Yep he really wants to work with them repubs?

He absolutley does not need the repubs for ANYTHING.. His fight is in his own party..

His Blue Dogs vs Progressives. A major war is brewing there. We have our own progressives as well.. Just look at McCain..

That is where the sticking points are. There's the gum in the system.

The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them. ~~Patrick Henry
"Illegitimus non Corborundum"

Is that the best you can do? Whine? Bush bash? And whine some more?

Why aren't YOU holding Obama to task? Remember when you said to Richard . . .

"Submitted by AF A-10 on Tue, 07/22/2008 - 6:57pm.

" . . .Cheers, and trust me when I say you will benefit from Obama's policies of balancing the budget . . . !"

Balance the budget? Excuse my while I choke on my tea.

The extremes you resort to - on a daily basis - to defend Obama - are absurd.

You have no credibility at all. Recommend you give up blogging. You're just not capable.

Ruth Kimble

Thanks for covering my flank.

Ruth. About "giving up blogging."

The quote from me you dug up from 2008 reminds me of a blogger named Denise. Now, Denise was well known for saving posts on her computer and pulling them out of the past, coincidentally, as you have just done. She is reviled for taking these saved posts and attacking one of our most favored blogger here with them, in a very personal way. I would not provide "Denise" with warm urine should she find herself on fire.

Ruth, do you know if "Denise" is blogging again under another name?
Hack

I find it intensely amusing that Kevin King, King of the Bush bashers, just issued a recent tirade lamenting the amount of criticism President Obama is receiving. Never mind that the majority of the media is in the tank for Obama. Just a few voices are enough to rattle Kevin. Face it Kevin, you are just a blog bully who can dish it out, but can’t take it. Help me out Kevin, are you the pot or the kettle in this scenario? Us conservatives are just too dumb to figure it out.

And yesterday, Moody’s announced that it may downgrade America’s credit rating from AAA to AA. We all know what that means. If it happens, the US will not be able to borrow at the current favorable interest rates.

Again I ask you Kevin, why aren’t you complaining? You complained about Bush deficits. Does a 3.8 trillion dollar budget with a record 1.6 trillion dollar deficit sit well with you? Are you secretly hoping for hyperinflation? Or are you just a naïve ideologue?

Try answering the question next time instead of just attacking the messenger. (Oh, I forgot, that is your modus operandi). Liberals are way too easy. Can't even defend their own words. And you attack anyone who brings them up. At least have to courage to try and defend your own words next time. Oooops - you can't, can you? And it's just not fair for me to bring up your past statements, is it? So, unfair!

You have no credibility, Kevin. You are, and will always be, just a Hack.

Ruth Kimble

Now this is the stuff that makes this blog so fulfilling! Yeah man!

Ruth aka much like Denise, what you call bullying I call expressing my opinion.

I feel I'm a very available person for anyone who might feel I act as a bully on the blogs. I suppose if I said the very same things to liberals that I say to your team, you would be quite content. Would you not?

Hutch: Did you just say that?!!!??? That was so funny I snorted a little piece of pepperoni pizza up my nose! That is forever a blog classic!!!!!

Back to Denise.....er... "Ruth." About the whole budget thingy. Most credible economists say the government should spend in a recession to unlock financial markets and stem job loss. I'm open for points to the contrary if you have any.

We should meet sometime... really. I'm short and bald, but conservative types enjoy making me a charity of sorts; like makeover "liberal-man edition." You may be just the influence I need to change my ways. And I'll buy the coffee. Even a super mega Grande!

Think it over... and good luck snipping that lit fuse.
Hack

Kevin, even though your attempt to connect me to another past blogger does not merit a response (to you) - I will respond for the benefit of the other bloggers on this site. Git’s theory about me being Denise was debunked long ago. She was mostly just an anti- abortion wonk. I don’t waste my time on issues like abortion because I do not believe Roe vs. Wade will ever be overturned. There it is. Plain and simple. And I have admitted on these blogs that my real name is not Ruth Kimble. Who could I possibly be?????
If you’d really like to know - - learn to live with disappointment.

Ruth Kimble

My apologies, Kevin. I used a word that is too big for you. Idealogue. So just to help you out, here's a definition:

Smug and self satisfied in their certitudes, Ideologue's opinions are merely a loose collection of intellectual conceits. Idealogues are genuinely astonished, bewildered and and indignant when their views are not universally embraced as the Truth. They regard the opposing point of view as a form of cognitive dissonance whose only cure is relentless propagandizing and browbeating.

Or is this the definition of Kevin King?

Wait, I'll look that one up, too.

Just a little fun, at your expense Kevin. Nothing personal . . .

Cheers!

Ruth Kimble

You were against it.. before you were for it.. Just saying...

The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them. ~~Patrick Henry
"Illegitimus non Corborundum"

Ruth has no point; just a purpose. Look at her thesis:

"Is that the best you can do? Whine? Bush bash? And whine some more?"

Steve, you will notice that I never mentioned President Bush in my post. And to call someone's points "whining" without offering a point of view is a trademark of the intellectually lazy or bankrupt.

I could have easily dismissed your blog as a "whining conservative," and offered no more than that unsubstantial critique. But I felt I owed your point of view more substance than that.

To my point of "where are the conservative ideas," Terry Garlock offered ideas. Nuk offered ideas. Wedge had ideas. You have ideas of what our government should or shouldn't do.

But good ole "Ruth" has nothing but empty time in her life and space in her mind to fill. So why not fill it with posts lacking substance?

As for the whole budget balancing thing? Really? Did you two not know something happened in our economy the third quarter of 2008? It was in all of the papers. Find me a group of economists who say you cut government spending in an economic recession and I'll kiss you on the mouth.... but don't ask, and I won't tell.

Hack

More name calling from Kevin. So now I’m, “intellectually lazy? Never fails. Whenever Kevin’s past statements prove indefensible, he starts name calling. I guess that’s all you have left, Kevin.

And for the record, you did mention Bush in your post.

Conservatives have plenty of ideas. But in Congress, on healthcare, for example, we’ve been completely shut out of the process.
Here are some ideas for you:
1-Implement the Fair Tax
2-Tax cuts for small businesses
3-Tort reform (medical)
4- And yes, cut government spending during a recession. I don’t need a group of economists to agree. History agrees. Reagan implemented across the board cuts in govt spending during the recession created by Jimmy Carter. Libs called it voodoo economics. He implemented tax cuts, too. It all worked. Checkmate.

But of course, in keeping with Obama’s ideology, you’d rather we spend our way out of the recession and borrow our way out of debt. That’s a bankrupt ideology Kevin. And your blind adherence to it is both disappointing and sad - but completely expected from an ideologue like you.

Ruth Kimble

"And for the record, you did mention Bush in your post."

Where "Ruth?" I've looked. I can't find it.

