Barack Obama Sucks
Barack Obama sucks because he will appoint terrible judges.
Barack Obama sucks because he will make John Edwards the A.G., and Slow Joe Biden the Secretary of State.
Barack Obama sucks because he will seek to pass big-government programs.
Barack Obama sucks because he will cut and run in Iraq, risking civil war in that country.
Barack Obama sucks because he reneges on his promises.
Barack Obama sucks because he has surrounded himself with bad people.
My goal is to make sure anyone who uses Google to confirm their belief that Barack Obama sucks, will find this post and join the choir.
Will he appoint Monica to his administration, or would that be too much competition?
Comment by Another Drew — 6/10/2008 @ 6:13 pm
Big government programs, how ominous!
How can you get more big government than warrantless wiretapping and unprecedented federal spending?
You’re telling me you think John Edwards would be less capable than Alberto Gonzalez?
Cutting and running in Iraq sounds good to me, hemorrhaging money and getting absolutely no return doesn’t seem to be such a good idea.
Bad people, haha. If ‘God Damn America’ is what makes someone a bad person, you really ought to just go shoot yourself.
Comment by Levi — 6/10/2008 @ 6:21 pm
Levi, do you think you have been wiretapped because you are an idiot? Or is it because you are a domestic terrorist? Do you know anyone who was wiretapped? How many states are there in the United States? Are any of your friends the people you know?
Comment by Zelsdorf Ragshaft III — 6/10/2008 @ 6:25 pm
Levi - If you think Bush spent a lot of money, just watch what Barack does.
Warrantless surveillance has nothing on universal healthcare with a single payer, moron.
Comment by daleyrocks — 6/10/2008 @ 6:32 pm
yeah, but what if he really is a lightbringer? your chakras may be so clogged with psychic schmutz that you couldn’t recognize a cosmic avatar in your midst. levels of perception and transdimensional connectivity can’t be the same among everyone, otherwise they wouldn’t say that the force is stronger or weaker in some, and there would be no knights or lords. maybe if you stood under a man-sized crystal pyramid for awhile, then broke for some bodywork and aromatherapy to start. in any event, he can’t suck any worse than george w. bush.
Comment by assistant devil's advocate — 6/10/2008 @ 6:43 pm
Levi, since you’re worried about wiretapping it behooves you to elaborate. Are you a member of al-Qaeda yourself, or are you an American citizen in the habit of placing or receiving international calls to al-Qaeda members? Or are you a dumbfuck who couldn’t find his ass with both hands, a flashlight and an ass-map?
Comment by Xrlq — 6/10/2008 @ 6:53 pm
You’re telling me you think John Edwards would be less capable than Alberto Gonzalez?
Yes.
Comment by Paul — 6/10/2008 @ 6:59 pm
Right. Let’s make the guy who got wildly rich suing baby docs with science later now widely considered wrong AG.
And when the hell is Bush going to protect Levi? He’s apparently dodging bullets and getting his ass wiretapped. To be fair, his Mom is a tough broad.
Comment by Sweetie — 6/10/2008 @ 7:00 pm
daleyrocks, add in Maxine Waters’ desire to nationalize the petroleum industry, and we’ve got proposals to nationalize nearly a quarter of our entire economy. But that violation of the Constitution is as nothing compared to the horror of the entirely constitutional tapping of international phone calls.
Comment by SPQR — 6/10/2008 @ 7:06 pm
Levi,
Do you have any inside source that McCain is considering Alberto Gonzalez for a position in his administration?
Comment by aunursa — 6/10/2008 @ 7:19 pm
If you think Bush spent a lot of money, just watch what Barack does.
Someone should tell someone this isn’t an argument. I mean, it could be if the person making it 1) wasn’t a tool and 2) compared Bush’s 2009 budget proposal with Obama’s plans, but I think 1) precludes 2) from ever happening, so we’ll just have to wish and dream.
Comment by SEK — 6/10/2008 @ 7:21 pm
I’m so confused, SEK … someone this, someone that and you have some tools to sell?
Comment by SPQR — 6/10/2008 @ 7:27 pm
SEK - Could you rephrase your comment so that people can understand it? Please.
Comment by daleyrocks — 6/10/2008 @ 7:29 pm
Barack Obama will cut the military budget by turning all weapons into agricultural tools so people will have fresh fruit in the house for their daughters?
Comment by nk — 6/10/2008 @ 7:33 pm
Darn, that should have been *Barack Whose-Middle-Name-May-Only-Be-Spoken-In-Shadow Obama*.
Comment by nk — 6/10/2008 @ 7:34 pm
Being a tool precludes comparing Bush’s 2009 budget with Obama’s plans? Huh?
What does Bush’s 2009 budget have to do with Obama’s campaign promises SEK? It’s what happens when Obama gets in office that matters. All of the Obama plans that I see involve expansion of big government. I believe he will be spending significantly more than Bush.
Where do you see him spending less, apart from Iraq and Afghanistan, if those conflicts wind down?
Comment by daleyrocks — 6/10/2008 @ 7:35 pm
nk - I want guns and butter and fresh fruit.
Comment by daleyrocks — 6/10/2008 @ 7:38 pm
What a hoot. I love the concept for Google. Barack would be a disaster for this country
Comment by dahinz — 6/10/2008 @ 7:47 pm
What does Bush’s 2009 budget have to do with Obama’s campaign promises SEK? It’s what happens when Obama gets in office that matters. All of the Obama plans that I see involve expansion of big government. I believe he will be spending significantly more than Bush.
You made a direct, but unsubstantiated comment about how Obama’s spending habits would compare to Bush’s. I recommended you provide some, what is called? That’s right, evidence.
Where do you see him spending less, apart from Iraq and Afghanistan, if those conflicts wind down?
You understand scale, don’t you? Like if you turned this into a pie chart you’d see how grossly disproportionate military spending is before “Enacted Supplemental and Emergency Funding” is even factored into the equation. Or if Obama decided to trust the military to run the war and stopped paying contractors five-fold what it pays soldiers, the magnitude of the savings the government would reap. He could quadruple spending by a billion in the sectors you find offensive and still find surplus enough to not run the economy into the ground.
Comment by SEK — 6/10/2008 @ 7:51 pm
I think a bag of wet sand would be more capable than John Edwards. Weeping for juries while channeling dead kids does not the nation’s highest law enforcement official make.
Comment by Pablo — 6/10/2008 @ 7:58 pm
– How can you get more big government than warrantless wiretapping and unprecedented federal spending? –
.
I’m not happy with the warrantless wiretapping either, but the country somehow got past the unconstitutional shenanigans that precipitated the Church hearings. “Surveillance state” probably transcends political party.
.
And I’m not happy with the Republican party spending habits, and I think the MCA/DTA will bite the US in the ass, in the long run.
.
But unhappy as the GOP and GWB make me, I advocate rejection of the policies of the Democratic party as being unhealthy for a society of independent individuals. I will never accept political correctness, tax our way to prosperity, centralize the money for health care, etc.
Comment by cboldt — 6/10/2008 @ 8:01 pm
Sweet. I got myself on the first page of Google results for the “Barack Obama sucks” search.
Those of you who are bloggers should go link this post, hyperlinked to “Barack Obama sucks.”
Yeah, it’s silly. But I did it with John Kerry too, and got myself to the 6th result. Of course, most of the people who came to the post via that search were morons, but still, fun is fun.
Comment by Patterico — 6/10/2008 @ 8:04 pm
SEK - I explained the basis of my comment to Levi. You made assumptions about it that were false and continue to do so based on your biases.
You have not explained where Obama will spend less than Bush, absent the military, so your challenge to my point is bullshit. If there is a place where Obama has quantified his proposals and budgets so that I could compare them, I would appreciate you providing a link to them.
You understand big government liberal, don’t you?
Comment by daleyrocks — 6/10/2008 @ 8:10 pm
Scott,
So, you’d be OK with expanding the military to pre-Clinton levels? And you think the up front payroll savings would offset the overall increase in military benefits costs? And do you think the military doesn’t “run” the contractors that work for it, but it’s the other way around?
Comment by Pablo — 6/10/2008 @ 8:10 pm
as much as i hate to post something that is favorable to mccain here is some evidence.
