Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Cruising the Web

Obama's first year has been good for the subscriptions to conservative magazines. For liberal magazines - subscriptions are decreasing.

An imprisoned Cuban dissident dies from a hunger strike. What do all the Castrophiles in the US say to such stories?

House Democrats claim privately that Nancy Pelosi just doesn't have the votes to jam through the Senate health care plan. This is the necessary first step in forcing through health care by using reconciliation.

William Briggs offers up a humorous summary
of Liberal Fascism. If you don't have time to read the book; read the blog post.

The WSJ explains how Obama's health care proposal turns Medicare into a wealth transfer program to fund his new entitlement. This at a time when Medicare is facing catastrophic budgetary problems. Obama's solution: siphon money off of a new tax on Medicare to pay for a massive new entitlement. Does this make sense in any world?

Without any evidence, Charlie Cook thinks that Obama is about to triangulate between the Congressional Democrats and the Republicans. Clinton did this and it succeeded for him. However, there is not a single sign that Obama is moving to the middle.

More proof that Nancy Pelosi lied
about not having been briefed about enhanced interrogation being used.

30 comments:

tfhr said...

This just in:

Dateline Havana --

Michael Moore will arrive today to be present for the official ribbon cutting ceremony to herald the opening of the Orlando Zapata Diet Center, a wing of Havana's Amejeiras Hospital.

Moore is expected to extol the virtues of Cuba's wonderful health care system because, as Mr. Zapata knew better than anyone, there is simply nothing to criticize in Cuba.

Jackson Browne will serenade Fidel and make a commercial for the Cuban Ministry of Tourism and Coastal Security, and Sean Penn will be present to puff cigars, Fidel, and provide applause at designated intervals.

Bachbone said...

...Obama's health care proposal turns Medicare into a wealth transfer program...

Politicians lie so often that even when they tell us the truth (e.g., when Obama was quite explicit with Joe, the plumber), most don't believe them.

Tacitus Voltaire said...

here's what bush should have said

"the aim of terrorism is to create fear in the civilian population, fear that will pressure a government into acting the way the terrorists want it to act. the terrorists want us to live in fear, to live looking over our shoulders. They want to turn this society into a prison where we are prisoners of fear, where we give up our american freedoms in the hope that we slow down the terrorists but we are americans. we didn't give up our freedoms and tremble in fear when the empire of japan sent bombers over american territory and tried to destroy our navy, and we won't be manipulated into living in fear now

americans are a brave people. americans are a practical people. and, americans are a patient, persistant people. we will track down the terrorists patiently, carefully, and thoroughly, until they are wiped out from the face of the earth. and we will do it without being terrorized into giving up our freedom, the way the terrorists want us to.

my oath as president is to protect and defend the constitution of the united states. when the last terrorist is tracked down in his lair, the people of the world will see that no force on earth can terrorize an american into doing what they want, and no force on earth can cause us to give up our hard won freedoms and live in fear. and only when all of this has happened will i be able to say that i have fulfilled my oath as president of the united states"

but what did bush do? he quietly gave into bin laden's demand that american forces leave saudi arabia, and repealed the 4th amendment. he did just what bin laden wanted him to.

somebody here please tell me that they are really serious when they say that they will lay down their life to defend our freedom, and not be scared into tossing it away.

Pat Patterson said...

Repealed the 4th Amendment? BTW, the withdrawal from Saudi Arabia began during the Clinton Administration at the behest of the Saudis. The US has almost as many troops in Kuwait and Bahrain now as it did in Saudi Arabia before. What tactical or strategic value would keeping those troops there have accomplished considering with the end of Saddam Saudi Arabia was not in danger any more.

tfhr said...

TV,

As Pat Patterson said, "Repealed the 4th Amendment?" Huh?

And what freedoms have you lost, TV? Please provide a list.

You are so confused. You sound a lot like a cheer leader for AQ when you try so desperately to find propaganda value in the re-alignment of our forces in the Gulf. You should get pom-poms that look like Daniel Pearl's head. "Give me an 'A'! Give me a 'Q'! Whats it spell? B-D-S! How have we got it? B-A-D!"

