Autonomous

Not pnly is your assumption bigoted, it is also wrong. The most educated and affluent seem to tend towards Democrat, as well as the very poor. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer

So you don't see a difference between "in an emergency, go ahead and start surveillance without a warrant-just make sure to get a warrant within 72 hours" and the true warrantless surveillance the administration wants? Okay, now I understand.

If you had read what I posted, they can start surveillance without a warrant as long as they apply for a warrant within 72 hours. Now I know you can read, so obviously you're being purposely dishonest.

Considering 2Dim's entire posting history could be summarized as "react and flail wildly at anyone within arms reach," what do you think?

Oops-wife cleared the cookies. These were me.

Blah, blah, blah. Please note the italicized part. The attorney general can go ahead with the surveillance and apply later. The neocons want people to think that the debate is the Democrats not wanting to give the administration the power to perform immediate surveillance. But they already have this power. What they want is to be able to wiretap without any oversight even from an ex parte judgement.

The problem with your assertion is that we all know it isn't true. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usc...05----000-.html

Yes, the Establishment Clause should prohibit it. An anti-religion position is a religious opinion just as much as a religious position is. Secularism is not atheism and should not promote it.

I really didn't expect this thread to turn into this when I started it, but unfortunately I'm not particularly surprised.

HAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Actually, the law already allowed immediate wiretapping with approval afterwards. That is apparently too much transparency for this administration though-even though the court that approves the wiretapping after the fact is secret.

Wow-even your own sacred holiday isn't sacred to you.

You know, if I were God I'd be pissed that people like you make Me seem like such a jerk. Do you really think that your comment does anything but drive people further away from your view? When I'm in trouble I don't "say God help me." I stop, reflect on why I'm in trouble, and get myself out of it. It is called taking responsibility for my actions. You should try it sometime.

You do realize that Fred Phelps' group is a far-RIGHT Christian organization, right? Anti-gay? Ring a bell?

The fact that you didn't mind the Republican pork makes you a hypocrite. Now personally I don't like pork spending no matter who is doing it, which is why I like the current situation-neither party can get their pork through. The congress has a low rating among Democratic voters not because of that, but because the Democrats are seen as caving in to whatever Bush wants. The Democrats want someone to stand up to him (I wouldn't mind that either) and so far their elected officials have failed to do so.

In other words, even when the Democrats do something commendable you still condemn them. Now that's politics as usual.

The funniest thing about this topic is that 2 Smart couldn't spell his own name!

There's a bill proposed to stop this: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-3793 Here's an interesting factoid-the bill's co-sponsors: (sponsor is Rep. Jason Altmire [D-PA]) Rep. Shelley Berkley [D-NV] Rep. Robert Berry [D-AR] Del. Madeleine Bordallo [D-GU] Rep. Nancy Boyda [D-KS] Rep. Robert Brady [D-PA] Rep. Bruce Braley [D-IA] Rep. Corrine Brown [D-FL] Rep. Christopher Carney [D-PA] Rep. Charles Dent [R-PA] Rep. Joe Donnelly [D-IN] Rep. Michael Doyle [D-PA] Rep. Brad Ellsworth [D-IN] Rep. Barton Gordon [D-TN] Rep. Phil Hare [D-IL] Rep. Tim Holden [D-PA] Rep. Darlene Hooley [D-OR] Rep. Henry Johnson [D-GA] Rep. Walter Jones [R-NC] Rep. Patrick Kennedy [D-RI] Rep. Harry Mitchell [D-AZ] Rep. Patrick Murphy [D-PA] Rep. Donald Payne [D-NJ] Rep. Jon Porter [R-NV] Rep. John Sarbanes [D-MD] Rep. Carol Shea-Porter [D-NH] Rep. Heath Shuler [D-NC] Rep. Clifford Stearns [R-FL] Rep. Bart Stupak [D-MI] Rep. Betty Sutton [D-OH] Rep. Ellen Tauscher [D-CA] Rep. Edolphus Towns [D-NY] Rep. Timothy Walz [D-MN] Rep. Zach Wamp [R-TN] Rep. David Wu [D-OR] Rep. John Yarmuth [D-KY] Dems 31(including sponsor), Repubs 5. Hmm.....way to support the troops, guys. If you congresscritters aren't signed on, contact them. Here's how: Representative: http://www.house.gov/writerep Senator: http://www.senate.gov/general/contac...nators_cfm.cfm UPDATE: The VA claims it is a mistake, they will issue a new invoice to the vet but will not disclose how many others have been sent similar letters and may have actually paid them. The VA does insist, however, to refuse paying any more of his bonuses or leave pay. Rep Atmire who tabled a bill in Congress to guarantee such payments for wounded soldiers says while he is heartened that the VA have reconsidered in this one case, he will persist with his bill to ensure it never happens again.

Here's a story detailing how the military is telling soldiers who couldn't fulfill their obligation because they were injured while at war to return their sign-on bonuses! http://kdka.com/local/military.signing.bonuses.2.571660.html Now, I know the military is worried about spending cuts, but this is ridiculous. How about letting the military shop at Wal-Mart online instead of buying $70 hammers (which are pieces of crap, btw) instead of taking money from injured vets. Regardless of party loyalty, this is despicable.

This thread is a trolling thread by a troll poster. Why take the bait?

Thanking a vet is an active action. They appreciate it quite a bit and they certainly don't hear it often enough. Now I agree that it requires little in the way of sacrifice-merely a moment of your time. Unfortunately, that is more than many are willing to give. As far as the pledge goes, recitation without reflection is meaningless. But with reflection the pledge becomes meaningful to many. Finally-to those who decided to derail the thread in order to take cheap shots at Paul and Strife-shame on you. For the rest, stop responding to the trolls and they'll go away.

Please note my use of 'definitely linked to.' Strong suspicion is not definite. The problem is that taking action requires the cooperation of allies in the region. Having seen us take out one regime, it is hardly certain that they'd support us doing it again. Of course they are. Considering that Israel is likely to be a nuclear power themselves, no one should consider that situation with anything approaching relief. 72282[/snapback]

Everyone-please stop feeding the troll. If you ignore 2Dim, Patrat, and the other trolls they'll go away. I know it is fun mocking their stupidity, but their stupidity is already self-evident. So why bother?

As you enjoy your long Veteran's Day weekend, please take a moment to thank a war veteran for their service. It will mean a lot to them and requires little effort on your part.

What would you call not taking the case to court? Sounds like calling off the dogs to me.