Comment by chas — 6/10/2008 @ 8:18 pm
CUT AND RUN! CUT AND RUN! CUT AND RUN!
Love it. So much better than
STAY AND KILL! STAY AND KILL! STAY AND KILL!
Comment by David Ehrenstein — 6/10/2008 @ 8:19 pm
I didn’t see any line items for Social Security or Medicare spending, but I may have missed them. Those figures were for discretionary spending…are Social Security and Medicare not among that?
According to another source, Medicare makes up 54% of the $737 Billion HHS budget, so that’s roughly $397 Billion annually. Social Security I’m pretty sure is even more than that.
You can play with figures all you want to show how awful military spending is, but acting like it’s the biggest fish in the pond is incorrect.
Comment by Steverino — 6/10/2008 @ 8:23 pm
Barack Hey-Buddy-Got-A-Light Obama has promised to cut wasteful spending on unproven missile defense systems. He will simply rise up to his true 10-mile height and intercept them with his bare hands.
Comment by nk — 6/10/2008 @ 8:34 pm
Unconscionable offer of the day:
Deal?
Comment by Xrlq — 6/10/2008 @ 8:34 pm
Great, yet another BDS sufferer who does not understand why the DoD shifted to contractors to support operations long before George W. Bush came along.
Comment by SPQR — 6/10/2008 @ 8:49 pm
SPQR - Most of them don’t.
Comment by daleyrocks — 6/10/2008 @ 8:58 pm
True, daleyrocks, it has math in it.
Me bad.
Comment by SPQR — 6/10/2008 @ 9:11 pm
Nobody knows anyone who was wiretapped, that is the whole point. They could have done it to me, they could have done it to you, they could have done it to everybody. The whole god damn point is that we don’t know.
But they were wiretapping people, and they were doing it illegally, and now they’re trying to provide for themselves retroactive immunity. That doesn’t raise a red flag with you? What happened to all that stuff about mistrusting the government?
Comment by Levi — 6/10/2008 @ 9:29 pm
Well, there you have it, I guess.
Comment by Levi — 6/10/2008 @ 9:29 pm
I don’t doubt that he’ll spend a lot, but Democrats don’t run around pretending to be ’small government, fiscal conservatives’ like Republicans do. Then, their base goes around excusing the complete and utter disregard for those ideals, which are supposedly two of the core, defining values of the platform.
Comment by Levi — 6/10/2008 @ 9:32 pm
I spent an hour looking for a good laugh. I should have came here first. Just reading the idiot liberals comments trying to alibi another idiot,(BHO) is really a hoot. I’m now wondering where he war born (if he was born) and to who. Seems there’s a mystery here. I think Barry died at birth and has been replaced by one of Osama’s hundred children of the corn, or was that children of the pot? Could be he is the result of a test tube experment to clone a camel mixed with a jackass that went wrong.
Comment by Scrapiron — 6/10/2008 @ 9:33 pm
A military defense system is just about as big a waste of money as you can conceive of.
Are you suggesting that throwing so much money at such a pipe dream is a wise investment?
Comment by Levi — 6/10/2008 @ 9:36 pm
So you are admitting that you have no evidence whatsoever to support your assertion that the US Government is actually violating the civil rights of random American citizens by wiretapping them, yet you are eager to assert this unsubstantiated folderol for no other reason than to attempt to score political points against a man who is no longer eligible for Federal office?
Whatever happened to “innocent until proven guilty”? Or does that not apply to anyone who disagrees with you?
If you are offended that I believe something different than you, doesn’t that make you intolerant?
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/10/2008 @ 9:42 pm
I have a simple solution for the high oil prices. We set the beginning price for a bushel of corn, wheat, and/or soybeans at 3 barrels of oil. Don’t like the barter price, mix some sand in your crude and see how it taste. Or we can use the democrat tactic and indict/sue them and get the oil down to $0 per barrel and they will ship 0 barrels.
Comment by Scrapiron — 6/10/2008 @ 9:45 pm
Guess all those successful tests were faked, huh? That satellite was just vaporized by Chuck Norris throwing a nasty glance skyward? That intercepted SCUD scared away by the Beatification chant at DNC HQ?
Does being that stupid hurt?
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/10/2008 @ 9:45 pm
Deal.
Comment by Patterico — 6/10/2008 @ 9:47 pm
Two words: Socialized. Healthcare.
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/10/2008 @ 9:58 pm
“Barack Obama will cut the military budget by turning all weapons into agricultural tools so people will have fresh fruit in the house for their daughters?”
- nk
Swords to plowshares, and all that…
Comment by Leviticus — 6/10/2008 @ 10:00 pm
SEK:
What I am saying is that if the Administration denies having tortured, I can disagree with them, but it’s Orwellian of me to claim that they have admitted torturing people. Because, while you firmly believe that waterboarding is torture, and I tend to agree, others disagree.
Here is your analogy:
1. Cheney admitted waterboarding;
2. SEK and many others believe waterboarding is torture,
THEREFORE . . .
3. Cheney admitted torture.
Never mind that he expressly denied it!
Let me give you what I think is a pretty damn good analogy, if I do say so my damn self:
Without asking you the question, I’ll assume that if I were to ask you: “SEK, do you think it is OK for someone to lie on the pages of the L.A. Times?” you would say no.
For purposes of this analogy, assume I asked that question and you gave that answer.
Then I write: “SEK admits that he thinks it’s OK for Tim Rutten to lie on the pages of the L.A. Times.”
By SEK logic, I have not lied!
I firmly think what Rutten has done is a lie, and so do many of my readers. But you disagree.
Because you disagree, you believe it’s OK for Rutten to say what he said in the pages of the L.A. Times. Ergo:
1. You admit you think it’s OK for Rutten to say what he said;
2. I think what Rutten said was a lie;
THEREFORE . . .
3. You admit that you think it’s OK for Rutten to lie on the pages of the L.A. Times!
Sure, you expressly said the opposite. But I get to ignore your express statement, and graft my own definition of his actions onto your statement. Because I am convinced that my definition is accurate, I remain utterly convinced that I am right to call you a defender of lying in the pages of the L.A. Times.
Comment by Patterico — 6/10/2008 @ 10:01 pm
“You made a direct, but unsubstantiated comment about how Obama’s spending habits would compare to Bush’s. I recommended you provide some, what is called? That’s right, evidence.”
Scott - Then SEK turned right around and made and unsubstantiated comment of his own, but who’s counting, right.
Comment by daleyrocks — 6/10/2008 @ 10:03 pm
If you beat your sword into a plowshare, you will probably end up plowing for someone who kept their sword. — Samuel F.B. Morse
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/10/2008 @ 10:05 pm
OK, SEK and daleyrocks, y’all evidently have some kind of history. But I like both of you, and I think SEK is a good guy whom I’d like to keep around as a commenter, so try to play nice — or at least mostly nice.
Comment by Patterico — 6/10/2008 @ 10:06 pm
He reneges on long-standing [liberal] political promises, too, such as the cap on social security taxes matching the cap on social security benefits. That cap has been in existence since FDR, and Obama wants to break the deal.
This is a man of the hard left, as he learned at his mother’s knee. Even her friends called her “a fellow traveller” which means she wasn’t quite a Communist, but near enough to be confused with one.
Oh, and Barack Obama Sucks
Comment by Kevin Murphy — 6/10/2008 @ 10:47 pm
Sorry Patterico - I thought it was pretty mild, so far at least. I think SEK is still angry about getting his tits in a wringer over Beauchamp last year.
Comment by daleyrocks — 6/10/2008 @ 11:49 pm
Oh, no big deal. Actually, I had glanced over the thread and saw the “moron” comment. But I now see that was directed at Levi, who pretty much asks for it.
Actually, SEK pretty much started the name-calling in this thread with you.
So never mind. Carry on.
Comment by Patterico — 6/10/2008 @ 11:52 pm
Of course we have no evidence, again, that is the entire god damn point. The broader American system of government is predicated on having each branch of the government subject to review by the other branches, the FISA law is a good example of this foundational American government principal because it’s a law passed by the legislative branch that dictates how the executive branch can pursue investigations subject to review by the judicial branch. All three branches are involved.
