CIA authorized to murder US citizen.

[Stonehead]

For all you know Anwar al-Awlaki is a CIA plant. And this incident speaks more to the proposed legislation by Senator Lieberman which would strip US citizens of their rights if accused of aiding or abetting terrorism.

 

What good would the Constitution and its Bill of Rights be if Congress passes a law that trumps the spirit of those founding documents? Could that legislation be corrupted to serve as a political tool for repression?

 

Lieberman bill would strip suspects' citizenship

 

So, I suppose that the goals of the civilian populace are subordinate to the military agenda and that the deeper meaning of 3rd Amendment to the Bill of Rights is actually an arcane bit of nonrecurring history.

 

Military tribunals will bring the justice we seek!

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

so, what did you do when Bush and his cronies trampled the constitution almost every day?

 

Thankfully I was able to help vote Bush in and just as thankfully I helped vote him out.

 

There are very few Constitutional scholars that can agree on the documents meaning in details so I would ease off the "trampled" statement. You may not like how "they" define its meaning, but that has been the way it has worked for 200 years.

 

More than any other president save perhaps Lincoln (early in the Civil War, and his violations were much narrower in scope and more short term) the Bush Administration, with the help of Congress, trampled all over the Constitution by a number of measures, including but not limited to the opinions of leading Constitutional scholars. Here are three of many areas, where not only the Constitution, but our existing statutes, case law, and ratified treaty obligations were violated by the Bush Administration and, in some cases, Congress:

 

DETENTION:

 

Shortly after 911, the Bush administration re-engineered the concept of ‘enemy combatant status’, used from WWII on to distinguish combatants from civilians, to create the new designation of Unlawful Enemy Combatant. Any individual so designated could be detained without due process at the President’s discretion as long as the War on Terror lasted. The administration claimed that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) of 2001 granted the authority to wield this new power.

 

A flurry of lawsuits followed the opening and populating of Guantanamo Bay, culminating in a series of landmark Supreme Court decisions, each of which dealt a blow, albeit an incomplete one, to the unfettered exercise of the Executive’s power to detain indefinitely. Here’s a summary of these decisions, as well as legislation enacted to respond to them:

 

Hamdi v Rumsfeld 2004: US citizens, seized overseas cannot be denied access to US courts.

 

Rasul v Bush 2004: Non citizens, seized during military operations, cannot be denied access to US courts.

 

The Military Commissions Act of 2006: For the third time in US history, habeas corpus is suspended for Unlawful Enemy Combatants held at Guantanamo Bay. It’s interesting to note the a Democratic controlled congress passed this statute.

 

Hamdan v Rumsfeld 2006: Military tribunals violate both military law and the Geneva Conventions. Habeas corpus is restored.

 

Boumediene v. Bush 2008: Foreign terrorism suspects held at theGuantanamo Bay Naval Base have constitutional rights to challenge their detention in United States courts in Cuba .

 

TORTURE:

 

At first the Bush Administration denied that it tortured detainees at Guantanamo, in U.S. military prisons, and in CIA detention facilities, but released torture memos, Red Cross reports, and testimony from detainees, both present and former, debunked such assertions over time. Susan Crawford, the Pentagon's convening authority on military commissions, finally admitted publicly that the U.S. had, in fact, tortured its detainees. George Tenet, former director of the CIA, also admitted in his recent book that the U.S. had engaged in "morally questionable interrogation". This resulted in President Obama presidential order banning torture and requirement for compliance with Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and other standing statutes for all federal employees and their contracted agents.

 

SPYING ON AMERICANS

 

Shortly after 911, the Bush Administration ordered the NSA to begin a secret, judicially unauthorized , and large scale monitoring of our electronic communications. The NYT exposed the existence of this program in 2004, after which the ACLU sued the NSA on Constitutional grounds.

 

During a series of Congressional hearing that followed, the administration claimed it was only monitoring foreign communications of terror suspects. Public statements from ATT, one of several telecoms that provided facilities and equipment to the NSA, revealed a very different story, however. Given the nature of the equipment and how it works, it became clear that all electronic communications, regardless of source or destination, are rerouted to NSA run equipment which filters and monitors it ways that remain secret. AG Gonzales resigned shortly after the hearings concluded.

 

The ACLU won its suit against the NSA, but lost on appeal. The case, at that point, was headed for the Supreme Court.

 

Unfortunately for civil libertarians, Congress passed a law that not only preserved the program, but granted retro-active immunity for the telecom companies who had violated state and federal law as well as their own privacy policies to participate in it.

