Democrats & Liberals Archives

Feingold Shows Way to Security

Bush is right. Bush is wrong. Bush is right when he says that the advancement of world freedom will lead to a reduction in world terrorism. Bush is wrong when he decides to fight terrorism by reducing freedom at home. Through warrantless wiretapping of Americans. Through a revived Patriot Act. Senator Feingold is one of a tiny few that is fighting these transgressions on our freedom. Feingold is right that increased freedom leads to reduced terrorism. Feingold is also right that we must preserve American freedoms to assure national security.

It's amazing that the president speaks eloquently about spreading democracy and freedom around the world in order to reduce terrorism, but he insists that here, at home, we need to cut back on freedoms in order to become more secure. It makes no sense.

The tie between freedom and security has been pretty much established recently. Princeton University economist and NY Times commentator Alan B. Krueger analyzed State Department data on terrorism. He found that there was no correlation between poverty and terrorism, but there was a correlation between a lack of civil liberties and terrorism. I found out from January's Scientific American, that Kruegel discovered that

"countries like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, which have spawned relatively many terrorists, are economically well off yet lacking in civil liberties. Poor countries with a tradition of protecting civil liberties are unlikely to spawn suicide terrorists. Evidently, the freedom to assemble and protect peacefully without interference from the government goes a long way to providing an alternative to terrorism."

The recent spate of rioting caused by the Danish cartoons about the prophet Mohammad also shows the freedom-lack/terrorism correlation. On one hand, the worst reactions came from the dictatorships of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. On the other hand, you did not see Muslims rioting in the U.S.

And yet, Bush is trying to impose a tough, freedom-reducing Patriot Act. Krueger, in his New York Times article declares:

"The ultimate joke would be if civil liberties are sacrificed in the fight against terrorism, as a lack of civil liberties seems to be a main cause of terrorism around the world. Support for civil liberties should be part of the arsenal in the war against terrorism, both at home and abroad."

Civil liberties is what Senator Feingold is fighting for. The greatest weapon America has against terrorism is civil liberties. And Feingold is one of only 3 senators (the others are Byrd and Jeffords) that are fighting for our freedom and our security. Here is what Senator Feingold said on the Senate floor about the Patriot Act:

“What we are witnessing is quite simply a capitulation to the intransigent and misleading rhetoric of a White House that sees any effort to protect civil liberties as a sign of weakness.

“Protecting American values is not weakness, Mr. President.

“Standing on principle is not weakness.

“And committing to fighting terrorism aggressively without compromising the rights and freedoms this country was founded upon—that’s not weakness either.”

No, it's not weakness. It is strength. Feingold is showing us how to fight terrorism the smart way. Maintaining and even strengthening our liberties will fortify us against home-grown terrorism. Spreading freedoms abroad - it cannot be done through war, the absence of all freedoms - will reduce world terrorism.

Senator Feingold is our champion for civil liberties. Senator Feingold is our champion for national security.

Posted by Paul Siegel at February 20, 2006 2:36 PM
Comments
Comment #127859

I applaud your post. I personally sent an email to Senator Feingold congratulating him on his courage. Although most of our leaders are cowards, incompetent, or instead seek to actively destroy our liberty for some unknown reason (they must be able to make money off it somehow), Senator Feingold has instead stood up against this ridiculous (and unconstitutional, but with this right-wing Supreme Court I’ll not hold my breath) and evil encroachment on our liberty. There is simply no reason for such provisions. We can attempt to fight terrorism but limiting our freedoms will not only be ineffectual and waste precious and limited law enforcement resources, but it defeats the entire purpose of fighting terrorists. We already have the advent of religious fundamentalism and add to it the ineffectual choices in elections and the repressive police state atmosphere and we’ve got a Christian Saudi Arabia. Awesome.

Posted by: Libertyman13 at February 20, 2006 3:00 PM
Comment #127866

Sounds almost as if Senator Feingold is a jewel in the making. I would dearly love to know more about him. What state is he from - party, etc. I only ask about party so I can see whether he votes along party lines or can think for himself.

Posted by: Linda h. at February 20, 2006 3:31 PM
Comment #127877

Here we go again. Nixon tapped political enemies calling them justified because “National Security.” Now we have Bush doing simular things with illegal wiretaps but now we have terriorism as the excuse de jur.

I do not understand what the Conservatives have against the Bill of Rights and due process. This administration has done a super job of scarring this country into believing that we all must give up a few minor freedoms to make us secure.

We have the opportunity to send a message to these people, it is called the 2006 elections. We must work to elect people who believe in equil rights to all not just big business and mega wealthy. It is up to us.

Posted by: Craig T. Rich at February 20, 2006 4:00 PM
Comment #127886

Linda:

Senator Russ Feingold is from Wisconsin and is a Democrat - a liberal Democrat, who takes after the deceased Wellstone. He is a fighter for civil rights and for national security. He’ll make a terrific president.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at February 20, 2006 4:09 PM
Comment #127887

fiengold is from wisc,he has been ahead of the curve on iraq,social security,homeland security,border security,he is what real america is all about,not bush`s version.

Posted by: don woods at February 20, 2006 4:12 PM
Comment #127896

there was a correlation between a lack of civil liberties and terrorism

Our own home grown terrorists, McVeigh and Rudolph, sprouted up under our system of more civil liberties, but I agree with your basic point about Feingold.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 20, 2006 4:32 PM
Comment #127897

Mr. Siegel, a great and honest post. I find it interesting that those who yell the loudest about terrorists because “they hate our freedoms” are the first to surrender those freedoms.

Now we all know the Reps. talking points on this..well I have nothing to hide, or they are only “out of country” calls etc. But the fact is that those same people who claim the Constitution must be read “only as written” fail to read the bill of rights.

The 4th admendent should be as important as the 2nd to these people but “after all we need out guns for when them commies come…”

The culture of fear that this administration is simular to what the Nazi’s used in the 20’s and 20’s in Germany. Make people afraid and then you can grab more power in the center.

The secrecy, unwillingness to be forthcoming, the lies to congress and the people and the thought that they are above the law has made this administration more dangerious that Nixon ever hoped to be.

