With Democrats like this...

To the British, the Minutemen were insurgents.

And you are right, Iraq isn't Viet Nam. It's a far worse policy disaster.

Show me a president who won by a 2-to-1 margin since 1876. You posted that. Were you wrong? Or, like President Bush, do you not make mistakes?

 

Really? In your mind, there's still a debate?

Funny, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor didn't seem to think there was much debate when she ruled Bush's warrantless wiretapping violated Ammendments 1 and 4 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court also didn't find much of a debate, when it ruled Bush's tribunals violated the Constitution.

There's also the little matter of opening our mail without a warrant, collecting our phone records without a warrant and detaining prisoners, including two American citizens, for months on end and refusing to provide them legal counsel or a hearing of any kind, all of which violates rights guaranteed to us under the Constitution.

But hey, violating the Constitution is just a normal day at the office for this guy.

Ignoring a long-standing treaty violated Article VI Clause 2 of the US Constitution:

His own party has noticed a few problems:

Then there's this guy:

Got any other questions I can help you with?

 

Yep. them damn Republican voters. Even grew after that dastardly election robbery of 2000. What could they have been thinking? Bitch, bitch, bitch.

(By the way, yet another Democrat that got elected but plans to do nothing.)

 

dog - you're a funny guy.

You come back with a ruling by a Carter appointed judge that is under appeal regarding listening in on international calls to suspected Al Qaeda members and one on military tribunals.

So your Constitutional right to call terrorists has been taken away by Bush and now you fear being hauled in front of a military tribunal if found in a country where military hostilities are underway? Yeah I can really see how Bush is just stripping those Constitutional rights away from everyone. I'm surprised there hasn't been a rush to Canada over these abominations.

 

It's pointless. Chris has read Five Smart People from whom he has derived his entire world view. He knows nothing about history and not enough about the constitution to throw to a cat. If one American citizen -- let's say, Jose Padilla -- is held without warrant or trial, then all of our rights are diminished. If the president claims powers beyond the scope of his office -- and does so on the advice of a third-string lawyer and a lickspittle AG who refer to the Federalist Papers as "political rhetoric" and the Geneva Conventions as "quaint -- then our standing as self-governing citizens is diminished EVEN IF IT DOESN'T HAPPEN DIRECTLY TO US. And, I would point out that we don't know on whom the president broke the FISA law in order to spy because he refuses the legitimate requests from Congress for the information.
The comparison of deaths under Clinton and deaths under Bush is beyond stupid. It's venal.
We all try to be patient, Chris, but you really don't have a clue what you're talking about. There are conservatives on this board who do -- AQB and Guy I. come immediately to mind, and the Mighty Wingman, too, although he doesn't post as much as he should. You are not one of them.

 

Fenian - I'm sure that we are all touched by your soliloquy but you still haven't defended your assertion that the Jim Crow years of 1956 and 1957 were better years for the average person than the days we are living in today.

Your attack on me is nothing but a weasel attempt to disown having said that.

Today is Elvis' birthday - admit your sin and it will be washed away by the grace of the King.

 

Wow. That's perhaps the dumbest argument I've ever seen anyone make. It's a bit like saying, "Why do you need privacy? If you're not doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about."
Our entire government is established with the concept that people have certain inalienable rights. The Republican party used to claim to be the one that always wanted to protect those rights and keep the governmen small. Now the head of the party is taking incremental steps to take those away, and the best defense you have is, "So you can't talk to terrorists -- big deal."
You need to study history a little more. A free state doesn't turn militaristic in one step. It is done one small step at a time.
Let's just wiretap calls to suspected terrorists. And then calls made by any Muslims. And then those by anyone who didn't vote for us. And then those by anyone who won't wear our symbol on their sleeve. And then any calls. And then we'll do whatever the hell we want, because it's necessary to protect people.
What is the point of terrorism? It is to frighten people and get them to give up their way of life. I can't believe I'm going to say this, but if we allow the government to take away our rights, the terrorists really have already won.

 

OK, I'm done.
What I posted about the 1950's was to counter your preposterous -- and, to this point, completely evidence-free -- assertion that the current economy is the best economy "of the past 50 years." Jim Crow didn't enter into it, and I'm willing to bet a substantial amount of money that you don't know dick about that, either. American SOCIETY is better than it was 50 years ago, in large part because of big-government programs like the GI Bill, and activist judges like the ones who broke segregation in the South. The American ECONOMY is not the best it's been in a half-century, and you can't come up with a single piece of evidence that it is.
You don't know and you don't care that you don't know. You don't seek out any information that will knock any of your deeply held beliefs out of kilter. Please feel free hereafter to argue with the voices in your head.

 

Chris L:

I ask you again - when has anyone won a presidential election by a 2-to-1 margin?

 

Fenian - don't get all upset on me now. I just find it strange that one minute you are spouting things like

When earlier you were spouting the mid-fifties as a Golden Age of prosperity (of course it was also an age with diminished rights for all "coloured" people). Of course today with the stock market and home ownership at historically unprecedented highs and the unemployment rate hovering at a number that economists would consider full employment - I can see your blinded by hate of Bush argument that there is no reason to think the economy is doing well today.