 

Shortly after the law passed, the Supreme Court declined to hear the ACLU's final appeal of its NSA lawsuit without comment. Today, the NSA continues to monitor a large percentage if not all of our electronic communications without judicial oversight or probable cause. Telecoms, for their part, make a tidy sum of money ($65 a head in one case...do the math) providing the feds with our 'private' account information and communications records. Last year the CEO of Sprint bragged at a security conference how his company had recently provided the feds with records for 8 million customers.

[tvashtarkatena]

Look, if you don't believe in some of the Constitution's most fundamental principles; protection against search and seizure, probable cause, due process, checks and balances (judicial oversight), prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, and habeas corpus, fine. As an American who values liberty, and who believes that liberty is codified in our Constitution, I beg to differ.

 

But to assert that the Bush Administration (with the aid of Congress) was even remotely respectful of those liberties is simply ludicrous and unsupportable.

[Nitrox]

Look, if you don't believe in some of the Constitution's most fundamental principles; protection against search and seizure, probable cause, due process, checks and balances (judicial oversight), prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, and habeas corpus, fine. As an American who values liberty, and who believes that liberty is codified in our Constitution, I beg to differ.

 

But to assert that the Bush Administration (with the aid of Congress) was even remotely respectful of those liberties is simply ludicrous and unsupportable.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

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.

 

 

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.

 

Your objections to the administration's openness are taken practically word for word from StopTheACLU.com. Just learned of the existence of that site LULZ

 

Perhaps the administration, in its announcement a) feels the need to pander to armchair Rambos such as yourself and your teabagger buddies or b) actually believes in open government and that public debate on the issue is healthy. Woah, DOOD! Fkin FAR OUT!

 

It seems like a couple of questions are at play here:

 

1) Is this guy really 'taking up arms' against the U.S.? Publicized evidence seems dubious to nonexistent. Speech does not equate with taking up arms. It may constitute treason, but that's a different thing entirely. Entertainment value: LOW. If so, assassination may be on the table. Entertainment value: HIGH. As we've already seen here just from 'talking about it', Armchair Rambos are gonna lap that shit right up, no wiping.

 

2) Is this guy advocating others to take up arms against the U.S.? Published evidence seems dubious to maybe. If so, assassination should not be on the table, at least in any legal sense, although, as we've seen, administrations ignore that shit all the time. Entertainment value: CHANGE THE CHANNEL.

 

Given the sketchy public evidence, it seems to me that the administration should proceed conservatively on this one and get its facts straight. Given that this is historically an unlikely possibility, assassination seems like a bad idea. Of course, that's based on a thimbleful of media evidence, which is probably completely wrong. That thimbleful, however, is apparently enough for a lot of folks here to LET THE DOGS OUT!

 

I imagine what's going on 'behind the scenes' is that some key CIA folks simply think this guy's a real dick and they'd like him to STFU.

 

If the CIA does whack the guy, the consequences will likely amount to a few more armchair Rambos springing semis and voting democrat for the midterms and a few more jihadis blowing shit up. You probably won't see the courts getting involved. I suppose the guy's fam could sue for civil damages, which would make for some awesome reality TV, but the CIA would just show up, utter the magic words 'national security', and the gavel would drop. Cut to Cialis commercial.

 

 

Edited May 15, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

Look, if you don't believe in some of the Constitution's most fundamental principles; protection against search and seizure, probable cause, due process, checks and balances (judicial oversight), prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, and habeas corpus, fine. As an American who values liberty, and who believes that liberty is codified in our Constitution, I beg to differ.

 

But to assert that the Bush Administration (with the aid of Congress) was even remotely respectful of those liberties is simply ludicrous and unsupportable.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

Warning: Attempting to actually engage a moron here.

 

I do believe in universal health care, and health care as a fundamental right. I'd like to see the Constitution amended to include that right, as other civilized nations have done.

 

I don't think too much of the health care bill, but it's a step. The political reality is that if we hadn't approved it the system would have continued to spiral out of control for another decade, and this country can't afford to let that happen.

 

I realize that your tiny kit bag of rhetorical devices most regularly employs putting forth straw man arguments for your opponents, rather than addressing your opponents actual beliefs; a more complex task that apparently exceeds your abilities. I understand that considering competing ideas is completely beyond you.

 

Having said that, my previous posts will show that I highlighted my discomfort at being mandated by the federal government to purchase a commercial product FOR SIMPLY BEING ALIVE, which makes this a distinctly different issue than, say, mandated (private) car insurance at the state level. Contrary to current teabagger mythology, that movement's happy substitute for our somewhat more deliberative and less vociferous Supreme Court, I recognize that this new mandate has yet to be Constitutionally tested. There is no certainty that it will ever be tested at all.