I say Congradulations to Sen Fiengold. All the wingnuts who say history must be the judge will find in this Sen. a true American Hero along the lines of Nathan Hale..
Michael M.

Posted by: Michael M at February 20, 2006 4:33 PM
Comment #127901

It depends on how you define civil liberties and how you interpret the laws and the Constitution.

I am interested in the takings clauses. Liberals don’t care. I favor the 10th Ammendment.

I don’t think data analysis and tapping conversations with foreign terrorist threatens my liberty. Franklin Roosevelt didn’t think so. Neither did the founders. This kind of liberty is the product of the 1970s, the decade of energy crisis, a flock of seagulls, and malaise.

One of you can now quote Franklin if you like, but remember that many of his liberties had to do with freedoms from taxes and government regulations most of you guys like so much.

Posted by: Jack at February 20, 2006 4:49 PM
Comment #127907

Senator Feingold, as smart as he is, is an albatross around the necks of the people he represents in the nation’s capital. He is a liberal hack and enemy of the unborn. It’s interesting that any of us can talk about a war on terror, when we terrorize those who are defenseless under the guise of “privacy” and “choice”.

By the way, how many of you liberals really know the Patriot Act or have even read it beyond what your comrades say it says? Feingold wasn’t brave enough to contest the extension that the White House justified. Feingold isn’t that good.

Posted by: Bill at February 20, 2006 5:03 PM
Comment #127912

enemy of the unborn, in other words, of nonexistent people.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 20, 2006 5:14 PM
Comment #127914

Bill, for once I wish you and your ilk cared about those who are born as much as you care for the unborn. When you and others who care so much for life start taking care of all humans who are here then I will be interested in your statements. How many have your adopted today? How many hours have you spent helping the nations poor children learn to read, write and how many have you fed today?

Jack, just as I said, go ahead and listen in to my calls…at least come up with a new come back. Bill O’full of shit, and Rush Me my drugs, have already spelled out your talking points.

As far as taxes go, my great grand children are going to pay so you selfish and greedy people can have an extra ten bucks in your pocket today. Where or where is that conservitative idea of living within your means or is that only for those on welfare.
Michael M.

Posted by: Michael M at February 20, 2006 5:26 PM
Comment #127919

Excuse me for sticking this in the middle of a different subject. I just received it through email from a most-conservative acquaintance of mine. It is clearly something he finds amusing, but is just more evidence as to how much the neo-cons just DON’T GET IT !! They find it amusing to poke fun at the plight of those less affluent and fortunate ! And they refer to those situations that have yet to be remedied….

Bush Fails To Prevent East Coast Blizzard

Minorities Hit Hardest

by Brian Williams NBC 02/12/06

As President Bush and his staff cowered in the comfort of the White House, the snow continued to pile up on the many poor and African Amercian victims who could not afford to get out of town or to safety in Florida. Crucial supplies of
blankets, hot cocoa, popcorn and dark rum - so essential to surviving the
stress of any major snowstorm - lay in stores undelivered.

“Where is the government? I need my sidewalk shovelled so I can get out to
buy my damn lottery tickets!” said one D.C. resident from his living room.
“Why are we wasting money in Iraq when we could be spending it here on me?”
Progressive blogs blasted the President for his inaction. “We find the
timing terribly suspicious - just as the Domestic Spying hearings kick into
high gear, what happens? A major northeast Blizzard. Why now?” wrote blogger
FUAmericaNBush2.

Hearings into the Blizzards’ effect on hearings are almost a certainty.
Howard Dean has suggested he will call for an investigation once his new
medications kick in and John Kerry took a break from the sporting activities
of the glamourous super-rich in some exotic locale (random choice: Ice
Sailing in Finland) to call for new legislation outlawing snowstorms. “The
Republican Congress has dropped the ball once again. I have always been a
staunch supporter of anti-snow legislation, except for certain locations
where I ski. Snow has no business on our roads and the President and
Congress knows that.”

Calls for impeachment over “SnowGate” as some are calling it already are
mounting as deeply as the snow itself, and what will be discovered
underneath will prove to have a truly chilling effect on the Republicans, as
the inevitable thaw proceeds.

Or something like that.

More breaking news……
Al Sharpton wants an investigation as to why snow is ALWAYS white.

Cheney has stock in Tru-Value Hardware.
Do you have any idea how many SNOW SHOVELS they sold today to the
unsuspecting consumer?

I demand to know why FEMA has been so late in reacting to this storm. THEY
KNEW IT WAS COMING! And yet they failed to have crews in place to fix the
electricity as soon as it went off. It just shows that Bush and the
Republicans just don’t care about the people in the N.E. The Senate needs to
investigate this with administration people under oath.

I’ll bet that the great junior senator from N.Y. has opened the doors of her
home to all of the heatless poor of her neighborhood and is busy baking
cookies for them while her husband applies body heat to the nearly frozen
teen-aged girls.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at February 20, 2006 5:34 PM
Comment #127920
I don’t think data analysis and tapping conversations with foreign terrorist threatens my liberty. Franklin Roosevelt didn’t think so. Neither did the founders.

You’re crazy if you think the founders would have thought it was ok for the government to listen in on private conversations. The founders made search and seizures illegal without a warrant.

Anyway, where conservatives have many liberals, including myself, wrong is that we would love to see many Arab nations become democracies with civil rights protections. We just think the way Bush has gone about it has been incompetent and hurt our nation.

Posted by: Max at February 20, 2006 5:36 PM
Comment #127924

Sandra, what racist BS. That anyone would find this funny shows a complete lack of human kindness. I actually am glad you put this up as it is another example of the soulessness of the right wing. Let us care about a glob in some womans gut, but let us not care about real human suffering. Sandra, I to have most-conservative friends and have had them send me this kind of garbage once, then they get the message loud and clear that I do not support racism in any form.

Michael M.

Posted by: Michael M at February 20, 2006 5:42 PM
Comment #127928

I need my sidewalk shovelled so I can get out to buy my damn lottery tickets!” said one D.C. resident DC resident meaning black in their world.

