HE KINDA DUMB, HUH?

So, ran into jay_156 this morning. And sure, I'm a little groggy. Haven't slept in 24 hours. Kinda punchy. But this was too much fun to pass up. Let me warn you, this is a long conversation, but it's worth the ride, I assure you:

Jesus Claus: jay, do you know how many pork projects were earmarked on bills in the worst days of the Dem congress?
Jesus Claus: about 60
Jesus Claus: know how many the Reps do?
Jesus Claus: over 3000
jay_156: cough cough...bullshit claus
jay_156: 60 lol
jay_156: ok
Jesus Claus: jay, it is fact
jay_156: its not a fact at all
Jesus Claus: reported by the Boston Trib
jay_156: there is pork in every bill passed
Jesus Claus: and reps had far, far more
Jesus Claus: a disgusting amount from reps
jay_156: so the repubs passed more bills...therefore they passed more pork?
Jesus Claus: domestic discretionary spending has ballooned under reps
jay_156: is that your logic?
Jesus Claus: is your reading comp shot, jay?
Jesus Claus: 3000 earmarks
Jesus Claus: vs 60
jay_156: and you got this info where Claus?
Jesus Claus: special report in a Boston newspaper
Jesus Claus: i'll get it for you
jay_156: in a newspaper from where?
jay_156: wait...wait....newspaper from where?
Jesus Claus: from where?
jay_156: lol
jay_156: comeon Claus
Jesus Claus: you haven't heard of Boston?
Jesus Claus: big city, hard to miss
jay_156: lol...save it claus...I think I can guess what it says
Jesus Claus: ok, try this out
Jesus Claus: has spending increased under reps, yes or no?
Jesus Claus: do you know at least that much?
jay_156: fuck off Claus....I was willing to talk to you...you're being a condescending little prick...talk to yourself
Jesus Claus: jay, go read this: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/10/03/back_room_dealing_a_capitol_trend?pg=full
Jesus Claus: tell me that's how you want government run
jay_156: I dont read lib propaganda
Jesus Claus: this isn't propaganda
Jesus Claus: it's a special report in a major paper
jay_156: nothing balanced comes out of Boston

I really hate this crap. Hey, I know conservatives lie a lot, but I at least read what they write before dismissing it. jay won't even look at it. So, in a bit, I decide to get sneaky and hit him with Rich Lowry's new Op-Ed in the National Review that slams the GOP over Abramoff.

Jesus Claus: if you dismiss all contradictory info, you will never learn anything
jay_156: kind of like how you consider fox to be trustworthy Claus?
Jesus Claus: fine, then make no factual claims in here, jay
Jesus Claus: don't say anything that can be factually challenged
Jesus Claus: because i accept nothing from any source you cite
jay_156: Claus...you cant claim something based on information gathered only from biased papers in biased parts of the country
Jesus Claus: these are the rules you want to play by
Jesus Claus: why don't you read the damn thing?
Jesus Claus: i at least read reports from fox
jay_156: I dont have too...its a boston paper
jay_156: I know what it says
Jesus Claus: especially simple factual reporting
Jesus Claus: jay, jay jay, the Boston Herald is conservative
Jesus Claus: it's a Murdoch paper
jay_156: nothing in boston is conservative
jay_156: lol
Jesus Claus: dude, you're an idiot
Ella Menopee: I guess Jay never heard the phrase "banned in Boston"
jay_156: conservative to you means that they dont claim the government did 911
Ella Menopee: I guess he wasn't alive during integration movement days
Jesus Claus: jackass, Murdoch owns Fox
Jesus Claus: goddamn, you're a moron
jay_156: Claus....fuck you little kid
Jesus Claus: i read conservative stuff all the fucking time
jay_156: you think you know it all
Jesus Claus: and you're just retarded
jay_156: you bring nothing but biased bullshit to the table
Jesus Claus: can't even read something from a CITY, you fucking pansy
Ella Menopee: Jay... man, you even embarass the dumber conservatives... you don't know what in hell you're talking about.
jay_156: fuck you and fuck your boston globe bullshit
Jesus Claus: if it came from a blue state, you're too much of a coward to read it
jay_156: who are you Ella?
Jesus Claus: go run along and piss yourself, pansyboy
Ella Menopee: I am the truth fairy Jay
blues2: yeah Ella who the hell are you...loooooooooooooooooooooooool!!!!!!!!
jay_156: Claus...bring somethign to the table that isnt painfully lib
jay_156: just once
Ella Menopee: and I am considering bonging you on the head with my wand
5of7: Grunto is an american ICON
Jesus Claus: this guy is a freaking imbecile
jay_156: Claus...go back to class
5of7: its called GRUNTOISM
jay_156: you're going to get detention
Jesus Claus: ok, how about the National Review?
Jesus Claus: hmm?
5of7: JAYS a gruntoite
Jesus Claus: how about an op-ed by Rich Lowry of the National Review?
jay_156: what bullshit are you pushing today claus???
Jesus Claus: what bullshit?
Jesus Claus: i'll show you
jay_156: what fucking topic are you pushing today Claus?
jay_156: what is today's bashing point prick?
jay_156: what fucking piece of garbage have you dug up today to kick Claus?
jay_156: what is your point today Claus?
Jesus Claus: go read this, jay: http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200601100816.asp
jay_156: lets get this out of the way so I can move on with my day
Jesus Claus: please go read
Jesus Claus: just that one thing
Jesus Claus: and tell me what you think

Ok, I didn't mention the verbal abuse, but what can I say; wingnuts bring out the worst in me.

Ella Menopee: Jay ... If you'd shut up and READ or listen, you'd know what Claus was talking about today. Are you really to stupid to know that in a chat room, you have to read and listen?
Jesus Claus: ella, have you seen that op-ed?
Jesus Claus: that is the most conservative of conservative saying that Reps need to take responsibility for Abramoff
jay_156: great Claus...you found a conservative that somewhat agrees with you
Jesus Claus: somewhat?
jay_156: I can find you 10 more that dont claus
jay_156: so what does that prove Claus?
Jesus Claus: yeah, 10 craven wingnuts
jay_156: of course craven wingnuts....anyone that doesnt agree with you is one
Jesus Claus: oh really?
jay_156: whats your point Claus?
Jesus Claus: can you find a flaw in what Lowry said?
jay_156: make your point Claus...so I can move on to debating grownups
Jesus Claus: how would you counter that?
jay_156: yeah, Im shocked that politicians took money from lobbyists Claus....
Jesus Claus: you're barely keeping your head above water here
jay_156: are you really that young and naive?
Jesus Claus: jay, this isn't about contributions
Jesus Claus: it;'s about bribes, you jackass
Jesus Claus: are you so stupid not to understand this?
Jesus Claus: holy shit, you're really lost here, aren't you?
jay_156: do you have to be an asshole Claus?
jay_156: I mean seriously...is it beyond your capability to actually discuss something like an adult?
Jesus Claus: i match my opponent's attitude
jay_156: you cant match anything about this opponent
Jesus Claus: when they are petulant and closeminded, i get a little heated
jay_156: but...I come down to teach you some times
Jesus Claus: ok, we get it, you're condescending
Jesus Claus: but what is your argument?
blues2: rofl jay "teaches" JC!!!....dream on jay
jay_156: facts....both sides took bribes....both sides have corruption....both sides go back and forth when it comes to winning elections
Jesus Claus: no, not the case
Jesus Claus: no dems are named as taking briibes here
Jesus Claus: and you have yet to explain what purpose there is in bribing the minority
jay_156: politics in this country are one big cluster fuck Claus...when you've lived longer than 16 years you'll figure that out
Jesus Claus: well, we seem to agree that there is corruption
Jesus Claus: so, you just relax, and we'll get rid of the infection
jay_156: but we disagree that your side is run by white nights...
jay_156: Claus...you cant get rid of infection with more infection
Jesus Claus: my side doesn't out CIA agents
Jesus Claus: or spy without warrants
jay_156: your side outs all kinds of efforts to keep this country safe
Jesus Claus: nonsense
jay_156: Claus....you're too young
Jesus Claus: do you really think Al Qaida doesn't know we wiretap them?
jay_156: you dont know
Jesus Claus: i remember Nixon
jay_156: you think your side is noble
Jesus Claus: and the Church commission
Jesus Claus: every time your side does shit like this, we have to clean it up
jay_156: you think your side is fighting for good and justice
jay_156: they arent
Jesus Claus: i have no illusions about the dems
jay_156: and after a couple of terms we have to come in and "clean up" your shit
Jesus Claus: what shit?
jay_156: its one big cluster fuck Claus

Now we start a long argument on Clinton's budget surpluses. For reference, CBO numbers show a clear move into surplus under Clinton. Even if you quibble over how the number is calculated, or remove the SS surplus, Clinton still had positive numbers. That is, you could have such an argument with someone who understands the concepts of surplus, deficit, and debt, which jay apparently does not...

