:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing

No one is arguing against infiltrating terrorist communications.  It's just called getting a warrant.  It ain't that hard.  They have an enitre court set up to do this.  In fact you can spy for days without one, if needed.

Please, don't just make stuff up.  

 

by Eric11 2006-03-14 05:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing

CitizenBing, I'd be willing to bet the 111489 in sox's name is a birthdate so that we're seeing a Republican junior grade.

(S)He doesn't register the qualifiers:  "Don't listen in on the conversations of Americans in America without a warrant." The last three words disappear from consideration.

There is the misunderstanding of the provisions of the PATRIOT Act. Many teenagers feel that protection is comforting enough to allow for the lessening of freedoms in their homes, schools, and communities.

There is the dropping of words from a sentence that is intended to develop an internal contrast (I see this quite often in essays).

What I find chilling is that adult Republican talking points mirror the shallow understanding and desire for protection above freedom of the typical teenager.

by DaphneDixie 2006-03-14 03:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing

You have no right to judge me. This is a discussion about the issues and it is not personal. You have also have no reason to stereotype teenagers and put me into your stereotypical mind. Your connection to allowing the lessening of freedoms in homes, schools, and communities to this issue is comical and an attempt to avoid the issue at hand. Your also saying, just like the "commenter" before, that your civil liberties are more important than saving American lives.

PS Very clever of you to figure out my birthday, i mean, most people thought that i would put random numbers in my user name.

by sox111489 2006-03-14 04:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing

Read the Constitution, and then try to comprehend it. Or does all tha Bill of Rights stuff make your life too complicated?

Warrensburg, Missouri
The Daily Star Journal
Thursday, January 12, 2006
page 5 [no link, this paper is still in the 19th century]

Rule of law?
By Michael Bersin
Warrensburg

The recent revelation that our government, with the direct approval of George W. Bush, is illegally spying on American citizens in violation of the prohibition of warrantless searches in the 4th Amendment of our Constitution and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) should give us all pause. Among the provisions of FISA is a 72 hour "emergency clause". Up to this point one FISA judge has resigned and the remainder of the court will be attempting to hold the administration accountable. It's not as if the FISA Court has been reluctant to grant surveillance warrants - there have been thousands over the past few years with only a hand full of rejections.

The administration's defense of their illegal activity appears to be that filling out the paperwork is too onerous. And we have ex cathedra assurances from Kansas Senator Pat Roberts and Missouri Senator Kit Bond that this is all somehow constitutional?

Our founders were perceptive as shown by a statement first published in 1759 and attributed to Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"

Rule of law is a recurring theme in civilization. In Bolt's 1960 play A Man for All Seasons Sir Thomas More states: "...when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!"

The courts here and abroad have a lot to say about the rule of law. In the Supreme Court case Ex parte Milligan (1866) Justice David Davis eloquently wrote: "...By the protection of the law human rights are secured; withdraw that protection, and they are at the mercy of wicked rulers, or the clamor of an excited people.

"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false; for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it, which are necessary to preserve its existence..."

In 1999 the Israeli Supreme Court ruled (which this administration's White House Office of Legal Counsel cited for a legal memo on another issue): "....This decision opens with a description of the difficult reality in which Israel finds herself security wise. We shall conclude this judgment by re-addressing that harsh reality. We are aware that this decision does not ease dealing with that reality. This is the destiny of democracy, as not all means are acceptable to it, and not all practices employed by its enemies are open before it. Although a democracy must often fight with one hand tied behind its back, it nonetheless has the upper hand. Preserving the Rule of Law and recognition of an individual's liberty constitutes an important component in its understanding of security. At the end of the day, they strengthen its spirit and its strength and allow it to overcome its difficulties...."

Billmon's June 15, 2004 commentary on the Israeli court ruling finds where this administration misses the mark: "....what I find most striking are not the legal issues involved, but rather the enormous contrast in intellectual intent between what the Israeli high court and the Bush Justice Department have been trying to do. The Israeli justices, for all their hypocrisy, were attempting to extend the rule of law into areas that have traditionally been regarded as the exclusive domain of the national security state. The Bush legal team is boldly and arrogantly trying to do the opposite.

