Feingold: “I mean, you seem like a nice ordinary Joe. Would you want that cowboy doofus and his NSA goons unilaterally deciding to listen in on your phone conversations? Because the fact is, the president cannot make up authority and legislative power when it isn’t there. He’s President. He’s not King George Bush.”*
Footlocker sales clerk: “Of course he isn’t. A King might presume to tell us when it’s okay to, say, exercise our First Amendment rights to political speech—including how we can spend our money, and how close to elections we can broadcast arguments like the one you just made.”
Footlocker sales clerk:: “And sorry, sir, but as I already told you once, I don’t care who you say you are. I still can’t let you try on the Pumas without any socks.”
Heh. Other than today’s story, the only thing I know about Russ Feingold is the McCain-Feingold abomination. Whenever I see his name in print, I immediately think, “oh, that’s the guy who legislated away all my First Amendment rights.”
Well, all of them except my right to have a stripper come within four feet of me. So, you know, at least he didn’t go completely out of control.
Re: trying on the Pumas, I doubt the presence or absence of socks makes any difference. Feingold’s socks are probably rotten with 501(c)(4) loopholes anyway.
T/W: “somewhat.” Okay, only somewhat rotten. My bad. Sheesh.
Ouch! That’s gonna leave a mark.
Do the talking bowtie thing again. That was more funnier.
[ed’s note: sure thing. me: “So, tell me, talking bowtie, why did ‘somojesus@verizon.com’ cross the road?”
Talking bowtie: “Oh, is he gone? Thank god. I mean, what a fucking tool that guy is.”]
Sumo
I told you it was funnier.
That’s an oooch!
Oliver Willis:”……..so um, Russ…you gonna finish those funyuns? I know I said I’d watch you try on new shoes at Footlocker so you’d feel “more at home at the mall” but a guys’ gotta eat you know….and this guy needs to eat a lot….”
Here’s where the point about Feingold-as-monarchist goes wrong:
It is one thing to disagree with the content of legislation, including feeling that the legislation unduly restricts First Amendment rights. But the key to understanding the issue of monarchism or a dictatorial mentality is, in our system of governance, above all, procedural. A law was passed by a bipartisan majority in both Houses of Congress, and duly signed into law by the president. There is a whole line of cases—election law is not an area of law with which I am closely familiar at all—from Buckley v Valeo on that consider the issue of campaign financing and its relationship to the First Amendment and have drawn various lines protecting certain kinds of spending from at least certain kinds of restrictions. What remains on the books is the product of the give-and-take of all three branches of government, including consideration of the Constitutional implications by what is now about as far RW a court as we have had for 70 years. But I suppose that isn’t good enough.
By contrast, the pivotal issue with Bush, in what is dubbed here the NSA “kerfuffle” (suggesting the deepest concern over issues of ‘monarchic’ power), is the arrogation of unilateral power by the executive. This president wants to be able to detain, hold in secret prisons, torture, surveil, trail and break into the home of anyone he pleases at any time for reasons he and his Administration deem necessary and proper and without any substantive oversight from the other branches of government, in particular the judiciary, at all. Sometimes he has to compromise and accept some oversight, like after-the-fact approval of wiretaps, but it appears that many here consider that extremely over-restrictive of presidential power.
Again, one can object to legislation as overreaching, but the essence of monarchialism is the unilateral exercise of power by the executive. (ie, lots of “penis”)
Here’s an illustration of the principle above, which goes to the heart of democracy. Under a democracy, there are not only procedures to restrict anyone from grabbing too much power, but the powers that are exercised are supposed to reflect ‘the will of the people’ as expressed through elections. That way, even when you consider a particular law noxious, you know that it at least has the legitimacy of reflecting the opinions of most fellow citizens, as formulated through their (hopefully honestly elected rather than railroaded) representatives and leaders.
Here’s a concrete example of what I mean about the ‘legitimacy’ of laws one might find noxious. Being the kind of horrible lefty whose presence at this site seems a bit like sista boom boom at a Christian Coalition conference, I find both the death penalty and laws criminalizing marijuana use to be noxious, and in the case of the death penalty at least, unConstitutional “as applied”.
But I also know that most Americans still favor the death penalty and laws against marijuana usage, and the overwhelming majority of politicians won’t even touch it.
(Actually, during the period in the 70s and 80s when, in Alaska, marijuana possession for personal use of up to two ounces, without any medical requirements, this law in that admittedly sparsely populated state were perfectly popular. They were repealed when—reflecting the true value that the RW places on states’ rights and federalism when inconvenient—the Reagan Administration threatened to cut off all Alaska’s highway funding, armtwisting them to change their laws to fit the national Administration’s preferences.)