Jesus Claus: budget surpluses?
Jesus Claus: stains on dresses?
Jesus Claus: is your sense of proportion a little messed up?
jay_156: not one budget surplus...you dont base suplusses on projections
Jesus Claus: yes, there was a 236.4 bn dollar ACTUAL surplus in 2000
jay_156: no there wasnt
jay_156: ask anyone with half a fucking clue about the economy
Jesus Claus: there was a real, genuine federal budget surplus
Jesus Claus: wanna bet?
jay_156: ok Claus...impossible to debate someone who is in la la land
Jesus Claus: i'll bet you that, as the govt figures the budget, there was a 236.4 bn dollar budget surplus
Jesus Claus: in 200
Jesus Claus: +0
Jesus Claus: wanna bet me?
jay_156: as I said...the government used projections
Jesus Claus: nope, actual figures
jay_156: which they use all the time to figure out budgets
Jesus Claus: 236.4 bn
Jesus Claus: wanna bet?
jay_156: if that is true...why should the government have 236.4 billion of our money?
jay_156: extra ?
Jesus Claus: to pay down the federal debt, maybe?
jay_156: that is a good thing to you Claus?
Jesus Claus: jay, there is still a debt
jay_156: well there was no debt Claus
Jesus Claus: right?
jay_156: you said there was a surplus
Jesus Claus: uh...do you understand these concepts?
jay_156: why would the governement need to continue to take my money if they had a surplus?
Jesus Claus: because of the federal debt!
Jesus Claus: it was like 4 trillion
Ella Menopee: Jay... I hope your wife is the one who pays the bills in your house
jay_156: you said there was a surplus?
Jesus Claus: there was!
jay_156: which is it...was there a debt in 2000 or was there a surplus?>
Jesus Claus: there was a 4 trillion dollar accrued debt
jay_156: so there was still debt
Jesus Claus: and a 236.4 bn ONE YEAR surplus
jay_156: oh...so still debt...just more lib spin
jay_156: thanks for being honest though Claus
Jesus Claus: jay, can iexplain something to you?
Jesus Claus: ok, just listen, ok?
jay_156: Claus...Im smarter than you...I destroy spin
blues2: more lib spin?????????????....ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jesus Claus: the federal govt is allowed to run a deficit, right?
jay_156: you cant do it dude, guys smarter than you have tried
jay_156: you cant spin me claus
Ella Menopee: Jay... you can have extra money in your monthly budget at home..... but still have credit card debt or a car to pay off right???
Jesus Claus: so, if I run a 100 bn dollar deficit each year for 10 years, how much is my total debt, jay?
jay_156: yes...but then you call it debt Ella, not surplus
Jesus Claus: can you answer me, jay, please?
jay_156: Claus, has been arguing that the libs had a surplus when they left
jay_156: and really....they left debt
Jesus Claus: they DID
jay_156: overall debt
Jesus Claus: jay, please answer me
jay_156: not one year surplus
jay_156: but overall debt
Jesus Claus: yesm surplus or deficit is within one year!!!
Ella Menopee: Its surplus budget money Jay.... which should then be used to good purpose, just like your monthly surplus in budget would be used to pay the cc debt or the car note down further.
jay_156: who gives a fuck about one year?
Jesus Claus: surplus or deficit is if revenues either fall short of or exceed expenditures
Jesus Claus: Jesus Claus: so, if I run a 100 bn dollar deficit each year for 10 years, how much is my total debt, jay?
Jesus Claus: jay, please answer that
Jesus Claus: how much is my debt, jay?
jay_156: lets see....10billiion each year for 10 years....and your still an asshole....well, that makes for a lot of money and a lib asshole that thinks he can spin me into a corner LOL
jay_156: whats your fucking point claus
Jesus Claus: no, 100 bn a year, 10 years, and please answer
jay_156: your mom
jay_156: whats your point?
Jesus Claus: i'm trying to educate you
jay_156: your trying to be an asshole
jay_156: and you are doing a good job
Jesus Claus: no, i'm genuinely not
jay_156: I dont need you to educate me prick
Jesus Claus: i just want to explain this to you
Jesus Claus: just let me explain this, ok?
Jesus Claus: please answer
jay_156: you and I both know what you're trying to say
Jesus Claus: and that is what?
Jesus Claus: what am i trying to say?
jay_156: and you and I both know what the OUTCOME was
Jesus Claus: and what was that?
jay_156: not the lib bullshit spin...not the projected totals
Jesus Claus: projected totals of what?
jay_156: not the one year surplus bullshit
Jesus Claus: but that's what a surplus is
Jesus Claus: a surplus is when revenues exceed expenditures
Jesus Claus: that's what a surplus is
jay_156: claims of the elimination of all national debt was bullshit smokescreen from democrats
Jesus Claus: no one ever claimed that
jay_156: its been proven...and gone over
Jesus Claus: did you think that's what i was claiming?
Jesus Claus: jay, a surplus allows us to PAY DOWN accrued debt
jay_156: so if you cant claim that....who fucking cares
jay_156: you left with debt
Jesus Claus: if we run up a national debt of 4 trillion, then a surplus lets us pay it down
jay_156: so when you can eliminate a debt then call me back
Jesus Claus: we did
jay_156: you didnt eliminate shit
Jesus Claus: the 236.4 bn was applied against the debt
Jesus Claus: it lowered the debt by 236.4 bn
jay_156: yes....4 trillion-236.4 billion
Jesus Claus: which saved us interest
jay_156: = pissing in the wind
jay_156: congrats Claus....you pissed in the wind
jay_156: do you want a pat on the back?
Jesus Claus: yeah, that's like a 1/16th reduction
blues2: JC you will never ever get through to jay
Jesus Claus: 236.4 bn is a little less than 1/16th of 4 tn
jay_156: do you really expect great fucking whoopdedoos for that Claus?
Jesus Claus: that's a lot of money
jay_156: to you and me yes....to the debt....pissing in the wind
Jesus Claus: what if the interest was, say 10%, jay
jay_156: pissing in the wind Claus
Jesus Claus: 10% of 236.4 bn is 23.64 bn
jay_156: more of the same
Jesus Claus: 23.64 bn dollars!
jay_156: ONE BIG CLUSTER FUCK CLAUS
Jesus Claus: that's a lot of money, jay
Jesus Claus: do you have that kind of money?
Jesus Claus: you must be pretty rich to scoff at 23 bn dollars
jay_156: the people of this country decided that they werent willing to be oppressed by taxes so that some of you libs could be proud about pissing in the wind Claus
Tom Joad: when was the last time that a Republican Administration paid anything on the National Debt?
Jesus Claus: but it cost the govt billions in interest
Jesus Claus: paying down the debt helps the economy, jay
jay_156: does it?
Jesus Claus: having a huge debt matters jay
Jesus Claus: yeah, it really does, jay
Jesus Claus: that's lost money

You see how I tried? I was being really good. Well, kind of good. But he just didn't understand. I consider it a personal failure for myself as a teacher. I could not convey the idea that you could accrue a debt over the years of a trillion dollars, and yet have a surplus in a given year that you can use to pay down the debt. I suspected that much of jay's confusion arises from an inability to grasp simple concepts, but he goes on to demonstrate that this problem runs far deeper than that...

jay_156: taxing the people to the point of oppression helps the economy Claus?
Jesus Claus: who is oppressed?
Jesus Claus: who?
jay_156: everyone who made any taxable income under clinton Claus
Jesus Claus: most people don't even pay federal income taxes, jay
Jesus Claus: no, clinton only raised the top two brackets
jay_156: more was paid during the Clinton years than any other president in the past 100
Jesus Claus: he lowered the rest
Jesus Claus: yeah, and the economy boomed
jay_156: and thats bullshit Claus...my personal taxes were much higher under Clinton
Jesus Claus: jay, do you know what median household income is?
Jesus Claus: for a family of 4?
jay_156: 63,000 something like that
Jesus Claus: no, sorry
Jesus Claus: around 40,000
jay_156: um yeah
jay_156: it is actually
Jesus Claus: no, it isn't
Jesus Claus: it's around 40,000
jay_156: ok great.. Claus
Jesus Claus: so, 2 earners, 40k, do they pay federal income taxes?
jay_156: fuck off claus...
Jesus Claus: does someone making 20k pay federal taxes?
jay_156: who the fuck cares?
jay_156: seriously dude who fucking cares?
Jesus Claus: if you made 20k, you'd care
Jesus Claus: i expect you'd care a lot
jay_156: If I made 20k Id hang myself
Jesus Claus: i see
jay_156: I dont make 20k....highschool kids make 20k
neteru: jesus in canada you do, i don't know about usa
jay_156: Im an adult with a real job
Jesus Claus: so, poor people should just...what?
blues2: WHAT A COMPLETE MORON JAY IS
Jesus Claus: fuck off and die?
jay_156: go to school and stop bitching
Jesus Claus: with what money?
Tom Joad: can you say "thank you, Mr Bu$h"
Liz Dewitt: Jay is a losing battle
Jesus Claus: i make 20k, i should pay for college?
Jesus Claus: how?
jay_156: pay attention in school
Jesus Claus: how do i pay for college, jay?
jay_156: pay attention in school
Jesus Claus: in high school?
jay_156: dont make d's and F's
jay_156: yes
Jesus Claus: and then what?
Jesus Claus: what then?
jay_156: take advantage of your scholarships
Jesus Claus: i have a high school diploma
jay_156: and loans like everyone else
Jesus Claus: scholarships and loans that Bush has cut?
Jesus Claus: get a Pell grant?
Jesus Claus: can't do it, Bush cut them
jay_156: yep,,, no one is going to college this year Claus
Jesus Claus: no one is?
Jesus Claus: or fewer people are?
jay_156: you got it claus...no one is going to college this year
jay_156: nope...you're fucking right Claus
Jesus Claus: so, we cut grants and loans, jay?
jay_156: Bush has fucked every single college bound student
Jesus Claus: that's how we help people?
jay_156: taken all teh money away
jay_156: you're right Claus
Jesus Claus: did i say all?
jay_156: its all fucking ruined
Jesus Claus: i said he cut the programs
Jesus Claus: is that what we should do for poor students?
jay_156: we need a democrat in here so that all can be fixed
jay_156: you convinced me
Jesus Claus: cut their grants and loans?
jeeperscreepers2004: bush wouldn't cut needed funds to programs----would he?
jay_156: because no one suffered and nothign was cut under the democrats
Jesus Claus: no, you convinced me
jay_156: thanks for the enlightenment
Jesus Claus: we should wave a magic wand, and click our heels together, and wish the money for college
Jesus Claus: and it will magically appear
Jesus Claus: good plan
jay_156: no poor people are going to college anymore...bush hates everyone poor....and everything was peachy under Clinton....thanks...Im heading down to register democrat now
Liz Dewitt: There's no place like College
Liz Dewitt: yes I am being sarcastic jeeper
jay_156: you've solved it for me now Claus...thanks
Jesus Claus: i'd settle for you facing reality
neteru: jesus, i keep planting money trees but they keep dying
Liz Dewitt: There's no place like college
Tom Joad: I am glad that you have finally seen the light, Jay
Liz Dewitt: get it jesus, i am trying to be funny.
jay_156: no, Ive faced reality....everyone but libs are wrong
Jesus Claus: did anyone say anything like that jay?
jay_156: so when we elect a whole government full of libs we will have everything we need
Liz Dewitt: right on jay
Jesus Claus: is it possible, maybe, that reps are wrong about some things?
Liz Dewitt: keep going
Tom Joad: Jay, we are all proud of you for finally openeing your eyes
jay_156: cool...poor people will start going to college and doing amazing things.....crime will end
jay_156: its gonna be grand
blues2: wow JC.........jay sees the light!...wtg!!!!!
Liz Dewitt: Thank you Jesus
Jesus Claus: do you think if you read more outside your zone of comfort, you might find these things out?
jay_156: what a fucking terrific day it is
Tom Joad: Jay, do you need a ride?
goodnews2x: RIGHT
Liz Dewitt: Jay saw the light at the end of the tunnel.
Jesus Claus: you don't think giving minorites more access to schools would lower crime?
jay_156: I think you're smoking some good shit Claus...thats what i think
Jesus Claus: you see no relationship there?
jay_156: no Claus it wouldnt/....giving anyone anythign never helps
Jesus Claus: true, but these are loans and grants
jay_156: we've created a society of people that want everythign given to them
jay_156: thats counterproductive
Jesus Claus: a small loan or grant for college isn't a good investment, jay?
jay_156: I worked 3 jobs to get through school Claus
Jesus Claus: do you believe in investment, jay?
jay_156: I paid for it myself
Jesus Claus: good for you
blues2: jay i got a student LOAN....and paid it all back
jay_156: why should I have?
Jesus Claus: do you believe in investment, jay?
jay_156: I should have just waited for someone to rush to my aid Claus
Tom Joad: Jesus Claus, relationships? cause and effect? these are fairly complicated concepts, for RepigKKKliklans we need to keep it VERRY Simple
Jesus Claus: jay, please, a small loan or grant isn't going to spoil you, is it?
jay_156: if I was loud enough and if I called the president an asshole long enough someone would have paid for my college
jay_156: I really fucked up
Jesus Claus: jay, you didn't have loans?
Jesus Claus: or grants?
Jesus Claus: nothing?
jay_156: no Claus....my parents made too much money
jay_156: and I was in college during Clinton
jay_156: funny how he took care of me
Jesus Claus: so, the loans were taken by needier kids
Tom Joad: Jesus Claus, you have been haveing discussions with Jay for a long time, do you really believe that he has much education?
Jesus Claus: and the grants
Jesus Claus: deserve?
Jesus Claus: why do you say that?
jay_156: yes deserve
jay_156: college isnt public education
jay_156: well it is now
Jesus Claus: at a public university, i think it would be
jay_156: its not supposed to be 13th grade
jay_156: thats all it is now
Jesus Claus: i will admit that i see people who seem somewhat ill prepared
jay_156: you earn your way into college, or at least you are supposed to
Jesus Claus: and then you can earn 25k and pay no income tax
jay_156: now you dont....now, because the libs have convinced us that everyone is deserving of the same things....now we have 13th grade
jay_156: socialism at its best Claus
Jesus Claus: so, we shouldn't invest in kids with bad backgrounds?
jay_156: awww...thats so touchy feely Claus
Jesus Claus: if they come from bad neighborhoods and bad schools, we should just let them rot?
jay_156: I can hear the nice music in the background and everything
Jesus Claus: oh wait, they don't rot, do they?
Jesus Claus: they get guns and shoot people
Jesus Claus: funny how that works out
jay_156: maybe miya angelou doing the voice over?
jay_156: tragic pics of little black kids crying?
Jesus Claus: maybe if we gave them some ways out, they wouldn't end up carjacking your ass
jay_156: Claus....the way out is the same for everyone
Jesus Claus: and that is?
jay_156: you study...you pay attention...you dont sleep in class
jay_156: you attend class
Jesus Claus: in a run down school? with no books?
jay_156: you work your ass off
Jesus Claus: no computers?
goodnews2x: NOT IN ANY SCHOOL IN MY STATE...HAVE LOWERED STANDARDS...I WILL GIVE YOU A SHORT 4TH GRADE TEST..AND I BET THAT YOUO WILL NOT COMPLETE
Jesus Claus: where did you go to high school?
Jesus Claus: mine was a damn good school
jay_156: why am I even trying....its impossible to argue with someone that uses the exception as the argument
Eat Static: a paper round like you had yea jay
Jesus Claus: you think bad inner city schools are an exception?
jay_156: always the exception
Jesus Claus: is that what you think?
jay_156: because we all know that ALL schools other than "white" schools have no books
Jesus Claus: jay, you need to deal with reality here
Jesus Claus: inner city schools are a disaster
jay_156: some schools actually have dogs teaching class
Jesus Claus: and lackof funding is reason number one
jay_156: and sometimes the poor little black kids have to walk barefooted
jay_156: uphill both ways
Eat Static: jay...reality? lollllllllllllll
goodnews2x: THE PROBLEM WITH INNER CITY EDUCATION IS THAT THEY WILL NOT GO INTO THE SCHOOLS AND TEACH AS THEY SHOULD...AND GIVE THEM THE SAM ADVANTAGES AS THE ORE PROSPEOUS SCHOOL DISTRICTS
blues2: JAY IS HOPELESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jesus Claus: jay, my school had state of the art computers
Jesus Claus: did yours?
Jesus Claus: do you think they have that in the city schools?
jay_156: yes Claus....I grew up in a very wealthy area
Jesus Claus: really
jay_156: I know what they have in city schools because I've taught there
Jesus Claus: so, you should get this easily
jay_156: actually, taught in the classroom in an inner city Claus...have you?
Jesus Claus: you worked hard, but you had a pretty big head start didn't you?
bwpolecat_1: THE PROBLEM WITH INNER CITY SCHOOLS IS THE TEACHERS THAT DONT GIVE A FUCK ABOUT THE KIDS THEY ARE JUST WAREHOUSED
jay_156: of course you havent claus....you base EVERYTHING you know on what the NYT tells
Jesus Claus: it's easy to talk about hard work when your school had the best

