Fairweather

Let me see if I have this right... Bush admits to wiretapping AlQueda suspect's overseas phone calls. Libtards call those wiretaps illegal. Kevbone is now free to claim that "Bush has admitted to illegal wiretaps!" Kev, I've rarely wasted time with you and now I remember why. There are sophisticated/educated libs, and there are mentally lacking libs like you who, unfortunately, make up the bulk of the Democrat voting base. There doesn't seem to be much in between.

Based on what has been publicly disclosed; yes. He admitted to ILLEGAL wiretapping and you still dispute. Conservatism is a mental disorder. Really? Show me.

Based on what has been publicly disclosed; yes.

Huey - here is the reply from Bug. (I wish you two would speak directly to one another.) "My darling Hubert, it should be easy for you to deduce simply by looking at my flaccid avatar that the days of tickling your tonsils have long passed. Even the little blue pill I take now hasn't allowed me the daily self-gratification I once so enjoyed while PM'ing you on this very website. While I hope to regain my fully erect four and one-quarter inches with therapy, I'll now just have to settle for giving anonymous hand jobs in local Seattle restrooms and looking at pictures of livestock. Toodles, Bug"

cracks in the walls that surround the island workers paradise... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7449776.stm

I'm not sure which question you are talking about. You stated that you think the government would be qualified to censor the media, but failed to state how that would work--or how it's constitutional. I think that's a discussion ender right there. You haven't answered my questions about border screening and how it would be carried out in a manner liberals would find palatable and effective. You haven't been paying attention. The Supreme Court ruled that free speech is not unconstrained under the Constitution. You should be, if you're not, aware of the quote regarding yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Likewise there have been numerous cases on the public's need to know vs state secrets. And porno - what?Like you've never heard of the Larry Flint case or the Ohio museum case? For someone always wrapping themselves in the flag you seem to be woefully ignorant of how this all works or even of recent case history. Try Goggles on the Internets. You aren't comprehending the issue and are now trying to mix political speech and press freedom debates with local standards. For someone who marches with communists (World Can't Wait ) you sure seem concerned about censorship. (Wait...now it all makes sense!) Wrapping myself in the flag? Fuck off little man. I support your right to burn it.

You are asking me to design the enforcement program in order to suggest an issue that should be addressed? Can you design an effective or fair or justifiable war on drugs? I think not. Do you or do you not believe that censorship for decency or for "state secrets" is justifiable and constitutional? (And does outing a secret agent count?) What do you think of the "equal time" rule, that goes back to maybe the 1920's? History of The Fairness Doctrine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine "In 1984, the Supreme Court decided that the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine did not apply to expanding communications technologies, and that the doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate (FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364)[6]. The Court's majority decision by William J. Brennan, Jr. noted concerns that the Fairness Doctrine was "chilling speech," and added that the Supreme Court would be "forced" to revisit the constitutionality of the doctrine if it did have "the net effect of reducing rather than enhancing speech."

Who did you say are the fear mongers and dividers? Um...yea.

You want Republican cock! You can't handle Republican cock...

Liberalism: Conservatism:

Message from HughConway that he asked me to pass along: "Dear Bug, would you mind too terribly changing your avatar image? It's making me salivate and triggering a gag reflex that I am presently having difficulty controlling. Sincerely, your really, really good friend, Huey."

I'm not sure which question you are talking about. You stated that you think the government would be qualified to censor the media, but failed to state how that would work--or how it's constitutional. I think that's a discussion ender right there. You haven't answered my questions about border screening and how it would be carried out in a manner liberals would find palatable and effective.

Listening in on overseas phone conversations is not unconstitutional, even when one party resides inside our borders. Surveillance does not equal search and/or seizure. C'mon. "The practice has been going on for 'decades'"? Why are you only now concerned? So now politicians and activist organizations get to decide what's constitutional? They said it, so you believe it? Careful; MattP wants to silence lies like this. You've demonstrated absolutely zip.

Habeus Corpus? What's that? "Show me the corpse." Please do tell me where it has been suspended under GWB.

How was the Sherpa Glacier descent? Schrund ok? Thinking about going "up" that way soon.

VHapMnqSeR8

No. You said Bush is shredding the constitution. Tell me where, or STFU. I don't give a fuck about what you feel or believe.

What you "think" or feel does not matter. This is about the constitution.

Yes. They are combatants and are not on US soil. Additionally, some are being tried as we speak. Do you have a problem with Kahled Shek Mohammed facing a military tribunal? I'm not sure torture in general is even addressed in the constitution. If it is prohibited, please show me specifics--maybe you'll convince me. I've read Kahled Shek Mohammed lasted 37 seconds before he gave up the names of co-conspirators in the 9/11 attacks.

I believe the state-secrets issue is covered and addressed in the first amendment. (You didn't seem to have a problem with the LA Times revealing our program to spy on terrorist banking activities overseas.) As far as the media "lying", who do you propose to determine the validity of each and every media report, story, opinion? A government agency? Yea, right. I am still in shock that you support a ban on press freedom and have the gall to claim Bush has shredded the constitution. Every time I ask for specifics you come up lame and then refuse to reply. Porter, this isn't about a show of hands, or 'what people think'--it's about what is. There is no administration threat to the constitution at this time, but there is a threat held to it within the minds of many liberals as demonstrated here.

Hell, Matt, even your precious UN believes in more freedom than you do. (?) ...The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers"

Yes. Then you don't believe in the constitution. ...And you wonder why conservatives question the patriotism of the left?

Fairweather. The biggest trick the millionaires/republicans of this country ever pulled was convincing the poor that what is good for them is good for you. Wake up friend. You've let leftist populism infect your brain, and since there is plenty of room remaining therein post eighth grade, this is not all that surprising. Within reason and limits, a rising tide does lift all ships.

You are confusing what is taught to minors in a classroom setting versus what is covered under the first amendment. You don't honestly believe in restrictions on press freedom do you?

Pre-WWI banners were typically put out by interventionists--not the US Govt. Woodrow Wilson was a complete moron who likely fancied himself much as you do yourself. He wasn't God damed Jesus Christ--that's for sure. Another Democrat for peace...I mean war.