Nitrox

Obviously you're no student of history. Which is why you missed the salient points most get in 8th grade history class. Your political dribble is that of an uneducated child. Try every President and Congress between 1776 and 1900, then Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson, Nixon and Ford. Lincoln and Bush were light weights by comparison. Bush just seems oppressive because his political life and your dim and short term awareness of US politics happen to coincide. For a little light reading try a google search on: Indian Wars Time Table German American internment Italian American internment Japanese American internment The U.S.-Mexican War Manifest Destiny All good points, but do they absolve the administration you voted in of their sins? Way to saddle this country and the rest of the world with a long term disaster. At least you finally figured out what half us knew from day one, and finally stopped voting stupid. Backpedal, point finger, blame, ignore personal responsibility. Does DU know you're over here making them look even more retarded? I assumed an ACLU attorney would have better points than the flimsy shit on the Olbermann show but I guess not.

And of the three cases that have been brought with this legislation one plead out and two were dismissed. Ex Post Facto is generally regarded as unconstitutional, but you knew that, right? I'd love to hear about the telecom legislation you mentioned, I'm unfamiliar with it but I'd bet its more of the same. I think the use of Ex Post Facto legislation against the BP will only result in an expensive legal battle assuming the proposed bill passes. In the end I think the legislation is just going to make a bad situation worse.

Aaaand close with "racism". Impressive.

Yep, purposely creating bad legislation because what you have in mind is not supported by the country or even the government. Knowing full well that at least some of it is not constitutional but accepting it because it furthers your political needs. Yet, you cry about how your constitutional rights were denied under Bush. Hypocrite. Some parts of the legislation are good. Reigning in denial of coverage, for example. I'll take it. All complex legislation is part good/part not so good...which parts are which depend on your point of view. Accepting it to further political needs? Umm...yeah. Hate to break the news to you, but that's, you know, politics. That's how this stuff works. Look, you're obviously not substantively involved in the process. It's easier to carp from the sidelines, but in the grown up world, the process of moving forward is deliberative, involves a bunch of folks who don't agree, and slow. You never get everything, or and seldom most, of what you want. There is no pure lightning bolt of truth that carries the day. It's messy. Sorry. If you can't handle that, remain in the cyberbleachers where you belong. Regarding the 'unconstitutional' bullshit, I've addressed that more than once, so I'm not going to again. Learn to read, do some review, and STFU about it. Your razor sharp wit just doesn't stop impressing me. Lets relax in the warm glow of your post: Yes, as a citizen, I want to know less. Fucking free press. We shouldn't be allowed to have this debate. After all, we don't run this country. Time is of the essence if we're going to send someone after this guy. Martin Sheen ain't gettin' any younger. Wow, you are simply a god among men.

I know, you say something stupid, get called out, and it was just a joke no one got. Everyone is dumb but you blah blah blah.

Not my party but what comes around goes around. But hey, you're a big fan of that style of politics so I'm sure you'll be cool with it.

You proved my point. Yep, purposely creating bad legislation because what you have in mind is not supported by the country or even the government. Knowing full well that at least some of it is not constitutional but accepting it because it furthers your political needs. Yet, you cry about how your constitutional rights were denied under Bush. Hypocrite.

I like how expertly you sidestepped acknowledging your obvious mistake. I'll play along though. Never heard of the site. Not a big fan of the ACLU in its practice but I am in its theory. I don't think it should go away. Until now the Obama administration hasn't been too open. In fact, I'd say that it has intentionally mislead people. The healthcare debate comes to mind. A sudden conscience for "transparency" smells like bullshit. I don't think the current administration has a firm grasp on what its doing, the warhead disclosure to the Russians is a perfect example. There is nothing wrong with public debate, as we're doing now, but I don't think this subject is best sent with a bow to every news outlet on the planet. I think the guy should be brought in if possible. I doubt anywhere close to all the evidence is being made public. Pretty naive to assume that the info that is public domain is the total of the case against the guy. Just running your mouth doesn't generally net covert operations against US citizens in other countries. Unless you're telling me that you think Obama is trying to distract everyone with high drama. Naive and laughable. As if the alphabet agencies don't have better things to do than serve hits on people they think are "real dicks". I think releasing the information only hurts the current administration. Just look at your temper tantrum. Imagine what swing voters are going to do. You're probably right as far as it being used for recruitment. There are a bunch of ways the administration could have discussed the issue without involving the media. It in no way restricts freedom of press or free speech, which you implied it would. You were wrong as I pointed out.

Says the guy who supports government forced healthcare. You only believe in the constitution when it's politically convenient for you. Of course, you had massive fail on the first page of this thread claiming that "freedom of the press" was somehow restricted if the government doesn't do a press release on an operation. I commend you on ignoring your blunder and just plowing through with your latest hack commentary.

Waiting for Chomsky videos and ripped off notions of "reasonable restrictions"...

What did you do? -Flap your lips -Point your finger -Rinse -Repeat

New legislation seeks to retroactively increase liability limits for BP. Um, yeah. Retroactive legislation is passed all the time in all kinds of situations (telecom spying immunity, torture immunity...HELLO). Guess there are still folks out there who've never heard of such a concept...and those people are fucking morons. Post the retroactive legislation that was passed for "torture immunity".

What's your age J_B?

I didn't think so. Why do you even bother living in the US? Wouldn't Europe fit your beliefs a little better?

What branch and years did you serve?

You forgot the important part of the oath imo..as it relates to this conversation... "I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." If you are directly involved in trying to blow up Times Square you ARE not being targeted for what you say, but for what you do. Time on target...

Funny, I used to live down the street from BD. The beer was for shit. Now I live close to Metolious. The beer is ten times better. What does it mean? Wine is gay and the market will bear competition. BD will continue to perform or it won't...I won't skip a beat.

I think the long section of All-thread on the anti-cam needs to be rethought but The Season series is cool. I've been following this from day one.

Yes, as a citizen, I want to know less. Fucking free press. We shouldn't be allowed to have this debate. After all, we don't run this country. Time is of the essence if we're going to send someone after this guy. Martin Sheen ain't gettin' any younger. Why am I not surprised that you do not understand the First Amendment to the US Constitution? Here it is (LINK) so you can brush up on 5th grade. Nothing I said has any bearing on freedom of press or free speech. The Obama administration seams hell bent on giving away sensitive information (like warhead counts to Russia). I happen to think American citizens should be brought to justice but putting this at the top of every headline probably hampers that since the person in question is media savvy.

I'm boycotting WSDOT over this!

Lots of buzzwords going on in that thread.

Looks like the 'racism' is spreading. http://www.cabq.gov/mayor/news/mayor-ends-sanctuary-for-criminals

What is it about our government under this administration that renders it incapable of shutting the fuck up? You'd think there were some things that might be best left unsaid to the media. That said, he's a citizen and a reasonable attempt should be made to capture him alive. Of course, treason carries the death penalty.

Why would he, he's the same guy who took enemy combatants from a battlefield and sent them to US court for criminal prosecution...and then waffled. All this stuff about AZ is nonsense...reinstate the cutoff funds to the BP and complete the fence project as passed by the last administration. Of course, most here probably didn't realize (or care) that the AZ law was a reaction to the federal government reneg'ing...just racism by gawd!!

RACIST TOILETS