Well said, Mitch!

I must say that despite what Rhodes and Springer said, I just rolled my eyes and chuckled. These people are such caricatures of the left wing that their reaction was so predictable.

That's why Air America's ratings are lower than a pregnant ant. No matter how much people dislike the President, they don't want to hear others (Rhodes, Springer, etc.) continuously trash the USA.

Ok. But what do you really think, Mitch?

Don't hold back Mitch...it's not healthy!

I agree with Brad - I heard the program and all I could do was roll my eyes and shake my head.

I was blown away by Nicholas Berg's dad saying what he did....the part about revenge not helping anyone is something I agree with. But this isn't about revenge. I figure, he's stressed out. Who wouldn't be, standing in his shoes, right?

Michael Berg is a lifelong commie running for US Congress on the Green ticket (good luck with that). He's playing politics with Nick Berg's death just like Cindy Sheehan and the Jersey Chicks played politics with their losses. Despicable, but not surprising. Funny how lefties can parley family tragedy into uncontestable political capital.
Come on, MoveOn.Doug, Snarkyclown, and any other self righteous pud that wants to play the moral equivalency game. Take your shot in the dark. Admit your deep loathing for America. Confession is good for the soul.

"Funny how lefties can parley family tragedy into uncontestable political capital..."

Terri Schiavo anyone? Kermit, your perspective would be amusing if it weren't so devoid of a modicum of basic human decency. Good luck with that.

Mitch said,

"each of the people mentioned above has the right to say anything I want."

They have the right to say whatever YOU want?

Is that some kind of weird Freudian slip or are you just admitting that you will openly change the context of what people say to fit whatever you choose?

"Is that some kind of weird Freudian slip or are you just admitting that you will openly change the context of what people say to fit whatever you choose?"

Are you saying that Michael Berg et al have been taken out of context?

Just want to get that straight before I jump to any conclusions.

"Is that some kind of weird Freudian slip or are you just admitting that you will openly change the context of what people say to fit whatever you choose?"

No, Doug, it's option #3: a typo. But you never offered "typo" as an option. Why is that?

Is it some kind of Freudian slip? Or do you think that any ambiguity must resolve in favor of your opponents putative moral depravity?

Which is it?

Thanks, Tim. Terry Schiavo is a perfect example of what I said. If her "husband" (you know, the one shacked up with two bastard children) had a modicum of basic human decency he would have let her parents continue taking care of her instead of committing judical murder. If she was as brain dead as he claimed I don't think she would have minded, do you?
But NOOOO! She became a pawn in the left's cult of death. Babies, brain dead, old people, clowns, kill 'em all.
It's the Darwin thing to do.

Sorry Kerm, your brain activity level has clearly dropped below Terry Schiavo's. Posts like this illustrate that most of you wingnuts are vicious little douchenozzles.

Brad,

First, the question remains; what did Mitch - demonastrably the biggest free-speech guy HE knows... mean when he said "each of the people mentioned above has the right to say anything I want."

Next,

"Are you saying that Michael Berg et al have been taken out of context?"

Michael Berg et al? Come on Brad... Give us some names ok? Who are the "et al's" that you are refering to.

I'm not asking for any long winded essay. just names ok.

While you're working on that, maybe you can do a little research and tell me why Bush decided not to take out Zarqawi back in 2002 when he had the chance? What purpose would it serve to allow Zarqwai to live - even though we knew where he was and what he was doing... Again, no essay. Just a simple answer would be fine.

and while you're pondering that nugget, maybe you can figure out why the U.S. opened diplomatic ties with Iraq AFTER it was learned that Iraq had used and then continued to use chemical weapons against his "own people"... one of the crimes you guys seem so intent on repeating...

One final question... When you open your toolbox and see a screwdriver, do you get angry at your screwdriver for being a screwdriver?

"First, the question remains; what did Mitch... mean when he said "each of the people mentioned above has the right to say anything I want."

See my previous post. This is a non-issue.

"demonastrably the biggest free-speech guy HE knows"

That should "biggest free-speech guy ANYONE knows". My bad.

Mitch said,

"No, Doug, it's option #3: a typo. But you never offered "typo" as an option. Why is that?"

Well Mitch, a typo is when I say my cousins son is really enjoying his second deployment in Dessert Storm.

