Reason # 18,435 to hate Bush

[jakazz]

yeah i agree there are some issues, and granted i'm a staunch republican, but once u give up these rights do u really think they will give them back?

its kinda like communism, well carl marx stated that comm is great and all, but first we need to start with socialism and once we get the whole thing going then we will give up all the power and go over to communism.... well at least thats the way the john birch soc. states the whole fiasco ....

yeah u guys havent heard of them for a while have ya?.... none dare call it conspiracy?

***EDIT*** wow i googled john birch and they are still around, wow i first read none dare back in 78' i figured they were defunct, who knew

[TrailBate]

Yup. People are saying, look, I'm willing to cut the government a little slack here if it allows them to get intel that otherwise might slip through the cracks or might be useless because of a time issue. People are not saying they want to relinquish their entire civil rights package. They are saying that they trust this administration to do the right thing. Meanwhile those that would kill us are not playing by any rules that we would recognize.



Yep, and there are those that realize that just because the government says they're taking your rights in order to "fight terrorism", they may not actually be doing it to fight terrorism. Terrorism is just the excuse being used to take your rights and increase government power.

"sure, we set up armed checkpoints on every street corner, we've got tanks on the streets, we're randomly rounding up people and detaining them for a while in command centers that used to be high schools, but we're fighting terrorism!!!"

[BG]

Their Ani-Brain-iacs,
GWB: "First, I'll get rid of the cats."
He's brainy to the max,
Pinky is still out of whack,
We're Ani-Brainy,
totally insaney,
GWB: "I'm not Megalomaney."
Ani-Brain-iacs!
Those are the facts!

BG

[Mr_Cheeze]

Terrorism is just the excuse being used to take your rights and increase government power.

"sure, we set up armed checkpoints on every street corner, we've got tanks on the streets, we're randomly rounding up people and detaining them for a while in command centers that used to be high schools, but we're fighting terrorism!!!"


This is where you and Slider's argument goes absolutely haywire. It's cynicism gone completely off the deep end. You really believe that our government is the Gestapo? That they're just doing what they want to whom they want for whatever reason they choose? Neither of you have anything substantial to show that they are crossing any of these lines. You want to bash them for the mistakes they've made over Iraq and the typical associations therewith, fine. I could even agree with you on most of it. But this fearmongering over Bush and Cheney turning into Stalin and the NKVD. This is the worse kind of rhetoric coming from the left. The worst. And there is no basis for it other than a seething and palpable hatred for the Republicans and the religious right. Just look at Slider's posts in the other thread about Kennedy. How dare anyone make light of his belief that George Bush is the anti-christ. Dude, take the stick out of your arse and lighten up.

Enough with this idiocy about the implied tyranny of our government. It is nothing less than that. I realzie you'll probably believe that I and those who feel as I do are the naive ones. So be it. I can handle being called crazy by Charles Manson.

[TrailBate]

Terrorism is just the excuse being used to take your rights and increase government power.

"sure, we set up armed checkpoints on every street corner, we've got tanks on the streets, we're randomly rounding up people and detaining them for a while in command centers that used to be high schools, but we're fighting terrorism!!!"


This is where you and Slider's argument goes absolutely haywire. It's cynicism gone completely off the deep end. You really believe that our government is the Gestapo? That they're just doing what they want to whom they want for whatever reason they choose? Neither of you have anything substantial to show that they are crossing any of these lines.


Uh. excuse me? Bush lied to start a war. Tens of thousands are dead because of it. It was not a "mistake." He's locking up people without charges, and without lawyers. We have illegal prisons in foreign countries. He's tapping millions of American's phone lines, and specifically tapping journalists. He repeatedly blocks investigations into any of these charges. There are pictures of American soldiers sticking glow sticks up prisoner's butts. Bush has decided that 700 laws do not apply to him, simply because he says so.

Wake up Cheeze. You gotta stop with this "it can't happen here" mentality. It is happening here, open your eyes.

[Slider]

This is where you and Slider's argument goes absolutely haywire. It's cynicism gone completely off the deep end. You really believe that our government is the Gestapo? That they're just doing what they want to whom they want for whatever reason they choose? Neither of you have anything substantial to show that they are crossing any of these lines.

Nope. This is just the part where head-in-the-sand conservatives who either never read the Constitution or lack the intelligence to understand it, sign off on the elimination of only things that protect us from Fascism.

We, and lots of other Americans, are not condemning "our government." We are very specifically condemning George W Bush. Our Constitution-based government is a work of art. George W Bust is a Fascist, opposed to everything that our government represents.

Our government, to underline things as clearly as possible for you, is not solely the Executive Branch. It is arranged to allow the other two, the Legislative and Judicial Branches, to equally share in the creation and enforcement of law. It is arranged that way, very carefully, so that no single person or group can undermine the democratic representation that is the very soul of our country. We vote, those for whom we vote make law, and those laws are enforced. We the people, the voters, are the ultimate "deciders", to use the Treasonator's inane phrase.

George W Bush has taken specific steps that threaten the elegant balance that makes our government the most effective protector of democracy and, by extension, personal liberty, in the world. Not once, but many, many times. The most recent example occurred last week, when the Office of Professional Responsibility was prevented from examining the NSA telephone record database issue.

There is no secret or classified information at risk here. The investigation was internal to the Department of Justice, under which the OPR falls, and was solely focused on examining the specific players within the DOJ that were involved and what roles they played. Bush denied the security clearance needed for OPR to complete its investigation, citing a threat to national security.

Now Bush claims the database and other surveillance activities of the NSA are legal. So why is he preventing the rest of the government from reviewing them? For one simple reason: They are not legal, and he is undermining the Constitution, and the interaction of the three branches of government, to prevent disclosure of that fact. Remember, just so you don’t trot out that tired national security argument, the investigation had nothing to do with secrets, only government procedures.

The Treasonator continues to use the same argument to thwart just about every attempt to examine his multiple crimes. His self-made war on terrorism has become a very convenient excuse to allow him and his co-conspirators to do just anything they want. What they want to do most, it seems, is attack the Bill of Rights. In itself, that gives him even more power, since he can now target anyone that opposes him, in the name of national security, and the rest of us are powerless to investigate and stop the abuse.

We need to reassert the balance of the three branches, for the protection of us all. Now.



Just look at Slider's posts in the other thread about Kennedy. How dare anyone make light of his belief that George Bush is the anti-christ. Dude, take the stick out of your arse and lighten up.



Here’s some classic Cheeze misdirection. He has no argument, so he tries to point elsewhere to hide that fact. Cheeze, since you clearly do not understand anything about how our government works, other than the kind of idiotic generalities Fox pushes, you really should hide your ignorance and avoid posting about it.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

First off, I don't watch Fox News... ever. So that puts the kaibosh on that tired assumption.

Secondly, it's not hard to notice that both you and Trailbait still seem unable to show anything substantial as to how and why this administration has turned into Fascist dictators. Oh, sure, you continually point to questions regarding all of the recent scandalous and questionable practices, vis-a-vis wiretapping and phone records, etc. But it's the extra leap you both take that all of this somehow proves that Bush and Cheney are evil distators intent upon manipulating government and the constitution for their own grandiose purpose, which, according to you guys, is more power and more wealth. It is all a great, great leap you do take, however.

But hey, maybe I can speak for the others when I show my appreciation to your well meaning, albeit condescending, attempt at educating all of us on your Constitutional and governmental expertise. Because we're all just too stupid to see things clearly, what with Bill O'Reilley and Fox News having such an overwhelming influence upon everyone who disagrees with your chicken little mentalitiy. Maybe I should just give in and buy the stupid No Spin welcome mat so all of my neighbors can see what a mindless schlub I really am.

Maybe you should just let us all know when they start dragging away your family and/or friends to the soon to be built labor camps. Then maybe I'll begin to see the light. Probably not, though. I'm too busy being blissfully ignorant of all of the crimes against America being perpetrated by our government.

[TrailBate]

First off, I don't watch Fox News... ever. So that puts the kaibosh on that tired assumption.

Secondly, it's not hard to notice that both you and Trailbait still seem unable to show anything substantial as to how and why this administration has turned into Fascist dictators. Oh, sure, you continually point to questions regarding all of the recent scandalous and questionable practices, vis-a-vis wiretapping and phone records, etc. But it's the extra leap you both take that all of this somehow proves that Bush and Cheney are evil distators intent upon manipulating government and the constitution for their own grandiose purpose, which, according to you guys, is more power and more wealth. It is all a great, great leap you do take, however.

But hey, maybe I can speak for the others when I show my appreciation to your well meaning, albeit condescending, attempt at educating all of us on your Constitutional and governmental expertise. Because we're all just too stupid to see things clearly, what with Bill O'Reilley and Fox News having such an overwhelming influence upon everyone who disagrees with your chicken little mentalitiy. Maybe I should just give in and buy the stupid No Spin welcome mat so all of my neighbors can see what a mindless schlub I really am.

Maybe you should just let us all know when they start dragging away your family and/or friends to the soon to be built labor camps. Then maybe I'll begin to see the light. Probably not, though. I'm too busy being blissfully ignorant of all of the crimes against America being perpetrated by our government.