Hack

"I'll start your retort for you:

Bu bu bu butt Bush,

Cheers, and Cheer up bro
Hack"

Ruth Kimble

King of the bush bashers again...

How was that "bashing bush?"

Hack

Labeling liberals of casting the "voo doo economics" stone, now wasn't it W's father who is remembered for that during the Presidential Primaries of 1980?

Technically, I'm to the right of Attila The Hun, but I do prefer 'honesty'.

Nothing dishonest about my post. GHW Bush may have coined the phrase and used it during a pre-election debate, but liberals picked up the phrase "voodoo economics" and used it as a mantra after Reagan was elected. They were all proved wrong. Because the following happened:

"During Reagan's tenure, income tax rates of the top personal tax bracket dropped from 70% to 28% in 7 years, while social security and medicare taxes increased. Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth recovered strongly after the 1982 recession and produced five straight quarters of growth averaging 8.5%. The GDP grew during Reagan's administration at an annual rate of 3.4% per year, slightly lower than the post-World War II average of 3.6%.
Unemployment peaked at 10.8% in 1982 then dropped during the rest of Reagan's terms, averaging 7.5%, and inflation significantly decreased. A net job increase of about 16 million also occurred (about the rate of population growth)." (from Wikipedia)

Nothing like results to silence your critics.
Ruth Kimble

What was the US national debt(deficit)when Reagan left office? Just curious. Reagan had a great start to his presidency but did not finish well. He did get my vote during his first term but not the second. He went down hill after the his first term. Maybe thats where Obama is heading if things don't turn around. After one year it is to early to judge.

What is it now? But that's good debt right?

The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them. ~~Patrick Henry
"Illegitimus non Corborundum"

The deficit is ever increasing no doubt. Not all the current Pres. as some say. Part old part new Pres. The climate of war and greed in this country actually dictate part of it. All in All both sides are at blame.

then why is this administration getting a pass?

The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them. ~~Patrick Henry
"Illegitimus non Corborundum"

Who says their getting a pass? It appears The Pres. is getting a beating.

MSNBC, CBS, NBC and other MSM outlets has the subject been raised?

Compare today with the last 2 years of Bush.. and then tell me how this administration is getting a beating..

Bush was slaughtered for the deficit he helped to create.. This guy and Congress QUADRUPLES it and we hear crickets..

The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them. ~~Patrick Henry
"Illegitimus non Corborundum"

Bush desevered the beating and so does in part this Admin. When choosing sides I have none. The lessor of 2 evils and in hope he/she does a good job is my vote. To wish that the current Admin fails is hoping america dies.

If this administration succeeds wildly in its agenda, where will America be? A nation built on the concept of limited government and individual liberty becomes a nation of a strong central government dictating everything for healthcare, living conditions, food intake, and the collectivization of liberties and grievances. And a loss of freedom in favor of the nanny state

It is a true paradox. To wish for failure of this adminstration may be the salvation of the America that was constitutionally created. Or not.

Lack of government oversight got us in the mess we’re in. Asking Big Business to regulate yourself is crazy? Greed for $$ can’t be left uncontrolled. Where do you think the Gov’t should cut back? Medicaid is a gov’t thing isn’t it.

Greed. That nasty word that rears it's head whenever anyone wants to degrade capitalism. An out of control non-regulated greedy government is far more macabre than corporate greed.

Government oversight is exactly what got us into this mess. Forcing the hands of lenders to make risky loans has not fared us well at all. A regulated free market is an oxymoron. The free market works best when the government leaves it the hell alone.

Where do I think the government should cut back? Well, this is just my two cents but I like the goose and gander adage. If the gander wants the goose to cap his salary...then the gander should take a pay cut too. Think about it. Most politicians have a lucrative income before taking office. If your run for office is driven by your true desire to serve your people and your nation - don't take a salary. Let's see, if you have oil interests, a governors salary, and a lavish estate in Texas...why do you retire after 8 years of work to be paid a salary by the people for the rest of your God forsaken life? Oh, that's right....it's GREED!

I think that if the gander wants to redistribute wealth, he/she should start by pulling out of his own pocket.

Just my two cents, one of which I found in a parking lot today (heads up, of course).

"The most beautiful things in life cannot be seen or even touched, they must be felt with the heart." - Helen Keller

Progressives always love to bash capitalism by using the "GREED" line...

What they fail to explain is what is "Greed". How much profit is bad..

Take a gallon of gas. They love to point at "Big Oil" as "Greedy" but when you only make a 3-4% profit, and do ALL the work and takes all the risk is that greed?

The Government takes 15% and does nothing..

Sounds almost like a protection racket doesn't?

The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them. ~~Patrick Henry
"Illegitimus non Corborundum"

just remember that the Congress has been controlled for the last 3 years by Democrats. And yes, I know that former President Bush didn't have to sign everything put before him. Clearly,there isplenty of blame to go around.

Big business is in control. The lobbyist with the big pockets get the votes and we are left holding the bag. When one side of Congress shuts down and refuses to meet in the middle we all lose. Blame this side or that side and America will buy into it. Time to look at facts and use that as a guide. The news outlets are big business with a need to get your attention. Very few facts other than the daily polls. I like the idea to have each member of congress disclose what company(s) they represent.

Hack's already lit the fuse on her tampon, you don't want to light it too.

I yam what I yam....Popeye

Well, now look what you started, Hutch. That one was soooo funny, I think you guys should use that one on your wives. I bet they will laugh and laugh...get back to me on their responses.

(I will admit, though, that I laughed out loud on that one.)

Well, my wife just gave me the old head shake, and walked away, after all this time(almost 28 years) she doesn't expect anything better from me.

I yam what I yam....Popeye

ask my Bride of 41 yrs---she's 65+---do the math!

A Candle You can't Burn At Both Ends!

it is already a conflagration. To give credit where it is due, she writes well for someone who doesn't think.

It's not easy being the carbonunit

Perhaps we can add new meaning to the 'crotch' bomber. Hell, why should Hack have all the fun? Could she be the second coming of Bonker$?

I sure hope that wasn't tea party tea.

You have no credibility at all. Recommend you give up blogging. You're just not capable.

Those who are secure with their intellect welcome worthy adversaries, and Hack certainly fits that description. Besides, my money is on him not taking that recommendation.

It's not easy being the carbonunit

Keep it going Hack.. I can envision you with one of those circus gizmos.. A drum on your back, cymbals between your knees a squeeze box under each arm while playing a kazoo and harmonica at the same time.

The Repubs had 179 ideas to be exact.. and can you guess how many the Dems allowed to go to the floor???

ZERO

"He's bringing forth a spending freeze. You won't praise it"

WHY should we? $250 Billion OVER 10 YEARS..

First Point: He cannot promise something he has no control over.. 10 years? He will NOT be re-elected and he knows it.. he even said so..3 years he's gone..

