A small snippet of where our country started and where it is today.

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
-- Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.


"You have no civil liberties if you are dead."
-- Sen. Pat Roberts, May 18, 2006.

Before you start mentioning monitoring programs that have been employed since the Carter admin or some poor innocent guy in Guatanamo Bay that happened to be making daily collect calls to Yemin, answer the question directly.  Can you name a single civil liberty you have actually lost?  It is so ironic that the president who gets trashed so bad in public open forums is also the one who is accused of taking away our freedoms.  
I can actually name one or two:
Remember the list of FBI files collected of all of the President's political enemies.  Some former bouncer from DC that was on the First Lady's payroll was caught with them and he couldn't explain why he had them.  All of those people were shown to have been continually audited by the IRS.
That was pretty bad.  That was under the Clinton administration.  But hey, no abuse of power there.

My profession takes me to the various courts every day. Every day I must go through a metal detector and send my appurtenances through an X-ray machine to enter these courts.

 Several years ago I was entering the Federal Court in down town Los Angeles. I went through the usual drill but because of metal snaps on the overall type outfit I was wearing the metal detector buzzed. I pointed out the snaps to the Federal Marshal and merely asked him to employ his 'wand' which is a common practice at that point. For what reason I do not know he refused to use the wand that sat only 12 inches from his reach, and He informed me that I could not enter until I could pass through the metal detector without setting it off. I informed him that to do that I would have to take off my one-piece outer garment and that all I had under it was my BVDs.
At 3:45pm needing to get to the clerks window by the 4:00pm closing I had no choice but to disrobe to my underwear in the main public lobby of the Los Angeles Federal District court so to appease the sadistic, megalomania of a federal employee paid by MY tax dollar.

"Those who would trade essential liberties for temporary security; deserve neither"
                                                                       (Benjamin Franklin)
       
 

-- Modified on 5/19/2006 8:21:24 AM

We have all lost these liberties, rightwinger. It was your party that said they were going to keep the government out of our lives -- they've done the opposite. Freedom is not "on the march". It is being restricted and taken away.

Are you really serious with this line of reasoning? We are not dumb and we are not blind my friend.

Reue process, search & seizure, privacy to start with.

We aren't. He is.

So one person is complaining about a pain in the ass metal detector.  Another brings up due process, yada, yada but I'm sure it never actually happened to him or anyone he knows.  I'm sure there is some "Boogie Man" story on The Huffington Report as your evidence.  In other words... none.

And yet another enlightened liberal has proved his intelligence by countering my lucid statement by calling me stupid.

Hey Gonzo-  Your books were over-rated and they were BullShit!.  No one takes that many drugs and lives.  You're such an asshole that you made both Johnny Depp and Terry Gilliam look bad with that stupid movie! Who the hell wears a sun visor indoors? You ended up killing yourself because you realized you were as worthless as that smelly-ass hippie culture of yours!  Richie Havens Sucks!  Of couse, I could be wrong.

-- Modified on 5/19/2006 2:21:33 PM

First of all, you missed the point of comparing the quotes.  It is not a lament over the loss of civil liberties.  It is a lament over the fact that we Americans are now cowards.

When our founding fathers rose up against the British, they had support of around 20% of the country.  They were taking on the most powerful military on the planet using militia.  By all logical appearances, they were going to lose the war badly, and all be executed as traitors.

However, they were brave enough to face all that because they believed in freedom.  And we are throwing that freedom away because so many of our countrymen are piss-drenched cowards who are hiding under their beds, calling out for a king to protect them.

Now, on to the civil liberties we've actually lost.

Well, there's this big one: Bush is holding US citizens in prison without trial or access to council.  That's a massive violation of the 6th amendment, and about the most horrific possible abuse of civil liberties possible.

"Before you start mentioning monitoring programs that have been employed since the Carter admin"

All monitoring before Bush happened with a warrant.  Or so everyone who has any insider knowledge is saying.  More to the point, all monitoring before Bush was highly targeted against 'suspicious' people.  Bush's program monitors EVERY phone call, basically the definition of a fishing expedition which is unconstitutional.

So, our current administration has completely trashed the 4th amendment too.

Then there's the government's violation of our 1st amendment rights: protesters are now kept in 'free speech zones', several blocks away from the president and completely out of his view.  Often buses are parked between the protesters and W so he doesn't have to worry his little head about seeing protesters.  Anyone protesting along the entire motorcade route is forcibly moved to these zones.

