While I agree with the force of that statement, I think all the poor people who have been executed or put in prison when they were innocent because they couldn’t buy a fair trial, would agree with you.

There is a dead-star out there.

Many a ship crashed on the rocks.

The neocons perished. They are dead talkers.

This go 'round it's Baghdad's ship Basora and it's a cracked-cask-hull. There ain't any nice fragrant cinnamon, aloe, sage, or any nice spice.

Perchance it best to jump ship? Rocks! Certain death awaits all GOP's still dumb enough to remain aboard. Sindbad said: Not sin bad. Yep. neo-Perdition, again. imho.

But I asked the Clown that lives in my butt, and she said her and the 8 other clowns up there are voting for Ron Paul.

All the song and dance by all the politician is for more money flowing to their wallet. So, they act touch for C-SPAN. Make ammends in private in exchange for money. As Glenn says, we are not surprised at all. Also, people who blame young generation for not showing up to vote, tell me what is the point? Is there really a choice?

BTW, can we dump cell phone careers if they cannot provide us a promise not to sniff our tel lines? Glenn, any idea if we, the customers, can turn the screw on this scums and dry their revenue? Where is ACLU when we need them!

If you look at the language (via TPM, emphasis mine):

Such a demonstration, which the bill says could be made in secret, would wipe out a series of pending lawsuits alleging violations of privacy rights by telecommunications companies that provided telephone records, summaries of e-mail traffic and other information to the government after Sept. 11, 2001, without receiving court warrants. Bush had repeatedly threatened to veto any legislation that lacked this provision.

If this started early in 2001, could the lawsuits not go forward based on immunity only applying for conduct after 9/11? Or, am I reading that wrong?

And, I wonder if the telecoms could be vulnerable to fleeing customers? Probably not, given the apathy out there.

Bush has been an incredibly successful president

He has instituted a police state in front of everyone's faces while weaving and dancing that her was protecting you.

He is selling off parts of the USA to foreign nations

He has managed to allow the borders to remain open to create plausible deniability the next time the government wants to set off a dirty bomb in a US city to impose the next set of police state tactics.

He has reduced the value of the dollar. Enraged the world against America. All valuable when inevitably the beast must be taken down so the foreign banks can come in and buy everything for pennies on the dollar while the average American goes bankrupt.

Bush has been an incredibly successful president, from the viewpoint of the international elites.

-- brightstar65

I think you are right! He must be a commie mole, like Eisenhower! Or so said the Birchers...

I had to look through it's letters (not for the squeamish) to find this priceless gem from a few days ago:

Brightstar65... You're ragging on Ron Paul?

then YOU are the problem that needs to be exterminated if this REPUBLIC is to survive.

Because I sure as hell did not sign up to be ruled over by a bunch of know-it-all punks (left OR right) in Washington who want to create the inevitable fascist state that is currently so fashionable amongst you oh-so-sophisticated politerati.

Ron Paul is the only solution to the current Constitutional crisis. Anyone challenging this is an enemy of the state.

Permalink Monday, October 15, 2007 01:35 PM

http://letters.salon.com/f7e105b5e58f5e1c6ff56290f24cb1f4/author/index155.html

I'll give Ron Paul credit for wanting to declare war on Iraq constitutionally but when it comes right down to it, he's just another wingnutty, buffoon like most of the radical rightwing lunatics of the Republican party, and you. He was all set to go. He just wanted to do it "Old School".

Paul Calls for Congressional Declaration of War with Iraq

Washington, DC: Congressman Ron Paul, insisting that the House International Relations committee follow constitutional principles, yesterday introduced a formal congressional declaration of war with Iraq. The language of the declaration was very clear: "A state of war is declared to exist between the United States and the government of Iraq."

"I don’t believe in resolutions that cite the UN as authority for our military actions," Paul stated yesterday after a committee hearing. "America has a sovereign right to defend itself, and we don’t need UN permission or approval to act in the interests of American national security. The decision to go to war should be made by the U.S. Congress alone. Congress should give the President full warmaking authority, rather than binding him with resolutions designed to please our UN detractors."

"Sadly, the leadership of both parties on the International Relations committee fails to understand that the Constitution requires a congressional declaration of war before our troops are sent into battle," Paul continued. "One Republican member stated that the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war is an anachronism and should no longer be followed," while a Democratic member said that a declaration of war would be ‘frivolous.’ I don’t think most Americans believe our Constitution is outdated or frivolous, and they expect Congress to follow it."

"When Congress issued clear declarations of war against Japan and Germany during World War II, the nation was committed and victory was achieved," Paul concluded. "When Congress shirks its duty and avoids declaring war, as with Korea, and Vietnam, the nation is less committed and the goals are less clear. No lives should be lost in Iraq unless Congress expresses the clear will of the American people and votes yes or no on a declaration of war."

http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2002/pr100402.htm

If you buy that flip-flopping buttclown's pandering piffle, you are in no position to point fingers here.