"It's the difference between a legal system that has been trapped in a moral cesspool for almost 60 years, and desperately wants to get out, and a small clique of legal extremists who are determined to throw themselves, and their country, into the same stinking mire, regardless of the risks."

All the trees are down and an ill wind is blowing. Just not from the direction we think.

by Michael Bersin 2006-03-14 04:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing

hah When was the constitution written? When was the war on terrorism started? The founders of our country were not facing such the same problems and the same enemy we are. Times change and we have to adapt to it. Oh what a way to end your article, a radical view of our legal system that could say much more than it is meant to say, or says much more than you want it to say. Either way it still encompasses a whole world of legal issues that has little to do with the topic at hand. Especially considering how much of a cesspool our courts our in, at last we have had chance to get some more level minded, well moralled justices, and frankly, Bush should be commended on his appointments. But that is a WHOLE other issue that we should not get into. My point is that times change, the country is not the same as it used to be, Frankin's views cannot be applied to the issue at hand. Again you balance the saving of human lives with a violation of the constitution, even though there has been no proven violation because we have not heard all of the story considering the legality of illegality of the actions that have been taken.

by sox111489 2006-03-14 05:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing

I take it you have a reading comprehension problem? Or, have you still not bothered to read the Constitution?

They must have slept through a lot of American history in your high school studies. Evidently critical thinking, too.

Wow, with you, fear appears to be the only value that makes us all Americans.

We seriously need a better quality of troll. This is like clubbing baby harp seals.

by Michael Bersin 2006-03-15 12:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing
Wow your pretty funny. I would be happy to compare my test scores to yours. I am sure this website would get a kick out of that. Wow, it looks like we have a writer for the.... Warrensburg, Missouri
The Daily Star Journal
I have to say, you are very accomplished writer. You have no right to critisize my critical thinking skills when yours are most like not even close to mine, please if you would like to compare you scores or grades or IQ, be my guest.  Mr. Accomplished, next time you think of insulting someone's intelligence, maybe you should pick someone that is less intelligent than you. Because if you want to get into some critical thinking problems, hah, your arrogance will be your utter downfall.
Have you bothered visiting a psychologist, because obviously you mind isn't balanced between the area of life and death, and having a private conversation on the phone, without anyone listening to you nevertheless. Do not bring up your pussy argument about how this violates the Constitution. Please show me the article in he Constitution that says protecting Americans and the freedoms in which they possess is illegal to do.
by sox111489 2006-03-15 01:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing

...next time you think of insulting someone's intelligence, maybe you should pick someone that is less intelligent than you...

I rest my case.

by Michael Bersin 2006-03-15 02:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing

oh beautiful

by sox111489 2006-03-15 02:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing
My point is that times change, the country is not the same as it used to be, Frankin's views cannot be applied to the issue at hand.

Interesting. A conservative arguing that we should ignore both the actual text and the original intent of the framers of the US Constitution? Inconceivable! Next thing you know he'll find a Right to Privacy in there somewhere, too!

Again you balance the saving of human lives with a violation of the constitution, even though there has been no proven violation because we have not heard all of the story considering the legality of illegality of the actions that have been taken.

Because Congress refuses to investigate, we will likely never know who was being wiretapped without warrants. What if it turns out that NSA was listening in on private policy conversations between US Senators and foreign Members of Parliament? Were they doing stuff like that? I don't know. But since the bar for getting a warrant is so low, I suspect that they did not want to go to the FISA court because they knew that what they were doing was way out-of-bounds and would never past muster with the FISA court. And if we knew who was being wiretapped without a warrant, it would likely never past muster with either Congress or the American people.
by Skjellifetti 2006-03-15 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing

You are speculating on the issue and you are involving your dislike of President into your pessimistic view of the situation. The American people know very little about this case due to the small amount of information. Due to the little amount of information and the ways this information can be interpreted you are turning this into an attack on the president. Can someone give me a legitimate reason why one would not let the government do everything in their power to protects Americans and the freedom that we represent?

by sox111489 2006-03-15 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing

Can someone give me a legitimate reason why one would not let the government do everything in their power to protects Americans and the freedom that we represent?