I find it very interesting that you're so concerned about the civil liberties of a handful of people "wronged" by the Clintons, yet see no problem with taking away civil liberties of the other 290 million of us.

(Btw, once you get audited once by the IRS, you are very, very likely to get audited over and over again)


-- Modified on 5/19/2006 3:15:45 PM

a conservative who's been indicted.  

And THAT's the reason there's so fucking many of them, they're always getting convicted.   Fucking conservatives have so goddamned many rules that they forget to exempt themselves from half of them, and are always stepping on their dicks.

Yeah, what's a little due process?  You already know who the bad guys are, and if you're too stoopid to remember, you can always make them wear little colored ribbons, right?

You COULD be wrong?   You ARE wrong.

This is a war!  The Guatanamo Bay prisoners are enemy combatants.  Since you will never except there are people out there trying to kill us you have found a way to compare our enemies to common criminals.  US citizens who take up with enemy forces relinquesh their rights as citizens.  That isn't Bush's law. Clinton treated fighting terrorism as a law enforcement issue.  How did that work out? 11 major attacks here and abroad without one reprisal.  Remember Osama calling us a "Paper Tiger"?  It's because we refused to acknowledge we are in a war.  Do you really think those people are innocent?  If only liberals hated terrorists as much as they hate Bush, we might have something.

Not one phone call is being wire tapped W/ out a warrant.  I'm sure you know that.  You should actually research what they are doing.  Better yet, let's turn a blind eye to suspected terrorist.  The Clinton plan!

Oh no! You can't carry your "Bush is Hitler" sign in certain areas.  This is just like that Waichowski Bros. movie.  We are in a police state!  Where's Che?  Who can save us?  I find it so comical that the people who are worried about personal freedoms are the ones that support every tyrant in the world.  
"Bring back Saddam!  We love Castro!  Stalin wasn't so bad!  Bush is Hitler!"  

And oh yes, you tend to get audited 4 years in a row when you're making $18,000 a year and happen to be suing the Pres. for sexual misconduct.

Now someone please retort by calling me stupid.  The great liberal comeback.  Yo were 0for2 doing it against Reagan and you're 0for2 doing it against Bush.



-- Modified on 5/19/2006 4:26:14 PM

and tell us what administration was too fucking ignorant to pay attention to a system that was "blinking red".

Too busy sniffing Democratic panties, I guess.

Oh, the beyond reproach 911 report.  Who can ever question that?  Jamie Gorelic, Richard Ben Veniste, Tom Kean and the rest of them are the smartest people in the world.  They should run the country as an oligarchy because they know everything.  They can never be questioned, just like the UN.  The difinitive report. (note the sarcasm)
By the way, that red light is still blinking.  It seems like once again the libs are ignoring it.  At least Neville Chamberlain only fucked up once!  You guys can't help yourself.

PS- nice "idiot" comeback.  I wish I was smart enough to come up with a witty comeback.

anything criticizing any Republican must be biased.

I retract the idiot comment.  You aren't that bright.

I'm not claiming it's biased. I just find it amazing how people treat the report and all of their recommendations as gospel.  Who the hell are these people?  Janet Reno's understudy and the ex-Gov. of New Jersey?  They have all the answers.  Most "Blue Ribbon Panels" are big political hand jobs.

Now quickly!  Comment on my intelligence again.  If you're not going to be intelligent or witty, at least don't be predictable.

ie, that you aren't claiming that 9/11 comission report was biased, but that people take it as gospel, or that they are beyond reproach.

Not so.   But it was one of the most significant reports, AND a bi-partisan report, and it turned out highly critical, apparantely not merely because of the level of damage.

IOW, if a bipartisan group makes a lengthy study and comes up with serious allegations, and your comments (ie that they aren't perfect and shouldn't be taken for gospel) are the most serious refutations there are, then it seems to me that it was not the Clintons who fucked up, but the Bushes.

They don't have to be perfect, only substantially correct.   Nobody has seriously refuted them, and you're not even trying here.

That does make some suggestions about your intelligence, if you are thinking that "not gospel" is an adequate answer.   Your position makes you a very poor advocate for Republicans, in that it seems ideology rather than fact based.

"This is a war!  The Guatanamo Bay prisoners are enemy combatants"

1. This isn't a war.  Wars have to be declared by Congress, and there has been no declaration of war.

2. The US Citizens I spoke of are not held in Gitmo.  They are (were) being held in a navy brig in South Carolina.

"Since you will never except there are people out there trying to kill us you have found a way to compare our enemies to common criminals."

