Rex Kickass

I expect a 55-45 vote on this. Party line. And if the Dems wanna say "Hell No," that's fine. I just don't expect a filibuster.

So if our President chooses to imprison every arab because its a war on terror, that's ok because its any means necessary? What if he decides to wiretap on a possible Presidential candidate in 2008 because there might be suspicion that this person at one time may have had some communication with Osama Bin Laden - real or not. Since congress said "any means necessary" and he deems it necessary, I guess that would be OK too under your definition. In this case the law provides the necessary means. You don't even have to get a warrant before you start wiretapping in National Security cases. You just have to go to the supersecret FISA court within 72 hours of starting to wiretap an individual. It might be a pain in the ass, and mean some extra paperwork for some folks in the NSA, but in my opinion ensuring our rights, freedom and way of life is what this "war" on terror is all about. And doing a little extra paperwork to ensure it happens seems to be the right thing to do.

At least Senator Byrd has admitted it, and confronted it head on. There's something to be said for that. I'm all about the possibility of redemption - and I think in his later years in the Senate, he's become very much the conscience of his institution.

Booo! Bad Joke! Rejected! Try again later!

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 11, 2006 -> 05:38 PM) And again, that's up for debate. I think that the Constitution, when taken literally, gives him this power under unique circumstances. Apparantly, flying planes into buildings and the like isn't unique enough. No it's not. A state of war is. Unless we formally declare one, we aren't technically in one. And his powers are limited.

Nice.

Quality!

Or could it be our insistence on paying the working class a living wage?

Im educating out of love, Mr. Eye. The Andy Kauffman school of message board humor will continue in a different thread. Thanks.

Write a better joke next time! And after the quote!

I missed it. Sorry.

Are you insinuating people are stubborn here? What? Never!

*waits for Chappaquiddick joke*

As much as I love to argue semantics and whether or not you truly believe that liberals kill babies - which I'm sure that you don't by the way - it frankly bores me and I'd like to counteract the perception that you have that liberals believe in abortion. I guess liberals believe in abortion in as much as there is a procedure named abortion and that it happens on occasion. But I think liberals believe that abortion isn't a political issue. I think liberals believe that a woman has a right to choose what happens to her body and that the consequences she faces are her own, and not society's. I think that liberals believe that the question of when life begins is a complicated one and can't be summed up by all the Supreme Courts and Congresses put together, because its an issue that affects people deeply and personally. And I think liberals have different feelings on the issue and although most of them may think that an abortion option should be kept safe and legal, I think that this doesn't describe every bleedin heart out there. Because I think liberals think freely. Of course I think that conservatives think freely. Of course reading posts in this forum would cause you to think otherwise...

You're making that point. But there are others in the thread (Posts 2, 3, and 4) are clearly not.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 11, 2006 -> 01:29 PM) DIRECT TIES, not throught someone or something, or someone who talked to someone else. Now we're pulling at yarn strings to pull the whole ball of yarn down. I see what you're saying, but I still think that if you're stupid enough to get involved, then you might have people listen in on a phone conversation. How are we pulling at yarn strings? Let's say it's not you that's implicated, but your friend. And your friend calls you. And from what I understand, its not direct ties that these wiretaps are looking at either but rather people who are suspected of talking with people who are suspected of having ties with a terrorist organization. There's lots of room for error there. If the need is that great and necessary, a warrant should be easy to obtain. This isn't a question of whether or not the spying is necessary, but whether or not following the law is. Our President has openly admitted that he is not following the law.

OK fine, substitute muslim for palestinian and the point is exactly the goddamn same.

That's what you said. And that's exactly what you would do if you spoke with reporters based in Iraq. If they are actually going out and doing investigative journalism, they've associated with international terrorists. Our government officials have met with Saddam Hussein and have spoken with Khatami, the former president of Iran. They have, at least in the government's eyes, have association with international terrorists. Should they lose their rights? Of course not. This may seem stupid and pointless and arrogant, but I'm trying to make a point here. Rights are rights. And if there's an asterisk on it, it's not really a right anymore.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 11, 2006 -> 11:12 AM) People care. I care. But I also think if you're stupid enough to make phone calls with people associated with international terrorists, you lost your rights. So if a reporter who covered middle eastern politics called you, you've lost your rights?

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Jan 11, 2006 -> 11:46 AM) You are kidding, right? The guy wrote speeches for Carter. He also helped out at Abramoff fundraisers and admitted to voting for Bush. And is a regular contributor to NBC News. Personally, I'm under the impression that network news and newspapers aren't so much biased as just lazy. And that they matter less and less every day because the people that use them are dying. Quickly.

Bill Moyers and Dan Rather were NOT on cable either. And neither are still on the air today.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jan 11, 2006 -> 10:02 AM) Brit Hume doesn't do commentary in the same way as the others, so I'd take him off the list. Dobbs is a stretch. Fixed If we include the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the Chicago Sun-Times, the Houston Chronicle, and the other liberal newspapers in major markets, the balance is definitely tilted to the left. Brit Hume has a Sunday commentary show on Fox News btw. And since we're including weekends you can throw in John Kasich, Charles Krauthammer on there as well. Ron Reagan is no longer on tv. Nor is Carville, or Begala. Keith Olbermann is an anchor, not a pundit. And his leaning is no worse than Brit Hume and Shep Smith.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Jan 11, 2006 -> 09:59 AM) lol, so Tom Brokaw is in on the vast right wing conspiracy? oh yea, link to this 'damning' information on Brokaw? I never said he was part of any conspiracy, but I wouldn't say he was part of the "liberal media" anyway.

He also carries water for people like Jack Abramoff. And he's admitted to voting for Bush in 2000. But of course, he's a crazy liberal!

NBC is the network of choice for the GOP, if you didnt know. Right behind Fox News. Tom Brokaw, was thanked in 2004 for his active help in defeating Tom Daschle in his home state of South Dakota by the head of the RNC live on the air. But yeah, liberal media.