Second Point: $250 Billion dollars is like someone that makes $15,000 a year and he promises to freeze less than 1% of their spending.. That equals to 4 BIG MACS Kevin.

What is there to CHEER about? He raises the spending ceiling by 20% and then says he is going to freeze less than 1% of it.. WOW Golly gee he is fantastic.

"He supports the second amendment. You don't care."

I'll let the AP tell it for me..

"He may tell campaign audiences that he believes in the right to own guns if that is what they want to hear. In the name of security, his idea of commonsense regulation is making gun ownership completely illegal. That is what the Washington D.C. ban is. No resident if Washington D.C. may possess a gun in his or her homes." "Barak Obama, Senator from Illinois, is not the only Democrat candidate who thinks that common sense gun regulation mean conforming to the U.N.’s ban on guns." AP reporter Nedra Pickler

Saying it don't make it so..

You celebrate the election of a pro Roe vs Wade Senator in Massachusetts even though you have criticized the President for having the exact same stance on abortion. If you need me to dig up your links to prove this, I will.

Be my guest.. My stance is on PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION that Obama supports.. Kevin BIG difference.. but go ahead and dig away..

"You even attacked our President as he sent more forces into the war you support"

I think you missed the point here.. Kevin. HE LET THE REPORT FROM HIS GENERAL SIT ON HIS DESK UN-READ while our troops were dying. The fact the he FINALLY did the right thing no way negates the fact that he failed to make a decision until America turned on him..

"I truly believe that the only thing democrats could do to appease *conservatives such as yourself is....Die."

No Kevin you got it wrong it isn't Conservatives it Dems..

"Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson of Orlando has taken the heated rhetoric over health care reform to a new pitch by accusing Republicans of offering this as their health care plan: " 'Don't get sick' but if you do, 'die quickly.' "

You can attempt to obfuscate the fact that the DEMS where the party of obstruction.. but just keep on pumping and humping there Hack..

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?... I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" ~~ Patrick Henry
"Illegitimus non Carborundum"

Bobby Jindal shared with the American people:

-- Voluntary purchasing pools: Give individuals and small businesses the opportunities that large businesses and the government have to seek lower insurance costs.
-- Portability: As people change jobs or move across state lines, they change insurance plans. By allowing consumers to "own" their policies, insurers would have incentive to make more investments in prevention and in managing chronic conditions.
-- Lawsuit reform: It makes no sense to ignore one of the biggest cost drivers in the system -- the cost of defensive medicine, largely driven by lawsuits. Worse, many doctors have stopped performing high-risk procedures for fear of liability.

-- Require coverage of preexisting conditions: Insurance should not be least accessible when it is needed most. Companies should be incentivized to focus on delivering high-quality effective care, not to avoid covering the sick.
-- Transparency and payment reform: Consumers have more information when choosing a car or restaurant than when selecting a health-care provider. Provider quality and cost should be plainly available to consumers, and payment systems should be based on outcomes, not volume. Today's system results in wide variations in treatment instead of the consistent application of best practices. We must reward efficiency and quality.
-- Electronic medical records: The current system of paper records threatens patient privacy and leads to bad outcomes and higher costs.
-- Tax-free health savings accounts: HSAs have helped reduce costs for employers and consumers. Some businesses have seen their costs decrease by double-digit percentages. But current regulations discourage individuals and small businesses from utilizing HSAs.
-- Reward healthy lifestyle choices: Providing premium rebates and other incentives to people who make healthy choices or participate in management of their chronic diseases has been shown to reduce costs and improve health.
-- Cover young adults: A large portion of the uninsured are people who cannot afford coverage after they have "aged out" of their parents' policies. Permitting young people to stay on their parents' plans longer would reduce the number of uninsured and keep healthy people in insurance risk pools -- helping to lower premiums for everyone.

-- Refundable tax credits (for the uninsured and those who would benefit from greater flexibility of coverage): Redirecting some of the billions already spent on the uninsured will help make non-emergency care outside the emergency room affordable for millions and will provide choices of coverage through the private market rather than forcing people into a government-run system. We should trust American families to make choices for themselves while we ensure they have access to quality, affordable health care.

How many of these Republican ideas are NOT in the proposed bill/bills?
If these are REPUBLICAN ideas - have they all been excluded from the proposed bills?

Click here for reference

Did you read Jindal's statement from the October 2009 article that I referenced? Please help me here. What Republican ideas in the 'bill' that is now being considered by our legislators are excluded from the proposed bills? Are you telling us that Democrats do not want/or have excluded:
• Require coverage of pre-existing conditions.
• Transparency & payment reform
• Electric medical records
• Tax free health savings accounts
• Reward for healthy life style choices
• Affordable coverage for young adults (Who are no longer covered under parents insurance)
• Refundable tax credits

It sounded like all of this was included in Obama's SOU address - but even before then - Obama's shared how the pre-existing issue was one of his main concerns because of what he witnessed with his mother's illness.

So please enlighten me. What are the Republicans voting against/or feel have been excluded from the proposed bill now?

Thanks,

Voluntary purchasing pools: Not in the Dems bill

Portability: Not in the Dems Bill

Lawsuit reform: Not in the Dems bill

Require coverage of preexisting conditions: In the Dems bill

Transparency and payment reform: Not in the Dems Bill

Electronic medical records: In the House bill not in the Senate bill

Tax-free health savings accounts: Not in the Dems bill in fact penelizes HSA's

Reward healthy lifestyle choices: Unknown

Cover young adults: In the Dems bill by FORCING them to purchase.. Repubs option is to ofer incentives not fines.

Refundable tax credits (for the uninsured and those who would benefit from greater flexibility of coverage): Not currently in the House bill being considered as a reform measure in the Senates version

The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them. ~~Patrick Henry
"Illegitimus non Corborundum"

Electronic Medical Records; Healthy lifestyle;( preventive) In the bills being considered by Congress now.. .and were there before it went to combined committee. Did you listen to the President's speech? Oh well . .you stated that none of this was included. We'll see the results. Senate voted to confirm Bernanke (sp) by a vote of 70 - 30. Hmmmmmmm.

You didn't read my post did you..Oh well.. I had hoped you had of seen thru the politics.. I see now however you have not..
hmmmmmmmm back at cha..

The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them. ~~Patrick Henry
"Illegitimus non Corborundum"

I meant to do this earlier..

DM I just wanted to give you “shout out” because you took the time to go out there and find the truth.

I have always parroted Boortz on this one thing.. Don’t believe a word I say unless you know it to be true or can confirm it for yourself.

You pushed thru the veil of party politics and the fog of Ideology to discover that unlike the MSM and the talking points put out.. The Republicans are NOT the party of “NO” just that they have some ideas of their own and want them debated.