Our enemies are common criminals.  Foolish people elevate them to "evil mastermind" status, thus giving them power and influence they'd never have if we treated them like Tim McVeigh.

"US citizens who take up with enemy forces relinquesh their rights as citizens."

Please cite the relevant article of the US constitution that says this.  Hint: You can't, because it's not in there.  Until a citizen is convicted of a crime through due process, they retain all the rights of any other citizen.

"11 major attacks here and abroad without one reprisal. "

Gee..I seem to remember you right-wingers getting your panties in a bunch when Clinton bombed that "asprin factory" in the sudan, while also launching airstrikes against Osama's camps in Afghanistan.  Plus there's the convition of the Khobar Towers plotters, the original WTC bombers, McVeigh, the thwarted New-Years-Day-2000 attacks, and so on, and so on.

"Remember Osama calling us a "Paper Tiger"?  It's because we refused to acknowledge we are in a war."

No, he said that because fools like you would be so incensed that you'd fulfill all his wet dreams.  Think about it: We've abandoned our bases in Saudi Arabia (one of his major goals), we're an international parriah (another goal), we're destroying the freedom that made our country great (another goal), our blundering about has created a massive funding and recruiting surge for him (another goal).  Osama can rest easy now, knowing Bush has done so much to help him.

"Do you really think those people are innocent?"

It doesn't matter what I think.  Those of us who believe in the rule of law will treat them as innocent until they are proven guilty in a court of law.  That doesn't mean we won't support efforts to capture them, but it means until the government proves it's case in court, we can't start punishing anyone.

"You should actually research what they are doing."

In industry lingo, what they are doing is called a "Trap and Trace".  It requires a warrant, just like a wiretap.  The only reason they are not wiretapping is it's not technically feasable to analize that much voice data.

"Better yet, let's turn a blind eye to suspected terrorist."

You better hope that the Bush admin is just stepping on civil liberties.  The government has acknoledged that they spied on 10s of millions of Americans.  If there are 10s of millions of terrorists in the US, we're completely screwed.

"Oh no! You can't carry your "Bush is Hitler" sign in certain areas."

What part of "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech [...] or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"  do you not understand?

It doesn't matter what my sign says.  As long as I'm not threatening anyone, the government is simply not allowed to tell me where to stand based on the content of a sign I'm carrying.

"I find it so comical that the people who are worried about personal freedoms are the ones that support every tyrant in the world."

I have no love of tyrants.  That's why I oppose Bush.  His administration repeatedly ignores laws it finds inconvenient.  That is the action of a tyrant.

"Bring back Saddam!  We love Castro!  Stalin wasn't so bad!  Bush is Hitler!"

You'll find I never said anything like that.  What you're doing is called creating a strawman argument.  You attempt to pile up a bunch of outrageous statements, claim I believe them, then knock them down.  It's one of the major signs of someone who can't handle a real argument.

I opposed the Iraq war before the invasion not because Saddam was warm and cuddly.  I opposed it because I did not believe we could possibly win the peace.  And every day I wish that I was wrong.

As for the rest of your supposed quote, try actually using something I said.

"And oh yes, you tend to get audited 4 years in a row when you're making $18,000 a year and happen to be suing the Pres. for sexual misconduct."

If you are speaking of Paula, she was living way beyond her means.  It turns out she was being supported by several right-wing philanthropists, but the IRS is going to be very suspicious of anyone who appears to have a pile of unreported income.

"Now someone please retort by calling me stupid.  The great liberal comeback."

Yet another strawman argument.  I think by the content of this post I've demonstrated that I'm not just going to call you stupid.  Frankly, I don't get any satisfaction by calling someone names.  Instead, I prefer to shred their argument at face value, and let the readers decide.

Foo-  First off you are one of the only people on this board I enjoy arguing with.  Most of the others got to the "stupid" defense.  It wasn't aimed at you.  I disagree with your logic, but it is logic.  That is all I ask.
So we haven't been in a war since WWII I guess.  That is the last time Congress declared it.  Wow, I'll go tell the Korea and Vietnam Vets that.  You're using any technicality you can to try to diminish this WAR with terrorism.  Or more accurately, militant Islam.  There will be a lot more presidents and a lot more blood shed in our time, but you and I both know that Congress won't declare another war.  But guess what, we still have a right to defend ourselves.