But back to my main thread of argument. I recognize that, even though the death penalty and marijuana laws are noxious to me, they are NOT noxious laws to most Americans. And therefore, I focus my attention on trying to convince other people to change these laws; one might also note that since breaking marijuana laws is so easy and commonplace, in spite of (as few realize) how huge the number of people who are incarcerated for them even in this era is, you have a situation where tens of millions of Americans use marijuana yet there is little or no felt urgency to repeal the laws. At any rate, it is different when you have government or state elite practices that are undertaken on the sly, doing an end run around the processes that keep them accountable.
This goes for most of the political repression in this country, especially underground repression, an issue I have written about and analyzed extensively. (I think that in the FISA thread I gave a URL of a long piece on the subject). At any rate, when you have a unilateral executive, or stolen elections, or underground repression rubber-stamped out of the light of free and open accountability, these types of actions lack the sense of legitimacy that actions, even ones I oppose, that are fully subject to democratic and Constitutional procedural scrutiny (including the genuine and effective right of access to lawyers and open adjudication). Laws and policies made democratically and in the sunshine are much more acceptable when you disagree with them than monarchical ones.
On the other hand, there are those who are solipsistic enough so that ANYTHING they oppose is monarchial, no matter the process, and ANYTHING they support is kosher, no matter how unilateral and brazen the defiance of legal restraint on power may be.
“Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires—a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution”
This isn’t about who is running in ‘08.
This isn’t about progressive friend #1
This isn’t about Harry Reid’s testicles
This is about the Constitution.
This is about Government spying on thousands of American citizens without probable cause.
This is about Conservative values and principles.
Jesus, cloudy, that URL we’re directed to if we bother to click on your name is where the fucking essays belong.
Shakespeare once said something about brevity. You could look it up sometime when you’re not busy putting the rest of us in a coma.
Spare me the ire, Feingold. As yet, no one here has mentioned that Feingold was the only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act when it was first introduced. Even critics of some parts of the Patriot Act acknowledge that it was an important bill that has saved lives both here and abroad.
Jim —
There a several comprehensive posts on the subject today. Put your strained attempts at self-righteousness there, if you don’t mind. This was more of a lighthearted post.
And I’ll answer you the same way I answered Tom in the other thread, who trotted out today’s Think Progress talking point:
A roving wire tap and law enforcement are different things entirely than signal intelligence. And why on earth would you expect Bush to advertise a secret program? Are you seriously suggesting his “denial” here is proof of guilt?
My good Christ, I have no idea how this country can survive with thinking like that.
My good Christ, I have no idea how this country can survive with thinking like that.
It is scary to see that some people think that way. The constitution is not a suicide pact. When we are at war, we must all sacrifice some of our civil liberties. The constitution was written with those very trade-offs in mind.
At what point do we, as “not lefties” decide to listen to lefties, who decide that they can, and will, pontificate. And lie.
Jeff the G has run circles around us that attempt to say what we mean. He does so by writing about what is out there in a way that is linguistacally irrefutable. Wow, I hate to admit it, but it is, in his logic, dumbfounding to his mental opponents. He is right.
My head is twisting here, but I think that words, their meaning and the THOUGHT PROCESS are important. “Rat Bastard” as an adjective. “Liar” as an adjective, noun and verb? We, as a country deserve better. The “loyal opposition” is no longer. It is a rabble defined by their (com)patriots in the media and blogs of disgrace.
Read what the left has offered, define it, disect it and feel it, so that you begin to think you understand it.
You will get the shivers.
They, the left, jump at the chance to say that we, the non-left, are apers, apologists, and (insert insult)for the Bush administration.
The border, immigrantion, spending, and big government make me think that their argument just might be wrong. We do disagree. Often.
How sad for them.
Jim—your point is well-taken.
Here, for all those who have said “name one” instance of any rights violations under the purview of the Patriot Act, is a link to a recent article in that extremist Commie rag, The New York Times
Now, as for length, if it’s too long too read, then hey—you don’t have to read it. An argument was put forward that “monarchialism” is first and foremost about PROCESS, about UNILATERAL EXERCISE OF UNACCOUNTABLE EXECUTIVE POWER, rather than about campaign finance laws, vetted fully through all three branches of government, with which you might happen to disagree.
I also, as I chose to do, explored a few other interesting issues by way of digression, to highlight the hollowness of the protestations of concern about civil liberties and overreaching government expressed from the Washington Times type RW. Everyone is free to read as much or as little as they like.
Now, where any of the ‘lefties’ who post at this site “lie”, then it is appropriate to point it out, as specifically and as NONPRESUMPTIVELY as possible. After all, what one person sees as hypocrisy may just be something that they personally oppose.
One person accused RFK Jr of being the worst kind of hypocrite for opposing a wind farm off Cape Cod. But RFK Jr has very cogently defended his position on that point, based on serious environmental concerns. On the other hand, those who wouldn’t touch ANY environmental group or pursuit with a ten foot pole might cry “hypocrite”. Why not? In a political echo chamber, no one will call you on it.
FUCKIN’ A RIGHT, BUBBER!!!!
DEMOCRAT PARTY!