C'mon Cheeze. Why did Cheney have a secret meeting with the oil companies back in 2001? Why did he go on his little fishing trip with his favorite SCJ, who shortly thereafter helped rule in Cheney's favor to keep the meeting secret? For YOUR benefit? To fight terrorism? There are SO many things this administration is being accused of, and openly admitting, and blocking investigations of. It goes WAY beyond a blowjob and a real estate deal.

Do you really think Bush is doing all these things, and blocking investigations, to protect YOU? Give me a break.

Maybe you SHOULD watch some Fox news. It may scare you.

[Slider]

Secondly, it's not hard to notice that both you and Trailbait still seem unable to show anything substantial as to how and why this administration has turned into Fascist dictators.

Blah blah bla snipped.

You are really underlining how deeply you don't get it. It matters not at all what the Scumbag is doing with the power he is amassing. It is de facto Fascism, since the other branches of government are prevented from performing their roles as defined in the Constitution, and the Executive Branch is now completely unchecked.

There's lots more going on that really is bad for us all, but the process itself has been corrupted, and that is by far the most serious threat, both now and in the long term.

Slider

[kernel crash]

" C'mon Cheeze. Why did Cheney have a secret meeting with the oil companies back in 2001? "

Well it doesn't sound like such a secret after all if your all over it. You think Cheney is the only guy ever to have a "secret" meeting with the oil companies? But it does give you more amunition to support all your conspiricies theories.

"It goes WAY beyond a blowjob and a real estate deal."

And why is it that YOU are the one that continually brings up the BJ? You can't go a week without dragging that out.

"Maybe you SHOULD watch some Fox news. It may scare you. "

Can it be scarrier than listening to your posts?

[kernel crash]

"There are pictures of American soldiers sticking glow sticks up prisoner's butts."

I haven't seen those pictures, has anybody else seen them? Anyways, if it shines any light on terrorist activities, and saves American lives, I don't have a big problem with it. Now if we can find a glowstick big enough to stick up Vincente Fox arse.

[Slider]

You don't have a problem with it for the same reason that Cheeze doesn't have a problem with the gutting of the Constitution: Because you can't see past some infantile sense of short term goals.

But, in the case of torture, it goes past that. The word is sadism. It is a clinical disease. You get a thrill and manage to convince yourself that it is in some way productive, because otherwise you'd have to face the fact that you are simply an overgrown bully with no effing clue as to the meaning of morality or even effective policy.

Go back to pulling the wings off flies, which won't be such a barrier to effective foreign policy.

Slider

[kernel crash]

I've never pulled the wings off of a fly frankly. Always found flys to be kind of gross. I did shoot a sparrow through the eye on a rooftop as a kid with a bee bee gun. I briefly felt good about my aim, then I felt real bad about the sparrow. Never did it again. Never was much of a bully either. I usually was on the receiving end of that stuff. That comes with the territory growing up in a housing projects with no older brothers. There's a pecking order out there. I wonder how an intellegence agency run under Sliders quidelines would function. I guess Jack Baurer would not be working for Slider.

[Slider]

Let's let TV script writers set military policy. The can't do any worse than Bush and Rummy, who seem only to come up with complete flops.

Slider

[BG]

Or we could just outsource it.

BG

[TrailBate]

"There are pictures of American soldiers sticking glow sticks up prisoner's butts."

I haven't seen those pictures, has anybody else seen them? Anyways, if it shines any light on terrorist activities, and saves American lives, I don't have a big problem with it. Now if we can find a glowstick big enough to stick up Vincente Fox arse.



I've posted that link a few times. Bush-bots have a tendency to ignore and forget those kinds of things.

[TrailBate]

" C'mon Cheeze. Why did Cheney have a secret meeting with the oil companies back in 2001? "

Well it doesn't sound like such a secret after all if your all over it. You think Cheney is the only guy ever to have a "secret" meeting with the oil companies? But it does give you more amunition to support all your conspiricies theories.

"It goes WAY beyond a blowjob and a real estate deal."

And why is it that YOU are the one that continually brings up the BJ? You can't go a week without dragging that out.

"Maybe you SHOULD watch some Fox news. It may scare you. "

Can it be scarrier than listening to your posts?





it's no secret the meeting happened. Cheney/government were sued over releasing the contents of that meeting. Cheney then went fishing with a SCJ. SCJ ruled in Cheney's favor. sound ok to you?

btw, did you actually have any kind of argument to make here?

[Mr_Cheeze]

I seem to remember a little something call the Whitewater scandal that mysteriously ended in a certain Democrat President's favor. Oh, but he wasn't taking liberties with his power. Only the Republicans do that.

[TrailBate]

I seem to remember a little something call the Whitewater scandal that mysteriously ended in a certain Democrat President's favor. Oh, but he wasn't taking liberties with his power. Only the Republicans do that.


Yes, I remember quite a few scandals about Clinton. I remember millions upon millions of dollars being spent on these investigations. Whitewater was investigated more than once. All eventually ended with nothing against Clinton.

What relevance does any of this have here, though? It's a pretty pathetic grasp at straws to keep going back to Clinton to try to defend Bush.

[Mr_Cheeze]

It's about as relevant as saying that Bush and Cheney are abusing their power to make money. It might be true but it has nothing to do with the domestic spying issue.

[Slider]

It's about as relevant as saying that Bush and Cheney are abusing their power to make money. It might be true but it has nothing to do with the domestic spying issue.


You really think so? He can track any conversations he wants. No oversight. D'ya think, maybe, that there's some pretty useful business info that might be garnered that way? With no oversight, what would prevent such abuse?

Oversight. Oversight. Oversight. Try it as a mantra. Maybe then you will see the EFFING OBVIOUS PROBLEM.

Slider

[TrailBate]

It's about as relevant as saying that Bush and Cheney are abusing their power to make money. It might be true but it has nothing to do with the domestic spying issue.


Right. They're fighting terrorism. i forgot. You must be pretty shocked to learn that most Americans are involved with Al Qaida, huh?

And domestic spying has nothing to do with abuse of power? what? ???

[kernel crash]

"You must be pretty shocked to learn that most Americans are involved with Al Qaida, huh?"

I think you would be pretty shocked to realize most Americans don't support your interpretation of this particular event.

"Yes, I remember quite a few scandals about Clinton."

By the way, were you outraged when Sandy Burger stole files from the National Archives. Oh he's just a silly old man was the mantra from the Democrats. Absent minded. Ha Ha. Perfectly harmless. What about the files from the Rose Law firm that went missing for many months only just to reappear on the coffee table at the white house. Oh those sloppy housekeepers. Poor Hillary. Cant get good help these days. Oh I know what your gonna say. But this is way more serious. Is it? Or is it way more reported?

[Slider]

Let's say Clinton sucked. Sandy Burger, too. Say what you want about Hillary, since you will anyway.

But Clinton was impeached, remember? The Senate got its chance to nail him for anything it wanted, and it chose a blow job. But, when it came time to vote, they didn't have the balls to defy the American people, who overwhelming said he was doing a great job (67% approval rating) and let him continue.

Time for more of the same, but this time over issues relating to the Constitution, the document the most defines who we are as Americans. And you'll have to turn that 67% upside down to gauge public opinion on Bush.

It ought to be real fun to watch. First, vote Democrat so we get the chance, OK?

Slider

[kernel crash]

I vote for the man, or woman, not whether its a Democrat or Republican. But I do want a new look.

[TrailBate]

"You must be pretty shocked to learn that most Americans are involved with Al Qaida, huh?"

I think you would be pretty shocked to realize most Americans don't support your interpretation of this particular event.

yeah? depends on which poll you cite.
My interpretation is that the gov'mnt is being accused of spying on you and me, and an investigation was blocked. What's your interpretation?

"Yes, I remember quite a few scandals about Clinton."

By the way, were you outraged when Sandy Burger stole files from the National Archives. Oh he's just a silly old man was the mantra from the Democrats. Absent minded. Ha Ha. Perfectly harmless. What about the files from the Rose Law firm that went missing for many months only just to reappear on the coffee table at the white house. Oh those sloppy housekeepers. Poor Hillary. Cant get good help these days. Oh I know what your gonna say. But this is way more serious. Is it? Or is it way more reported?



Was it investigated? verdicts reached? Did Bill or Hillary go on a fishing trip with a judge?

and yes, this is way more serious. Civil rights, constitution, life and death, compared to some files. If the Clintons' were guilty, they should have been punished as such.

[Slider]

I vote for the man, or woman, not whether its a Democrat or Republican. But I do want a new look.


The problem is that we won't get a new look with go-along-to-get-along Republicans running both houses. Part of the reason Bush is so brazen in his disregard for law is that he isn't worried about any fallout whatsoever. The only hope to change the situation is via a large swing on both houses. It'll take as many Dems as possible, starting with the one most local to each of us.

I'll even vote Liberman in the primary because I wouldn't want to risk loss of that seat, and I disagree with him on most things.

Slider

[TrailBate]

Leiberman is as much of a Republican as any admitted Republican. You won't get help from him impeaching Bush.

[Slider]

Except that he'd have to follow the party line on something so important as an impeachment trial if he expects to wield any influence at all. A Republican would too, so the choice is clear.