So, which is it? Do you feel pity for jay's woeful lack of comprehension? Or do you feel disgust for his loathsome lack of empathy? If you're me, you feel tired and sort of hungry, but then, I'm easily distracted. Ooo, shiny...

JC

YOUR SLIP IS SHOWING

This just heard on mic in Daydream:

VIC_FERRARI_FOREVER: "...that's why Newt had the Contract ON America..."

I nearly spewed soda out of my nose when I heard that, and you all know how much that hurts. Vic was rushing a bit, trying to get all of his spin out in the time allowed, and then we get this telling Freudian Slip: Newt and his Contract ON America. You're damn right it was. And wasn't one of those items in the contract term limits? What happened to those, Vic? Hahahahahahaha.

JC

SAD, DISGRACEFUL MEN

I am truly sickened by the behavior of many of the wingnuts in PT. How anyone can stand to be in their presence is a lingering mystery to me. Even their own heartsick mothers would have gasped and retched and shoved them away at birth if they could have known what venom and vitriol would spew forth from their lips today. These overgroewn adolescents have the gall to try pitifully to mau-mau the wise thinkers who mourn for our nations fallen soldiers as much as we mourn her lack of true leadership. And today it is the deaths of United States Marines they desecrate with their childish prattle.

The NYT has found a secret Pentagon study that confirms what has been known ever since this foolish boy-king smirked and pranced us into this quagmire. 80% of marines who died in Iraq would have lived if this president and his mendacious party had released money for the troops to be properly equipped. Now, both jay_156, a dishonest, uninformed spillpipe of swill, and Vic Ferrari, a cowardly, racist pile of Alabama filth, cannot face the truth. On the issue of body armor, both of them are pathetically tossing out discarded spin to protect their desperately criminal conservative ideology. jay is so foolish as to suggest that this is because of Clinton cutting the military. Yes, friends, jay is still suckling at the well-moistened tip of his Clinton Penis dildo. He's about to gnaw the head off, he worries over it so fervidly. Sorry, jay, defunding the military started with Bush I, and his Sec Def, Dick Cheney.

Even were that not so, nothing Clinton ever did would now prevent the Repukes on Capitol Hill from paying now for body armor, except they simply refuse to. They jabber and they whine, and yet do nothing, as men and women are pierced and felled by hot metal. Hot metal that they could stop, with a few pen strokes. Monstrous, monstrous men, who can ignore death, and yet mark their faces with blood to borrow valor they cannot earn.

No man more pathetic than Vic Ferrari, of course. In PT, there are liars, and below them the lecherous, and still farther down the bores, and shit from their asses, and ground into gravel by cracked feet is Vic Ferrari, the lowest of the damned. The man must literally be unable to face reality as it is. We who know much, know that this administration has neglected proper equpment for troops from the beginning, that Bush pays lip service to their honor and then does nothing. For Vic, all battles are fought on partisan terrain. If a newspaper criticizes the GOP, of course it lies. If a grieving mother questions his emperor, she must lie. If all the arms and legs, and all the torn torsos, and heads and eyes, if all these became a hideous, monstrous, shambling thing to torment the dreams of the foolish man who sent them off to die unprotected; to Vic, this is nothing more than spin. To think, a fool like Vic could convince himself that none, no, not one of the reports against his party, his president, his part, should ever be true. I wonder that anyone could live with his head so firmly planted in his own ass. Perhaps he wears a scuba mask.

JC

POLLY WANT A PENIS

Polly wanna gonad?

I just saw a cool video online of a parrot who could make all kinds of animal noises. I'm too lazy to find the link, but this is the internet, you shouldn't have any trouble finding it. I think our room tonight also has a parrot:

nonny_1_2: clinton hid in the UK during vietnam
nonny_1_2: clinton invaded 2 soveriegn countries.... bosnia and kosovo
nonny_1_2: in fact our troops are still in bosnia... when clinton promised to have them out in one year
nonny_1_2: there was no american interest to be defenced in kosovo and bosnia

I'd offer nonny a cracker, but it looks like he's got a mouthful of Clinton Penis already.

JC

STRONG ARM BLOGERS

This what happens when you Blog, I would like to thank Crooks and Liars for giving me this information!

The power of the internet!

WaPo on Walmart,
C&L and FDL
WaPo on Walmart, C&L and FDL
WaPo:
"...The blog Firedoglake, run by Jane Hamsher in Oregon, posted news of the
combination yesterday afternoon under the heading "So Wrong." The incident
illustrated how quickly a firestorm can build on the Internet. Two minutes after
the post appeared on Hamsher's blog, it was up on the Crooks and Liars site.
Within hours, more than 100 comments were posted to that site, questioning such
things as Wal-Mart's agenda and the technicalities of mapping--
As Jane
says: Boy that "mapping" program sure does have a low-rent cracker sense
of humor.
Steve
Gilliard: " I don't agree with John{Aravosis}, and here's why. This is
no mistake. The programmer did this on purpose. Wal-Mart has a bad record on
race as is. When I watched Planet of the Apes, it was sci-fi to me, and not
marketed to

blacks specifically....read on"

FLUSHED

Dammit, I had written a really amazing post about right-wing spin and how foolish people like jay_156 were trying to spew it at people who knew better, but my Firefox crashed and I lost the whole damn thing. Fucking hell.

So, here's the short version: jay_156 wants us to believe that the Abrmaoff scandal is bipartisan, which is verbatim the spin put out by the RNC. Not only is this nonsense, particularly because Abramoff has always been a GOP insider and could hardly benefit from bribing members of the minority party, but jay is a complete tool for merely repeating the spin fed to him by the wingnut noise machine. Plus he smells bad and his mom's ugly. Goddamn, I'm telling you that lost post was freaking brilliant. Sigh.

JC

BEYOND STUPID

There is a place where I hope I never go, a lonely, empty, pitch black place. The place where Hondo goes to ingest the purest stupidity in the universe. I literally have difficulty understanding how a person could possibly be this dumb:

Jesus Claus: Hondo, Bush Doctrine - http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.15845/pub_detail.asp
Jesus Claus: fromm AEI
Hondo_1887: aei?
Jesus Claus: yes, the AEI
Jesus Claus: heard of it?
Hondo_1887: huh?
Hondo_1887: i never heard of it
Hondo_1887: you would think i would have
Jesus Claus: you haven't heard of the AEI??!?!?!?!?!??!
Jesus Claus: hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Brutelogic: PINK,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,LIES, prove it
Jesus Claus: hahahahahahahahahhahahahahha
Jesus Claus: oh em eff gee
Jesus Claus: you haven't heard of AEI?
Jesus Claus: hahahahahahahahahhaa
Jesus Claus: oh forget it
Jesus Claus: you're hopeless
Jesus Claus: hahahahahahahhaha
Hondo_1887: never heard of ANY of these people on AEI
Jesus Claus: never heard of the AEI hahahahahahahaha
Hondo_1887: who is Gary Schmitt?
Hondo_1887: who is John Yoo?
ThePinkCamel: PNAC is a think tank for the project for the new american century
Hondo_1887: aei is a liberal website
Hondo_1887: check it out people
Jesus Claus: who is John Yoo?!?!?!??!?!?!
ThePinkCamel: yes it does
Jesus Claus: hahahahahahahahahahhahah
ThePinkCamel: does bush write?
ThePinkCamel: lol
Jesus Claus: who is Gary Schmidt?
ThePinkCamel: j/k
Jesus Claus: hahahahahahahahahaha
ThePinkCamel: ok let me get the link
Jesus Claus: Schmidt is the head of PNAC!
ThePinkCamel: http://www.newamericancentury.org/
Hondo_1887: Pink.... I will give you the benefit of the doubt... I can easily see very quickly that aei.org is a liberal website
ThePinkCamel: if u notice that kristol does the statement of principles
Jesus Claus: Yoo is the DOJ lawyer who wrote the memo arging that Bush had unfettered power!
Jesus Claus: hahahahahahahaha
ThePinkCamel: OK HERE IS THE PNAC LINK
Jesus Claus: William Kristol?
ThePinkCamel: http://www.newamericancentury.org/
Jesus Claus: hahahahahahahaha
Jesus Claus: fucking Newt Gingrich is with AEI!!!
Hondo_1887: the New American Century i have seen before. It is a trick site for Kristoll I think to gain image. I don't subscribe to Kristol and his BS either
Jesus Claus: AEI is the premier GOP think tank, you boob!
Jesus Claus: hahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahaha
Jesus Claus: h=hahahahahahahahahaha
ThePinkCamel: OK DO U GUYS KNOW WHO WILLIAM KRISTOL IS?
ThePinkCamel: HE IS THE EDITOR OF THE WEEKLY STANDARD
peppi6: lmao.. great comedy, brutie.. you must have been up half the night thinkin this stuff up
Still-Here2: lol
ThePinkCamel: THE POLTIICAL JOURNAL THAT IS USED EXTENSEIVELY IN THE WHITE HOUSE
MrArchieBunker: Weekly Standard
Hondo_1887: exactly Pink... he is a liberal pretended conservative

Ok, I'm finding it difficult to breathe, I'm laughing so hard. Hondo thinks that the American Enterprise Institute, the most influential policy think tank of the GOP, the Scaife funded paper mill for conservative shills, is a liberal group. John Yoo writes there. He is a top DOJ lawyer and the writer of legal memos justifying torture and abuses of presidential power. Gary Schmidt writes there. He's the current president of the Project for a New American Century, where dozens of current Bush officials originate from. Newt Fucking Gingrich works there. Hell, Dick Cheney's wife is there. And this slobbering fool Hondo thinks it's liberal. The very heart of the Right Wing Cabal, and he actually thinks it's liberal. And notice how terms like PNAC gently ruffle the hair of the wingnuts as they zoom by inches above their sloped brows and greasy hair.