DEMOCRAT PARTY!
DEMOCRAT PARTY!
DEMOCRAT PARTY!
I’m starting to become convinced that he is a national treasure. Or that, if we did not contain him here, he would be a danger to himself and others.
PARTY LIKE IT’S 9/11/01!
Erm, “9/10/01!”
PIMF
Cloudy, your article on the FBI has absolutely nothing to do with the PATRIOT Act. Your coherence shows no sign of improving.
However, I am glad that the FBI is watching dangerous groups with links to terrorists like ELF, ALF etc.
“However, I am glad that the FBI is watching dangerous groups with links to terrorists like ELF, ALF etc.”
I am too. Let’s not forget that in 2000 hardly anyone had heard of Al Qaeda (in the general public). Who is to say the next big terrorist attack won’t come from an animal rights’ group that now seesm obscure.
Because, you know, the New York Times is such a good newspaper.
True, given the New York Times’ track record there is a good possibility that the NSA doesn’t even exist but is purely the imagination of some reporter phoning in fake stories and fake expense reports from a flophouse in Jersey.
Elinor D = doofus retard troll DougJ from Cole’s comments sewer.
Um, no. You see, cloudy, Russ Feingold is a Senator. That’s Sen-a-tor. There are 100 of them, and they form the upper house of the LEGISLATIVE branch of our government.
Well… to be fair, Robin, the existence of the NSA has been confirmed by reputable papers.
Geeze, this is hilarious. I just had to go back and reread the bits in Papa Topside where Captain Bond recounts the coverage the New York Times gave the Sealab 1 project.
Are you suggesting that people with e-mails like “goppatriot” are probably neither Republicans or patriots?
Not that I’m questioning their patriotism or anything. I mean, ironic patriotism is still patriotism.
Somehow.
My last was to www, of course.
Hearing Feingold lecture on protection of constitutional rights is like hearing Ted Kennedy lecture on the evils of drunk driving and the values of marital fidelity.
Sortelli,
Is he still using those giveaway email addresses?
I think he was using something like beore he got him self banned over at Tom Maguire’s blog recently.
But I see that he is in deep cover again using . This is when you really need an effective NSA.
I used to be AFRAID OF THE DIALOGUE. But now that I’ve seen the MONOLOGUE, it doesn’t seem half bad.
What Bush is doing is NO different than from what Lincoln did during the Civil War. Than that Democrat Wilson did during WWI or what that Democrat Roosevelt did during WWII.
Damn these appeasement ridden dhimmicrats make me sick. Someone should point out that various Presidents have taken steps during wartime that would in no way shape or form take place during peacetime. The times call for protection and defending our country. Let the Government do exactly what its sole purpose is, to protect the lives of its citizens!
Yo Cloudy,
I dozed off about 3700 words into your last comment, but then I woke up to see you snap, crackle and pop something about Robair F. Kennedy Jr?
RFK Jr.?
Oh no you di-unh!
I think he was using something like beore he got him self banned over at Tom Maguire’s blog recently.
Knock if off, Cloudy.
Robert,
To the contrary, there is an immense difference between the actions of the Wilson administration in WWI and the FDR administration in WWII in contrast to the Bush administration.
The Bush administration has been orders of magnitude more careful about civil liberties than either of the former.
Any claim of equality between the three is a slander on President Bush.
Elinor D —
Are you suggesting that after the major bombings of 1998 in E Africa and Clinton’s (insufficient, but certainly not pushed to do more by the RW generally on this issue), issues covered in media going to tens of millions of Americans, that “hardly anyone” had heard of Al Qaeda other than specialists? I had, and contrasted the attack on Serbia (which didn’t threaten us, and which I opposed) in 1999, with the complete destruction of Al Qaeda’s training camps, which I supported doing—on call-in radio.
Now, as for the FBI’s snooping on political groups having “nothing to do” with the PATRIOT Act, that conclusion is presumptive. After all, the Patriot Act specifically broadens the power to snoop in virtually anything deemed relevant to “terrorism”, and these people were placed under that label:
If the FBI is engaging in these aggressive practices against groups like Greenpeace and Catholic Worker, and labelling them “terrorist” broadens, under the provisions of the PATRIOT Act, their ass-coverage for these post-9/11 practices, it certainly does come into play as relevant.
By the way, I noticed you completely sidestepped the issue of labelling RFK Jr. a hypocrite, something explained at length on the McHitler thread where you first did it. I suppose that if you consider fund-raising for the legal expenses of anyone who is charged with complicity (and her guilt, while found by the Courts, was hotly disputed, although it never seemed much of a cause celebre for me personally, for various reasons) is by that act a “terrorist collaborator”, then you must have an even WEAKER case to make against RFK Jr, I would suspect.
