51% of Democrats approve.

You know, given the extraordinary amount of negative press on this, you would think the Dems would drop this issue like a used rubber.

I hope they don't.

please insert after this, "and yet overwhelming public support for it",

thank you. I'll just go back to work now

Work?

Ha. Admit it. You're going for that Brokeback mountain parody next.

Note that the question does not include the text "without a warrant". I'd expect the support to drop to about 50/50 if that were added, or something similar like "without judicial oversight".

Maybe Bill. I can't see the crosstabs.

But it also notes that 68% of the respondents indicated they've been following this story closely. With all the negative screeching from Dems and the MSM, I'm willing to bet they know exactly what the issues are. Also noted, only 26% think Bush started the practice.

But, like I said, if they think it's a winning issue for them, I hope they knock themselves out. I think it's a huge loser for them.

Just one guy's opinion

Poll questions of which Bill would approve:

Do you think the Bush administration should continue its unprecedented aiming of the national security apparatus at citizens of this country?

Do you approve of the miserable job Bush is doing in office?

In a match up between moderate peacemaker Hillary Clinton and civil-liberties ignoring, cheating hearted Rudolph Guilani, which candidate named Clinton would you vote for?

Warentless searchs whats it comming to?

And the mindless salivating continues.

The writers at the NY TIMES should spend more time reporting the news than playing "Cowboy" with each other in the men's rooms.

Check it out -- Traffic-Non-Santa linked ya.

"But, like I said, if they think it's a winning issue for them, I hope they knock themselves out. I think it's a huge loser for them."

But it makes the base orgasmic.

51% of Democrats are in favor of their party's suicidal idiocy.

Who am I to disagree? Here's hoping they keep on keepin' on!

Anyone seen Hillary Clinton during all this nonsense? She's non-existent because she was cutting this free CD to try and get her message out better.

Slublog, please don't make such assumptions. How about
Should the National Security Agency be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States, without judicial oversight?

Or

Should the National Security Agency be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States, without warrants?

The other question in the poll is OK as is.
Is President Bush the first President to authorize a program for intercepting telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States?

I could quibble with "terrorism suspects" and would rather use our President's language "people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations." That language is probably closer to the reality of the program. (The paranoid/partisan part of me asks "what are known links"?)

Dave in Texas, good points, but I can't agree that people generally understand the issue. It's a very complicated issue, with a lot of hard to understand legal argument and precedent. BTW a similar Zogby poll a few days ago put the number at about 50 percent approving.

Hey, just riffin'

What if, in addition to adding "without a warrant," Rasmussen had changed "people living in the United States" to "Americans?"

Should the National Security Agency be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and American citizens in the United States without first obtaining a warrant?

What if the question had been preceeded by the text of the Fourth Amendment?

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

Given the above, should the National Security Agency be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and American citizens in the United States without first obtaining a warrant?

Check out the big brain on BOB!

You one smart motherfucker.

Bush bad! Me hate Bush! Me hate Bush because him dumb and me am smart. Me get all I's news from Koz and David Brock. They smart like me.

Bob, it really depends on the word "unreasonable" now doesn't it? Can you tell me what's unreasonable about passively monitoring conversations between U.S. residents/citizens and foreign nationals who might "reasonably" be associated with groups who are proud to be at war with the United States?

I'm serious. Are you?

Looks like the democrats take is that they will protect us, as long as the book says its OK, and all the Is are dotted and Ts crossed.

Are the American people really going to trust Bush, who's just a rouge cop who plays by his own rules!

Bush=Vincent Cobretti

I expect this issue will instantly disappear, vanished into the aether as though it had never existed.

The spin on this thread is pretty ridiculous. People who actually understand the nuances here are probably *more* likely to say that the NSA should be allowed to intercept communications if the question does not include the phrase "without a warrant," because that is the essential point.

It's also wrong to expect the average news reader to understand the issue when plenty of pundits and supposed legal minds apparently don't (or pretend not to).

If you want to know how people really feel about this issue, ask the right questions. The one asked in this survey wasn't it.

Besides, if Bush broke the law, he deserves to be punished regardless of what the majority of people think. Or at least, that was what Republicans were saying when Clinton was enjoying high approval ratings during his second term.

Besides, if Bush broke the law, he deserves to be punished regardless of what the majority of people think.

You're absolutely right on this point. Somehow I suspect we'll never hear Bush utter the phrase "no controlling legal authority."

Besides, if Bush broke the law, he deserves to be punished

funny, I think he's going to win on the law too. Precedent.

Bob, it really depends on the word "unreasonable" now doesn't it?

Can you tell me what's unreasonable about passively monitoring conversations between U.S. residents/citizens and foreign nationals who might "reasonably" be associated with groups who are proud to be at war with the United States?

What's up with "Lee Atwater" and "Rod Munch?" Are they unable to frame a cogent argument or construct a gramatical sentence on their own? They seem to be functioning as a mindless greek chorus for the blog.

Prosecuting the President in defense of suspected terrorists = more Republican victories.

*whoosh*

As it goes straight over the idiot's head.

Ya know, it's hard to insult someone who's too stupid to know when he's being insulted.

Prosecuting the President in defense of suspected terrorists = more Republican victories.

Investigating him in defense of the Constitution (or in defense of freedom) might be a little more popular. But if it happens, it will mean that the Democrats have already taken back majorities in Congress - I doubt a Republican-led Congress will seriously investigate, let alone impeach him (he can't be prosectued as a sitting President, can he?).

Also, it's not in defense of suspected terrorists. It's in defense of people who the NSA thinks are talking to people affiliated with terrorists. That's far different from a suspected terrorist.

And to be honest, I have a hard time believing it stopped there. Considering they hid this program before (and they've been surprisingly bad at identifying who the real terrorists are so far), what makes you think they're being completely forthcoming now?

What's up with "Lee Atwater" and "Rod Munch?" Are they unable to frame a cogent argument or construct a gramatical sentence on their own? They seem to be functioning as a mindless greek chorus for the blog.

I was quoting a movie. Seemed like the right moment to do it.

That you took it so personally amuses me. Thank you.

By the way, fuckwit, "grammatical" has two M's.

Maybe, before trying to insult the writing abilities of others, you should at least learn to spell. Kind of ruins your point when your pretension is brought low by your own ignorance.

Yeah, sure, Dave, in defense of the Constitution. Tell me another one. I like stories.

Yep, the it's the NSA's discretion on who's a terrorist and who's not. That's just the fucking way it is.

We spy and eavesdrop on the evil cocksuckers who are in this free country of ours plotting the doom and destruction of their hosts. We don't ask judges for warrants. We don't tell the press about past or present investigations. We gather information secretly.

That's how we connect the dots and prevent attacks on innocent children, women, and men. That's just the fucking way it is.

People have indeed forgotten the horrors of 9/11, you;ve got that going for you, Bob, I'll admit that. But don't count on getting much more milage out of that little sad fact.

Oliver Stone has a 9/11 film coming out before the '06 elections and that will refresh memories and spark the debate once again. All the moonbats will come out of the woodwork and speak hellaciously.

The American people will see just how sincere the Lefty liberals are when it comes to protecting the Constitution, civil rights, and the War on Terror.

I'm COMPLETELY confused here.

The title of this post is More Rasmussen: 64% Say Warrantless Eavesdropping OK but the study it links to says nothing at all about "warrantless." In fact the word "warrant" doesn't appear anywhere on the page.

From that page:

"December 28, 2005--Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree."

Hell, *I* agree that the NSA should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorists. I only object to it being done outside the FISA courts.

So ...whoever runs Ace. Are we going to see a retraction or a correction here or what?

Regards,

bodhi

I'm COMPLETELY confused here.

You might try reading the earlier comments, where the "warrantless" issue was already been discussed.

I'm COMPLETELY confused here.

And I'm sure that's a comforting, familiar feeling to you.

Embrace it, cupcake.

I did read the comments, and I did see that discussed a bit, but then I'm still confused about three salient points.

(a) Why hasn't the title been edited?

(b) Why hasn't Ace posted a retraction/correction to his front page?

(c) Why would Ace have inserted "warrantless" into the title in the first place? Was it that the moderator didn't read the study or that they did and decided to add the words anyway?

Maybe there is a third option I'm not thinking of, but I'm open to suggestions.

I think it stands to reason that if ...say, the NYT inserted a word into a headline that wasn't true and drastically altered the meaning of a story, you would be pretty upset if not calling for their heads on a plate.

Just asking for a bit of consistency. What say you?

Regards,
bodhi

The actual question:

"Should the National Security Agency be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States?"

Nothing about warrants. Nothing about judicial oversight. Nothing to suggest that 'people living in the United States' might specifically mean US citizens, as opposed to, say, Random Saudi On Student Visa.

So, you'll be correcting your title, then, Ace? Because right now it's a big fat lie. I'd change it before Rasmussen sends you a C&D.

(a) Why hasn't the title been edited?

(b) Why hasn't Ace posted a retraction/correction to his front page?

(c) Why would Ace have inserted "warrantless" into the title in the first place? Was it that the moderator didn't read the study or that they did and decided to add the words anyway?

Hmmm...I dunno...maybe it's because it's HIS FUCKING BLOG?

You want to ask those questions? How about you do so on your shitblog, 'kay?

Hmmm...I dunno...maybe it's because it's HIS FUCKING BLOG?

It's not HIS FUCKING POLL, though, is it? And it is HIS FUCKING MISREPRESENTATION.

It's not HIS FUCKING POLL, though, is it? And it is HIS FUCKING MISREPRESENTATION.

So just point it out and discuss, rather than trying to make the host change what he wrote on his own site.

I'll bet you're a barrel of monkeys as a houseguest, huh?

Lee, do I understand your position correctly?

Are you saying that a person can write something demonstrably false and have no ethical obligation to correct it IF the medium is owned by that person?

Thanks,
bodhi

No, actually my position is that you are an insufferable asshole with a sucky blog.

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear on that one.

If you're formulating responses to my comments, don't bother.

I'm honestly not interested in debates with either of you. If you'd like, take that back to your friends as "proof" of how conservatives don't want to argue about the issues, are more interested in insults than debate, etc. In the end, I don't really give a shit. Just spell my name right, okay cupcake?

Let's face it. You're not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours, so we might as well enjoy calling one another creatively obscene names.

Isn't that right, fucktard?

Lee Atwater died AIDS? But in his defense, he only contracted the virus from kissing toilet seats.

I'm honestly not interested in debates with either of you.

Fine by me. Now, when is Ace going to correct his title, since it's blatantly wrong?

This isn't a subject for debate. Ace wouldn't be any less wrong if he'd titled this post 'More Rasmussen: 100% Say Cute Kittens OK'. His title bears no relation to the poll, and his post is based upon its false premise.

Sorry, Twatbatter. Facts are facts, and no amount of pants-shitting on your part will make that title any less false.

Ace has been posting like a crazed wildebeast (well known for their prolific blogging), even aside from the Atrios-clone open posts. And he's got the brand new news headline thing going on the sidebar. So he's a little distracted.

It's not the first time he's misinterpreted an article, and it won't be the last. He may get around to correcting it, or he may keep posting new material (the latter is far more likely). That's when we say "loose shit" and move on.

But please realize that while there is a lot of serious commentary here, this is really more of an entertainment blog than a news source. So don't get all het up about corrections and retractions - he corrects and retracts frequently but not infallibly.

Seriously, think of it as a pressure release valve. There's a lot of bad blood between the right and the left in this country. Like Clemenza says, you need to get rid of that once in awhile.

A good flame war couldn't hurt, and could help all of us rid ourselves of some venom and more importantly, calm the fuck down.

So join in, cupcake. It's fun and you may learn a new phrase or two.

Sorry, Twatbatter. Facts are facts, and no amount of pants-shitting on your part will make that title any less false.

"Twatbatter!"

I love it!

That's the spirit, cupcake!

"(a) Why hasn't the title been edited?

(b) Why hasn't Ace posted a retraction/correction to his front page?

(c) Why would Ace have inserted "warrantless" into the title in the first place? Was it that the moderator didn't read the study or that they did and decided to add the words anyway?"

Because I'm pretty sure that everyone in America knows we were conducting warrantless searches.

You bring up a sort of decent point about wording, but, come on, everyone knows what was being asked of them.

A question about "noncontroversial eavesdropping with full approval of a FISA court" would get nearly 100% approval, don't you think, Chief?

So what could possibly account for the missing 36%?

There's a lot of bad blood between the right and the left in this country. Like Clemenza says, you need to get rid of that once in awhile.

Try a lancet, puppydog. Once you black out, you'll know it's working.

Lee Atwater died AIDS? But in his defense, he only contracted the virus from kissing toilet seats.

What can I say? It was better than a lollipop, less filling than a pint of Ben and Jerry's.