I have to be honest with you, I am a total news junkie, and I am not bragging when I say that I keep pace with a massive amount of detail about the crimes of the GOP. And it stops me cold sometimes when I'm arguing with imbeciles like Hondo, because I naturally extend to him the benefit of the doubt, that he is as reasonably informed as I am. And I'm sure that many of you also imagine that the wingnuts on PT, well, they must at least have a grasp of the fundamentals, they must have at least a hazy understanding of most of the players and organizations involved, but then something like this comes along and you realize, no, they really don't.

This tears it. I had suspected PT served up an inferior strain of wingnut, but this is incontrovertible proof. There were several wingnuts in the room at the time. Archie, Brute, Hondo, Snsual, and Vic. None of them knew what the AEI was. Several of them didn't know what PNAC was. And Hondo is EVEN NOW trying to convince us that William Kristol had NO connection to the Bush White House, that Kristol is some dangerous radical, and not, as he in fact is, one of the key achitects of Bush foreign policy. I think PT might actually be damaging these people. Somehow exposure to some kind of toxin or virus or radiation has done debilitating chromosomal damage to these people. Do you think we might get sick too? Do I look sick to you? I feel a little feverish. Does this look infected?

JC

Update - SnsualsingerDEN is trying to claim that Hondo never said AEI was liberal, even though this is what he said:

Hondo_1887: aei is a liberal website

And this is Hondo's claim now:

Hondo_1887: but I clearly mean that the AEI site was MADE by liberals to feign it to represent CONSERVATIVE thought. It is a joke

Un-fucking-believable.

I BEEN A BAD WITTLE BOY

Well, just got done poking into Hondo's cage with a sharp stick. Not for nothing, but what is the deal with MrArchieBunker having a hat in Back to Mainstream? Has DommieGoddess lost her mind? Giving that simpleton a hat guarantees your room will quickly fill with the noxious, brackish filth staining the drains of Social Issues. Not even sulfuric acid is going to take up the slime trails left by Brute, slammer, and Nashot Chayl as they snuffle along the floor looking for carrion.

I tried to engage on a relatively clear topic, the recent revelation of illegal wiretapping on the order of King George. Now, I already know that the RNC has attempted to dirty the water by dumping fresh talking point chum, but I had no idea it had rooted so quickly into the wingnut brain. First, Nashot tried to present two executive orders proving that Carter and Clinton did exactly what Bush did. Sorry, boyo, you strike out again! Both Eos referred to spying approved under certification by the Attorney General, which is legal under FISA (and is NOT what Bush did), and the Clinton EO actually was the one that clarified the rules of FISA to include physical searches. Holy shit, guys, do you even bother to read these things before you try to shove them in our faces? Regular people might be fooled by GOP spin, but you're dealing with political ninjas here in PT. You'll be holding your spilling guts in your hands before you even realize the blade passed thru you.

Hondo tried to counter, but frankly, it was like being beaten mercilessly by a 4 year-old. It's just so darn cute, but no one's getting hurt. In response to genuine violations of federal law, and numerous citations of analysts left, right, and center affirming that Bush has broken federal law, if not violated the Constitution itself, Hondo can only muster pitiful whines about Dan Rather and Sandy Burger. Please, neocons, these are serious matters. You have to bring your "A" game. All in all, it was a magical trip through wingnut nonsense, but, much like after the Teacup ride, I'm feeling dizzy and vaguely nauseated.


JC

IS IT GETTING QUEASY IN HERE?

I know I haven't been around as much, but I assure you I have a good excuse. We like to do our best here to drill the proverbial core sample of wingnut excrement and produce a comedic full spectrum analysis for you, but recently, I feel as if I am viscerally rejecting the Bush-licking filth. Just as your body and brain know even before you are consciously aware that you've ingested poison (or a little too much Jagermeister), in just that way, i find myself repulsed from the liars and fools on Social Issues. Don't worry, the condition should clear up in a few days. I'm trying the Mithradates method; if I expose myself to this toxin a little bit at a time, I may soon grow immune...

Nah, I'll always be allergic to stupidity.

JC

HAPPY NEW YEAR

From all of us at THE RATTLER to all of you and yours, we wish you a happy new year and lots of good luck in 2006.
zombiemaster

THE LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS !

The Liberal Bias shows its ugly head again by signing the Most controversial conservative Journalist it could find:


Bill Bennett signs with CNN: TV Newser
Bill Bennett signs with CNN: TV Newser
TV Newser: Controversial conservative talk show host Bill Bennett will become a CNN political analyst early in 2006, TVNewser has learned....read on
Talking about scraping the bottom of the barrel. It doesn't matter what these people say-they will always get a job because of gutless executives. CNN replaces a republican political operative masquerading as a journalist for this. I'm surprised that MSNBC fired Michael Savage after this hire. When he goes on The Situation Room, will Paul Begala and James Carville greet him like, "Welcome to the team Buddy!" after he shows up?
The Moderate Voice joins in.

JUST TIRESOME

I really do get tired of constantly correcting wingnut lies. Whenever the misdeeds of the GOP or Bush come to light, the reaction is always the same. The cockroach army swarms the media, spreading lies, half-truths, and false comparisons. And inevitably, a PT wingnut will slither into our room, brain swollen with rank infection.

SnsualSinkerDEN is a perfect example. He tried to defend his party, but got the gong for spreading lies. He repeated the debunked canard about Clinton and Carter engaging in the same type of warrantless wiretaps as Bush. It's a classic wingnut move, combining their insatiable hunger for Bill's cock, basted with a glaze of false equivalence, and wrapped up in a shell of smarminess and jingoism. Too bad for Snsual, we'd heard it before and we ain't buying it.

It only takes Think Progress a few hours to research and debunk these lies, and we should be grateful for both them and Media Matters. I can't even remember what it was like before we had someone pushing back against wingnut lies. I truly think that this battle will not be won necessarily at the ballot box, but when liberal power is fully formed into a network of media outlets, think tanks, and publications that are as effective at combatting the wingnut message as they are at injecting liberal ideas into mainstream thought. This is a new kind of war, and we need to field an effective army. Until then, never give up, and never yield an inch to the lies.

JC

MENTAL MIDGETS MAKE MICHING MALICHO

As if it isn't enough for the neocon orgy of criminals to rape the American electorate in consecutive presidential elections, lie the United States into nearly 45,000 war casualties, and shamelessly redistribute the nation's wealth to the already burgeoning bank accounts of the nation's conglomerate corporations and billionaires via monumental tax breaks - and at the expense of middle and low income families - they now wholeheartedly support, indeed demand, the unconditional surrender of all governmental power to the Executive Branch, the Constitution be damned (as it turns out, Bush has already beatified the Constitution calling it a "goddamn piece of paper"). Avid Fascists like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity use their access to the public airwaves to convince their bigoted constituencies that George W. Bush is worthy of such dictatorial authority. And the wee little tadpoles - MosesKnows, MrArchieBunker, Hondo_1887, Karma-NY, Vigilant Reason, Vic Ferrari, Charlie3, Virginia_1776 - you know, the groveling dogmatic grassroots apologists who Bush wouldn't piss on if they were on fire - latch on to the engorged man-breasts of Rush and Sean for their daily dose of life-sustaining propaganda and spin. As luck would have it, neocon suckling pig Hondo_1887 abandoned the teet early last evening to come enlighten us with his trademark mental midgetry. With so much pap to choose from, it was necessary to pare down Hondo's mental magic to one representative rumination that defines how ridiculous a neocon he really is. I'll call it the Law of Neocon Devolution, and it is especially educational:

Hondo_1887: anyway.... they won't make anything about this in Washington legally... it is just politics as usual... .completely legal

Well shut my mouth and stuff me plumb full of greeee-its, we have a legal genius amongst us - and a neocon, at that. With such a powerful persona as Hondo_1887 on team Bush, I fear all those thousands of legal and constitutional experts and scholars who say the President clearly violated the law to the impeachment standard of a "high crime" are simply wrong! What WILL become of those of us who expect our leaders to lead by example (a philosophy that serves our military well) and abide by the law? Those damn Liberals and their expectations - always getting it wrong!

Is this guy a right wingnutcase or what? Just politics as usual? Completely legal? There is no doubt the President violated the law in authorizing warrantless wiretaps of American citizens. The neocons pull "politics as usual" from their bag of dirty tricks in a not-so-subtle attempt to divert attention away from a colossal Presidental faux-pas, but moreso to mask their own "shock and awe" at the legal ramifications even they cannot deny may lead Bush the way of Tricky Dick Nixon. You can see the consternation (or is it constipation?) in Sean Hannity's expressions as he waxes eloquent about how the law is amiss and how Sein Fuhrer will be vendicated. In PT political rooms, you sense the agony already manifest in the right wingnut psyche - the spin-rich compost and the LOLs are applied, dare I say, more "liberally" than ever - which is typically the case when Bush takes a dump and all the neocon bobbling-heads are momentarily undocked from the mother ship. That said, it is important to give the devil his due; Hondo_1887 brings great talent to the Bush corner, and Bush just might be saved by the bell.

But I don't think so. Not this time. This is a major set-back for the Emporer and his loyal courtiers. Bush has massaged and molested the law too many times with impunity, and the latest transgressions may very well have shaken the other two branches of our government out of their 5-year stupor. This characteristically offensive behavior by the Bush Administration is nothing more than the continuation of the power grab Bush and his band of dancing organgrinder monkeys commenced in November 2000. Members of the Legislature and the Judiciary are expressing skepticism early on - from both political parties - and vow to take action to return balance to government as proscribed by the Constitution. The cotillion is over, folks! It's time to get the Bush regime out of their monkey suits and into something more appropriate for criminals - let's see... how about something in a black and white stiped brushed cotton? Heck, Condi Rice might luck-out and enjoy her incarceration close to home where the progressive state of Alabama has retrofitted it's jail-birds with the classic black and white striped prison garb - you know, to give Alabama that highly sought-after nostalgic ambiance on highway clean-up day. Bush, being the great coward that he is, would require the addition of a verticle yellow streak down the back of his pajamas. Anyway, speaking of legal...

