Home » Blog » It's about upholding the Constitution, Mr. Bush
Blog for America
It's about upholding the Constitution, Mr. Bush
Linked to groups: Rockingham/Strafford DFA, Blog For America
The latest set-back for the Bush Administration is entitled Boumediene v. Bush and, IMHO, the conservatives are quite correct in being really upset. Because Justice Kennedy has finally made his point that the Constitution is a limiting document, designed to define and restrict the behavior of the agents of government in exchange for their having been granted the power to use force. As one of the commenters on the News Hour pointed out, the implication of the decision reaches much further than the prison on Guantanmo. In establishing that the Constitution follows the flag, it will affect U.S. government actions all around the globe.
What that means is that, regardless of where on the globe, the agents of the United States government are active, their actions are subject to the same limitations, prohibitions and directives as they are at home. Not only has the distinction between alien and citizen to define behavior been thrown out, but it's no longer going to be possible to ignore, for example, the regulations designed to protect the environment when the U.S. military engages in overseas operations (such as targeting the reefs around Guam in practice bombing runs).
Of course, that U.S. law is more stringent is what the Bush Administration argued in opting out of the jurisdiction of the International Court and claiming immunity for American military and contractual personnel in Afghanistan and Iraq. But, in practice, it then failed to enforce many of the provisions, largely because of a belief that the law is aimed towards directing and protecting individuals' behaviors, rather than at restricting the behavior of government agents. The protection of individual rights and freedoms is a consequence of the restrictions on the use of force/power by the agents of government; not the cause. Government isn't tasked with protecting the population, as Bush/Cheney are wont to argue; the people's rights and liberties just end up being protected, when the functions of government agents are limited to what's been specifically permitted.
As I've argued before, the regimen for the ordinary person (regardless of his or her social condition--i.e. citizen or alien) is different from that imposed on government officials. Individual behavior is addressed by specific prohibitions as codified in the criminal law. Behavior that's not prohibited is considered to be allowed. The agents of government, on the other hand, are restricted to performing only those tasks which are specifically permitted or demanded (what they may and/or must do). That this regimen is not attractive to Bush/Cheney is not surprising, since it's rather obvious that they got into governing so they could tell the people what to do.
In practice, the agents of the United States government have been rather cavalier about complying with the limitations imposed by the United States Constitution for some time, when they were conducting operations on foreign soil. Not to mention the blatant disregard for other nations' laws by the intelligence agencies. However, in recent years there's been a consistent effort to distinguish legal and illegal behavior on the basis of whether the individuals were/are citizens of the United States (at home or abroad) or aliens and to re-enforce that distinction by arguing that the Constitution only applies to government interactions with U.S. citizens here at home. This despite the fact that the Constitution makes no such distinction, except in regard to citizen participation in government either as an elector or as an elected or appointed official/agent.
Was it wishful thinking or a lack of legal training which led to a lot of government lawyers opining that whatever the executive hadn't been prohibited from doing, it could--to overlook that a different regimen applies to civilians and government agents? Maybe it was just hubris or a refusal to come to terms with the fact that, under our system, the power to govern resides with the people. When you come right down to it, government BY the people has only just begun to be realized--now that all citizens not only have access to the ballot, but are entitled to access and assess all the information they require to determine that their interests are being served, or not.
Indeed, the assumption that the people govern has perhaps blinded us to the importance of legislation such as the Freedom of Information Act, without which it's not possible for the citizens to know what's being done in their name. It's obviously not been overlooked by those who prefer a return to the old days of the ruling elite. What else is the surge in the volume of classified (secret) information but an effort to restore the closed door and the smoke-filled room?
What's truly ironic about the Boumediene v. Bush decision is that it needn't have had to come to that--to having the supremacy of the Constitution over the behavior of the agents of government affirmed. If Bush/Cheney had been satisfied to comply with the earlier decisions and guaranteed the rights of those it had taken captive in foreign lands, the question of whether the Constitution follows the flag wouldn't have come up. It was because the Bush lawyers argued that the Constitution does not extend to the behavior of U.S. government agents on foreign soil that the Supreme Court was able to rule that it does and set a precedent that may well extend to the 750 U.S. military bases and installations around the globe, regardless of whether or not the foreign owners give us permission to wreck havoc there.
Some say Hillary Clinton’s defeat was the victory of sexism — but Obama faced at least as much racism. No, this resounding defeat goes beyond pernicious isms and beyond one candidate — it is a fist-pounding rejection of a corrupt ideology.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3760/an_anti_clinton_for_vp/
He ran as one, but did not vote as one. Both he and Jon Tester have been disappointments in that regard, especially voting against Sanders' bill.