You're like a dog with a bone, dude.

I don't know why Lee Atwater is arguing with you about it.

Bodhi, it's time to MoveOn(TM).

I don't know why Lee Atwater is arguing with you about it.

Because I enjoy insulting liberals. It's my personal artistic expression.

Thanks for giving me the canvas.

When repugs can't support their corrupt actions their distort the truth.....................from Stephen Kaus, read it and weep, your president is a crimal.

Notice anything missing from the question? How about the part that the wiretapping is done without a warrant, although there is a court set up to consider the evidence and issue just such warrants. There is no doubt that the FISA Court would issue a warrant to listen to calls between "terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States." All the government needs is some articulable basis for the suspicion. Apparently that is what it did not have.

If the polling question asked was "do you think that the government should be able to listen secretly to any international phone calls to the United States that it wants to on the approval of a shift supervisor at the National Security Agency without a warrant or any court or legislative supervision whatsoever," the numbers would be very different.

Lee,

There is absolutely no reason to be antagonistic.

As far as the claim goes, as I stated, I'm just very confused. I think we all agree that Ace put up a faulty headline. I'm even willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and say it was accidental. But your reply was this:

Hmmm...I dunno...maybe it's because it's HIS FUCKING BLOG?

So my question seems pretty straight-forward and reasonable; do you feel that a person is acting ethically when they post something incorrect (I'm not aware of anyone disputing that it's incorrect) provided that they own the medium in question?

I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm trying to comprehend where you stand on this issue. If your answer is "yes, it's ok" then I'll have my answer. If your answer is "no, it's not ok" then I'll have my answer.

My goal here is to have consistency. If you answer "yes, it's ok" then I would expect to have no complaint from you when someone else posts something false. If you answer "no, it's not ok" then a consistent follow-up would be you asking for a correction to be posted.

You cannot protect the publisher of Ace on account of him owning the blog and then get upset when someone else does the same. One cannot have it both ways.

It goes to credibility.

You added:
...so we might as well enjoy calling one another creatively obscene names.

Two points. First, I have not called you any names whatsoever. Second, I can't imagine why you'd enjoy doing that.

My request is very simple and very reasonable. Where do you stand on the issue? If you choose not to answer, you'll forgive me for assuming -- based upon my asking that it be corrected and you asserting that it's his blog -- that you do not feel that a person who owns a medium has an obligation to be truthful on that medium.

But I'm giving you full opportunity to state your position.

Regards,
bodhi

You bring up a sort of decent point about wording, but, come on, everyone knows what was being asked of them.

Oh, that's fuckin' hilarious. What was being asked of them was the question.

If you're going to take that line, I'm going to say that Rasmussen's results show that 64% of Americans favor impeaching George Bush. After all, everyone knows that *that* was the *real* question.

Nice bit of activism there, Ace. Let's see if you stick with 'words mean what I say they mean, and not what they mean' when Alito's hearings begin.

I wrote the title to suggest that the poll was asking about the CURRENT WARRANTLESS EAVESDROPPING CONTROVERSY, as opposed to eavesdropping in general, moron.

That's what the question was about.

I can't include the full question in the fucking title, moron.

ahem,

Please tell your mother that she doesn't need to lick my balls every time she's done cleaning my house.

And if she's going to insist on doing so-- please, tell her to shower first. There's something very off-putting about Formula 409 when I'm trying to bust one out.

She's right here with me, I'll tell her.

Second, I can't imagine why you'd enjoy doing that.

Actually that's a favorite pasttime here. I'd thought you'd noticed.

But I'm giving you full opportunity to state your position.

That's why people have called you arrogant. One might well ask by what self-appointed authority you feel empowered to bestow largesse that is neither solicited nor of interest.

There is absolutely no reason to be antagonistic.

Sure, you say that now. After liberals have spent five fucking years being nothing but antagonistic.

I'm not going to answer your questions, Jason, so stop asking them. In the past, I've tried debating with liberals. What have I gotten for my attempts? Let's see...my words have been twisted, taken out of context and I've been compared to a Nazi, Pol Pot and the Taliban.

So pardon me if I don't exactly jump at the chance to engage you in 'meaningful dialogue.'

Ace writes:
You bring up a sort of decent point about wording, but, come on, everyone knows what was being asked of them.

Ace, no, I don't agree at all that people would assume that "warrantless" was implied in a questionaire that did not use the word at all.

It is not exactly secret that wording in a questionaire is exceedingly important (not to mention difficult) in getting meaninful results. To omit something like "without a warrant" from the question and then to say that it means absolutely nothing is beyond the pale. Way, way beyond the pale. I can't even get my head around that argument.

You might recall that Coke once had a survey that asked people which they liked better; Coke or New Coke. People picked New Coke by a strong margin. Coke then committed what is considered to be one of the biggest blunders in marketing history when they pulled the old Coke and replaced it with New Coke. The assumption was "if people like New Coke so much better, wouldn't it be wise to replace Coke with New Coke?"

Coke's market share went into a free-fall dive and almost immediately (in marketing terms) Coke Classic was returned to the shelves.

Now one could have made the same argument -- c'mon, wouldn't the responders have understood this was a survey to determine what would be their flagship product? That's precisely what they did assume. What they didn't ask is "...and would you rather New Coke replace the original Coke?" If they had, it would have been a completely different result.

One key criteria of creating a questionaire is "are the questions clear and as specific as possible?" Supposing they did, you adding "warrantless" clearly makes the question "unspecific." Indeed, they were not even asked that.

I think you owe it to your readership to correct your headline in a post. Frankly, it seems like the only ethical thing to do. The survey did not ask it. You present it as being asked.

Regards,
bodhi

Forgot to mention - your attempts to define my silence to support your points shows an incredible amount of both arrogance and intellectual laziness.

Let me save you the trouble of making assumptions by saying that my silence in the face of your questions is simply a sign of my disinterest in you, 'kay?

I think I'll change the post's name to "COMPLETELY DISHONEST HORSESHIT POLL BY RETHUGLICAN-CONNECTED POLLING GROUP DECEPTIVELY WORDS QUESTION TO TRICK AMERICANS INTO ACCEDING TO PRESIDENT CHIMPHITLER McHALLIBURTON'S FASCIST PLAN TO END CIVIL LIBERTIES."

But then "ahem" and "Bodhi" will ask why I called Bush "President," when he so clearly is a usurper.

You bring up a sort of decent point about wording, but, come on, everyone knows what was being asked of them.

Oh, that's rich! You love trumpeting the fact that a majority of Democrats supposedly support warrantless spying on Americans. But you *KNOW* that if a majority of Democrats had replied "no," you'd be outraged because "Democrats won't even let the NSA do its normal job, even if they have a warrant!"

This was a shitty poll. It tells us nothing we didn't already know. Want to prove a real point? Ask a real question.

Yep, the it's the NSA's discretion on who's a terrorist and who's not. That's just the fucking way it is.

Now, I understand that what you wrote is Bush's position. However, there are a lot of people who feel that the *judicial* branch of the government determines a person's guilt or innocence under the laws. And whether there is probable cause to conduct searches and surveillance of suspects.

But seriously, if it is actual terrorists they're spying on, then why can't they just get a warrant? I mean, if only we had a court that handled cases involving Foreign Intelligence Surveillance!

We spy and eavesdrop on the evil cocksuckers who are in this free country of ours plotting the doom and destruction of their hosts. We don't ask judges for warrants. We don't tell the press about past or present investigations. We gather information secretly.

Bravo! I hope the Republicans put your post into their next party platform.

Frankly, if Bush had wanted to request these powers, and if Congress had granted them, that would have been at least somewhat acceptable. What I have a huge problem with is with him secretly deciding that the laws no longer applied to the him, without going to Congress or the people to ask for these powers.

Please note, I don't mind the surveillance itself being secret. It's the NSA's job to keep secrets. What I have a problem with is Bush secretly changing the law without telling anyone.

So, which day of Fitzmas is this, anyway?

Jason, do you know what I think you owe your 'readership?'

An apology.

Dude, your blog sucks worse than your mother. And I've got to tell you, she was pretty fuckin' bad.

Bodhi,

Riiiight... perhaps we could have said "warrantless" in the question, and then went on to also specify "conversations between Al-Qaeda linked terrorists and people living in America for which it would have been imprudent and impractical to seek a warrant."

Game? Of course not.

See, you sort of want to ask the question YOUR WAY. Which, to you, seems the fair way.

EVERYFUCKINGONE knows what this controversy is about, dummy.

Riiiight... perhaps we could have said "warrantless" in the question, and then went on to also specify "conversations between Al-Qaeda linked terrorists and people living in America for which it would have been imprudent and impractical to seek a warrant."

Game? Of course not.

See, you sort of want to ask the question YOUR WAY. Which, to you, seems the fair way.

Can you not see the difference between including an undisputed fact - that the searches are "warrantless" - with including a judgment that not everyone agrees on - the fact that it would be "imprudent and impractical to seek a warrant"?

No wonder you thought the original poll question was kosher. You have no clue what you're writing about.

The full question doesn't mention the word "warrantless" at all. Claiming to "know " what it meant is a very weak dodge - something this administration usually tries to do when the facts are going against them.

I have an idea that you want to rig the question to get the answer you want.

above post was me, not dave. I meant to address it to dave.

Did one of you nitwits link me or something?

Could you avoid doing so in the future?

I wrote the title to suggest that the poll was asking about the CURRENT WARRANTLESS EAVESDROPPING CONTROVERSY, as opposed to eavesdropping in general, moron.

That's what the question was about.

Yeah. That's why Rasmussen was careful to make the distinction in its poll. Oops. No, it wasn't.

.See, you sort of want to ask the question YOUR WAY.

See, you more than sort of want to pretend the question was asked YOUR WAY. Which it wasn't. At least you recognised you had fewer legs to stand on than Long John Silver.

Now hush and let Atwater fellate you, because he's obviously gagging for it more than a chubby intern in the Oval Office.

that last one was me... I goofed, meant to address it TO dave.

Did one of you nitwits link me?

Would you refrain from doing so in the future?

geoff writes:
Actually that's a favorite pasttime here. I'd thought you'd noticed.

I did, actually, but as I said, my goal is meaninful dialogue. Notice that I have not engaged in any name-calling or distorting of arguments.

Again, the hostility here is just weird. It's been offered that plenty of trolls have preceeded me but I have to wonder how long that is going to hold up in treating me like one despite evidence to the contrary.

That's why people have called you arrogant. One might well ask by what self-appointed authority you feel empowered to bestow largesse that is neither solicited nor of interest.

You feel it is arrogant to ask a question and then offer someone the opportunity to expand on their answer to their hearts content without badgering or twisting their words?

Geoff, what kind of discussion would you like to see here? What would I need to do to earn the respect of Republicans here? What would be considered "good form" in this thread?

What kinds of questions can I ask that might elicit flame-free response? Seriously, I'm completely open to suggestions.

Lee writes:
I'm not going to answer your questions, Jason, so stop asking them. In the past, I've tried debating with liberals. What have I gotten for my attempts? Let's see...my words have been twisted, taken out of context and I've been compared to a Nazi, Pol Pot and the Taliban.

But Lee, I'm giving you the carpet to explain precisely how you feel. I've offered a range of what I think possible answers are and even offered that if there are ones you feel I haven't thought of, tell me.

I don't understand why it is so difficult to answer a simple question. Is it ok for a person to write something false and to not correct their error provided they own the medium the incorrect statement was written on?

I think you're in a bind here. If you answer that it's ok, then, in the future, if you claim that something incorrect was posted, this position will come back to haunt you (and rightfully so). If you answer that it isn't ok, then you have taken a position contrary to the owner of this board.

But again, you have full right to post your thoughts here without being edited or having your words twisted. It's yours but only if you take it. And contrary to what geoff is saying, I'm not "offering" you the opportunity as if it's mine to give, but only pointing out that it's yours for the taking.

So take it.

Forgot to mention - your attempts to define my silence to support your points shows an incredible amount of both arrogance and intellectual laziness.

No, you have not been silent. I wrote:

(a) Why hasn't the title been edited? (b) Why hasn't Ace posted a retraction/correction to his front page? (c) Why would Ace have inserted "warrantless" into the title in the first place? Was it that the moderator didn't read the study or that they did and decided to add the words anyway?

You replied:

Hmmm...I dunno...maybe it's because it's HIS FUCKING BLOG?

Since the whole thread I'm engaged in is about truthfulness of a statement, I have taken this to mean that you feel that since he owns the forum, he is entitled to not correct an error.

If this is distortion, please, correct me. My entire purpose for asking was to make sure that what you wrote was what you intended.

So again, no, you haven't been silent. You've stated your position. I'm asking if you want to back off that statement.

Regards,
bodhi

Okay. First, I had no idea this argument was going on until a half hour ago.