I'm talking, of course, about HR 3218, the bill liberals don't believe exists.

The Republican bill provides refundable health care tax credits for individuals and families that can be paid in advance directly to providers. Second, it expands access to health care insurance by allowing a variety of associations (not just employers) to offer packages. Finally, it establishes "high-risk pools" that meet the specific needs of chronically ill patients, who are typically rejected by insurers because of "pre-existing" conditions.

Another source:

Democrats stifle Republican health care plans

“But Republicans insist that they have been floating ideas for months that Democrats have simply ignored. They claim 37 GOP plans in the House and at least three in the Senate.
(Remember seeing members of Congress waving pieces of paper during President Obama’s speech to a joint session of Congress last month? Those were GOP healthcare proposals.)
So what are the Republican ideas?
Elements of GOP plans include:
• Tax credits to individuals who purchase health insurance on their own.
• Incentives for states and small businesses to band together and offer health insurance at lower costs.
• Tort reform to reduce costly “defensive medicine.”
• Incentives to save through health savings accounts.
• Incentives to promote prevention and wellness.
• Reforms to end discrimination on the basis of preexisting conditions.
• Breaking down barriers to purchasing health insurance across state lines.” CSMonitor

DM you and I have had several “debates” over the last year. Some heavy on rancor some not.

Most of my animus comes from those who use “talking points” without discovering the facts for themselves.

Now don’t get me wrong I have my own issues with the Republican Party, but we as a people have to see past party politics and “judge them on the content of their character” and I might add deeds.

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?... I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" ~~ Patrick Henry
"Illegitimus non Carborundum"

Hack will start calling you a Conservatard.. He wants to keep saying they (Repubs) are the party of "NO" fits his agenda and talking points.

You are however correct on these ideas... Wow Common Sense survives in Goverment somewhere at least.

These ideas were in fact floated.. However Pelosi/Reid refused to allow them to come up for debate. That is one of things I have been railing about. Just go back and look at some of my Healthcare blogs..I laid out everyone of these points. Those were not my ideas afterall.. They came from the Republicans themselves.

So yes all of these ideas were excluded..

That is why I have been saying this is not about Health or Care it is about CONTROL.

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?... I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" ~~ Patrick Henry
"Illegitimus non Carborundum"

These ideas were in fact floated.. However Pelosi/Reid refused to allow them to come up for debate.

How can you say that all of these were 'excluded'? . . .especially 'pre-conditions'?

Oh well . . . .

Good of you to bring them up. As to why none of these ideas were included in the Democrat's bills or even seriously discussed, I refer you to the Dem only planning sessions and the complete shut down of these very ideas by the Dem controlled Congress.

Now that Prezbo has had his wings clipped by Scott Brown (and the rest of America) maybe some of these ideas will be discussed and even included in a final bill. Don't think lawsuit reform will work. The lawyers have a lobbying effort that can't be ignored. The other ideas are good and may get into the public discussion. That's the best part of this whole thing - we get to watch the discussions and know that they are not going to pass something no one has even read on Christmas Eve.

. . on pre-conditions?

...to watch the libs like Kevin start flailing their arms like little girls in defense of their pathetic, lame duck leader.

Conservatives have plenty ideas - the Democrat leadership isn't listening. Obama stated "I won" - then shut them out.

It's over. Live with it Hack.

"If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

A lot of the Repub ideas plainly suck and their most recent track record sucked. That's kind of why the voters punted them out of office. Now, why should Obama or anyone else listen to a rudderless bunch of people who have quickly figured out that it's much easier to be the outsiders than to govern? McCain? Palin? OK, where are the CONSERVATIVES? Oh wait, they are too busy feeding off of earmarks to be conservative or too drunk with the power they recently had and dearly wish to reclaim so they can once again growing the federal govt as fast as possible, engaging in deficit spending with vigor, and, if they have some spare time, spitting in the face of civil liberties.

In a fitting twist of irony, Obama himself has discovered that it's much easier to be on the outside throwing rocks and total BS than to actually take ownership of anything. He's getting exactly what he deserves right now and that's zero cooperation from the Repubs and the usual Dem diva factions within. That said, why work with a bunch of losers that the voters despise even more than the Prez? He didn't get elected because people were happy with the status quo. His big problem is that he's way too much of a politician to care about anything besides himself. Visionary he ain't. Shrewder than the Clintons? He was at one time but now I sort of wonder.

So, besides the Tea Party bunch, where are the CONSERVATIVES? They aren't sitting in the House or Senate right now so where are they, what offices are they running for, etc.? It's not NY any more because that dude lost. The only major race out there the Repubs lost was in NY and that's hardly a more liberal district than what Brown just won in Mass. The "conservative" brand has been completely tarnished by non-conservatives to the point that it's almost as bad as being called a "liberal." That's what happens when you hold up Ronald Reagan as the ultimate conservative when in fact he was as moderate as they come. No wonder many Repubs are totally lost or wandering around in the fantasyland of neo-conservatism.

Sometimes we have 'selected' truth.. . .and it's a little hard to take when it doesn't 'fit' ones opinion. Neo-conservatives . .you got that right!

just doesn't make it so however..

"A lot of the Repub ideas plainly suck and their most recent track record sucked."

Well DUH.. However if those very ideas are not allowed to come to the floor for a debate then some useful ideas never have a chance to see the light of day. You see the issue here is Hack saying the Repubs were the party of "NO"..

I don't have a problem with that.. If they had NO ideas at all then just saying NO is not a useful option. BUT they brought 179 ideas up and they were not allowed to float even ONE..

We have a two party system.. When one party owns not only the ball but the entire court, teams, Referees and the Score announcers then do we really have competition?

This battle will be won Nuk.. not by some Hail Mary shot in the dark, but by a considered slow progress which allows the people input into the process.. 40% of America now self-identifies as Conservative.. That's HUGE for us..

As we work with the Teaparty and 912 project more and more Mainstream everyday citizens that care about the Constitution and believes in the Bill of Rights will step up.

Like any oppressed serfs.. Nuk it takes awhile for them to learn they are in fact free.

America has been blissfully ignorant of the Progressive movement for some time. We have been too interested in big screen TVs and $40k cars to notice..

But America is slowly waking up.. It just takes a little time.

Proof of that is Obama himself.. Tonight he is going to talk about JOBS and the ECONOMY.. Do you think he would have if the Conservatives had not of fought him every step? No we would be told of other new hand out programs and Cap and Trade. Tonight was supposed to be about Global Warming.. Since he thought Healthcare would have been done by now.

Have we won.. NO.

But the fight continues.

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?... I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" ~~ Patrick Henry
"Illegitimus non Carborundum"

I see that like "oppressed serfs", conservatives are asked to pay $589 to attend the Tea Party Convention and listen to the babbling of Queen (help make me rich) Sarah. What a revolution!!