Accidentally typing "I" instead of "they" is one heck of a oopsie don't cha think?

Maybe if you said something like "...anything Rhey want"... or "...anything thei want..." or even "...anything thsriytheuytsep want...? I would have thought... "Hey Typo" but no... you said, "I".

Clearly though, I am wrong and take your word for it that it was a typo... wink, wink...

"Accidentally typing "I" instead of "they" is one heck of a oopsie don't cha think?"

Sure I do. Or I would, if I simply thought those who disagreed with me were inherently base and immoral.

But I don't.

There is no there there, Doug. Drop it.

Snarky, that was one of your most articulate posts ever! In only twenty-five words you not only exposed the paucity of logic in my argument, but also drew a brilliant analogy between Terry Schiavo and myself. The Dickensian quality of such descriptions as "wingnuts are vicious little douchenozzles" is a tribute to the "quality education" Mama and Papa clown must have spent SO much money on.
Bravo!

Mitch, you said,

"That should "biggest free-speech guy ANYONE knows". My bad."

You forgot the word "be" or "read". That's a typo...

just saying...

The "I" was, indeed, a mildly embarassing typo. But a typo was all it was.

But you have a habit of ascribing sinister motives to the minor errors or innocent pranks of others...

http://www.shotinthedark.info/archives/007337.html

...so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Mama and Papa Clown could only afford to send their child to Clown Community College. But Angryclown can still recognize a nasty little thug who tries to score political points on tragedies the Clown wouldn't wish on his worst enemy.

Excellent shots at Michael Schiavo and Michael Berg, wingnuts. I imagine your only regret is you weren't able to think of a way to work in the mom of a dead soldier or a couple 9/11 families.

No regrets. I think having your husband vaporized in a terrorist act is an excellent credential to recommend you for a John Kerry for President campaign commercial. It like, totally immunizes you from criticism.

For some reason, Kerm, I'd thought you weren't quite as repellant a human being as, say, swiftee or JB. Guess they must be having a sale on brown shirts down at the Gap.

I sometimes wonder if Kermit is actually swiftee - only a somewhat less angry personality... In a Sibil kinda way...

Congrats, Snarky! That was very sideways application of Godwins law. No Doug, I'm not Swiftee. I'm also not angry (that would be the clown, remember?) I'm also not bashful about calling things the way I see them. If that makes me a "Brown Shirt", well, I guess the whole discussion about free speech and thought becomes somewhat moot, don't it?
Hey, is going from being called stupid to being called a Nazi some kind of promotion? Free thinkers of the world want to know.

You're not bashful about calling things the way Rove sees 'em, I'll give you that.

Oh dear...I'm wearing a nice blue shirt today.

But even given my fashion...I mean fascist...faux pas, I'd be just as happy to help load a fleet of leaky tunaboats with the human detreitus known as the "Reality Based Community" and ship them off to Cuba.

After all, Fidel shipped us a load of his crud; turn about and all that...

Again, Doug, you are parrotting conspiracy theories. There is no rational evidence of any concerted GOP action at any level to do any such thing.

As opposed to, say, Milwaukee.

Or, say, the absentee military votes.

Mitch, we've had this discussion far too many times.

For everything that happened in 2004, I'm sure you have a convienent excuse supported by your oft used "your parroting conspiracy theories" line.

At the end of the day, the question is, did you get what you thought you were gonna get when you voted for Bush?

Yes Doug, we did.
1) Not AlGore (Thank God)
2) Not John F. Kerry

Tax cuts and no new domestic terror attacks are a bonus.

"For everything that happened in 2004, I'm sure you have a convienent excuse supported by your oft used "your parroting conspiracy theories" line."

No, for "everything that happened in '04" the line is "all of it has been roundly debunked".

What "happened" in '04? Endless, specious allegations of irregularities in Ohio (which have been thrashed over and over) and much wishful thinking about the discrepancy between exit polls and poll results, which is easily the dumbest "controversy" in American history (and proof that Ted isnt' the stupidest Kennedy)? Please.

As to the other question: Yes. We got what I thought we would with Bush. I was a Forbes supporter; I figured Bush had a big-spender streak in him; the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. I didn't think in 2000 that we were going to be at war within a year; Bush's performance as a war leader was a welcome surprise - but again, I knew that virtually any Republican will be a better war leader than *any* Democrat, these days.