Second-- I changed the title of the thread like fifteen minutes ago. I was just wondering how long you retards would keep on shrieking about such a ticky-tack point.

And no, I won't be rewriting the headline YOUR WAY, which would be to suggest the poll was invalid because it OBVIOUSLY isn't asking about what the NSA did.

Hi Ace,

Sorry, I wasn't monitoring the front page, only this thread (and I was scrolling to the questions subsequent to my last).

Thanks for correcting it.

I should mention that my only complaint was that it contained "warrantless," which you've corrected. Unless I have simply forgotten -- and I am fairly well known-for my lousy memory -- I didn't request that you turn it into something specific.

Regards,
bodhi

Geoff, what kind of discussion would you like to see here? What would I need to do to earn the respect of Republicans here? What would be considered "good form" in this thread?

A start:

1) Moderate the length of your responses - aim for no more than half a screen at your most extreme length.
2) Temper criticism of the host. He busts his ass on this blog for virtually no material gain.
3) Don't demand that your brand of justice be served on someone else's blog
4) Tread lightly as a newcomer - your "inquiries" thus far have been thinly veiled attacks, and have been treated as such.
5) The patronizing attitude combined with the questions of a naif. Lose them both.

And learn to accept the flame. No matter what you say, half the early respondents will unload on you. If you have decent points, usually some people will stick around and the discussion will settle down. You get extra points if you dive into a flamethread and dish it out (something I personally suck at).

geoff writes:
Moderate the length of your responses - aim for no more than half a screen at your most extreme length.

I think I would find it difficult to have a meaninful conversation in that short length. Maybe this is because I answer everyone up until that point in one reply. Do you think it would be better to make one post per reply-to?

Temper criticism of the host. He busts his ass on this blog for virtually no material gain.

I don't know -- my only criticism/suggestion was that he remove the word "warrantless" and he did.

Tread lightly as a newcomer - your "inquiries" thus far have been thinly veiled attacks, and have been treated as such.

No, they've been perceived as thinly-veiled attacks. You've even suggested that I'm being taken to task for the actions of others. I'm trying to have some kind of discussion. Again, as I stated before, I feel that I've done myself a disservice by mostly listening to liberal sources. My sole goal in coming to Ace of Spades is so that I can get a conservative angle.

You'll notice that I only respond to about ...maybe 5-10% of Ace posts. It isn't that I don't have the time, it's because then I'm only reading (aka "listening").

The patronizing attitude combined with the questions of a naif. Lose them both.

What you call patronizing I call being extremely polite. When I say that Lee has the opportunity to clarify, it isn't like I'm extending him the offer like it's my board -- I'm just saying "this is my understanding and if that understanding is wrong, tell me, here is your chance."

You'll notice that the replies to me have been far, far worse than merely "patronizing."

Geeze. This sucks. I was hoping to get some replies I could agree with. I apologize for disagreeing with every point you've made after asking for advice, but...

And learn to accept the flame.

That one is easy. Heck, I'm amused by the vast majority of them. "Cupcake?" Jesus. At least put some work into it. Be creative.

I've been online since before there was an online (bbs, local nets, etc.). The first computers I programmed on used punch cards. Believe me, I've seen world-class flamers. Really, really good ones can elicit one back from me. But not here. Not so far, anyway.

You get extra points if you dive into a flamethread and dish it out...

You won't see that from me mostly because I regard it as a sort of mental masturbation of the lowest order. It doesn't require a lot of talent. It's a way to avoid thinking.

...something I personally suck at

Good. Which is probably why I regard you as my best link to a decent conversation here.

Look, my worldview is decidedly progressive. Do I think that Bush is a meathead? Yes. Have I said so on my show? Yes. But I feel that if I just spout the party line on my show then I'm really doing no good at all.

Why is this concept so hard to understand? How often do you get a liberal who is actually trying to see where you're coming from? Heck, what do you have to lose by taking my posts on their face as sincere until I prove myself otherwise?

Do me a favor and let my posts stand on their own and not prejudiced on the litany of liberals that have come before me.

Regards,
bodhi

PS: See, I already violated the first rule...

I think I would find it difficult to have a meaninful conversation in that short length.

Brevity being the soul of wit and all, I'm sure you can manage - the rest of us do. Your posts are habitually 4X the typical length; in fact I don't know of anybody who has consistently abused Rule 1 as badly as you have. And it's not my rule - it's a general rule of netiquette.

I don't know -- my only criticism/suggestion was that he remove the word "warrantless" and he did.

It was more of a demand then a suggestion, and it was stated with a full dollop of squirrely wrath. We are all guests in Ace's house, so wipe your feet and lower your voice.

What you call patronizing I call being extremely polite.

We're not talking about the same symptoms, I fear.

No, they've been perceived as thinly-veiled attacks.

Then something's amiss, yes?

geoff writes:
Brevity being the soul of wit and all, I'm sure you can manage

You're right, but I never claimed I was a good writer.

And it's not my rule - it's a general rule of netiquette.

I've never in my life seen any concept of brevity being part of netiquette. I've seen posts about not sending the same post 5x to the same group. I've seen advice about not going OT.

It was more of a demand then a suggestion, and it was stated with a full dollop of squirrely wrath.

Here is my original comment on it, in it's entirety, as directed to the owner of the board:

So ...whoever runs Ace. Are we going to see a retraction or a correction here or what?

No demand. No wrath.
___

Since my motives have been attacked nonstop since arriving, today, while cleaning and popping into this thread, I've given it some thought.

There is a lesson/story about a pearl diver who opens an oyster only to find that there is no pearl in that one in particular. He can either keep it warm in his hand and nurture it for a few years and hope for a pearl or he can toss it and open the next one.

I think I could probably spend a few hundred hours on Ace and tease out a few intelligent exchanges -- and I suspect they'd all be with geoff -- but I think I'd be a fool to try.

What passes for conservative thought on Ace? Really childish name-calling and Clinton-esque, ethically void refusals to answer even the simplest of questions because the answer is inconvenient, then hiding behind strained indignance to my tone, my motives, something. And we find this indignance bracketed between a never-ending stream of insults.

It's just plain weird. Doctor, heal thyself? I don't mind them as much as I scratch my head when my tone is questioned in the same breath.

So I can stay on (what is apparently) the best conservative blog on the entire web or I can seek out conservatives who have a bit of ethical and intellectual fortitude and accomplish what I set out to do -- get a handle on another perspective.

Regards,
bodhi

"...most men have bound their eyes with one or another handkerchief, and attached themselves to some one of these communities of opinion. This conformity makes them not false in a few particulars, authors of a few lies, but false in all particulars. Their every truth is not quite true. Their two is not the real two, their four not the real four; so that every word they say chagrins us, and we know not where to begin to set them right.": Ralph Waldo Emerson - Self Reliance - 1841 - From 'Essays", First series

"So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men" : Voltaire.

“When a man points a finger at someone else, he should remember that four of his fingers are pointing at himself.”

verbose = scary smart

or maybe it means I ignore the actual discussion points that aren't insults, and hold up the insults as my straw man argument for "conservatives are drooling morons".

I'm just not sure which...

One thing I'm sure of, I'm not going to like that next darn poll that comes out and says "oh hell, they really did mean they support wiretaps without the permission of Carter/Clinton appointed federal judges".

crap.

Heh. See, the insults aren't a 'substitute' for argument. That assumes we're interested in going over the same old crap with you guys again and again and again.

I'm not actually that interested in argument - this "Lee Atwater" guy you're arguing with? He's a straw man, a creation of my imagination to unload pure id and ad hominem. You've been debating with a ghost, a character - a completely affected persona.

If we met in real life, I'd probably actually buy you a beer and shoot the shit with you for awhile. We'd talk about what a traitorous crapweasel Johnny Damon is for going to the pinstriped agents of Satan.

So why do this? Because it's an outlet for the frustration I feel toward your side of the political spectrum. I'll admit, we conservatives went a bit bonkers during the Clinton administration, but you guys have cleared that bar with some serious room to spare. A lot of you, including the leaders of your party, have gone over the edge.

As this persona, I've enjoyed saying outrageous things in relative anonymity to express my growing contempt for the party and ideology I believe is harming America more than helping right now.

Is that so wrong?

Hell, if you'd like, just think of me as a virtual "Ali G" without the pimped out suit.

Ali G is sometimes funny.

You're not.

All too true. Ali G can be quite funny, and I'm not.

But I'm not trying to be, really. The comparison was more in the fact that I'm a character, and writing as such.

But you knew that already, and just needed to feel like you were back on the scoreboard.

I understand.

The basic dishonesty of Rasmussen's question, and the blind spot that Ace seems to have, is that the presence or absence of the word "warrantless" is key. The knee-jerk right-wing defense of Bush's actions has been to attack the left for being unpatriotic, to accuse them of being against defending America against the terrorists. That is, they assume that by being against warrantless surveillance, we are against all surveillance and want the terrorists to win.

That's not true; I for one am quite happy to have the NSA intercepting those communications, but with the proper constitutional checks and balances. I would have answered the question "yes," and I also feel quite strongly that Bush has violated his oath to uphold the Constitution and should be thrown in jail. Rasmussen and Ace are both willfully ignoring the fact that those two opinions are not inconsistent.

It's precisely because they are aware of the current controversy that a great many liberals would have answered "yes." They would see that the absence of "warrantless" is an important part of the question. I have to wonder about that 23% that answered "no." Probably right-wing libertarians.

Bush, who's just a rouge cop who plays by his own rules!

Only a moonbat would criticize the President's makeup in a serious discussion about protecting American lives via his inherent powers as commander in chief to surveill islamofascists who want to kill us.

rouge ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rzh)
n.
A red or pink cosmetic for coloring the cheeks or lips.
A reddish powder, chiefly ferric oxide, used to polish metals or glass.

I also feel quite strongly that Bush has violated his oath to uphold the Constitution and should be thrown in jail

Who give a wet shit what you think?

Oh, that's right. nobody.

The only people in this thread with their panties in a knot over the word warrentless are the libs. The point's been made (and ignored by you) that since every single goddam news report and pedantic speech from a Democrat on this story used the expression "warrantless spying on US citizens" we're quite sure the respondents, 68% of whom said they were following this story closely, understood exactly what they were being asked whether or not they endorsed.

Which I'm sure is what really bugs you.