...In the landmark case McColluch v. Maryland (1819), the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution was the "supreme law of the land" in accordance with Article VI, and that nobody was above the law; not individuals, not States, not a branch of the Central Government. In an equally important ruling in Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Justices opined that any Act of Congress or any Law or Act of the Government was subject to Judicial Review and that those Acts or Laws found incompatable with the Constitution are unconstitutional and are therefore invalid (and that includes Executive Orders that fly in the face of the law). In 1967, the Supreme Court ruled that the 4th Amendment protections of American citizens could not be sacrificed for the "convenience of the government;" that a "probable cause" threshold must be met by the government to overcome those protections. In 1978, President Carter signed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) into law, which defines in painstaking detail what is required to spy on foreign entities. FISA language explicitly denies the government warrantless electronic surveillance of American citizens in ALL cases. Finally, in 2001, President Bush signed the Patriot Act into law, which requires a warrant to conduct domestic wiretapping (with the exception of computer systems communications where no warrant is required in most cases), and even sports a provision for a 72-hour grace period in cases where expediency would be lost to the legal process. The Patriot Act also allows the FISA judge to order a wiretapping warrant ex parte easing the government's burden of meeting the "probable cause" standard.

So Hondo_1887, might I suggest when you come to a debate, you come at least minimally prepared with some facts? If you're going to make comments such as that cited above, you really need to have some knowledge base from which to mount your position. As usual, you made a smug, matter-of-fact comment - "completely legal" you wrote - and you were utterly unable to provide even a smattering of evidence that what Bush did was legal, and that tells me you are simply mouthing what Rush and Sean tell you to say. The legal history of this wiretapping business is lined up squarely against the President, and with the added revelation that many of the wiretap warrants Bush sought were actually denied by the FISA Courts, there is the additional contention that Bush conspired to violate the law by countermanding the Judges' rejections and by circumventing legal process. Calling this "politics as usual" is disingenuous, and brings into question the neocons' commitment to one of the hallmarks of our nation's longevity - that we are a nation of laws. It is incumbant upon the House of Representatives to perform its constitutional duty and ensure Bush receives his long overdue comeuppance. If Bush and his disciples are purporting that the Constitution does not transcend the times, if they don't believe that the Constitution is held above all men, and if they believe the law and our rights are an impediment to the national security, then America doesn't have long to live - at least as a free and democratic society. We can only hope Hondo_1887 is wrong in his assessment.

Oh, by-the-way, Hondo_1887 suffered a TKO in the 1st Round, and was unavailable to participate in the group photo op! Karma-NY was still too bloodied by last week's thrashing in PT to appear with his peeps...uhhhh....no pun intended!

vacreeper2003

QUALITY ASSURANCE

The following is offered as a service to the Right-Wing Noise Machine. It's like a giant game of Telephone. Take a look at how effectively the effluvia of wingnut spin has trickled down through the pipelines, gathered as frothy phlegm, and been expelled from the gullet of Rush or Sean or Bill to spatter and ooze into the ear of the wretched PT wingnut. Gaze in mute horror as Hondo vomits his ration into the room:

Hondo_1887: so you hold Clinton guilty? why didn't you bring this up when they Clinton had a place physically searched without a warrant?
Hondo_1887: it is actually
Hondo_1887: but he had that placed searched WITHOUT a court or warrant Jesus Claus
Hondo_1887: so it is no myth, rather, it is FACT
Hondo_1887: Jesus.... why would Bush want to wiretap anyone
Hondo_1887: no
Hondo_1887: none
Hondo_1887: we did it because of 9-11
Hondo_1887: so there is NO suspicion since we had to act on terrorism INSTANDLY
Hondo_1887: so it makes PERFECT sense
Hondo_1887: this was PRIOR to the Patriot Act
Hondo_1887: TERRORISTS
Hondo_1887: that's who
Hondo_1887: too obvious for you?
Hondo_1887: foreign communications ONLY
Hondo_1887: ONLY
Hondo_1887: foreign communications ONLY
Hondo_1887: you don't see it was about finding TERRORISTS before the Patriot Act... which is legal prerogative of the Executive and plenty of precident
Hondo_1887: no
Hondo_1887: it is NOT a violation
Hondo_1887: at all
Hondo_1887: Clinton did it
Hondo_1887: Carter did it
Hondo_1887: not a violation and a number of democrats agree it was not illegal at all
Hondo_1887: anyway.... they won't make anything about this in Washington legally... it is just politics as usual... .completely legal
Hondo_1887: but the MEDIA and some DEMOCRATS will play to some stupid democrats to make political headway, but you won't see any LEGAL action taken
Hondo_1887: on it
Hondo_1887: mark my words.... NO LEGAL ACTION WILL BE TAKEN
Hondo_1887: why?
Hondo_1887: because it is legal
Hondo_1887: that's why
Hondo_1887: JUST WATCH WASHINGTON
Hondo_1887: no legal action will be taken
Hondo_1887: and then KNOW I am right (as usual)
Hondo_1887: Jesus is asking CONGRESS as he speaks to LOOK INTO IT.
Hondo_1887: That should say it
Hondo_1887: to all those that think this isn't about PURE POLITICS to Jesus Claus
Hondo_1887: because it IS
Hondo_1887: just politics
Hondo_1887: other Presidents have used Executive powers to go around warrants
Hondo_1887: vadreeper. I know the constitution well
Hondo_1887: the Patriot Act does require warrants AFTER THE FACT. The issue there is HOW LONG AFTER THE FACT
Hondo_1887: vacreeper... you understand that when Bush did the wiretapping after 9-11, there was no Patriot Act at all to refer to.
Hondo_1887: and any President that failed to do some wiretapping after 9-11 should be held accountable as IRRESPONSIBLE.
Hondo_1887: Jesus Claus.... all this stuff is politics. We have no doubts that Bush HAD to do something to try to track down the terrorists involved with 9-11 and do so ASAP. Monitoring foreign communications on suspected Al Qaeda ops is fine with me.
Hondo_1887: Jesus... how many overseas calls do you do?
Hondo_1887: I do VERY few
Hondo_1887: and not to any terrorists
Hondo_1887: vacreeper.... then where is the legal action against Bush if anything you imagine here is true?
Hondo_1887: vacreeper..... I am patient and content
Hondo_1887: Jesus Claus..... the reason they are trying to make the Patriot Act well, is to prevent abuses when less than responsible Presidents get power.
Hondo_1887: And all is good.
Hondo_1887: vacreeper..... sorry, Bush is one of the great Presidents we have had since our founding. Few can claim responsibility for bringing down a tyrant like Saddam and then bring democracy to a region wherein it is unknown. 60 years from now we might see MANY democracies in the middle east. THANK BUSH

I love it. All the lies about Clinton and Carter. All the casual disregard for civil liberties. All the guileless, doe-eyed trust in the good intentions of this criminal regime. It must bring a tear to the eye of the chief propagandist to see a job so well and thoroughly done.

JC

WHERE'S LENNY WHEN YOU NEED HIM?

So, it's been an exciting couple of weeks, hasn't it? Bush has apparently decided that, as he has mentioned before, he'd much rather just be dictator. After all, who needs a dumb ol' constitution ruining his fun, right? I'm genuinely enjoying the instantaneous mythology about domestic spying that was injected into the main line by the right-wing noise machine. Our resident trolls in PT are sprinkling us with this regurgitated nonsense.

Sorry, guys. Clinton didn't do this, Carter never did either. Project Echelon followed FISA rules, and Jamie Gorelick was talking about PHYSICAL searches, which Clinton brought under the purview of FISA. In every sense the wingnuts are following their normal plan. Lie, lie, and lie some more. And when that fails, whine about Ted Kennedy killing a woman and Robert KKK Byrd. It's just pathetic.

JC

UNCLE OSAMA

here's a quirky twist.

12 MYTHS ABOUT SPYING !!!

Thanks to MediaMatters we have 12 myths about Bush's eavesdropping.

Top 12 media myths and falsehoods on the Bush administration's spying
scandal

Summary: Media Matters presents the top 12 myths and falsehoods
promoted by the media on President Bush's spying scandal stemming from the
recent revelation in The New York Times that he authorized the National Security
Agency (NSA) to eavesdrop on domestic communications without the required
approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court.
As The New York
Times first revealed
on December 16, President Bush issued a secret presidential order shortly after
the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that authorized the National Security
Agency (NSA) to eavesdrop on international phone and email communications that
originate from or are received within the United States, and to do so without
the court approval normally required under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act (FISA). Facing increasing scrutiny, the Bush administration and its
conservative allies in the media have defended the secret spying operation with
false and misleading claims that have subsequently been reported without
challenge across the media. So, just in time for the holidays, Media Matters for
America presents the top myths and falsehoods promoted by the media on the Bush
administration's spying scandal.

1: Timeliness necessitated bypassing the
FISA court
Various media outlets have uncritically relayed
President Bush's claim that the administration's warrantless domestic
surveillance is justified because "we must be able to act fast ... so we can
prevent new [terrorist] attacks." But these reports have ignored emergency
provisions in the current law governing such surveillance -- FISA -- that allow
the administration to apply to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for a
search warrant up to 72 hours after the government begins monitoring suspects'
phone conversations. The existence of this 72-hour window debunks the argument
that the administration had to bypass the law to avoid delay in obtaining a
warrant. The fact that the administration never
retroactively sought a warrant from the FISA court for its surveillance
activities suggests that it was not the need to act quickly that prevented the
administration from complying with the FISA statute, but, rather, the fear of
being denied the warrant.

2: Congress was adequately informed of -- and
approved -- the administration's actions
Conservatives have sought to defend
the secret spying operation by falsely suggesting that the Bush administration
adequately informed Congress of its actions and that Congress raised no
objections. For example, on the December 19 broadcast of Westwood One's The
Radio Factor, host Bill O'Reilly claimed that the NSA's domestic surveillance
"wasn't a secret program" because "the Bush administration did keep key
congressional people informed they were doing this." The claim was also featured
in a December 21 press
release by the Republican National Committee (RNC).
In fact, both
Republicans and Democrats in Congress have said that the administration likely
did not inform them of the operation to the extent required by the National
Security Act of 1947, as amended in 2001. Members of both parties have also
said that the objections they did have were ignored by the administration and
couldn't be aired because the program's existence was highly classified.
As
The New York Times reported
on December 21, Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI), former Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL),
Senate Intelligence Committee ranking member John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV), and
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) have stated that they did not receive
written reports from the White House on the surveillance operation, as required
by the National Security Act:
The demand for written reports was added to the
National Security Act of 1947 by Congress in 2001, as part of an effort to
compel the executive branch to provide more specificity and clarity in its
briefings about continuing activities. President Bush signed the measure into
law on Dec. 28, 2001, but only after raising an objection to the new provision,
with the stipulation that he would interpret it "in a manner consistent with the
president's constitutional authority" to withhold information for
national-security or foreign-policy reasons.
[...]
[I]n interviews, Mr.
Hoekstra, Mr. Graham and aides to Mr. Rockefeller and Mr. Reid all said they
understood that while the briefings provided by [Vice President Dick] Cheney
might have been accompanied by charts, they did not constitute written reports.
The 2001 addition to the law requires that such reports always be in written
form, and include a concise statement of facts and explanation of an activity's
significance.
Further, Rockefeller recently released a copy
of a letter he wrote to Cheney on July 17, 2003, raising objections to the
secret surveillance operation. As the Times reported
on December 20, Rockefeller said on December 19 that his concerns "were never
addressed, and I was prohibited from sharing my views with my colleagues"
because the briefings were classified. The December 21 Times report
noted that House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said she too sent a
letter to the Bush administration objecting to the secret surveillance
operation, and that Graham alleged that he was never informed "that the program
would involve eavesdropping on American citizens."