I do agree on this potential choice:
And outside the electoral arena there are people like Anna Burger — a leader of one of the largest labor unions, who was recently hailed by The Wall Street Journal as one of the 50 most influential women in America.
- will justice be served ? (Fallujah -- our modern-day Guernica)
By * rdorgan on Jun 13, 2008 12:31 PM EDThttp://www.antiwar.com/ips/fadhily.php?articleid=12984
| 'Special Weapons' Have a Fallout on Babies in Fallujah |
| by Ali al-Fadhily and Dahr Jamail |
| <!--startclickprintexclude--><!--endclickprintexclude-->
FALLUJAH - Babies born in Fallujah are showing illnesses and deformities on a scale never seen before, doctors and residents say. The new cases, and the number of deaths among children, have risen after "special weaponry" was used in the two massive bombing campaigns in Fallujah in 2004. After denying it at first, the Pentagon admitted in November 2005 that white phosphorous, a restricted incendiary weapon, was used a year earlier in Fallujah. In addition, depleted uranium (DU) munitions, which contain low-level radioactive waste, were used heavily in Fallujah. The Pentagon admits to having used 1,200 tons of DU in Iraq thus far. Many doctors believe DU to be the cause of a severe increase in the incidence of cancer in Iraq, as well as among US veterans who served in the 1991 Gulf War and through the current occupation. "We saw all the colors of the rainbow coming out of the exploding American shells and missiles," Ali Sarhan, a 50-year-old teacher who lived through the two US sieges of 2004 told IPS. "I saw bodies that turned into bones and coal right after they were exposed to bombs that we learned later to be phosphorus. "The most worrying is that many of our women have suffered loss of their babies, and some had babies born with deformations." "I had two children who had brain damage from birth," 28-year-old Hayfa' Shukur told IPS. "My husband has been detained by the Americans since November 2004 and so I had to take the children around by myself to hospitals and private clinics. They died. I spent all our savings and borrowed a considerable amount of money." Shukur said doctors told her that it was use of the restricted weapons that caused her children's brain damage and subsequent deaths, "but none of them had the courage to give me a written report." ... |
oops, above article dated today -- June 13, 2008
(earlier related article -- http://www.chris-floyd.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=294&Itemid=1 )
...
...
...
...
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/13/101636/281/684/535293
My thoughts and prayers are with all Iowans.
tomorrow is Flag Day ---
--- though, I still won't be flying a Stars and Stripes flag afixed to the side of my house, like some of my neighbors do;
that will have to wait I'll until next Jan 21, the first day of an Obama administration
- All of my flags, whether magnets or the small one in my office, fly upside down at the moment
By Denise in San Mateo County on Jun 13, 2008 1:54 PM EDT
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904
| Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? * 704618 responses | |
| Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial. 89%  |
|
| No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching "high crimes and misdemeanors." 4.2% |
|
| No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching. 4.6% |
|
| I don't know. 2% |
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/87962/?ses=28d6827770360557289e9ff620240c05
Bush's rhetoric on Iran is frighteningly similar to his pantomime of diplomacy in the build-up to the Iraq war. And the media is eating it up.
With 223 days left in his presidency, George W. Bush laid more flagstones along a path to war on Iran. There was the usual declaration that "all options are on the table" -- and, just as ominously, much talk of diplomacy.
Three times on Wednesday, the Associated Press reports, Bush "called a diplomatic solution 'my first choice,' implying there are others. He said 'we'll give diplomacy a chance to work,' meaning it might not."
That's how Bush talks when he's grooving along in his Orwellian comfort zone, eager to order a military attack.
"We seek peace," Bush said in the State of the Union address on January 28, 2003. "We strive for peace."
Stop dithering Dems, impeach the SOB before he starts WWIII
It's another one of those words that mean something else coming out of Republican mouths.
It's another word for threat. If the threat doesn't work, then it's time to bash.
This bash, by the way, is defensive for the simple reason that the failure to back down is equivalent to an attack which needs to be defended against.
The law of the jungle is more reasonable. These people are mad and madmen need to be stopped.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080612_an_anti_clinton_for_vp/?ln
The conventional reason why Clinton shouldn’t be on the ticket is a purely political one—the theory goes that because she is so despised by Republicans, her name on the ticket could help John McCain consolidate the GOP base behind his candidacy. Little discussed is the fact that putting Clinton on the ticket could directly undermine the mandate of the party’s primary: the rejection not of Hillary Clinton, but of Clintonism itself.
