tvashtarkatena

You don't fuck crack whores, silly. You kill them.

I'm just glad Billcoe finally found a new boyfriend. And what's wrong with some good ole fashioned well-deserved hatred, anyway? I'm proud to be a member of the Party-of-I-wanna-skull-fuck-your-new-puppy. Bush supporters deserve far, far more hatred than they actually receive; they're just whiny little fucks about it.

Last time I had Starbucks coffee I poured it on my crotch to combat a strange rash that had developed there from drinking Starbucks prior to that.

The hest part about waking up is finding the bitch already gone.

Um...the deficit Bush handed Obama wasn't Bush's fault? Whatever you say, Peter.

I like my women like I like my coffee. Instant.

W T F

Talkin' 'bout da MILF weed

I'm gonna keep bashing him.... Memos Reveal Scope of the Power Bush Sought NEIL A. LEWIS Published: March 2, 2009 NYT WASHINGTON — The secret legal opinions issued by Bush administration lawyers after the Sept. 11 attacks included assertions that the president could use the nation’s military within the United States to combat terrorism suspects and to conduct raids without obtaining search warrants. That opinion was among nine that were disclosed publicly for the first time Monday by the Justice Department, in what the Obama administration portrayed as a step toward greater transparency. The opinions reflected a broad interpretation of presidential authority, asserting as well that the president could unilaterally abrogate foreign treaties, ignore any guidance from Congress in dealing with detainees suspected of terrorism, and conduct a program of domestic eavesdropping without warrants. Some of the positions had previously become known from statements of Bush administration officials in response to court challenges and Congressional inquiries. But taken together, the opinions disclosed Monday were the clearest illustration to date of the broad definition of presidential power approved by government lawyers in the months after the Sept. 11 attacks. In a memorandum dated this Jan. 15, five days before President George W. Bush left office, a top Justice Department official wrote that those opinions had not been relied on since 2003. But the official, Steven G. Bradbury, who headed the Office of Legal Counsel, said it was important to acknowledge in writing “the doubtful nature of these propositions,” and he used the memo to repudiate them formally. Mr. Bradbury said in his memo that the earlier ones had been a product of lawyers’ confronting “novel and complex questions in a time of great danger and under extraordinary time pressure.” The opinion authorizing the military to operate domestically was dated Oct. 23, 2001, and written by John C. Yoo, at the time a deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel, and Robert J. Delahunty, a special counsel in the office. It was directed to Alberto R. Gonzales, then the White House counsel, who had asked whether Mr. Bush could use the military to combat terrorist activities inside the United States. The use of the military envisioned in the Yoo-Delahunty reply appears to transcend by far the stationing of troops to keep watch at streets and airports, a familiar sight in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks. The memorandum discussed the use of military forces to carry out “raids on terrorist cells” and even seize property. “The law has recognized that force (including deadly force) may be legitimately used in self-defense,” Mr. Yoo and Mr. Delahunty wrote to Mr. Gonzales. Therefore any objections based on the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches are swept away, they said, since any possible privacy offense resulting from such a search is a lesser matter than any injury from deadly force. The Oct. 23 memorandum also said that “First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully.” It added that “the current campaign against terrorism may require even broader exercises of federal power domestically.” Mr. Yoo and Mr. Delahunty said that in addition, the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally bars the military from domestic law enforcement operations, would pose no obstacle to the use of troops in a domestic fight against terrorism suspects. They reasoned that the troops would be acting in a national security function, not as law enforcers. In another of the opinions, Mr. Yoo argued in a memorandum dated Sept. 25, 2001, that judicial precedents approving deadly force in self-defense could be extended to allow for eavesdropping without warrants. Still another memo, issued in March 2002, suggested that Congress lacked any power to limit a president’s authority to transfer detainees to other countries, a practice known as rendition that was widely used by Mr. Bush. Other memorandums said Congress had no right to intervene in the president’s determination of the treatment of detainees, a proposition that has since been invalidated by the Supreme Court. The Jan. 15 memo by Mr. Bradbury repudiating these views said that it was “not sustainable” to argue that the president’s power as commander in chief “precludes Congress from enacting any legislation concerning the detention, interrogation, prosecution and transfer of enemy combatants.” Mr. Yoo, now a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, is widely known as the principal author of a 2002 memorandum, separate from those made public Monday, that critics have characterized as authorizing torture. That memorandum, signed by Jay S. Bybee, a predecessor of Mr. Bradbury as head of the Office of Legal Counsel, was repudiated in 2004. The memorandum issued by Mr. Bradbury this January appears to have been the Bush lawyers’ last effort to reconcile their views with the wide rejection by legal scholars and some Supreme Court opinions of the sweeping assertions of presidential authority made earlier by the Justice Department. Walter Dellinger, who led the Office of Legal Counsel during the Clinton administration and is now a law professor at Duke University, said in an interview that Mr. Bradbury’s memo “disclaiming the opinions of earlier Bush lawyers sets out in blunt detail how irresponsible those earlier opinions were.” Mr. Dellinger said it was important that it was now widely recognized that the earlier assertions “that Congress had absolutely no role in these national security issues was contrary to constitutional text, historical practice and judicial precedent.” In a speech a few hours before the documents were disclosed Monday, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said: “Too often over the past decade, the fight against terrorism has been viewed as a zero-sum battle with our civil liberties. Not only is that thought misguided, I fear that in actuality it does more harm than good.” Mr. Holder said that the memorandums were being released in light of a substantial public interest in the issue.