Unfortunately it is typical of the kind of thing that we have heard from the other side for more than 30 years, or since Pat Buchanan and his kind came on the political scene. It is probably actually a formula letter of some kind, where they just drop in different names to update it.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 20, 2006 5:55 PM
Comment #127934

Well I just don’t understand how people can sit back and look at something remotely disguised as humor, as this is, can find it funny !!….yes, Michael, then attack someones’ conscienceness to dare and consider an abortion……without knowing the basis. Guess with their noses so high in the air displaying arrogance and supremacy has robbed them of essential oxygen to feed the brain…..

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at February 20, 2006 6:18 PM
Comment #127939

Really…listening into calls to Americans in this country from known terrorists outside the country violates our privacy rights? Come on people, where do you draw the line between committing suicide and protecting privacy? If a terrorist was phoning your neighbor from (where-ever) about planting a bomb under your bedroom I think that, just perhaps, you might be grateful to have a few minutes notice. But then, with the kind of logic I have read from some on this site, perhaps they would remain in their bedroom rather than possibly be accused of violating their neighbors right to privacy.
Contrary to the conventional wisdom of some on this site, please don’t ascribe stupidity to our founders. Do you folks also hate President Lincoln for all the Constitutional Rights he violated to save the nation in which we live? Jim

Posted by: Jim Martin at February 20, 2006 6:42 PM
Comment #127941

Max

Do you recall how Benedict Arnold’s plot was uncovered? Maybe they should have released Major Andre and appologized for reading the dispatches when they learned that one of the party was an American. Or when he discovered Edmund Randolph’s letters, maybe he should just have ignored them. Of course they did thing like this without thinking about it at all.

Roosevelt intercepted all communications he could from the Nazis and Japanese. We managed this kind of thing through most of our history.

Our liberty is under attack a lot more concretely all over the place. I can’t make a pond on my own land without Federal permission. You can’t sell some products without Federal permission.

Posted by: Jack at February 20, 2006 6:44 PM
Comment #127945

Excellent points Jack. I would be very interested in reading comments from some of the writers above regarding how they have responded to the abuse of “eminent domain” when condeming private property for the express purpose of increasing a localities tax-base. Jim

Posted by: Jim Martin at February 20, 2006 6:52 PM
Comment #127961

Jack and Jim,

I think you forget a couple of things. Firstly, Benedict Arnold was caught prior to any type of American constitution being developed. Secondly, intercepting communication between two foreign nations isn’t spying on American Citizens.

Okay, now that those formalities are out of the way….I don’t think most of us mind the actual spying….it’s the manner that the spying was undertaken. One side of these conversations is within the United States with American Citizens. American Citizens have rights protected by the constitution and laws written by congress.

This is the same administration that all but guaranteed us that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons. Why should we believe they have identified the person calling from the Middle East properly? Without a paper trail we are going entirely on the word of an administration.

If one can scare the American people enough many will allow big brother unchecked power. Absolute power, if you will. I do not want ANY president to have absolute power. Neither Dem or Repub.

The spying can be done within the law. If not, I think both sides of the isle are willing to work with the administration to change the law so that it can accomodate the spying and protect civil liberties. This administration is a member of the same party that controls both houses of congress and they still side-stepped the law….this is not only arrogance but smells of cover-up.

Do it. But, by God, do it right or don’t do it at all!

Posted by: Tom L at February 20, 2006 7:22 PM
Comment #127965

By the way….

war on terror?

Terror is an emotion. How does one fight an emotion. This is kinda like war on poverty or war on drugs….

Maybe it should be called war on terrorism. That would entail all terrorist…many in our own country. I think what the war is really on is fundamental Islamist….

Many wouldn’t say this because it is politically incorrect. However, that is exactly what this has become. I think this administration should have the guts to call it what it is…what they have made it…a war on Islam

Posted by: Tom L at February 20, 2006 7:26 PM
Comment #127966

Paul,
Feingold for President!!!

Jim,
Disgust with the Supreme Court decision on eminent domain was nearly unanimous on Watchblog. Articles & comments are in the archives. National polls are also nearly unanimous, if I recall.


Posted by: phx8 at February 20, 2006 7:29 PM
Comment #127970

Jack and Jim,

You are right about some things. The takings clause is ridiculous and Kelo was incorrectly decided. Obviously the right to control over one’s own property is protected by the Constitution, despite some beliefs to the contrary by mnay people who you (but not I) would label “liberal.” To me, liberal signifies a basis in liberty, which does include economic liberty. Economic liberty would have to have slightly more regulations, obviously, than civil liberty because economic aspects can have more effects on others, but we should strive to create as much liberty as possible. For instance, you should be able to do pretty much anything in or to your own house without the federal government stepping in. You should be able to have a pond if you want one, and you should be able to smoke marijuana beside it with your same-sex marriage partner too.

Second, if FDR did wiretap American citizens without warrants then he was wrong too. Just because he was a Democrat doesn’t mean I agree with him or that he must be right (especially since I am an independent). That is one of the main differences between liberals and conservatives that I have seen recently: consistent criticism of both Clinton and Bush policies from liberals and inconsistencies from conservatives.

Third, of COURSE there is a serious threat from wiretapping! Think of all the things the government can learn about you and use against you, things considered legal and illegal, and the government simply has no right to intrude upon you like that. It cannot be consistent to argue that you can do what you want with your own property but you don’t have the right to be private in terms of conversations emanating from that property? You seem to think that the government is concentrating upon supposed “al-Qaeda” within the US when they will not even offer proof that such entities exist or are a threat. Even if they do exist, then it is still not correct to wiretap them without suspicion, that is the protection that we all should enjoy that can only be abridged, like property laws, by due process of law.

Posted by: Libertyman13 at February 20, 2006 7:33 PM
Comment #127971

Excuse me for asking, But I’ve been so busy lately that about all I’m doing is working and sleeping. And I haven’t seen much news.
Has anything come out that says that Bush evedropped on US Citizens without warrants?
If not, then there’s no crime as on citizens don’t have Constitutional Rights.