Clinton backers have long said Clintonism is all about moderation, negotiation and smart positioning in the face of Republican extremism. But it really is the politics of capitulation, triangulation and obfuscation in the face of money and power.
Bill Clinton spent his time in the White House working with Republicans to champion trade, telecommunications and financial deregulation—destructive policies specifically crafted to boost corporate profits at the expense of ordinary workers. As a key Clinton administration player, Hillary Clinton promoted many of these policies, and as a senator she has backed abominations like the credit card industry-written bankruptcy bill and the war in Iraq.
but Clinton was merely implemeting the agenda of the people who bankrolled his campaign. Ditto for the Bushes and Clark and Huckabee this time around.
Bush's peculiar familiarity with the stem-cell issue is evidence. Biotechnology is one of the things the family-owned enterprises are heavily invested in--gene insertion and manipulation that's not dependent on embryo DNA.
Just want to make that clear. My employer's PAC is weighted more toward the Democrats, as are our lobbyists. I know many of them personally. True, both parties are involved, but we are different in that most of our investors tend to lean left. And we are different in that we spend more in R&D than marketing - the only large biotech/pharma company to do so. All the others have that flipped.
- Excellent, Monica. Sounds like there are going to be some changes abroad.
By Pat in Colorado on Jun 13, 2008 1:40 PM EDTI don't think the conservative analyst was over-reacting. The legal differences are immense. I don't know why they didn't listen to Anthony Kennedy and perceive the direction in which he was heading.
It was sort of shocking to read a piece by that von Spakovsky fellow yesterday, in which he starts off--
One of the most damaging developments in Washington over the last few years is the increasingly vicious attacks on government lawyers for providing legal opinions with which political opponents of President Bush disagree. I was blocked from confirmation to the Federal Election Commission because of legal opinions I provided to my superiors at the Department of Justice, and there are other lawyers experiencing the same attacks for the legal opinions they provided — Stephen Bradbury, nominated to the Office of Legal Counsel at DOJ, and John Yoo, who is not only being sued over his opinions, but whose post-government employment is being threatened. That we were not the final decision-makers is ignored; only that we provided legal opinions that other officials relied on in taking actions that certain senators and highly partisan advocacy organizations do not agree with politically.
When you read his piece it's clear he hasn't a clue that the job of the government lawyers was to represent the interests of the American people and no awareness that, over and over, the courts had found the advice to be wrong. Perhaps these people just weren't trained in constitutional law.
Yoo, if he bothered to look, would be hard-pressed to find legislative permission to torture. It seems that from his perspective, if it wasn't prohibited, it was legal. That's just not how the Constitution works.
But I will grant that I hadn't a clue until I started attending to Justice Kennedy.
Has the full implementation of every appropriate Federal and State program including over 2000 of the National Guard, and the head of FEMA.
lessons were learned from Katrina it appears
Wisconsin has closed I 90-94 and Iowa I 80 so don't expect to travel west of Chicago for a few days
83 of Iowa's 99 counties are now disaster areas, making us the bullseye, but the devastation started in Missouri and touches every adjacent state and east to Mich. and Indiana
bad as it is in the cities the loss to agriculture may even exceed it, but with farmers, risk from weather goes with the territory and few home owners expect to get hit with a 500 year flood
Iowa has a great Governor and he has been really on top of things, so loss of life has been minimized.
rebuilding will take years
the emergency response so far has been excellent
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/linkframe.php?linkid=61736
During his "town hall" event in New Hampshire yesterday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) got into a verbal back and forth with a voter over his support for Social Security privatization. McCain told the man, “I’m not for, quote, privatizing Social Security. I never have been. I never will be.”
But McCain’s record begs to differ:
- “Without privatization, I don’t see how you can possibly, over time, make sure that young Americans are able to receive Social Security benefits.” [C-Span Road to the White House, 11/18/2004]
- “As part of Social Security reform, I believe that private savings accounts are a part of it — along the lines that President Bush proposed.” [Wall Street Journal, 3/3/2008]
Not only was McCain “a big booster” of Bush’s 2005 plan to privatize Social Security, but one of his top economic advisers, Carly Fiorina, recently told conservative radio host Bill Bennett that McCain “supports private accounts as one of the ways to reform the system” and that “he will continue to be supportive of those.”