Under the Bush administration on this particular issue, the executive branch is completely (and needlessly) ignoring the legislative branch (a definitive violation of the law) and additionally shielding itself from review by the judicial branch. They are wiretapping people without warrants. That is all. Just as easily as you can say, ‘They are only wiretapping the bad guys,’ I can say, ‘They are wiretapping everyone over the age of 12,’ and we have just as much proof on either side of that hypothetical argument. No one is checking to make sure they have a good reason to wiretap someone, and more importantly, no one is able to make sure that they are not wiretapping someone for no good reason. We have nothing to go on besides the word of the executive branch, and trusting the word of the executive branch, especially when they are going to great lengths to shield themselves from review by the other branches, is fundamentally un-American. It goes against every ideal our government was founded upon.
And that entire argument is before you consider the fact that the FISA law allows for the government to wiretap someone immediately as long as they obtain a warrant within 3 days, as well as the fact that the Bush administration’s argument that lawsuits against the telecom companies might reveal national security secrets is quite obviously frivolous, since it is possible for judicial review to occur without disclosing classified information.
So what we’re left with is the executive branch plainly violating the law, preventing the other branches of government from ‘checking’ the executive branch, and the executive branch insisting with false arguments that their lawbreaking accomplices be permanently shielded from prosecution. This is American governance? By complaining about this most obvious and plain of Constitutional violations, I am merely trying to ’score political points?’ This undermines the entire Democratic three-branch system of America. What is the argument in support of these criminals? Everything I’ve heard from their side seems wholly dependent on the hearer of the argument having no understanding of American government, and quite probably no sense of justice.
It’s kind of hard to provide evidence when the only people capable of providing evidence are implicit in the very crime you’re trying to prove was committed. They can simply say ‘Executive privilege,’ or, ‘This is classified,’ and the public has no access.
And regardless of whether or not the government is actually wiretapping people for no reason, the very fact that they are preventing the other branches of government from checking out whether or not that is the case should cause informed citizens to be very, very angry. If they have nothing to hide, why are they insisting on granting retroactive immunity to the telecom companies? Isn’t that a justifiable suspicion?
I will confess to being intolerant of downright stupidity. I don’t think that’s a problem. There’s no excuse to be as stupid as Republicans are in 2008. Hell no I’m not going to tolerate that kind of dumbness. Intolerance isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Did I ever say it was? Should we tolerate sexism or racism or, in the case of Republicans, overwhelming stupidity? I don’t think we should. I would definitely say that I am intolerant of those things, and I am proud of it.
Comment by Levi — 6/11/2008 @ 12:50 am
I’ve read all about these ’successful tests,’ which amount to a couple of computer simulations run under ideal conditions. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out all the weaknesses of the system; you could fit your ICBMS with fairly basic countermeasures, you could deploy a handful of dummy missiles along with your real nuke, hell, you can even wait for certain weather conditions, and the ‘missile shield’ will almost certainly fail.
There’s virtually no way that we can deploy a true ‘missile shield’ network that does the equivalent of basically shooting a bullet with another bullet within about a 10 minute timeframe (even 10 minutes is pretty generous). You can get all excited about a few heavily scripted ’successful tests,’ but you’re a god damn idiot to think that means we’ll be able to do something about an incoming missile in the real world.
Comment by Levi — 6/11/2008 @ 12:59 am
Never mind that he expressly denied it!
Because he has plausible, i.e. legally defensible, deniability. But that’s legalism of the worst sort — when malevolent clowns whisper orders in the ear of a serial killer, the serial killer will insist he’s sane. He isn’t. Doesn’t matter how heavily he insists otherwise — reasonable people are free to disagree. By your own account, Cheney on torture’s equivalent: he claims the US doesn’t torture, even though reasonable conservatives like yourself believe that what the administration has admitted to doing constitutes torture.
Sure, the administration didn’t admit squat itself, but we’re allowed to judge for ourselves. (That said, you’re absolutely right to claim it’s nothing short of misleading to say Cheney admitting the US tortured people … but in the grand scheme of things, that’s a legalistic distinction proffered by an amoral opportunist.)
You have not explained where Obama will spend less than Bush, absent the military, so your challenge to my point is bullshit.
daleyrocks, this is basic forensics. I’m not obliged to disprove your ungrounded claims. You’re obligated — if you’d like to be intellectually honest — to provide evidence to support your claims.
Great, yet another BDS sufferer who does not understand why the DoD shifted to contractors to support operations long before George W. Bush came along.
SPQR, what can I say, I don’t know anything. I’m certainly incapable of understanding the difference between the competitive bids the DOD used to request from its civilian contractors and the no-bid contracts its awarded to the companies the people with the say-so said should win them. Then again, you’re the kind of person who forecloses the possibility of debating someone with a Malkin-esque accusation of BDS. Saves you time and thought, I appreciate that, and you’re busy people.
Whatever happened to “innocent until proven guilty”?
Drumwaster, you do realize this standard applies to people, not covert government programs, right?
I thought it was pretty mild, so far at least. I think SEK is still angry about getting his tits in a wringer over Beauchamp last year.
You mean the thing I admitted being wrong about, repeatedly, despite the only reasons I defended him in the first place were because 1) I don’t think it’s a civilian’s place to criticize soldiers in a combat zone and 2) I’d heard very similar stories from close friends who’ve been in Iraq and Afghanistan? Is that what you’re talking about? How many more admissions of wrongness do you require before you accept that I’ve admitted I was wrong?
That said, I’m just going to stop responding to you. You like to pile on in the safety of forums in which everyone agrees with you. You’re a warrior so long as 99 percent of the crowd circles around your interlocutor to egg on the beatdown. I get that — it’s nice to feel like a big man, accepted by your peers and secure in the knowledge that if you mistakenly corner Bruce Lee, you can scurry to the safety of your numbers.
But you understand why people interested in honest debate might find it hard to respect the guy who charges the pile fifteen minutes after the fight’s started screaming for blood.
Comment by SEK — 6/11/2008 @ 1:28 am
SEK-
I’d heard very similar stories from close friends who’ve been in Iraq and Afghanistan
In that case, if your friends did not report these stories to the chain of command, they are war criminals.
Not jerks, not teenagers being idiots, but war criminals. (or liars)
I *really* hope you mean the stories that lying moron *started* out with…maybe just the least damning story or something….
Comment by Foxfier — 6/11/2008 @ 2:05 am
In that case, if your friends did not report these stories to the chain of command, they are war criminals.
Absolutely. I’d report them myself if I could. This line of thinking befuddles me — no American soldier ever crossed any line ever, because if one did they’d be war criminals, and since none have been declared war criminals, no American soldiers have ever crossed any line ever.
This sort of tautological thought comes easy to people who only know war through film, but if you sit down and talk to a soldier — doesn’t matter if you shared a limo to your junior prom — but if you sit down and talk to someone who’s been in Iraq, you’d know that some of the realities of life in a war zone aren’t suitable for prime-time.
I say this not to defend or praise anyone — a fact daleyrocks studiously ignored the last time I had this conversation, and which, I predict, he’ll studiously ignore now — but because it is a fact. Or you can believe the ugliness of war hasn’t been sanitized, in which case, Fox Reports, You Deride.
Comment by SEK — 6/11/2008 @ 2:31 am
SEK-
I was IN a war zone. Most of the folks speaking against that liar had been in even bloodier ones.
I did not hear about anything like the Bull Shit that little lying SOB was shoveling– and when the topic comes up, you shift to saying that the warzone isn’t for prime-time?
So, are your buddies war criminals, or no?
Comment by Foxfier — 6/11/2008 @ 2:50 am
Levi:
“We don’t know” being the most direct English translation of the Latin word “ignoramus.” Those of us who have been paying attention do know that unless you are a suspected al-Qaeda member yourself living abroad, or have been talking to such people on international calls, your calls have not been tapped without a court order.
Sez you. Unless you have access to classified information, you don’t know if the taps were placed inside or outside the U.S. If outside, they probably weren’t “electronic surveillances” subject to FISA at all.
Pre-9/11, mistrusting the government for mistrusting the government’s sake was hip. Post-9/11, not so much. Some of us are more concerned about preventing another 9/11 than we are about protecting a terrorist’s civil liberties.
Comment by Xrlq — 6/11/2008 @ 3:50 am
Of course we have no evidence, again, that is the entire god damn point.