Posted by: Ron Brown at February 20, 2006 7:36 PM
Comment #127978

Ron,

Actually yes it HAS come out that they have wiretapped American citizens. Check out this link:

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00F1FFF3D540C758DDDAB0994DD404482

Also, resident aliens who are legally in the country are in fact entitled to constitutional protections, and there is a strong question as to whether even illegal alines get some protections. See United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (holding that illegal aliens WITHOUT sufficient connection to the United States do not enjoy Fourth Amendment protections).

Thus, it becomes clear that the NSA has violated both the law and the Constitution, at Bush’s behest.

Posted by: Libertyman13 at February 20, 2006 8:12 PM
Comment #127983

Paul,

This is an excellent post.

I will just repost something that I posted on my blog at: http://www.rayspoliticalblog.blogspot.com Some of you may already have seen this post, if so, just skip over, otherwise it shows the idiocy of the “well I have nothing to hide” argument.

In any case, check my blog out.

We must fight to force Bush II to accept the rule of law…
to accept that he must not spy on Americans
without Constitutionally mandated oversight
from the Congress and the Judiciary.

Under the evil genius Karl Rove, the Bush Regime has became superb propagandists. They have used demonstrably misleading, false, repetitious, “proto-fascist big lie” style talking points to confuse many Americans into believing that we must choose between being tough on terrorists and protecting our Constitutional Fourth Amendment rights against being spied on without a warrant… without judicial oversight… without any checks on unbridled executive authority. The FISA Court would allow everything that Bush claims that he is doing, so, why does he want to set himself above the law, and claim this excessive, and unconstitutional executive power for the Presidency? Does he want to be King?

For the sake of argument, lets ( you) assume the very best. Assume that Bush really does just want this power in order to protect us from terrorists. Assume that he will not use this excessive Unconstitutional power to spy on political rivals, and use the information to political advantage, there by undermining our Constitutional Democracy. Assume that he will not use this excessive Unconstitutional power to spy on journalists in order to get advance warning of negative news stories so that he can be prepared to lie and politically spin the situation, there by undermining our Constitutional Democracy. Assume, if you must, that Bush will not use this massive Unconstitutional executive power to spy on powerful politicians, Supreme Court Justices, Journalists, high government and military officials, and business leaders, in an effort to find embarrassing or incriminating evidence that he could use to black mail them, there by undermining our Constitutional Democracy. Go ahead… you naive and foolish Republican… make all of these foolish and dangerous assumptions… fool… “Power corrupts.” Excessive power corrupts excessively. “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Bush probably is abusing this power… but even assuming that he is not abusing this power… Once this awesome, massive, unbalanced, excessive, Unconstitutional power is successfully gathered into the Presidency, do you really want to trust that some future President - like maybe Hillary - will not abuse this power… you idiot Republican… Do you really want to trust Hillary with that kind of power? I am a Democrat, but it would scare the bahgeebees out of me to think of Hillary or any other Democratic President having that kind of power - with no Judicial oversight - with no Congressional oversight - with absolutely no checks and balances… Bush is probably abusing this power, but if he is not, some future President will… some Republican… some Democrat… The power will be abused. Our Constitutional Democracy is hanging by a frayed thread. Are you Republicans daft? I say again… Where were you? Why weren’t you marching in the streets with us?

This was my first attempt at html formatting - so wish me luck.

Posted by: Ray G. at February 20, 2006 8:20 PM
Comment #127989

“Senator Feingold is our champion for civil liberties. Senator Feingold is our champion for national security.”

Damn right. Feingold is the best.
Great post, Paul.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 20, 2006 8:30 PM
Comment #127990


orealy - enemy of the unborn, in other words, of nonexistent people.

Nonexistent people, please, Ya just can’t put perfume on that pig. People can say what they want and define the unborn however they want but it just doesn’t change the truth. The unborn is human and alive well before it enters this world. To me this is the biggest contradiction of the left who say they protect the innocent but in fact are responsible for more destruction of it than anyone. If an unborn baby isn’t the most defenseless and innocent of any, then I don’t know what is. I can say the color blue is really red all I want but it is still, the color blue.

Posted by: Nunya at February 20, 2006 8:31 PM
Comment #127991

Oh, as for the premise of the thread. You guys are so over the top on this it really isn’t worth commenting on.

Posted by: Nunya at February 20, 2006 8:34 PM
Comment #128000

Nunya, thank you for your no comment. Sorta like I care sooooo much for the unborn, but once that sucka is out, it everybody elses job. Thanks, for your heartfelt and Christian like attitude.

Michael M.

Posted by: Michael M at February 20, 2006 9:17 PM
Comment #128003

Ray G, thanks for the links to your blog. Bush wanting to protect us from terrorists is nonsense. If you disagree with him, then you are a terrorist or an accompliss. He would probably like to put a new statue on top of the Capitol of Joe McCarthy with a confedarate flag in one hand and the Texas flag in the other, stomping a copy of the US constituition under his foot.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 20, 2006 9:31 PM
Comment #128002

Ray G, thanks for the links to your blog. Bush wanting to protect us from terrorists is nonsense. If you disagree with him, then you are a terrorist or an accompliss. He would probably like to put a new statue on top of the Capitol of Joe McCarthy with a confedarate flag in one hand and the Texas flag in the other, stomping a copy of the US constituition under his foot.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 20, 2006 9:31 PM
Comment #128004

Thank you Paul,

By now you know I’m a moderate Democrat and sometimes we agree more than others. Well, we agree whole heartedly this time and I suggest everyone read Feingold’s comments to the President of the US senate:

http://freeinternetpress.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=5929

One of our conservative detractors questioned whether we’d really read the Patriot Act. My answer is, “yes, to the best of my ability”. My question is, “have you?”

It’s here in PDF, all 342 pages of it:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.pdf

My favorite Feingold quote do date:
“Mr. President, trust of government cannot be demanded, or asserted, or assumed; it must be earned. And this Administration has not earned our trust. It has fought reasonable safeguards for constitutional freedoms every step of the way. It has resisted congressional oversight and often misled the public about its use of the Patriot Act. We know now that it has even authorized illegal wiretaps and is making misleading legal arguments to try to justify them.”

