We interrupt this Foley garbage

[sirs]

to bring you back to issues that actually matter

Court says eavesdropping program can continue
Wed Oct 4, 2006

CHICAGO (Reuters) - The government can continue to use its warrantless domestic wiretap program pending the Justice Department's appeal of a federal judge's ruling outlawing the program, an Appeals Court in Cincinnati ruled on Wednesday.

The ruling overturned District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor's decision last week to deny a lengthy stay in the case, which is expected to end up with the Supreme Court.

In August, Taylor ruled that the National Security Agency's five-year-old surveillance program, implemented as part of the government's war on terrorism, violates the civil rights of Americans.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the suit in March on behalf of scholars, attorneys, journalists and non-profit groups that regularly communicate with people in the Middle East.


http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-10-04T202048Z_01_N04262861_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-EAVESDROPPING.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

[Brassmask]

Foley garbage

Primo wagon circling.

[Brassmask]

[Michael Tee]

 . . . and other issues of Republican misfeasance, nonfeasance and general incompetence and stupidity.  Great toon of the "dropped shoes," BTW.  Looked in vain for Duke Cunningham's tortured sole, but it must have gotten lost in the pile.

[The_Professor]

Heal thyself! The Democrats aren't pure either, gents. Let's investigate all evenly and fairly and see what filth comes out in the end. No pre-judging, no snippy comments, just good ole policework.

Just remember: no one will ever look at a cigar the same way again!

"Those who are without sin, cast the first stone!"

[Brassmask]

When the DEMS are swimming in shit like the GOP is right now, we'll turn to them.

Let's just enjoy the implosion as it happens.  It's just great seeing all these lying pieces of shit fall flat before the wagon circlers.

[sirs]

Foley garbage

Primo wagon circling.

Yea, condemning Foley's actions is so "primo wagon circling"         

[The_Professor]

Brass, why do you relish at another's fall? It is immensely sad, whether it is Republican or Democrat to see people so perverted. I'm not saying not to punish the. After all, if you do the crime, then you must do the time. But, seeing someone fall into depravity doesn't anger me, it makes me sad that people become so astray. I felt the same way about Bill Clinton as well. I didn't advocate impeaching him even thoguh his actions were despicable. It was more than sad to see the President of the greatest nation on this earth come to such depravity. Politicans should be PUBLIC servants, not seekers of irrespopnsible power, etc.

[Brassmask]

The only reason I'm relishing this so much is because those on the right have been setting themselves up as the paragons of virtue and protectors of the weak ordained by the hand of a god and it turns out they are nothing more than ass-covering, hide-saving, lying power-grabbers.

[Amianthus]

The only reason I'm relishing this so much is because those on the right have been setting themselves up as the paragons of virtue and protectors of the weak ordained by the hand of a god and it turns out they are nothing more than ass-covering, hide-saving, lying power-grabbers.

You really expect a politician to act differently? I just assume they're all pretty much like that - on both sides of the aisle.

[sirs]

The only reason I'm relishing this so much is because those on the right have been setting themselves up as the paragons of virtue and protectors of the weak ordained by the hand of a god...

Here, we get to see the mind of knute, in another person's typing.  Once again, every Republican is apparently pure as the driven snow, as they are these supposed "paragons of virture", simply because they advocate living a moral lifestyle.  And if one of them dares sin, then they all are supposed hypocrits.  Which also apparently means, that its perfectly ok if you're a Dem to be a pervert, pedophile, racist & rapist, simply because advoocating better morals is not the Dem thing to do.  In fact, you can even be re-elected, and be supported for it

...turns out they are nothing more than ass-covering, hide-saving, lying power-grabbers

That's pretty much the definition of nearly EVERY DC Politician, Brass

[_JS]

That's pretty much the definition of nearly EVERY DC Politician, Brass

Except George W. Bush, right?

Come on, you all can't get too high on those horses can you? Schadenfreude is human nature.

Also, it isn't strange to demand more from individuals who campaign on morality and values. It is a double-edged sword to use at one's peril. Most democratic countries have the same problem with politicians that use such a platform - John Major is an excellent example from the UK.

It is only logical. If I ran for County Treasurer on a platform of reforming the system for more transparency and using money legally and establishing more accountability - then I was caught in an imbezzling scandal - don't you think I should have been held to a higher standard based on my campaign?

The same is true for morals and values campaigning. You use it at your peril. If you campaign on it, then plan to go out and screw good looking young lobbyists whose bills go through your committee then yes, you are held to a higher standard based on your campaign. Tough, deal with it.

[sirs]

Except George W. Bush, right?   Come on, you all can't get too high on those horses can you?

You're not gonna pull the same dren, are you Js?  Where if one doesn't agree with you, they must believe the polar opposite?    that if you don't believe Bush lied us into war, then they must believes he's never lied ever?  That if you don't believe these hairbrained illogical notions that it was all for the oil, and having this thug brutal military, that you must believe that America & Bush can do no wrong??  Tee was pulling that all over the place with Hastert the last 2 days trying lamely to rationalize this mythical "circling".  I'm disappointed your starting to follow the same trail of AMBE

Also, it isn't strange to demand more from individuals who campaign on morality and values

Strange, in how I see an advocation for such, while you see it as a "demand".  I guess I need to pay more attention to the bills being proposed by the GOP to get a grasp of these "demands".  and it also appears that you're giving credence to the notion that since Dems don't "demand" such, then it's perfectly ok for them to pull any and all amoral acts, since ...well...since they don't "demand it" from anyone

[_JS]

First, the W remark was a joke. Sheesh.

Second, read what I wrote. It is about me. I'm not quite that egocentric. It is about voters in general Sirs.

My point is that what you use in your campaign to get elected will come back to you. If you use morals and values as your campaign cornerstone, then you will be held to a higher standard by the voters. You'll note that not once did I mention Democrats or Republicans (it pays to actually read the post, not read into it what you wanted me to have said). I simply pointed that candidates who choose that will always face it as a double-edged sword. I'm stating a fact that has been seen time and time again in the United States and other nations as well. Voters who vote in a morals and values candidate will punish them if they see inconsistency in their lives. You may not like that, but it is true. You have a problem with it, bitching at me won't help you. I'm only a single voter and I find those candidates to be patronizing 99% of the time.

I suggest you try again and this time read it. There's a standard for all politicians (and people in general) that voters will hold. That's the flaw in your argument that "Democrats can do anything." Not too mention that you're accusing me of partisanship where none exists. But, it is specifically those candidates who run on high moral platforms that are held to higher standards. You may think it unfair, but the voters do not. Or at least, historically they have not.

[Plane]

There's a standard for all politicians (and people in general) that voters will hold. That's the flaw in your argument that "Democrats can do anything." Not too mention that you're accusing me of partisanship where none exists. But, it is specifically those candidates who run on high moral platforms that are held to higher standards. You may think it unfair, but the voters do not. Or at least, historically they have not.

This same thing has happened to Democrats , in some cases these Democrats get re-elected , you are right to say that it is mostly up to the voters , but where is the flaw in the arguement when one is pointing out that Democratic voters do have lower standards , I think that the history of simular cases demonstrates this as a fact.