Maybe the republicans should have tried paying their way into the healthcare discussions. The fact that they were also elected by the people didn't seem to work. Maybe making a deal could have worked since the Dems know quite a lot about making Deals behind closed doors. But of course I am one of the poor,low life, dumba$$, uneducated people of which you speak. Oh by the way how much would you pay to go to a dinner where Obama was going to be the key note speaker?

Contributes nothing to the conversation.

Just Like Welfare and Socialized Medicine - You Don't Have To Work For It.... THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE

Git Real, I am shocked--shocked--that you think I have nothing to contribute to the conversation.

So let me offer a few thoughts on recent events.

Georgia failed to get any significant money as part of Federal program for high speed rail. Once again Georgia seems to be proud to be the last train to leave the station. I guess high speed rail sounded like one of those Northern, Federal, progressive programs so we best just say NO.

Four young Republican, conservative clowns attempted to tamper with the telephones in Senator Landrieu's offices. These jerks, who I hope get a ten-year sentence, were Fox news heros when the tried to videotape and embarass Acorn employees. They are just criminals.

Today President Obama took Republicans to school when they invited him to their conference in Baltimore. Please watch C-Span today. Obama is the adult in the room.

How about this for a contribution Git Real.

"These jerks, who I hope get a ten-year sentence, were Fox news heros when the tried to videotape and embarass Acorn employees."

They didn't "try" to videotape them. They did videotape them. They didn't "try to embarrass" the Acorn employees. The Acorn employees embarrassed themselves. Got caught red-handed. Sucks doesn't it when that old camera is on and you're keeping it real????

"Today President Obama took Republicans to school...

That's a good one. By the way, school was definitely in session last Tuesday in Massachusetts. Somebody got taken to school by the voters there. Guess who?

Way back in 2001, Bill "blue dress" Clinton was paid $100,000 for a speech by Morgan Stanley. No problem for me...it wasn't MY money. If there are people that want to pay that amount ($589) to hear a person that they admire, Governor Palin, then it is their right to do so. I have been to the tea parties, and believe me, those are not the "oppressed serfs". And, yes, it is a REVOLUTION!

EVIL profits.. Bad Capitalist.

Good Citizens must depend on the Government.. for Funds.

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?... I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" ~~ Patrick Henry
"Illegitimus non Carborundum"

Sarah is the motivational lightning rod of a supposed "grass roots" movement of "regular moms and dads." But she is lining her pockets with these regular folks' cash? Folks who feel "Taxed Enough Already?" But now they are paying a Tea Party Tax of 0ver $500?

The Tea Party is no different from Ann Coulter's book or Glenn Beck's book or Michael Moore's movies. This is an excellent form of CAPITALISM: Capitalize on the anger of a group of people to MAKE MONEY. And I can hear the banjo music of tea partiers getting played like fiddles.

I think it's hillareo..... helariou..... Really funny
Hack

1.) Barbra Streisand headlined a fundraiser for Barack Obama in Los Angeles last ... with each of the 800 guests paying at least $2,500 per ticket

2.) After four hours on Air Force One, he arrived at the Democratic fund-raiser in San Francisco, where he praised the perseverance of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. “Day in and day out, she faces down some of the toughest problems,” the president told 160 people at an intimate $34,000 per couple dinner at the Westin

3.) The DNC held two Democratic fundraising events. The first event, a $10,000 per plate luncheon for 50 Jewish guests garnered nearly $500,000.

4.) Tonight President Obama turns into Democratic Fundraiser in Chief, attending two events in New York City that could rake in $2 million to $3 million for party coffers. Tickets for the dinner are going for $15,200 a person ($30,400 a couple)

5.) VP Biden At Greenwich Democratic Fundraiser: Jim Himes Is "Straight Out Of Central Casting" The fundraiser was held in Greenwich's affluent backcountry section, starting at $1,000 per person for lunch at the home of one of Himes's friends.

6.) VICE presidential candidate Joe Biden held a fundraiser at the Log Cabin in Holyoke, Mass., September 10 ... dined with wealthy supporters to the tune of $2,300 per plate ...

Hack what exactly was your point?

You and Lion don’t like Capitalism? You hate the Free Market? You hate Free Speech?

What is it..? Oh I get it.. Your PO’ed that your gang could not destroy Palin and push her into Bankruptcy.. and instead made her more like Obama himself.. A Star and making her Rich.

You guys remind me of every episode of “Get Smart” no matter what plans you guys come up with.. it’s always screwed up.

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?... I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" ~~ Patrick Henry
"Illegitimus non Carborundum"

"Hack what exactly was your point?

You and Lion don’t like Capitalism? You hate the Free Market? You hate Free Speech?"

We love capitalism....and we REALLY love Palin. And the fact that you tout Sarah as a different kind of politician, and the Tea Party movement as a grass roots resurgence of the American mom and pop, all while showing they do "politics" just like the democrats do; fees and all, is the funniest thing I've seen on the C. I love Palin, man. And I love her charging folks who have been taxed enough already.

Hack

You see we don't need Government handouts.. Free Market Capatialism works just fine for us..

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?... I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" ~~ Patrick Henry
"Illegitimus non Carborundum"

You and your friend lion forget 3 things:

1) Nobody wants to hear what any Dems have to say. Remember how that whole Air America Radio thingy went????? People won't even listen for free, so heck no they wouldn't think about paying.

2) Your party thinks the government should be required to pay the admission fee, in order for you to hear it. If it was provided for you, that might change some minds.

3) The speaking engagement would already have come and gone by the time the Dems could agree on an amount to charge attendees. You know, like the health care reform. In the end it would have cost you $25,000, so 20 other people could get in free (some from other states who worked a better deal) and of course union members get free admission. The good news is you would set up a government agency to regulate admission prices to speaking engagements and that would create some jobs....

"1) Nobody wants to hear what any Dems have to say. "

Oddly enough, S.L. did my heavy lifting for me and gave multiple references indicating you are wrong.....which is no surprisee to me, of course....but it may be to you

Cheers,

Hack

Of course I was not wrong here. You misunderstood Lindsey's list. They were charging those fees to keep them from talking. If you didn't meet their price, it was open mike night. I know I would pay to keep them from talking.

Cheers

For one of the very rare or maybe the first time, I will say that lion has a decent point. Palin is cashing in and enjoying her 15mins of fame that is seemingly being extended since she quit her elected job in order to write a book and hit the talk show circuit. She knows there is a LOT of money to be mined from the sheep. Her agent probably told her to take a look at all the idiots who were sending their savings to Falwell/Moral Majority or supporting Mike "Not anything remotely resembling a conservative" Huckabee and said "you go girl! Quit being a governor and get paid already!" Don't forget the present example of how if you are PERCEIVED to be right of center, plenty of people will buy any book you write. There is a built-in audience of people who need someone to tell them the same things they already believe in over and over and over. Preaching to the choir? They ARE the choir!Rush and Beck applaud this, though they don't realize she might take a few dollars that would be spent on them instead, but they are likely thinking there are plenty of suckers out there and the money is almost limitless.