Tell me why we should maintain bases and aircraft in Saudi Arabia when there is no more "Operation Southern Watch" to keep Saddam in check? Are you suggesting that we should keep a permanent presence there capable of mounting offensive operations against another Gulf state? Interesting. We would certainly need that with several hundred thousand Americans already in Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, at sea, etc. The 400 troops that are there now are providing technical assistance and training for the Saudi military.

Better stick to writing software programs. Your effectiveness as an AQ cheer leader is on par with your speech writing skills.

Lets see:

"we didn't give up our freedoms and tremble in fear when the empire of japan...."

Well I can think of thousands of Japanese Americans that might not agree with you. Ever heard of Manzanar? Google FDR. Are you suggesting that Bush should have rounded up every Arab American? Wow!

"we will track down the terrorists patiently, carefully, and thoroughly, until they are wiped out from the face of the earth...."

I'd prefer that we might convince them to abandon their fight but if you think you can kill every last one to achieve that goal, I'd say you'd have your work cut out. I guess later in that speech you'd have the President go on about how we'd get a warrant first. We wouldn't listen to any phone calls that might be coming into the country from numbers associated with terrorists. We certainly wouldn't ask telecommunication companies to help toward that end nor would we ask foreign banks to assist us with tracking terrorist funds. Of course we would Mirandize captured terrorists to effectively prevent their interrogation thus making other terrorists harder to "track down". We would afford illegal combatants the same Constitutional rights as Americans, unlike Nazi war criminals tried at Nuremburg. The track down "patiently" riff was priceless and would have brought the audience to it's feet right after the "time line" explanation. Your speech would be pretty ridiculous but it wouldn't be boring. Nobody would fall asleep.

ZZZZzzzzz..SNAP ** SNAP ** SNAP... Wake up! Its the real world and WWII has been over for almost 65 years, so please stop trying to fight this war as if it were like any other war we've ever fought. And be honest with yourself about the real reasons behind your criticism of Bush's tactics: you are blinded by petty partisan politics. Obama is using much of the Bush play book right now but I don't hear the same hew and cry that we heard from the left during the Bush years.

You don't know anything about fear, TV. You had eight years of safety to sit back in America and relentlessly snipe at those that sought to keep you safe. Let's ease back some more and make believe it's 10 SEP 2001. Do you feel safer now?

Tacitus Voltaire said...

You can't varnish, it, tfhr - you have been scared into giving up your civil rights

And what freedoms have you lost, TV? Please provide a list

READ IT AGAIN

The Act increases the ability of law enforcement agencies to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records; eases restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States; expands the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and broadens the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts. The act also expands the definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism, thus enlarging the number of activities to which the USA PATRIOT Act’s expanded law enforcement powers can be applied.

The Act was passed by wide margins in both houses of Congress and was supported by members of both the Republican and Democratic parties. Opponents of the law have criticized its authorization of indefinite detentions of immigrants; searches through which law enforcement officers search a home or business without the owner’s or the occupant’s permission or knowledge; the expanded use of National Security Letters, which allows the FBI to search telephone, e-mail, and financial records without a court order; and the expanded access of law enforcement agencies to business records, including library and financial records. Since its passage, several legal challenges have been brought against the act, and Federal courts have ruled that a number of provisions are unconstitutional.

And what freedoms have you lost, TV? Please provide a list.


READ IT AGAIN

Amendment 4
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


GOT IT? THOSE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

for the rest of your life, when you hear people say "I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees", you'll remember that you came down on the side of 'live on my knees'

you are actually making the argument to me that it is necessary to give the government the right to "searches through which law enforcement officers search a home or business without the owner’s or the occupant’s permission or knowledge" -

or else AQ will blow us all up

great

god save me from living in an america where people are so easily scared into giving up their rights

Tacitus Voltaire said...

is this the "conservative" group i am talking to here? is this what kind of stuff the "conservative" movement is made of? when a terrorist tries to terrorize you by blowing people up, every last one of you goes into full soiled underwear mode and supinely begs the government to take away your constitutional rights? really?

this is the movement that is always talking about limited government? this is the movement that is so quick to deride the patriotism of those who disagree with them? this is the movement that is so big on talking tough, and goes directly for the accusation of cowardice as a counter argument? really?

but i hear you clearly, i really do. your position is that the only way we can fight AQ is to give up civil rights guaranteed in the constitution. ok, i heard you

it's not my idea of what it means to love america

i'd rather fight AQ as a free man

Tacitus Voltaire said...

ok, one more time so that we don't keep on going over the same ground:

there are some things worth risking death for. the right to live as a free man is one of them

you may make the argument that we will be in danger if we don't give up our civil rights. i would rather die free than give up my civil rights

so, please stop trying to use the fear argument to convince me that tearing up the constitution is a good thing

equitus said...