You really want to defend Clinton's actions against terrorism?  He attacked an abandoned terrorist camp on what day..hmm.. let me think...  Christmas, no... Arbor Day, no.. Oh yea, Impeachment day!  What a great time to decide to grow a sack. Other than that, nothing.  He tried to sue OBL!  He sent him a summons!  That will show him!  BTW, do you really believe OBL expected America to fight back.  No, he ran Afghanistan and now he's cut off from the world.  He believed America's response would be Clintonian.  Wrong!  We left Saudi Arabia because our military is in Iraq.  The bases were there specifically because of Hussein.  I think he did invade a country or two in his day.  The arguments of America being a pariah.  Oh no, libs biggest fear!  What if Chiraq and Kofi Anan don't like us. How's that Oil for Food thing going?  Did anyone actually get fed, or did all of these people you are so sad hate us get rich off of that scam?  

How can we find the terrorists without using a big net of surveillance?  That is how we will find them.  Basic stuff.  It's a head scratcher.  We need to find them but you don't want us to look for them.  There is no James Bond special terrorist finder that will beep when it sees one.  This is how it is done in the real world.  Time to be a big boy and accept these things.

Again, I am so sorry that you have to cross the street to put up your "Bush is Hitler" sign.  I agree on this point. The sky is truly falling!

Please don't try to defend the Paula Jones fiasco. He actually did plea out.  The PUSA was not confident he could beat some "Trailer Trash" (Carville Quote) in court.  I guess that had something to do with him lying under oath.  I hear that's a no-no.

Tyrant thing.  Sorry buddy.  You guys do like to defend them. Many libs have said that Bush is a bigger threat than Hussein.  Castro gets his ass kissed by the liberal elite.  The Stalin genocide was covered up.  The Congressional Black Caucus defended that tyrant from libyia.  Senator Murray from Wash. praised OBL building daycare facilities.  The NOW never gave Bush credit for removing the Taliban.  Someone once told me they weren't so nice to women.

Thanks for the thoughtful argument Foo(sincerely). This board is 99% Lib so I won't let them decide who was shredded.  I will let the American people decide every two years.  That is when we usually come out on top.  I gotta go now and take my straw man, scarecrow arguments with me.  (Cue Wizard of Oz music).

-- Modified on 5/19/2006 8:18:46 PM

Anyone could find a pair of quotes demonstrating anything.

I mean, it's cute....okay? Just not very probative.

"So we haven't been in a war since WWII I guess.  Wow, I'll go tell the Korea and Vietnam Vets that."

The problem is there are multiple definitions of "War".  There is the war where we send off our soldiers to shoot other people.  Then there's the war that triggers effects on our legal system.

Unless Congress declares war, then you can not use "We're at war!" to justify any changes to the legal system.  We're not legally at war.

(Btw, IIRC Korea was declared.  I could be wrong though.)

"But guess what, we still have a right to defend ourselves."

Yes, we do.  Unfortunately, Iraq was not involved in 9/11.  So our invasion was not defending ourselves.  Also, even if we thought Hussein had WMDs, we could have let the weapon inspectors finish their jobs and show Iraq didn't have any.  Remember, Hussein said the inspectors could go anywhere just before the war started.

"He attacked an abandoned terrorist camp on what day."

Our intelligence was out-of-date.  We missed bin Laden by 4 hours.  The camp, btw, was not abandoned.  We did kill some al Queda and Taliban.

"Oh yea, Impeachment day!"

On the day Clinton was impeached, he polled a 76% approval rating.  Clinton did not need to 'wag the dog' because impeachment was not hurting his popularity.

"Other than that, nothing."

I've already given you several examples that prove this statement is bullshit.  Let me put it this way.  The people who planned and executed the first WTC attacks are all in jail.  The people who planned and executed the OKC bombing are in jail today.  The people who exectued the bombing on the Cole are in jail today.  The people who planned and executed 9/11 are free to wander around the Afghanistan/Pakistan border (there were 'logistics' personnel who did not die that day).  So, who's doing a better job bringing terrorists to justice?

Btw, you'll notice I left out the people who planned the attack on the Cole.  That's because the Clinton administration had made plans to invade Afghanistan.  The Bush administration used these plans after 9/11.  Clinton has said he did not invade because he did not want to do to the next president what HW Bush did to him with Somalia.

"BTW, do you really believe OBL expected America to fight back"

Yes.  He was counting on it.  bin Laden wants a climatic Islam vs. the West war, where Islam can destroy the infidels and take it's proper place of power over the world.

"No, he ran Afghanistan and now he's cut off from the world."

Actually, he helped plan the Cole and 9/11 operations while in Afghanistan.  That doesn't sound much like "cut off from the world", now does it?