There isn't anything like the born-again conservative out there who needs constant re-affirmation of their belief system.....plenty of money to made off of them.

Palin failed in regard: no hook. The "Fair Tax" crowd got sold on the bit where if anyone brings up some valid debate points about the "Fair Tax" plan, you knee-jerk, drool a bit, and then say "READ THE BOOKS!" That's the same kind of logic you get from any cult. Of course, if the person debating the merits of the Fair Tax states they have already read those holy documents and let's discuss, the conversation pretty much ends.

"So I ask what ideas conservatives have for the Republican dream team who will bring forth prosperity. I get nothing. No ideas."

Still nothing, Joe. It's not at all "over." My guy is still flying under the call sign "Air Force One." Dude! I LOVE THAT!!! And I do believe your lack of ideas has only just begun. I rather enjoy your stories about the very relevant ACORN as "exposed" by the kid arrested by the FBI. Who's flailing Joe? Remember when you tried to use Barack's half brother in Kenya to score political points? Ayers? Half brothers? ACORN? That is the stuff that keeps you blogging. And it truly bothers me not. I like to imagine your wrinkled forehead as you squint over your bifocals searching the web for stories about Michelle Obama hating America. Much easier than answering questions about palin or the party of obstruction.

Joe??? He DID win. "That one" actually WON. The winner. victor. el ganador.

Hack

. . . that should be an American idea. Stop treating the terrorists trying to kill us to the same rights we have as US citizens. Reading the underpants bomber his right to remain silent and giving him an attorney to lie about what he did was stupid beyond measure. He should have been treated as a terrorist and interrogated by our intelligence people to try to get what he knows - without doing the tougher things that lefties will call torture. Obama continuing toward closing Gitmo is all about symbolism, not substance, that's where terrorists should go, and they should be subject to military tribunals. Never mind the billions we've spent on Gitmo and are now spending trying to reverse Gitmo, never mind the unwarranted smear on our troops, who have honorably served at Gitmo, every time the Dems talk about it. If others in the world don't like Gitmo, too bad, we shouldn't be driven by world opinion. Want to sample world opinion, just visit the cesspool at the United Nations. With no legal expertise to back me up and no legal research to lean on, I also think terrorists should be treated as POWs in an ongoing war, including the rights of a POW, no matter that they don't measure up to the combatant definition in the Geneva Convention - give them nicer than required treatment (yes, I depart with GWB on this) and only use enhanced interrogation techniques when circumstances are dire - i.e. Where is the biological weapon hidden? - in which case I would bring out the pliers to pull fingernails, but that's just me. Atty Gen Holder made a huge mistake setting up show trials in civilian court - meaning the defendant gets the same rights as you and me - for the 911 terrorists, providing a public forum that risks in discovery and cross-exam disclosing sources and methods that could be counter to national security. Dumber than a box of rocks, and likely motivatyed by politics - designed to throw rocks at the Bush Admin policies and alleged excesses. I hear rumblings that a bi-partisan group of 6 senators, 3 Dems and 3 Reps (I'll call Olympia Snow a Dem if you want to call Joe Lieberman a Rep!) asked Holder to reverse his decision. He should, because it is the right thing to do, and those civilian trials won't do Obama any good. Maybe this is one you and I can agree on? Maybe.

Terry Garlock

Spoken like a misguided citizen. Be careful what you listen to as the truth is far from what you here. Federal court has a higher success rate than the Gitmo
Written by another Blogger with facts:
Since 2001, nearly 200 terrorists have been convicted by way of our federal court system. The military commissions, which have convicted only three low-level terrorists. Moreover, expensive and time-consuming legal challenges to the commissions continue to seriously hamper their effectiveness. Renewing the use of these commissions will ensure further delays and expense.

Those who oppose the decision to use our traditional criminal justice system are focused on instilling fear in the American people. In addition, assertions that more intelligence could have been extracted from Abdulmutallab had he been transferred to military custody are faulty as well as disconcerting. This perspective suggests that military interrogation should have been undertaken because “alternative methods” of interrogation (wink, wink) are permitted and would result in accurate and useable information. This scenario also implies that because Abdulmutallab was read Miranda rights and provided an attorney, we can attain no further information and that he would not talk to authorities. This simply is not the case. Authorities already have gained information from him and they are confident they will continue to learn information as the justice process unfolds.

Terrorism suspects should be brought down by the very thing they seek to destroy – American values. Thus, we should try them in the very federal courts that our U.S. Constitution established. Our country’s founders conferred upon the government the power to protect us from our enemies and to prosecute and detain those who violate our laws. They also created a system for ensuring that those efforts are conducted within the boundaries of the Constitution. It is time to face the fact that the military commissions system of trying and detaining terrorist suspects has failed. Now is the time to return to and reaffirm our faith in our constitutional criminal justice system.

While I support the administration’s decision to try Abdulmutallab in federal court, I remain troubled by its dedication to try other terror suspects in military commissions. That is why I have joined a bipartisan coalition of over 130 former diplomats, military officials, federal judges and prosecutors, and members of Congress, as well as bar leaders, national security and foreign policy experts, and family members of victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in issuing “Beyond Guantanamo: A Bipartisan Declaration.” The Declaration sets forth constitutional principles for dealing with present and future terrorism suspects upon the closing of Guantanamo; namely, trying terrorism suspects in regular federal courts rather than military commissions, and rejecting indefinite detention without charges. These principles recognize and affirm that we can keep our country safe while still adhering to the rule of law and the values that are embodied in our Constitution; they have stood the test of time for over 200 years and should not be jettisoned as we move into the 21st Century.

Let's see I think I can sum up everything in just a few sentences..

>You want to give Constitutional RIGHTS to ENEMY COMBATANTS.

>You want to then try them in court after giving TERRORIST all of the RIGHTS according to US Citizens.

> You want our TROOPS attempting to Marandize these same TERRORIST in the field.

>Failure to do so means the TERRORIST are then accorded the RIGHT to their FREEDOM.

Is that about it?

Let's see whats wrong that picture?
1. Turns our TROOPS into POLICE.
2. Gives ENEMY Combatants protection under our Constitution.
3. Exposes those very same TROOPS to danger by their inability to gain useful intelligence in the field.
4. Exposes America to that very same threat for the same reasons.

Yep sounds like a GREAT idea to me..

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?... I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" ~~ Patrick Henry
"Illegitimus non Carborundum"

Here are bite-sized portions of facts.

1)The Supreme Court has ruled over and over and over that all GITMO detainees have the right of Habeas Corpus.