Slider

[BG]

I won't vote at all next time. Judging by the last half decade, maybe better off just to play the game of chance.
The lesser of two evils just dosen't seem to be working out to well. Can't find any candidates competent or intelligent enough to play this game anymore. Who the hell would want to be President of this mess anyway? Oh yeh, lunutics.

BG

[kernel crash]

"My interpretation is that the gov'mnt is being accused of spying on you and me, and an investigation was blocked. What's your interpretation?"

Well seeing how you asked, my interpretation is that the phone numbers were being stored in a huge data base. If a terrorist was grabbed, they could go back and see who he called in the last few months. You don't really believe that the government is sitting there listening in every time you make a phone calls do you? And you do realize that the phone company already has all that information anyways. The government could get a court order and get those records anytime they want.

[kernel crash]

"It'll take as many Dems as possible, starting with the one most local to each of us."

Oh that will fix everything. Lets elect Dems across the board ::)

[BG]

" The government could get a court order and get those records anytime they want."


Oh for christsakes, you had to say "court order".
You know where this will lead.

BG

[kernel crash]

Ya I know. I thought of that as I was writing it but my point is the info is already there and can be used one way or the other.

[kernel crash]

Be careful what you wish for...

"On the bright side, if President Bush's amnesty proposal for illegal immigrants ends up hurting Republicans and we lose Congress this November, maybe the Democrats will impeach him and we'll get Dick Cheney as President."

Ann Coulter

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=14948&o=ANN001

[FriedRys]

Be careful what you wish for...

"On the bright side, if President Bush's amnesty proposal for illegal immigrants ends up hurting Republicans and we lose Congress this November, maybe the Democrats will impeach him and we'll get Dick Cheney as President."

Ann Coulter

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=14948&o=ANN001



See, you just don't get it, they are going to impeach the ENTIRE Republican party, from Bush on down the newest member of your local Young Republican club. It's the only way to purge the taint of corruption that has enveloped the country. ;D

[Slider]

Cheney's hands are at least as dirty as Bush's. Ought to be a fun winter.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

lol

Yea, ought to be as fun as last winter when you guys were greedily wringing your hands over the prospects of Carl Rove and Tom Delay getting indited. You were so sure that they were going down. SO SURE! Well what happened? And what makes you believe that with a Republican controlled House that things will be any different this winter?

Man, you guys are so hungry for Republican blood. Maybe you ought to wear a bib. That drool is unbecoming.

[TrailBate]

lol

Yea, ought to be as fun as last winter when you guys were greedily wringing your hands over the prospects of Carl Rove and Tom Delay getting indited. You were so sure that they were going down. SO SURE! Well what happened? And what makes you believe that with a Republican controlled House that things will be any different this winter?

Man, you guys are so hungry for Republican blood. Maybe you ought to wear a bib. That drool is unbecoming.


News Flash: Tom Delay DID get indicted. So did "scooter" and Abramoff.

So I guess we hate Republicans "just because"? Nope. i hate them because they are lying, murdering, treasonous criminals.

[kernel crash]

Indicted doesn't mean guilty. Let the courts decide. As far as lying, murdering, you sound like your describing Ted Kennedy.

[Slider]

Well, some of them anyway. ::) I do see the fun in baiting the perpetually wrong, though, Trailbait.

But we'll both have to talk again after the November elections. Gotta think those plummeting poll numbers mean something.

Slider

[kernel crash]

"Gotta think those plummeting poll numbers mean something."

Sure, it means we have a doofus for a Pres'dent. Somebody who doesn't posses an original thought. Somebody that is constantly in the react mode, trying to put out fires after they have all ready burned themselves out. Somebody who thinks he'll get the base back with his weak Mexican border initiative. Somebody who allows his loyalty to cabinet members get in the way of sound policy for the rest of us. Yup those poll numbers do mean sum'tin.

[TrailBate]

Well, some of them anyway. ::) I do see the fun in baiting the perpetually wrong, though, Trailbait.

But we'll both have to talk again after the November elections. Gotta think those plummeting poll numbers mean something.

Slider


yep, it means more Diebold machines, more phone jamming, more "would you still vote for candidate x if you found out he raped a black woman who gave birth to an illegitimate child, and more "make sure you get out and vote wednesday"(even though the election is actually Tuesday), and more "you can't vote if you have outstanding parking tickets."

[Mr_Cheeze]

News Flash: Tom Delay DID get indicted. So did "scooter" and Abramoff.

So I guess we hate Republicans "just because"? Nope. i hate them because they are lying, murdering, treasonous criminals.


lol

That's like saying, I don't hate the Jews "just because." I hate them because they are money grubbing Christ killers.

Boy, I love it when the bias shines forth right through all of that transparent exterior.

On the former point, I think you knew what I meant. Those guys, and others, have been on the liberals' career-death list for some time. I'm guessing you aren't satisfied that Delay only lost his position in the House. Rove is still doing his thing. You think Bush and Cheney are next? Wishful thinking. But you know that too.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Well, some of them anyway. ::) I do see the fun in baiting the perpetually wrong, though, Trailbait.

But we'll both have to talk again after the November elections. Gotta think those plummeting poll numbers mean something.

Slider


yep, it means more Diebold machines, more phone jamming, more "would you still vote for candidate x if you found out he raped a black woman who gave birth to an illegitimate child, and more "make sure you get out and vote wednesday"(even though the election is actually Tuesday), and more "you can't vote if you have outstanding parking tickets."


::)

And let's not forget the old stuffing of the ballot boxes with votes from dead people, illegal aliens, and other Democrat "constituents".

Oh, and the usual attempts to block absentee ballots of service men and women.

[kernel crash]

"and more "make sure you get out and vote wednesday"(even though the election is actually Tuesday),"

Wow, that's really lame. I mean if somebody doesn't know what day we vote, I DON'T WANT THEM VOTING PERIOD

[TrailBate]

That's like saying, I don't hate the Jews "just because." I hate them because they are money grubbing Christ killers.

Boy, I love it when the bias shines forth right through all of that transparent exterior.




wow.

Just the fact that you can simply call it "bias", after everything Bush has done, is simply moronic. Don't forget that I also hate the troops and Christians.

[TrailBate]

Here's another biased God hating Bush basher.....who is also a Republican radio personality...

http://www.kabc.com/mcintyre/listingsEntry.asp?ID=432586&PT=McIntyre+in+the+Mor ning

ugh, he is so blinded by his own bias!

[kernel crash]

Now that's a well written piece. Factual. Not full of the heavy partisan spew you get here. And notice he didn't let the Dems off the hook either.

"The Democrats are equally bankrupt. This is the second crime of our age. Again, historically speaking, its times like these when America needs a vibrant opposition to check the power of a run-amuck majority party. It requires it. It doesn’t work without one. Like the high and low tides keep the oceans alive, a healthy, positive opposition offers a path back to the center where all healthy societies live.

Tragically, the Democrats have allowed crackpots, leftists and demagogic cowards to snipe from the sidelines while taking no responsibility for anything. In fairness, I don’t believe a Democrat president would have gone into Iraq. Unfortunately, I don’t know if President Gore would have gone into Afghanistan. And that’s one of the many problems with the Democrats.

Both parties have mastered the cynical arts of media manipulation and fund raising. They’ve learned the lessons of Watergate and burn the tapes. They have learned to divide the nation for their own gain. They have demonstrated the willingness to exploit any tragedy for personal advantage. The contempt they have for the American people is without parallel."

[off piste]

Now that's a well written piece. Factual. Not full of the heavy partisan spew you get here. And notice he didn't let the Dems off the hook either.

"The Democrats are equally bankrupt. This is the second crime of our age. Again, historically speaking, its times like these when America needs a vibrant opposition to check the power of a run-amuck majority party. It requires it. It doesn’t work without one. Like the high and low tides keep the oceans alive, a healthy, positive opposition offers a path back to the center where all healthy societies live.

Tragically, the Democrats have allowed crackpots, leftists and demagogic cowards to snipe from the sidelines while taking no responsibility for anything. In fairness, I don’t believe a Democrat president would have gone into Iraq. Unfortunately, I don’t know if President Gore would have gone into Afghanistan. And that’s one of the many problems with the Democrats.

Both parties have mastered the cynical arts of media manipulation and fund raising. They’ve learned the lessons of Watergate and burn the tapes. They have learned to divide the nation for their own gain. They have demonstrated the willingness to exploit any tragedy for personal advantage. The contempt they have for the American people is without parallel."



http://forum.gamestar.de/gspinboard/images/smilies/muhaha.gif

I'm beginning to think that I may actually see the end of the Republican and Democratic parties in my lifetime. One more Democratic administration ought to do it, after the laughing stock we now have in office destroys his party. The only question is if America can survive the endgame of the total mess the two parties has progressivly made over the last 50 or so years.

[BG]

" The only question is if America can survive the endgame of the total mess the two parties has progressivly made over the last 50 or so years."


BINGO. Right now my opinion poll on survival stands at about 35% +0 -5 pts. Presently i see no "leaders" on the horizon who would change this, only more "lesser of two evils" who will undoubtedly continue on with the American Tradition of mediocrity in politics at all levels.

BG

[TrailBate]

Tragically, the Democrats have allowed crackpots, leftists and demagogic cowards to snipe from the sidelines while taking no responsibility for anything. In fairness, I don’t believe a Democrat president would have gone into Iraq. Unfortunately, I don’t know if President Gore would have gone into Afghanistan. And that’s one of the many problems with the Democrats.