 

I'm in favor single payer health care that is as publicly administered as possible. I believe that all critical social functions: the military, the police, the courts, should be public ones. The government is both not for profit and beholden to us: corporations are not.

 

All the usual arguments against such a public system (lack of 'competition', long lines, lack of innovation, blah blah) are shiite: they've been debunked by the more than 50 countries who have successfully enjoyed various incarnations of such a system, as well as those public health care systems operating successfully within our own country.

 

The system I want is not what we have, nor will we have it for a while (eventually, we'll have to). In the interim, I've made the decision to support what passed, despite concerns about mandated purchases for private services, because its a step in the right direction and I always take the long view.

Edited May 15, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

 

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.

 

 

 

 

More accurately, I highlighted a moron's desire to have the government remove him from the public debate through its silence, rather than involve him through its openness.

 

Stop me before I have to think again!

 

Open government. That's a toughie for baggers, I know.

Edited May 15, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[Nitrox]

I like how expertly you sidestepped acknowledging your obvious mistake. I'll play along though.

 

Your objections to the administration's openness are taken practically word for word from StopTheACLU.com. Just learned of the existence of that site LULZ

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.

 

Perhaps the administration, in its announcement a) feels the need to pander to armchair Rambos such as yourself and your teabagger buddies or b) actually believes in open government and that public debate on the issue is healthy. Woah, DOOD! Fkin FAR OUT!

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.

 

It seems like a couple of questions are at play here:

 

1) Is this guy really 'taking up arms' against the U.S.? Publicized evidence seems dubious to nonexistent. Speech does not equate with taking up arms. It may constitute treason, but that's a different thing entirely. Entertainment value: LOW. If so, assassination may be on the table. Entertainment value: HIGH. As we've already seen here just from 'talking about it', Armchair Rambos are gonna lap that shit right up, no wiping.

 

2) Is this guy advocating others to take up arms against the U.S.? Published evidence seems dubious to maybe. If so, assassination should not be on the table, at least in any legal sense, although, as we've seen, administrations ignore that shit all the time. Entertainment value: CHANGE THE CHANNEL.

I think the guy should be brought in if possible. I doubt anywhere close to all the evidence is being made public.

 

the sketchy public evidence, it seems to me that the administration should proceed conservatively on this one and get its facts straight. Given that this is historically an unlikely possibility, assassination seems like a bad idea. Of course, that's based on a thimbleful of media evidence, which is probably completely wrong. That thimbleful, however, is apparently enough for a lot of folks here to LET THE DOGS OUT!

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.

 

I imagine what's going on 'behind the scenes' is that some key CIA folks simply think this guy's a real dick and they'd like him to STFU.

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".

 

If the CIA does whack the guy, the consequences will likely amount to a few more armchair Rambos springing semis and voting democrat for the midterms and a few more jihadis blowing shit up. You probably won't see the courts getting involved. I suppose the guy's fam could sue for civil damages, which would make for some awesome reality TV, but the CIA would just show up, utter the magic words 'national security', and the gavel would drop. Cut to Cialis commercial.

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.

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

So, in short, you violently agree with me, albeit without getting a single one of my jokes.

 

Cool.

 

You do seem to have trouble distinguishing between statements of personal opinion based on necessarily incomplete information, which are clearly identified as such, and manifesto.

 

Could be a projection issue.

 

Edited May 15, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

Oh, and what do you know of the ACLU 'in its practice'?

 

Pray tell, I'm all ears.

 

You might want to read up on its principles, as well. I'm not sure 'bigotry' or 'racism' is on the list. I think you might be confusing us with the NRA. We do the rest of the amendments, just not the 2nd one. Sorry.

Edited May 15, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[Nitrox]

You proved my point.

 

The system I want is not what we have, nor will we have it for a while (eventually, we'll have to). In the interim, I've made the decision to support what passed, despite concerns about mandated purchases for private services, because its a step in the right direction and I always take the long view.

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.

[tvashtarkatena]

Sorry your side lost. Being the castrated minority party sucks, doesn't it?

 

If I had been Obama, I would have been pushing for zero, rather than 200 Rfuck sponsored amendments to the bill. Zero amendments for zero votes.

 

Seems fair to me.

[Nitrox]

Sorry your side lost. Being the castrated minority party sucks, doesn't it?

 

If I had been Obama, I would have been pushing for zero, rather than 200 Rfuck sponsored amendments to the bill. Zero amendments for zero votes.