So no evidence is evidence.
Got it.
Comment by Paul — 6/11/2008 @ 3:55 am
I did not hear about anything like the Bull Shit that little lying SOB was shoveling -– and when the topic comes up, you shift to saying that the warzone isn’t for prime-time?
Shift? I didn’t shift. I said, restated, and will say and restate again, that nothing he said was so beyond the pale given what I’d heard. What!?! Soldiers making fun of purported allies!?!
Punctuation notwithstanding, that’s not the least unbelievable.
But what about the stray dogs!?! That didn’t happen!?!
Except I’ve had friends tell me that they’ve come to blows with other soldiers over their treatment of what, in America, we’d call pets. This is usually part of a more general complaint about how lowering standards such that career military people have to fight alongside career felons is an avoidably lamentable situation.
Those of us who have been paying attention do know that unless you are a suspected al-Qaeda member yourself living abroad, or have been talking to such people on international calls, your calls have not been tapped without a court order.
Xrlq, whatever happened to the libertarian wing of the Republican party? Seriously, all those years I spent online arguing against fiscal conservatives adamant in their belief that if you give the government an inch they’ll beat you into half an inch of one … what happened to the knee-jerk skepticism I knew and loved? Of course the overweening, unchecked power this administration’s embraced has been abused. Or do you not remember the candidates’ medical histories being accessed by a Homeland Security contractor? This is off the top of my head — more exampls will come to me at a saner hour — but if you buy the libertarian line about abuse being little more than a matter of access, then you have to believe the wire-tapping program might have wandered from its mandate.
Or you can believe that in matters concerning Homeland Security abuse is unheard of … and Candy Land.
Comment by SEK — 6/11/2008 @ 4:27 am
SEK, I’m not interested in debating a wiretapping program that theoretically could exist. I’m interested in discussing the one we know about. Though I must admit how cute it is hearing the same people who defended Clinton/Gore’s Clipper Chip now pretending to care so much about privacy.
Comment by Xrlq — 6/11/2008 @ 4:38 am
Levi seems to be intent on proving his aggressive abject ignorance on every subject he discusses.
Comment by JD — 6/11/2008 @ 4:40 am
Wiretapping is not really the right word for what they are arguing against, is it? More like data packet retrieval ….
Levi - I am going to assume stupidity and lying on your part from now on. Your statements about successful tests only being done on a computer could only come from willful ignorance, or your propensity to lie. Either way, you should be able to find a title of a book that you have not read that proves your point.
Comment by JD — 6/11/2008 @ 4:53 am
Though I must admit how cute it is hearing the same people who defended Clinton/Gore’s Clipper Chip now pretending to care so much about privacy.
I’m shocked at how deep your knowledge of my soul is given how little I’ve revealed here. Needless to say, I’m impressed. That said:
I’m not interested in debating a wiretapping program that theoretically could exist.
You realize how blinkered this statement is, don’t you? If you’ve ever cared about privacy, know practices the administration has openly admitted to and aren’t concerned with the documented and/or potentially expansive abuses, you’ve sold your soul to the false prophet of Homeland Security. Sure, praying is awesome and comforting, but you know it’s not God eavesdropping on your innermosts, right?
Comment by SEK — 6/11/2008 @ 4:54 am
Though I would suggest they start taping Levi’s calls, if only because it would likely be so damn funny to listen to the tapes…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/11/2008 @ 5:02 am
Only if you realize that statement was meant to portray how silly it is to toss theories arround like they are proven fact…
Unless you wish to discuss the possible government conspiricy to keep me from bedding Megan Fox…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/11/2008 @ 5:06 am
Your disturbing desire to share your fantasies about women who are regularly Photoshopped into the uncanny valley aside, I’m not sure what your point is.
Say what you will about what has and hasn’t been proven about this administration’s admittedly hard-core assault on our privacy, they’ve made it known that if they think it’s in our best interest, they’ve done and are continuing to do it. Now, you can say that doesn’t bother you because you have nothing to hide, but that’s why I referenced the classics of online libertarian debate: it’s not about what you think you should hide, but what you never realize they’ll use against you. Seriously, do you want me to be a libertarian troll? I’m not one, but I’ve lived and loved so many I’m sure I could muster a passable impersonation.
Comment by SEK — 6/11/2008 @ 5:36 am
Sooooooooooooo…
You are basing this on the idea that they are taping everyone (or is it just you)… Gotcha.
Your bug-fuck nuts. See, you should have just said so in the first place…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/11/2008 @ 5:40 am
SEK - You are better than that.
Specifically, how has the evil Chimpy McHitlerBurton assaulted your privacy? This is the style of lying done by Rutten, that you just engaged in. The administration has admitted to intercepting data packets connected to international calls to suspected terrorists. You chose to take an admission to that, and then expanded it to an assault on all of our privacy.
Comment by JD — 6/11/2008 @ 5:52 am
You are basing this on the idea that they are taping everyone (or is it just you)…
Again, do you want me to be a libertarian troll? To write things about how those abrogate oversight are bound to abuse unfettered authority? Because I could do that.
Personally, I’m not worried about the government monitoring my conversations because, being damn near deaf, I rarely speak on the phone. But if I did natter my life away into a small plastic box, I would be concerned that no matter who I was, where I was born, where I’m from, or what I’m doing, someone in a cubicle on the other side of the country could decide to subpoena my conversations because a few keywords indicated I might be a terrorist. (Or was handed the wrong icecream at Baskin Robbins and faux-exploded. But I suppose that’s one of those frivolous things you’re more than happy to abdicate — after all, why should people be able to crack wise when DO YOU REMEMBER 9/11!?! IT’S GOING TO HAPPEN AGAIN PEOPLE! LIKE YESTERDAY ALREADY! ALSO, THE CALIPHATE IS COMING! BE ADVISED THAT HEADSCARVES AND OTHER MUSLIM GARB MAY BE IN SHORT SUPPLY! PURCHASE YOURS BEFORE NOVEMBER 2ND AND RECEIVE THREE WIVES ABSOLUTELY FREE. YOU’LL LOVE TO LOVE THEM OR YOUR MONEY BACK BEHEAD THEM AS OBAMA’S GIFT TO YOU!
Before I forget:
Your bug-fuck nuts.
That’s an awesome sentence. Speaking of which, the other day I was in Albertson’s and this old Jew was trying to buy two gallons of milk with a $50 bill. He handed it to the cashier and asked if he could have $10 back in quarters. The cashier looked at him funny, then said, “Sir, you only gave me a $10, and the milks cost $5.91.”
To which the old Jew said, “I’m sorry, my son, but I gave you a $50 bill of money, and I would like to have $10 of my change in quarters.”
The cashier insisted the old Jew had handed him a $10 bill, so me and the other person in line piped up and said we also thought the Jew had handed the cashier a $50.
The cashier oozed resentment and informed all of us that it had been a $10 and that even if it was a $50, he couldn’t open the drawer to check. The woman in front of me shot me a knowing glance, grabbed a pack of Big League Chew and slapped it on the scanner.
The old Jew smiled.
The cashier scanned it and was explaining how pointless her sacrifice was. He put his hand in the $10 bill till to prove he was right and pulled out a $50.
The old Jew smiled.
The cashier stared.
After countless pregnant glances had been exchanged, the cashier made what seemed like an earnest apology. The old Jew smiled and said:
“Just because I’m crazy doesn’t mean I’m old.”
Totally dissimilarly, Scott Jacobs wrote:
Your bug-fuck nuts.
Because the old Jew, he played dumb on purpose.
Comment by SEK — 6/11/2008 @ 6:09 am
You’re quite right, and I’m ashamed I typed that…
That should have been
My bad… I have no excuse.
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/11/2008 @ 6:14 am
The administration has admitted to intercepting data packets connected to international calls to suspected terrorists.
It’s also admitted to granting the FBI the power to track your bank records, library cards, online transactions, and phone logs. All the FBI has to do is convince itself that you need targeting. Probable cause is a moot point. Moreover, the administration expanded the definition of “business transaction” to include pretty much anything, as we’ve learned with the details of the Siegelman case coming to light. Look, I actually support some of the more intrusive invasions of our privacy for sound, cancer-screening related issues … but that doesn’t render me unable to acknowledge the degree to which our lives have become more surveillable since 9/11.