3: Warrantless searches of
Americans are legal under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act
Conservatives such as nationally syndicated radio host Rush
Limbaugh and American Cause president Bay Buchanan have defended the
administration by falsely
claiming that the administration's authorization of domestic surveillance by
the NSA without warrants is legal under FISA. In fact, FISA, which was enacted
in 1978, contains provisions that limit such surveillance to communications
"exclusively between foreign powers," specifically stating that the president
may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order only if there is "no
substantial likelihood" that the communications of "a United States person" -- a
U.S. citizen or anyone else legally in the United States -- will be intercepted.
Such provisions do not allow for the Bush administration's authorization of
domestic surveillance of communications between persons inside the United States
and parties outside the country.
FISA also allows the president and the
attorney general to conduct surveillance without a court order for the purpose
of gathering "foreign intelligence information" for "a period" no more than 15
days "following a declaration of war by the Congress." This provision does not
permit Bush's conduct either, as he acknowledged
that he had reauthorized the program more than 30 times since 2001, and said
that the program is "reviewed approximately every 45 days."

4: Clinton,
Carter also authorized warrantless searches of U.S. citizens
Another tactic
conservatives have used to defend the Bush administration has been to claim that
it is not unusual for a president to authorize secret surveillance of U.S.
citizens without a court order, asserting that Democratic presidents have also
done so. For example, on the December 21 edition
of Fox News's Special Report, host Brit Hume
claimed that former presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton issued executive
orders "to perform wiretaps and searches of American citizens without a
warrant."
But as the ThinkProgress weblog noted
on December 20, executive orders on the topic by Clinton and Carter were merely
explaining the rules established by FISA, which do not allow for warrantless
searches on "United States persons." Subsequent reports by NBC chief foreign
affairs correspondent Andrea
Mitchell and The
Washington Post also debunked the conservative talking point while noting
that the claim was highlighted in the December 21 RNC press
release.
From ThinkProgress, which documented how internet gossip Matt
Drudge selectively
cited from the Clinton and Carter executive orders to falsely suggest they
authorized secret surveillance of U.S. citizens without court-obtained warrants:
What Drudge
says:
Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to
approve physical searches, without a court order"
What Clinton actually
signed:
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of
the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized
to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign
intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General
makes the certifications required by that section.
That section requires the
Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve "the
premises, information, material, or property of a United States person."
That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.
The entire
controversy about Bush's program is that, for the first time ever, allows
warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United
States. Clinton's 1995 executive order did not authorize that.
Drudge pulls
the same trick with Carter.
What Drudge
says:
Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney
General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
intelligence information without a court order."
What Carter's
executive order actually says:
1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the
Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire
foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney
General makes the certifications required by that Section.
What the Attorney
General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not
contain "the
contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party."
So again, no U.S. persons are involved.

5: Only Democrats are concerned about
the Bush administration's secret surveillance
As part of a larger problem of
imprecise reporting, a number of media reports have falsely
suggested that the debate over the Bush administration's secret surveillance
of domestic communications is purely a partisan dispute between Democrats and
Republicans. For example, on the December 22 broadcast of NBC's Today, Newsweek
chief political correspondent Howard Fineman said: "[W]hile the Bill of Rights
is something we all cherish, I think the Democrats politically need to be
careful, because the president's going to argue, as he already is, that
post-9-11, strong surveillance measures are required."
In fact, several
prominent Republicans have expressed concern that the Bush administration's
actions might violate the law or otherwise be objectionable. On December 18,
Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-SC) said that "I don't know of any legal basis to go
around" the requirement that the White House formally apply to the FISA court
for a warrant to engage in domestic surveillance, while Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)
said it is a "legitimate question" to ask why "the president chose not to use
FISA." After Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales cited executive authority in
defending the legality of the administration's actions, Sen. Arlen Specter
(R-PA) -- who is in charge of organizing an investigation into the issue --
responded that he was "skeptical of the attorney general's citation of
authority."

6: Debate is between those supporting civil liberties and those
seeking to prevent terrorism
Many media figures have created a false
dichotomy by framing the debate over the Bush administration's actions as one
between those who support protecting civil liberties and those who favor
protecting America from another deadly terrorist attack. For example, NBC host
Katie Couric claimed
the debate amounted to "legal analysts and constitutional scholars versus
Americans, who say civil liberties are important, but we don't want another
September 11," while NBC's Mitchell wondered whether Americans
should be more concerned about "[a] terror attack or someone going into their
hard drive and intercepting their emails."
Such statements set up exactly the
false debate put forth by Cheney and Bush to defend the administration's
actions, as Mitchell subsequently noted on the December 21 edition
of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MITCHELL: [T]hey set up
successfully, the White House, this premise of you're either for security and
protecting the American people post-9-11 or you're worried about surveillance.
This either-or proposition, when a lot of people say that's a false
choice.

7: Bin Laden phone leak demonstrates how leak of spy operation could
damage national security
Several media outlets have uncritically cited a 1998
Washington Times report on Osama bin Laden as an example of how leaking
information about the Bush administration's domestic spying operation could harm
national security. The media have falsely suggested that the Washington Times
report revealed that the United States was monitoring bin Laden's conversations
on a satellite phone and that bin Laden quickly ceased using the phone after the
report surfaced. In fact, the article only noted that bin Laden was using a
satellite phone, not that the U.S. was monitoring it; according to a December 22 report
by The Washington Post, bin Laden apparently had stopped using the phone by the
time any newspaper reported that the U.S. had been monitoring his conversations.
Further, the Post noted that another report on bin Laden's phone -- that relied
on the Taliban as its source -- preceded the Washington Times article by nearly
two years, while another report predating the Times article relied on bin Laden
himself.
One example of media misrepresenting the bin Laden incident occurred
on the December 17 edition
of CNN Live Saturday, when correspondent Brian Todd reported:
TODD: We asked
one expert how important it is for the NSA and its methods to be kept so secret.
He cited one breach as an example, the damage done when it was made public that
intelligence agencies were monitoring Osama bin Laden's cell phone calls.
In
a December 19 press
conference, Bush also highlighted the purported bin Laden leak as an example
of why leaking information about the domestic spying operation was a "shameful
act" that is "helping the enemy":
QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Are you going to
order a leaks investigation into the disclosure of the NSA surveillance
program?
[...]
BUSH: My personal opinion is it was a shameful act, for
someone to disclose this very important program in time of war.
The fact that
we're discussing this program is helping the enemy.
[...]
BUSH: Let me
give you an example about my concerns about letting the enemy know what may or
may not be happening.
In the late 1990s, our government was following Osama
bin Laden because he was using a certain type of telephone. And then the fact
that we were following Osama bin Laden because he was using a certain type of
telephone made it into the press as the result of a leak.
And guess what
happened. Osama bin Laden changed his behavior. He began to change how he
communicated.
But as the December 22 Post report
documented, the August 21, 1998, Washington Times article in question "never
said that the United States was listening in on bin Laden"; the article merely
reported that bin Laden "keeps in touch with the world via computers and
satellite phones." The Post also noted that the Washington Times report was not
the first article to note bin Laden's use of a satellite phone: A December 16,
1996, Time magazine report cited the Taliban in reporting that bin Laden "uses
satellite phones to contact fellow Islamic militants in Europe, the Middle East
and Africa." And the day before the Times article, CNN terrorism analyst Peter
Bergen cited a 1997 interview he conducted with bin Laden to report that bin
Laden "communicates by satellite phone." Finally, the Post noted that it was not
until "after bin Laden apparently stopped using his phone" that the Los Angeles
Times first reported on September 7, 1998, that the U.S. had been monitoring his
phone conversations. As a follow-up Post article
on December 23 noted, bin Laden stopped using the phone "within days of a cruise
missile attack on his training camps in Afghanistan."
The false claim that
the Washington Times article was responsible for causing bin Laden to stop using
the satellite phone apparently originated in the 9-11 Commission report, which asserted:
"Worst of all, al Qaeda's senior leadership had stopped using a particular means
of communication almost immediately after a leak to the Washington Times."

8: Gorelick testimony proved Clinton asserted "the same authority" as Bush
In a
December 20 article headlined "Clinton
Claimed Authority to Order No-Warrant Searches," National Review White House
correspondent Byron York drew attention to then-Deputy Attorney General Jamie
Gorelick's July 14, 1994, testimony
before the House Intelligence Committee, in which she stated that the president
has "inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches." While York's
article did not explicitly draw a parallel between the Clinton administration's
1994 policy regarding such searches and the current Bush administration
controversy regarding unwarranted domestic surveillance, conservative media
figures such as National Review editor Rich Lowry and syndicated
columnist Charles
Krauthammer have done just that.
But Gorelick's testimony does not prove that the
Clinton administration believed it had the authority to bypass FISA regulations,
as the Bush administration has argued in the case of the NSA's domestic
wiretapping program.
Unlike electronic surveillance, the "physical searches"
to which Gorelick referred were not restricted by FISA at the time of her 1994
testimony. Therefore, by asserting the authority to conduct physical searches
for foreign intelligence purposes, the Clinton administration was not asserting
that it did not have to comply with FISA. In October 1994, Congress passed
legislation -- with Clinton's
support -- to require FISA warrants for physical searches. Thereafter, the
Clinton administration never
argued that any "inherent authority" pre-empted FISA. To the contrary, in
February 1995 Clinton issued an executive
order that implemented the new FISA requirements on physical searches.
By
contrast, the Bush administration has argued that it has the authority to
authorize surveillance of domestic communications without court orders, despite
FISA's clear and longstanding restrictions on warrantless electronic
eavesdropping.

9: Aldrich Ames investigation is example of Clinton
administration bypassing FISA regulations
Some conservatives have
specifically cited the joint CIA/FBI investigation of Aldrich Ames, a CIA
analyst ultimately convicted of espionage, as an example of Clinton invoking
executive authority to overstep FISA by authorizing a physical search of a
suspect without a court order. For example, on the December 21 edition
of CNN's The Situation Room, Republican attorney Victoria Toensing falsely
claimed that the Clinton administration did "carry out that authority" to
bypass the FISA requirements "when they went into Aldrich Ames's house without a
warrant."
But as with Gorelick's testimony, the Ames investigation took place
before the 1995 FISA amendment requiring warrants for physical searches. In
other words, in conducting these searches, the Clinton administration did not
bypass FISA because FISA did not address physical searches. Further, there is
ample evidence that the Clinton administration complied with the FISA
requirements that did exist on wiretapping: U.S. District Court Judge Royce C.
Lamberth, who previously served on the FISA court, has noted
the "key role" the court played in the Ames case to "authorize physical entries
to plant eavesdropping devices"; and former deputy assistant attorney general
Mark M. Richard established that "the Attorney General was asked to sign as many
as nine certifications to the FISA court in support of applications for FISA
surveillance" during the Ames investigation.