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/alerts/362
When taking over as Speaker of the House in 2006, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said impeachment was "off the table." She has stuck to that statement thus far. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the man in charge of calling Kucinich's resolution up for debate, said at the Take Back America Conference earlier this spring that he would consider waiting until after the presidential elections to pursue impeachment.
Kucinich does not see this as an option.
"If we wait, we're licensing further abuses of power. There's been broad concern that this administration could attack Iran. Why should we give them the opening to do so by failing to challenge the lies that they told that took us into war with Iraq?" he asked. "We cannot wait for after the election. We don't know what could happen in the next six months with respect to a further erosion of our democratic process. And what the impeachment process would do would be to have a chilling effect on further abuses of the Constitution and on creating another war."
"The House leadership, which is above Congressman Conyers, and even the leadership of the Democratic Party now are joining in and saying, 'Well, we just can't do this.' Well, you know what? This isn't about politics anymore. This is about whether or not there's such a thing as the rule of law, and you can't have a political agreement to violate the law."
Kucinich differs with those who have suggested that the hearings could be divisive. He sees impeachment as an opportunity for healing both the partisan divisions between people and the mistrust Americans have for their government.
"This war has been a wedge, which has driven Americans apart," he said. As for Congress, he said that "there is no logical explanation for their position. We cannot abdicate our responsibilities. If we abdicate our responsibilities, we end up being in collusion. Why are we not acting? There's a reason why the Congress is so low in polls and I think it's because the American people feel we won't stand up."
Kucinich said Congress is not living up to its responsibilities to the American people. But he has personal feelings about the resolution that drove him to move forward on impeachment.
"Where's our heart here? What is going on that we can't connect with the suffering of other people?" he asked. "We can't say, 'Oh, yeah, we went into a war, they didn't tell the truth and all these people died. Sorry about that. Pass the Grey Poupon.' We can't do that. We cannot become so callous that we don't care that innocent people are killed. This is what's driving me."
Anyway, what was supposed to be in large print was: Obamaniacs won't like this article:
It's a look at the BIG picture and written by an Aussie. Before you throw tomatos at me, check out his own words, which are never challenged by CMWs...not even Keith.
**********************
Obama Is a Truly Democratic Expansionist
by John Pilger
In 1941, the editor Edward Dowling wrote: "The two greatest obstacles to democracy in the United States are, first, the widespread delusion among the poor that we have a democracy, and second, the chronic terror among the rich, lest we get it." What has changed? The terror of the rich is greater than ever, and the poor have passed on their delusion to those who believe that when George W Bush finally steps down next January, his numerous threats to the rest of humanity will diminish.
The nomination of Barack Obama, which, according to one breathless commentator, "marks a truly exciting and historic moment in US history", is a product of the new delusion. Actually, it just seems new. Truly exciting and historic moments have been fabricated around US presidential campaigns for as long as I can recall, generating what can only be described as bullsh*t on a grand scale. Race, gender, appearance, body language, rictal spouses and offspring, even bursts of tragic grandeur, are all subsumed by marketing and "image-making", now magnified by "virtual" technology.
snip
. He promised to support an "undivided Jerusalem" as Israel's capital. Not a single government on earth supports the Israeli annexation of all of Jerusalem, including the Bush regime, which recognises the UN resolution designating Jerusalem an international city.
His second statement, largely ignored, was made in Miami on 23 May. Speaking to the expatriate Cuban community – which over the years has faithfully produced terrorists, assassins and drug runners for US administrations – Obama promised to continue a 47-year crippling embargo on Cuba that has been declared illegal by the UN year after year.
Again, Obama went further than Bush. He said the United States had "lost Latin America". He described the democratically elected governments in Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua as a "vacuum" to be filled.
full article
http://www.antiwar.com/pilger/?articleid=12983
I will grant you that Obama is a bit naive. However, he's a quick study and Howard has got his back. Also, he's taking direction from some old liberals.
There is no reason to divide Jerusalem. We already know what a mess a divided city is from the experience of Berlin. Don't want to do that again. Is Rome the capital of Italy? Does the Vatican, a sovereign state, sit within its middle? Boundaries are figments of the imagination, so they can be drawn anywhere.
There's no question that the U.S. has lost much of South America as an affiliated area. And the democracies taking over in some countries are indeed filling a leadership vacuum, which is not necessarily a bad thing since the prior leaders were, for the most part, corrupt.