Kermit said,

"Tax cuts and no new domestic terror attacks are a bonus."

Interesting. Reagan and Bush I spent money like crazy, initially cut taxes but then were both forced to increase taxes in the latter part of their presidency. In addition, they dumped record amounts of borrowed cash into the economy and then claimed with a straight face that it was the tax cuts that stimulated the economy.

Sorry Kermmy but if you borrow $750,000.00 on a 50 year loan to build a new home and expect the illusion of your prosperity to suddenly increase your monthly income, your fooling yourself.

Take a look at the expanding forclosure section of the newspaper sometime. It's an interesting reflection of what is happening in our economy.

We keep raising the debt ceiling and borrowing more hoping that the ecomomy will improve fast enough to start paying on our committments.

It's all smoke and mirrors and clever accounting.

The Republicans argument against Democratic economics is purely an issue of chronology. You rail against Democrats who you label as "tax and spend" but seem to have no problem with Repubicans who's approach is to spend now and tax later. And don't fool yourself, at some point, we will have to pay for Bush's irresponsible spending.

As for no new domestic terror attacks, you don't seem to understand that acts of terrorism don't have to be on our shores to be successful.

We have a president who claims the right to ignore more than 750 laws - almost entirely related to the "war on terror" and you don't bat an eye.

As far as I'm concerned, the terrorists have already won. They don't need to attack us at home any more because Bush gave them everything they wanted.

Sure Meeyotch, and now that we have have 3 guys in prison for jamming phones, one guy who admitted to diverting investment funds to Bush, confirmed anomalies in machine counts ALL benefiting Bush, A Secretary of State who owned stock in and received PAC contributions from an Diebold operative - not to mention the $100 million dollar contracts that said Secretary of State tried to award as unbid contracts to Diebold...

It's clear to see that the GOP would NEVER EVER try to use illegal or unethical methods to steal an election...

Yup... Just all tin-foil hat conspiracy theory stuff...

And of course, with the Republican held Congress approval rating at the lowest levels in 12 years, it will be interesting to hear your explanation for the discrepancy between the exit polls saying democrats swept the mid-terms and the Republicans retained control.

I'm guessing it will all of those over-zealous democrats running to be interviewed again eh Mitch?

"Interesting. Reagan and Bush I spent money like crazy,"

So did Abraham Lincoln and FDR. They had *wars* to fight. So did Reagan - along with a Congress that was dead-set on spending money at all costs.

"initially cut taxes but then were both forced to increase taxes in the latter part of their presidency"

With Bush I it hardly counts - he was a RINO - but that statement re Reagan is a slick bit of revisionism. Reagan's "increase" was a tiny fracion of his cuts. *Tiny*.

"In addition, they dumped record amounts of borrowed cash into the economy and then claimed with a straight face that it was the tax cuts that stimulated the economy."

Because it was, er, the truth?

To say nothing of the effect that the "Peace Dividend" - which was *purely* (within the Beltway) Reagan's legacy - had on the economy of the nineties. It made the Clinton boom possible.

"You rail against Democrats who you label as "tax and spend" but seem to have no problem with Repubicans who's approach is to spend now and tax later."

Rubbish, Doug. There was a time I'd have affixed "...and you know it" to the end of that, but I'm less confident of that these days. We conservatives have been *hammering* Bush - in my case, even back to my Forbes-supporting days back before the '00 convention - on exactly that. We need to cut non-military spending. Now.

" As for no new domestic terror attacks, you don't seem to understand that acts of terrorism don't have to be on our shores to be successful."

Right, but they DO have to be on our shores to be *in America*.

"We have a president who claims the right to ignore more than 750 laws - almost entirely related to the "war on terror" and you don't bat an eye."

Again, Doug - buncombe. I've "batted an eye", and not been convinced that there is a civil liberties threat to those of us who are not on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's Blackberry.

"As far as I'm concerned, the terrorists have already won. They don't need to attack us at home any more because Bush gave them everything they wanted."

Until we have Sharia courts and heaps of machine-gunned Jews on the streets of Minneapolis, no, Doug. He did not.

Quite the opposite.