role of the judiciary to determine if a particular search is reasonable when issuing or denying the warrant.
```````````````````````````````````
Everyone should be aware that a FISA apellate court ruled that the President has inherent authority to make warrantless searches (In res Nov 2002). Also that there some constitutional scholars argue that FISA is an unconstitutional limitation of executive powers simliar to the 1970's War Powers Act which has fallen into disuse.

And to be honest, I have a hard time believing it stopped there. Considering they hid this program before (and they've been surprisingly bad at identifying who the real terrorists are so far), what makes you think they're being completely forthcoming now?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That's because the mainstream media has ignored the extent of congressional oversight. Do you really believe Democratic members of the oversight committee would have stood for snooping of political opponents? Have you that little faith in the Democratic leadership?

I also feel quite strongly that Bush has violated his oath to uphold the Constitution and should be thrown in jail.

1) The legal analyses I have seen say that he may have violated FISA, but not the Consititution.
2) Since he sought legal counsel before enacting the surveillance program, and since the Justice Department still believes that the program is legal, it's extreme to say that Bush violated his oath.
3) Saying that the President should be thrown in jail exposes your real motivations.

After the 2002 midterms -- sheesh, that seems like it was almost three years ago or something -- somebody offered his opinion that the Republicans had, basically, gone crazy. Hatred of Clinton and frustration at being inf power had simply driven them batty.

It's stuff like this -- sort of predictable, you know, that Americans aren't going to sweat eavesdropping on Republicans without warrant -- that really bears this out. Time and time again, the Republicans have had the opportunity to be statesmanlike, prudent, wise, and, as an added bonus, on the safe side of issues in political terms.

Time and time again they have rejected this opportunity in favor of opportunistic shrillness. Although I suppose the "opportunistic" part may not be correct, given the fact that they consistently seem to take the wrong side of the issue in terms of popular politics.

The Internet has not been kind to Republicans. Sure, the dextrosphere is knocking down their reactionary spirit squad in the MSM, but that's small potatoes compared to what the sinestrosphere is doing to them. The scary-smart advice of Powerline and Malkin-- "fight, fight, fight-- fight on big issues, fight on small issues, fight on trivial issues, fight when right, but especially, at all costs, fight when you're wrong, just to thwart Hillary" -- is really not working out so well for them, is it?

we're quite sure the respondents, 68% of whom said they were following this story closely, understood exactly what they were being asked whether or not they endorsed.

The only people in this thread with their panties in a knot over the word warrantless are the libs.

However, there are a lot of people who feel that the *judicial* branch of the government determines a person's guilt or innocence under the laws.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~``
Those are the September 10 people who are too fearful to acknowledge that there are islamofascists who want to kill them. They try to deny that we are at war despite congressional resolutions, convicted terrorist conspirators, and terrible bombings all over the world. They also have lived in an environment where everything, just everything becomes a court case. That's what allowed September 11th to happen.

Well, we are at war. The President was given war making authority by Congress. And this kind of spying is MILITARY WARMAKING in which the courts have very little authority.

The 2002 midterms? I'll concede that after the 1994 midterms the Gingrich Brigade became a bit drunk with their own power and dug their own political grave for 1996 on, but I think the '02 midterms were a net plus for the Republicans.

Clinton? Pah, that guy's old news. Hope he's enjoying his retirement, though.

Although I suppose the "opportunistic" part may not be correct, given the fact that they consistently seem to take the wrong side of the issue in terms of popular politics.

The wrong side of the issue that keeps getting them elected into power, you mean?

Well, obviously. That's what Bush did that was illegal and unconstitutional. I have to assume you're being deliberately obtuse.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Endless repetition of this will not make it factually so. There is much legal precedent that indicates that the President was using his inherent power as Commander-in-Chief targeting our enemies.

Here's one though you will probably dispute his statement because he was in the Justice Department:

read this in the Chicago Tribune .....

President had legal authority to OK taps

By John Schmidt
Published December 21, 2005

President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.

The president authorized the NSA program in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America. An identifiable group, Al Qaeda, was responsible and believed to be planning future attacks in the United States. Electronic surveillance of communications to or from those who might plausibly be members of or in contact with Al Qaeda was probably the only means of obtaining information about what its members were planning next. No one except the president and the few officials with access to the NSA program can know how valuable such surveillance has been in protecting the nation.

That's exactly what I said. The fact that "warrantless" was not in the question meant to those who were following this story closely that they were being asked if any NSA surveillance is ok, not just warrantless surveillance.

uh, call me purposefully obtuse, but another read might be they knew why the poll was up and running because of all the MSM screech, and they knew we were talking about the, you know, controversy over "warrentless spying", and, this will kill you, they're still ok with it.

even. without. warrants.

If wishes and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Fitzmas!

If the polling question asked was "do you think that the government should be able to listen secretly to any international phone calls to the United States that it wants to on the approval of a shift supervisor ....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Right and if the poll question were

"do you think that the government should be able to connect a super computer to a communications satellite and have it screen millions of international phone calls whether or not they connect to the US for the words jihad, bomb, infidel, kill, behead etc. without any human involved"

the numbers would be very different as well and the question would probably better describe the operation. Its a little long though and the moonbats want to have it look like a movie with agents sitting in a van outside a house smoking cigarettes.

Do you really believe Democratic members of the oversight committee would have stood for snooping of political opponents?

I'm sure Bush's corresponding rise in the polls since this story broke is mere coincidence.

Oh wait, I said corresponding. My bad.

They had no way of knowing whether or not political opponents were being snooped. The "oversight committee" wasn't given any specifics about the individuals being spied upon, only about the fact that the spying program existed.
`````````````````````````````````````

Untrue. I listened to the press briefing that Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R) gave in which he said that specific instances of US person focussed survellance were briefed to the committee.

"...most men have bound their eyes with one or another handkerchief, and attached themselves to some one of these communities of opinion. This conformity makes them not false in a few particulars, authors of a few lies, but false in all particulars. Their every truth is not quite true. Their two is not the real two, their four not the real four; so that every word they say chagrins us, and we know not where to begin to set them right.": Ralph Waldo Emerson - Self Reliance - 1841 - From 'Essays", First series

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Since the sons of the land of the two Holy Places feel and strongly believe that fighting (Jihad) against the Kuffar in every part of the world, is absolutely essential; then they would be even more enthusiastic, more powerful and larger in number upon fighting on their own land- the place of their births- defending the greatest of their sanctities, the noble Ka'ba (the Qiblah of all Muslims). They know that the Muslims of the world will assist and help them to victory. To liberate their sanctities is the greatest of issues concerning all Muslims; It is the duty of every Muslims in this world.

I say to you William (Defence Secretary) that: These youths love death as you loves life.
Ossama Bin Laden

sinestrosphere

Now there's a word that only a Marxist would use.

Untrue. I listened to the press briefing that Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R) gave in which he said that specific instances of US person focussed survellance were briefed to the committee.

And Rockefeller and Pelosi did register their deep misgivings about the program with the White House. But what were they supposed to do given that it was a confidential program and they were not even allowed to consult staff or legal counsel about it?

And while they may have been given several examples, do you think they were briefed on *every* case? And again, what makes you believe that they were briefed to the full extent of the program? That's why an investigation is warranted. Let the facts come out.

But what were they supposed to do given that it was a confidential program and they were not even allowed to consult staff or legal counsel about it?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Poor babies, who has less power than a senior Senator of the United States? Gosh I can see how they would be all at sea. Of course there was legal counsel on the committee, but they apparently didn't like the legal answers given. The chairman of the committee spoke to this issue and listed their legal alternatives, one of which was requesting a discussion with the Commander in Chief. If McCain can lead Bush around on a leash about terrorism, I think a couple of Senators also could have gotten his attention as well.

There are three alternatives either they are incompetent (which Rockefeller admitted to in his letter), they are so passive and wall-flowery that they really should not be holding office or they are mendacious.

Here is the statement of a participant in those briefings Rep Pete Hoekstra:

as we walked out [of the intelligence briefings] in a bipartisan basis, we thought that this [domestic spying] was essential and a necessary and the right thing to do to keep America safe."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Do I believe they were fully briefed on every case. Yes, because I think that the NYT has probably inflated the number of cases where US citizens were involved. Pete Hoekstra specifically addressed this in his press briefing

Rockefeller and Pelosi did register their deep misgivings about the program with the White House.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Don't know about what Pelosi did, but recall that Rockefeller wrote a letter TO HIMSELF which was filed in the committee files. Again a wallflowery, cover your ass, or dishonorable approach to a situation that required Statesmanship.

If McCain can lead Bush around on a leash about terrorism, I think a couple of Sen...

of course I meant torture, not terrorism

Don't know about what Pelosi did, but recall that Rockefeller wrote a letter TO HIMSELF which was filed in the committee files.

And he couldn't persuade Carl Levin, Diane Feinstein, Ron Wyden, Richard Durbin, Evan Bayh, John Edwards and Barbara Mikulski to co-sign it? Sorry, it doesn't smell right.

"I am neither a technician nor an attorney" -- But he was a long tenured member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Was he there when Clinton electronically surveilled Posse Comitatus after Oklahoma City?

Where are these supposed "polls," supporting Bush coming from? I see no links.

I think it's all bullshit, posted by right wing Bush sycophants.

Oh, man am I glad you responded. I was just asking myself, "boy, all of these opinions are great, but what does Gene think?"

Well, where are the links to the polls...asshole.

Oh, and I thought you already died a horrible death from cancer...kind of a Karmic payback.

Karmic payback...that's the liberal compassion I know and love!

Well, where are the links to the polls...asshole.

What are we, your fucking errand boys? Go find the information yourself.

We don't placate.

I am neither a technician nor an attorney

Sounds like you're not qualified to be a member of the Intelligence Committee Senator - you'll pardon the pun.

Gene - do you own bitch work, bitch.

Well, where are the links to the polls...

Here's one that was discussed earlier on this site, 'ya lazy bastard.

What's with the posters on this site?

It's like being at a G.W. Bush "Circle Suck Fest," with the participants all vying to suck even harder than the other.

Anybody on this site ever actually read a newspaper...or a book?

Anybody on this site ever actually read a newspaper...or a book?

Boy, never heard that one before.

You really got us there, you silver-tongued devil you.

Brevity and wit. You're going to make some lucky sheep a happy sheep one of these days.

I still see NO POLLS reflecting the headline bullshit about how 64% of the American public approving of the wiretapping.

And...if this the kind of polling you idiots think is GOOD for Bush...you're even dumber than I thought:

Bush Job Approval
Strongly Approve 26%
Somewhat Approve 22%
Somewhat Disapprove 17%
Strongly Disapprove 35%

RasmussenReports.com

Man, are you boring.

It's like someone wrote a dumbass liberal poster 'bot and released it here at AoSHQ.

If someone I know read a newspaper he might find a poll.

Book won't help you though. Unless you run into any words you don't understand.

Why do you people keep mentioning "bitches" and "sheep?"

Aren't there any real men on this site...or...are you all just like the chickenhawks running our country into the ground?

Maybe if you got your heads out of Bush's ass long enough to actually do some reading and research...you'd understand just how dumb you sound.

I still see NO POLLS reflecting the headline bullshit about how 64% of the American public approving of the wiretapping

I can see how you missed it precious, it was in the first sentence in the post.

I know you were all excited to jump right in and light up with your Bush cocksucking contest line.

That's a beaut! Well done sir. Very well done.

I still see NO POLLS reflecting the headline bullshit about how 64% of the American public approving of the wiretapping.

Uh, I thought you were talking about other polls, since the wiretapping poll results are linked at the top of the post. Couldn't you find that link? What a complete waste of time.

And...if this the kind of polling you idiots think is GOOD for Bush...you're even dumber than I thought:

Well, if you'd been tracking the polls, moron, you'd have realized that the new numbers are almost 10 points higher than those of a month ago. And you tell us to do some reading? What a chump.

Geeee, Dave, it's rather difficult to respond to comments like: "If someone I know read a newspaper he might find a poll...AND...Book won't help you though. Unless you run into any words you don't understand."

But here's a suggestion:

Try reading more...and talking less.

"Well, if you'd been tracking the polls, moron, you'd have realized that the new numbers are almost 10 points higher than those of a month ago. And you tell us to do some reading? What a chump."

WHICH POLLS...DICKHEAD??

Show me a poll (by a reputable polling organization...not some right wing nutcase website)...where Bush's approval ratings are 10 points higher than one month ago

Try reading more...and talking less

Hey, that's a great suggestion. Thanks precious. And here's one for the guy who can't find the Rassmussen wiretap poll, even though I already gave you a hint. The link is in the first sentence in the post.

Show me a poll . . .

No more time for you, little dingleberry. You charge in, make a complete fool of yourself, and then demand that we do the research for you that you claim we never do. Take some time off from cleaning Kos's colon and do some research yourself.

This from a guy who probably get his news from Comedy Central. Yeah, who writes in those newspapers? Jayson Blair, Fisk or Krugman. What about those books? Been reading your Dowd?

Live in the leftwing mythiverse, be surprised when people inform you your basic beliefs are wrong.

Davey-Boy...a POLL from Rasmussen...isn't exactly what I call OBJECTIVE.

But, hey...why not just call Laura and ask her how things are going?

Get your head out of Bush's ass...and try thinking...oh, but I do appreciate you calling me "precious."

oh come on geoff, stay longer. or call the sitter. just don't leave it alone in the house.

at least put some newspapers out. he likes those

Well, thanks, wingnuts...I've gotten my fill of today's Bush Suck Fest.

Be sure to forward all of your comments regarding the wonderful job the idiot is doing...to the families of the 2,174 dead and 16,155 wounded American soldiers.

I'm sure they all share your dreamlike views of how well things are going during our "nation building" exercise in the Mideast.

Damn dude, a link is usually represented by text that is red or underlined or both. Scrolling around here, I caught the crazy requests for a link. Oh, and that Rasmussen is some sort of organization that can't be trusted. Yup, keep reading those books, troll.

Well, thanks, Gene...we've gotten our fill of today's Dumbass Moonbat Fest.

Be sure to continue reveling in the death of each and every American who had the balls you only wished you possessed...and be sure to celebrate with Kos and your other asshat buddies.

I'm sure they all share your idiocy and despise the idea of democracy in the Middle East.

Well said, Z!
I can tell by troll's posts, being unable to find a link, that the old tin foil may be getting a little too thick.
I guess that listing the KIA and WIA of Iraq is an arguing tactic promulgated by whatever website he cuts and pastes from. I'm sure it sucks to be one of the very few Americans to get killed in this war, but don't treat them like kids. Maybe all the veterans that that troll knows appreciate his "concern" for their safety. Apparently, if only we didn't go to war, everyone would have been safe.

Sorry, Joe...but I can't help myself:

And what is it about this Rassmussen "organization" that makes you think it can be "trusted?"

No, no...let me guess: They represent and say everything you already believe to be so.

Nothing but Bush sycophants...through and through.

Sorry, Joe...but I can't help myself

Self control. Hallmark of the teenager.

Rassmussen is the same organization that had Bush down 10 points a month ago.

But I was ok with that. You?

I guess the accounts could be wrong, but it appears as if there were people at the NSA that thought the program was illegal.

There appear to be FISC judges that wonder about it.

