I[t] doesn't sound like Eisenhower would consider calling for the assassination of Supreme Court justices he didn't agree with. He must have been an unSerious "leftist" and a "collectivist".

Today Eisenhower would be a far left radical in this country. That's because the neocons have moved the center somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan.

But read Eisenhower's "Cross of Iron" speech (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9743.htm):

The way chosen by the United States was plainly marked by a few clear precepts, which govern its conduct in world affairs.

First: No people on earth can be held, as a people, to be enemy, for all humanity shares the common hunger for peace and fellowship and justice.

Second: No nation's security and well-being can be lastingly achieved in isolation but only in effective cooperation with fellow-nations.

Third: Any nation's right to form of government and an economic system of its own choosing is inalienable.

Fourth: Any nation's attempt to dictate to other nations their form of government is indefensible.

And fifth: A nation's hope of lasting peace cannot be firmly based upon any race in armaments but rather upon just relations and honest understanding with all other nations.

Fifty-four years is a long time in Republican political circles. The Soviet Union collapsed in seventy years. The United States has become the ideological successor to the Soviet Union. The United States has about seventy years from the disintegration of the Soviet Union to either collapse or to reverse its ideology to the values that opposed those of the Soviets. The clock is running.

I like the part where Floyd leaves out the 19 insurgents killed, leaving the impression that only civilians were killed.

Still playing catchup. He isn't smart enough to figure out that "insurgents" is milspeak for "males of military age" (i.e., between the ages of about 15 and 55). So when the Military press release says first that "X insurgents were killed" and then, when Y are identified as women and children, the next press release says "Z insurgents were killed" (where Z = X-Y) what this means is that of the people killed, X were males of military age and the rest were women and children. Basically, any dead Iraqi killed by the US military is an "insurgent" until identified as a woman or child. If nobody says that there were any women and children among the dead then they are all insurgents. Because, you know, the military doesn't target civilians (that would be a war crime) so anyone the military kills must be a combatant. It's very simple, really — simple enough for shooter to understand.

Anonymoose writing as nabalnazi:

Absent a Supreme Court ruling to the contrary, it is the legal obligation of any corporation or individual to presume any such request by the Executive Branch to be legally binding.

Iokannan writing as himself:

Explain how you come to this conclusion please within our present democratic republican form of government. Your 'conclusion' sounds unhealthily like an admission of fascist tendencies.

nabalnazi replies:

Please!!! Don't insult my intelligence! It is an elementary principle - a Law of Nature, transcending even the US Constitution.

The principle you are espousing is known as the "Divine Right of Kings". I hate to be the one to break it to you, but as a governing principle it went off with Charles I's head in 1649. Do try to keep up with current events.

This is not to say that law by executive fiat is unknown in the modern day. You'll find it in places like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Mugabe's Zimbabwe. As I remember, Saddam Hussein was hanged for employing it. But in real democracies, the executive is answerable to the people through its elected representatives. No one is above the law, even the chief executive. You rely heavily on ancient Greece and Rome. I presume that you know, because you vaunt your "intelligence" highly, that Socrates drank the hemlock to show that no man is above the law. Now you are telling us that Socrates was a fool who died in vain because the executive is the law.

No one here will buy that. Even shooter wouldn't agree that no law or constitution can restrain the executive because of some "natural law". The only natural law that shooter recognizes is that everyone will always act in their own self-interest.

As for "insulting your intelligence", that is impossible. You have yet to demonstrate that you have any intelligence that can be insulted. Indeed, for you to refer to your thought processes as "intelligence" is an insult to sentient beings throughout the universe.

... from reading:

As demonstrated there, eavesdropping is not the issue. It still remains, that no one knows for sure what was done, or whether it was illegal, or even if the Constitutional duties of the President override the FISA law. Or even for that matter whether FISA applies here. As always for liberals it's only the seriousness of the charge that counts, evidence is secondary. And what the hell, they can afford it right? As always IOKIYAD.

Seriously shooter, you are wasting your time on the golf course. You could be pulling in big bucks as a staff writer for The Onion. Satire like that is priceless.

ps: You forgot the "Tsk!" at the beginning and the "Heh" at the end. Try to remember next time just so we know it's really you.

When someone cites revenue, it's a sure sign he's making a dishonest argument.

And when someone cites a quotation out of context, it's an equally sure sign he's making a dishonest argument.