TV's into full-blown irrational, hyberbolic straw-man mode again. Can he really be so lacking in self-awareness?

when a terrorist tries to terrorize you by blowing people up, every last one of you goes into full soiled underwear mode and supinely begs the government to take away your constitutional rights? really?

Simple. No. I wake up every day, go about my business, and take care of things as I normally do. I've never once soiled myself in fear, even when I nearly drowned. Maybe TV is projecting on that soiling part.

Taking away my rights? I read it again, and again TV relies on hyperbole and strawmen. The words "unreasonable" and "probable cause" have meaning, you know. And we can debate what falls into these categories and what does not, but TV's disagreeing with the current working interpretation of those phrases does not mean MY RIGHTS HAVE BEEN TAKEN AWAY (OMG!) AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT'S BEEN REPEALED. (Oops, almost soiled myself mimicking TV... I see what he means now.)

this is the movement that is so quick to deride the patriotism of those who disagree with them?

I don't know what TV is referring to. Surely, if he's being serious, he should be able to provide links to a few recent examples of this. But we all know he's not serious.

this is the movement that is so big on talking tough, and goes directly for the accusation of cowardice as a counter argument? really?

Idiocy and irrationality, yes. Cowardice? No, that doesn't usually come to mind. Again, I wonder if he can support this or if he's just shooting his mouth off again. (No, I don't really wonder. Just being polite.)

but i hear you clearly, i really do. your position is that the only way we can fight AQ is to give up civil rights guaranteed in the constitution. ok, i heard you

So TV is hearing voices again? I've not heard anyone in "the movement" say this. Yet he hears these things "clearly." He really does!

Look. It is the defining tactic of AQ to use our rights and freedoms against us. It's a difficult task for the government to defend against this tactic and not violate the rights of citizens too. (key word: CITIZENS) Bush took on this task, imperfectly but effectively, and Obama in many respects is continuing that.

There are absolutists who believe there is no conceivable way to combat this tactic and are critical of any attempt, and there are partisans who will side with the absolutists when the leadership is not of their party.

TV seems to be the partisan sort, since I do not see him nearly as critical of Obama as he still is about Bush.

Tacitus Voltaire said...


Taking away my rights? I read it again, and again TV relies on hyperbole and strawmen


your reading comprehension isn't too good here, is it?

Amendment 4
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


vs

searches through which law enforcement officers search a home or business without the owner’s or the occupant’s permission or knowledge

try again

It's a difficult task for the government to defend against this tactic and not violate the rights of citizens too

oh, so after calling it hyperbole, you just go ahead and admit it. you're making progress

Tacitus Voltaire said...

The words "unreasonable" and "probable cause" have meaning, you know

yes: the 4th amendment says "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

that is, not only is a warrant required for a search by government authorities of private property, but also that it "be supported" & etc. the warrant is issued on "probable cause"

whereas, the "patriot" act does away with such niceties

searches through which law enforcement officers search a home or business without the owner’s or the occupant’s permission or knowledge, and, which allows the FBI to search telephone, e-mail, and financial records without a court order; and the expanded access of law enforcement agencies to business records, including library and financial records

to recap: "unreasonable" means that the reasonability of the search must be determined beforehand, as specified in the next sentence. "probable cause" is a precondition for the required warrant. under the "patriot" act, there is no mechanism to ensure "reasonabless" or "probable cause", not to mention such little details as warrants or descriptions of particular things to be searched for.

so, tell me - which constitutional rights are we to be scared into giving up next? the 1st amendment? the 2nd amendment?

tfhr said...

Good grief, TV!

You can't point to anyone that has had their civil liberties compromised or Constitutional rights abridged and you keep on repeating yourself as if that will some how make your point. Unhinged!