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 20, 2006 9:40 PM
Comment #128011

“Excuse me for asking, But I’ve been so busy lately that about all I’m doing is working and sleeping. And I haven’t seen much news.
Has anything come out that says that Bush evedropped on US Citizens without warrants?
If not, then there’s no crime as on citizens don’t have Constitutional Rights.

Posted by: Ron Brown at February 20, 2006 07:36 PM”

We’ll still be here when you’re coherent. Your comment, “no crime as on citizens”, could apply equally to many things. I can just hear the court argument now:
***
“Your honor no one was killed from me using substandard brake parts on them busses!”
***
“Your honor she looked 18 to me!”
***
“Your honor he looked like a bird to me!”

Sorry,
KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 20, 2006 10:02 PM
Comment #128014

Bill

“By the way, how many of you liberals really know the Patriot Act or have even read it beyond what your comrades say it says?”

have *you* read the Patriot Act? you act as though you had, and the rest of us are spouting leftist propaganda - yet i find it highly dubious that you yourself have bothered to give it a cursory read.

i have made an honest attempt, and i think that if you were to back up your challenge, you would find that the Patriot Act is difficult, if not impossible, to read.

while nearly all legislation is fairly muddled and verbose, this legislation is far more so. nothing in this legislation is laid out even in technical jargon, but rather, the great majority of its content is merely a composite of modifications of existing law.

================
(iii) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as paragraph (2);
(iv) by redesignating clauses (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) as subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D), respectively;
(v) in subparagraph (D) (as redesignated) by striking the period and inserting `; or’; and
(vi) by inserting after subparagraph (D) (as redesignated) the following:
=============

interesting and enlightening, no?

in truth, one would need to read all the referenced legislation in order to understand the implications of this particular act (and would likely need a lawyer handy to interpret). this would, obviously, be quite time consuming.

so, rather than assuming that anyone who does not support this legislation is a communist, might i suggest - comrade - that you look into the allegations that some of us make instead of dismissing them outright.

Posted by: diogenes at February 20, 2006 10:09 PM
Comment #128023

Nunya,

The unborn is human and alive well before it enters this world.

I simply can not resist. Not all “unborn” are humans, but all humans are animals.

To those of you familar with my strong opinions, you may want to quit now. I hope however that you will continue to read, as I have other thoughts about this matter as well.

None of them are alive and well prior to entering this world. Many of them are still-born, mis-carried, or simply didn’t develop. If they do survive, all need food, shelter, and clothing. They also need love, security, understanding and caring parents. Many don’t receive any of these needs. Why are there so many chldren - older children, not cute babies, still waiting to be adopted. No one wants a mixed chld, an ill child, a disabled child, a special needs child. I can not even begin to imagine what that must feel llike - to be totally unwanted, while people picket, scare, threaten, doom to hell a Mother TO BE, not a Mother that IS, but TO BE (future tense)

And frankly once entering this world, life is not always as hunky-dory as many seem to believe.

Have you ever seen a burned baby; seen the brusies on a young toddlers head, neck, arms and legs; seen boys and girls under the age of 9 mos in what almost appears to be a body cast; seen a child with a broken neck, carried a child’s body out of a blood - filled room; do you know what a straved child looks like, etc, and etc. I do.

I’ve seen mothers who were no more than children themselves, 12, 13, 14 years old. Children whose mothers have no idea who the father is, or are terrified to admit who (usually family members or caretakers).

I wish people would remember and think about THESE FACTS before making up their minds.

Posted by: Linda h. at February 20, 2006 10:44 PM
Comment #128025

Paul,
I almost forgot to thank you for the information on Senator Feingold. I shall definitely look him up.

Posted by: Linda H. at February 20, 2006 10:47 PM
Comment #128047

The posters here who support Bush’s criminal action to disregard privacy rights and laws, Congress, our Constitution, the Supreme Court, FISA. etc.. presume (a) he is telling the truth when he says he only listens to phone conversations of Americans talking to terrorists and (b) …that (a) is an affirmative defense to conducting warrantless wiretaps. It is not now, never has been and never will be. Bush’s oath of office required him to be faithful to the laws of the land and uphold the Constitution. He has been unfaithful to his oath, openly admitted such, and proclaimed he intends to continue to break laws which are not convenient for him to follow. It is time to apply the Articles of Impeachment and remove him from office.

Posted by: quiknsilverfox at February 20, 2006 11:49 PM
Comment #128050

Linda H.

Thanks for your comments. The world is a beautiful place of love, healing, and peace. It is also a festering scab on the ass of the universe. There are many gradations of the degradations that we all experience. Anybody that incarnates on this hell hole of a planet will be abused, abandoned, and neglected to some degree in one way or another. There should not be any children waiting for adoption since there are so many right to lifers that even want to protect the unborn life of millions of 8 celled blastocysts that have not even developed neurons. I understand their position. After all, those blastocysts do have the sacred potential of growing into full functioning human beings. But if they care so deeply for 8 celled blastocysts, it seems that they should care at least a little for the little one that are here now. How many of these right to lifers go into the inner city and paint lead based paint houses - no - too busy fighting for a blastocysts to help protect a child from eating lead based paint chips. My point is that the needs of the children that do get born are overwhelming to us all. How are we supposed to provide the millions of blastocysts with even the basic material needs of subsistence or a womb to be born in.

Posted by: Ray G. at February 21, 2006 12:06 AM
Comment #128052

Jack,

This time you’re right:

“Our liberty is under attack a lot more concretely all over the place. I can’t make a pond on my own land………..”

I’m in a similar situation. My oldest son has been building me a home in the loft of an old barn at his place and the predominately Republican County board ain’t havin’ no part of it.

The idea that only the Democrats are limiting our land rights are just total BS. This county is 80% republican and they want to know what you throw in the trash. They won’t pick up your trash unless it’s in the clear plastic bags that they provide. (And we pay for)

The whole bologna thing about republicans being “small government” died many moons ago.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 21, 2006 12:13 AM
Comment #128066

You have the right to remain silent and you should,because if the terrorists win this war,and they will if the President is hindered as the Dems propose,there will be no freedom of speech,you will not have any of the freedoms you cherish and they will be listening to everything and if you protest you will loose your head.Our President is not interested in anything you have to say unless you are a terrorists or you are talking to one on the phone,don’t let the Dem leadership fool you into thinking otherwise.They want to win back there power and will say and do ANYTHING to get it back.There is NO PROOF anybody is listening to anyone but terrorists,if there was I would want that punished,but if our security people are not allowed to continue and we loose this war on TERROR your secrets will not have been worth our lives.I’m not saying anything others haven’t already said,but,what I don’t understand is what could be so important that it would be worth our countries destruction to keep secret!