On the issue of Feingold being a Senator, that is completely besides the point of my comment. I pointed out that the kind of ISSUE (campaign finance regulation) labelled monarchic in the original post missed the main concern with monarchical power as unaccountable unilateral power of the executive. So, like I said, referring to my original (long) post in this thread, IN THAT POST, I put forward an argument about monarchial power and the Executive. “E-X-E-C-U-T-I-V-E” if that sort of cutesy maneuver adds anything to the discussion. I wasn’t claiming Feingold to be monarchial nor the blockquote you cited referring to GOLDSTEIN’s claim. Both were self-evident from the context of the comment you were bashing.
Robin Roberts,
I agree with you 100%.
Any Dhimmicrat that wants to protest the way the government runs to protect the lives of its citizens and constitution need, IMHO to resign their position, give up their citizenship and move to Iran or France.
Aint no party like a Democrat party cause a Democrat party don’t stop!*
* […trying to institute independent counsel fishing expeditions in order to impeach the President]
I’m sorry, cloudy, but nothing you’ve written is “self-evident.” Hell, if you even wanted to make what you were trying to say clear, you’d avoid wanking around with the passive voice as if you were writing a term paper and say something like, “In my first comment I argued that…”
Can I get an amen?
I thought this was supposed to be about socks. Because I smell feet.
cloudy,
Is your real name Ignatius by any chance? If so you can come home now. It’s safe.
Cloudy?
I think not DougJ.
If you really were as clever as you fancy yourself as, then why do you keep using the same goofball names (Dexter, Elinor D, or the most ingenuous alias of them all: DougJ)
that you use at Cole’s site?
Cole has called you on it just about every time you’ve tried another of your not really convincing aliases. He can see your IP address after you make one of your bullshit posts.
WWW/anon, it is a game. I could avoid getting caught if I wanted to, but what would be the point of that?
I believe that the right-wing of this country has jumped the shark and become a parody of itself. The idiotic regurgitation of talking points, the insistence that all newspapers other than the Moonie Times are left-wing propaganda…you guys have gone nuts. You’ve become a joke. That said, I geniunely like a lot of righties that I know, and like to try to point it out to them in a joking way rather than by insulting them.
I expect a whole lot of “get lost douchebag” type comments in respone to this. Bring it on!
HELP!
DougJ just made my head explode and I can’t get up!
Well I think we call all agree that one party hs become a parody of itself, yes.
Come on, Jim, if that’s your best attempt at wit, just calle me a douchebag.
Why would I do that? You seem to think that the commentators here somehow dislike folks like you. I don’t think we do. You’re all amusing. You show up, hang around a few weeks, cut and paste from tpm, kos or mediamatters, get eviscerated, and leave in shame. It’s fun to watch.
Hey, stop taking away Elinor’s strawman. It’s all he has left to keep him warm at night.
That’s right, Jim, all the right-wing crap I post is taken from Daily Kos.
HEY, you can’t say that!
Actually it’s yummy, I wonder if LAUREN is just Loosing it?
seriously dougj, have you ever kissed a girl?
I should say why I wonder
Because I just simply can’t take any blog that obsesses over the NYT’s seriously.
I am a girl, Lefty. And the answer is yes.
I don’t know if you guys are aware just how serious this stuff is.
From today’s Washington TIMES. Conservative Constitutional Scholar Ben Fien states:
“President Bush presents a clear and present danger to the rule of law.”
Sobering Stuff.
Read it yourself
It’s time to put politics down for a time, come together and handle this mess before it gets out of control.
Holy Crap…..Are you talking about me being DougJ? THIS is precisely WHY I hate this Mother Fucker….John Cole really needs to get serious about this guy…I am a long time commenter on TM’s site and actually just addressed this.
John Cole just spanked DougJ but in a wink wink way…and I just commented (at TM) that the really fucked up thing about Balloon Juice’s pet retard is that is causes new commenter’s to ostracized and suspect…this has just gotten stupid and wrong…I think John Cole has just caused the biggest problem.
I assure you I am not DougJ or any other stoopid alias the asshole has (maryrose among others)
Patience —
See my posts here and here to see how serious I am. I am aware of what Fien is saying. I don’t happen to agree with him.
I am not DougJ. I am a friend of DougJ’s who was turned onto this troll-parody thing by the master himself.
Well, if you mean you’re going to get over your pathological obsession with Bush, stop ramping up ridiculous complaints and attacking every perceived weakness in domestic political opponents like a fiesty chiuahua and start behaving like a reasonable person so that we can face the rest of the world with a united resolve to promote liberty, individual rights and marginalize oppressive fanatics, hey, that would be pretty cool.
Or, you know, if that’s too much for you, you can go get your crayons and join Master DougJ and ElinorD as they pretend to be people they don’t know so that they don’t ever have to meet any.
Jeff,
So what’s the problem here?
In a nutshell:
The problem is the limitless creep of executive power in violation of writ of the legislative branch.
You claim two basis for defence.
1. He has war powers somehow from the afghan resolution.
2. Since Carter’s time there has been a mechanism of growing authority for the president to enable action against foreign inteligence agents on us soil.