Maybe these people can help soothe your fevered brow:

Patriot Act Protects Both the Nation & Citizens' Rights
Senator Baucus (D-MT)
said, "I strongly support this important counter-terrorism bill . . . . There's a thin line between increasing the powers of the federal government and maintaining Americans' and Montanans' civil liberties. I believe the bill we passed today balances the needs of protecting the country from terrorism and protecting our rights as citizens of this great country." (Senator Baucus, Press Release, October 25, 2001)

The Patriot Act Combats Terrorism Without Losing Constitutional Freedoms
Senator Levin (D-MI)
said, "...we must act swiftly and strongly to defend our country without sacrificing our most cherished values. The Senate antiterrorism legislation meets that test. It responds to these dangerous times by giving law enforcement agencies important new tools to use in combating terrorism without denigrating the principles of due process and fairness embedded in our Constitution." (Senator Levin, Congressional Record, October 25, 2001)

The Patriot Act Reflects the Balance of Civil Liberties and Law Enforcement
Senator Daschle (D-SD)
said, "This reflects the balance between protection of civil liberties and privacy with the need for greater law enforcement." (Leon Bruneau, "U.S. Senate Passes Anti-Terror Bill, Sends It to Bush for Signature," Agence France-Presse, October 25, 2001)

The Patriot Act Provided the Necessary Tools to Fight Terrorism
Senator Feinstein (D-CA)
said, "The only answer all of us could come up with, after having briefing after briefing, is we did not have those [intelligence] tools....This bill is a necessary bill. And I, as a Senator from California, am happy to support it." (Senator Feinstein, Congressional Record, October 25, 2001)

There's more here from Boxer, Biden, Kerry and many others:

http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps6218/www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/q_support.htm

I'll close with a hat trick from Charles Schumer:

The Patriot Act In One Word: Balance
Senator Schumer (D-NY)
said, "If there is one key word that underscores this bill, it is 'balance'. . . . The balance between the need to update our laws given the new challenges and the need to maintain our basic freedoms which distinguish us from our enemies is real." (Senator Schumer, Congressional Record, October 25, 2001)

The Patriot Act Provides Fair and Adequate Tools
Senator Schumer (D-NY)
said, "[T]he scourge of terrorism is going to be with us for a while. Law enforcement has a lot of catching up to do. There is no question about it. , In this bill, at least we give [law enforcement] fair and adequate tools that do not infringe on our freedoms...." (Senator Schumer, Congressional Record, October 25, 2001)

The Patriot Act Modifies the Wall Between Foreign Intelligence and Domestic Law Enforcement
Senator Schumer (D-NY)
said, "When we are facing a war where it is more likely that more civilians will die than military personnel, , the homefront is a warfront. The old high wall between foreign intelligence and domestic law enforcement has to be modified. The bill does a good job of that., . . . The other provisions in the bill are good as well." (Senator Schumer, Congressional Record, October 25, 2001)

I guess that explains why these people as well as the President of the United States, Barack Obama, are at such variance with you on the point. What I don't understand is how you think spewing accusations of cowardice at those that disagree with you will somehow make a point other than that you have no argument and apparently, an ever weakening grasp on reality.

Tacitus Voltaire said...

have you ever heard of "argument by authority"? that's the "proof" you are using. think for yourself

Since its passage, several legal challenges have been brought against the act, and Federal courts have ruled that a number of provisions are unconstitutional.

so apparantly some other people who might know something disagree with and your quotes

Tacitus Voltaire said...

and into the bargain, there are some things that have happened that should send a chill down the spine of anybody who values our constitutional rights to privacy that took place years after all these estimable congresspersons assured us (in the so calm and secure atmosphere of less than two months after 9/11) that everything would be hunky-dory. something that is very clearly on the record and far from disputed

in the fall of 2008 congress passed a bill giving retroactive immunity to those telecom companies who had broken the law by divulging private information about their customers when government security personnel requested them. only one telecom company refused, on the grounds, of course, that it was illegal and unconstitutional

keep in mind that these companies broke the law even under the reduced rights of privacy we have been subjected to under the "patriot" act

hillary clinton voted against it, but barack obama voted - enthusiastically! - for forgiving the telecom companies for breaking the law by giving the government information about what legally should have been our private records and communications

so much for the wonderful assurances of all of these fine senators. they were wrong

tfhr said...