Posted by: RDAVIDC at February 21, 2006 12:50 AM
Comment #128072

RDAVIDC

if you can’t understand what is so sacred about our constitutional rights that we must protect them, then what are you fighting for? we have already lost.

it is not about secrets, it’s about freedom. every time one of us says we would rather be secure than free, a million slaves roll over in their graves… the founding fathers cringe, and die again… millions upon millions of americans (and people all over the world) have fought for hundreds, or thousands of years to achieve and maintain what you would give away in one breath.

i would rather die by the hand of a terrorist, a free man, than die a slave to my own government.

those who do not understand freedom can never effectively endeavor to defend it.

Posted by: diogenes at February 21, 2006 1:07 AM
Comment #128073

Linda

Oh, thanks for clearing that up for me. Just kill them early so they don’t have to go through this terrible world. How could I have been so stupid?
Thanks for the perfume or did you give me red!

Posted by: Nunya at February 21, 2006 1:20 AM
Comment #128075

People need to quit falling for the republican fear card. The republicans play that card to justify most of their incompetent, corrupt actions, and then hide under the executive privilege, classified information umbrella when one questions them about an issue.

When it comes to civil liberties vs. terrorism, it is my opinion that no one has said it better than Benjamin Franklin. If I may quote…

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
— Benjamin Franklin

Posted by: Madison at February 21, 2006 1:31 AM
Comment #128076

“Really…listening into calls to Americans in this country from known terrorists outside the country violates our privacy rights?”
I cannot believe this outright lie passed without question. If the government were listening in on conversations with KNOWN terrorists, they could have and WOULD have gone through any judge in the country to get a warrant for such a wire tap, and at the very LEAST would have gone through FISA courts, a virtual rubber stamp for such warrants, to safeguard secrecy. They are eavesdropping on conversations between American citizens and SUSPECTED terrorists. And what makes them SUSPECT? Well dammit we just don’t know. See, to get a warrant, you have to document the evidence that would lead ‘a reasonable person’ to beleive that someone is a terrorist. That’s the crux of the fallacy of the warrantless taps. If the administration had any evidence whatsoever that the person on the other end of the line was a terrorist, they could get a secret warrant faster than you could say FIRST AMENDMENT. So who ARE they targeting? My guess is that they’re targeting any one of us who have spoken out against the bush dictatorship and happen to make international calls.

I live in Wisconsin and have voted for Russ Feingold since he first ran for national office. He is a liberal in the finest traditions of American history. Neo con has every right to fear him, to loathe him, and to try to undermine him. He is honest, compassionate, and has a global understanding of human rights. If Gore had chosen him instead of that boob Lieberman as a running mate, Florida would never have been in doubt.

Finally, the idiots that support the rights of a mass of FETAL TISSUE over the rights of the people in general and the right of a woman to choose when and whether she wants to bear a child, specifically, should harken back to the days of our founding fathers WHEN NO SUCH RESTRICTIONS EXISTED. Abortions through home brewed potions were more common in early urban America than they are today. Of course, THAT was in the days when the religious zeal didn’t interfere with government protection of human rights.

Posted by: Thom at February 21, 2006 1:32 AM
Comment #128082

RDAVIDC,

Before I surrender my rights to the hell you describe I’ll gladly give my head. After all, I’ve never been grandiose enough to believe I’d live forever. If I’m really lucky something will eat me and I’ll become fertilizer for something new and fresh.

I find it odd that red is now equivolent to the right. Growing up in the 60’s the key phrase was “better dead than red”.

It’s also odd that the same party that thinks registering all firearms is a bad thing thinks they should know what books you read.

And that same party would go out of it’s way to limit relationships between two adults if the “party” doesn’t agree with the relationship.

Now, if things across the globe weren’t improving every day, I’d think this was an episode of the Twilight Zone.

Luckily we’re guided by Bush & Co. so we need not fear. They’ll protect us from extremism.

Shucks, they’ve already proven themselves on boarder security and disaster response.

Ya’ know if that dang Gore was in there he might be lettin’ some foreigner’s gettin’ contracts to control our ports n’ stuff.

And, shoot, we shur wouldn’t be lookin’ at the budget surplus we got now.

KansasDem
PS: Is the US government writing bad checks? If you’re overdrawn and you keep writing checks what will eventually happen to you?

Posted by: KansasDem at February 21, 2006 2:03 AM
Comment #128085

““Really⦣x20AC;?listening into calls to Americans in this country from known terrorists outside the country violates our privacy rights?”
I cannot believe this outright lie passed without question. “

Thom,
I’m guilty. I become complacent after fighting with the right wing-nuts day after day.

Please, stick around. If you think that was wild wait until the Neo-cons explain how they saved the world from the scientists that keep trying to sell that global warming BS.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 21, 2006 2:15 AM
Comment #128147

The Founders wanted to prevent unlawful search and seizure, unlawful quartering and other items. Privacy rights as we want to understand them weren’t on their scope. I am not sure why we fear this kind of listening. I want someone to be investigating communications with our enemies. I, for one, do not speak with enemies of our nation so I don’t think I have much to fear.

But what I do fear, in the wrong hands, these intelligence gathering methods will be used against us, by the so-called Tolerance crowd. One day and probably not too far in the future the tolerance folks will help redefine our enemies and use the courts to do it. Then our enemies will become our Christian and Jewish neighbors. Those will be dark days.

Posted by: ILIndCon at February 21, 2006 9:17 AM
Comment #128169

>>It’s amazing that the president speaks eloquently about spreading democracy and freedom around the world in order to reduce terrorism, but he insists that here, at home, we need to cut back on freedoms in order to become more secure. It makes no sense.