You won't find too many democrats that disagree with the invasion of Afghanistan. But Republicans don't want you to know that.

But I won't disagree that both parties have serious ethical problems. But I'll take Clinton's administration over Bush's any day.

[Mr_Cheeze]

wow.

Just the fact that you can simply call it "bias", after everything Bush has done, is simply moronic. Don't forget
that I also hate the troops and Christians.


I think that sometimes you don't even pay attention to the things you write yourself. Let me show you your own statement and you tell me if it is generalizing, if you meant to specify Bush and Co., or whether you really do believe what yopu wrote:

So I guess we hate Republicans "just because"? Nope. i hate them because they are lying, murdering, treasonous criminals.

[TrailBate]

wow.

Just the fact that you can simply call it "bias", after everything Bush has done, is simply moronic. Don't forget
that I also hate the troops and Christians.


I think that sometimes you don't even pay attention to the things you write yourself. Let me show you your own statement and you tell me if it is generalizing, if you meant to specify Bush and Co., or whether you really do believe what yopu wrote:

So I guess we hate Republicans "just because"? Nope. i hate them because they are lying, murdering, treasonous criminals.





yeah, and I've given example upon example upon example, of which you seem to ignore.

[Mr_Cheeze]

So you believe ALL republicans lie, murder and commit treason? Well, then I guess you win. :-\

[Slider]

So you believe ALL republicans lie, murder and commit treason? Well, then I guess you win. :-\

Cheeze,

He only wins because you took the bait. It is like all that irrelevant Clinton stuff you dredge up, just a little more incindiary.

Burn, baby, burn!

Slider

[BG]

Gee, it all sounds so familiar.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

BG

[Mr_Cheeze]

So you believe ALL republicans lie, murder and commit treason? Well, then I guess you win. :-\

Cheeze,

He only wins because you took the bait. It is like all that irrelevant Clinton stuff you dredge up, just a little more incindiary.

Burn, baby, burn!

Slider


The way I see it is he fell into his own trap. Sorry charlie

[Mr_Cheeze]

Gee, it all sounds so familiar.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

BG


Yea, but none of those air attacks killed innocent civilians... right?

[Slider]

At least Clinton was smart enough to know that an invasion was a very bad idea.

Slider

[BG]

"Yea, but none of those air attacks killed innocent civilians... right?"

Right....it was all just a bluff....right

BG

[BG]

At least Clinton was smart enough to know that an invasion was a very bad idea.

Slider



Of course, you need to start a war first.

BG

[TrailBate]

And what happened after Clinton's airstrike?

UN inspections continued, and Saddam never obtained or made any WMD's, and no Americans were killed.

[kernel crash]

"At least Clinton was smart enough to know that an invasion was a very bad idea.

Slider"

Really. Now you pretend to know what was on Clinton's mind. Actually this was classic Clinton. Take a safe shot from a distance. Good for PR but not for long term results.

[Slider]

Now you are being simply silly. You think the invasion is bringing some "long term results" ? I guess you prefer the thousands of American deaths, for no reason whatsoever.

And we're in a far worse position than before the war, militarily, economically, and in any area of international relations that you can mention.

You seem afraid that proper restraint might be mistaken for a lack of balls, and that somehow is a bad thing. Testosterone over reason is what got us into this mess in the first place.

Slider

[kernel crash]

That's an easy statement to make in hindsight. After the initial fall of Bagdad most were in agreement that things were going pretty well. It's at that point that the decisions and direction taken, led us to where we are now.

What if we had the proper troop strength to secure areas after clearing them out. What if the Iraqi army was left 75% intact to help secure order. What if the outside agitators were not allowed to cross the borders as easily as they did. What if we had gotten the mullahs on board before the invasion. My point is that it's not impossible to see how this could have had a different turnout. This did not have to go this badly.

[TrailBate]

That's an easy statement to make in hindsight. After the initial fall of Bagdad most were in agreement that things were going pretty well. It's at that point that the decisions and direction taken, led us to where we are now.

What if we had the proper troop strength to secure areas after clearing them out. What if the Iraqi army was left 75% intact to help secure order. What if the outside agitators were not allowed to cross the borders as easily as they did. What if we had gotten the mullahs on board before the invasion. My point is that it's not impossible to see how this could have had a different turnout. This did not have to go this badly.


Quite true. But that does not negate the fact that all the reasons given for the initial invasion were complete lies. Oh, sorry, Cheeze: "mistakes."

[Slider]

That's an easy statement to make in hindsight. After the initial fall of Bagdad most were in agreement that things were going pretty well. It's at that point that the decisions and direction taken, led us to where we are now.

What if we had the proper troop strength to secure areas after clearing them out. What if the Iraqi army was left 75% intact to help secure order. What if the outside agitators were not allowed to cross the borders as easily as they did. What if we had gotten the mullahs on board before the invasion. My point is that it's not impossible to see how this could have had a different turnout. This did not have to go this badly.


And you're criticising my hindsight?

Regardless of any military gains, of which there are and were none, we should never have entered Iraq. Saddam in power would mean that there would be no lightning rod for anti-Americanism there, which is our biggest loss, one that will haunt us for decades.

Slider

[off piste]

<SNIP>

Saddam in power would mean that there would be no lightning rod for anti-Americanism there, which is our biggest loss, one that will haunt us for decades.

Slider


If we even make it that far. Don't forget -- this whole thing is bigger than even politics. This is about war between the cause of pretty much all the problems of this civilization -- all of the religions which were born out of the middle east, each one of which now has a fanatical leader in a position to drop a match in the basement full of gasoline we're all standing in, for no other reason than that their particular book is the RIGHT one!

[Slider]

Diplomacy is more powerful than you suspect. We can all get along, if we honor the centuries of tradition in international relations that show a way. Respect for sovereignty is number one on the list, and truly exhausting non-military means before starting a war is number two. There just no room for imperialism any more.

But the intensity of the Muslim/non Muslim conflict right now owes a lot to the Iraq invasion. We could have at least bought more time before it developed so explosively if we had worked with the many Muslim nations that preferred Saddam out, and let them take the lead.

Slider

[kernel crash]

"We can all get along, if we honor the centuries of tradition in international relations that show a way."

What are you on Crack! That has never happened in the whole entire history of the known world. You've got to be kidding me ::)

[Slider]

Diplomacy has saved the world's collective bacon many, many times. By nature, it's role is kept very quiet. Remember the Cuban Missle crisis? Detente? And, you'll be surprised that I mention the end of the Irani hostage crisis. Illegal things were involved there, but it was clearly diplomatic in nature.

If it played a role to more often, we'd all be better off.

Slider

[kernel crash]

I guess your right. Diplomacy worked real well restraining Hitler, Stalin, Musollini, Gengis Khan...

[Mr_Cheeze]

Quite true. But that does not negate the fact that all the reasons given for the initial invasion were complete lies. Oh, sorry, Cheeze: "mistakes."


Actually, I agree with you. I'm not sure why you keep making the mistake of assuming I am a Bush rumpswab. I've only stated otherwise a couple of dozen times over the last few years. But, yes, I agree with you and Slider on this point. The Iraq war was obviously a result of a combination of deception, bravado, and arrogance. We had the technology to take out terrorist training camps without invading. The Bush supporters cannot use that as a defense. I highly doubt diplomacy could ever work with a people who are brainwashed into extreme religious furvor. Osama Bin Laden and his suicidal army are a different entity than a sovereign ruler, who can usually be manipulated without severe military action.

[GeepNutt]

This is almost as painful as following this thread lately:

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=local&id=4183089

:o

[off piste]

This is almost as painful as following this thread lately:

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=local&id=4183089

:o


This is much, much, much worse:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFfhxVmdXZ4&search=Mind%20Body%20%26%20Kic kass%20Moves

[Slider]

I guess your right. Diplomacy worked real well restraining Hitler, Stalin, Musollini, Gengis Khan...


Tell me exactly when it was tried in any of those cases.

Hitler was generally left alone as he built his war machine. In fact, he was encouraged in some places. No one confronted Stalin at all from outside Russia. Mussolini simply sucked up to Hitler and was not a threat beyond Italy's borders. Ghengis Khan lived long before any of the protocols we're talking about came about.

But I never said there were not time that made military confrontation unavoidable. I specifically said we simply have to exhaust non-military means first, and that was not done in Iraq.

But we're really talking about Muslim/non-Muslim relations. That covers a wide swath of countries. The relationship with each one is a component. There is no country like, say prewar Germany, where a pre-emptive military strike would be of any use whatsoever when the goal is something so nebulous as changing the relationship between cultures. In other words, there's no easy fix, but only years of very tiny steps toward a peaceful co-existence.

Slider

[GeepNutt]

How can you have diplomatic discussions with people who have no regard for their own lives let alone the lives of other innocent civilians and children?

[Slider]

I don't think you really believe what you posted. It is knee-jerk, and the kind of reasoning that got us where we are.

Who are you talking about? Which Musilms, where?

Slider

[kernel crash]

"Who are you talking about? Which Musilms, where? "

I think he's talking about Shites / Sunnis (muslims) blowing up Sunni / Shites (muslim) men, women and children in the marketplace, on the side of the roads, or just pulling them out of their houses to be executed.