Bob Barr, no moonbat he, seems to think it is illegal.

Arlen wants to know more.

I bet it gets a good scrubbing over the next few months, especially when we find out that the scope wasn't as limited as they said.

I bet it gets a good scrubbing over the next few months

That's why I've largely steered clear of this one. There are legal minds lining up on both sides, so only a formal investigation is going to resolve this. I'll wait for the wheels to grind. But calls for impeachment appear to be fanciful.

I didn't realize the Rasmussen was such a touchy lefty talking point. Sort of like how Trollbino thinks the NYT's is a conservative newspaper. I have no opinion on Rasmussen.

Searp, "when we find out that the scope wasn't as limited as they said," Bush will probably gain another 10 approval points. On the other hand, everything you pointed out is factual and irrelevant: people who have opinions but no relevance may say whatever they like. But this all ground covered elsewhere. I'll put it this way, any democrat that wants to run on the "no wiretapping terrorists in America platform" in 2006 should do so. In fact, its vital they do so that we know who is certifiably crazy.

Bob Barr is "no moonbat?"

True.

Guy's a fucking basket case.

I didn't realize Arlen was irrelevant, he claims he will hold hearings.

Don't know about the politics, and I don't think you do either. I'd say you mischaracterize the issue, though.

I'll put it this way: any Republican that wants to run on a platform that says the president can ignore any inconvenient law should do so.

And please, please, begin the campaign at Signatures, comped all 'round.

I find it strange that people who agree with me on protecting the 2nd amendment are so quick to sacrifice the 4th amendment for political gain.

Allowing the current administration to spy on citizens without a warrant allows all future administrations and governments the same power.

Wake up, people and demand you liberties. The bill of rights is not to be sacrificed for political expediency.

he claims he will hold hearings

Dude, turn up your radio. He said he has gold earrings.

McCarthy?

Has someone been digging into the "Big Book of Liberal Cliches" again?

Allowing the current administration to spy on citizens without a warrant allows all future administrations and governments the same power.

Eh, we're in the post-Clinton era of "no controlling legal authority" anyway.

I think I have a pretty good handle on this issue. And I think we can figure out the difference between the scope of presidential powers as Commander in Chief and the ability of Congress to limit it and the different issue of whether "the president can ignore any inconvenient law should do so."

And for McCarthy, this isn't a 4th amendment issue. That refers to criminal prosecutions, where wrongful searches and seizures may lead to exclusion of the evidence. or monetary fines. I am more concerned with creating a safety zone for our enemies to operate within the country. And the people using this issue for political hay are people like Southern Belle, tubino in his incarnations, whose first reaction is "yay, lets impeach," not something constructive.

Uh, read the poll again -- it did not mention warrants.

Uh, read the poll again -- it did not mention warrants.

That's so yesterday - read the comments.

zetetic...patriotic asshole...

Anybody who doesn't support anything and everything your chickenhawk hero of a president brings forth...can't an't possibly have anything of relevance to say.

But it's like I said before: If you idiots could yank your heads out of Bush's ass for for a few minutes...maybe you could see the forest for the trees.

And, as for your comment that I'm "reveling in the death of each and every American," well, you can go fuck yourself because that's no more than the standard cheap shot from those who have never served a fucking day in the military and think that by denying what is actually happening, they can hold themselves up as some kind of super-patriot, while never actually puting their lives on the line.

This administration will prove to be the most corrupt in our nation's history...because of people just like you.

He said he has gold earrings.

Golden Earring is making another comeback? Oh hell yeah!

You may think you have a pretty good handle on this issue, but I do not. I think we can figure it out also, but I wouldn't say we'd come to a similar answer. That is why there is going to be a pretty thorough discussion, regardless of what you or I think.

Baaaa...baaa...

Gene, stop arguing with these baaaastards and come to bed, lover.

Gene... UNpatriotic asshole...

I couldn't even be bothered to read the rest of your bleatings, so you'll have to excuse me if I don't bother mocking the rest of your idiocy.

those who have never served a fucking day in the military

Like you Gene? Hey, you'll be old enough in two years, be patient little trooper!

Poll said - 64% of the public thinks searches may be OK (propostion a). It did NOT say conducting searches without a warrant (proposition b) is OK. I would support (a) and strongly oppose (b). But I guess judging from your post, you have no clue what the difference is. And if you are not as ultimately stupid as I just suggested, you just lied here.

I don't post here anymore, FAGS, but I just wanted to say... Gene, I think I love you.

And if you are not as ultimately stupid as I just suggested, you just lied here.

old news. scroll up. get back to us.

say, do you like avocados?

I hate draft-dodging chickenhawks!

Man, was Bill Clinton just godlike or what?

Come on, you fascist puke. Put out this bullshit all you want, the fact is your Preznit is a goddamned criminal piece of shit.

"progrolib@yahoo.com?"

That pretty much tells you all you need to know.

And if you are not as ultimately stupid as I just suggested, you just lied here.

Do you people ever read the preceding comments and educate yourself on the status of a discussion? Or just shoot off because nobody has ever demanded rigor of you before? Get with the program, then comment. That may seem backwards to you, but believe me, it'll save us all time and save the internet some bandwidth.

What the fuck is a Preznit? And you spelled "dipshit" wrong in your email address.

Ray, what's the problem with these goddam cutoffs? Put me some fucking knowledge.

stooooopied pussies

...reveling in the death of each and every American," well, you can go fuck yourself because that's no more than the standard cheap shot from those who have never served a fucking day in the military ....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Gene, you zit, I got ten years in the army and yes you can fuck yourself sideways through a rolling dougnut.

For God's sake, man, please allow H L Mencken to stop spinning in his grave. You might try a Stalin, Mussolini, or Joe McCarthy quote, for instance.

stooooopied pussies

Speaks for itself, dunnit?

Here's what the question should have said:::

Should the NSA be allowed to connect a super computer to a satellite to intercept hundreds of millions of international telephone conversations for the words jihad, infidel, bomb, behead, hijack, death, etc. without each data capture being decided by a judge?

That would have described what was going on.

jihad, infidel, bomb, behead, hijack, death, etc

well, that and Democrat, Kerry, impeach, KOS, dance class, soy latte and armageddon

I missed your Atrios post, but this one is just as good, if you want and cut the entire thing:

What Digby says.

Republicans are walking around right now pretending this is a winning issue for them. They like to scare Dems into thinking that anything which makes Bush look like Warrior Daddy, even drunken crazy please take away the car keys Warrior Daddy, is good for them.

They're right, but only because they know they can frighten Democrats into, once again, being nothing but a confused puddle of jello, with an assist from all of the Fox News Democrats talking about just how bad this will make them look. Contra Jason Zengerle, I wasn't pissed that Keller held back on this story because I thought it would win the election for Kerry. In fact, I doubt it would've helped him (in part, of course, because of the puddle of jello dynamic). I was pissed because I think it's the kind of thing the people should know before making an informed decision.

But, anyway, those people who think that in the middle of a metaphorical war the president can do anything he wants as long as he claims it's in the interest of national security, whatever that means these days, including violating judicial orders and congressional statutes, do have principles I guess. They're just not my principles, and not the principles the Democrats should share.

What did happen to that big Atrios post? Did you forget something?

Those are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others.

What did happen to that big Atrios post? Did you forget something?

Here you go, dear. I know the Internet can be complicated.

You right wingers, in your complete disrespect for the principles emobodied by the United States Constitution, reveal yourselves for the lawless, totalitarian/fascist fucks you are.

And supposedly, according to you, liberals and Democrats are the ones that have the problem?

Go back to Mother Russia, you Stalinist traitors.

according to you, liberals and Democrats are the ones that have the problem?

hey, I never said that.

I said they smell bad.

I've never seen the the libs get so exercised over the Constitution. I think it's healthy. Maybe now's the time to tell them that we think it's a "living document." We'll turn them into originalists overnight.

Woody -

Bonus points for use of both fascist and Stalinist. Now if you only could have worked in Nazi and Trotskyite.

Can one be lawless and totalitarian?

These people are not just weird, but they are stupid, too. It is plain bizarre to have left wingers accuse us of being Stalinists.

What's next? This:
Go live in Cuba, you Castro-loving homosexuals.

Bizzaro World.

Don't oppress me with your fascist Stalinist corrections, you Nazi Trotskyite martinet.

Like I said a few days ago - I like the use of the old school labels/insults. We should bring them all back, not just the political ones. You guys can call me polack (Dad's side) or Christ killer (mom's side). I live for the day I can accuse someone of being an octomaroon and trying to "pass".

Fascist, Stalinist, etc have such an old timey feeling about them.

will we still have a majority when we lose the ruby ridge nutbag libertarian fringe over this?

I know exactly what the issues are - as you say in your description of people taking the poll. That's why I would have answered yes to that poll. I would not have answered yes to a poll asking whether the government should be wiretapping without a warrant.

I.e., you're an idiot, by your own standards, if you leave that headline up. The fact you cite makes your headline even less defensible.

Alro? Is that really you?

you're an idiot, by your own standards, if you leave that headline up.

Well, since he rewrote the headline last night to remove the "warrantless" reference, I guess he's in good shape. Which you'd realize if you weren't just another moron newcomer who refuses to read the back-comments before jumping in. You're only the tenth commenter to jump in belatedly on this issue - a little more hustle and you could be the first to be late.

Not only are you Stalinists and fascists in your totalitarian mindsets, but you are PUSSIES too!!

"AWWW, we're SCARED and the big, bad terra'ists are gonna get us, if we don't let Daddy Bush protect us!! Waanh, waaanh, waaanh."

This, on top of the fact that most, if not all of you, are chickenhawks, and won't even put your asses on the line to go fight for a war Daddy Bush started, and which most of you enthusiastically say you support . . . that is, until you have to lay your own ASSES on the line.

God, you really are pussies.

You can't throw me a bone and use the word Nazi? All it takes is 4 little taps of the keyboard and it would provide me so much pleasure. You are selfish and uncaring.

Totalitarians were pretty tough bastards really.

I do not think that word means what you think it does.

What stupidty.

Here's a STUPID fucking question:

Can one be lawless and totalitarian?

Well, since the latter term is about giving the state the absolute power to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants (thereby, implying that it is not bound by any LAWS, but instead is bound only by the whims, desires and caprice of those in power), I'd say, "Yeah, one can be both lawless and totalitarian."

What was that the Framers said about the United States being a "nation of laws and not of men?"

Perhaps you should look it up, you IGNORANT AND STUPID pussies.

You can't throw me a bone and use the word Nazi? All it takes is 4 little taps of the keyboard and it would provide me so much pleasure. You are selfish and uncaring.

Did you say something . . . PUSSY?

Again you refuse to please me. Just use Nazi so I can complete. Or maybe you are doing the tantric thing - delaying to make it more pleasurable.

Hey Steve "HB" (What is that, Huntington Beach?)

I'm surprised you have time to post here.

What's wrong? Run out of children to molest?

Hey Steve "HB" (What is that, Huntington Beach?)

I'm surprised you have time to post here.

What's wrong? Run out of children to molest?

Yes on Huntington Beach.

No on running out of children to molest. I always keep a sub-zero fully stocked.

Hey, PUSSY Steve:

If there aren't any children around for you to molest, perhaps you should give your mother a call.

I hear that in the past she's always been available for you whenever you've had the urge.

Maybe you should think about calling her.

What about you Woodrow? Are you into Betsy?

Woody,

Don't you think you should get back to your important work at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory? Those atoms just aren't going to split themselves, you know.

The wit so far

- fascist/Stalinist
- accusations of child molesting
- momma jokes
- constant use of the term PUSSY

You really are old school. Nothing original here.

Ahh, Steve ADMITS he's in ORANGE COUNTRY, that hotbed of white, middle-brow perversity.

You know, I have to amend something I said earlier.

You probably don't need to give your mother a CALL.

Just let her know the next time she calls downstairs into the basement and tells you your dinner's ready.

Those atoms just aren't going to split themselves, you know.

Ace: he'll split them. With his mind.

I really can't believe the guy can manage this kind of high-quality writing in between performing neurosurgeries.

Well I'm orignally a NY/NJ Jew if that changes your stereotyping. And I don't have a basement - will a garage suffice for your joke.

You really are old school. Nothing original here.

I may be "old school," but I notice that you don't take issue with the fact that I'm ACCURATE.

Wow, Woody's almost as stupid as PLV. But at least the Woodster knows other insults besides "fag."

He also has some kind of weird algorithm that determines which words should be ALL IN CAPS.

ACCURATE.

Hey, who wants a sloppy neurosurgeon.

You are also the soul of wit. Bet you have heard that once or twice.

Woody, you ignorant cocksucker, you wrote: "You right wingers...reveal yourselves for the lawless, totalitarian/fascist fucks you are."