Doug, I realize you have a very selective memory, so I will try to refresh it. True, Reagan got tax cuts passed. But the part you conveniently overlook is the Congress was DEMOCRATIC during six of his eight year term. They stabbed him in the back, (like good little Democrats) by reneging on their promise to cut spending comensurate with those tax cuts. Thus Tip O'Niell and Tom Foley (rememeber them?) could accuse Reagan of increasing the deficit.
Reagan VETOED Congressional spending bills and then had the Congress OVERRIDE his vetoes. Then they blamed him for the big increase. Like good little Democrats.
Selective memory is a real handicap, Doug. You should talk to doctor.

Kerm needs a little visit to the reality-based community. Reagan had 9 vetoes overridden in two terms. One appropriations bill, a couple more that authorized spending beyond what Reagan wanted. Drops in a huge deficit bucket.

Yes Kerm... Poor St. Ronny. Those Democrats just stabbed him in the back. Why do you guys continually play the victim card?

It's really quite sad.

And Mitch... the civil war = world war II = the war in Iraq...?

Wow. I don't even know where to start...

"We need to cut non-military spending. Now."

Even when that spending pays for private contractors who work for publically traded companies who win no-bid contracts... Great Plan Mitch...

"I've "batted an eye", and not been convinced that there is a civil liberties threat to those of us who are not on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's Blackberry."

Hmmm...

"I George Bush, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States except where and when I feel that my powers as President trump the Constitution and I do this with the approval of Mitch Berg who assures all Americans that their civil liberties are secure... So help me God.

Gee I feel much safer knowing that you have personally looked at all 750 signing statements and have concluded that my civil liberties are secure... Thanks Mitch...

Doug,

More than ever, I despair of reading an argument by you that rises above the level of facile snarking.

But hope springs eternal.

"Poor St. Ronny. Those Democrats just stabbed him in the back. Why do you guys continually play the victim card?"

Har di har har. Sure turned that one around, dincha?

Get a grip, Doug. The Dems did not budge on social spending under Reagan. Reagan would not budge on defense (rightly so, given that the fall of the USSR paid the increases back several times over).

"And Mitch... the civil war = world war II = the war in Iraq...?"

???

What's the question?

Wow. I don't even know where to start...

"Even when that spending pays for private contractors who work for publically traded companies who win no-bid contracts... Great Plan Mitch..."

Doug: work with me, here. Try to find a snarky piece of tinfoil hattery that's less than four years old, at least? The "no bid contract" bit has been pretty well dispensed with (outside the realm of the Jeaneane Garofalo website...)

"Gee I feel much safer knowing that you have personally looked at all 750 signing statements and have concluded that my civil liberties are secure... Thanks Mitch..."

Quick. Show proof that you've read ANY of the "750 laws".

I've seen no charge as re the wiretap "scandal" that appears to remotely go beyond the president's legitimate war powers OR infringe on the rights of Americans for whom there is not probably cause to think they're in contact with terrorists.

But here I am, actually responding, when all you're doing is regurgitating Democratic Underground rants...

That's interesting since I don't visit Democratic Underground - except for the top 10 conservative idiots. Keep up the good work though Mitch... maybe you'll make the list someday!

Didn't get the war equivalencies bit? You said Lincoln spent because he had a war. Same with FDR.

You're equating the "war" in Iraq to the civil war and World War II.

But God forbit one of us Liberal types should equate Iraq with Vietnam. That would be just silly... Oh, and if I'm not mistaken, Lincoln and FDR actually put the cost of their wars in the budget, not on their Saudi Express card.

"Try to find a snarky piece of tinfoil hattery that's less than four years old, at least?" The "no bid contract" bit has been pretty well dispensed with..."

Really? Then I'm sure you'll be happy to share with the rest of the class just where exactly the 9 billion dollars per month is being spent. Just remember Mitch that with Congress hard at work keeping queers from destroying my marriage, even they don't have time to find out where the money is going. Maybe with your connections, you'll get lucky enough to find out for us...

"Quick. Show proof that you've read ANY of the "750 laws"."

I haven't read any of them - Only a handful of the Presidents signing statements. That being said, I do know that if a judge makes a decision to overrule an existing law, they are called, say it with me Mitch... An Activist Judge and they're bad. So bad that we need to have them removed from office or, if it were up to Kermit or Ann Coulter, have them executed.