But you also make some underlying assumptions.
1. We are in a war.
Is it a war?
There is no scope or end to the action. It does not involve enemy nation states or nation-state alliances. The founders clearly did not concieve of national military conflict absent clear nation-state enemies.
2. The adminstration is full of angels.
The reason we have a system of laws and not men is precisely because men are not angels, and no person repub or dem or other can be trusted to do the right thing without supervision.
This administration has told some extraordinary lies to justify some extraordinary activities. They were given a blank check on 9-11 and cashed it in, spring of 2003. But more importantly their pig headedness has led to some highly visible extraordinary screwups-read New Orleans, the Iraqi Occupation, the dramatic loss of US prestige world wide. Couple this with a penchant for secret dealing, excessive use of National Security to stifle debate, an intentional confounding of disagreement with treason and you have a recipe for some serious problems.
Many on the left are now more scared of the administration than the enemy from which the administration claims to be protecting us. This is not hyperbole.
That this reason for this fear is now apparent to conservatives speaks volumes to the dangers it represents.
Jeff you are obviously a very smart guy. You didn’t need me to make the points I just did. When a guy like Fein is as upset as he is, and he feels the need to cite the denial of Nixon and Ford’s attempt to suspend Congress, we have very very serious problems.
These guys you are defending are not who you think they are. Their motives are not what they have professed them to be. This is major big trouble they have caused and are still causing.
It’s time to put down the politics, come together, and work through this thing, before things get worse.
Patience —
Read the post below. The FISA Court review found on behalf of the administration.
Bush is not sitting around with headphones on. Intel people have their own codes and are very careful about breaking the law. That’s why the President feels he is on such firm ground here. He has passed every behind-the-scenes legal review.
I forgot, assuming everyone’s acting in bad faith takes even less effort than pretending to be your own strawman. C’mon, Patience, at least Elinor’s trying.
but that’s just it jeff, it’s behind-the-scenes. we need to know EVERYTHING that goes on.
ugh, keep up the good work, my brain died yesterday, i think. though lew clark was reading it earlier regarding feingold and the constitution. that was nice.
Nope, that is fucking lunacy.
This article refers to spying within the context of applying for a writ from the FISA court. This is not a grant by the FISA court to authorize the executive to tap without their oversight!!
Clearly this is an issue that needs lots of public debate in congress. If the president feels he is legally justified let him publish all his opinons. Let him present to the full congress and recieve official sanction for what has been and what is ongoing.
If as you claim there have been judicial reviews let’s see them. Let’s have a nice open debate about what was done and why. There are very serious constitutional issues at play here and very serious extensions of executive authority. If they are justifiable to the congress, then let the administration recieve the public glory for having the ability to both interpret and reconstruct the constitution behind closed doors independently of every other branch of government. Truly this would be quite a praiseworthy feat.
Indeed such public actions would put to rest the fears of the left and now the conservative right.
But given that Attorney General Gonzales felt that congress would not authorize extensions to FISA that the administration deemed necessary, it seems very unlikely that the executive could unilaterally work around this issue.
But of course you knew all this before you redirected me to that article.
Third and last time: Put your politics aside for the moment and contribute your intelligence to solving this problem while it can be done gracefully.
This is not an issue that can be handled bia public relations or obfuscated by reams of quotations and partisan affirmations. We are on the horizon of a full blown constitutional crisis. It is not business as usual when the WASHINGTON TIMES declares the president a clear and present danger.
I wish you well.
But it is pious bushwah by the bucket. The left has seized on every possible pretext to demonize Bush, with the Democrats eagerly tricking for their quarters. This is just the latest of the same old tired Saul Alinsky gaming…
Just in case you didn’t actually read the full texts of the executive orders for Carter/Clinton you cited above, they both require the Attorney General to remain compliant with both the FISA regime and the sanctity of “the premises,information, and property of a United States person.”
You can see the full texts of the sections you cite at cornell law via this summary.
Please pardon the nasty tone of the posters at the above link.
I continue to wish you well.
-For all the lefties trying so laimly to maintain a game face while riding this latest “dead-horse”, now that FISA has been stipulated by the court as supporting the legality of the supposed crimes against the constitution by the admin. can we expect to see anyting like the rabid pursuit of who’s behind all these national security leaks by the Defeato-craps?
– Oh wait. No…. that wouldn’t follow the Dembulb agenda. Nevermind…..
– Damn I am so looking forward to 2006, and yet another “This ain’t no fucking socialism shout to the Dhmmies at the ballot box”…. yes yes yes…. party on asshats….
cloudy, patience, et al;
Get out of my game! We require no further proof of the ultimate banality of evil.
Evil should be fascinating and seductive.
You are neither.