How can a person be totalitarian and lawless at the same time, asshole?

Do i have to write your posts for you, too, you half-evolved chimp?

You meant to say "You right-wingers obviously support a fascist government where you have no civil liberties or individual freedoms. You want to be subjects of a dictatorial government with no say in how the government is run."

How's that, dummy?

I really can't believe the guy can manage this kind of high-quality writing in between performing neurosurgeries.

Since when did you become a literary critic, PUSSY?

I didn't think you had the time, what with spending all your time blowing Steve and all . . . .

I thought that you'd be suffering too much from "semen-on-the-brain" to pay attention to matters of style.

But, I must admit, I'm impressed with your ability to string together a coherent sentence.

And I don't have a basement

Duh - doesn't Woody know that there are no basements in Huntington Beach? I think we've plumbed the meager depths of his knowledge.

z, he knows the words, but I think he's pretty lost on the definitions. So half points.

If there aren't any children around for you to molest, perhaps you should give your mother a call.

I hear that in the past she's always been available for you whenever you've had the urge.

I will smash your face into a car windshield and then take your mother, Dorothy Guthrie, out for a nice seafood dinner and never call her again.

ACCURATE - Let us see

- fascist/Stalinist = I am
- Child molester = bingo
- momma molester = no I don't like Jewish girls, they're too educated and stuff
- PUSSY = I don't call people names on the internet so I guess I am a pussy

Woody Guthrie is my bitch.

Yo, beey-atch, get your ass over here and massage my feet.

DOROTHY GUTHRIE IS A SAINT! DOROTHY GUTHRIE... IS A SAINT!!!

Look at the facsists all come out from under the rocks under which they dwell and come to one another's mutual aid.

Pussies.

"Waaannnh. Waaannhh. We're SCARED of the BIG, BAD, terra'ists. Daddy Bush, please PROTECT us!!!"

HEY! Let's leave the mothers out of this, okay?

"Woody Guthrie." I believe that's German for "a whale's vagina."

I thought that you'd be suffering too much from "semen-on-the-brain" to pay attention to matters of style.

You know, I used to consider the occasional homo-joke funny.

I'm rapidly reconsidering that stance.

Well, they have to actually be funny to appreciate them

Woody, what are your thoughts on homosexuality and circumcision?

Talk to your dad, lately?

Is this all that's left of the FDL invasion? This vitriolic little bugger with banal, repetitive insults? Maybe these lands have been over-hunted.

Woody Guthrie's got a nasty, whorish mouth, that's what he has.

You know, I hate to admit it, but Woody's scoring some points here. His clever wordplay and incisive reasoning just might win him a convert.

A convert named "Allah."

Woody Guthrie, I puuuuure hate your guts!

But goddammit, do I respect you!

Woody, are you high?

You're high right now, aren't you.

Look, go take a nap.
We'll still be here.

...and then I'm going to punch you in the ovary.

A straight shot.

Right to the baby-maker.

I'm gonna level with you, Woody. You smell like pure gasoline.

Is this thread loading slow for everyone else?

Is it just Woody's mental retardation interfering with the flux capacitors, or what?

Is the flux capacitor fluxing?

Woody smells like...a dirty diaper...full of Indian food!

Is Woody gone? 'Cause I've been meaning to talk to him about this thread.

He should find himself a safehouse or a relative close by. Lay low for a while, because he's probably wanted for murder.

like a turd covered with burnt hair

Woody is a selfish bastard. All he had to do was give me one Nazi and I would have finished. Instead he leaves me blue balled and achey.

I'm proud of you all... you all kept your head on a swivel. And that's what you've got to do when you're involved in a vicious cockfight.

There was a guy on fire, and I killed a guy with a trident.

Wait, Woody was serious? I thought he was kidding! I thought it was a joke, I even wrote it down in my diary. "Woody had a very funny joke today." I laughed at it earlier tonight!

Woody went back to his home on Whore Island.

I hate to break up the fun here guys, but there's some very bad news breaking right now on the wires:

The human torch was denied a bank loan.

Woodrow, I'm a conservative who discovered the wheel and built the Eiffel Tower out of metal and brawn. That's what kind of conservative I am. You're just a liberal with a small brain. With a brain a third the size of us. It's science.

In case Woody's still reading, I'd like to extend to him an invitation to the pants party.

I hear that Woody's periods attract bears. Bears can smell his menstruation.

I'm Woody Guthrie. People seem to like me because I am polite and I am rarely late. I like to eat ice cream and I really enjoy a nice pair of slacks. Years later, a doctor will tell me that I have an I.Q. of 48 and am what some people call mentally retarded.

Bears! Great! Now you've put the whole site at risk, Woody!

Well, that's just great. You hear that, ace? Bears. Now you're putting the whole website in jeopardy

I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE ARGUING ABOUT!!!

I have it on good authority that Woody is not a selfish lover and he is circumcised.

i like thee neet skul and the bonzes i wnad to join thee club with ACe an be kool we wil mage fun of liveruls an gurLZ an laff ad them an make pray fo bOOsh he is thee besd/

SJ, you're so wise. You're like a miniature Buddha, covered with hair.

Don't be fooled, boys. That last poster was being sarcastic, I think.

Fascist bigots racists despots Starinist ball-washers.

Eavesdroppers!

Rousy bastards.

The question also assumes we were listening in on conversations between Americans and terror suspects, when all the reporting I've seen hints that it was a massive data mining operation. What if the foreigners involved weren't suspected terrorists, but just were talking to American Muslims?

Raleigh, have you ever seen a grown man naked?

^
Now if I had asked that...

I'm a very important conservative.
I have many leatherbound books.

My home smells of rich mahogany.

You fags! All you need to know about Woody is that he's aptly named. Trust me on this one. Fags!

My legal representative has advised me to make the following statement.

This is a humor blog, and the author has never attempted to state or imply that it's contents are to be taken seriously. All content provided by the author, including those comments made by him under different names, are presented in the spirit of levity.
Nontheless, I offer my most sincere apology to the Rasmussen orginization and the blogger known as Atrios.

This thread is now locked.

Come back Woody. We need you. Hell, I need you. I'm a mess without ya. I miss you so damn much. I miss being with you. I miss being near you! I miss your laugh! I miss - I miss your scent. I miss your musk. When this all gets sorted out, I think you and me should get an apartment together.

Dave -

He's gone. Just take that old sweater of his and curl up with it. Let his scent remind you of the good times.

I miss him like the flower misses the sun. I'll never wash my monitor screen again.

anchorman's on HBO now, incidentally.

Woody is a selfish bastard. All he had to do was give me one Nazi and I would have finished. Instead he leaves me blue balled and achey.

Go talk to your mother about that. I'm sure from past experience and tons of practice she knows just what to do to take care of that problem for you.

By the way, Steve. I'm surprised you actually HAVE balls. For some reason, I had the hunch that when you were being circumsized the rabbi slipped and cut off the family jewels (or, in your case, the family rhinestones).

Ahh. More momma jokes and some genitalia size jokes. Plus a little bit of good old Jew baitin' thrown in. I love the classics.

Pathetic. This Woody-up-the-ass Guthrie can't hold a candle to C*d*rf*rd when it comes to Jooooooooo-baiting.

Hey, look, our proud 'special' forces have returned from Ice Station Zebra. Hopefully he didn't eat the 'special' hat this time.

Where's that Door's album.......

ACE WROTE:

"EVERYFUCKINGONE knows what this controversy is about, dummy."

Really? They do? In a country where 25% of Americans still think it was Iraqis on the planes that crashed in the WTC on 9/11 that is a pretty big claim.

And even if they DID know what the controversy is about, you still lose... because that was NOT what the question was about. Case in point: I am against the warrantless searches but if asked that specific question I would have said I WAS in favor of the eavesdropping.

I would not take it upon myself to INFER what the question was "really" about... I would have just answered what I was asked. And you know what? I don't know you at all... but I'm guessing you would, too. How can I say that? Because you don't strike me as a mindless, partisan hack.

Because a polling place calls a dude up, asks a question... it's not like the poller screams, "Hey! This is about those warrantless searches! Now here comes the question!" The poller just calls up and says, "Hi. I'd like you to answer a few questions. And here's the first one..."

Sure, based on the subject, the responder might (MIGHT!) guess why the issue is coming up... but he would have no reason to connect the dots you are suggesting he connect. Sure, yes... you are correct that SOME people would do that. SOME people would jump the gun and answer the INFERRED question as opposed to the real question.

But I would submit that those who would do that are mindless partisan, idealogue hacks (of either party) and are not free thinkers. So... how many Americans would you say fit that description? Because only by figuring out THAT number can you evaulate the poll in the terms you are evaluating it.

ACE WROTE:

So what could possibly account for the missing 36%?

Exactly.

You know, I'm amazed at how completely batshit all of you liberals are going over a telephone poll. I mean, the way you're screaming, crying and carrying on, one would think the deck of cards you folks call a political philosophy was about to come down.

Blinded, thank you for your insight. It's obvious you are the only free thinker left in Amerikkka. It's a hard role to play, I know, but stay strong.

Stay. Strong.

"I'm amazed at how completely batshit all of you liberals are going over a telephone poll."

The only person that went "batshit" over a telephone poll was Ace, who posted a LIE regarding it.

The problem isn't the poll, it's the fact that elements on the right feel the need to hold it up and call it a cat when it is actually a dog. IOW business as usual.

"Hey whats the matter with you dirty libs, it's just a little lie? We tell them all day every day, so why should raise such a stink about this little one."

A minion of the party of Clinton, Gore, and Kerry is suddenly appalled by lies. That's pretty goddamned funny.

Somebody put a wiretap on that dog turd, right now. That one over there, the one that can't remember his goddam pronouns.

I hate republicans and democrats. I look forward to them being hunted down one by one and "brought to justice." Tar and Feathers for the liars, politicos, and newswhores.

You know what else 'crusader bunnypants' is looking forward to?

Touching a real boobie someday.

I LUV rouge cops. Like a Viking.

Those atoms just aren't going to split themselves, you know.

No, of course not. That's how Dick Cheney got to have such a big . . . nazi.

It's exercise.

"Warrantless"???

Numbnuts.

You know, I'm amazed at how completely batshit all of you liberals are going over a telephone poll.

Wow. You really are an idiot, aren't you?

Let's see...

1) You have turned a non-pejorative descriptive word (liberal) into a slur. Who does that? Fools who can't stand other viewpoints than their own. Your parents must be so proud. But point taken... you HAVE no point.

2) You have INCORRECTLY assumed me to be a liberal... which, of course, you are doing in a vein attempt to dismiss my viewpoint (see #1). Again. Parents. Proud.

3) As pointed out by others, the only one "screaming and crying" is you (though your warped worldview cannot see that). This is, quite obviously again, another non-meritous attempt to dismiss a contrary viewpoint.

Next time, you might want to try to construct an actual viewpoint based on reality. And, if reality does not support (as you could learn in an open-minded debate)... well, the great things about minds is they can change!

Yet, nope.... That appears to be WAYYYY too much to ask from you. Because all you can do to defend your viewpoint is dodge and insult. Yes, as you will no doubt point out, this post is ALSO filled with insults. But it also includes a reasoned merit-based viewpoint - as did my previous post - which ONLY contained a reasoned viewpoint (and I heard no REASONS from you why it was false).

If you'd like, you can reply. But I already know what you're going to say. What people like YOU always say. Not Conservatives, not Republicans, not people have a different philosophy. But, specifically, YOU. You are a broken record. You are Psych 101 textbook example of a close-mind. You are, sadly, another one of those fools who doesn't know the difference between a fight and an argument (always assuming the former and acting accordingly) and believes the point of a "debate" is to convince the other of your truth...

So truly, I feel bad for you. People like you are never happy and it's quite clear you are not. And it's also quite clear you are trying to spread that unhappiness.

Me? I was just trying to weigh on a debate, presenting a thought-out viewpoint and seeing if anyone could pick-it apart and, if so, yes, my mind would change. It's called Peer Review. But, if your comments are the best a contrary-viewpoint can offer... than I was more right than I thought - and anyone reading our exchange would probably agree.

Nice going. Parents. Proud.

(ANYONE out there who can present an intelligent response to my earlier points?)

hey, blinded, I'm like, thanks for the attention and all, but get out of my face.

Blinded,
If you're looking for an intelligent debate or discussion...you're in the wrong place.

95% of the people who post here have their heads so far up Bush's ass they can't think straight...and could care less about anything you have to say.

They just don't want to hear ANYTHING...they don't already believe to be so.

I stop in from time to time just to aggravate the living shit out of these sycohants by merely mentioning the fact that, based on what we've seen over the past 5 years, G.W. and his band of corrupt neocons have done a terrific job of screwing things up for America.