[Slider]

So some Shiites hate some Sunnis, and vice versa. How does that affect the discussion about diplomacy verses war? We wipe them both out? Or just some? Which ones? Maybe we don't step in at all?

There is no military-based answer.

Slider

[kernel crash]

Then why have a military?

[BG]

The better to torture you with my dear.

BG

[Slider]

Then why have a military?


To defend our country.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

I don't think you really believe what you posted. It is knee-jerk, and the kind of reasoning that got us where we are.

Who are you talking about? Which Musilms, where?

Slider


There in lies the problem, and perfectly frames why we must profile against Muslim Arabs entering this country. Until the "good" Muslims are willing to show on more than an exceptionally small scale that they oppose the extremists who make them all look bad, I see no other choice. To this point, we have yet to see any real, concerted, international effort by worldwise Muslims to stem the tide of extremism. Diplomacy cannot work until that first step is taken. The Islamic leaders who have been willing to denounce the violence have been way too few and far between. How can we afford to keep our borders unconditionally open to these peoples?

[TrailBate]

I don't think you really believe what you posted. It is knee-jerk, and the kind of reasoning that got us where we are.

Who are you talking about? Which Musilms, where?

Slider


There in lies the problem, and perfectly frames why we must profile against Muslim Arabs entering this country. Until the "good" Muslims are willing to show on more than an exceptionally small scale that they oppose the extremists who make them all look bad, I see no other choice. To this point, we have yet to see any real, concerted, international effort by worldwise Muslims to stem the tide of extremism. Diplomacy cannot work until that first step is taken. The Islamic leaders who have been willing to denounce the violence have been way too few and far between. How can we afford to keep our borders unconditionally open to these peoples?


Yeah, let's see the Christians do this first.

[TrailBate]

May 21) - The $69 billion tax cut bill that President Bush signed this week tripled tax rates for teenagers with college savings funds, despite Mr. Bush's 1999 pledge to veto any tax increase.

Under the new law, teenagers age 14 to 17 with investment income will now be taxed at the same rate as their parents, not at their own rates. Long-term capital gains and dividends that had been taxed at 5 percent will now be taxed at 15 percent. Interest that had been taxed at 10 percent will now be taxed at as much as 35 percent.
The increases, which are retroactive to the first day of the year, are expected to generate nearly $2.2 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, which issues the official estimates.

Over all, the tax bill that Mr. Bush signed Wednesday reduces taxes by $69 billion.

Mr. Bush pledged in 1999 to veto any bill that raised taxes. In response to a question about the tax increase on teenagers in the new legislation, the White House issued a statement Friday that made no reference to the tax increase, but recounted the tax cuts the administration has sponsored and stated that President Bush had "reduced taxes on all people who pay income taxes."

Challenged on that point, the White House modified its statement 21 minutes later to say that Mr. Bush had "reduced taxes on virtually all people who pay income taxes."

[catbbq]

I don't get your point. Everything in your post says taxes were raised, but there is a comment that taxes are lowered $69B. Were taxes raised or lowered? How did your reps vote? And which do you want, higher or lower taxes?

[TrailBate]

I don't get your point. Everything in your post says taxes were raised, but there is a comment that taxes are lowered $69B. Were taxes raised or lowered? How did your reps vote? And which do you want, higher or lower taxes?




You just don't get it. If you make a million a year, you got a tax cut of $42,000. If you make $40,000 a year, your tax cut is $70.
If your a college-bound kid trying to save for an education, your taxes tripled.

[catbbq]

I don't get your point. Everything in your post says taxes were raised, but there is a comment that taxes are lowered $69B. Were taxes raised or lowered? How did your reps vote? And which do you want, higher or lower taxes?




You just don't get it. If you make a million a year, you got a tax cut of $42,000. If you make $40,000 a year, your tax cut is $70.
If your a college-bound kid trying to save for an education, your taxes tripled.


You just don't read. Go back and try again.

[TrailBate]

You just don't read. Go back and try again.


If you cannot make the difference between where taxes were raised and where they were lowered in this article, Your reading comprehension skills are lacking.

[catbbq]

You just don't read. Go back and try again.


If you cannot make the difference between where taxes were raised and where they were lowered in this article, Your reading comprehension skills are lacking.


Are we even discussing the same thing? Unlike usual, you didn't post the entire article and you didn't give a reference, so it seems your making up the "If you make a million a year, you got a tax cut of $42,000. If you make $40,000 a year, your tax cut is $70."

As for a college kid's taxes getting tripled, only if their entire income is from capital gains and dividends. The only kids I know like that have trust funds and aren't worried about paying for college.

So again, are you for higher or lower taxes? And how did your congressmen vote?

[Mr_Cheeze]

May 21) - The $69 billion tax cut bill that President Bush signed this week tripled tax rates for teenagers with college savings funds, despite Mr. Bush's 1999 pledge to veto any tax increase.

Under the new law, teenagers age 14 to 17 with investment income will now be taxed at the same rate as their parents, not at their own rates. Long-term capital gains and dividends that had been taxed at 5 percent will now be taxed at 15 percent. Interest that had been taxed at 10 percent will now be taxed at as much as 35 percent.
The increases, which are retroactive to the first day of the year, are expected to generate nearly $2.2 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, which issues the official estimates.

Over all, the tax bill that Mr. Bush signed Wednesday reduces taxes by $69 billion.

Mr. Bush pledged in 1999 to veto any bill that raised taxes. In response to a question about the tax increase on teenagers in the new legislation, the White House issued a statement Friday that made no reference to the tax increase, but recounted the tax cuts the administration has sponsored and stated that President Bush had "reduced taxes on all people who pay income taxes."

Challenged on that point, the White House modified its statement 21 minutes later to say that Mr. Bush had "reduced taxes on virtually all people who pay income taxes."



You need to cite this reference please.

[TrailBate]

You need to cite this reference please.


no, you need to learn how to do a search, tough guy.

try "The $69 billion tax cut bill that President Bush signed this week tripled tax rates for teenagers "

[Mr_Cheeze]

How friggin hard is it to cite a reference or include a link? Must be from a lefty source. Let me guess. New York Times? Huffington Post?

[TrailBate]

How friggin hard is it to cite a reference or include a link? Must be from a lefty source. Let me guess. New York Times? Huffington Post?


uh, how hard is it to do a search? You'll get many hits. Pick whichever source you like.

[Mr_Cheeze]

That's not the point. You quote an article, it's just common courtesy to cite the reference. Otherwise it's plaigarism.

[BG]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196237,00.html

Copy and paste the entire string.


BG

[TrailBate]

That's not the point. You quote an article, it's just common courtesy to cite the reference. Otherwise it's plaigarism.


the point is you expected me to cite some far left website, instead of doing your own research to find out it's a true article.
wah.

[TrailBate]

New England Rocked by Plagiarism Scandal

New England residents awoke this morning to the stunning news that a member of the NEMBA message board allegedly plagiarized an article posted on the website.

“I’m stunned,” said frequent poster, Mr. Cheeze. “I read these message boards for accurate news and opinion. When somebody posts something that is not their own, without giving proper credit to their source, it just undermines everything I believe in about message boards. I mean, if I cannot trust a thread titled, 'Reasons to Hate Bush' in the 'Politics and Rants' section of a mountain biking message board, who can I trust?”

The scandal began when a board member, known as Trailbait, apparently cut and pasted an article from another source, onto the message board, without making it clear that it was not his own work, and stating where it came from.

Another frequent poster, Kernel, had this to say, “We hold ourselves to the highest level of integrity on this board. If you can’t trust the facts that people communicate on this board, what can you trust? Next thing you know, people are posting rumor and gossip, alternating upper case and lower-case letters, or deliberately mis-spelling words in an attempt to look cool or hip. Online message boards demand more professionalism.”

Another poster rushed to Trailbait’s defense. “This is just another pathetic attempt by defenders of George W Bush to try to invalidate the opinion of a patriotic America-loving member of our board.” Said Slider. “People need to overcome their pro-Bush bias, and trust the facts that Trailbait consistently presents to the board’s readers.”

Trailbait had this to say. “I am deeply saddened that this event may lead some of my loyal readers to doubt my integrity. As a valuable source of truth and clear-headed thinking on this board, I am depended upon by most readers for all their accurate news about current events. This charge of plagiarism will not be tolerated. I have contacted the ACLU, which will defend me in this case.”

The board’s moderator, PK, had this to say. “I don’t really give a ****.”

“ I just hope we can all move on, and put this behind us,” said another frequent poster, who declined to be identified for fear of backlash and childish bashing. “But I don’t know if we can. It’ll be difficult.”

[Slider]

;D ;D ;D

I suspect he makes up his quotes, too. ;D

Slider

[catbbq]

Thing is, he is right. If not for you guys, I wouldn't know what was going on in the world. NPR isn't much more than fluff anymore.

The outrage!

You can quote me.

[Mr_Cheeze]

That's not the point. You quote an article, it's just common courtesy to cite the reference. Otherwise it's plaigarism.


the point is you expected me to cite some far left website, instead of doing your own research to find out it's a true article.
wah.


