Worser news, Mitch. They are all American. Home grown, just like the clowns who wanted to to attack Canada two weeks ago.
Where oh where is the ACLU? We desperately need their protection.

Hey, I'm pretty sure that the Power Boobs were "vacationing" in Florida...anyone know fer sure who's been pasting up the daily turds on their website lately?

Hey, I'm pretty sure that the Power Boobs were "vacationing" in Florida...anyone know fer sure who's been pasting up the daily turds on their website lately?

Freedom requires courage. No wonder you people are so willing to throw it away. You can not value what you can not use.

The courage to endure many more thousands or tens of thousands of deaths, right Rick?

Because those tens of thousands of people's lives are less important than making sure your government isn't legally tracking terrorists making phone calls overseas and monitoring suspicious financial transactions related to the planning of those tens of thousands of deaths, right Rick?

Is that the kind of BDS courage that you have screwed into your skull?

When you want to take away a people's freedom, make them afraid. How eager you are to hand over your rights, how trusting you are of government. Your fearful naievity would be almost touching, if you weren't in such a headlong rush to hand over my own rights as well as your own. HANDS OFF!

What ever happened to that expression, you know the one, that was on every conservative's lips just one president back? The one that sort of went along the lines of "Anyone who gives up freedom for security deserves neither"? Or how about this one, "Trust but verify"? Who said that again?

This is either one massive case of amnesia, or hypocrisy thy name is Republican!

No, I DON'T want the New York Times blabbing sources and methods to Al Quaida. No, I DON'T have a problem with data mining call patterns - there is a real security purpose to that. And I even don't have a problem with wiretaps with an after the fact judicial review. You know, judges? Appointed for life? Can't be pressured by a congressional appropriation or a vice president, unlike some nameless government official working for the NSA pr other intelligence organizations who are always acting with one eye on the pension benefit? But that last commentator has me royally steamed with his loose talk of wiretaps.

THERE IS NO FREAKING WAY I'LL STAND FOR ONE BRANCH LISTENING IN TO PHONECALLS WITHOUT JUDICIAL REVIEW SOME TIME DURING THE PROCESS! Geeze, what ever happened to checks and balances? Come on, really, how long until Rove listens in to democractic game plans? Nothing's stopping him, really - yeah, there are NSA officials to go through but if the executive branch wants to bowl there way through it all they need is the right person appointed or demoted or leveraged and they got carte blanche just like they've twisted just about every other government agency, especially with congress in their pocket.

Or are you guys just waiting for a Democractic president and Democratic congress to turn a blind eye when gun owners and anti-abortion activists are wiretapped for no good reason? Cause you know, it's gonna happen, we keep down this road, if there's no check on the executive. What'd you think LBJ would do with the kind of powers you're so eager to roll out for W? Huh?

Rick and Bill,

Answer in a post, upcoming probably tomorrow.

I heard that before.

http://www.shotinthedark.info/archives/007017.html

How are you coming with that 'data' showing better outcomes in the American health care system.

Bill, you're an idiot. A wiretap on an incoming call from a terrorist to a phone in this country ISNT listening in on the Democratic Party. It isn’t listening to gun owners or anti-abortionist. What do think would happen if any president got caught listening in on the opposition phone calls, or gun owners or anti-abortion folks? Frankly Bill (and Rick) I don’t think either of you is qualified to tell me what is or isn’t legal. Where was your outrage during the last administration when it was gutting the 2nd, 4th and 5th amendments regarding search and seizure, forfeit laws, war on drugs, etc etc etc. I am far more concerned about the local swat team kicking in the wrong door on a no knock raid and the rights that are violated by such action, then the go listening in on incoming calls from outside of the country originated by known terrorists. I am far more concerned about NOLA cops entering private houses and taking legally owned firearms from law abiding people than the remote possibility of Rove listening to the democrat’s phone calls. I just don’t understand why your people get all worked up over actions that don’t break the law (but make you feel icky), but I hear nothing from you about actual gov actions that clearly violate the law.

Rick, are you sure you wanna go there? I could (were it important enough) dig up thread after thread where, upon being challenged on facts, you skittered away not to be heard from again.

As to this particular issue - tomorrow it is.

Bill, you're an idiot. A wiretap on an incoming call from a terrorist to a phone in this country ISNT listening in on the Democratic Party. It isn’t listening to gun owners or anti-abortionist. What do think would happen if any president got caught listening in on the opposition phone calls, or gun owners or anti-abortion folks? Frankly Bill (and Rick) I don’t think either of you is qualified to tell me what is or isn’t legal. Where was your outrage during the last administration when it was gutting the 2nd, 4th and 5th amendments regarding search and seizure, forfeit laws, war on drugs, etc etc etc. I am far more concerned about the local swat team kicking in the wrong door on a no knock raid and the rights that are violated by such action, then the go listening in on incoming calls from outside of the country originated by known terrorists. I am far more concerned about NOLA cops entering private houses and taking legally owned firearms from law abiding people than the remote possibility of Rove listening to the democrat’s phone calls. I just don’t understand why your people get all worked up over actions that don’t break the law (but make you feel icky), but I hear nothing from you about actual gov actions that clearly violate the law.

Buzz, is that the best you can do? Avoid or misinterpret my argument (deliberately?) and then launch yourself into a grade school homily of "well HE started it!"? And while you're busy preaching "reality" to me maybe you can go back and reread what I said, this time for comprehension instead of reading what you were expecting to see from your conception of a cartoon liberal. Oh, and the name calling so works for you, go check with Rove and see if he has any openings.

OK, here's my argument in a nutshell. On wiretaps I want a judge in the pipeline, doesn't matter if its before or after the fact, but I want a judge. Bush says "Trust me, we're only going after terrorists". I don't, and no one else should, not with his track record or any recent president's track record. I want someone who's not going to be a crony, not going to be a civil servant who can be mauled around for political reasons, not going to be department A or working group B who can be starved for funding so they can't do their job. I want some one outside the executive department, someone that can't be pressured to look the other way. OK, got it now? Or will it take having president Hillary Clinton (blessed be the name of the prophet) taking full advantage of all these unnacountable new powers you and yours have been so eager to ladle onto the presidency to get it through your oh-so-apparently-thick skull.

"Rick, are you sure you wanna go there? I could (were it important enough) dig up thread after thread where, upon being challenged on facts, you skittered away not to be heard from again."

You mean like this thread.
http://www.shotinthedark.info/archives/007026.html

Where you attempted to show that "everyone in Washington" knew Valerie Plame was a CIA agent, but the only acutal person you could cite who knew her real job was her supervisor at the CIA.

Rick; true to form, you're changing the subject again. I cited a piece, per your request, that showed that Plame's vocation was common knowledge; you then tried to parse the term "common" beyond all meaning, while suddently adopting a convenient, legalistic, pointillistic approach to an issue that's going to be pretty well decided in a court of law as well as that of public opinion (and decided without Rove, who is, lest we forget, charged with nothing).

to go back to the original (inconvenient?) question - tomorrow.

I am glad I did not hold my breath for the promised post.

P.S. I case you are interested I have the data on health care outcomes sitting on my desk.

God! How could I have missed this thread???

http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/06/26/tds-the-miami-seven/

By the way... BOO!

break cigar - http://www.myillgoat.info/break-cigar.html

child computer desk chair - http://www.bestallgoodtab.info/child-computer-desk-chair.html