TV,

Please provide some examples of those court decisions. Or are they as difficult to provide as that list of Americans that have had their civil rights and Constitutional rights violated?

By the way, your decision to throw this in was pretty puzzling:

Since its passage, several legal challenges have been brought against the act, and Federal courts have ruled that a number of provisions are unconstitutional.

So I threw it into Surf Canyon and did a little search and now I know why you didn't include the link. Here's the link:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081119204432AAjP9pH

Your italicized excerpt is from that noted legal scholar, "Laura [tangerine atheati]". I read her comments with great interest but I'm surprised you didn't borrow from "Olav" at the top of the page. Or was his "I can has cheeseburger" grasp of the language a sticking point for you? Aside from the grammar, I'd say you and Olav are on the same sheet of music these days.

TV, all I could do was to show bipartisanship on the issue is possible. All it takes is a little objectivity, some clarity of thought, and a willingness to accept that we are at war with a very dangerous enemy. If you want to sit out in the woods and bark at the moon with Olav and the tangerine girl instead, be my guest.

tfhr said...

TV,

Your comment at 9:14 PM is incoherent.

Are you angry at Barack Obama or your shift key? I can't tell.

Pat Patterson said...

And then the Supreme Court overturned all those rulings and said that the parties in question could not prove they had been spied upon and that under the authority the government claimed the wiretaps were legal because they were indeed foreign. Since then the program has been shut down and put completely under the guidelines of the FISA courts. So the telecom companies were acting under the law and the immunity makes sure that they are not hauled into every court in the world, especially when the judge is a fund raiser for the ACLU, for political purposes.

These cases continue to fail simply because no one has been damaged by the wiretaps and therefore, except for the Holy Land trial, no one has standing to sue.

Tacitus Voltaire said...

i cut and pasted the information about the "patriot" act directly from the wikipedia article

as usual for the "conservative" side, finding themselves unable to respnd on the merits of the argument, they feel that, somehow, casting aspersions on somebody will somehow contribute to the debate

as for 9:14 and pat's reply, you continue to miss the point about the non-disputed fact that the goverment now has significantly expanded powers to invade our privacy. tell me, when will this emergency end and our constitutional right to privacy be restored?

or will we have to explain to our children that we were protected by the fourth amendment for 200 years, but now we have allowed terrorists to make us permanently less free?

Tacitus Voltaire said...

i love these slave mentality arguments

"t.v., you just don't understand, the world has changed and it's dangerous to leave the compound now!!! HELLO! BZZZZZZZZT! WAKE UP! you can't just go anywhere you want now! if you open the fence BAD PEOPLE WILL COME HERE AND KILL US ALL. so just be quiet and accept that we can't have the freedom to come and go as we please anymore

gee, you're so sore about a little freedom! it's just a little less freedom. just a teeny bit. hey - does it restrict you personally? did you want to walk to france or something? don't you know that americans have always given up freedom for security? all of Our Leaders agree that it's just fine! well, ok, maybe some of Our Leaders disagreed, but they were shown the Right Path, and now all of Our Leaders agree that we have given up just the right amount of freedom

well, t.v., i guess you're hopeless. you're just going to continue to make yourself and others miserable with your endless boring rants about 'why can't we go outside the fence like we used to?'. i give up on trying to help you accept the necessity of giving up a little freedom

tfhr said...

TV,

Try using your shift key to type out which specific freedoms you have lost because your lower case diatribe FAILS.

And what's this about a Wikipedia article? Where's the URL? I gave you a link to some twit's answers.yahoo.com rant that matched yours word for word. If you're going to borrow other people's commentary for use as your own, can you at least provide some sort of citation?

Pat Patterson said...

But if you can't come up with examples of people having their rights either trimmed or taken away how can they have been lost? When the "missing" raise their hand and say, "No, I'm not missing." Then they are not missing in spite of what a clipboard may say.