Actually, no, I only expected a citation so I could have read the entire article, assuming you would have wanted that. I apologize to have such overly demanding expectations.

[TrailBate]

Actually, no, I only expected a citation so I could have read the entire article, assuming you would have wanted that. I apologize to have such overly demanding expectations.


you obviously expect too much from a thread titled "Reason #18,435 to hate Bush." ;D

[TrailBate]

Thing is, he is right. If not for you guys, I wouldn't know what was going on in the world.

The spin stops here! Cuz we're looking out for you!

seriously, I hope you're joking.....

[kernel crash]

I also hope he's joking. I wouldn't want him to say anything here to encourage you.

[BG]

I also hope he's joking. I wouldn't want him to say anything here to encourage you.




Or anyone else for that matter.

BG

[TrailBate]

The only encouragement I need is George Bush himself, and this country's dire need to get him out of office.

[kernel crash]

Damn. Two more years of this psycho babble. Augh...

[Slider]

Psychobabble or absolute effing truth, either way, you got it. Or, you can not place your mouse in the wrong spot.

Slider

[TrailBate]

Yet another NSA investigation stops before it could start


http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=governmentFilingsNews&sto ryID=2006-05-23T175222Z_01_N23187803_RTRIDST_0_SECURITY-TELECOMS-FCC.XML


WASHINGTON, May 23 (Reuters) - The U.S. Federal Communications Commission will not pursue complaints about a spy agency's access to millions of telephone records because it cannot obtain classified material, the FCC's chairman said in a letter released on Tuesday.

Rep. Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, had asked communications regulators to investigate a newspaper report that AT&T Inc. (T.N: Quote, Profile, Research), Verizon Communications (VZ.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and BellSouth Corp. (BLS.N: Quote, Profile, Research) gave access to and turned over call records to help the National Security Agency fight terrorists.

"The classified nature of the NSA's activities makes us unable to investigate the alleged violations," FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said in the May 22 letter to Markey.


Kevin Martin is a former Bush/Cheney lawyer. Welcome to fascism, people!

[kernel crash]

"Welcome to fascism, people!"

I found this definition of Fascism on the internet.

"More than a class system, fascism specifically targets, dehumanizes and aims to destroy those it deems undesirable"

also

"The most notable characteristic of a fascist country is the separation and persecution or denial of equality to a specific segment of the population based upon superficial qualities or belief systems. Simply stated, a fascist government always has one class of citizens that is considered superior (good) to another (bad) based upon race, creed or origin. It is possible to be both a republic and a fascist state. The preferred class lives in a republic while the oppressed class lives in a fascist state. "

I wonder which segment in our society you would apply this definition too? You say were living in a Fascist state so which class of people in the USA are being targeted, dehumanized, and deemed undesirable?

[Mr_Cheeze]

Not that liberals actually are concerned about minor sticking points like the meanings of words, I present the following anyway:

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fascism

fascism
One entry found for fascism.


Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality -- J. W. Aldridge>


Seems to me that some people confuse what is tantamount to dirty politics with something else. You can put all o fthe pieces together any way you choose, adding up everything that Bush has done wrong, which is to say quite a lot, it still doesn't equal fascism. Not even close. But I realize that you're really just exaggerating for effect.



(Sorry, Kernel. I think you and I had the same idea at the same time. Didn't mean to be a copycat.)

[Slider]

I am quite sure the German Jews told themselves the same thing in the 30's, when they failed to mount an effective political opposition. What you posted is a very apt definition for the Bush regime, especially this part:

"stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader"

That is exactly what you get when you remove checks and balances from our democracy.

This part fits well, too: "nation and often race above the individual "

The Iraq war has degenerated into a racist conflict, thank to the monger that started it. And you can't help but hear the claim of defense of country as rationalization for every infringement of the Bill of Rights.

This part, we are seeing right now: "forcible suppression of opposition"

Guess what the NSA is REALLY looking at.

Thanks for helping is draw the picture more clearly.

Slider

[Slider]

"More than a class system, fascism specifically targets, dehumanizes and aims to destroy those it deems undesirable"


Like, say, gays? Muslims?



"The most notable characteristic of a fascist country is the separation and persecution or denial of equality to a specific segment of the population based upon superficial qualities or belief systems. Simply stated, a fascist government always has one class of citizens that is considered superior (good) to another (bad) based upon race, creed or origin. It is possible to be both a republic and a fascist state. The preferred class lives in a republic while the oppressed class lives in a fascist state. "


Those would be the Christian Right. I can quote a lot of Bush speeches on that. There are lot's of examples.

Slider

[catbbq]

Seems that only an idiot would choose to live in a facist state when he has the option to leave.

When you guys leaving? Where you going to go? Will they have you?

Don't give me crap about leaving not being an option. We can talk to the German Jews and see what they have to say about that.

So either you don't believe we are currently living under a facist regime, or your an idiot. Which is it?

[kernel crash]

"More than a class system, fascism specifically targets, dehumanizes and aims to destroy those it deems undesirable"

Like, say, gays? Muslims?


I'd say your missing the mark on this one. If you remember after 9/11 Bush was quick to point out that we should not condemn all muslims for the action of a few. Bush has made that point many times since then. And gays? How are gays worse off today then before Bush was elected. I mean now gays are able to get married. No. I would say your examples don't address my original question.

[Slider]

I'd say your missing the mark on this one. If you remember after 9/11 Bush was quick to point out that we should not condemn all muslims for the action of a few. Bush has made that point many times since then.

As they say, actions speak louder...

You should tell all those tortured prisoners in Gitmo and Abu Gharib, many not even charged with anythign, and the civilians in both Iraq and Afghanistan killed with no second thought whatsoever.



And gays? How are gays worse off today then before Bush was elected. I mean now gays are able to get married.


If we don't reign in Bush now, we will get to the persecution part, don't worry about that. This is a nip-it-in-the bud kinda problem, and the bud is blossoming as we speak.

Slider

[Slider]

Seems that only an idiot would choose to live in a facist state when he has the option to leave.

When you guys leaving? Where you going to go? Will they have you?

Don't give me crap about leaving not being an option. We can talk to the German Jews and see what they have to say about that.

So either you don't believe we are currently living under a facist regime, or your an idiot. Which is it?


What kind of inane babble are you posting? We are talking about the defense of democracy. DEMOCRACY. That means we want to ensure that we all have a say in what happens here via the political process, and that say is in extreme danger RIGHT NOW.

Since something so obvious seems to slip past you, that means we are defending our country from the "Love it or Leave it" types who don't even know what it is they are loving about the place. Since we are concerned with protecting the most fundamental principal that binds us, that would mean we love this place far more than you.

Why would you think we want to leave? We're here for you, junior. You'll see that when you grow up a bit more.

Slider

[slapheadmofo]

'Defending democracy' huh? That's a pretty grandiose descripition of what you're doing. 'Harping endlessly in a forgotten corner of the internet' seems a little more apt, dontcha think?

::)

[Slider]

Excercising free speech, you mean? In itself, that is defending democracy. But grandiose? Naw, it is all in good fun.

But don't get it wrong: there is nothing more important to us all than the defense of democracy. I bet even Bush would at least mouth that fact. He wouldn't understand what it means, but he'd give it lip service.

Slider

[catbbq]

So you pick idiot...

[TrailBate]

'Defending democracy' huh? That's a pretty grandiose descripition of what you're doing. 'Harping endlessly in a forgotten corner of the internet' seems a little more apt, dontcha think?

::)


Do you guys actually have any meaningful defense of Bush's policies? Or do you just prefer to stick to complaining about people that keep bringing up all of his crimes?

[Slider]

So you pick idiot...


OK, I'll pick. You're an idiot.

Feel better?

Slider

[slapheadmofo]

I'm apolitical; I really only chime in in an attempt annoy you guys. ;D

[kernel crash]

"Do you guys actually have any meaningful defense of Bush's policies?"

I'm not trying to defend Bush's policies at all. I don't support a lot of them. I'm just trying to make a point about the overuse of the word fascism. I thinks its a bit of an over reaction.

[slapheadmofo]

Just like the overuse of the word racism. Just like the overblown hyperbole that fills 85% of the posts here. In a couple years, you'll probably hear these jokers taking credit for forcing Bush out of office thereby saving the world. It's all about whine-power.

[kernel crash]

"You should tell all those tortured prisoners in Gitmo and Abu Gharib, "

That doesn't define the definition of fascism. Now if Bush was doing that to the rest of us... But you do refer to them as prisoners. So maybe were finally getting somewhere.

"and the civilians in both Iraq and Afghanistan killed with no second thought whatsoever."

We are at war. You seem to forget that. Unfortunately civilians do have a way of dying in wars. That's regrettable but unavoidable.

And getting back to Fascism for a minute, this country was a lot closer to Fascism in the 40's and 50's when we had different standards for blacks and whites.

[Slider]

We were working with a specific Fascism defninition, and there are several others that also describe Bush pretty well. But the phrase we're talking about is this: "More than a class system, fascism specifically targets, dehumanizes and aims to destroy those it deems undesirable"

This very clearly fits the Bush treatment of Muslims, both in this country and abroad. Remember the "enemy non-comabatants"? This is a perfect example of "dehumanizing those (Bush) deems undesirable."