Paul,

I know you had to post more information than this little paragraph…but, if this had been all you had to say, it would have been profound enough for an entire blog…GREAT JOB!

Posted by: Marysdude at February 21, 2006 10:19 AM
Comment #128171

>>But what I do fear, in the wrong hands, these intelligence gathering methods will be used against us, by the so-called Tolerance crowd. One day and probably not too far in the future the tolerance folks will help redefine our enemies and use the courts to do it. Then our enemies will become our Christian and Jewish neighbors. Those will be dark days.

Posted by: ILIndCon at February 21, 2006 09:17 AM

IL,

This information and the wonten ability to gather it is the problem. You say you fear us ‘tolerance’ folks getting hold of it and misusing it, and I fear you ‘intolerance’ folks the same way. Doesn’t that mean the scheme itself is not a good thing? Tell Cheney/Bush you don’t like the warrantless spying thing.

Posted by: Marysdude at February 21, 2006 10:28 AM
Comment #128180

I gotta go… but ditto to what KansasDem just said to RDAVIDC. I didn’t know there was a Democrat Kansas.

Posted by: Ray G. at February 21, 2006 10:53 AM
Comment #128251

RDAVIDC,

DO you really think its even remotely possible to lose this war? Do you think even if we exposed every secret we ever had and did everything openly, that we could ever lose? We have the sheer might of armed force and military behind us. THINK about what you say before you open your mouth; we can never lose a war against some nonthreatening Middle Easterners who could never defeat a tenth of the strength of our military in open battle. There is no real threat except to our economic colonialism of the region, and that is what this “war” is all about. Thank you for your drivel.

Posted by: Libertyman13 at February 21, 2006 3:17 PM
Comment #128254

Nunya

Thanks for the perfume or did you give me red!

I do not understand the above statement.

Frankly you missed my point completely. We already have thousands of children who desparately need love, security, attention, caring, money, etc.

When are we as humans going to care for the ones that are LIVING TODAY instead of worrying about the ones not yet born? I say let the FUTURE alone, take care of the NOW.

Posted by: Linda H. at February 21, 2006 3:36 PM
Comment #128256

>>DO you really think its even remotely possible to lose this war?

Posted by: Libertyman13 at February 21, 2006 03:17 PM

Liberty,

You’ve told it the way it is. RDAVIDC won’t see it like that because Cheney/Bush have brainwashed him.

However right you are about the physical war, I don’t think we can possibly win the other one…the one we convinced ourselves to try. I’m not sure I’d want to live in a democracy that I was FORCED into, and I don’t think the Iraqis will like it either. That one we are almost bound to lose.

Posted by: Marysdude at February 21, 2006 3:58 PM
Comment #128260

>>Our President is not interested in anything you have to say unless you are a terrorists or you are talking to one on the phone>>Our President is not interested in anything you have to say unless you are a terrorists or you are talking to one on the phone

RDAVIDC,

I’m so glad we have such an honest and honorable President. You and I both know he would NEVER lie to the public about anything, so we can believe him when he says he ONLY listens to terrorists. But, gosh darn-it, what happens if one of them commie pinko, terrorist loving, dishonest Democrats gets elected in the next couple of decades? Will we want one of them traitorous swine to have the same peeping-tom authority that Cheney/Bush claims for himself?

Somebody like THAT might listen in on Republican stratigy meetings and such, and with that advantage, Bush’s grandchildren would not have a fair chance at election.

We both know Cheney/Bush would not stoop so low, but you can’t trust them darned Dems.

Posted by: Marysdude at February 21, 2006 4:16 PM
Comment #128300

Marysdude,

You’re right. It will be nigh on impossible to win a war for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people and whoever the “enemy du jour” of the war on terror might be. I think Bush is just about the worst president ever, at least since 1932, and I could damn well tell you even if some other country came in and overthrew him, I wouldn’t much care for the system that nation put up in its place. Although Saddam was probably worse than Bush is, I have to imagine that the Iraqis are thinking along much the same lines. As for the terrorists (whoever they may be) I would imagine that killing them isn’t really going to solve anything, for the more we kill, the more will stand up in their place in anger over the very fact of killing. It is sad that we have learned nothing from any of the wars of the previous century: an invasion of another country, even for its own good, cannot succeed if the people of that nation don’t want it to, and that determined citizens can resist even the most juggernaut-like military force. We are merely setting the stage for a new generation of people growing up hating the United States, and our children are going to pay for the mistakes of today.

Posted by: Libertyman13 at February 21, 2006 6:01 PM
Comment #128313

The best thing about a democracy (Republic in our case), is the freedom to choose it, AND the freedoms it provides. America was pretty much isolated from the rest of the world when we began our experiment, and although threats from outside were present, our greatest challenges we from within.

Now place America in the midst of nations, many with very violent history and with theocratic majorities which are not divergant, but diverse, and I don’t think we’d have made it.

The Kurds, the Shiis and the sunis really cannot tolerate each other (hmmm, Repubs & Demos?), and unless Iraq breaks up into separate autocratic states, with equal say, there is bound to be a perpetual civil-war status.

Heck, if America was to start all over again today, with fundamentalists as demanding and vociforous as they are today, we’d fail within two years.

Paul, I’m sorry I got so far off message, but I’m old, slow and can’t help myself.

Posted by: Marysdude at February 21, 2006 6:48 PM
Comment #128340

Linda

From my original post.
orealy - enemy of the unborn, in other words, of nonexistent people.

Nonexistent people, please, Ya just can’t put perfume on that pig. People can say what they want and define the unborn however they want but it just doesn’t change the truth. The unborn is human and alive well before it enters this world. To me this is the biggest contradiction of the left who say they protect the innocent but in fact are responsible for more destruction of it than anyone. If an unborn baby isn’t the most defenseless and innocent of any, then I don’t know what is. I can say the color blue is really red all I want but it is still, the color blue.

I thought that was clear. They are what they are and it is what it is. You can say what you want and posture all you want but the FACTS remain the same.