Comment by SEK — 6/11/2008 @ 6:17 am
Usually SEK is fun, and smart. Today, he appears to have set aside logic and common sense. Levi wore off on him.
Comment by JD — 6/11/2008 @ 6:17 am
Elliot Spitzer concurs.
Comment by Pablo — 6/11/2008 @ 6:18 am
I have no excuse.
I’m glad you’ve learned that calling someone “bug-fuck nuts” is counterproductive to genuine deba–wait, you’re talking about the grammar error. I thought you were apologizing for your inappropriate behavior, not the sutpid fcuknig tpyo.
Comment by SEK — 6/11/2008 @ 6:19 am
It’s also admitted to granting the FBI the power to track your bank records, library cards, online transactions, and phone logs.
All of which are legal. Argue against the Patriot Act if you wish, or start lining up those people that have had their privacy invaded by checking on their library records. They are not relevant to the interception of data packets.
Comment by JD — 6/11/2008 @ 6:19 am
Damn that Bush! And Ted Kennedy too!
Comment by Pablo — 6/11/2008 @ 6:20 am
Because he has plausible, i.e. legally defensible, deniability. But that’s legalism of the worst sort — when malevolent clowns whisper orders in the ear of a serial killer, the serial killer will insist he’s sane. He isn’t. Doesn’t matter how heavily he insists otherwise — reasonable people are free to disagree. By your own account, Cheney on torture’s equivalent: he claims the US doesn’t torture, even though reasonable conservatives like yourself believe that what the administration has admitted to doing constitutes torture.
Sure, the administration didn’t admit squat itself, but we’re allowed to judge for ourselves. (That said, you’re absolutely right to claim it’s nothing short of misleading to say Cheney admitting the US tortured people … but in the grand scheme of things, that’s a legalistic distinction proffered by an amoral opportunist.)
Well, hey, SEK. You admit that you support Tim Rutten lying in the paper. Once you’ve admitted that you support lying, at that point, there’s nothing else to argue about. Why should I debate someone who says he agrees with the tactic of lying to the public?
Comment by Patterico — 6/11/2008 @ 6:22 am
Usually SEK is fun, and smart.
Dude, my old Jew story is right out of a Marx Brothers film. (Which is, I’m sure, exactly where he imagined himself to be.)
Elliot Spitzer concurs.
You know, I was about to mention that, but decided against it. I’m not sure I want to live in a world where Pablo finishes my thoughts for me, but in this case, I’ll take what I can get.
Comment by SEK — 6/11/2008 @ 6:23 am
I don’t believe that. I believe that anything you walk away from perfectly intact and perfectly healthy is not torture. So is it a lie for you and not for me?
Comment by Pablo — 6/11/2008 @ 6:25 am
You admit that you support Tim Rutten lying in the paper.
I said nothing of the sort. I said some issues transcend legalistic definitions, and hinted that I believe torture is one of them. To me, it doesn’t matter whether Cheney’s on point concerning the legal status of waterboarding as torture. I even granted that he is. The thing is, that doesn’t matter. He’s confessed to approving the use of waterboarding on detainees — not prisoners of war, because we’re not at war, not officially, despite it being called “The Global War on Terror” in the budget — which to people who believe waterboarding is torture, is an admission that the administration approves torture.
You can say — and be absolutely correct — that Cheney’s refusal to admit that waterboarding is torture allows him to legitimately claim that the US doesn’t torture people, but that’s a fine hair to be splitting with three gallons of water down someone else’s gullet.
Put another way: if I published an editorial in the LA Times in which I called Cheney a hypocrite for claiming the US doesn’t torture people because waterboarding constitutes torture, I hope you’d stand on conviction instead of technicality when you slagged me for writing for the LA Times.
Comment by SEK — 6/11/2008 @ 6:33 am
Especially when it’s pure snark, eh? The net Spitzer found himself caught in predates this administration by, oh, three decades or so.
Comment by Pablo — 6/11/2008 @ 6:34 am
I don’t believe that. I believe that anything you walk away from perfectly intact and perfectly healthy is not torture. So is it a lie for you and not for me?
Unlike Pat, you’re not a reasonable conservative.
ZING!
But yes, I think this is one of those issues when the question of lying has to be predicated on personal belief.
I’m trying to think of an equivalent, but the best I can come up with at the moment is a Catholic public figure who’s committed a sin of omission. He confessed all his sins but one — a minor mortal sin like, say, he polluted. For you or I, that might not be a big deal, because what’s a little toxic seepage among friends? If we were Catholic, it’d qualify as a mortal sin, the omission of which would speak poorly of our character. Same logic applies: if you don’t believe waterboarding is torture, waterboard people, and say you don’t torture people, you’re not lying.
You’re just wrong. Similarly, if you write a column in which someone claims that waterboarding isn’t torture, and therefore you don’t torture people, and someone else challenges your premises, they’re not lying either. You may think they’re wrong for not sharing your assumptions, but they’re not lying.
Comment by SEK — 6/11/2008 @ 6:43 am
Especially when it’s pure snark, eh?
I knew it was too horrifying unthinkable excuse-me-while-I-vomit-last-Friday’s-lunch good to be true, but in all honesty, he’s been charged under a statute from 1910, but the means by which he was caught were pure Patriot Act I. (With a healthy dose of toxic NYC politics, of course, but that’s what I’m talking about when I mention the inevitable abuses of power. Spitzer went after the Republicans with every tool at his disposal … and after 9/11, he had many more pointy objects to excavate with.
Comment by SEK — 6/11/2008 @ 6:50 am
True. I’m not terribly conservative at all.
So this does not apply then, does it?
No, he was caught because of reporting required by 1970’s Bank Secrets Act.
Comment by Pablo — 6/11/2008 @ 6:58 am
Er…Bank Secrecy Act.
Comment by Pablo — 6/11/2008 @ 6:59 am
“No one must ever know that our lolipops are government surplus…”
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/11/2008 @ 7:05 am
Not really the case …
Comment by JD — 6/11/2008 @ 7:08 am
I blame Nixon.
Comment by Pablo — 6/11/2008 @ 7:17 am
“daleyrocks, this is basic forensics. I’m not obliged to disprove your ungrounded claims. You’re obligated — if you’d like to be intellectually honest — to provide evidence to support your claims.”
SEK - This is very nice, teacher. I did not ask you to prove my claims, you demanded that I, as a tool, prove them myself. Then, to be intellectually honest, under no obligation yourself, you undertook to disprove them yourself and made the same sort of ungrounded claim, albeit with the aid of a pie chart, that I made in my original comment.
Intellectual honesty, it’s what’s for breakfast!!!
Comment by daleyrocks — 6/11/2008 @ 7:55 am
This is all a distraction from the goals of unity, hope and change that we must all work for. Barack expects more of us, and will never let us return to the old politics of cynicism. We are the change we’ve been waiting for.
Comment by gp — 6/11/2008 @ 8:03 am
“That said, I’m just going to stop responding to you. You like to pile on in the safety of forums in which everyone agrees with you. You’re a warrior so long as 99 percent of the crowd circles around your interlocutor to egg on the beatdown. I get that — it’s nice to feel like a big man, accepted by your peers and secure in the knowledge that if you mistakenly corner Bruce Lee, you can scurry to the safety of your numbers.”
SEK - I’m really hurt by this one. There we were enjoying some special one on one conversation in a couple of threads and you imagine other people piling on. I shouldn’t have speculated what was bothering you when it is clear there elements of paranoia in there as well. I apologize.
As Patterico indicated, you can be a fun commenter to have around, as long as you don’t act like a self-important dick head.
The quality I like most about you is your humility.
Comment by daleyrocks — 6/11/2008 @ 8:04 am
“because we’re not at war, not officially,”
SEK - I was comletely amazed by the stupidity of this assertion coming from a seemingly intelligent person. You can’t truly believe this bullshit, can you?
Comment by daleyrocks — 6/11/2008 @ 8:08 am
Levi - Let’s go back to your lying about missile defense testing only being successful on computers, under ideal conditions.
Were the following just staged? Maybe they did them all at the same place where they fake-landed on the Moon?
http://www.technologynewsdaily.com/node/9887
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/06/navy-shoots-dow.html
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-09/29/content_6812705.htm
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15967
Comment by JD — 6/11/2008 @ 8:11 am
So again, Levi has been shown to be a demonstrable liar. Not that further proof was needed.