 

Seems fair to me.

 

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.

 

 

[Nitrox]

So, in short, you violently agree with me, albeit without getting a single one of my jokes.

 

Cool.

 

You do seem to have trouble distinguishing between statements of personal opinion based on necessarily incomplete information, which are clearly identified as such, and manifesto.

 

Could be a projection issue.

 

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.

[tvashtarkatena]

You proved my point.

 

The system I want is not what we have, nor will we have it for a while (eventually, we'll have to). In the interim, I've made the decision to support what passed, despite concerns about mandated purchases for private services, because its a step in the right direction and I always take the long view.

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.

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

So, in short, you violently agree with me, albeit without getting a single one of my jokes.

 

Cool.

 

You do seem to have trouble distinguishing between statements of personal opinion based on necessarily incomplete information, which are clearly identified as such, and manifesto.

 

Could be a projection issue.

 

 

 

Everyone is dumb but you blah blah blah.

 

No...pretty much just you and a couple of others. Everybody else here is pretty smart.

[tvashtarkatena]

The best part about that passing of the health care bill was that it proved that the Rfucks will not horse trade votes for concessions. The Dems are now free to ignore them entirely.

 

You fuckers cut your own dicks off on that one, but that's politics. HARD STUFF.

 

Even harder when you're complete assholes.

 

And, BTW, the majority of Americans support health care reform. You and your bagger buddies may not, but then again most Americans don't exactly share your love of randomly stopping anybody who looks like a Mexican and asking for their papers, do they? You're an outlier, but you love that.

 

Mark my words, this legislation, despite its flaws, will prove to be popular once it kicks in.

Edited May 15, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[Nitrox]

You proved my point.

 

The system I want is not what we have, nor will we have it for a while (eventually, we'll have to). In the interim, I've made the decision to support what passed, despite concerns about mandated purchases for private services, because its a step in the right direction and I always take the long view.

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:

 

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.

 

 

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.

[Nitrox]

Oh, and what do you know of the ACLU 'in its practice'?

 

Pray tell, I'm all ears.

 

You might want to read up on its principles, as well. I'm not sure 'bigotry' or 'racism' is on the list. I think you might be confusing us with the NRA. We do the rest of the amendments, just not the 2nd one. Sorry.

 

Aaaand close with "racism".

 

Impressive.

[tvashtarkatena]

I'd love to be a God among men, but damn, I'm an atheist.

 

 

"Not a big fan of the ACLU in its practice but I am in its theory."

 

What constitutes the 'theory' of the ACLU, in your view, and how does it differ from it's 'practice'?

 

What, exactly, about its practice do you object to?

 

Promise I won't call you any more names or make fun of your answers to this one.

Edited May 15, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[Dane]

More than any other president save perhaps Lincoln (early in the Civil War, and his violations were much narrower in scope and more short term) the Bush Administration, with the help of Congress, trampled all over the Constitution

 

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

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

More than any other president save perhaps Lincoln (early in the Civil War, and his violations were much narrower in scope and more short term) the Bush Administration, with the help of Congress, trampled all over the Constitution

 

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.

 

[Nitrox]

More than any other president save perhaps Lincoln (early in the Civil War, and his violations were much narrower in scope and more short term) the Bush Administration, with the help of Congress, trampled all over the Constitution

 

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.

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

An ACLU attorney might. I'm not such an animal.

[Dane]

I vote who I think will be the best leader at the time and of the options available.

 

Nixon- McGovern

Carter- Ford

Carter- Regan

Reagan- Mondale

Bush- Mondale

Bush- Dukakis

Clinton- Bush?

Clinton- Dole?

Bush- Gore?

Bush or Kerry?

McCain or Obama?

 

Not a lot of choice imo and none with the biting intellect of Tvash or Palin thankfully.

 

Carter is a good example of a honest and well respected man. As a President, sadly, he goes down in history as one of the worst.

 

If you don't recongnise that the last 10 years have been a little trying on heads of state you're an idiot.

 

Be a whole lot of you on the other 1/2 dead without a few draconia laws put in place and actions taken. Which is why we elect new Presidents and challenge draconia laws at the Supreme Court. But hey sheep are suppose to be stupid. Which is why there are sheep dogs to protect them.

 

Best way to not get a "wanted dead or alive" poster printed with your face on it? Don't hang out with people who routinely kill other people.

 

Some times in real life it is hard to separate the sheep from the sheep dogs or the sheep dogs from the wolves.

 

Always people willing to kill and died for a cause on both sides. We all should be thankful that in our country the pendulum will swing both ways but it never gets far on either side for long.