Enlighten me, please.  What do we represent when we have allowed our government to legislate those freedoms away?

by Skjellifetti 2006-03-15 05:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing

Are you kidding me? Anyone could write a thesis on what the freedoms we respresent. WHAT FREEDOMS HAVE YOU LOST DUE TO THE PATRIOT ACT? Tell me, because obviously this must have impacted you in some way to say that our freedoms have been affected to the point where you have reached the point to say that our legislative bodies have voted them away.

by sox111489 2006-03-15 06:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing

Coward.

What you are saying is that your life is more important than the freedoms that make America great.

Just what are you willing to give up to feel safer?

Pathetic.

by Curt Matlock 2006-03-15 04:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing
Coward, comical at best. I never said my life, I said American lives. How is trying to protect America being cowardly, great argument. You say the freedoms that make America great. We are not discussing the fundamental freedoms of Americans. We are discussing what actions the government should take to protect Americans from the very freedoms that the terrorists wish to take away. We are protecting these freedoms. Even if it mean sacrificing a phone conversation, even though chances are they wouldnt be listening to your conversations because you a law abiding American.
Pathetic? Maybe you should create an argument. Maybe you think before you speak, or in this case type. You think that you can say whatever you want and feel that you right, even though you have nothing to back it up. Typical liberal.
by sox111489 2006-03-15 12:49PM | 0 recs
Todays Peril is Not Special

Your fear of terrorism has made you willing to abandon the constitution for present day safety. It has nothing to do with the war in Iraq. You are willing to cut abrogate our Constitutional Rights as American Citizens to buy a little safety from Osama. That's cowardly and short-sighted.

Unlike the generations before you, you feel your peril is so special that you would undo what your forefathers earned for you with blood.

Be brave. Fight terrorism within the Constitution.

by Curt Matlock 2006-03-15 04:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Todays Peril is Not Special

Our forefathers were fighting for freedom, and did whatever they could do possible to win it. This is not "present day" safety. How can you say that? Again, you are clearly underexagerrating the issue as a way to create an argument. So your saying that terrorism is temporary, oh yes very temporary, terrorism just started five years ago. Yeah, right. By defeating the terrorists we will secure the future of our country. We are not talking about freedom of speech, nor anything that our forefathers fought for so you cannot use them as a backbone of your argument. They did not fight for private phone lines. They fought for their freedom against the people that were taking it away from them. We are fighting a war on terrorism against people looking to take away our freedom. They did everything possible to win their war. Have you ever heard of the rules of war? Yeah, we did not adhere to any of them.  How is being brave fighting terrorism within the Constitution? Sorry, but you cannot make a connection between these two events, its not literarily possible.

by sox111489 2006-03-15 05:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing

The core problem with liberals is that they are too afraid of losing their ass. They make up the excuse that since they dont believe in the war as a reason they should not fight in it and protect their fellow Americans. They put themselves in front of protecting the freedoms of Americans. Oh by saying, "the freedoms that make America great," makes you sound profound and that you must be right because obviously who would put their lives in front of the freedom of America. Do you not get the fact freedom is what Bush is trying to protect from the people that aim to abolish it. You have the logic fly, you shouldn't even be involved in this discussion.

by sox111489 2006-03-15 01:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing

Do you not get the fact freedom is what Bush is trying to protect from the people that aim to abolish it.

We are fighting for "freedom" (trademark rights pending RNC)?
That's not a fact. Bush is hyping your fear child.

Afghanistan was a fight for survival we had to wage. But Iraq? You are just one of the die-hards holed up in a mental cave who hasn't yet come out to see the truth that everyone else in the world sees. You are down to the last 35% of true believing Americans who still have faith in the purity and wisdom of George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld.

That crowd is getting thinner by the day.

by Curt Matlock 2006-03-15 04:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing
Does calling me a child make you feel powerful?
Listen, there is nothing we can do about the war in Iraq. There is a war and as we can see there is nothing you can do to stop it. There is no reason to debate why the war started when the bottom line is that, we are in a war. Why are you bringing up this issue? We are discussing the war on terrorism in relation to the wiretapping situation, not in relation to Iraq.
by sox111489 2006-03-15 04:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing

No, calling you a child doesn't make me feel powerful. I thought it was apt because a) you are a child and b) although clearly intelligent you also clearly have alot to learn.