"We left Saudi Arabia because our military is in Iraq."

Doesn't matter, it's still a victory for the terrorists.

"The arguments of America being a pariah.  Oh no, libs biggest fear!  What if Chiraq and Kofi Anan don't like us."

Before 2002, the US was the beacon of hope for the world.  We were the example of freedom and liberty.  We were the goal of everyone who was struggling for their own freedom.  That was destroyed when we invaded Iraq.  And it will not be repaired in my lifetime.  A beautiful thing died that day, and it saddens me all the more that people like you are unable to recognize it.  Instead, you seem to think international relations is a giant dick-waving contest.

"How's that Oil for Food thing going?"

The US approved all of the 'suspicious' transactions in the oil-for-food program.  In fact, the US was a party to 20%-30% of those transactions.  If we actually cared about the program we could have done something back in HW Bush's administration.  Oil for food is only a "scandal" now because the Republicans needed more bad stuff to pin on Hussein and the UN.

"How can we find the terrorists without using a big net of surveillance?"

A big net does not have to be made of illegal surveillance.  There are many laws under which legal surveillance could be done.  Even if there wasn't, Congress could easily create a new law to cover it.  Also, if the surveillance is illegal, we can't legally do anything to people we catch based on this program.  The terrorists belong in jail and the NSA program means we can't put them there.  And before you say "just kill them", remember that plan has failed miserably for the Israelis for decades.

Btw, several FBI agents have complained that there are so many false leads coming out of the NSA that they are unable to run down many 'solid' leads coming from other sources.

"There is no James Bond special terrorist finder that will beep when it sees one."

There is no James Bond special terrorist dectector that will beep when two disposible cell phones call each other to plan a terrorist attack.

Btw, al Queda has known for years that we can spy on any electronic communications.  They use a lot of couriers and person-to-person meetings to get around our surveillance.

"Time to be a big boy and accept these things."

If you are so juvinile that you can't understand that the president SHOULD NOT BREAK THE LAW, then you really are beyond hope.

"The sky is truly falling!"

Being condecending will not get you a reasoned debate.  Grow up if you want one.

"He actually did plea out.  The PUSA was not confident he could beat some "Trailer Trash" (Carville Quote) in court."

No, Clinton settled the case because he was out of money.  His legal bills had reached many millions of dollars.  Paula's bills were being paid by the same philanthropists that bought her new nose.

Btw, the Jones case is very facinating.  She didn't actually have any standing to bring a case.  She claimed she was sexually harrassed, but her job was not put in jepordy, nobody who agreed to sex got promoted over her, and since she never saw Clinton again he couldn't have created a hostile work environment.  Yet every time the case was dismissed it kept being reinstated.

Btw, Clinton didn't lie under oath, which is why he was never tried for perjury.  The judge screwed up.  When asked if he had sexual relations with any other women, Clinton asked the judge to define "sexual relations".  She limited it to intercourse.  Since Clinton only got a BJ from Monica, he did not commit perjury.  Sure, several bars considered it an ethical violation, in that he should have volunteered the BJ, but it wasn't a lie.

It's also quite fasinating your contiued furor over Clinton's supposed purjury and complete support of Bush's lawbreaking.  Bush has used 'signing statements' to illegally violate around 150 laws.  He's ignored around 750 others.  If Bush was tried and convicted of charges from the NSA spying, he'd face 10,000 years in prison.  Clinton might have faced one or 2 years for perjury.  Yet you are upset about Clinton's "lawbreaking" but not Bush's.

"You guys do like to defend them."

In another thread, you were claiming to be your own man and not just a Republican shill.  If you want to be treated that way, you'll have to treat others that way.  So either find somewhere where I defended "a tyrant" or stop pretending to be your own man.

"Many libs have said that Bush is a bigger threat than Hussein"

That's because he was.  Before the war, Hussein was an evil bastard but contained to his country.  He had no viable army, and he had no way to threaten his neighbors with conventional weapons or WMDs.  Bush is shredding the Constitution.  That's far more dangerous to me and my family than a far-off dictator who has no power even in parts of his own country.

"Castro gets his ass kissed by the liberal elite"

Please cite some examples.  If it's such a massive trend, you should be able to find dozens.

"The Stalin genocide was covered up."

Must've been done very, very poorly, because I learned about it waaaaay back in one high school history class.

"The Congressional Black Caucus defended that tyrant from libyia"

Please cite some examples.

"Senator Murray from Wash. praised OBL building daycare facilities."