The President on the other hand should be applauded for refusing to obey the laws that Congress writes.

Here's a interesting question... what would happen if Bush drove through a red light at the intersection of Snelling and 94 and hit another car - killing the occupants?

Would he be able to sign an executive order exempting himself from prosecution? Would you still defend his actions or would you blame it on Chris Coleman?

By the way, it's 750 laws... You just mentioned wiretapping. You have another 749 to go...

"I've seen no charge as re the wiretap "scandal" that appears to remotely go beyond the president's legitimate war powers OR infringe on the rights of Americans for whom there is not probably cause to think they're in contact with terrorists."

Really? Not in the New York Times? Not in the New Yorker? Washington Post? I can find a load of 'em, unless you're limiting your universe to whitehouse.gov and reliably pro-administration blogs.

Give the Democrats a house - just one little house - in the next election. It'll be fun to see what's under all those rocks the Republicans are too craven to pick up.

Mitch said,

"I've seen no charge as re the wiretap "scandal" that appears to remotely go beyond the president's legitimate war powers OR infringe on the rights of Americans for whom there is not probably cause to think they're in contact with terrorists."

Gee Mitch, I didn't realize you were such an authority on constitutional law.

That being said, here's a simple question for you to ponder...

A. Are we at war in Iraq. If we are show me a document that says Congress declared war on Iraq.

"Gee Mitch, I didn't realize you were such an authority on constitutional law."

Likewise.

"A. Are we at war in Iraq. If we are show me a document that says Congress declared war on Iraq."

The House voted 296-133 to grant the President war powers re Iraq. The Senate followed suit, 77-23.

A "declaration of war" is not necessary.

Mitch, you must be refering to the Iraq war resolution.

That would be the same resolution that gave Bush the authority to attack Iraq IF it refused to give up it's weapons of mass destruction - the same weapons that the the UN was unable to find leading up to the launch of the war.

I'll ask the question again... Are we, by definition, at war in Iraq?

One other question while I'm thinking of it. The Iraq war resolution requires the President to report the progress of the war to Congress every 60 days. Show me the Documents or at least some verification that Bush has delivered these 18 documents or 6 per year as required by law.

Also, one last thing. I believe that one other requirement was that Mr. Bush was required to report the extent of diplomatic efforts that were attempted and how they failed within 48 hours of launching war against Iraq. Did that happen and if so could you provide some documentation?

Thanks. Looking forward to you proving me wrong with facts and solid evidence.

"Mitch, you must be refering to the Iraq war resolution...That would be the same resolution that gave Bush the authority to attack Iraq IF it refused to give up it's weapons of mass destruction - the same weapons that the the UN was unable to find leading up to the launch of the war."

First - things discovered after the fact really don't count. And WMD was NOT the only grounds for the resolution.

"I'll ask the question again... Are we, by definition, at war in Iraq?"

Yes. You can let it go now.

"One other question while I'm thinking of it. The Iraq war resolution requires the President to report the progress of the war to Congress every 60 days. Show me the Documents or at least some verification that Bush has delivered these 18 documents or 6 per year as required by law."

Actually, why don't you go and show he hasn't, OK? Rumsfeld reports to Congress, and is grilled in front of (IIRC) the House and Senate Armed Services committees. If I'm not mistaken (and this conversation shows I'm much less likely to be than, say, you), that suffices.

"Also, one last thing. I believe that one other requirement was that Mr. Bush was required to report the extent of diplomatic efforts that were attempted and how they failed within 48 hours of launching war against Iraq. Did that happen and if so could you provide some documentation?"

Not a clue, don't care, and no I won't.

"Thanks. Looking forward to you proving me wrong with facts and solid evidence."

You already have. You're poking away at picayune technicalities trying to save a losing case. Let it go.

Mitch said,

"You already have. You're poking away at picayune technicalities trying to save a losing case. Let it go."

Picayune technicalities which also happen to be written into law - not that little inconviences like laws matter right Mitch?

As for your other comments which I'll address later, it's pretty clear the Constitution and laws of this country really don't mean sh*t to you when you don't even expect the President to follow them.

Preved Medved