You also say: "We are at war. You seem to forget that. Unfortunately civilians do have a way of dying in wars. That's regrettable but unavoidable."

First, this is Bush's war, let's make that clear. So what results, including deliberate torture and death, are on his back. And since the deaths and torture result from the dehumanizing process that comes from the supplied definition of Fascism, the pieces fit pretty well.

Oh yeah - don't miss the crucial element of a single despot calling the shots. Refer back to the gutting of our Constitution's checks and balances to understand where that part applies.

Slider

[Slider]

Just like the overuse of the word racism. Just like the overblown hyperbole that fills 85% of the posts here. In a couple years, you'll probably hear these jokers taking credit for forcing Bush out of office thereby saving the world. It's all about whine-power.


Welcome to democracy.

If it were left to you, we'd all be checking in with Homeland Security to get permission to hit 'Nam for a pedal.

The only thing overblown here the complete blindness in the face of an immense threat to our personal freedom.

Slider

[slapheadmofo]

Right. And I guess if you had rambled on for only 50 pages rather than 90, the brownshirts would probably be at our doors right now. What a hero! Way to make a difference!

The only thing I've been convinced here of is to vote repbulican in the next election specifically to negate your ballot.
Welcome to democray yourself. ;D

[Slider]

Gee, you don't like my posts and are going to vote Republican. How heartbreaking! I think I am going to burn my ACLU card, tear down my Hillary posters, and pass on the next round of World Bank protests.

Will that make you change your vote? Please, please, pretty please?

Slider

[catbbq]

Where can I find some Hillary posters? She is a fine lookin' man.

[TrailBate]

From Business Week:

Intelligence Czar Can Waive SEC Rules

Now, the White House's top spymaster can cite national security to exempt businesses from reporting requirements

President George W. Bush has bestowed on his intelligence czar, John Negroponte, broad authority, in the name of national security, to excuse publicly traded companies from their usual accounting and securities-disclosure obligations. Notice of the development came in a brief entry in the Federal Register, dated May 5, 2006, that was opaque to the untrained eye.

Unbeknownst to almost all of Washington and the financial world, Bush and every other President since Jimmy Carter have had the authority to exempt companies working on certain top-secret defense projects from portions of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act. Administration officials told BusinessWeek that they believe this is the first time a President has ever delegated the authority to someone outside the Oval Office. It couldn't be immediately determined whether any company has received a waiver under this provision.


I can TOTALLY see how this fights terrorism....... ::)

[Slider]

Where can I find some Hillary posters? She is a fine lookin' man.


Try "poster of Hillary Clinton" in Google.

I don't you what you'd do without me. Oh, wait. You'd vote Republican. ;D

Slider

[TrailBate]

Seems that only an idiot would choose to live in a facist state when he has the option to leave.

When you guys leaving? Where you going to go? Will they have you?

Don't give me crap about leaving not being an option. We can talk to the German Jews and see what they have to say about that.

So either you don't believe we are currently living under a facist regime, or your an idiot. Which is it?


We don't need to leave. This anti-American administration needs to leave, along with all who support them. It's these morons that need to leave MY country, not the other way around. If this is the kind of regime you like to live under, YOU should go to North Korea, or Iran, etc.

[BG]

Inane Babble...I do believe that was my senior year high school history teacher's name.
Republican's Rule.

BG

[TrailBate]

This kinda fits in with my "all republicans are liars, murderers, or traitors" theory

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/federal_officia.html


Federal officials say the Congressional bribery investigation now includes Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, based on information from convicted lobbyists who are now cooperating with the government.

[FriedRys]

Gee, you don't like my posts and are going to vote Republican. How heartbreaking! I think I am going to burn my ACLU card, tear down my Hillary posters, and pass on the next round of World Bank protests.

Will that make you change your vote? Please, please, pretty please?

Slider


The ACLU wants to take away free speech, several high ranking members seen wearing brown shirts. ;D

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/24/160224.shtml

ACLU Wants Gag Rule for Board Members

The American Civil Liberties Union, which prides itself on its defense of free speech, is considering new standards that would discourage its board members from publicly criticizing the organization.

"Where an individual director disagrees with a board position on matters of civil liberties policy, the director should refrain from publicly highlighting the fact of such disagreement," the committee that compiled the standards wrote in its proposals. The reason?

"Directors should remember that there is always a material prospect that public airing of the disagreement will affect the ACLU adversely in terms of public support and fund-raising," the proposals state.

Some former board members were appalled by the proposals, the New York Times reports.

Nat Hentoff, a writer and former ACLU board member, declared:

"For the national board to consider promulgating a gag order on its members — I can't think of anything more contrary to the reason the ACLU exists.”

Muriel Morisey, a law professor at Temple University and another former board member, said the proposals were an effort to stifle dissent.

"It sets up a framework for punitive action,” she told the Times. The proposals state that "a director may publicly disagree with an ACLU policy position, but may not criticize the ACLU board or staff."

But Wendy Kaminer, a board member who has been critical of some decisions made by the organization's leadership, pointed out: "If you disagree with a policy position, you are implicitly criticizing the judgment of whoever adopted the position."

Anthony D. Romero, the ACLU's executive director, said it would be premature to discuss the proposals before the board reviews them at its June meeting.

[TrailBate]

This kinda fits in with my "all republicans are liars, murderers, or traitors" theory

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/federal_officia.html


Federal officials say the Congressional bribery investigation now includes Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, based on information from convicted lobbyists who are now cooperating with the government.



Looks like this may not be true...

But Congress is sure angry that someone DARE investigate them. **** em. I say investigate every damn one of them, tap their phones, and send them to Gitmo.

[Slider]

It is actually a lot more complicated and interesting than whether it is simply true or untrue. It seems that there was a leak, but no official pronouncement yet, so he may be under investigation, but not a "target."

But the behind the scenes stuff is fascinating. Turns out that "law enforcement" leaked the info to ABC, possibly in retaliation for Hastert having complained about the FBI search of Jefferson's office.

So Bush, through the FBI, is turning on his own when they step outta line. The Jefferson search is a classic separation of powers issue, and we know Bush is willing to toss his weight around in that arena. But turning on a major Republican Congressman like Hastert is either desperation or, possibly, supreme arrogance. Either way, it shows some serious cracks in the common front.

Now those in Congress with integrity and balls gotta step up. It isn't clear how broadly those terms apply, though.

Slider

[kernel crash]

"the behind the scenes stuff is fascinating"

What's fascinating is how you managed to piece this story together, in such a way, so it comes back to Bush, when actually very little real facts are known, at this time. But hey, at least your consistent.

[Slider]

"the behind the scenes stuff is fascinating"

What's fascinating is how you managed to piece this story together, in such a way, so it comes back to Bush, when actually very little real facts are known, at this time. But hey, at least your consistent.


Guess you'll just have to wait and see how it plays out.

Your skepticism is at least as consistent, but lots more naive.

Slider

[slapheadmofo]

Gee, you don't like my posts and are going to vote Republican. How heartbreaking! I think I am going to burn my ACLU card, tear down my Hillary posters, and pass on the next round of World Bank protests.

Will that make you change your vote? Please, please, pretty please?

Slider




Hmmmm....if you can do also something about being longwinded, condescending and closed-minded I'll consider it.

[Slider]

Damn, I knew it wouldn't be that easy.

But I'd have to give up being right, too, I bet, and that isn't on the table.

Slider

[Rych]

Bush Lie? He did?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

So now the liberals will say, "Well they're not Nuclear WMD"

[Slider]

Your story says they were all made before 1991, had degraded long ago, were not in useable condition, and there was no ongoing program fordevelopment. If that is the definition of WMDs, half the countries in the world have chemical weapons.

You somehow missed or are forgetting about the ******** Nigerian yellowcake story. It is a far better example of the fabrications Bush used to sucker us all into his war.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

http://www.tvacres.com/images/aunt_jemima.GIF
You got a problem with Nigerian yellow cake, you racist mother f*****?

[Rych]

Your story says they were all made before 1991, had degraded long ago, were not in useable condition, and there was no ongoing program fordevelopment. If that is the definition of WMDs, half the countries in the world have chemical weapons.

You somehow missed or are forgetting about the ******** Nigerian yellowcake story. It is a far better example of the fabrications Bush used to sucker us all into his war.

Slider





Would you store them in you garage? They have been degraded, however they can still be used in terrorist dirty bomb s

[Mr_Cheeze]

Come on, Rich. Even you know that these aren't exactly the type of WMD that was purported to have been the main target of weapon searches. This is hardly the motherlode. Only FOX News could get excited over five hundred something weapons.

[Slider]

The Pentagon seems to agree with Cheeze. From the story Rych posted:

"Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions."

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

Slider

[Rych]

The question is degraded to what....Millitary grade to terrorist grade. What would happen if one of those canisters on the ny subway system?

[Mr_Cheeze]

But they weren't.

[Slider]

If you think someone who wants to set off a chemical weapon on the NY subway could only have gone to some rusting, buried caches from Saddam, you ought to get a job as propagandist for the Bush administration.

Slider

[Rych]

But they weren't.

yet

[TrailBate]

Wow, they will cling to any desperate thread to try to justify this war, huh?