Jeff,
I would just like to wish you and all Protein Wisdom readers the compliments of the season and a happy and joyous new year. Peace, prosperity and glad tidings to each and everyone of you (….apart, obviously from Ayatollah Girl, who can go suck dick big time for being so rude about me last time I was here…)
I’ll leave you all with this festive piece of whimsy
xxx
Roberta
The Robert Swipe Show: aggressively unfunny since 1897
Yes, lets have an open debate about classified sources and methods of intelligence collection. The same way we had an open and honest debate about why Wilson was sent to Niger.
If you care more about opening another fishing expedition to “get” the president than you do about preserving our capability to defend the nation, then you need to go back to sitting at the kids table.
Malkin points out another bit of Democrat hypocrisy: apparently Jim McDermott thinks it’s perfectly OK to listen to and record phone calls between Republicans without a warrant, but not to listen to phone calls between al’Qaeda members.
I remember the echoing silence of the reaction to the release of that tape. Or, rather, the way it was obtained.
So let’s see if I understand:
o illegally acquire FBI files of political opponents and hand them to a hired goon; OK
o release the personnel files of a whistle-blower; OK
o use the IRS to audit political opponents; OK
o release the recordings of an illegal, unwarranted wiretap of domestic communications between political opponents; OK
o illegally acquire the credit reports of political opponents; OK
o use phone numbers in the possession of captured terrorists to identify terrorist agents inside the US; CRIME!!!!
Is that what people are saying? Because I really don’t remember this level of outrage over ANY of the things I’ve listed that the Democrats have pulled. If your concern over the NSA wiretaps is really based on civil rights issues, then you should be baying for the heads of Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, and Jim McDermott, too.
And, personally, I’m more concerned about the politically motivated violatons than the supposed law enforcement and national defense violations. Doesn’t anyone remember what got people so worked up over CIA domestic spying? It was being used for political purposes.
And, really, isn’t that the position the critics are claiming to take? That the unwarranted wiretaps might be used for domestic, political purposes and not just national defense?
Well, I call bullshit.
I stopped reading patience when he/she wrote:
But more importantly their pig headedness has led to some highly visible extraordinary screwups-read New Orleans, the Iraqi Occupation, the dramatic loss of US prestige world wide.
Believe it or not, that eavesdropping thing is still, after all these years, generally the second thing that comes to my mind whenever I hear or read McDimwit’s name.
The first is usually, “What a @#$!ing tool.”
Cloudy, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Just so you know, Clouded, words have repercussions. In addition to meanings, I mean.
Please allow me. This…
…may likely have produced this this…
… which you should read as a earnest plea. See, the pen is mightier than the sword, Clouded, and I know you of all people know that. As too would be the complete moron, but we can leave that aside fro now.
Follow me here, Clouded. Be more careful! We’re at war. Have some fucking compassion, man.
’Cloddy’, umm, I mean ‘Cloudy’, writes:
“Are you suggesting that after the major bombings of 1998 in E Africa and Clinton’s (insufficient, but certainly not pushed to do more by the RW generally on this issue), issues covered in media going to tens of millions of Americans, that “hardly anyone†had heard of Al Qaeda other than specialists? I had, and contrasted the attack on Serbia (which didn’t threaten us, and which I opposed) in 1999, with the complete destruction of Al Qaeda’s training camps, which I supported doingâ€â€on call-in radio.”
I defy anyone here to explain what this paragraph means!
Gibberish.
(hand extended palm up) What do I win?
It means Cloudy is a sloppy, careless writer.
Probably means
See? It actually makes sense if you (Turing word) change it a bit.
Cloudy, if you’re going to debate, you’re going to have to organize your thoughts better. But of course if you did, you’d probably need to change your mind.
Ahh dougj slimes its way onto another blog.
The funny part about that particular loser is that it’s positive it’s a wit.
Too bad it’s only half right.
I’m just now getting to this, but what is patience talking about? Anybody?
I mean, the law cannot be any more clear. The EOs for electronic surveillance provide where to look for the exemptions. Al Qaeda agents are agents of foreign power. And Presidents have the constitutional authority to authorize these programs.
Simple as that.
Hey, Cloudy, caught your response to me here. I appreciate the time and effort you put into it. Based on that response, I would respectfully asked other commenters to be gentle with you. You are but a poor, harmless intellectual caught up in a tangled web of Chomskyism, including its use of tendentious, dense writing as a weapon to wear down its opponents. While fashionable in the salons of Paris and Berkeley, Chomskyism has never exerted near the influence over modern events that other secular religions such as post-modernism, Marxism, or secular/religious hydrids such as Islamism have. My suggestion to other commenters is to let you quietly spin your webs in the corner while we concentrate our efforts on the more dangerous sophists like Actus, Phoenician, or Wadard (where’s it go, I wonder). I, for one, wish you would hang your hat here but perhaps become bi-lingual; we imperialist capitalists just don’t have the time to spare from our pursuit of mercantile hegemony over the indigenous peoples of Africa, the Middle East or East Asia to learn the high languages of Chomsky, or Ent for that matter.
where’
sd it gopreview is most certainly not my friend
I’m not sure, Phone Technician, I think this…
May actually mean this…
Either way, when it re-intersects Earth’s orbit, I propose we ping the Clouded Versitile Random Word Module and ask for a retransmit.