Good luck.

by Curt Matlock 2006-03-16 01:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing

The core problem with conservatives such as yourself is that you haven't spent any time in the military but have no qualms about sending misusing those of us have.

I spent 6 years in the military. Stupid child. Don't ever tell me or my buddies that we put ourselves in front of protecting the freedoms of Americans.

by Skjellifetti 2006-03-17 04:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing

Oops, sorry about the grammar.  Being called selfish  and told that I don't know what it means to defend freedom by some spoiled ignorant brat kinda pisses me off.

by Skjellifetti 2006-03-17 04:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing on Feingo

Sox111489 is correct. There's no way that conservatives are 'enabling' the terrorists; they are the ones trying with all their might to stop them, while liberals are the first to jump and defend their 'rights.' Feingold's plan will only help the terrorists even more, but hey, who cares, right? As long as we all have our civil liberties, who cares about preventing terrorists taking American lives? You people need to realize that these terrorists will do whatever it takes to hurt America, and any advantage we give them they will use. Terrorism is a real threat, and protecting our freedom and the life we are able to live should be our main concern.

by Carifio24 2006-03-14 04:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing on Feingo

Were World War I and World War II not real threats? Was the Cold War with nuclear escalation not a real threat?  Weren't school children taught to curl up and hide under their desks in case of a nuclear attack during the Cold War? Why would Reagan be seen as such a fabulous proponent for freedom if the Soviets were not such a threat?

Yet through these conflicts, we did not give up civil liberties for all Americans. And, in the cases in which government did encroach upon civil liberties (Japanese-American internment, for example, or to claim powers not granted to one branch as in Truman's attempt to seize steel mills), we've since concluded that those actions were contrary to our laws and our spirit as a great America.

I for one do not wish to walk those paths again. Saying so now is my option, my right, and my civic duty.

by DaphneDixie 2006-03-14 05:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing on Feingo
World War I, World War II, and the Cold War were also completely different than the threat of terrorism today. In those wars the enemy was clearly defined. We were fighting sovereign countires, not radical terrorist groups who hold no national affiliation.
Also, we aren't really giving up any civil liberties. As sox111489 noted earlier, the government doesn't just tap into random phone conversation to get its kicks. It only listens to conversations of suspected terrorists that are a possible threat to national security. If you're a good citizen who has nothing to hide from the government, there won't be a problem for you.
by Carifio24 2006-03-14 06:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing on Feingo

Same question I asked sox:  Have you even read the links I provided?

by DaphneDixie 2006-03-14 07:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing on Feingo

It seems so clear:

IF the government knows of a suspected terrorist, and needs to eavesdrop...

THEN the government goes to court to get a warrant, eavesdrops, and hopefully catches, arrests, prosecutes, and punishes said terrorist.

In what part of the process are we allowing suspected terrorists to communicate?

-------------

If it is only suspected terrorists who are being wiretapped, then what's wrong with getting a warrant?  A suspected terrorist does not have a right to privacy - that's part of the law and not under debate.  An innocent person does, whether you like it or not.

Nobody thinks we shouldn't listen in on terrorist phone calls.  NOBODY.  If someone is under suspicion, get a warrant.  Get out the FBI. Get out your guns, get out the big guns, and if they've committed a crime - GET THEM.  But if they haven't, then they (and me, and you) deserve every right to privacy.

Remember, prior to 9/11, the biggest terrorist attack in the US was the Oklahoma City Bombing.  2 guys with a rental truck and a fertilizer-based bomb killed 300+ Americans, many of whom were children.  Do you think terrorists are only Muslims?  Terrorists can clearly be of any race.  Even yours.

Rights are not Rights unless they apply to everyone.  The Constitution is not the Constitution if it has asterisks and exceptions.  If you don't like what the Constitution says, if you think it's outdated, then the only thing you can do is amend it.  Nobody gets to ignore the Constitution.

by le riot 2006-03-14 08:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing on Feingo

Well said.

by Curt Matlock 2006-03-15 04:49PM | 0 recs
Republican Cowards

Coward.

So afraid of boogiemen that you would give up what Americans have died for hundreds of years to protect.

I grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation at the hands of the Soviet Union a constant threat. This is the first generation so cowardly they'd throw out the constitution to feel a little safer.

Pathetic.

by Curt Matlock 2006-03-15 04:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Republican Cowards

I don't see how wanting to deal with a threat to America is 'cowardly'

by Carifio24 2006-03-15 12:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Republican Cowards

It's cowardly to not face the enemy as Americans who stand by the Constitution when they fight.

It's cowardly to torture your enemy because you fear him so much you believe you're justified in abandoning the values you learned in home and church.

It's cowardly to be willing to kill thousands of civilians so that you can be safer.

etcetera.

by Curt Matlock 2006-03-15 04:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing on Feingo
From the Republican Dictionary:

Patriot Act
  • n. The preemptive strike on American freedoms to prevent the terrorists from destroying them first.
  • The elimination of one of the reasons why they hate us.
by Skjellifetti 2006-03-15 08:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing on Feingo

Wow thats exactly what the Patriot Act is your a genius. Can someone give this man/woman a nobel prize? Please tell how your everyday life has been effected by the Patriot Act as well as how you have lost your freedom to this act?

by sox111489 2006-03-15 01:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing on Feingo
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.

- Ronald Reagan
by Skjellifetti 2006-03-15 05:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing on Feingo

Wow, did you not just make my point? We have to do everything that we can to keep our freedom. Sorry, but wiretapping will not threaten our freedom. Have you lost any freedom? This also supports the fact that fighting to secure our freedom not temporary and that we have to keep doing this for the next generations.

Wow, honestly, thank you for making my point.

by sox111489 2006-03-15 05:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing on Feingo

Sorry, I forgot that you were born after Reagan was out of office.  The poor man would be rolling in his grave upon hearing that today's children believe that we can protect individual freedom by letting our government restrict it.

by Skjellifetti 2006-03-15 06:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing on Feingo

The fact that you don't care about freedoms that have not effected you personally, is very telling what kind of person you are.

Why should whites ever have cared about black's freedom?  Their rights to vote?  Women's rights to vote?  Integration?  It certainly doesn't effect me; I'm white, male, straight, middle class.  Everything's going great, so what's the problem, right?

We shouldn't care about wiretapping if we have nothing to hide?  Say that to Martin Luther King Jr.  What did he have to hide?  Ever hear of Senator McCarthy?  I bet those people had no idea what rights they'd ever need either.

But I'm sure you know best.  It's all about you and your school grades (which I'm sure, by your constant grammar issues and misuse of the word "your", are stellar).

by hendmik 2006-03-16 07:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing on Feingo

Sorry, but when you get annoyed by illogical people you start to type fast and want to make your point and sometimes you ignore the grammar. Again, why are you making this personal? You do not know me. My family and I would be the most affected by the Patriot Act considering that my father was born in Iran. No one is worried about wiretapping and losing our freedoms because we have lost none. You cannot compare this to Martin Luther King Jr.'s problem, because in this case, I am a black person. I would be the one that would be suffering injustes as well as my family, but the fact is that no one in my family has been affected by this as well as none of our family friends that are of Middle Eastern descent. You have no right to compare this to the problems that you stated, because if it were a problem, I as well as my family would not be for the Patriot Act. If it means to give up the freedom to have private conversation to help protect our country, we have no problem with that. I doubt that there is anyone on this site that would have any chance of being more affected by the Patriot Act than me and my family.

by sox111489 2006-03-16 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing on Feingo
If it means to give up the freedom to have private conversation to help protect our country, we have no problem with that.

What you fail to grasp is that we DO have a problem with that. The right to have a private conversation is an INALIENABLE RIGHT, not a privilege that the government can grant or take away at will. There are certain legal niceties that MUST be observed. Those niceties are REQUIRED by the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution. When the President unilaterally declares that the 4th Amendment can be ignored, he has placed himself above the law. This is not acceptable in a society that is governed by rule of law based on a constitution. When the Congress says that trials where secret evidence may be withheld from the defense are OK, they, too, have stepped outside the Constitution. When the President chooses to deny defendents their right to defend themselves in a fair and open court, we are all at risk of having the same done to us. When it becomes acceptable public policy to torture suspects, we are all in danger of being tortured.

Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!
Patrick Henry. (1736-1799). Speech in the Virginia Convention, March, 1775.

Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations,--entangling alliances with none; the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns, and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies; the preservation of the general government in its whole constitutional vigour, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad;...freedom of religion; freedom of the press; freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus; and trial by juries impartially selected,--these principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us, and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation.
Thomas Jefferson. (1743-1826). First Inaugural Address. March 4, 1801.

Freedom from arbitrary government and fear of the potential for government to abuse its power is built into the very bones of this country. You tangle with those ideas at your peril.
by Skjellifetti 2006-03-16 12:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing on Feingo

Uhh the inalienable rights clearly are the persuit of life, liberty, and happiness. Tell me how these rights are being violated by not being able to have a private conversation. You say that "we" have a problem with it. Its definitely an abusive act considering the hundreds of lawsuits that have been filed against the governmen. Oh nevermind, there have been.... two, by two liberal organizations. You have no reason to have a problem with it other than to attack the president. If John Kerry did this you would be taking the same stand I am.

The bottom line is that this was done and there is nothing that anyone can to about it. Feingold's censure will not go through and this will just be a thing of the past. Seriously, there is nothing we can do about it.

by sox111489 2006-03-16 02:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing on Feingo

Uhh the inalienable rights clearly are the persuit of life, liberty, and happiness.

You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension since that famous phrase begins that among these are... It is also clear that you do not really comprehend the basic concept of what rights really are.

Perhaps a case study (or two) might help you understand why no government, including ours, should ever be trusted with respect to human rights.

by Skjellifetti 2006-03-16 05:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing on Feingo

This argument is useless in the end because we do not make the decision. The decision will be against the censure and there nothing we can do about it. Level heads will prevail in the Senate. Its interesting how you are so sure that you are right when republicans and many democrats are against your view. You've made a valient attempt to prove your point but in the end it will render meaningless when the Senate votes against the censure. I wouldn't expect the vote to be too close either.

by sox111489 2006-03-16 05:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing on Feingo

So bah humbug, I can't win the debate, so I'll claim it doesn't matter anyway?  Clever tactic.

Yes, the Senate will strike down the censure.  You're confusing what is right with what is the majority.  Easy mistake to make these days.

I sincerely hope you never someday need those rights you so carelessly toss away.  I hope your foresight is accurate.  I also know that while you don't think you need rights, someone else will.  They were there for a reason, regardless whether you can see it or not.

by hendmik 2006-03-17 05:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing on Feingo

Hear, hear.

by DaphneDixie 2006-03-17 02:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing on Feingo

This argument is useless in the end because we do not make the decision. The decision will be against the censure and there nothing we can do about it. Level heads will prevail in the Senate.

Deja Vu all over again.  When I was 15, I went to Guatemala as a High School exchange student where I lived with a local family.  The father was an oil executive with Texaco.  He and I held similar arguments about Richard Nixon.  The guy was sure that nothing would happen to Nixon.  Within three months Nixon had resigned rather than face a sure impeachment in the US House and conviction in the Senate.  Even most Republicans had deserted him and were going to vote for impeachment. His crime? Unauthorized and illegal wiretapping.

by Skjellifetti 2006-03-17 04:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing on Feingo

Wayne "Give me Seven" Allard? In 2002, when Allard was debating his opponent, he made mention of "seven" somethings ... and as he did it, he held up his 5 fingers. Three times, he said SEVEN and displayed his FIVE digits. I can never look at the man without laughing about it. Too bad the majority of Coloradoans seem not to mind having a senator who can't even count.

by kainah 2006-03-14 04:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing on Feingo

i think it is time to reintroduce caning to the senate.  that way these pussy republicans would realize there are repercussions to calling someone a traitor other than lionization by the right wing.

by Shimpiphany 2006-03-14 05:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Cue Republican Whining and Posturing on Feingo

I think its time they introduce psychologists to the senate. This way people can see that liberalism really is a mental disorder. This way pussy democrats won't be able to fool the misinformed into backing their spineless attacks on the government and not creating a solution to solve whatever problems their mind creates.

by sox111489 2006-03-15 12:54PM | 0 recs
by DonB 2006-03-14 07:55PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads