It's About Time

No, not New Year's Eve. Well, maybe that, too. However, DOJ is going to look into the NY Times regarding certain leaks.

Comments

[splashtc]

Haven't they ever heard of loose lips sink ships.

[COLUMBO]

Wednesday, Dec. 21, 2005 9:53 a.m. EST

Resigned FISA Judge a Committed Clintonista

The press is breathlessly reporting that U.S. District Judge James Robertson has resigned from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court - "apparently" in a fit of conscience over news that President Bush was using the National Security Agency to monitor the telephone conversations of terrorists.

If the reports are correct, Judge Robertson's conscience has evolved considerably since the days when he was dismissing one criminal case after another against cronies of Bill Clinton - the man who appointed him to the bench in 1994.

Old Arkansas media hand Paul Greenberg has long had Robertson's number. In a 1999 column for Jewish World Review, Greenberg described the honorable judge as "one of the more prejudiced Clintonoids on the bench."

As Accuracy in Media noted in 2000, Judge Roberston's conscience wasn't particularly troubled by the crimes committed by one-time Clinton Deputy Attorney General Webb Hubbell.

[Sgt. York]

It shouldn't be a crime to expose criminal activity - and pissing all over the US Constitution is a crime. When I joined the military I took an oath to defend the Consitution, and Bush did too when he was sworn in - warrentless searches, torture, and suspension of habeus corpus is pissing on the Consitution. Bush should be in prison and every polition - republican or democrat - who assisted, enabled, or condones him to piss on the Constitution should be in prison too.

=========================

[COLUMBO]

nobody has claimed a warrantless search to my knowledge-maybe I'm wrong...I know Clinton did one of Aldrich Ames' house....and I'd say it was a damn good thing he did...the president has taken an oath to protect the country

The Constitution was preserved when our soldiers were tried and convicted of torture

habeus corpus for terrorists-non citizens? sorry-not in the Constitution...nice try

[COLUMBO]

Lincoln: "the Constitution is not a suicide pact"

[klrclsr]

No one died when Clinton lied.

[COLUMBO]

I've heard Clinton making the same quotes. For that matter, Hilary, Kerry, Biden....etc, etc....more nonsense

[COLUMBO]

and we'll never know how many died so Clinton would not have to lie (Monica thanking the day she saved the dress)

[COLUMBO]

A U.S. Secret Service Agent, assigned to checking doors at the White House, opened a door one night and found Hillary Clinton in a compromising sexual position with Ms. Mahoney, a known lesbian since her high school days. Hillary was furious and whacked him in the head with a metal ashtray. Ms. Mahoney was shot to death at a Starbucks Coffee Shop, right in the heart of Washington DC, a short time later.
One wonders why a high-powered Washington FBI agent, with ties to the intelligence community, was involved in a case claimed to be a routine robbery murder case, supposedly committed by a small time criminal, one Carl Derek Cooper. After 54 hours of questioning by Garrett and another agent, Cooper signed a confession that he immediately repudiated as soon as he got to court. During his 54 hours of interrogation, Cooper had consistently denied the crime and volunteered several times to take a lie detector test. Most of the testimony against him was by agent Garrett, and based on Garrett's representation of what Cooper had said during the interrogation. The questioning was not recorded or videotaped. Garrett had successfully arranged to blame the crime on a vulnerable nobody.

[COLUMBO]

If the NSA has eavesdropped on everybody in the U.S. why is an investigation necessary...the justice dept should know who leaked already

"The fact is that Al Qaeda's playbook is not printed on page one. And when America's is, it has serious ramifications"

[COLUMBO]

"Times' spokeswoman Catherine Mathis on Friday declined to comment on the investigation."

Stark contrast in the manner in which the Times treated Scott McLellan during the press conferences

[*flo*]

More fuel to the fire...
Clinton's national security advisor, Sandy Berger was caught with classified docs from National Archives, (docs should have been turned over to 9/11 commission)...don't think he made it to jail...
BTW Dan, tryed register into WordPress, totally stupid not to send a pswd enabling posting....

[TheAlamo]

More fuel to the fire...
Clinton's national security advisor, Sandy Berger was caught with classified docs from National Archives, (docs should have been turned over to 9/11 commission)...don't think he made it to jail...
BTW Dan, tryed register into WordPress, totally stupid not to send a pswd enabling posting....

Posted by: *flo* | Dec 30, 2005 6:01:32 PM

Of course not. Bush stopped all investigations into the Clinto administration as one of his first official acts. Yeah, we really have two parties. There is snow in the desert in July as well.

[TheAlamo]

Administration officials insisted that Bush has the power to conduct the warrantless surveillance under the Constitution’s war powers provision. They also argued that Congress gave Bush the power to conduct such a secret program when it authorized the use of military force against terrorism in a resolution adopted within days of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."

"Administration officials insisted that Bush has the power"--ONLY in a dictatorship is this possible.

We either have a Constitution or we do not. You cannot have "selective" whims and laws based on one man's judgements, with no oversight. That is dictatorship, plain and simple.
Those with integrity, either democrat or republican will stand for the Constitution, and NOT the president as the supreme law of the land.
Those who wish to live under the ditatorship of the executive branch will support the criminal element. Pretty simple really.
People either have integrity, or they do not.

I wonder how many people who have been arrested that got out of the crime by just saying "well, the majority agree." Ah, the dangers of democracy. We are a republic, NOT a democracy, and you can easily see why if you have above a 3rd grade education.

[COLUMBO]

the Constitution gives the Congress the power to declare war....on 9/14/01 the elected Congress passed a resolution giving the power to wage war on al qaeda to the president, the commander-in-chief of the armed forces

an essential component to any war is intelligence...thus we have an intelligence community which includes the NSA...there has never been a more urgent time for it to be conducting these sorts of activities for the safety of both the civilian and military population...this community is populated by dedicated and very professional patriots-like Valerie Plame [cough]

[TheAlamo]

the Constitution gives the Congress the power to declare war....on 9/14/01 the elected Congress passed a resolution giving the power to wage war on al qaeda to the president, the commander-in-chief of the armed forces

an essential component to any war is intelligence...thus we have an intelligence community which includes the NSA...there has never been a more urgent time for it to be conducting these sorts of activities for the safety of both the civilian and military population...this community is populated by dedicated and very professional patriots-like Valerie Plame [cough]

Posted by: COLUMBO | Dec 30, 2005 8:56:13 PM

Damn columbo, you really need to go back to 7th grade civics, you obviously slept in that class as well as basic English.
Resolution....is NOT a Declaration. Declaration is the EXPRESS word, AND ACTION required by law.

So, first of all, we are not legally at war.

Secondly intelligence against the enemy. American citizens are NOT the enemy--and our borders are WIDE OPEN--courtesy your hero.. And, if there are American suspects, GET A DAMNED SEARCH WARRANT. Any judge in the country will grant one in the case of terrorism. Problem with that, for the government is that then...there is a record of THEIR activites. Now we can't have that can we? We can't question our wonderful saviors and leaders. Hell, I mean, check history, there has never been a government on this earth that has abused that power...right?
Idiot. 100%, not 99$, not 98%--ALL of the governments with that kind of power have used it to squelch their own citizens. You must love the taste of the bottom of a boot.
Thirdly, if you slaves insist in destroying the Bill of Rights, then we need a DEFINITION of what a "terrorist" is.

Do you have that definition?

I do not want to see an "elastic" definition of terrorists, nor an elasctic definition of a "terrorist act."

The communists, when taking over countries ALWAYS refer to their victims as "terrorists." Unfortunately, their definition is: anyone who is not for them.

You and others like you are walking on dangerous ground. You are letting your fear control what little judgement you might have acquired in your short lifespan (my guess is that you are in your 20's to still be so ignorant)

When is the last time there was a "terrorist" attack in your town? How many of your friends and relatives have been killed by "terrorists?"
How many frineds and relatives have you lost to auto accidents? I can guarantee you the answer, and I bet you are not on the bandwagon to eliminate autos or alcohol are you?

Get real. These criminals cannot ride camels across the ocean to hurt your little self. Secondly IF they acquire a nuclear device, it will be from our real enemies---those behind this whole mess--Russia and China. And you can bet on this. They can pass all the laws they want, spy on whoever they want, but if these assholes want to blow something up they will. Why? Because we are chasing the symptoms, not the disease.

IF there is another terrorist attack are you man enough to hold the perpetrators responsible? ALL of them? If so, then the assholes that have left the borders wide open should be in prison. and IF you are stupid enough to believe that the "terrorists" are not utilizing these wide open borders, then come on down, I can show you where thousands of illegals are right now. Hell you can drive toward Laredo and see them walking in--nothing is done. Your hero, seems not to be concerned with much else than eliminating the Bill of Rights--which, these illegals are not covered by in the first place---ONLY American citizens.

Ask yourself. Where do "terrorists" get the hundreds of MILLIONS of dollars necessary to "wage terrorism?" Where do the guns come from? Who manfucatures the ammunition they use? Who makes the bombs they use?
Now when this government goes after the real perpetrators of this mess, then I will believe them. They are lying through their teeth, and using your cowardice to make you give up 200 years of American history.

You cannot "save freedom" by destroying freedom. But then, the communists always taught slavery is freedom, and freedom is slavery. Guess you just ate the whole pie.

Listen, I know someone with your brain power probably doesn't make a lot of money. I will be happy to kick in a few dollars along with some others, to buy you a ticket to Cuba where you can live in government controlled paradise. Just let me know, we'd love to see you with others that think like you do.

[COLUMBO]

Alamo-

You are awfully condescending in these threads....I'd say that somebody is suffering from an overdose of the Machievelli pills...and its not the president.

As far as chasing the symptom and not the disease, look at the pre 9-1-1 geopolitical map vs the post 9-1-1 geopolitical map....of the middle east...kinda funny that Saddam had no nukes, but the day he was pulled from a hole Khadafi coughed up "his." Coincidence? Luckily they are in New Mexico now. Afghanistan has flipped, Pakistan is being flipped, there will be a Palestine, 11M voted in Iraq...I'd say the swamp is being drained and it will be drained-and democracy will take hold there much like it did in E. Europe. See a pattern here? Almost as if there was a...well, a ummmm .......'roadmap??????'

Hmmmmmmm..........

[TheAlamo]

See a pattern here? Almost as if there was a...well, a ummmm .......'roadmap??????'

Hmmmmmmm..........

Posted by: COLUMBO | Dec 31, 2005 12:26:34 AM

Oh, there is definitely a pattern here. Just check Germany 1933-1945. almost a carbon copy of the legislation, Reichstag fire? 9-11. Enabling Act..."patriot" act(s)....yeah, there is a definite pattern....and the attack on Iraq?
Uh, none of the "terrorists" were Iraqi's. We had just as much justification in attacking Iraq as we do in attacking France...none.
As for Saddam, we put him into power in the first place. We also put into power Vladimir Lenin, Mao Tse Tung, Fidel Castro and other notorious wonders of humanity.
Yeah, I do see a pattern.

I am never surprised at persons who answer any post with anything positive about a "democracy." When I see that word in a positive light, I know two things. One, you are a parrot, and two, you have absolutely no idea about the structure of governments anywhere in the world. Therefore, you have nothing to stand on but newspaper regurgitation, since you don't know what you are talking about.

You may call it condescending if you wish, whatever makes you feel better. I think of it as replying to someone who is just throwing up words about something they know nothing about. And, time, after time, you have proven my points by totally ignoring the facts, and winding your way back to news rhetoric to hide the fact that you are totally lost.

When you become mature enough to answer the questions I have posed to you with something other than a newspaper article, then possibly I may change my opinion of you. But as for now, you set the opinion by your total lack of knowledge and understanding of the United States, as well as other nations, while pretending you know the difference between our government (what it is supposed to be)and that of others.

Just for grins, DO you know the difference between a Republic and a democracy? Why not enlighten others with your vast knowledge. Afterwards though, I sure would like to hear the explanation of HOW being a democracy is good. I wait.

[yesido]

Clinton rocks....president and bj's he's cool

[Steel Turman]

And I have a question for you Alamo ...

Do YOU know the difference between discourse and diatribe?

Or between discussion and ranting?

Perhaps you could demonstrate that knowledge hereon?

[COLUMBO]

Alamo:

You are condescending because all you do is throw food

[Phoenix]

Dang. I love a good food fight. But, Columbo, Alamo only throws those little Easter peep things. He doesn't know anything else. His mind cannot accept that our Consitution, as great as it is, might need a little stretching here and there. What the hell... he can't see beyond it and come up with any original thought to save his life. <------ oooh... how fitting that I chose those words.

Saving lives is not Alamo's primary motivation. He'll be rolling up his tattered copy of the Constitution and stuffing it up his butt as he watches the mushroom cloud on the horizon. Then he'll feed on it from the inside out.

[TheAlamo]

His mind cannot accept that our Consitution, as great as it is, might need a little stretching here and

Oh, I would say it has been stretched. But, I guess the amendment process is just too cumbersome for those people in office. My heavens, it would be dastardly to expect them ob do things the right way, and even worse, to obey the law. I mean who are we peons to expect something like that? Hell, let's just give up the Bill of rights, it is obvious that most of you would rather see them used as toilet paper. Yeah, piss on 'em. Let's just pretend that we're free.

Saving lives is for lifeguards, of which I am not. And if you think giving you your rights will save you from the mushroom you so ardently fear, you have a big blast coming.

And...if you knew the answers for columbo, why not post them to show your extroadinary knowledge of the subject. He definitely needs the help, and I am sure, you have the ability to give it. Since he is unable to answer the question above, possibly you might save him, but then, again, I only expect teh barbs, for which you do have a talent at being able to throw. But...at least you have one.

[Thealamo]

And I have a question for you Alamo ...

Do YOU know the difference between discourse and diatribe?

Or between discussion and ranting?

Perhaps you could demonstrate that knowledge hereon?

Posted by: Steel Turman | Dec 31, 2005 1:22:53 AM

Yes, I do. discourse is when you ahve two persons having a discussion about an item or place.
Ranting is when only one person has the capability of participating in that discussion, while the other pretends.

However, I am certainly not above discussion, and you seem to be level headed, so maybe you can give poor columbo the help he needs.

[TheAlamo]

Alamo:

You are condescending because all you do is throw food

Posted by: COLUMBO | Dec 31, 2005 1:35:24 AM

My, my, that was very intelligent. You got me on that one. I bet you studied this answer for days before being able to come up with such a perfect reply.

Really,..... really, challenging.

[*flo*]

WOoo, I go away for several hours and you just don't know how to behave...referral for saturday work detail...lol, for those of you who enjoy info...here is more on this topic,

"Powell said that when he was in the Cabinet, he was not told that President Bush authorized a warrantless National Security Agency surveillance operation after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/25/AR2005122500280.html

Be something Gen Powell didn't agree with GW's decision...

[TheAlamo]

It shouldn't be a crime to expose criminal activity - and pissing all over the US Constitution is a crime. When I joined the military I took an oath to defend the Consitution, and Bush did too when he was sworn in - warrentless searches, torture, and suspension of habeus corpus is pissing on the Consitution. Bush should be in prison and every polition - republican or democrat - who assisted, enabled, or condones him to piss on the Constitution should be in prison too.

=========================

Posted by: Sgt. York | Dec 30, 2005 4:54:37 PM

Sums it up quite well.

[COLUMBO]

General Custer:
again-my earler reply to Sgt Bilko's earlier post:

nobody has claimed a warrantless search to my knowledge-maybe I'm wrong...I know Clinton did one of Aldrich Ames' house....and I'd say it was a damn good thing he did...the president has taken an oath to protect the country

The Constitution was preserved when our soldiers were tried and convicted of torture (as opposed to when Clinton wiped his ass with it)

habeus corpus for terrorists-non citizen combatants? sorry-not in the Constitution...nice try

[COLUMBO]

"When you become mature enough to answer the questions I have posed to you with something other than a newspaper article, then possibly I may change my opinion of you."

If you read the actual resolution signed into law on 9/14/2001...instead of the media storylines, you'd have the facts...until then, you're on the treadmill

BTW-yours is a John Kerry remark

[Phoenix]

You live in LaLa Land, Alamo. Your vision is tunneled by words on paper. I wish you could get past your obsession with The Law you so ardently support come hell or mushroom clouds and maybe you could actually engage in some open-minded discourse. Those documents you hold dear were not written in a time when the framers could have possibly imagined the kinds of enemies and the magnificent weaponry we are facing now. No, I don't support blowing off any tenant of those documents, but I sure don't worry about giving up any rights. If spies were not out spying, I'd want my taxes back. I think Churchill said it - if you're not willing to sacrifice some of your rights, then don't complain if you die. That's not exactly how it goes, but it holds true nonetheless. Your lengthy diatribes are impossible to address fully, but you seem to think the government has no right to keep anything from the American people. What bullshit. 50% of the American people have below average I.Q.'s. Why get them all excited. Just spy on us and catch the bad guys. That's the job of government - to keep us safe. I do not feel as if I am giving up any rights. Besides, those hayseeds from Kansas, the Land of Ahhhs, would ride their tractors to the Mall and demand we get them back if it were necessary.

You're a one trick pony. And you said it: There isn't a damn thing you can do about it. So why the vehement logorrhea that just wastes your time and bores us to death.

[thealamo]

BTW-yours is a John Kerry remark

COLUMBO
"When you become mature enough to answer the questions I have posed to you with something other than a newspaper article, then possibly I may change my opinion of you."

[COLUMBO]

Phoenix

it's no use......

[COLUMBO]

General Custer:

Are you John Kerry?????? Are you a Barbra Streisand lib cloaked in the Constitution?????

[TheAlamo]

There isn't a damn thing you can do about it. So why the vehement logorrhea that just wastes your time and bores us to death.

Posted by: Phoenix | Dec 31, 2005 11:15:18 AM

Really? Then why are you still here?

"if you're not willing to sacrifice some of your rights, then don't complain if you die."

There are over 200,000 men that were willing to do that for you in previous wars. But...hey, go ahead and spit on their graves.
As for me, you bet. I am more than willing to risk my life being free...in case you don't know history, that is what it is all about. And you do not have the right to take that from anyone just because you cannot control your own fear. That is why there are totalitarian states, where your life is safely planned for you...from cradle to grave. Need a ticket?

Next, I notice you parrot the party line about the Constitution being "old." What a laugh. Even basic government would show you that it is totally flexible, and was written that way purposefully. It is just that your heros would rather "rule from the hip," and with a totally ignorant electorate, all they need do is lie about their protecting you. Right.
We sure know that that is an historically proven fact. Russia, China and Cuba have proven it for sure.

I think government has the right to spy on our enemies anytime...especially the Russians and Chinese. As I said above, American citizens are NOT the enemy. I realize that is hard for you to grasp, but it is true. A search warrnte sufficed during the cold war when we had a real nuclear threat. And it will work just as well now. If the suspect is not an American, then spy away. How hard is that?

I will cut this short because as you stated, you do not have the ability to handle more than one part of it at a time.

IF this "government" were interested in your safety, instead of control, then the borders would have been closed around 12-01.
And, you are good at throwing barbs, but lets see some discourse, you speak so highly of.

WHY are the borders wide open IF we are wee-weeing in our pants because of these terrorists?

[TheAlamo]

General Custer:

Are you John Kerry?????? Are you a Barbra Streisand lib cloaked in the Constitution?????

Posted by: COLUMBO | Dec 31, 2005 11:33:33 AM

And you wonder why I am condescending? One need only read this whole thread and some of the others where you proudly display your stupidity as if you were "knighted" with it.

Rock on.....

[COLUMBO]

Seriously, are you?

[COLUMBO]

As a flaming liberal you picked the argument you are not ashamed of....right?

[thealamo]

COLUMBO
"When you become mature enough to answer the questions I have posed to you with something other than a newspaper article, then possibly I may change my opinion of you."

Posted by: thealamo | Dec 31, 2005 11:21:34 AM

[COLUMBO]

General Custer is outed...

[thealamo]

COLUMBO
"When you become mature enough to answer the questions I have posed to you with something other than a newspaper article, then possibly I may change my opinion of you."

Posted by: thealamo | Dec 31, 2005 11:21:34 AM

[COLUMBO]

language:

(a) IN GENERAL.--That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

[98 Senators votes in favor]

Richard Posner-the judge on the US Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit (with Andrea Mitchell)

POSNER: The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is quite limited. The communications that can be intercepted are limited to communications between agents of a foreign power, agents of a foreign group. So you might have a telephone call. We have a terrorist or terrorist suspect or someone who knows about terrorism at one end. The person on the other end doesn't know anything about it, isn't a foreign agent, isn't a terrorist or anything, and yet that telephone call might contain information that the government could use to identify a terrorist, find out his address, his phone number, his plans, and so on. So I don't think the act is adequate. It's not so much the warrant problem, although the warrant provision is very cumbersome and complicated. It's that a lot of important communication may contain a lot of foreign intelligence information just as not within the scope of the act. The legal questions are very difficult because, of course, the administration argues that, you know, we're in a war against terrorism. That is a result of a joint resolution of Congress that amounted to a declaration of war. During wartime, the president has a lot more authority to engage in interception of communications than it does in ordinary peacetime. If you accept that argument -- and it's just an argument at this point -- but if that's accepted, then it would be lawful for the government to intercept certain communications.

MITCHELL: Well, that's an ends-justifies-the-means argument.

POSNER: No, no. Look -- no, no. You're all wrong. It's a legal question. It's uncertain. It's an uncertain area what kind of powers were conferred on the president by that joint resolution. It's arguable one way or the other. If the legal argument is correct, there's no a legal problem.
I think in this situation, you have to ask yourself, as a citizen, would you be terribly worried if you knew that the government was collecting -- you know, digitizing your phone conversations and e-mail conversations and having them searched by computers for possible information relevant to terrorism? If that disturbs you terribly, that's going to, you know, affect your judgment of this balance between security and civil liberties. On the other hand, my feeling about that is, I don't regard that kind of scrutiny as a profound invasion of privacy, and, on the other hand, I am very worried about terrorism, and I'd like the government to be collecting all information that might contain clues to further terrorist attacks.

[richard mcenroe]

klrclsr — "No one died when Clinton lied... okay, except some Somalis, and some Sudanese, and some Chinese diplomats, and some Army Rangers, and some..."
But what the hell, ain't like any of them went to your Starbucks, did they...?

[thealamo]

Well, that's an ends-justifies-the-means argument.

Exactly.

And, thank you form proving my point for me once again Columbo. I quote:
That is a result of a joint resolution of Congress that amounted to a declaration of war. During wartime, the president has a lot more authority to engage in interception of communications than it does in ordinary peacetime. If you accept that argument -- and it's just an argument at this point -It's an uncertain area what kind of powers were conferred on the president by that joint resolution.

When one is uncertain, we as citizens are told to adhere to current law. Your fuhrer obviously believes he is above the law.

Search warrants cumbersome and difficult? Interesting. I have two close relatives that are cops and they say they could get one in 30 minutes in the case of a "suspected terrorist." Interestingly, they cannot understand why a warrant is so difficult....and they are cops. Kind of tells the whole story, don't you think?

IF we were in such a state of war, as in ww2 for example, they WHY not declare it? I will tell you why. You cannot declare a war on a non-defined term. "Terrorism" is not defined, and is in fact a descriptive term. Can you define it? Is hate speech terrorism....yet? Is putting more than $10,000 into YOUR OWN BANK account an act or terrorism?
Just exactly WHAT IS a "terrorist?" Is it a noun? is it an adjective? Makes a significant difference.
As I stated earlier, I do not want an elastic definition of "terrorism" before accepting what any of these criminals do "for my protection." And since it is my life they say they are "protecting," then I have the right for them NOT to protect me. That suits me just fine.

Finally, possibly none of this would be necessary had the president acted as a responsible American and closed off the borders. WHY are our borders wide open? One reason. To allow for another terrorist event, which, will further the government agenda of elimination of YOUR freedom. Watch.

[COLUMBO]

General Custer

You hang your point on Andrea Mitchell when she was corrected by the judge? Nothing like cherry picking.....

[thealamo]

Okay, Columbo, now it's your turn...answer the question.

Just for grins, DO you know the difference between a Republic and a democracy? Why not enlighten others with your vast knowledge. Afterwards though, I sure would like to hear the explanation of HOW being a democracy is good. I wait.

(BTW if you want help from Phoenix, that's okay with me. Maybe the two of you together can answer the question above. You, of course, won't answer it because you can't. But go ahead and give it your best shot.)

[COLUMBO]

It is not I who profess to have vast knowledge. It is you that claims to have superior intellect. We are the 3rd grade idiots....or was it the seventh...I forget.

You have said repeatedly that I am incorrect, Phoenix is incorrect, everyone in this blog is incorrect, the president, the senate, the congress.....all incorrect.

Classic characteristics of a liberal elite.

[Phoenix]

Why am I still here? This is why: "There are over 200,000 men that were willing to do that for you in previous wars. But...hey, go ahead and spit on their graves."

I like it when your argument falls to pieces, as it invariably does, and you take to making asinine statements like this.

I love to win. :) Oh...I hear an airplane!!! Gotta run to my bomb shelter!! See ya!

[thealamo]

Okay, Columbo, now it's your turn...answer the question.

Just for grins, DO you know the difference between a Republic and a democracy? Why not enlighten others with your vast knowledge. Afterwards though, I sure would like to hear the explanation of HOW being a democracy is good. I wait.

(BTW if you want help from Phoenix, that's okay with me. Maybe the two of you together can answer the question above. You, of course, won't answer it because you can't. But go ahead and give it your best shot.)

Posted by: thealamo | Dec 31, 2005 12:38:08 PM

[callmeBetty]

>POSNER: No, no. Look -- no, no. You're all wrong. It's a legal question. It's uncertain. It's an uncertain area what kind of powers were conferred on the president by that joint resolution. It's arguable one way or the other. If the legal argument is correct, there's no a legal problem.

*******************************************************************************************

Posner Loves a good snipe hunt. He's a really interesting guy, I've been reading his stuff for a couple months now....... It's about the gray area, the fluid part of the law that is open to interpretation, which get his juices flowing. I don't always agree with him, but heh, he's wacky.

The NYT is stuck between a rock and a hard place. They kept the lid on this story for a year until (threatened with legal action, by ACLU? - rumor I heard) forced to disclose sensitive info.

This IS how laws are built, constructed and refined..... God Bless America. It's all good.

[COLUMBO]

..... God Bless America

lol....that is another thread ;-)