Tacitus Voltaire said...

wikipedia article:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act?wasRedirected=true

you know, i found this article by typing "patriot act" into the google search engine text entry box and hitting return. it came up as ths second hit. geez

Tacitus Voltaire said...

no, tfhr, the link you provided to does not lead to anything remotely like "word for word" what, actually, i cut and pasted from the wikipedia article at the link in my previous comment.

i really have no idea why you would care to expose yourself to ridicule by loudly making a claim that anybody could see for themselves was false. also, if you are incapable of locating the wikipedia article on the "patriot" act without help, i wouldn't boast about it

tfhr said...

TV,

You need to place links with your "quotes" from the get go.

At this point, we can only guess whether or not "tangerine girl" also wrote the Wikipedia entry or if you both just lift other peoples work without attribution.

tfhr said...

TV,

I'm sorry you're an idiot. Copy and paste the link that I provided and you'll see the very same words repeated by another person. HINT: copy and paste. Don't eat the paste.

Scroll down to the entry by "Laura [tangerine atheati]" and read her last paragraph, posted on the page 1 year ago. She sounds unoriginally just like your post yesterday.

Tacitus Voltaire said...

Scroll down to the entry by "Laura [tangerine atheati]" and read her last paragraph

re-read my original two paragraph quote from wikipedia, and you will see that this is directly from wikipedia. your dream date here apparantly cut and pasted the last two sentences from the second of the same two paragraphs in the wikipedia article

so, no, the entire two paragraphs that i have been using the entire time, including the one or two sentence take-outs, can be clearly seen to be directly from wikipedia, and not found "word-for-word" in the idiotic chat room that you are so fond of

Tacitus Voltaire said...

You need to place links with your "quotes" from the get go

oh, thank you

for your part, you need to show that you have actually read anything about the bills you so passionately oppose or support

Tacitus Voltaire said...

you know, tfhr, i would really rather debate with you in a civilized tone of voice. i'm afraid your retort to me, that defending civil rights found in the constitution is the same as cravenly giving weapons to the terrorists, ticked me off. i really expected you to be shocked when you found out what the "patriot" act actually does, and that your response would be along the lines of 'it's regrettable that we are forced to do this and i hope we can fully restore the constitution soon', not 'you just want to help the terrorists'.

i shouldn't be engaged in a game of 'who started it', so instead i'll propose a deal with you: if you answer my points without sarcasm and other implications of stupidity, i will do my best to not do it either, and then we can have an interesting discussion without the high emotional content. deal?

tfhr said...

TV,

Go back and review your comments. Start at the top where your entire premise is built on a lie.

You said, "...he quietly gave into bin laden's demand that american forces leave saudi arabia, and repealed the 4th amendment."

If you want to have a civil discussion, don't start out by trying to ram garbage down our throats. Same for the "coward" meme that your Patriot Act commentary devolved into. For reasons I'll never understand, people on the left cannot imagine that people on the right might be guided by principles that they hold dear. For example, when a discussion on gay rights comes up, it only takes a few seconds before someone on the left screams "homophobe". Do they ever stop to consider that the conservative view could be based on closely held beliefs based on religion, law, family upbringing, etc.? No, just scream "homophobe", don a fruity hat, leather chaps and ride the Judy Garland float in the next parade through downtown San Francisco.

When you insist that someone that supports the Patriot Act is cowering, racist, etc., why should I believe that you are interested in a debate on the merits of the provisions of the Act?

Look in the mirror, TV. You've been unusually unhinged these past few days. In the past I've regarded you as obdurate. That's no big deal. Something has changed for you. I don't know if it's because last Friday the Obama administration extended the Patriot Act for another year, because you are fearful of the public backlash that may result if the Dem leadership attempts to pass the health care scam through "reconciliation", or it's something else. Whatever it is, you need to treat others here with some respect if you want that in return.

The next step is yours.

Pat Patterson said...

If the Patriot Act "does," then what does it do that makes finding examples based on actual cases rather than hypotheticals.

BTW, just recently I had to go through my mom's old mail to my dad when he had been shipped god knows where (actually Okinawa) and every single letter had a stamp on the outside indicating they had been read by the government. While my dad's letters to her were covered with black marks or in some cases missing whole paragraphs. And yet nobody really complained because then like now people felt this intrusion was necessary to keep the servicemen safe and not allow important information.