Comment by JD — 6/11/2008 @ 8:13 am
You’re #& right now. I’ve been delisted by Google, so I’m not sure my link will help.
Comment by Prestopundit — 6/11/2008 @ 8:31 am
Catching up…
Pablo @ 88: Hey! I used that yesterday.
Plagiarist!
Back to Plowshares:
As a licensed “Merchant of Death” (isn’t that just a wonderful term? Much better than “Lord of War”.),
how would you like your farm implements: .308 or .223?
Comment by Another Drew — 6/11/2008 @ 8:51 am
Bush has admitted to instituting and repeatedly authorizing a domestic surveillance program that completely ignores FISA, here is the transcript of his radio address:
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/17/radio-address-full-text/
where that happens.
Now in America, we have these cumbersome, annoying little things called ‘laws’ and ‘courts’ for a reason, and as they are pertain to the executive branch of our government, that reason is because vesting in one individual unchecked power and simply believing in that individual’s insistence that what he is doing is necessary hasn’t really proven itself as a good way to run a country over the centuries. In a dictatorship, which is apparently what Republicans wish we had these days, citizens have no recourse, they just have to accept that their leader is going to do whatever he wants to do and that there is nothing they can do about it.
But here in America, where we invented the idea of three separate but co-equal branches of government, we’re not supposed to put up with crap like a President ignoring the laws passed by the legislative branch and then shielding itself from judicial review, which is exactly what is happening. Your unflinching willingness to trust Bush at his word means you’re more suited for citizenship in a dictatorship. And not a dictatorship like Saddam’s where the people were oppressed and despise the government, I’m talking about a dictatorship more like the one we saw in Nazi Germany, where you not only believe every word you’re told by the government, but where you’ve convinced yourself that it’s all some marvelous idea.
Sez Bush, go look. The bottom line is that if the government wants to wiretap people in this country, they have to abide by the FISA law. Not doing so is illegal. And the thing is, FISA is extraordinarily flexible, you don’t really have to have a whole lot of evidence, and if time is an issue, you can execute the wiretap so long as you obtain a warrant within three days. It exists simply as a check (there’s those pesky ‘checks and balances’ again) on what is a very powerful ability of the government, to ensure that that power is not being abused.
Now as an ‘American citizen,’ what is wrong with that? What is wrong with one branch of government forcing another branch of government to simply check in with the third branch of government before they do something?
This administration’s theory of American government is pretty horrifying. They believe that they can do whatever they want to whomever they want so long as they feel they are doing it for ‘national security,’ not subject to any sort of review or legal limitation, of course. They are the sole arbiters of what exactly that means. They have even gone so far as to spell out grotesque specifics, for example, that President Bush could order a child’s testicles to be crushed, as long as he and he alone feels that such an act would protect us.
That does not inspire confidence. Mistrusting the government isn’t something that you’re supposed to do only when you feel the conditions allow for it, it’s one of the foundational principles of our system.Three separate but co-equal branches. The founders were so keen on that idea for a reason. If you want to vest absolute, unchecked power in one person, why don’t you move to Cuba? Why do you idiots have to ruin the American experiment for the rest of us?
Comment by Levi — 6/11/2008 @ 8:57 am
Why must you fucking ignore this rather important clause every time, Levi?
Are you willing to admit that you lied about the missile testing ?
Comment by JD — 6/11/2008 @ 9:05 am
Or, maybe you would prefer to find a book title that supports your point.
Comment by JD — 6/11/2008 @ 9:06 am
Levi,
Apparently the Constitution is another one of those books you have gotten A’s on without having read it.
The three branches of government are vested with powers and duties independent of the others’ but which are checked by the powers of the others. No branch has to “check in” with another branch to do its duty. That kind of collusion would be one-party tyranny, like Cuba’s or like Barack And-Did-These-Feet-In-Ancient-Time Obama’s.
Comment by nk — 6/11/2008 @ 9:06 am
Levi said:
“…The bottom line is that if the government wants to wiretap people in this country, they have to abide by the FISA law….”
Since when does FISA control how the Gov’t wiretaps the Mob? Or drug-gangs?
Most of us thought (silly us) that FISA was about the collection of data pertaining to Foreign Intelligence. Or, in your Orwellian mind, is everything about FI?
I wonder what the trolls at DHS are going to make of that on-line order I placed at Staples? The multi-color pack of printer ink is code for multi-national terrorist squads? And, because I ordered it in conjunction with a pack of black ink, their target is to be another minority group?
Actually, I was on the horn with Aiman the other day, and we could hardly understand each other with all of the interference, clicks, and other noise on the line. I’ll have to talk to Terry about the degradation of the fiber-optic network he arrainged for when he was raking in all of those millions in telecommunications under Clinton (of course, if he hadn’t received so many kick-backs, maybe the circuits would work better).
Comment by Another Drew — 6/11/2008 @ 9:10 am
Is that this, Levi?
Comment by Pablo — 6/11/2008 @ 9:13 am
So, Bush admitted to ignoring the law by saying that he acted “consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution”
Up is down. Black is white. War is peace. Slavery is freedom.
Comment by Pablo — 6/11/2008 @ 9:15 am
Up is down. Black is white. War is peace. Slavery is freedom. Bush is the enemy. Barack is salvation.
Fixed that for you Pablo.
Comment by daleyrocks — 6/11/2008 @ 9:24 am
Racists. Racists the lot of you!!!
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/11/2008 @ 9:28 am
Stupid liberals don’t understand the difference between gathering evidence for criminal prosecution vs gathering warfighting intelligence.
FISA is extraordinarily flexible… so long as you obtain a warrant within three days
And they think three days is fast enough…
Comment by Fen — 6/11/2008 @ 9:39 am
Well, if the legislative branch creates a law that states that the executive branch specifically must check in with the judicial branch before they do something, then yes, ‘checking in’ is exactly what they have to do.
Are you really taking issue with the fact that I used the words ‘check in?’ That’s all you’ve got to say?
Comment by Levi — 6/11/2008 @ 9:39 am
I suppose that given the quality of my opponents around here, it is my own fault that I have to deal with pathetic little responses like this for not being incredibly detailed and specific about everything all of the time.
Now there’s no way I’m going to be able to head off every single one of your stupid little semantic digressions, but maybe next time you can just give me the benefit of the doubt? Perhaps you could try to construct something akin to an actual counter-argument, as opposed to singling out some minor oversight because I’m held to some impossible-to-satisfy standard around here?
Comment by Levi — 6/11/2008 @ 9:54 am
There, that’s better.
Comment by Pablo — 6/11/2008 @ 9:57 am
Levi - We are calling you, at best, ill-informed, and at worst, an aggressive liar. Go find a book title that supports your point.
Were you lying about the missile testing, or just being a dumbass?
Comment by JD — 6/11/2008 @ 9:59 am
If all you need is the one that is quite plainly breaking the law insisting that what he’s doing is being ‘consistent with U.S. law,’ well shit, what can I possibly say?
Comment by Levi — 6/11/2008 @ 9:59 am
So this sentence makes sense, then?
I suppose that given the quality of my opponents around here, it is my own fault that I have to deal with pathetic little responses like this for not right.
Comment by Levi — 6/11/2008 @ 10:01 am
Pablo- He does not have to read a book to know what it says, so how can you expect it to read the transcript, since he would obviously already know what it says. I am sure that he can find a book title that supports that point.
Comment by JD — 6/11/2008 @ 10:02 am
Must remember to sue the telcos before I go home tonight. Because of the assault on the Constitution.
Comment by JD — 6/11/2008 @ 10:04 am
Levi bemoaning the quality of opponent while simultaneously beshitting himself is rich.
Comment by JD — 6/11/2008 @ 10:08 am
Oooh! You got me Levi. I left “being” in the stricken text when it sould have been left intact. You’re a frigging certifiable genius! And yet, demonstrably wrong.
You can quote him “admit(ting)to instituting and repeatedly authorizing a domestic surveillance program that completely ignores FISA..” Except that you can’t.