Yes, it was a comparison.  Even bin Laden can build daycare facilites.  Why can't the US Government?  They'd let our impoverished people climb out of poverty because they'd have some place to put their kids while they went to work.

"The NOW never gave Bush credit for removing the Taliban.  Someone once told me they weren't so nice to women"

Two problems there.  1. We didn't rid Afghanistan of the Taliban.  We never drove them from the south.  The Taliban are back fighting for control, which is why NATO is more than doubling it's troop deployment.  And 2: Bush put the warlords in charge of Afghanistan.  They're just as nasty to women as the Taliban.  Except for a headdy period just after the invasion, things have not gone very well for the women of Afghanistan.

Foo-  Quick rebuttal this time.  I apreciate your lengthy reply but I've got to mow the lawn and stuff.

Examples:
1) Katie Couric praising Cuba's literacy rate and healthcare on national TV.  Complete hogwash by the way!  The elite media praise the guy.  How about Charlie Rangel having him as a guest and vice/versa praising each other.
2) The Stalin genocide was covered up until long after his death.  A NY Times writer who witnessed it received a Pulitzer for his non-coverage.  BTW, The mainstream media does count as part of the liberal establishment. I know, FOXNEWSFOXNEWSFOXNEWS.
3) Wow, defending Sen. Murray.  So OBL has a more progressive child care system than USA?  I'm speechless.
4) Of course we haven't removed 100% of Taliban.  Guess what, remember Kosovo?  Do you think Clinton stopped the violence there.  Not at all.  He tried but it takse a long tome to wipe that clean.  There was Nazis resistence hiding in the mountains for over 10 year after WWII.
5)  Women aren't getting publicly beheaded any more and they can attend school.  I would say that is somewhat of an improvement.  As the libs seem to see things, unless we turn Afghanistan into Eden it will always be some kind of failure.  This is the 21st and every society has serious flaws you can bring up to show how it's a failure.  I only wished you guys focused a bit more on France(the country we should be more like) with their over 20% unemployment and muslim riots ion the streets.
6) (Correction: Liberia- Not Libyia!  Big difference.  My bad) Maxine Waters and Charlie Rangel stood on the Congress floor and complained about the poor, poor tyrant.
7) I know, I know.  Clinton didn't technically lie.  He's a Rhodes Scholar who didn't understand what it meant.  He also didn't understand it when he said it to the American people.  The Supreme Court also didn't fail to show up to The State of The Union Speech as a form of protest.  The judge who was once a law Prof. of his also didn't publicly condemn his lying to his face.  He also ran out of money because he didn't have a legal defense fund and no one at all with any money was willing to help him.

Alright this isn't a quick reply.  Part II later.

1.  Cuba's literacy rate actually is higher than the US.  On some measures of heathcare, Cuba's medical system is better than ours.  Niether is a praise of Castro.  It's a praise of Cuba's teachers and doctors, who must be doing something right based on those metrics.

2. Um....huh?  You mean that a secretive authoritarian government wasn't forthcoming with the genocide it commited? There's a shocker.

What, exactly, should have been done?  And remember, you have to put yourself in a historical position where you would not know nearly as much about it as you do today.

3.  The fact that bin Laden able to support child care when we can not is not praise of bin Laden.  It's a critique of ourselves.  As the 'richest and most powerful nation on earth', our children should be the best cared for.  A terrorist should not be able to provide better childcare.

4.  The genocide stopped in Kosovo once NATO troops were on the ground.  Of course it's not a nirvana, but nobody's being ethnically clensed anymore, and the radicals that were in charge in Serbia were removed from power and are now being tried for crimes against humanity.  In Afghanistan we pushed the Taliban out of Kabul then left for Iraq.  We didn't leave a small group of partizans, we left vast regions of the country under their control.

5.  Women are getting publically beheaded.  It's still a crime for a woman to go out in public without a related male escort.  Women are still killed in 'honor killings'.  Women are still forced to wear burkas.  Women are still 3rd-class citizens, after livestock.

"As the libs seem to see things, unless we turn Afghanistan into Eden it will always be some kind of failure."

The failure was to move on to Iraq before the mission in Afghanistan was acomplished.

"his is the 21st and every society has serious flaws you can bring up to show how it's a failure."

That has nothing to do with NOW.  Remember, this discussion is not a series of isolated sentences.  You bashed NOW for not cheering on Bush for Afghanistan.  Turns out you agree that women aren't doing all that wonderfully in Afghanistan these days, meaning NOW shouldn't be cheering for Bush.  Your rant about the flaws in other countries is irrelevant to the point you were trying to make.