10: Clinton administration
conducted domestic spying
Conservative media figures have claimed that
during the Clinton administration, the NSA used a program known as Echelon to
monitor the domestic communications of United States citizens without a warrant.
While most have offered no evidence to support this assertion, NewsMax, a
right-wing news website, cited
a February 27, 2000, CBS News 60 Minutes report
that correspondent Steve
Kroft introduced by asserting: "If you made a phone call today or sent an
email to a friend, there's a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and
screened by the country's largest intelligence agency. The top-secret Global
Surveillance Network is called Echelon, and it's run by the National Security
Agency." NewsMax used the 60 Minutes segment to call into question The New York
Times' December 16 report
that Bush's "decision to permit some eavesdropping inside the country without
court approval was a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices,
particularly for the National Security Agency, whose mission is to spy on
communications abroad."
On December 19, Limbaugh read the NewsMax article on
his nationally syndicated radio show. Limbaugh told listeners that Bush's
surveillance program "started in previous administrations. You've heard of the
NSA massive computer-gathering program called Echelon. 60 Minutes did a story on
this in February of 2000. Bill Clinton still in office." The Echelon claim has
also been repeated by Wall Street Journal columnist John
Fund and radio host G.
Gordon Liddy.
The 60 Minutes report appears to have been based largely on
anecdotal evidence provided by a former Canadian intelligence agent and a former
intelligence employee who worked at Menwith Hill, the American spy station in
Great Britain, in 1979. In addition, the report contained footage of an
assertion by then-Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) that "Project Echelon engages in the
interception of literally millions of communications involving United States
citizens." But the report also included comments from then-chairman of the House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Rep. Porter Goss (R-FL), who, Kroft
reported, "still believes ... that the NSA does not eavesdrop on innocent
American citizens." Kroft asked Goss: "[H]ow can you be sure that no one is
listening to those conversations?" Goss responded, "We do have methods for that,
and I am relatively sure that those procedures are working very well."
While
Goss did not say in his 60 Minutes interview that the NSA does not spy on the
domestic communications of Americans without a warrant, then-director of central
intelligence George J. Tenet and then-National Security Agency director Lt. Gen. Michael
V. Hayden said exactly that to Goss's committee less than two months later.
As ThinkProgress has noted,
Tenet testified before the intelligence committee on April 12, 2000. Denying
allegations that Echelon was used to spy on Americans in the United States
without a warrant, Tenet stated: "We do not target their conversations for
collection in the United States unless a FISA warrant has been obtained from the
FISA court by the Justice Department." In the same hearing, Hayden testified:
"If [an] American person is in the United States of America, I must have a court
order before I initiate any collection [of communications] against him or
her."
Hayden also denied the "urban myth" that the NSA "ask[s] others to do
on our behalf that which we cannot do for ourselves." This appears to have been
a response to the allegation -- noted by 60 Minutes -- that the NSA was
exchanging information with foreign intelligence services that did monitor the
domestic communications of Americans. Hayden stated: "By executive order, it is
illegal for us to ask others to do what we cannot do ourselves, and we don't do
it."
Tenet and Hayden's congressional testimony leaves two possibilities:
Either they were not telling Congress the truth, or the claim that the NSA used
the Echelon program to monitor the domestic communications of Americans is
incorrect.
Hayden now serves as principal deputy director of national
intelligence and has vigorously defended Bush's warrantless domestic
surveillance program. At a December 19 press
conference, he acknowledged that Bush's program goes beyond what is
authorized under FISA. Hayden described it as "a more -- I'll use the word
'aggressive' program than would be traditionally available under FISA."

11:
Moussaoui case proved that FISA probable-cause standard impedes terrorism
probes
Some of the administration's supporters have attempted to defend the
domestic surveillance program by pointing to a purported situation where the
cumbersome FISA regulations prevented crucial intelligence gathering. In a
December 20 Washington Post op-ed,
Weekly Standard editor William Kristol and American Enterprise Institute
resident scholar Gary Schmitt cited the 2001 case of Zacarias Moussaoui as
evidence that the "difficulty with FISA is the standard it imposes for obtaining
a warrant aimed at" a domestic target. Kristol and Schmitt claimed that the
evidence the FBI had compiled against Moussaoui did not "rise to the level of
probable cause under FISA":
Consider the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, the
French Moroccan who came to the FBI's attention before Sept. 11 because he had
asked a Minnesota flight school for lessons on how to steer an airliner, but not
on how to take off or land. Even with this report, and with information from
French intelligence that Moussaoui had been associating with Chechen rebels, the
Justice Department decided there was not sufficient evidence to get a FISA
warrant to allow the inspection of his computer files. Had they opened his
laptop, investigators might have begun to unwrap the Sept. 11 plot. But strange
behavior and merely associating with dubious characters don't rise to the level
of probable cause under FISA.
But contrary to Kristol and Schmitt's argument
that the probable-cause standard established by FISA was too high in this case,
a 2003 Senate Judiciary Committee report
found that the FBI's evidence against Moussaoui was, in fact, sufficient. The
report instead asserted
that FBI personnel who handled the warrant application "failed miserably" in
their efforts to convince FBI attorneys that the threshold for establishing
probable cause that Moussaoui was an "agent of a foreign power" (and therefore
subject to surveillance pursuant to FISA) had been met .
The bipartisan
report, compiled by Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Charles Grassley (R-IA), and
Arlen Specter (R-PA), examined in detail the FBI's handling of the Moussaoui
FISA application, which was delivered to FBI headquarters by the Minneapolis
field office, handled by a supervisory special agent (SSA) there, and ultimately
rejected as insufficient by FBI attorneys. The senators determined that the SSA
in charge of the application provided
the attorneys with a "truncated" version of the evidence compiled by the
Minneapolis agents and failed
to search for additional "information relevant to the application." Moreover,
the report found that both the SSA and the attorneys had employed
an "unnecessarily high standard" for probable cause -- one that exceeded the
legal requirements set out by FISA:
In our view, the FBI applied too cramped
an interpretation of probable cause and "agent of a foreign power" in making the
determination of whether Moussaoui was an agent of a foreign power. FBI
Headquarters personnel in charge of reviewing this application focused too much
on establishing a nexus between Moussaoui and a "recognized" group, which is not
legally required. Without going into the actual evidence in the Moussaoui case,
there appears to have been sufficient evidence in the possession of the FBI
which satisfied the FISA requirements for the Moussaoui application.
Despite
this report's having established that the FBI's misunderstanding of the FISA
requirements resulted in the rejection of the Moussaoui application, a December
23 New York Times article
reported without challenge the FBI's argument that FISA's "cumbersome submission
requirements" were to blame:
Some agents complained that the FISA court's
cumbersome submission requirements and insistence on strict adherence to the law
had contributed to the impression that the court itself was an obstacle to
aggressive investigation of terror cases. As an example, these agents suggested
F.B.I. lawyers did not seek a FISA warrant in the case of Zacarias Moussaoui,
who was arrested shortly before the 2001 attacks, in part because they believed
the court would reject it.

12: A 2002 FISA review court opinion makes clear
that Bush acted legally
Recently, conservative media figures have
misleadingly cited a 2002 opinion
by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (FISCR) to claim that
the president could authorize warrantless domestic electronic surveillance
despite FISA's restrictions. They have pointed to the court's reiteration of the
president's inherent constitutional authority to conduct foreign intelligence
surveillance without a warrant, which FISA cannot encroach upon. Therefore, they
argue, Bush could authorize NSA's warrantless monitoring of "U.S. persons,"
regardless of FISA's restrictions.
But, as Media Matters documented, this argument is a red herring. Their citation of
the decision to support the contention that Congress cannot encroach upon the
president's constitutional authority ignores constitutional limits on that
authority. Of course a law passed in 1978 would not trump the Constitution --
the supreme law of the land. The question is the scope of that presidential
authority and whether it extends to acts that would violate the provisions of
FISA protecting U.S. persons from excessive government intrusion. Contrary to
these media figures' suggestions, the 2002 FISCR opinion
does not address that question.
Regardless, media figures have asserted that
the FISCR opinion supports the contention that Bush is not bound by
FISA.
Most prominent among these has been National Review White House
correspondent Byron York, who in a post on the National Review Online's weblog,
The Corner, titled "READ
THIS IMPORTANT ARTICLE," promoted a Chicago Tribune op-ed
by John Schmidt, an associate attorney general under Clinton, supporting the
legality of the administration's surveillance program. Schmidt wrote:
Four
federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the
president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign
intelligence purposes without judicial warrant. In the most recent judicial
statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review,
composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that "All the ...
courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent
authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We
take for granted that the president does have that authority."
[...]
But
as the 2002 Court of Review noted, if the president has inherent authority to
conduct warrantless searches, "FISA could not encroach on the president's
constitutional power."
The Drudge Report website also cited Schmidt's
Tribune op-ed with a link
captioned "Associate attorney general under Clinton: President had legal
authority to OK taps ..."
Similarly, a December 20 Wall Street Journal editorial
asserted:
FISA established a process by which certain wiretaps in the context
of the Cold War could be approved, not a limit on what wiretaps could ever be
allowed.
The courts have been explicit on this point, most recently in In Re:
Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges
established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion, the court noted
that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "court, as did all the
other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President
did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign
intelligence information." And further that, "We take for granted that the
President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not
encroach on the President's constitutional power."
Fox News chief Washington
correspondent Jim Angle made a similar claim on the December 20 edition of Fox
News' Special Report with Brit Hume, stating, "In 2002, [FISA's] own court of
review upheld the president's powers and pointed to an appeals court decision,
noting that it, as did all other courts to have decided the issue, held that the
president did have the inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to
obtain foreign intelligence information."
Others who have repeated this claim
in the media include Bradford Berenson, a former associate White House counsel,
who made the assertion on the December 21 broadcast
of PBS' The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. Berenson worked
in the Bush White House from 2001 to 2003, and after the September 11 attacks
"played a significant role in the executive branch's counterterrorism
response."
—A.S., J.K., J.S., S.S.M., & R.S.K.

HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO ALL

In the spirit of the season...i was a happy holiday to all of our readers and i hope 2006 is a good one for you.....
Zombie

ITS AN ACT!!!!!

You know what...I think it is time I set the record straight about something that's been bugging me for a long time now concerning people on pal talk discussing my mental health. Allow me to set the record straight so this kind of shit will stop.

I am not as sick as I come off to be. I have a simple case of being Bi-Polar. I take meds for it everyday and you know what, the meds keep me in line. Along with that i see a therapist and a regular doctor to make sure I am keeping my self in check and staying healthy, that my meds are adjusted to be sure I can function in society. Also, I practice yoga and mediation as well to keep myself from allowing stress to trigger a set back (those who have seen me have a set back know what I am talking about).
Now, a lot of you are wondering then what is the deal when I come into the room and go off like I do. The answer to that is very simple. I am having a good time in there. I don't take voodoo polictics nor mainstream seriously as debate or information rooms. I take them as a good old fashioned wild west shoot out rooms. Half of the people in there are more sick and unstable as I am, so when in Rome....do as the Romans do. (LOL). Up until now only a handful of people knew this but I think the joke has run its course and I am ready to return to serious debate and tackle the hot-button issues of today (mixed with a little Bush bashing).
In closing please remember that I care for this country and its people and only want the best for it so we can ensure future generations of the blessing it has been to us.
Thank you for reading and please feel free to comments you like.
ZombieMaster (King of All Paltalk)

IMPEACH!

MEKNOWS MOSESNOSE DOTH LIE TOO MUCH!