I use to live on Okinawa, and old WWII shells were found all the time. I mean ALL the time. Does that mean we need to go back to war with Japan because 60 year old shells were found, "evidence" that Japan had regained it's imperialistic ambitions?

Give it a rest. these shells are 15 years old. there are no WMD's. accept it.

[catbbq]

Wow, they will cling to any desperate thread to try to justify this war, huh?

I use to live on Okinawa, and old WWII shells were found all the time. I mean ALL the time. Does that mean we need to go back to war with Japan because 60 year old shells were found, "evidence" that Japan had regained it's imperialistic ambitions?

Give it a rest. these shells are 15 years old. there are no WMD's. accept it.


I did 100 days in Japan two years ago. I can think of all kinds of reasons to go back to war with Japan besides the shells.

[Mr_Cheeze]

??? ???

Are you serious? Maybe you would like to be more specific.

[fvh420]

So by Rych's argument we should attack every supermarket, hardware store or any other place that sells bleach and amonia in the world (mixed it makes mustard gas). They haven't used them to attack us.....YET..Yet is the fear mongering tool Rove and co. have used to cling to power.

[slapheadmofo]

No, only the supermarkets that support those who hate and threaten us, and also act guilty as hell when we try to monitor they're quantities/intentions with their bleach and ammonia.

[Mr_Cheeze]

So I guess Habib's Household & Garden Chemical Depot is sh1t out of luck. Damn. They're having a huge sale on bulk order fertilizer this week. Maybe that's how they caught those guys in Miami.

Speaking of which, let me beat the resident Lefties to the punch:
See, not all terrorists are Muslims!!

Ok, you win. 99% of them are.

[Rych]

So I guess Habib's Household & Garden Chemical Depot is sh1t out of luck. Damn. They're having a huge sale on bulk order fertilizer this week. Maybe that's how they caught those guys in Miami.

Speaking of which, let me beat the resident Lefties to the punch:
See, not all terrorists are Muslims!!

Ok, you win. 99% of them are.



Actually they were Muslims, just not middle eastern muslims:


"...warehouse said the men taken into custody described themselves as Muslims and had tried to recruit young people to join their group"

[Slider]

You guys sound like you think some sort of threat from Iraq was the actual reason we invaded. There's nothing like the power of propaganda to sway weak minds.

As for those Miami morons, guess who's face appears on the poster that recruited them? One hint, it wasn't Osama's.

Slider

[off piste]

You guys sound like you think some sort of threat from Iraq was the actual reason we invaded. There's nothing like the power of propaganda to sway weak minds.

As for those Miami morons, guess who's face appears on the poster that recruited them? One hint, it wasn't Osama's.

Slider


Jeb Bush?

[TrailBate]

The only way 99% of terrorists are Muslim, is if your definition of a terrorist is "Muslims who kill people."

Were the beltway snipers terrorists? McVeigh? The japanese subway bombers? No.

btw, Cheney has given up on Iraq:

"If we pull out, [the terrorists in Iraq] will follow us. It doesn't matter where we go. ... And it will continue---whether we complete the job or not in Iraq---only it'll get worse. Iraq will become a safe haven for terrorists."


whether we complete the job or not, it'll only get worse? Huh?!

[Mr_Cheeze]

The only way 99% of terrorists are Muslim, is if your definition of a terrorist is "Muslims who kill people."

Were the beltway snipers terrorists? McVeigh? The japanese subway bombers? No.

btw, Cheney has given up on Iraq:

"If we pull out, [the terrorists in Iraq] will follow us. It doesn't matter where we go. ... And it will continue---whether we complete the job or not in Iraq---only it'll get worse. Iraq will become a safe haven for terrorists."


whether we complete the job or not, it'll only get worse? Huh?!


oh yea, the beltway sniper. He'll put quite the heavy dent in those terrorist demographics. ::)

[Mr_Cheeze]

You guys sound like you think some sort of threat from Iraq was the actual reason we invaded. There's nothing like the power of propaganda to sway weak minds.

As for those Miami morons, guess who's face appears on the poster that recruited them? One hint, it wasn't Osama's.

Slider


??? ???

I don't even think you know what the hell you're talking about. Can't even talk about actual news items without you lapsing back into your condescending b.s.

[TrailBate]

oh yea, the beltway sniper. He'll put quite the heavy dent in those terrorist demographics. ::)


They weren't terrorists? Why not?

[Slider]

You guys sound like you think some sort of threat from Iraq was the actual reason we invaded. There's nothing like the power of propaganda to sway weak minds.

As for those Miami morons, guess who's face appears on the poster that recruited them? One hint, it wasn't Osama's.

Slider


??? ???

I don't even think you know what the hell you're talking about. Can't even talk about actual news items without you lapsing back into your condescending b.s.


Cheeze,

I'm not surprised you don't understand my post.

slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

It was this comment:

You guys sound like you think some sort of threat from Iraq was the actual reason we invaded. There's nothing like the power of propaganda to sway weak minds.


I don't even care who you were specifically targeting with that. My confusion lies in why you felt it was necessary to make an ad hominem attack at this point. Exactly what part of the conversation led you to conclude that anybody "sounded" like they thought anything of the such? I just skimmed back 4 pages. Funny, nobody mentioned anything about why they thought we invaded Iraq.

[Slider]

It was this comment:

Funny, nobody mentioned anything about why they thought we invaded Iraq.


Really? I thought the story we are discussing arose from this:


Bush Lie? He did?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

So now the liberals will say, "Well they're not Nuclear WMD"


Read back a bit. You’ll get it.

Slider

[TrailBate]

General Casey wants to cut and run! What a coward.

http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/national/BO21631/

[Mr_Cheeze]

It was this comment:

Funny, nobody mentioned anything about why they thought we invaded Iraq.


Really? I thought the story we are discussing arose from this:


Bush Lie? He did?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

So now the liberals will say, "Well they're not Nuclear WMD"


Read back a bit. You’ll get it.

Slider
***



I don't think anybody was implying that this "discovery" is proof of why we went to war. At least I didn't read it that way. It seemed to be more of a debate on whether the find was somehow significant, which it isn't. These laughable excuses like "See, those could have been potential dirty bombs" are nothing more than grasping at straws. Only an idiot believes at this point that we really went in looking for WMD that they knew full well wasn't there.

I don't know. Maybe I'm giving these guys too much benefit of the doubt.

[Slider]

Rych is pretty specific in referring to the accusations of Bush having lied, and presents the evidence about the decaying chemical weapons as a defense. But the war leadup was based on lots more lies than just those obvious ones. You can't talk about this without referencing the Niger scam.

I keep checking the TV schedule, but can't seem to find the impeachment hearings on CNN yet. Lemme know if I'm missing them. ;D

Slider

[Slider]

Here's the most significant reason to hate Bush: Tyranny, AKA Fascism. Note that Arlen Specter, a Republican, is leading the call for action.

Slider

June 28, 2006
Bush's Use of Authority Riles Senator
By KATE ZERNIKE
WASHINGTON, June 27 — Senators on the Judiciary Committee accused President Bush of an "unprecedented" and "astonishing" power grab on Tuesday for making use of a device that gave him the authority to revise or ignore more than 750 laws enacted since he became president.

By using what are known as signing statements, memorandums issued with legislation as he signs it, the president has reserved the right to not enforce any laws he thinks violate the Constitution or national security, or that impair foreign relations.

A lawyer for the White House said that Mr. Bush was only doing his duty to uphold the Constitution. But Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, characterized the president's actions as a declaration that he "will do as he pleases," without regard to the laws passed by Congress.

"There's a real issue here as to whether the president may, in effect, cherry-pick the provisions he likes and exclude the ones he doesn't like," Mr. Specter said at a hearing.

"Wouldn't it be better, as a matter of comity," he said, "for the president to have come to the Congress and said, 'I'd like to have this in the bill; I'd like to have these exceptions in the bill,' so that we could have considered that?"

Mr. Specter and others are particularly upset that Mr. Bush reserved the right to interpret the torture ban passed overwhelmingly by Congress, as well as Congressional oversight powers in the renewal of the Patriot Act.

Michelle Boardman, a deputy assistant attorney general, said the statements were "not an abuse of power."

Rather, Ms. Boardman said, the president has the responsibility to make sure the Constitution is upheld. He uses signing statements, she argued, to "save" statutes from being found unconstitutional. And he reserves the right, she said, only to raise questions about a law "that could in some unknown future application" be declared unconstitutional.

"It is often not at all the situation that the president doesn't intend to enact the bill," Ms. Boardman said.

The fight over signing statements is part of a continuing battle between Congress and the White House. Mr. Specter and many Democrats have raised objections to the administration's wiretapping of phones without warrants from the court set up to oversee surveillance.

Last month, Mr. Specter accused Vice President Dick Cheney of going behind his back to avoid the Judiciary Committee's oversight of surveillance programs.

"Where will it end?" asked Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts. "Where does it stop?"

The bills Mr. Bush has reserved the right to revise or ignore include provisions that govern affirmative action programs, protect corporate whistle-blowers, require executive agencies to collect certain statistics, and establish qualifications for executive appointees.

Senators and two law professors before the panel said that if the president objected to a bill, he should use his power to veto it — something he has not done in his six years in office.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, said the expansion of executive power would be the "lasting legacy" of the Bush administration. "This new use of signin