And, btw, the riots in France weren't muslims, they were young adults from all races.

6.  Huh?  You're getting rather confusing.  Perhaps you can provide some sort of quote or other reference to what you're talking about.  If their statements were indeed made on the floor of Congress, then everything they said is available online.

7.  "He's a Rhodes Scholar who didn't understand what it meant."  Are you going to claim that "sexual relations" is not a vague term?  It could be anything from kissing on to more intimate acts.  Asking the judge for clarification is very common, and the judge screwed up with a narrow definition.  She gave Clinton a loophole to squeeze through, and he took it.  Still not a crime.  It _is_ an ethical violation, which is why those judges acted that way.

As for his legal bills, yes he had a defense fund.  However, it only collect enough money to pay for around 1/2 of the bills.  This is largely because actively fundrasing for it would have been politically difficult.

And still, the case should have never gone to trial in the first place, because Paula didn't have any standing.  Think about that when you're using judges as a symbol of non-partisan morality.

Btw, got any references for the 'boycott the state of the union' story?  All I found through Google was Ann Coulter saying it twice.  Given the massive factual inaccuracies in her books, I wouldn't believe her if she wrote "the sky is blue".

No wonder you start out hollering labels as pejoratives.  

Then you (like most rightwingers, Coulter, Limbaugh, etc.) have the chutzpah to cry that people call you names.  Well, shit, they are trying to communicate with you, and that's the way you communicate.

So if you can't do things my way, ie, reason from facts, then I will do things your way.  Eg, you're an idiotic prick who should be hanged at high noon, and dragged through the streets.   (Got that one straight from Ann Coulter, who needs a pepperstick twisted up her twat.)

Just read your reply:
1) So you buy the Cuba line?  Ask all the people that risk drowning to get the hell out of there how great the literacy and healthcare is.  It is a complete load of shit.  Wow, you seem to give every crappy dictatorship the benefit of the doubt yet implicitly not trust anything good about this country.  Your words are my evidence since we've began this dialogue.  I'll get to your praise of "OBL's progressive daycare system for tots" later.

2) The media was over in the USSR at that time.  They reported from the field where it was happening and covered it up and won awards for it. Ideals over reality.  People like Chomsky still find a way to praise Stalinism.  

3) The daycare thing is a load of shit.  That's my point. How can you believe that?  Did you get it from "The Nation"?  Libs get so pissed off when their patriotism is questioned yet they seem to buy every bit of enemy propoganda hook, lie & sinker.

4)  The violence hasn't stopped at all.  The media just doesn't give a shit anymore.  As long as the UN or NATO is there nobody ever questions it.  BTW, there are many genocides going on that aren't reported because it won't sell papers.  I've got a thread above about the Kosovo "genocide".

5) Turns out that women are going to school and getting jobs in Afghanistan.  Is it a culture based on victimizing women? Yes. Are there still horrible incidents of violence against women? Yes.  Are they run by the state and displayed as entertainment? No.  Is there a whole hell of a lot less violence? Yes.  Is NOW being hypocritical for not praising Bush for doing this? Yes. Will there always be violence against women in muslim countries? Yes.  Will libs point to any isolated negative news and try to paint it all with that broad brush? Yes.

6)  Ok you caught me.  I'm lying.  Or I'm imagining it.  When the leader/dictator of Liberia was removed from office (By US troops for his own safety from the mobs) in early 2004 Maxine Waters, Charlie Rangel and the Black Congress threw a shit fit.  They threw it on the floor and they threw it on every cable news show.  The guy was a dictator and I specifically remember Maxine Waters complaining how "He was awoken from his bed in the middle of the night and didn't have a chance to pack".  This with a massive angry mob ready to burn him at the stake for years of corruption and abuse.  (Dude, I enjoy this back and forth but it takes a lot of time.  No bibliography for this.)

7) So the Supreme Court was there???  Were they wearing invisible make-up?  Either they were there or they weren't there.  It was a big deal.  Clinton's head was on the block, the Supreme Court didn't show up. it was the most viewed SOTU address ever (at least up to that point).  And he makes this great speech and he's totally chipper like nothing was happening.  A classic moment in political theater.  He wasn't boring, I'll give him that much.

PS- Don't dis Ann Coulter.  She's my future wife!

-- Modified on 5/21/2006 10:02:17 PM

-- Modified on 5/21/2006 10:03:52 PM

Let us know how it goes.  

Oh, yeah, be sure to write out your will first.