People, worldwide, used to revere us...now they just feel sorry for us. (Okay, now, watch and see how many of these wingnuts say they don't care what anybody in the world thinks...)

Blinded,
Davey-Boy in Texas...a perfect example of my previous posting.

hey, Gene, I try to treat all moonbats with respect whether they’re pretty or ugly

Right.

And I can't think of anyone who doesn't mind being called a moonbat...whatever that's supposed to be.

A better question for you is this:

What is it about G.W. Bush that makes you think this man is a good leader? In 5 short years we find ourselves:

Buried in Iraq with no realistic end or honorable departure in sight, oil is at the $55-65 levels, gas costs over $2 a gallon, Americans are being wiretapped, we're torturing prisoners, we have secret prisons all over the world, we're losing more and more American soldiers every day, we have over 14,000 wounded soldiers, we're reviled by countries that have been stalwart allies for decades...and Osama...the supreme terrorist planner and target...is nowhere to be found.

And please...don't give me the standard Republican talking point: "we haven't been attacked on American soil since 9/11"...because between 1994's bombing...we weren't attacked on American soil for 7 years and I never heard anybody talking up Bill Clinton.

C'mon...give me a list of reasons I should like the job Bush is doing.

Reasons? Hey, I don't need reasons to impress, man. It's a flash of a smile and a nice conversation. And at the end of the day, you’re cooking the food.

Dave, you're a gem... you said you'd speak in code and you're actually doing it.

ace, I don't have many secrets. At the same time, I stay very closed off until a moonbat deserves to know me completely

Davey-Boy,
I didn't think any logical rationale would follow my challenge...it never does...because there are NO reasons to support the yahoo in the white house.

And, as I said before: Being a Bush sycophant is the name of this site's game...so...keep on suckin', girls...your man is inching his way towards impeachment.

And, as I said before: Being a Bush sycophant is the name of this site's game...so...keep on suckin', girls...your man is inching his way towards impeachment.

You're wrong to call me a girl, Gene.

Speaking pubescently, it is true that I was a late-bloomer in high school. I had braces for a long time, and I had trouble talking to girls. But then I played football and joined jazz choir and landed a senior girlfriend when I was a freshman. And she was hot, too.

And I wasn't in the Friend Zone, either. More like the Bed Zone. (chuckles)

That's placating Gene. I don't placate.

Gene gaining weight? I'm not tolerant of that at all. You have to be firm. If a girl has her period or doesn't like the way she looks, and asks if she's beautiful, I say "No."

Acey-Ducey,
First of all, I don't believe anyone "hot" would actually date someone named Ace.

Second, I see that you didn't deny the fact that this is a premier site for Bush sycophants...so keep on suckin'.

Oh, and I was wondering if you and Davey-Boy have "secret decoder rings" so you can exchange really, really neat messages no one else can understand?

C'mon Gene, get another woman up, hire a hooker, let's get crazy, get some coke
and if you agree with this, just look at me and say yes.

First of all, I don't believe anyone "hot" would actually date someone named Ace.

You're so fuckin' hot. So fuckin' hhhhoot. I want to make you crazy. Make. You. Fuckin'. Crazy.

Let's do it, Gene. Let's have sex.

Acey & Davey,
Awww, geeez, guys...now I see what the situation is.

You two are...really, really good "friends"...and I've offended you...so you feel like you need to defend one another's...honor.

Sorry...I had no idea.

Hey, you're not, per chance... cowboys are you?

You two are...really, really good "friends"...and I've offended you...so you feel like you need to defend one another's...honor.

Dave said he's up for it, but he's really jealous. We can do this, but you have to pretend to be into Dave.

Batty & Davey & Acey...boy, I've got the whole gang up in arms!!

But, gosh...I didn't think good Republicans did coke or screwed.

Sorry, girls...didn't mean to get your panties in a bunch.

Gena, everybody has a bottom. And I hit my bottom that horrible weekend in New York. Do I remember most of it? No. And that’s where the bottom is. It was a weekend of fun, I thought, a weekend of drinking, which turned into a little bit of craziness.

No, they're sheepherders from Wyoming. Why do you ask?

Sorry, girls...didn't mean to get your panties in a bunch.

I don't know why I'm acting this way. I don't do this for a living.

Gene gaining weight?

Yes, but that's mainly due to his high-protein diet, if you get my drift.

Well, sorry...have to run...getting close to that time for cocktails and sunset down at the beach.

Be careful when you get together to decode those little secret messages you send each other...oh, and be sure to wear protection.

arrivederci...ragazze

Gene, are we still friends?

I'll join you guys... but only if there's pudding!

But, gosh...I didn't think good Republicans did coke or screwed.

Sorry, girls...didn't mean to get your panties in a bunch.

You gotta give Gene props for trying. Everybody I know thinks "..."s are the hallmark of comedy.

Gene, do you hang out at FDL? I like FDL. There you can be as dirty or as clean as you want to be. The ratio at FDL was three morons to one retard. It's a fun place, full of daddy's little girls. I like it when they call me Daddy. And they do, too, because they're all hungry.

Gene, are we still friends?

Are Gene and Bart friends? Absolutely. Do they talk? No.

Thanks for chiming in, Gene. Yeah, they sure do prove our point over and over (though I thought perhaps the site owner might be a little different... guess I was wrong). But these guys almost make me want to believe in God and a Judgement Day... 'cause I know exactly where they would all be when it comes. Taking it in the ass next to Mohammed Atta... cause the only difference between those 9/11 cocksuckers and these My World Is The Only World cocksuckers is the 9/11 cocksuckers actually resorted to violence to protect their closed-minds. I guess we should consider ourselves lucky the cocksuckers on this site are only attempted to use words... and not particularly well-crafted ones at that.

But sadly... we don't HAVE to wait for Judgement Day for the shit to hit the fan. It's already been hitting it - and hard. So who cares if these morons don't understand why.... The only real sad part is the sane people are getting sucked down with them. Oh well... such is the peril of a democracy. Still better than the alternative (though, of course, even Hitler was democratically elected which, if these yahoo's don't get a clue soon, we're gonna see a repeat of pretty soon...)

I guess we should consider ourselves lucky the cocksuckers on this site are only attempted to use words... and not particularly well-crafted ones at that.

So, I guess "well-crafted" means the compulsive use of ellipses?

Oh, no, you probably meant a comment is "well-crafted" when a mindless Hitler reference gets thrown in.

Am I right?

BTW, your well-crafted comment should have used "attempting" instead of "attempted."

You nailed it, Blinded. The only difference between me and Mohammed Atta is that Atta is a murderous terrorist, whereas I use words. So, you know, other than some minor details, we're pretty much exactly the same. Good call, man.

I had no idea BDS caused blindness.

even Hitler was democratically elected

Wake me up when republican "brownshirts" start shooting at DNC campaign offices.

Well, Michael - I am laughing my ass off at you (and, to be fair, at you) because I WAS going to use another compulsive ellipse and add to my original post something to the effect of how my argument will be probably completely side-stepped while the fools simply attack my Hitler comment. So +1 for you on catching my ellipses addiction... then -1 for being so obvious. Though thank you for catching my "attempted" typo. And thank you for embarrasing yourself with predictability.

Sandy... also a thanks to you for embarrassing yourself by setting up a straw man argument and mischaractizing what I said so that you can sardonically knock it down...thereby making you feel you have proved something when in actuality, you have not.

Just as ACE pointed out that the poll takers must have understood the CONTEXT of the NSA poll and somehow knew if refererred to warrant-less eavesdropping... anyone with half a brain would have understood I was referring to the METHODOLOGY of how one deals with contrary viewpoints when I compared some posters on this board to Atta.

Atta didn't care about a higher truth. He only cared about HIS truth. That describes many of you to a tee.

Of course, if it makes you feel better to exaggerate what I said, then knock the exaggeration down AS IF you actually addressed what I really said... well, go ahead. That's just the sort of thing I would expect. Your truth-avoidance tactics are old, obvious and tired.

And Kevin... funny comment. But there's nothing wrong with Republicans - just as there's nothing wrong with Democrats. The only wrong (insofar as I can use that word) is people who THINK someone is wrong just because they are a Democrat or a Republican. Without a two-party system...we'd be screwed (regardless of whatever party is in power). Kinda... well, kinda like we are right now.

I had no idea BDS caused blindness.

(Judges, can we accept that?)
...waiting...

Nooo, sorry, zetetic. It only causes blindness if they also masturbate Margaret Cho.

SJKevin,

It usually works theother way around.

Ew.

This thread is a verbal 9-11.

It only causes blindness if they also masturbate Margaret Cho.

Sorry, folks. That is rather disgusting and I apologize. It was supposed to be masturbating to Margaret Cho.
Also, Jeanine Garafalo would have been accepted as correct.

Atta didn't care about a higher truth. He only cared about HIS truth. That describes many of you to a tee.

Seriously, if you hung out here for a while, instead of just popping in out of nowhere to insult everyone and argue, you'd see that this isn't the case at all. AoS commenters are generally a diverse and open-minded bunch, although there's a lot of sarcasm and good-natured mockery (and self-mockery) that goes on.

Some of us (such as myself) hold many views which you would probably consider to be very "liberal".

Your Atta analogy is just a straw-man argument. And a poorly chosen one at that.

Well, Michael - I am laughing my ass off at you

I'll bet you are.

So +1 for you on catching my ellipses addiction... then -1 for being so obvious.

Um, I'm not the one being obvious. Wasn't it you who brought up the subject of "well-crafted" comments?

AS IF you actually addressed what I really said... well, go ahead.

What you really said was this:

"Taking it in the ass next to Mohammed Atta... cause the only difference between those 9/11 cocksuckers and these My World Is The Only World cocksuckers is the 9/11 cocksuckers actually resorted to violence to protect their closed-minds. "

C'mon, Blinded, when you wrote that were you actually seeking a serious response?

Your truth-avoidance tactics are old, obvious and tired.

Actually, you are encountering our annoyance-avoiding tactics.

See, I'm just not really that fond of playing Whack-A-Troll. It's not funny, and it's not edifying.

I can insult fellow AOSHQ regulars all day long, and receive the same in kind, but it's always good-natured. This blog is kind of weird that way. Folks here have called me a homo, a retard, a cuckold (several regulars claim to be fucking Mrs. Michael), a pathetic man in a Batman suit who is impotent, and so forth. Not once have I been offended.

Playing Whack-A-Troll is different. The conversations actually get nasty, and the wit is lacking.

My very brief conversation with you is a case in point. You're not funny, you're not intellectually engaging, you're not even capable of a competent flame. You're just another vacuous liberal with Michael Moore's jizz dripping off his chin.

'Bye.

I can insult fellow AOSHQ regulars all day long, and receive the same in kind, but it's always good-natured.

Good-natured?! Apparently, I need to work on my communication skills...

In case you have all forgotten... I wrote a serious rebuttal concerning the merits (or lack thereof) of how important the term "warrantless" is to the poll, was curious to hear the other side; yet basically received this in reply:

You know, I'm amazed at how completely batshit all of you liberals are going over a telephone poll. I mean, the way you're screaming, crying and carrying on, one would think the deck of cards you folks call a political philosophy was about to come down.

Blinded, thank you for your insight. It's obvious you are the only free thinker left in Amerikkka. It's a hard role to play, I know, but stay strong.

Stay. Strong.

...along with a few other similarly-veined comments. I responded SPECIFICALLY to that first poster (with delinated points - NOT generalizations)... and got flamed.

My 9/11 comment is NOT a straw-man argument (poor taste, maybe, but not a straw man argument). If you're going to make that claim - then back it up (as I did my claim of straw-manedness). But the fact is, there are MANY posters on this board who share that scumbag's same intolerance for opposing viewpoints (and make it very clear) and I have no problems pointing it out. Atta is the symbol of where that world-view can eventually lead and we forget that at our peril. That does not mean I said EVERYONE is such a person on the board.

My guess is, if my specific charges HAVE offended somebody, then they probably don't apply... because, at least, that "somebody" is asking the question and concerned with reality. If someone is offended by the VERY FACT of my positions - as many seemed to be... well, that's Atta land.

But you are correct. At that point, when I received NO serious responses to my first serious post... I gave up on getting a serious response. Then I was just playing the same "good-natured" game you were (like calling someing a homo and/or a retard is good-natured). Of course, where I come from, such things aren't considered good-natured... so forgive me not understanding where this arbitrary line of good-naturedness is drawn on this board. I mean that only somewhat faceitioiusly

SJKevin... point well taken. Thank you.

Blinded, I tried to let you take control of the situation. I gave you enough credit to let you take the reins once in a while. But if it's a two-hour spark-off, f--k it. Have a blast and fizzle out. It can be just as fun.

Dave... thanks for the roundabout. It's happening enough to not let one know what you fly around with. Cheers and have a great New Year!