2)US courts have tried over 200 terror suspects and have a 90% + conviction rate.

3)Military tribunals have convicted fewer than 5 such cases.

Before the rise of Obama, Tom Ridge, Rudy Giuliani, Dick Cheney, and most other folks now screaming gloom and doom had no problem with the U.S. Federal Court System.

Based on those facts, my guess is their and your motivation is political. Otherwise you would have complained, ON PRINCIPLE, when NPR carried The Richard Reid story in 2002: "The man accused of trying to blow up an American Airlines plane over the Atlantic last month was arraigned in federal court in Boston today on nine charges. Richard Reid pleaded not guilty to eight of the charges, while his defense attorney disputed a ninth and plea of innocent was entered by the judge. NPR's Tovia Smith was in federal court in Boston for today's proceedings."

You have willingly ignored every fact posted on this website. Not opinions, but facts and case law provided, generally speaking, by Jeff Carter. Why are Republicans not bringing legal precedents and case law to this argument? Because the Laws of the U.S. are not on your side.

Stare Decisis, The past shall rule, comes down heavily against the proponents of torture and holding people with no charges and affording them no rights. For many Americans, that is a bit too much like the radical "an eye for an eye" principle and not enough like the golden rule of great nations, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

I'm glad we are better than our radicalized enemies.

Hack

Habeas Corpus. Do you even know what it means..

“A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody.”

Of Course the Supreme Court has affirmed that.. What you imply and what the Supreme Court has NOT done is give Terrorist equal Rights under OUR Constitutional Law.

I know you want them to say it.. BUT they HAVE NOT.

Here is the reason they have not done so and I believe will not do so.

1. The Constitution reserves many rights for those suspected of crime. One of the fears of the Framers was that the government could act however it wished by simply saying an individual was a suspected criminal. Many of the rights in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, such as habeas corpus, the right to remain silent, and the right to an attorney, are designed to ensure that those accused of a crime are assured of those rights.

Now let’s look at that second part.. The RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT.. Why would this Right be given to Terrorist..

1. It endangers our troops. It forces as I said our troops to become Police. Can you imagine the problems associated with this.. When a terrorist is captured and we know he knows about coming attacks that WILL cost American lives, but instead of being able to question him.. YES HARSHLY if needed, we have to read him his RIGHT to remain Silent.. What do you think they would choose?

2. Right to a Counsel (Attorney).. Who’s Attorney.. Theirs or ours.. Where... here are there.
When.. Immediately or as soon as possible.
You see impossible..

“2)US courts have tried over 200 terror suspects and have a 90% + conviction rate.”

The use of Article III courts after the 1993 World Trade Center attack didn't stop any of the subsequent terrorist plots, including the attack on Khobar Towers, 19 Americans killed, the 1998 East African Embassy bombing, 212 killed, the USS Cole bombing, 17 sailors killed. The attacks of 9/11 were a resounding rebuke to the view that federal courts were an appropriate counterterrorism strategy. Afterward, we didn't send law enforcement personnel to apprehend the perpetrators, we sent the United States military, who captured them and held them pursuant to the 2001 Authorization of the Use of Military Force (AUMF).

How much actionable intelligence was lost Kevin because we gave them these RIGHTS?

)Military tribunals have convicted fewer than 5 such cases.

Well Duh again.. Military Tribunals came under immediate ATTACK by (drum roll please) Liberals who wanted these guys tried in Civilian court.

Here is the lefts problems..” And if Milligan hasn't deterred wartime politicians from using military justice against enemy soldiers—just as it doesn't seem apt to disturb the Bush administration's military tribunal plans today—it has seared in the record the idea that future generations will not look kindly on such actions.”

You guys keep wanting to refer to these Terrorist as “Enemy Soldiers”. They are not Soldiers Hack they fight for no Country and wear no uniforms..

Thus they do not deserve protection under OUR Constitution. PERIOD.

Oh btw.. the ignoring facts crack.. from you that IS the pot calling the kettle black..

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?... I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" ~~ Patrick Henry
"Illegitimus non Carborundum"

Every person tried by a US court anywhere has the protections of the Constitution.

The military and the United States may classify terrorist as POWs under the Geneva Conventions, in which case they are afforded the rights accorded to POWs which vary according to their status. Terrorists would be classified differently than uniformed troops, of course.

The military would not be police and there is a long string of precedents as to interrogations and detentions of POWs. To avoid these precedents, the term "enemy combatant" was invented which has no legal definition. Then a series of extra-legal steps were taken to try to retroactively write laws to handle this new class of prisoner so that they could be denied Constitutional protections; just as you are advocating. Everyone of which that has reached the Supreme Court has been struck down.

The Constitutional problem with your argument is that you do not want to classify them a POWs under the Geneva Convention nor do you want to classify them as criminals. You can't have it both ways.

You and Westmoreland are using the same tired argument that it is the liberals who are affording them these rights when it is the US Constitution as decided by the recent Supreme Court cases.

Regardless of your willingness to abandon the Constitution, some of us still support it.

"The military and the United States may classify terrorist as POWs under the Geneva Conventions"

The operative word here is "MAY" they have not done so.. thus the Terrorist ARE NOT accorded the Rights of a US Citizen. Then a.) Geneva Conventions do not apply and b.) Protection under the US Constitution is not a RIGHT and finally c.) they are classed as a Terrorist which gives no protection under our laws.

You don't give Constitution Rights to TERRORIST Jeff get a freaking grip man.. and THEY ARE NOT CRIMINALS as classed by our Constitution.

DO they are they committing crimes yes. The question is do we give them the Rights according a US Citizen yes that means a Rapist, Burglar, Drug Dealer etc.. to a TERRORIST. NO

There are too many inherent risk. Have we done so Yes many times.. Should we continue to do so.. Well New York just said NO.. Good enough for me..

Oh and on the little Constitution jab.. That's funny coming from a Liberal.

If you had not heard Obama your dear leader is not to fond of the Constitution..

"I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the framers had that same blind spot. […The Constitution] reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day." Obama

"But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf." Obama again

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?... I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" ~~ Patrick Henry
"Illegitimus non Carborundum"

That the military MAY charge captives as POWs is one option. Assuming they are not released, the other options are that they be tried before a military commission, be tried in a foreign court, or be tried in a civilian court. There is no option to hold someone indefinitely without trial as you advocate. That's what habeas corpus rights guarantee. That's the first Constitutional argument you are wrong about.

The Geneva Conventions apply to every prisoner held by the US military with no exceptions; your second misconception.

The Geneva Conventions are binding on the United States under the Constitution as a ratified treaty; your third mistake.

Protection under the Constitution is a right guaranteed to every person or state brought under the jurisdiction of a US court anywhere. Fourth error.

There are no exemptions for terrorists or anyone else. A repeat of your fourth error.