We know, the Clinton administration stole your right to believe in virginity of interns.

"So you buy the Cuba line?  Ask all the people that risk drowning to get the hell out of there how great the literacy and healthcare is."

Literacy and heathcare are not freedom.  If you're having trouble understanding the concept, you should go back to that Patrick Henry quote that started this thread.

"Wow, you seem to give every crappy dictatorship the benefit of the doubt yet implicitly not trust anything good about this country."

Literacy rates and helthcare metrics are basic statistics.  They are apolitical (that means that by themselves, they have no political meaning).

If Cuba has some better statistics, that's all it means.  It makes no value judgement on Cuba or the US.  You are slapping a value judgement on it with "CUBA BAD!! US GOOD!!".  I'm saying we should steal whatever they're doing that is working better.  I'm not saying Cuba is better.

"The media was over in the USSR at that time.  They reported from the field where it was happening and covered it up and won awards for it. Ideals over reality.  People like Chomsky still find a way to praise Stalinism."

Well, so far all I can figure is you're either talking about the pre-WWII purges or the post-WWII purges under Stalin.  Neither was widely reported at the time they were occuring.

Btw, if genocide is such a horrific crime, why aren't you complaining about Darfur?

"How can you believe that?"

It's pretty simple, really.  The US government provides exactly 0 daycare.  If bin Laden provides any daycare services whatsoever, then he's doing better than the US in providing daycare.  Again, just a fact with no spin on it.

Where the spin comes in is that I feel ashamed that a terrorist is doing better job of providing daycare than my government.  That means I want my government to do a better job, not that I believe bin Laden is good.

"4)  The violence hasn't stopped at all."

Bullshit.  New mass graves are not being filled.  And there's a fair number of Serbs locked up in the Hague now.

It seems you're so desperate to justify Bush's quagmire that you're unable to recognize a sucessful military operation.

"5) Turns out that women are going to school and getting jobs in Afghanistan.  Is it a culture based on victimizing women? Yes. Are there still horrible incidents of violence against women? Yes.  Are they run by the state and displayed as entertainment? No."

Actually, you're wrong on that one.  Public executions are still quite popular.

"Is there a whole hell of a lot less violence? Yes."

And you're wrong on that one too.  There's lots more violence today because you've got a lot of fighting warlords, instead of a nasty dictatorial regime keeping law and order.

"Is NOW being hypocritical for not praising Bush for doing this? Yes."

Ok, so you start this point by saying Afghanistan is a shithole for women.  Then you say NOW should be cheering Bush because Afghanistan being a shithole for women, but now with tree-shaped air freshner.  Yeeeeeah.  That makes sense.

"Will libs point to any isolated negative news and try to paint it all with that broad brush? Yes."

Hmm...what was that about broad brushes, and you claiming that the conditions inside Kabul reflect the entire nation?

"Ok you caught me.  I'm lying.  Or I'm imagining it.  When the leader/dictator of Liberia was removed from office (By US troops for his own safety from the mobs) in early 2004"

[Foo goes to Google.  Foo hits "News" link.  Foo types in 'Liberia 2004 "Maxine Waters"'.  Foo receives 0 hits.  Total time required: 10 seconds]

So...she apparently said soemthing about Liberia that was not covered by any major news orginization in 2004.  Btw, the search for "Liberia 2004", sorted by date did not yield anything about the US removing any Liberian dictators before April, where I stopped looking.  That search took about 5 minutes, since I had to scan through a few pages of results.

So you either need to go find some indication of what you're talking about, or you're really going to have to drop that line of questioning.  I'm not going to debate an event that didn't happen, and I can't find any evidence it did.

"So the Supreme Court was there?"

I never said that.  I said I couldn't find any news story about the Supreme Court _NOT_ being there.  If it was such a big deal, then at least one news organization would have mentioned it _somewhere_ in their State of the Union coverage.

Instead, I found 2 posts by Ann Coulter over at the New Republic.  And as I said before, her grasp of reality is so poor that I'm not trusting what she says.  Get me a 3rd party source, and then we can talk again.

...at which point I'll bring up that there was no legal basis for Jones v. Clinton to ever see a courtroom, yet 'impartial' judges kept reinstating the case.  Or Justice O'Connor saying "Oh No!!" when one news organization reported Gore winning Florida on election night, and then she went on to make sure that didn't really happen when she ruled in Bush v Gore.  Or Justice Thomas not recusing himself from Bush v. Gore even though one of his children was working for the Bush campaign.