Looks like we've both come to realize that it has run its course. We started dating when we were 20. We had an absolute ball, but we grew up. There's no reason to fight that.

Happy New Year B

In case you have all forgotten... I wrote a serious rebuttal concerning the merits (or lack thereof) of how important the term "warrantless" is to the poll, was curious to hear the other side; yet basically received this in reply:

Here was your reply:
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/147504.php

Anyhow, have a happy new year!

even Hitler was democratically elected

ah, no. NSDAP never won more than 37% of the vote. Hitler was named Chancellor in 1933, and consolidated his power through murder, riots, fearmongering, and control of the military in 1934 after von Hindenberg died.

Much like George Bush assumed power. Really, the parallels are striking.

If you're a moron

that was me

Thank you SJ... I had just found that. I didn't even consider that some people might be posting under ACE's name. That was part of what so shocked me. I easily and happily accept it was an error. I have no problems where anyone "leans"... it's the "bias" that drives me nuts - and the two are NOT the same thing.

To the nameless commentator... well, I didn't mean to say Hitler was democratically elected to the position of dictator. Just that he was democratically elected to a position of power.... what he did from there is a matter of record.

As for GW - just so you know where I'm coming from before I defend him - aside from my questions of his competence, I have a very strong suspicion if all the facts were to be uncovered, even his most ardent supporters would be calling for his impeachment. But he still is entitled to a presumption of innocence.

But GW isn't the problem. It's the precedents he is putting into place so that, when someone who is truly despicable comes to power... the parallels to Hitler will be more than striking - they will be unavoidable. I used to think it could never happen here. Now I realize the surest way to GUARANTEE "it" happens here is to think that.

No dipshit, he was NEVER democratically elected to a position of power. Jeebus go grab a history book.

Blinded... FYI:
The Nazis gradually devised an electoral strategy to win northern farmers and white collar voters in small towns, which produced a landslide electoral victory in September 1930 (jump from roughly 3% to 18% of the votes cast) due to the depression. Refused a chance to form a cabinet, and unwilling to share in a coalition regime, the Nazis joined the Communists in violence and disorder between 1931 and 1933. In 1932, Hitler ran for President and won 30% of the vote, forcing the eventual victor, Paul von Hindenburg, into a runoff election. After a bigger landslide in July 1932 (44%), their vote declined and their movement weakened (Hitler lost the presidential election to WWI veteran Paul von Hindenburg in April; elections of November 1932 roughly 42%), so Hitler decided to enter a coalition government as chancellor in January 1933.

Upon the death of Hindenburg in August 1934, Hitler was the consensus successor. With an improving economy, Hitler claimed credit and consolidated his position as a dictator, having succeeded in eliminating challenges from other political parties and government institutions

Hitler was never 'elected' to any post (that he accepted anyway)

Sneer all you want, Ace, but Atrios, with no effort, gets a gazillion more hits, which allows him plenty of time to do what he really wants to do. Hamster has produced a number of movies, has the connections you will never have, and has published a fairly good book.

Dave in Texas and Michael,

Glad to see you two don't placate. You guys get shirts.

Sneer all you want, Ace, but Atrios, with no effort, gets a gazillion more hits, which allows him plenty of time to do what he really wants to do. Hamster has produced a number of movies, has the connections you will never have, and has published a fairly good book.

And yet the American voter rejects you again.

Rough shit, that.

Sneer all you want, Ace, but Atrios, with no effort, gets a gazillion more hits, which allows him plenty of time to do what he really wants to do. Hamster has produced a number of movies, has the connections you will never have, and has published a fairly good book.

And let me guess. Their dads can beat up Ace's dad, right? Holy shit, what immature fucking tripe this is.

Grow the fuck up, asshole.

and has published a fairly good book.

Only fairly good? Man, your head is WAY up Bush's ass! Sycophant!!!!

And let me guess. Their dads can beat up Ace's dad, right? Holy shit, what immature fucking tripe this is.

Grow the fuck up, asshole.

I have no idea whether their dads can beat up Ace's dad. You'll have to ask Ace about that. I do know that Atrios has achieved a sort of fame and crazy blog money with minimal work and plenty of free time. Hamster has the connections in a business where connections matter. Did she get them from her family? No, she got them through hard work. Of course, if you weren't such an ignorant, immature, and jealous asshole you would have know that.

Thank you Madfish. Based of your description, I stand by my initial claim that Hitler achieved power democratically. He did not seize power but followed the democratic and Constitutional rules to achieve power. It is no different than the way many of our presidents have made it to office and GW is no exception.

He absolutely did NOT win the popular vote and, not being partisan, we will never truly know whether he truly won Florida because A) The Supreme Court stopped a full manual recount and B) Perhaps the final truth of such a thing was unknowable in the first place (due to the numerous ballot screw-ups)... which, I seem to recall, was one of the rationales the Supreme Court used for stopping the Recount, deeming that the current count would be the most fair and any manually recounting would be too open to interpretation to have suitable validity.

(yikes... I know THAT last paragraph is going to open a can of worms)

Either way, I am not suggesting that GW was not democatically elected. Just that, in the end, it was the Courts that decided the election - as our Constitution says they should. Likewise, Hitler achieved power democratically though the process of Constitutional democracy - which, for better or wrose, does not always mean "We Vote... And The One With The Most Votes Wins".

Blinded, did you get your nickname from your habit of wild-monkey masturbating, or is it intended as a droll commentary on current events?

I'm guessing it's the meat-beating thing, but I'm willing to maintain an open mind.

And yet the American voter rejects you again.

Rough shit, that.

Not rough shit at all in that I have never ran for office and the candidates I vote for generally win. How's making no sense working out for you?

Of course, if you weren't such an ignorant, immature, and jealous asshole you would have know that.

Ha. Nice comeback.

For a fucking twelve-year-old.

I'm not jealous of Atrios. Dude's got a good thing going for him, and I'm glad it's working out for him. I really wish I'd thought of the whole 'take advantage of really stupid fucking liberals to make money' angle years ago.

Well, actually, the House decides election. If certain events transpire, that is. We know who won Florida in 2000, several newspapers went ahead and did their own recount. And they confirmed the W win.

The Supreme Court of Florida was the one that rewrote their state's election laws. So the courts got involved, and the Supreme Court uninvolved them.

But, hey, who wants to refight 2000?

He did not seize power but followed the democratic and Constitutional rules to achieve power. It is no different than the way many of our presidents have made it to office and GW is no exception.

Many of them? Uh, don't you mean all of them? You know, following the democratic and Constitutional rules to become president?

Your insight isn't much better than your communication skills. Are you still in school?

Can you get a refund?

I have never ran for office

That college perfessor job be eludin ya too don't it?

Ha. Nice comeback. For a fucking twelve-year-old.

I'm not jealous of Atrios.

Right. Keep telling yourself that. You do concede your jealous of Hamscher, I see.

Dude's got a good thing going for him, and I'm glad it's working out for him. I really wish I'd thought of the whole 'take advantage of really stupid fucking liberals to make money' angle years ago.

But, you didn't. All I know is that he has a lot of free time with a minimal amount of work. And Hamscher has both producing and publishing credits to her name.

Guess your daddy got his ass kicked.

anonymous, you've got to bring something to the table.

Yes, anonymous troll, my neglect in mentioning Hamscher means I'm incredibly jealous of her Hollywood connections and doubtless lavish lifestyle.

Or it could just mean that you're so desperate to score points that you latch onto anything. Do you really think such nonsense upsets us? Seriously? I'm quite content with my life. Sorry to see you're so pissed off about yours.

Oh, and it's "you're" when used as a contraction for "you are."

I think they love it cause she sounds so scary smart.

Even when she's wrong.

scaaaary. smaaaaaaart.

I like kittens.

I like kittens.

CHEERLEADING SYCOPHANT!

The poll is irrelevant. It doesn't address the central issue.

The issue isn't whether the NSA should be monitoring American citizens at all.

The issue is whether they should be able to do it without a warrant.

I don't see the warrant issue mentioned at all in the poll

But thanks for the irrelevant information.

Keepp up the "good" work!

But thanks for the irrelevant information.

. . . and thanks for your belated observation, since this discussion was resolved Thursday night. You can join the dozen or so tardy commenters who have posted exactly what you did. Unoriginal & late - keep up the "good" work!

I apologize but I've forgotten what this was all about. Could you guys start all over again?

Thanx bunches!

Is this the thlead that wourd not die?

*click, click, click*

This is armost as good as Gland Canyon.

"In case you have all forgotten... I wrote a serious rebuttal concerning the merits (or lack thereof) of how important the term "warrantless" is to the poll, was curious to hear the other side; yet basically received this in reply:"

What you DON'T know about this site is that Ace is the only important one on the stage. This blog is like football, baseball, anything else. That's just the fucking way it is around here. I know - you thought, you thought, you thought eight fucking times. Don't make him a maniac, because he slices like a fucking hammer, and will ream your ass like a coach of a ball team. With integrity, substance, and character of course. Because he is in his form now...

The headline was fixed the day it was written, and I wrote an apology the next day.

What is the confusion on these cut-offs?

PUT ME SOME FUCKIN' INFORMATION HERE!!

Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian 2nd R, in cream jacket campaigns for his party's candidate Luo Wen-jia (diamond rings), who is running for Taipei County magistrate (Anniversary Rings, Designer Diamond Rings), in Taipei December One you can then use your money back guarantee to return the diamond ring for a refund

joeindc44...

No, no one wants to refight that battle. But I will simply correct some easily-verifiable (thus, I'm sure, simply mistaken) misinformation in your last post. The consortium of which you spoke concluded that under a certain set of restrictions, the vote would have gone to GW, yes. But under a slightly less restrictive tally system, they conluded the vote would have gone to Gore. However, the notion of which restrictions to use was essentially an arbitrary one. More restrictive doesn't necessarily have more validity than less restrictive - though partisans would have you believe that was the case (on one side or another - depending on their political views).

So, yes, some newspapers reported the GW would have been the winner. And some reported Gore would have been the winner. Others reported that it was still too close to tell, like the Chicago Tribune.

So, no, we don't need to re-fight. There's nothing to fight over. Now on to the fools...

Sortelli...

Anyone who wasn't an asshole would have known I was referring to situations in which there was not a clear electoral victory.

Your insight isn't much better than your communication skills. Are you still in school?

No, and the joke is, I am a professional writer who gets paid handsomely for his work! Pretty funny, huh? And, even better, statistically-speaking has probably has written for some of your favorite shows. Which means when your stupid, fat ass isn't embarrassing itself on commentary threads contributing nothing but noise-to-signal, your stupid, fat ass is probably enjoying my work on the tube and paying my bills.

But, please, I encourage your efforts to find fault with my posts. Your last attempt was meager and pathetic but I'm sure if you keep trying, you'll eventually come up with something worthwhile. Really, keep on plugging. I'm sure you'll amount to something someday.

Oh, and Lee... same to you. One day, I'm sure you will, one day, have something either interesting, humorous or engaging to say one day. Everyone has to start somewhere!

(to the regulars... so is that the kind of give-and-take good-natured "playing" with each other you were talking about?)

One day, I'm sure you will, one day

Behold, the professional writer. Paid handsomely for his work.

If the weight is given in decimal parts of a carat, the figure should be accurate to the last decimal place affordable diamond rings. One type of treatment fracture filling conceals cracks in diamonds by filling them with a foreign substance. If diamond weight is stated as fractional parts of a carat, the retailer should disclose two things that the weight is not exact promis rings tradition, and the reasonable range of weight for each fraction or the weight tolerance being used. Band http://www.natalia-diamonds.com/Diamond-Studs/Diamond-Stud-Earrings_ItemTag_DS-024.aspx

The Producer Price index (PPI) last week showed a bigger-than-expected rise in wholesale prices,famish.com.au but little in the way of so-called core inflation,nbabasketballjersey.com which strips out volatile food and energy prices Bracelet http://www.fast-trax.co.uk/links/Shopping-Jewellery.html

Band, Bracelet, nice to meet you. I couldn't help noticing that you're a cut above the typical troll we normally get around here, so I for one am glad you're here. Welcome aboard, guys.

I don't have a blog but I would support legislation that entitles a site owner to seek recompensation from spammers who spam their site and use the site's owner's bandwidth.

Internet spamming is like a telemarketer calling a person's house collect. The only difference is that the homeowner can refuse the collect call whereas the website owner has no choice except to absorb the cost.

By the way, this was a fun thread.

He said that the direction of oil prices and the developing story regarding Iran will also play a role in trade,edesign4less.net although the earnings news is likely to dominate.weight-loss.worldcelebritypictures.com If the Iran issue fades,juice-plus.healthyfoodsupplements.com stocks can continue to move up in the week ahead,apaynefreewedding.com said Ghriskey Band http://www.dowatches.com/custom.em?pid=384443