He speaks only to those who share either similar life experiences or those who have clung to extreme ideologies for decades.People who live their lives secluded among their own tribe. People who are reluctant to rub sholders with the other America. All of these fantasy ideologies have been tested and are abject failures. I can only conclude that this administration and its minions wish to direct and force the US into a similar system failure as well. This is the change they speak of and the hope is their hope-not ours.

I had a recollection a few days ago about some time in the not too distant past listening in on a group of young Marxists at another table explaing how they would begin a plan to bring down the US by bankrupting her with entitlement programs and the higher taxes to pay for them.

This doesn’t sound nearly as unlikely as it did then. In addition, it doesn’t make these statists sound as compassionate and virtuous as they would like to appear to us.

In fact, I think there is something inherently amiss with those people who would pursue an ideological dream of a few to the detriment of millions of people who will never share those same dreams-that same cause.

“Troll, time to move on.”

Proud ‘troll’.

47. Northerner:

“Wow, I was not familiar with this site and came by the above article via a link.

What do I find? A bunch of sa(n)ctimonious, biased, self=serving, blowhards that really appear to have a very narrow view of what is going on in the world and how it connects.”

You’re not the only one . . .

29. ione:

“Vivo I have hope for you, yet! If what you said is what you truly still believe. Because sooner or later you and others like you will realize you were fooled.”

The right-wing paranoia is infectious for those who cannot distinguish between truth and distortions. Different problems require different solutions, not a cookie cutter approach. That’s why the conservative philosophy is obsolete. But also, I’m not advocating liberal solutions, just common sense.

You (attempt to) keep the conversation somewhere between tedious and brain dead.

Thanks for helping to raise that bar, sweetie. You prove my point.

Peace.

DS

I agree with the dissenters in both cases. The habeus corpus of guys bearing arms against their own country on the battlefield, sans uniform, still makes them spies and/or saboteurs. Do they have a right to habeus corpus if U.S. Citizens? Yes, but the proper court is a military tribunal (because they were found on the battlefield), not a District court, because the latter path leads to the abuse of the legal system via court-shopping.

Of course, the court system, in order to reinforce its own power, ruled that District courts do have authority. Can the VP veto a bill? No. Only the Prez can. Juniors shouldn’t be able to overrule their superiors in other branches.

Part of the problem lies with the fact that Congress in their war resolution did not officially declare war. Lincoln jailed the opposition. FDR censored the press. No problem. Bush had a gray area with which to deal. I’m firmly against failing to declare war, but going to war anyway for just this reason. The Prez’ power must be clearly defined, especially as to whether the right of habeus corpus is suspended or not. Otherwise, you get just this kind of murky area. Honestly, I think only the Congress should have this ability. It is not clear in the Constitution which branch has the authority.

Bush’s actions do not rise to the level of War Crimes. To claim such is to equate giving a terrorist a swirly with wholesale genocide. I do not hold Bush as being out of line. Obviously, some of the Justices agree with him. At worst, they might be war misdemeanors, for which no case should be brought forth, as they are too trivial to justify the chilling effect on the Presidency. Blame Congress, not Bush.

As for Obama, yes, I do appreciate that he has continued to support so many of Bush’s foreign policies in fighting terrorism… Or, more accurately, Cheney’s policies. As Krauthammer opined, “I’m glad he has proven so broad-minded as to continue the inhumanity and the trampling of the Constitution.”

I hope you offer more arguments like this last. It is good for the debate. Yes, it does make it better, but not when you’re being nasty and sneering.

Yes, your rant was off-topic. The article is about the Obama’s elitist ways. It was not about Bush. Bush could be guilty as you say, and it would make no difference to the article. “Bush did it, too!” is no justification. This is just a red herring to throw off the scent.

Please stay on topic. I’m a reasonable guy. If you make a good argument, I shall listen. Many Conservatives are like me. For us, it is not about ideology, but about right and wrong. Stick to that and you can influence us. Show a little courtesy and respect and leave out the sneers and snark. People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care. You’ll never change minds by talking down to people.

Not you, sweet pea. You (attempt to) keep the conversation somewhere between tedious and brain dead.

There is no compelling reason to persist in the use of fossil fuels – unless you are making a profit on them.

Then I suggest you give up your fossil fuel based monitor & internet connection forthwith.

It will help with the hypocrisy.

My error #20, I was aiming that at vivo at # 22.

Troll, time to move on.

I’m sorry, but I refuse to be swayed by a lowly federal Judge in CA determining that the Prez has overstepped his bounds. Only the SCOTUS can do that.

In that case, here’s the case law from the SCOTUS that you should be aware of:

Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision establishing that the U.S. court system has the authority to decide whether foreign nationals (non-U.S. citizens) held in Guantanamo Bay were wrongfully imprisoned. The 6-3 ruling on June 29, 2004, reversed a District Court decision, which held that the Judiciary had no jurisdiction to handle wrongful imprisonment cases involving foreign nationals who are held in Guantanamo Bay. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Sandra Day O’Connor, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer, with Anthony Kennedy concurring. Justice Antonin Scalia filed a dissenting opinion and was joined by William Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas. The claimant whose name the case bears, Shafiq Rasul, was released before the decision was handed down.

On June 12, 2008, Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion for the 5-4 majority holding that the prisoners had a right to the habeas corpus under the United States Constitution and that the MCA was an unconstitutional suspension of that right.

Also, so you know, the Constitution specifically allows the suspension of habeus corpus in times of war. Sucks to be Hamdi, but he is a traitor to his country. I hope they prosecute and summarilly shoot the sorry so-and-so.

So you are taking issue with the Supreme Court again? Because that wasn’t their ruling:

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) was a U.S. Supreme Court decision reversing the dismissal of a habeas corpus petition brought on behalf of Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen being detained indefinitely as an “illegal enemy combatant”. The Court recognized the power of the government to detain unlawful combatants, but ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the ability to challenge their detention before an impartial judge.

Furthermore, Gonzales’ statement was merely a correction of the language being used and the presumptions thus being made. Read the paragraph again. It is merely specification. Naught else.

Keep telling yourself that. I can’t see it. Context matters.

Bush’s actions were legal. The wiretappings are legal and have been upheld. You like to use outdated studies and rulings and other things to bolster your flaccid arguments. Revealing the methods we use, if the knowlefge of them was classified, is illegal. Once again, Bush was right.

Bush was responsible for approving illegal actions on numerous occasions, as detailed in the above cases. The wiretapping cases are still going through the court system, and those acts may yet be found illegal. Obama’s justice department is being completely non-partisan in trying to defend the indefensible actions of the CIA, NSA, etc. under Bush. You should be thanking him.

Finally, this is nothing more than your usual hijacking of the thread, as it is grossly off-topic. The Mods should purge your comments. In fact, you should be banned from here period, as you consistently violate the posted rules.

This is precisely on topic. The topic is the roots of the Obamas’ contempt. This is it.

Your call for a purge of my comments is the last refuge of someone who has no response, and is too afraid to admit it. Why should I be banned? I am one of the more civil and respectful commenters in the forum, and bring a perspective that is under-represented. If you want to ban people for violating the posted rules, I’m sure you could start with a more prolific violator.

Without posters like me, this forum would wither and die. Who keeps the conversation lively? The dissenters. You should thank me, and instead you call out to the moderators to hold your hand and protect you from the big bad liberal. You would be better off if you would argue like an adult.

Peace.

DS