You wrote that "... THEY ARE NOT CRIMINALS as classed by our Constitution... ". Yes, they are. I defy you to find any exemption in the Constitution that supports your position.

You are correct that I did not give them these Constitution Rights. Jefferson and Madison did. Tell them to "get a freaking grip".

My Constitution jab was correct. You do not support the US Constitution. You cannot find support for any of your arguments in the Constitution. I can look up and cite the clauses proving you are wrong in each case.

I have my copy of the Constitution ready and await your citation of any clause that would support any of your contentions.

A new blog with more room would be preferable.

I don't think that giving Terrorist the same RIGHTS Granted by the Constitution to US Citizens and giving those same RIGHTS to Terrorist.. YOU DO.. How much clearer can I be..

Look Jeff.. Neither you nor I will decide the Constitutional issues here. However REMEMBER one thing if the prevalent idea to make this all just a simple muder case then maybe just maybe..9/11 attacks would not have happened.

If SUDAN did in fact offer to arrest OBL and give him to Clinton than maybe 3000+ people may still be alive today.

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?... I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" ~~ Patrick Henry
"Illegitimus non Carborundum"

Nowhere in the Constitution are the rights therein reserved for US citizens. In fact, the ones we are discussing are specifically extended to foreign citizens in Article II.

You are taking a "holier than thou" position by claiming that I am giving these rights to terrorists. I am supporting the Constitution and trust our established institutions. You are advocating extra-Constitutional remedies to the flaws you perceive if the Constitution is applied to laws covering terrorists as if that would somehow make us weaker. This is a common position of the right; when the Constitution is applied to unsavory people you don't like, abandon it.

I have mine.. ok.

I am doing nothing of the sort.. I am just not reading INTO the Constitution things that are not there.. You know like ABORTION and Healthcare..

But keep on reading in whatever you please..

Your shot about the right abandoning the Constitution is laughable..

Tell you what you list all of the times Liberals PROTECT the Constitution specifically Admendments 1-10 and I will list all of the times Liberals attack those very same admendments.

I bet you anything you want to bet I can come up with more..

I never heard a Right Leaning President say the Constitution is "Fundamentally FLAWED"

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?... I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" ~~ Patrick Henry
"Illegitimus non Carborundum"

It's good to see that you are not substantially impaired by your cognitive dissonance. You tell me to "get a freaking grip" when I support Constitutionally mandated laws while you totally disregard what the Constitution says while claiming to support it.

The last right leaning President launched a major assault on the Constitution and was overturned again and again in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Rasul v. Bush, and Odah v. United States. Did you see my nice letter to the editor about Westmoreland? I'm not reading into the Constitution things that are not there. I'm quoting and referencing specific cases decided by the Supreme Court which have settled these issues. Your cavalier dismissal of these cases and your willfull ignoring of them demonstrates my point. When the USSC decides case, to me it's law. To you it's not even relevant. It's so ingrained in the right-wing's psyche that y'all don't even realize that you are doing it.

The right has always treated the Constitution with contempt. It's almost a defining characteristic. That's why they have such a virulent hatred for organizations like the ACLU.

The country has over 350 million people in it so I'll grant you that you can find people who complain about anything and everything. Let's get down to case law supporting the Constitutional rights. I'll even grant that the left is usually wrong on the 2nd. I can go to the ACLU website and get thousands of cases where liberals are supporting Constitutional rights. Every case usually condemned by the right.

Besides a 2nd Amendment case, can you name even one or two cases brought by the right in support of Constitutional rights? Probably not.

The right supported illegal wiretapping in violation of the 4th Amendment. You support holding prisoners indefinitely without charges in violation of the 5th Amendment. Y'all support torture in violation of the 5th amendment. You have railed in this blog against allowing terrorist to have lawyers; a violation of the 6th Amendment. You've railed against trying them in civil court; a violation of the 7th Amendment. You have supported enhanced interrogations; a violation of the 8th Amendment.

All the while extolling your support for the Constitution.

Your justification is that you do not want the Constitution to apply to foreign nationals; a violation of Article II.

Would you like for me to post an on-line link to it so you can see what it says?

"Besides a 2nd Amendment case, can you name even one or two cases brought by the right in support of Constitutional rights? Probably not."

Hard to prove a negative there Jeff.. Let see EVERY case the left has brought to bear on Admen 1-10 would therefore be a case supported by the Right.. don't cha think.?

Cases are not argued for.. unless an argument against has been placed.

One always comes before the other..

Now do you want to step outside the courts arena and try that one again?

The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them. ~~Patrick Henry
"Illegitimus non Corborundum"

I welcome your support. When we have that cup of coffee you can show me your ACLU membership card.

Jeff, kindly cite the appropriate section you are referencing--I need some help. Thanks.

I was blogging right before I left work and didn't refer to the Constitution as I should have. Mea Maxima Culpa. It's not Article II. It's Article III, Section 2 (fairly good from memory but, alas, still wrong. The 2's tripped me up and I'm sticking to that story. Yes, I know I offered to provide SL a link, which, in retrospect...).

Article III, Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

Most of my info on the court cases comes from Princeton. They review every case. I remember reading their analysis of some specifically applicable cases but cannot find the citations. When I do, I'll post the links.

that the Constitution cannot be applied.. Or that the decision Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Rasul v. Bush, and Odah v. United States et al.. do not apply. I have read the briefs as well. The question is SHOULD IT BE?

I think the Supreme Court erred on on the issue of inter-national vs. global. They asserted that the Terrorist fight for a STATE/Nation.. I have always asked which one.. Al-Qaeda is Global scope.. They do not fight for a Country and in fact their ideology is fractal at best.

But that was their ruling.. So be it.

My issue and my point is.. We do have an option. We do not have to treat them as "Enemy Soldiers" we can treat them as a extra-National. Even in the ruling the Supreme Court allows that.

We just don't have the stomach for it.. We are too PC for that.

Like I posted earlier they are using our system against us. They are infecting our prison population and spreading their brand of hate into the Country. If we do not get a handle on this issue we will be facing a internal threat like France, Spain and other semi-Free Country’s.

Anyway loved the conversation.. We really need to get together and "debate" the issue over a good cup of joe..

The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them. ~~Patrick Henry
"Illegitimus non Corborundum"

I have thoroughly enjoyed your banter this week regarding the rights or constitutionality of what administrations have done or are doing pertaining to held terrorists (alledged). You three should entertain the idea of a Fayette "Hannity-Colmes" weekly banter via talk radio.

Who knows, you guys may be able to muscle old Neil out of some air time.

I am afterall a Free Market Capitalist.. Jeff will do it for free and Kevin might if it involves a Government program.

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?... I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" ~~ Patrick Henry
"Illegitimus non Carborundum"

One correction: Jeff may be a liberal, but he ain't cheap!

Finally! A conservative who understands me!