Comment by Pablo — 6/11/2008 @ 10:08 am
The Legislative Branch doesn’t have the authority to require that. The only punishment they can issue is to cut off the money.
There are certain acts that are specifically and Constitutionally restricted to a specific branch.
For instance, the waging of war is a diplomatic exercise, as is the ending of it, and the terms under which it ends. Congress, once it has declared war (or authorized the use of military force), has only two options if they disagree with the direction events have taken: Impeachment (Removal of the POTUS) or refusing to fund those military operations. They don’t get to decide that a war is suddenly over.
Speakers of the House don’t get to involve themselves with diplomatic negotiations with leaders of nations designated as “terror supporting”. (Try Googling “Logan Act”.)
Those citizens who oppose the war don’t get to encourage mutiny and murder. (Google “sedition”.)
Operated by PEOPLE, such as NSA employees, Executive Branch officials, etc. You are accusing and convicting those of your fellow citizens of crimes with absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
Say, have you stopped raping little girls yet? Or just switched to prepubescent boys? (Deny it all you want, because while I have no evidence to back it up, you have no evidence to prove your innocence, either. Which means you deserve prison time for violating the law. Prove me wrong.)
Sucks having standards turned around, doesn’t it? Hoist by thine own petard…
“It’s a crime, I tell you, and if it weren’t the perfect conspiracy, I’d actually have evidence to prove it!”
So are you a LIHOP Troofer or a MIHOP?
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/11/2008 @ 10:19 am
Levi The Straight A Student:
Oh, goody. Another document you got an A for not reading. In particular, I’ll give you an A+ for not reading this part:
Nice work, detective. Oh wait, there’s more on:
Another A for not-reading FISA, either. Now that you’ve earned your A, go read the definition of “electronic surveillance” and explain which definition you think applies to a wiretap targeting a known or suspected, non-American al Qaeda member abroad who happens to be talking with his U.S. contacts on the phone.
Comment by Xrlq — 6/11/2008 @ 10:24 am
Sorry guys, I have to run out to help Michelle America-Chopped-Down-My-Cherry-Tree Obama find some fresh fruit for her house.
Comment by nk — 6/11/2008 @ 10:36 am
Well Jesus Christ buddy, if you’re not going to say anything and just mess around insulting me, the least you could do is make sure you do it right.
He says exactly that in the radio address transcript I provided. You’re exhibiting the symptoms of the same brain defect that makes you believe we’ve found WMD in Iraq and that Saddam was buddy-buddy with the terrorists. He’s not going to come right out and say, “I’m breaking the law,” of course, that’s for the informed citizenry to figure out. And it’s not at all that hard to figure out.
Comment by Levi — 6/11/2008 @ 11:50 am
The legislative branch doesn’t have the authority to pass laws? If I’m understanding you right, are you saying that the only job of Congress is to provide money for the things that the executive branch wants to do?
What?
What is the point of all of this?
Comment by Levi — 6/11/2008 @ 11:53 am
Hey folks, the whole checks-and-balances thing just escapes …., and we can never explain it to him, no matter how hard we try.
Man, I wonder what he thought when SCOTUS finally put a dampner on the abuse of the Commerce Clause?
Comment by Another Drew — 6/11/2008 @ 12:01 pm
Oh Noes!
The Jim Johnson distraction is gone. Another exercise in poor judgement by Obama bites the dust.
Obama really sucks!
Comment by daleyrocks — 6/11/2008 @ 12:07 pm
Johnson was a subprime selection to begin with.
Comment by daleyrocks — 6/11/2008 @ 12:09 pm
The President believes the Constitution grants him limitless power including the ability to crush children’s testicles, so long as he qualifies it by mindlessly saying, “I have to do this to protect you.” You can’t simply trust someone that orders his Department of Justice to develop a Constitutional theory as broad and as patently false and un-American on every level as that to be able to speak with any sort of authority on what the Constitution does and does not allow.
President Bush is a lying moron that doesn’t understand anything about the government that he runs. The Constitutional powers vested in him as commander-in-chief do not include the ability to just completely ignore a long-established, proven, and very adaptable law and shield himself from all oversight. Is there no limit? If he can ignore this law and his supporters defend his decision to do so, why can’t he ignore other laws? You can’t recognize the dangers of establishing a precedent where the President can just shirk any law, for any reason, at any time, and not be punished for it?
I know this. I know what sorts of wiretaps FISA applies to. Just trust me. I know you’d like to just disregard everything I’ve said about the law and our system of government so you can hammer me on not specifying that there are other laws that apply to other kinds of wiretaps, but why don’t you be a grown-up and just give me the benefit of the doubt?
By the way, this:
President Bush is a lying moron that doesn’t understand anything about the government that he runs.
is quite likely the only thing that I said in this post that any of you will respond to.
Let’s see if you idiots prove me wrong.
Comment by Levi — 6/11/2008 @ 12:09 pm
Oh it escapes me, huh? I’ve laid out how I believe our government is supposed to work, where’s your analysis?
Tell me, how do checks and balances apply to Bush’s ‘Secret Domestic Surveillance Program?’ Other than the President just telling us that he’s only using it to spy on bad, evil terrorists, is there any way for the public to know definitely for themselves?
Comment by Levi — 6/11/2008 @ 12:14 pm
COngress has the power to approve military action, and “the power of the purse”, meaning they have the checkbook.
While they can declare war, they can not UN-declare war. This means the only way that congress can bring the military to a stop is to stop giving it money.
This is the only way. Even Impeachment can’t stop a war, and I’m not sure they can impeach during a time of war.
If Congress had the power of it’s convictions, and wanted troops out NOW, they would provide just enough money to load everything onto planes, designate it as for solely that purpose, and provide nothing else.
they won’t do this, of cource, because while they like to think they talk a good game, they are politicians and thus at least 90% of them are craven cowards…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/11/2008 @ 12:15 pm
Separation of Powers!
Comment by Another Drew — 6/11/2008 @ 12:16 pm
Jesus Christ Scott, who are you debating?
Is there anyone currently talking about the war in this thread?
Comment by Levi — 6/11/2008 @ 12:18 pm
We’re winning, what’s to talk about?
Comment by Another Drew — 6/11/2008 @ 12:20 pm
that doesn’t understand anything about the government that he runs.
Proof of this assertion?
I know this. I know what sorts of wiretaps FISA applies to. Just trust me.
Why on God’s green earth would we trust you, when you have gone out of your way so many times to prove that you are completely undeserving of being trusted?
I’ve laid out how I believe our government is supposed to work
LeviWorld is a wonderful place. Puppies, kittens, and kites for everyone !
Comment by JD — 6/11/2008 @ 12:20 pm
Levi - Missile defense. How about those whoppers that you told about missile defense last night?
Comment by JD — 6/11/2008 @ 12:21 pm
And I’m called a troll?
Comment by Levi — 6/11/2008 @ 12:22 pm
Yes, a vile nasty pathetic little troll of a person. A lying deceitful troll.
Comment by JD — 6/11/2008 @ 12:26 pm
Well, at least my comments are factually correct.
If that’s trolling; well, so be it.
Comment by Another Drew — 6/11/2008 @ 12:29 pm
I just don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. People are discussing some very specific things, and you’re interjecting with dumb little shit about how you think you’re winning the war? What is the point? No one is that interested in you that you have to type out every stupid little thought that pops into your head.
Comment by Levi — 6/11/2008 @ 12:31 pm
Oh, I feel so wounded.
Please, Stop!
Comment by Another Drew — 6/11/2008 @ 12:33 pm
Every Levi comment should include that quote. It always applies.
Comment by bonhomme — 6/11/2008 @ 12:38 pm
Yep, that’s what I thought.
Comment by Levi — 6/11/2008 @ 12:42 pm
The Legislative Branch does not have the authority to rule on the effectiveness of a purely Executive Function. The gathering of intelligence against foreign nationals who are deliberately acting against US interests is a purely Executive Branch function, so wiretapping non-citizens or intercepting calls connecting outside our borders is beyond the “checks and balances” of the Legislative Branch.