You gotta love leadership with backbone... Chairman of hte RNC sucks off Limbaugh

There was no such rhetoric at that time. And your rhetorical trick "the President - and America" doesn't fly. Bush, despite his party's anti patriotic campaign, isn't "America". America is so much better than that. I do recall a whole lot of justified opposition from people who actual want a better America to Bush's policies, which, given their disastrous results, require no review here. As for Rush's audience, they are half wits. The right wing talk radio target audience is comprised of that sludge you have to hose out of your trash can to keep it from gassing out the rest of the neighborhood several times a year. That sludge is always there if you continue to throw garbage on it, hence Rush's continued popularity. Fortunately, we seem to be a period where America's fascination with low culture and stupidity seems to be cooling.

You know, smoking is bad for children.

I agree Bob. Here's a phrase you can use when some random Republican starts in on the "Tax and Spend Democrats". Ask "You mean like Clinton? The Dem who balanced the budget after the record deficits and runaway government spending he inherited from Reagan: who, by the way, was a BORROW AND SPEND style Republican like all of the Bushes and all of the repubs seem to be these days. " If most of us had a choice between a borrow and spend or a tax and spend politician, I'm sure most of us would choose the latter. I'm damn tired of Borrow and Spend politicians of any affiliation, but they seem to all be Republicans. Another simplistic analysis. Reagan's deficits were the result of compromise: he got what he wanted in terms of increased military spending and tax cuts, while the Democrat-controlled house and senate got their programs funded. Both side gave up something to the other at the expense of the American people - literally and figuratively. Flip the party affiliations around and you get the same thing with Clinton and the Republican-controlled house and senate. The Republicans forced fiscal conservatism on Clinton in exchange for concessions on their part. The Republicans then turned into spendthrift Democrats once they had both the legistlative and executive reigns, and now there are no fiscal conservatives. We have moved from a spendthrift Republican congress/president combination to an even more spendthrift Democrat congress/president combination. That's not good in any way or defensible by saying "but the other side...". That type of argument doesn't even work for 3rd graders on a playground, but it's all I can expect from cc.com libtards. You can do better than them, Bill. True, but incomplete. You've conveniently omitted the magnitude of Reagan's Christmas list (tax cuts and military spending, which were massive) as compared to the Democrats' (much less massive). Clearly, Reagan, not congress, was chiefly responsible for the resulting deficits, although congress shared a much smaller portion of the blame.

Rush (and talk radio in general) is an interesting phenomenon. He is a propogandist, but one who has figured out how to make copious amounts of money from his trade. Being independent from government and news organizations, he's not bound by any standards of veracity, so he's free to say exactly what his audience wants to hear; (something he's figured out to a tee), which maximizes ratings and revenues. Furthermore, he treats his audience as an extended family who 'seeks the truth' which, of course, he's delivering, unlike a lot of talk show hosts who tend to use their callers as bait. As a final touch, he often mentions how much he pisses off the left, which isn't really true, because the left doesn't listen to his show. I catch him occasionally on road trips, and marvel at how well his very few rhetorical tricks work on his followers. Clearly an example of a person who does a few simple things over and over very, very well. He's kind of like the big, rich, teddy bear, drug hooving uncle you never had.

Ironically, the ACLU successfully defended the privacy of Limbaugh's medical records from federal intrusion.

Pretty much right on the money.

Stewart and Colbert are funny, so presumably their audiences are looking for laughs, not anger. Limbaugh, Coulter, and O'Reilly's acts are pure anger (they're sarcastic, but not at all funny), so presumably their audiences are looking for that. As for what you think of the left (just a bit broader generalization than a simple characterization of a few of each side's favorite entertainers); that probably reflects more of your projected personality than reality. As for Franken, well, he never was very popular with any audience, save perhaps his early days on SNL. Not really worth a mention when we're talking about the big ratings horses.

It's a very different world today. The left has Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert, the Right has Coulter, Limbauh, and O'Reilly. The left is entertained by humor, the right by anger. The left responds to a particularly well delivered blow with an "Oh God, that was perfect." The right with "Fuck yeah!" or perhaps a simple, "in His name." The left gets its material from footage of the right, the right does the same, but relies more on its psychotic pundits. In this, the left seeks to make the right appear stupid, while the right makes the left appear morally wrong. THe right serves up the same meal of myths: gays are bad, etc..., while the left usually just makes fun of those myths.

Stop by the Cheneys and give them our regards.

Get into that wing suit thing enough and you won't have to worry about retirement, starving children, or monetary policy.

The weather's even worse in the summer.

Can't you little people take this elsewhere? I've got a show to prepare and a fortune to prepare for.

Been there when I was 20. An ambulance ride on a backboard and 4 days the hospital. I was an uncontrolled intersection, so somehow I got the traffic ticket, too (don't really know how...I wasn't really part of the discussion. Get well soon and be careful out there people!

but mankind was saved....

Nice….this is nice cop out bullshit answer given by a minion……anyone else? Gonna have to agree with KB, here. It's a really good question. I'd like to see our current mission in Iraq in writing and a source reference, too.