Don't we consider much of the traditional Democratic establishment a hollow shell?
http://www.counterpunch.org/ramakrishnan06132008.html
Sometimes it is not how many times something is said that counts, but when, where and how. Nearly four years after re-electing George W. Bush (knowing the WMD thing was a crock, knowing of Abu Ghraib, knowing of Blackwater, knowing of wa profiteering), the American people, now paying 4 dollars for a gallon of gas (under 2 dollars before a war one of whose 'wink-wink' aims was to insure cheap oil), a mortgage collapse and a general and pervasive angst (dare one call it 'malaise'?).
The time was opportune. The place, one of the highest platforms in the land. On June 9, standing on the floor of the House of Representatives, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) read out the Articles of Impeachment which he was introducing against George W. Bush.
The country owes Rep. Dennis Kucinich a debt of gratitude.
Herein lies a question. Before the elections of 2006 John Conyers, who had hitherto given the appearance of champing at the bit to consider impeachment, only being held back, he gave us to understand, by being in the minority (see The Action Thing). Upon this situation changing in November that year, everyone expected Conyers to get busy with impeachment. Nearly two years later, Conyers has been, to borrow a phrase from PG Wodehouse, vague and evasive. Having delayed it for the best part of two years, the argument now being made is that it is too late. Chutzpah is defined something like this, except here it is cowardice. What could be more urgent?
When thousands have died, Iraqis and Americans, there is no such thing as too late. A country which ignores crimes against its constitution has not long to live as a republic. What could be more urgent than bringing to book those who had diminished and defrauded the country?
Let's be honest. Nobody wanted to address the mess George W. Bush had made, especially not with a Republican House and Senate in 2004. What could Dean or Kerry have accomplished? Bush/Cheney are not supermen. They ride on the shoulders of an army of war profiteers who have lots of friends in Congress.
(When I suggested recently that NH lusting after the cyber command being planned by the Air Force was not a good idea on our Congresswoman's part, I was roundly rebuked for not wanting economic progress for our state. Nobody wanted to consider that the plan was to spy on the internet. Never mind that with 17 states in line, it was highly unlikely that NH would have a chance at it anyway).
That the nation has been led down the garden path by one idiot president is pure illusion. As was the myth that Hitler misled Germany single-handedly. The myth of the "great" leader serves a purpose--to relieve others of responsibility. Thirty years of U.S. military aggression are not the fault of George W. Bush alone.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003816332&imw=Y
German Papers Say 'Many Have Lost Faith in America' Because of Bush
By E&P Staff
Published: June 13, 2008 11:27 AM ET
NEW YORK With George W. Bush visiting Germany and other parts of Europe this week, German newspapers have been slamming the U.S. president in language stronger than most American dailies use.
The Der Spiegel publication compiled some of the comments, which are quoted below.
-- Berliner Zeitung: "Rarely has an American president been less popular in this country. And rarely has one embodied the arrogance of power more convincingly than Bush.
"It is unforgotten how he humiliated the United Nations, how he went to war against Iraq with a 'Coalition of the Willing,' how his closest aides portrayed France and Germany as wimps. Bush discredited values which had brought United States worldwide respect. Many have lost faith in America because of the false reasons given for the war, the unlawful imprisonment of terror suspects in Guantanamo, or the photos of Abu Ghraib."
...
Shining India backs Obama over McCain
13 Jun 2008, 2312 hrs IST
,Chidanand Rajghatta,TNN
...
The 24-country, 24000-people survey conducted by the Pew Global Attitudes Project broadly confirmed the continuing positive view of the United States in India even as its image has sunk across much of the world. Previous surveys had indicated that much of the goodwill for the US arose from a skewed urban sample that benefited from the jobs and economic opportunities provided by expanding trade.
In fact, favorable view of the US in India has gone up from 59 per cent in 2007 to 66 per cent in 2008, next only to South Korea (70 per cent) and Poland (68 per cent). In contrast, the US has low approval ratings in Islamic countries -- Turkey (12 per cent), Pakistan and Jordan (19 per cent) and Egypt (22 per cent).
However, even as Indians believe they are benefiting from US economic policies, the survey shows that support for international trade continues to decline in the United States -- 53 per cent of Americans say trade is good for their country, down from 59 per cent last year and 78 per cent in 2002. Support for trade is lower in the US than in any other country included in the survey.
There is considerable interest in the presidential campaign in the surveyed countries. Respondents across the world express more confidence in Barack Obama than in John McCain to do the right thing regarding world affairs, including in India, where the Democrat leads the Republican 33-28. McCain is rated lower than Obama in every country surveyed, except for the United States where his rating matches Obama's.