But despite all your yammer, you admit that there is no evidence whatsoever (not even a celebrated whistle-blower) of anyone violating the laws, and you are getting spun up to high RPM over a hypothetical. Yes, the Government COULD listen in on your phone calls, but so can anyone who knows where his local Radio Shack is located. Yes, the Government COULD intercept your e-mail, but so could the guy sitting at a keyboard at your ISP’s office. Yes, the Government COULD do all of the things you are worried about, yet there isn’t any verifiable evidence of it having done so (hearsay and “friend of a friend” anecdotes notwithstanding). But so could anyone who can re-wire an electrical outlet without killing himself. And there aren’t any laws against that random moron from doing so.
I realize you slept through your Civics classes, but that is how our government works - inefficient and bloated. At least, that’s how the laws work, and you are ignoring clear and specific violations of criminals laws by those acting against our current Administration, focusing instead on hypothetical cases.
And all in a vain attempt to score political points.
Oodles of FAIL going on there, and that doesn’t even include you exposing your abysmal ignorance.
Happy?
Define WMD.
Is it nuclear? What about the massive amounts of uranium yellowcake stockpiled?
Is it chemical? Explain the massive amounts of nerve agents found buried alongside empty chemical munitions mortar rounds (spun away as “pesticides”, although why a ten-year national supply of that particular kind of pesticide - which is what Zyklon-B started out as - would be buried on a military munitions compound goes unexplained).
Is it biological? So ricin, mustard gas and anthrax cultures are normally found on military bases?
Because only a moron like you would deny the truth.
“Reality is that which refuses to go away when I stop believing in it.” — Philip K. Dick
Maybe you need to click your heels together a bit harder. Either that, or actually know what the hell you are talking about.
Until then, quit wasting everyone’s time.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/11/2008 @ 12:42 pm
Gee, I wonder what this judge would think of you holding his court in contempt? Read and learn. If you are physically capable of doing either.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/11/2008 @ 12:47 pm
How does this square with the multiple successful tests linked above, Levi?
Comment by JD — 6/11/2008 @ 12:58 pm
That’s just unbelievably wrong.
FISA was passed in 1978 by the Congress and signed into law by the President. That is how America works. The Congress dreams up potential laws, sometimes inspired by the voters, sometimes pressured by the President, they debate them, they vote on them, and if they receive enough votes, they are sent to the President, and it is he who is the one that actually turns the bill into a law.
Now if what you’re saying is true, that gathering intelligence on foreign operatives inside the United States is the exclusive dominion of the executive branch, then why did President Carter sign the bill, which states very explicitly that each of these sorts of wiretaps requires a warrant obtained from a court?
Now at this point, I’m sure you’d really like to start some digression about how terrible a President Jimmy Carter was, but resist the urge, for the love of god. The bottom line is that Congress and the President created that law, and it’s not the place of subsequent Presidents to simply ignore the laws that are on the books. You say that this sort of activity is solely the responsibility of the executive branch, and the Bush administration says the same thing, but that is not what the law says. That’s not an opinion, that isn’t an interpretation, that is the way that it is, no matter what you or Bush or anyone has to say about it.
We do know they are violating the FISA law, that much is undeniable, and that much they have basically been forced to admit to, because thankfully we still have some reporters that care about doing a good job. What we don’t know is what other sorts of laws they’re breaking. They very well might not be, but that isn’t the point, and their blatant attempts to cover up this sort of activity, with ridiculous promises of retroactive immunity, doesn’t really make me feel assured that they aren’t just wildly abusing this power they’ve given themselves.
And that’s why a law like FISA is such a good law, it just makes sure that they aren’t, nothing more. What’s wrong with that?
Comment by Levi — 6/11/2008 @ 1:24 pm
Levi - Explain for us why you refer to this as wiretapping.
Nope. You do not know that. You assert it.
Those missile defense tests, that was all Area 51 kind of stuff, huh?
Comment by JD — 6/11/2008 @ 1:27 pm
More to the point, does he swallow more than the party line and kewl aid like the Bush haters?
Just askin’ ya know?
Comment by Gbear — 6/11/2008 @ 1:49 pm
And until there is actually a violation of that law (which covers the gathering of FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE, not alleged wiretapping of American citizens - for which you have admitted you have no evidence whatsoever, let us remember), you’re still doing nothing but positing a hypothetical.
Facts without theory is trivia; theory without facts is bullshit.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/11/2008 @ 2:25 pm
Levi:
I don’t think so. Even when otherwise knowledgeable people (i.e., not you) cite a law I’m not convinced they understand, I challenge them to make sure that they do. If you understood the law yourself, you’d have no problem answering my question on the merits rather than getting in a huff over my having the audacity to ask it in the first place.
As indeed I should, given that you clearly know next to nothing about it.
No, doofus, I wasn’t talking about other laws that apply to other kinds of wiretaps. My link was to FISA itself. The taps either meet the statutory definition or they don’t. No “electronic surveillance,” no FISA violation. So either prove there was an “electronic surveillance,” or admit you don’t know what you are talking about.
You’re a fine one to lecture anyone about being a grown-up, but FWIW, I did. In claiming to know (not suspect, believe, not have reason to believe, etc., but “know”) that the wiretaps in question violated FISA, you made it crystal-clear that one of following three must be true:
In assuming that the answer was #2 rather than #1, I was indeed giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Comment by Xrlq — 6/11/2008 @ 2:36 pm
Go back to your day job of being a low paid, low quality government employee, Patterico.
Patterico sucks.
Comment by jim — 6/11/2008 @ 2:55 pm
The law has been violated. The language of the FISA is basically this: ‘You can wiretap people in America, including American citizens, if you suspect they are helping foreigners damage or plan to damage the country, so long as you obtain a warrant. That last part is what is important in this discussion, and that last part is what Bush has ignored. Thus, he has broken the law.
To use another example, here in Montana you have to obtain a license to fish or hunt. The language of these laws is basically this: ‘You can fish and hunt in the state of Montana, so long as you obtain a license.’ If you don’t obtain such a license, and a state official catches you hunting or fishing without one, you are breaking the law, and you can be fined and imprisoned or both. Do you agree?
President Bush was not obtaining warrants for the wiretaps he was ordering, and he was therefore breaking the law, just as someone who hunts in Montana without a license is breaking the law. This is not a point of contention, there is no argument to be made that he wasn’t breaking the law in doing what he did.
Now on to your second point, about my not having proof that he was abusing these wiretapping powers and spying on American citizens. You have just as much proof that he was not doing that as I have that he was. He could be, he could not be, and that is where we have to leave it, because neither of us can know. That is however, an entirely different issue than him not obtaining warrants and thereby breaking the FISA law, do you understand?
And while there is no proof either way, it is very, very suspicious that he would implement and carry out this program without obtaining any warrants. Why would he do this? There is no reason to. You can’t argue that in some cases he didn’t have time, FISA allows for that by permitting you to obtain a warrant up to three days later. And it’s not like the FISA courts have historically denied most wiretaps, they approve most, and it doesn’t take a whole lot of evidence for them to grant the warrant. From wikipedia:
In the period 1979-2006 a total of 22,990 applications for warrants were made to the Court of which 22,985 were approved.
That’s more than 99.9%. Now why would you knowingly break the laws of your own country if all you had to do was go to a court that signs off on virtually 100% of the warrants that are sought and provides you with the opportunity to wiretap without a warrant so long as you come back and get one within 72 hours? Isn’t an extremely plausible answer to that question because the Bush administration was up to no good? Further, why would they insist on granting retroactive immunity to their accomplices if they weren’t trying to prevent evidence of their misdeeds from being brought to light? You can’t smell that huge-ass rat?
And what exactly have you got to go on? The President saying he didn’t break any laws? That’s it? You’re just going to buy what they spoon-feed you? Way to go buddy.
Uh huh.
Comment by Levi — 6/11/2008 @ 3:00 pm
There’s nothing I could say that would prove to you that I understand what sorts of electronic surveillance are covered by FISA. You just want to call me stupid. We’re now having a debate, once again, about me and my intelligence, and everything that I’ve said about the topic at hand, is discarded. Republicans need distractions like they need air.
The Bush administration has said there was ‘electronic surveillance.’ That’s what President Bush is saying in that radio address, which he was only forced to admit to because of some intrepid reporting. I have seen Alberto Gonzalez and others testify to Congress about a ‘Secret Domestic Surveillance Program.’ Again, that this was occurring isn’t a matter that can be debated, it happened. I mean, read this:
http://www.washi