Posted by: Nunya at February 21, 2006 8:05 PM
Comment #128393

Nunya,
I honestly don’t know if you are referring to me as a communist “better dead than Red” which would indeed have me seeing RED, or a republican from a red state - which I doubt. As I am neither, I will chose not to pursue the issue. I have read numerous posts from many of the Republicans who post on these blogs, and, while I may disagree, I respect their points. I enjoy reading their posts - I frequently learn things of which I was not aware. I am not as you say “posturing”.

As for my point - the fact that you admit that babies are innocent and need care basically says what I have stated. We need to care for the innocent babies that are born the ones who are here and alive - and KEEP them that way - and worry less about the “as you put it, ‘the unborn’” - Gees that sounds like a title from a old horror movie.

Posted by: Linda H. at February 21, 2006 11:39 PM
Comment #128448

linda

I guess in my first post I could have picked better colors. I can say orange is violet all I want but it is still orange. The color reference has nothing to do with anything other than to demonstrate how we put terms on something (in this case unborn babies) to justify our actions. They are what they are and they are babies. What started me on this was when orealy called them “nonexistent people”. That is just simply false, they exist in the mother and they are people. Just because someone doesn’t want the baby doesn’t mean the baby should not have the right to live. The point is they are alive before they are born. They are here when they are in the mother, maybe we can’t see them, but they are there and alive. Every one of us were one of them at one point in time.

Posted by: nunya at February 22, 2006 7:33 AM
Comment #128476


Greetings Dems,

We MUST keep abortion from being the primary issue in the next election. I beg you, let go of abortion as an issue; leave control with the states & anyone who doesn’t like their state’s law, well it’s just too bad.

We need to focus:
Uphold the Constitution, improve the deficit, and most of all, drastically improve education.

I remind you: We lost the last election on the perceived issues of gay marriage, abortion and the death penalty. Although I am personally an extremist for pro-choice and gay rights, I beg you to keep these issues out of the next election. Advocate instead the states’ rights to make their laws.

A continuation of Bush’s policies will end in far greater disasters than another 9-11. We can survive the losses of more terrorist attacks, but we cannot survive the continued ravaging of the Constitution.

If we must run a candidate who is pro-choice in order to keep a Bush crony out of office, do it.

Squeaky

Posted by: Squeaky at February 22, 2006 10:00 AM
Comment #128477

Edit:
If we must run a candidate who is pro-life in order to keep a Bush crony out of office, do it.

Posted by: Squeaky at February 22, 2006 10:07 AM
Comment #128514

Nunya,
Thank you for the explaination. I supose that for now at least, this is a problem we need to try to agree to disagree with. I respect your veiws, even though I do still disagree with them. I hope that you can say the same.

Posted by: Linda H. at February 22, 2006 12:20 PM
Comment #128604

What started me on this was when orealy called them nonexistent people

You are the one using the unborn as a political football to criticize a distinguished member of the US Senate.

People have or do not have children for reasons that are more complex than your view. Some women actually like having children, and I am all for that. Women who do not want to have a child for whatever their personal reason should not be forced by the government to bear a child. Abortions usually occur becuase of lack of education about fertility.

The largest group of women having abortions are underage girls who did not think they were going to get pregnant. The second largest group are women over forty who did not think they could get pregnant. Addressing the problem of education about fertility would do more to prevent abortions than calling a senator an enemy of nonexistent people.

Do you understand why this does not occur? It is because people opposed to abortion are not just opposed to abortion, they are also opposed to birth control and education. They also want the issue, and not the solution.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 22, 2006 3:34 PM
Comment #128782

“Advocate instead the states’ rights to make their laws.”

an advocate for states’ rights would get my vote, and i bet there are a lot of disillusioned republicans out there who feel the same. abortion (or at least the extent of, and limitations on) is among the many issues which should be relegated to the states to decide.

moreover, if one takes a federalist stance on such issues, it makes them relatively inconsequential for a national election. the bush regime should be a lesson to big government democrats - legislating morality is find and dandy when it’s *your* morals that are being enforced. live and let live (no pun intended).

Posted by: diogenes at February 23, 2006 12:32 AM
Comment #128836

Orealy

“You are the one using the unborn as a political football to criticize a distinguished member of the US Senate.”

No, I was criticizing you for using the term nonexistent people, I never mentioned the Senator or his views and frankly don’t care.

I would not even say abortion should be illegal, I just think it needs to be restricted to a specific point in time (early). I understand we live in a free country and one person’s morals and beliefs are not the same as another. I also understand that some just can’t have them. I also understand in cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother it should be allowed.

My point is that people argue that an unborn baby is somehow a mass of tissue or not human. This is just not true, they are what they are. There are people out there with the position of pro-life yet they are referred to as anti-choice and anti-woman’s rights. That is like calling pro-choice positions, anti-life or anti-baby’s rights. To rename the oppositions position is just not factual or the right thing to do.

What got me started on this is the nonexistent comment. That is just disrespectful for what an unborn really is. To demonstrate that – If a couple trying to have a baby get pregnant, from day one it is their child and for nine months they are waiting for their child to be born. They do not comment on the mass of tissue growing will soon be our child.

It all becomes relative to the persons desire of lack of, to have the baby.

My position is it can’t be outlawed but it can’t be a blank check either. I also submit, just like other things humans have done in their past, one day we will come to our senses and have to deal with the fact that not defending the most innocent of us all (babies) was one of the greatest tragedies in our history.

Posted by: nunya at February 23, 2006 8:05 AM
Comment #128913

>>My point is that people argue that an unborn baby is somehow a mass of tissue or not human.

Posted by: nunya at February 23, 2006 08:05 AM

That would be my argument. I don’t believe viability until after the first trimester. To me it is just a blob of tissue with the potential of turning human. Why is your thoughts on this issue better, in some way, than mine? Maybe that’s why we call it pro CHOICE!

Posted by: Marysdude at February 23, 2006 3:12 PM
Comment #129751

well if it is blob as you say then throw it away and forget the stem cells and all the other parts you harvest from that ugly blob.

Posted by: rodney brown at February 26, 2006 9:05 PM
Comment #131585

If you want Russ to run for President in 2008, please, come on over and sign the new petition at http://russfeingoldpetition.blogspot.com/. Peace.

Kat in California

Posted by: Kat Callon at March 6, 2006 12:09 PM
Post a comment