Is there no end to the neocon capacity to lie? The sheer number of crimes Bush and his coterie of criminal clowns commits and the equally outrageous lies served up by his managerie of catering sous chefs to shore up those crimes is absolutely phenomenal, and even laughable! Let's examine a recent bowel movement from frequent fibber MosesKnows, a rising star amongst the PT neocon papmeisters, and just one of the many White House lackeys unable to extract his head from Bush's rectum.

MosesKnows can sound very convincing. He doesn't share that shrill school-girl voice that Dr. Vic Ferrari, BS, MBS, PhBS, LLBS, JDBS, MDBS has, and he generally doesn't speak using condescending language; but my friends, in the greatest tradition of Richard Nixon, he is one prolific raconteur. MosesKnows has a red-phone direct line to the Rush Limbaugh Spin-a-Lie and Pharmacy service. And his latest delicacy is sure to please even the most discerning neocon palate.

The topic on everyone's mind these days is, of course, the "snoopgate" fiasco starring Dim Son and his favorite lap-dog, Condi Rice of NSA fame. Dim doesn't think he violated any law, and of course MosesKnows is right there to scoop up the Presidential poo-poo, but not before the stench permeates the neighborhood! Moses proffers that during a time of war, the President, in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief, enjoys plenary powers and has full authority to kick any law to the curb in the name of national security. He cites the Japanese-American concentration camps and the secret searches and seizures of German-Americans' properties during World War II as the rationale for Bush to conduct illegal wiretaps on American citizens during the war on "terra." MosesKnows suggested that a "mature" interpretation of the Constitution leaves no alternative but to ignore the law as a matter of practice and supplant the law with actions expressly forbidden by law if necessary - with no oversight, to boot. "This thing has to run its course," he lowed, "then we can sort it all out when its all done." MosesDoesntKnow that the legal issues surrounding Bush's latest liberty with liberty are the FISA and the Patriot Act, NOT Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution - Moses wants you to think the 18 September 2001 Congressional Authorization to Use Force as agreed to somehow amended the FISA and magically activated some dormant presidential extraordinary powers clause to authorized warrantless wiretapping of American citizens. I would caution Moses to question any opinion coming from an Alberto Gonzales Justice Department - after all, it was HE who advised Bush that torture was not only legal, but desireable! But MosesKnows is too much the Repuke hack to consider good advice.

My initial reaction to MosesKnows' commentary was "What a f-----g idgit!" Now that I've had several hours to ponder MosesKnows' proposal, my response to the hyperbole is "What a f-----g idgit!" The man does not know the value of his own Constitutional rights. He doesn't know much about the Constitution either! It is difficult to remain patient with neocons who defend George W. Bush regardless of the quantity and scope of his crimes.

The problem with Moses' ridiculously flawed interpretation of the Constitution is that he thinks this issue is about George Bush, when in reality it's about We the People. It doesn't matter to Moses and his neocon camaraderie that George Bush has no compunction about breaching the public trust -- a trust that is the very essence of democratic government. MosesKnows purports a recipe for fanatical Fascism in America. And when you ask people like Moses legitimate questions like "do you think the President has any other law enforcement/national security actions in progress or planned that fly in the face of the law," you get the typical neocon non sequitur about Bill Clinton, or you get some half-baked nitwit notional that we should trust Bush and his motives and his friends and his word and everything about him -- implicitly -- because he is a good, honest, hardworking, Christian American (I have to remind Moses to add white, Anglo-Saxon prostestant to the Bush credentials). Moses surmises that Bush will not be impeached, not because he is innocent of the high crime he admitted to, but because he is the President and the President can do as he damn well pleases because he is the President--talk about the circular logic fallacy of begging the question!

One last note: Bush's wiretapping revelation reminds me of his 18 December 2000 "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier just as long as I'm the dictator" comment. Perhaps the former Texas Governor was trying to tell us something after all--maybe we didn't take him as seriously as we should have! Of course history makes some of us all the wiser to the totalitarian motives of the George Bushs and Dick Cheneys of this world, and some of us (like MosesKnows) become so enthralled in party politics, we forget that history is replete with bad men, who, like someone who is suicidal, often make vague references as to their ill intentions that wind up being missed, second-guessed, spun or ignored by the very people they can hurt the most. MosesKnows is oblivous; oblivious to the fact that George Bush is trampling on his rights as an American citizen, and more importantly, he is oblivious to that green leafy foliage sprouting at the end of his rapidly elongating snout. MosesKnows? MosesKnows nada, nothing, ne rien! MosesKnows how to lie like a rug.

vacreeper2003

FRAUD

This came in from the news wire


Sunnis, Secular Shiites Unite on Election

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Sunni Arab and secular political groups joined forces Wednesday to decide whether to call for a repeat of parliamentary elections that gave the Shiite religious bloc a larger than expected lead.
The main Sunni coalition has said the elections were tainted by fraud, including voting centers failing to open, shortages in election materials, reports of multiple voting and forgery.
The election commission, known as the IECI, has said it received 1,250 complaints about violations during the Dec. 15 elections, 25 of which it described as serious. But the commission says it does not expect the complaints will change the overall result, to be announced in January.
U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said ``there have been a number of complaints lodged with IECI, and their track record on following up on these things have been pretty good.''
The election commission's initial assessment ``was there no complaints or incidents that they found that would fall into the most severe category that would throw into question the results of the election,'' McCormack said. ``The IECI is going to work through these complaints and we'll see what they come up with.''
The agreement to join forces over registering complaints was reached at a meeting in the offices of a secular bloc headed by former Shiite Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, a U.S. favorite.
``We decided to form an operations room to collect the complaints from all the affected parties and present them to the Iraqi Electoral Commission'' and international organizations such as the U.N., said Naseer al-Ani of the Sunni Arab Iraqi Islamic Party.
He added that ``rerunning the elections was presented by some parties at today's meeting but they were only ideas.''
The bitter climate has raised questions about U.S. hopes that the election would lead to a more inclusive government involving Sunni Arabs, the minority group that formed the core of Saddam Hussein's government and is now the backbone of the insurgency.
Sporadic violence across the country killed 15 people Wednesday, nearly all of them Iraqi police or army soldiers.
In Baghdad's Green Zone, more than 50 representatives of Sunni Arab political groups met in the offices of Allawi's Iraqi National List.
The parties will meet again Thursday for further discussion, according to al-Ani and others who attended the meeting. The Iraqi Islamic Party is one of the three main partners in the Iraqi Accordance Front headed by Adnan al-Dulaimi.
A senior official in the Shiite United Iraqi Alliance, Hasan al-Rubaiei, said the groups were complaining because they were not doing as well as they expected at the polls.
``Yes, there were complaints from all the political groups that may be right or may be wrong. But these complaints do not change the reality,'' al-Rubaiei said. ``They expected to get a higher number of votes but it did not happen. They are going too far.''
But al-Ani said the election commission was ``not able to fulfill its mission.''
``There was tremendous fraud, and it didn't do what it has to do,'' he said.
Their complaints have focused mainly on Baghdad, Iraq's largest electoral district and one which has large numbers of both Shiites and Sunnis. Preliminary results show the Shiite religious bloc with a commanding lead in the capital.

CHILDS PLAY

http://d93.k12.id.us/~tech/smile.html

WINGNUT IGNORANCE AS RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCE

Supernova, Champagne or otherwise...

Today I would like to present a business proposal regarding an exciting new source of energy. This amazing breakthrough has the potential to provide a nearly limitless supply of kilowatt hours for a variety of needs while reducing the waste products inherent in petroleum, nuclear, and even hydroelectric power plants.

How many times have you heard the phrase, "What you don't know could fill the Grand Canyon?" Indeed, I imagine we have all had occasion to meet someone whose breathtaking ignorance has inspired such a query. But the question now is this: what if it were possible to harness the voluminous expanse of such ignorance, and turn it into usable electrical energy? Our team of highly-trained scientists, including 3 Nobel Laureates in Quantum Physics, have constructed a device that they call a Q-Tronic Igno-Paradox Transducer. With this device, it is possible to seize the ignorance of a subject, (at a submolecular level) and transform it into millions if not billions of kilowatts in throughput.

Now, I expect that many of you have questions, and the one foremost in your mind must be this: where can we find subjects who contain such tremendous ugnorance? Surely, no one could survive with such energy pressing constantly at the insides of their skull? Or indeed, cross the street in traffic by themselves. But, I assure you, we have found the ideal subjects. Take a look at this transcript of a chat room conversation:

Jesus Claus: WHY CAN'T BUSH USE FISA?
Jesus Claus: tell us, jay
Jay_LOL: why would he use FISA?
Jesus Claus: because, you numbskull, it gives him instant wiretaps
Jesus Claus: you really don't know anything, do you jay?
Jesus Claus: you don't even understand the issue
Jesus Claus: WHY CAN'T BUSH USE FISA?
Jesus Claus: answer, jay
Jesus Claus: tel us why?
Jesus Claus: explain it to us
Jay_LOL: so he should wait 72 hours Claus
Jay_LOL: hopefully, they are still talking
Jay_LOL: because 72 hours to wait for a court is the difference between gathering info and having a plane hijacked Claus
Jesus Claus: JAY!!!!
Jesus Claus: YOU IDIOT!!!!
Jay_LOL: this is war, not a third grade soccer game
Jesus Claus: you don't have to wait 72 hours, you numbskull!
Jay_LOL: yes, lib logic is that if you are wrong once, then you are always wrong
Jay_LOL: unless of course you are lib, then you are entitled to be wrong all the time
iJesus Claus: jay, you're a moron!
Jesus Claus: FISA doesn't make you wait 72 hours, you idiot!
Jesus Claus: FISA gives a warrant within minutes or hours!
Jay_LOL: Claus, look...if you want me to feel for the "rights" of people linked to Al Queda then your pissing up the wrong tree
Jesus Claus: jay, you don't know what you're talking about!
Jay_LOL: in certain situations it absolutely does Claus
Jesus Claus: with FISA, you can negin taps IMMEDIATELY!
GilBatesJr: FISA warrents can be done after the fact too
Jesus Claus: begin
Jay_LOL: Claus, unfortunately, Im one of the few who seem to know what they are talking about
Jesus Claus: EXACTLY, GIL!
Jesus Claus: JAY, you just said that you have to wait 72 hours for a FISA warrant
Jesus Claus: which is EXACTLY backwards!!!
Jesus Claus: you know NOTHING!!!
Jesus Claus: you speak without facts
Jay_LOL: Im one of the few that actually dont give a damn about the "rights" of treasonous people
Jesus Claus: you are completely wrong
Jesus Claus: begone, fool
GilBatesJr: Immediate spying and then do the paperwork the next day or 2
Jay_LOL: yes of course I did
Jesus Claus: you sully us with your presence
Jay_LOL: eat my ass Claus, your a fucking biased asswipe
Jesus Claus: leave us, jay, and return when you know something
Jesus Claus: you have made a critical error in fact
Jesus Claus: you are dismissed

Notice in particular how the Wingnut reacts angrily when his error is pointed out. Yes, my friends, the Wingnut is indeed the ideal source for this type of energy extraction. Once quarantined, the Wingnuts are fed a steady diet of AM Radio and Fox News, which constantly renews the ignorance energy. In addition, it ensures that the only harm a Wingnut can inflict is against his own kind. Now, if you'll follow me, we can enter the Quarantine Zone and observe the "energy coils" in real time. Please be sure to wear your hazmat suits and protective gear correctly. The specimens have been a bit nippy lately, and Jay_LOL in particular has been known to fling his poo at visitors on numerous occasions...

JC