We nutball, unsophisticated, non-centrist, crazy liberal extremists have been joined by the leftist moonbats in charge of the multi-billion dollar New York Times:

Editorial

Compromising the Constitution

Published: July 8, 2008

Congress has been far too compliant as President Bush undermined the Bill of Rights and the balance of powers. It now has a chance to undo some of that damage — if it has the courage and good sense to stand up to the White House and for the Constitution.

The Senate should reject a bill this week that would needlessly expand the government’s ability to spy on Americans and ensure that the country never learns the full extent of President Bush’s unlawful wiretapping.

The bill dangerously weakens the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. Adopted after the abuses of the Watergate and Vietnam eras, the law requires the government to get a warrant to intercept communications between anyone in this country and anyone outside it — and show that it is investigating a foreign power, or the agent of a foreign power, that plans to harm America...

...Lawmakers are already justifying their votes for making major changes to that proven regime by saying that the bill is a reasonable compromise that updates FISA technologically and will make it somewhat harder to spy on Americans abroad. But none of that mitigates the bill’s much larger damage. It would make it much easier to spy on Americans at home, reduce the courts’ powers and grant immunity to the companies that turned over Americans’ private communications without a warrant...

...The real reason this bill exists is because Mr. Bush decided after 9/11 that he was above the law. When The Times disclosed his warrantless eavesdropping, Mr. Bush demanded that Congress legalize it after the fact. The White House scared Congress into doing that last year, with a one-year bill that shredded FISA’s protections. Democratic lawmakers promised to fix it this year...

...Proponents of the FISA deal say companies should not be “punished” for cooperating with the government. That’s Washington-speak for a cover-up...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/opinion/08tue1.html?ref=opinion

Excerpt. More at link. If too much is quoted here for fair use, site editors are free to chop.

H.P. Grice, a language philosopher, formulated a Cooperative Principle for participants in communications. He proposed 4 maxims or rules: The Maxim of Quantity(don't say too little or too much), the Maxim of Quality(be truthful), the Maxim of Relation (be relevant to the ongoing topic), and the Maxim of Manner (be clear).

What applies to Liasson's statements is the Maxim or Quality which specifies that 1.) one does not say what one knows to be false, and 2.) one does not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.

Whether Liasson is lying or not, she and the majority of pundits violate subrule #2.

Your back letters.

I hear Hebrew is a picturesque, and beautiful language. A Nazi death camp survivor or a wounded former soldier in any era of historical time, in space or on the ground, would surly bless your maxim. counsel. guidance. and clear insights.

Before I go re-plaster the nail-holes in a outside potty,

your one KathyP who deserves a mailed Valentine card?

I almost saw you sitting on El Cid's lap. I am just jesting.

If this was a The Common Sense school class,

the rule should be this plain and simple idea?

*

Warning: Salon readers: An old mathematician is making pi puns in the kitchen. There is a fragrant smell of blueberry pie crust. Doe Warning: LIES are LIES. Students. Humans. Remember: Death is the only excuse for arriving late.* no excuse for lies, deceit, corrupt politicians. bribed.

sure would bless... no killing! Yes.

apologies. I need one person @ UT,

to dispense fat-weight loss advice.

she can wear high heels and a mink?

no. don't skin mules, a mink, and lie.

I've watched Mara Liasson on "Washington Week in Review" and heard her on NPR for years and she is one of many very opportunistic pundits who seem to me to be much more concerned to tack to the Right themselves so they can advance their careers. Look at Juan Williams of NPR who is now a regular on Fox Noise. I suspect they sensed the growing power of the right years ago and thought that tacking that way would advance their careers. In fact the "pack" nature of journalists, their desire not to stray too far out on a limb so they remain popular, has been strongly in evidence at least since Reagan's win in 1981. These people are not much concerned with "truth" so this makes the discussion of "lying" moot; I suspect it is most accurate to say that they demonstrate a reckless disregard for the truth and frequently state things that are in fact false. Chris Matthews is another panderer to what he views as the "center". He worked with Tip O'Neill and wrote speeches for Jimmy Carter but he frequently kisses the behinds of the Right on his program which should be called "T-Ball". Eric Alterman's recent book "When Presidents Lie" is excellent on this topic.

Some readers need a hair cut? Join a barber shop quartet? Shave and a mop chopped, 2-bits.

At kindergarden school a new pupil might bring into class a AT&T cell phone and take a photo.

It's a struggling with the medley?

Ringo Star may pound eardrums.

Kitt can Yoo-Tub us ZZ Top Hits.

Ignore signs? heed the warnings.

GOPS ignore `No Smoke signs?

They keep up the lies and kill.

Ring wonders` when I'm 68?

Will we still love him before...

su! okay.

It's not 'nice' to yell "shut-up!"

Oddly I didn't see an admission of wrongdoing in that article. Sorry bud, but unless you have a challenge to the Article 2 argument via the other two branches, looks to me like you've got bupkis. Come back when you have something legitimate.
— shooter242

There's nothing odd about it, shoots. Sorry pud, but you wouldn't see an admission of wrongdoing from a Republican if it got up on your desk and danced naked in front of you. The president has no Article II powers to disobey the law or ignore the prohibitions of the Constitution (you really should try reading the Constitution some time; I know there are a lot of big words, but you'd have the advantage of knowing what it actually says). You seem to have confused Article II with the divine right of kings. This "right" came to an abrupt end in 1649 with a single stroke of the headsman's axe (http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/charlesI.htm); do try to keep up with current events.

This is how the rule of law in the government of the United States is supposed to work under the Constitution:

• The Legislative Branch makes the law ("All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." Article I, Section 1).
• The Executive Branch implements and enforces the law ("he [the president] shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed" Article II, Section 3).
• The Judicial Branch interprets the law, presides over cases brought before it by the Executive in its law enforcement role, and arbitrates between complainants in civil suits ("The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Article III, Section 1).

That's how it's supposed to work. The Legislature is prohibited by the Constitution from legislating guilt (we shall soon see if it is prohibited by the Constitution from legislating innocence, or at least non-culpability). The Executive is prohibited by the Constitution from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. No one in the Executive Branch is given constitutional authority to violate the law.

The courts are the final arbiters of guilt or innocence, legality or illegality, constitutionality or unconstitutionality. The Legislature and the Executive can have opinions about legality and illegality, but the courts have the final say (except for the president's power of pardon).

However, the courts can only make decisions in cases that come before them. You'd think that if the Executive really believes that their alleged powers are legal that they would welcome a court decision that would remove all doubt and allow them to continue without interference. Strangely, however, the Executive has done everything it can to prevent its programs from undergoing judicial review.

The reason for this is clear: Three out of three judges who have ruled on the issue of legality of warrantless eavesdropping on Americans have found the program illegal (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/07/nsa/?acquire, http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/03/al_haramain/index.html?acquire). Let's put that in perspective: Not one judge has considered the program legal — three judges have ruled it illegal. This is why the Executive is insistent that judicial review of this program must be stopped at all costs. Not because they can prove it's legal, but because they know that it isn't.

So yeah, shoots, three judges ain't bupkis. Simply ignoring the bad news or pretending it didn't happen doesn't make it go away:

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all your Heh's nor Tsk's
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your pissing in the wind wash out a Word of it
[with apologies to Omar]

Try to keep up with the moving finger, shoots, rather than regularly being, not just a few lines, but several pages behind.