Obama's advantage over McCain is overwhelming in the Western European countries surveyed: Fully 84% of the French who have been following the election say they have confidence in Obama to do the right thing regarding world affairs, compared with 33% who say that about McCain. The differences in ratings for Obama and McCain are about as large in Spain and Germany, and are only somewhat narrower in Great Britain.
...
- Good responses, Monica. A debate with solid reasoning is a pleasure to read.
By Pat in Colorado on Jun 13, 2008 2:56 PM EDTBacking BO over McC is a no-brainer.
But we don't yet know about BO...it could go either way and the beginning is not comforting. I'm not convinced he'll listen to Howard..not yet...not with Tewes and Brzenski on board.
I don't believe for a minute that we're talking about BO's vision. I believe, like many prezes before him, that he'll be the front man in a larger grander, greedier scheme. Can he break the back of power-brokers? Time will tell. He had a chance with AIPAC but apparently getting elected is more important than calling out AIPAC for what it is....
He's a nice intelligent man who was packaged for an upset country
Call me cynical. :-)
Monica, with all due respect, Chavez was elected. We can't keep overthrowing democracies duly elected by the people. Venezuela is not a vaccum.
Besides, overthrowing a democracy by a supposed U.S. democracy, hiding inside expansionism and imperialism, can hardly be called filling a vacuum. If S.A. wants to elect people we don't like, it's entirely their business. After all, we elected people they don't like.
SA is the next place the greedy corps will rape the people and land. At least Chavez is doing something for the people.
Is Chavez next on BO's "petty dictator" list? Shouldn't he start with IMPEACHING OUR OWN PETTY DICTATOR?
It is not an auspicious beginning IMO.
http://www.thecalifornian.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080613/NEWS01/80613011
United Farm Workers to endorse Obama
Staff report • June 13, 2008
On Saturday, the United Farm Workers, its executive board and worker leadership from throughout the United States will throw their support behind Sen. Barack Obama in his quest to be the country’s next president.
...
- I call you using the same reasoning Rush Limbaugh, Cal Thomas, Chuck Green, and William Kristol use.
By Pat in Colorado on Jun 13, 2008 3:13 PM EDTA sentence here or there out of context and a totality of conclusions.
Yesterday, Cal Thomas wrote an article detailing why Obama is not a Christian: because he believes that others who are not Christian will go to heaven, because individuals who have their own beliefs that depart from a fundamentalist dogma are not damned, because he doesn't proseltize.
That kind of reasoning is frankly terrifying. Have we really become that dumb, that someone like Cal Thomas is syndicated across the country, read by millions, and makes an outstanding amount of money for his writing? This is 16th Century stuff.
And, frankly, it would be good if we could get away from taking a sentence here or there, an impression, and then judging someone's intelligence, character, experience, and future actions. The reasoning to me is every bit as faulty as Cal Thomas'.
Pat -
Just curious, who here on this blog are you referring to ? ("I call you using the same reasoning Rush Limbaugh, Cal Thomas, Chuck Green, and William Kristol use.")
I can see how much fun name calling is, Seashell. The problem is it just generates more anger.
So, I apologize to you as well, though your reasoning and your tactics I find deplorable.
I'll stay off the blog for a while. Sorry folks. I'm seriously concerned when Cal Thomas can write an article like that and it's published?!
Don't go away. You speak for many of us but it falls on deaf ears. I gave up trying to reason with unreasonable people, either here or in person. You know, even we slackers have a limit.
Add your comment
(to reply directly to a comment, click the reply icon for that comment)Post closed to commenting
 |
|
 |
My DFA |
|
Members |
|
Groups |
|
Events |
|
Candidates |
 |
|
Blog for America
-
How to Maintain Focus
By Thomas Janowski on Jan 3, 2009 8:47 AM EST -
Buying American-made Toys
By Stephen Crockett on Dec 28, 2008 2:18 AM EST -
Obama's Team says it's our turn to lead
By Susan Rowe on Dec 16, 2008 3:35 PM EST -
Those six southern GOP Senators are Traitors
By Kenneth C on Dec 12, 2008 12:23 PM EST -
GOP Copy Cats
By Dave Santucci on Dec 10, 2008 9:09 AM EST
- Great diary
By Cheryl on Jun 13, 2008 12:13 PM EDTNow this is front page worthy.
Howard is first.