In eyesight view from here at my window there is a big mountain rock. It is a pony grave. The first pony I ever loved was named polka dot. The wind blows against the window pain once more...memories.

One day the 45-year old slumped-backed pony laid down and never got back up. Later, my daughter began to love a Tennessee Walker that scared every body else.

He would rear up and give a hernia to males,

and I'd yell, whoa! Ouch! I'll jump off. Stop bucking.

My daughter starting gettin' into boys with pony tails.

Maybe I'll just buy a horse from you? Glenn has a liberal, open-door, no barn anybody policy? Whoa. He's merciful.

i think they are possibly manuvuering to force republican senators to filibuster against 4th amendment rights. with their own voices. seems to me in this environment that's stewing over with a desire for "change" ... taking bold steps /against/ government oppresion would be wildly popular. maybe these folks aren't saps ... maybe this is a well-laid trap to build a super majority. maybe this is why they complain about "needing a 60 vote majority" ... to raise awareness, and kick out the old school fear mongers from office. wouldn't that be great!

Curios. Same outcome - zilch, zip, nada.

The latter felt better, though. And was a tad more honest.

"What if this was just a stupid idea from an administration full of stupid ideas, and in practical reality there is no intelligence value in what the telecoms did?"

Even if there was some intelligence to be gained by the acts of our government and the telecoms, the fact remains that they broke the law acquiring it. Some might suggest that as long as the "evidence" gained through warrantless snooping isn't used in a court to attain a criminal conviction, that there was no harm done. This sounds nice but in reality, there is no way of knowing whether evidence gained illegally has or will be used in criminal prosecutions. For instance, was the conviction of Jose Padilla acquired in part, through intelligence gained through illegal activity? Unless the courts are allowed to delve into this, there is no way of knowing whether Padilla (used only as an example) was legally convicted. The fact of the matter is that the activities of our government were not in accordance with the law as it was at the time. Period. It makes no difference whether or not there was any intelligence value to what they did. If someone were convicted for breaking the law, the value of what they did could be argued as mitigation during sentencing but until that time, it doesn't matter.

The answer to all your other questions is, Yes.

Note: I am not a lawyer.

T'would appear we share the same Senators. My condolences :-(

I'm pretty sure that Salazar's system has me blacklisted as spam, which is why I've taken to getting my name included in mass petitions by the ACLU and Credo. Allard? What a waste of ... well, if we could replace him with an empty space we'd be further ahead. I'm not sure that even Coors or Beauprez would be worse.

WASHINGTON -- Ending months of resistance, the White House has agreed to give House members access to secret documents about its warrantless wiretapping program, a congressional official said Thursday.

I love it. They refuse to turn over these documents for months so that they can't be thouroughly reviewed- and then they release them just before Congress goes to vote on the issue! This lets The Enablers accuse opponents of being unreasonable 'Look, they're releasing the documents- why are you being so difficult???'

Bastards.

Thank you.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/Bush_opens_wiretap_documents_to_Hou_01242008.html

http://tinyurl.com/37865m

While our DC "protectors" continue the charade of defending our rights by taking them away, let us be reminded that the inordinate amount of fear that they create among the populace is the result of a handful of evildoers armed with penknives, wirecutters and a plan that the FBI (and others) had advance warning of.

Those who voted the Dems in control in Congress to right the Ship of State should by now be well aware of the depressing fact that they are no different from the Pubs, hence the RepuliCrats, who really control things will do little to "change" anything.

Only Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich demonstrate any desire for real change and they are being effectively nuetered by their respective parties. Paul at least has proven an ability to raise enough money to fight on to the end which may at least, draw welcome contrast to the illogic of the RepubliCrat war mongerers.

Bush "compelled" the telecoms? Then why were they able to unilaterally suspend their eavesdropping when the Feds were late with their payments? Clearly, we've taken the measure of the telecoms' patriotism, and it's only long enough to reach their bottom line.

Sure we have one. Here it is:

http://www.era.int/domains/corpus-juris/public_pdf/estonia_state_secrets_act.pdf

Oh, wait, that's Estonia!

Never mind. We'll get one eventually. Got to keep up with the ... Joneses?

in any dem administration

http://welcomeconsumer.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/lucha_pony.jpg

We've paid billions of dollars for decades to make our armed forces the best in the world, able to take on any threat no matter how daunting.

And Kit Bond says a bunch of suicide bombers could kick their asses?

I'd be pissed if I were them.

'Listening to this "debate" is enough to make one become a revolutionary.'

I was going to say something to that effect. It's maddening really. We're seeing an admitted (in a round about way) bipartisan effort to perpetuate a constitutional crisis.

You want to roll over and give into every unConstitutional banana republic action of the Bush administration. Fine. But don't god damn tell me we're facing a constitutional crisis and then tell me you're going to defy you base, your civic duty, and your Constitution to promote a "bipartisan spirit" of lawbreaking.

It's like something out of a friggin' Orwell novel. "Partisan" now means that if you are opposed to someone engaging in partisan illegal, immoral, indefensible activity you're the partisan.

I'd rather be partisan for right principles than whatever the hell it is these spineless Democrats are partisan for. They aren't partisan for democracy. Maybe they should change the party name to something more fitting. Roll-overcrats, maybe?