Can’t miss it: It’s the one with the gold-plated Martin Denny LP glued on it.
I think her main point was this: Conservatives (actually, she could only dig up a single conservative–Bruce Fein–but hey, who’s counting?) disagree with Bush’s use of the NSA to eavesdrop on terrorist suspects, ergo OMG BU$H = TEH 0V3RZ!!!
Jeff, I think Axl Rose said it best:
Just a little patience
Yeahhhhh, Yeahhhh
Just a little patience
Yeahhhhh, Yeahhhh
I BEEN WALKIN’ THE STREETS AT NIGHT
JUST TRYIN’ TO GET IT RIGHT
HARD TO SEE WITH SO MANY AROUND
YOU KNOW I DON’T LIKE
BEING STUCK IN THE CROWD
AND THE STREETS DON’T CHANGE
BUT BABY THE NAME
I AIN’T GOT TIME FOR THE GAME
‘CAUSE I NEED YOU
YEAH, YEAH, BUT I NEED YOU
OO, I NEED YOU
WHOA, I NEED YOU
OO, ALL THIS TIME
It’s pretty obvious that Patience is in love with you Jeff.
You might be right, 6Gun—the danger in editing is always that you’ll impose order and meaning where none exists.
So, to summarize 6Gun, Natesnake, Lucy Monostone, and now even Tongueboy:
“Nyahnyah, nyahnyahnyahnyah.”
Now, let’s go through this. No one has answered the point about Al Qaeda being VERY well-known before 1998. Tongueboy complimented the time and effort I put into responding to his original critique (in which he made a number of actual assertions, at least), and then reverted to what the rest do.
Even in supposedly calling for better treatment, Tongueboy (the only one of the crew who had any substantive response in the first place) has belied the following claim he made:
I call BS on the notion of trying to “engage the left constructively” or the later claim of “giving the benefit of the doubt”. I doubt it. As for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, the latter portion of the statement can be easily corrected. Indeed, all the practices here attributed to the left are plainly visible in what I encounter at this site.
This website is clearly RW dominated. Fine. But people like patience and actus as well as myself face all kinds of abuse, because the following statements generally hold true:
*Let us say that you were to contrast the treatment that, say, Tongueboy (not someone merely making trollish remarks) were to get at TPMCafe.com—a Clinton-Democratic site where I often post, that is itself overwhelmingly quite opposed to to “Chomskyism”, and where I am treated respectfully—you would find their treatment to be perfectly respectful. In response to bona fide posts, ad hominem attacks (which, unfortunately, Tongueboy’s most recent one is, only more mildly than the others) are extremely rare if not nonexistent. Actually the editors would probably edit out most of those nyahings on this thread. Here, there is only defense of the practice—‘if you don’t like our supposed lack of substance, then leave’. If the latter is saintly, then Josh Marshall must be the angel Gabriel himself!
I could cite other mainstream liberal or progressive websites where the same is true, albeit sometimes to a lesser extent, but TPM is an excellent illustration of a liberalish website open to widely differing viewpoints, including my own. On the other hand, I had similar experiences at another Washington Times type RW website, The National Ledger, which was also among the more prominent RW talk sites. My conclusion: RWers preach civility to others, but, at least on the web, practice a kind of rat-pack-like ideological solidarity, and consider hatefulness appropriate towards those with whom they disagree.
Incidentally, for all the protestations about my writing, as in the passage rewritten—so as to be longer but admittedly clearer—the same could be done with MANY MANY posts on this site by RWers, including both of those by Tongueboy. I am reminded of the mentality behind the Administration of literacy tests in the Jim Crow South. The whole issue is just a way to find something to complain about. Comments on a thread, including lengthy ones by the RW, and including even original columns, sometimes ramble. That is only a problem when you have an ideological disagreement but don’t want to engage the SUBSTANCE. There, I said substance again.
I would add that there is little incentive to take all kinds of extra time to polish my ‘writing’ (like most posters, I am essentially conversing on the web) given the kinds of responses that there are.
*The issues raised, such as the spying on left-wing groups that have taken place, simply do not matter or are categorically supported by the RWers on this site, some of whom say so. But they haven’t come out when it might be a subject of debate, eg, in response to any of the articles to which I have linked, because there is some discomfort with coming out with the truth—not that civil liberties (as most people understand them) are in no danger, but that these matters are simply not valued when it comes to progressives’ and liberals’ political expression, something categorically not valued in this context. The repeated mantra that only ‘members of Al Qaeda’ are being subject to surveillance, when I have yet to see ONE example of legal restrictions ever preventing the surveillance of someone where there is concrete evidence of their having links to Al Qaeda, is simply evasiveness.
Statements like “if groups aren’t terrorist, why are they complaining about snooping?” (a silly argument) are closer to the actual position.
* Sure, there is an interest in debate, but only among the fine points of difference among those agreeing that: the War in Iraq was always a good idea and that there isn’t even the hint of a possibility that it might be hindering the global struggle with terror-jihadism; that Bush never lies; that there are no serious civil liberties problems about governmental conduct under color of the GWOT, only maybe some legal technicalities to iron out; that the entire MSM, such as the New York Times can be dismissed on any claim of fact, categorically, as too far to the left to be worth considering; and much more. No one who doesn’t agree with this consensus is to be seriously considered. The issues of writing style and such are just sticks to pick up—selectively, as I have noted—in pursuit of that agenda.
While there are some sites, like Democratic Underground, that ban the advocacy of RW views, such as those views which are the tacit
“consensus” here, for the honest purpose of honing views within a certain set of parameters, RWers prefer a web analogue to ‘constructive eviction’. Why? Because it helps to maintain the myth of being open, and to responding on the basis of merit. But this myth is nothing more than a myth. Occasionally, someone will respond to a point that is raised, or there might be an opportunity to add a point to the interesting discussions raised by patience, actus, Tim, and others. But all the infield chatter is nothing more than or better than an extremely revealing pattern. It suggests an inability to even think outside a certain box, to seriously engage with any ideas that are not in one’s own quite narrowly defined camp.
I would add that the close reading of the STYLE of writing, and of editing issues, highlights the specific evasion of the content of what is said, rather than the vapidity of the content. Merely asserting, even in a chorus, that something “says nothing” or “has no content” doesn’t make it so. To demonstrate that requires engagement, and engagement is precisely what there is every effort to avoid, any protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.
Cloudy, why did you just write all that? I read about half of it and it just said the same thing: you dislike how you’re not being treated seriously and you feel the left-wing crowd is much more civil.
I said that in one line, you take many paragraphs. That’s why you’re a joke.
I should add, learn how to write a comment as opposed to an essay, and you may be treated more seriously. But not if you use terms like “Repuglican” or whatever you said a few posts back.
right before I fell asleep reading Cloudy’s latest, I spotted:
‘But this myth is nothing more than a myth.’
keep tryin’ kid, you’re getting closer!
Cloudy,
Now I’m hurt. Like the little intellectual child being manipulated by the dark forces of capitalist mercantilist imperialism that I am, I give you a playful slap and you whip out your wiffle paddle on me. My feelings are mixed: I admire your earnestness but am rendered lethargic by your arguments; your motives seem pure yet I am petrified of being devoured by the yawning chasm of Chomsky-cant you’ve spun (hat tip to Thomas Friedman for the metaphor). I’ll repeat my earlier tip: get bi-lingual. We speak English in these here parts, pahdna.
And get a better web-browser since yours doesn’t seem to display emoticons.
But thometimeth a myth ith ath good ath a mile.
Good Lord cloudy, how many innocent electrons had to die to excrete that last screed?
If you have a point to make, please make it.
…think about those poor electrons.
Cloudy,
Please allow me to give you a few pieces of advise:
1.Write short concise comments.
2.Write short concise comments.
3.Write short concise comments.
4.Discern the nature of the article you comment on. Is it serious? Is it playful? Is it utterly ridiculous? Adjust your outrage and tone accordingly. Case in point Russ Feingold having an imaginary conversation with a Footlocker employee? I’m leaning towards playful/leaning toward ridiculous.
5.Sense of humor. Have you ever heard of one?
6.Write short concise comments.
Exercising the above principles will greatly enhance your stay at Casa De Goldstein.
OK, here’s a shorter, conciser comment.
(1) None of the points made in the previous comment were addressed, again.
(2) One of those points was that long comments or comments that aren’t crisply written are no problem when written by RWers here.
(3) Yes, progressive sites are MORE civil, yet whine less about “decency” and “courtesy”.
[politeness]
(4)my main concern, Tongueboy, was not with the playfulness, but the LACK of addressing what I had said, in what was written apparently as a response.
(5)For all the protestations about the Feingold thing being a joke, there has been plenty of serious commentary on this thread. I still say that the main focus of “monarchialism” needs to be on the unilateral exercise of executive power without accountability, rather than on legislation that isn’t on the approved RW agenda.
(6) APF, there were at least a half-dozen other points that I made in that long post that aren’t included in your “summary”, which is typical.
Also typical is the “summary” of a statement without addressing the statement itself, even in “summarized” form.
Jesus Christ, Cloudy.
I give up. You are helpless.
Me too. Has anybody seen the Universal Translator? Spock swears he hasn’t seen it and, as we all know, Vulcans can’t lie.
Get your own fucking blog, cloudy. Cheeerist.
My morning dumps are more consice than anything you blather on about.
Concise, he meant.