home

Bush Still Faces Resistance Over Patriot Act Renewal

President Bush held a meeting yesterday with prosecutors, complaining that Congress was not getting behind the renewal of the Patriot Act. Prosecutors did their best to rally behind him.

Thankfully, there are Senators like Russ Feingold who are not yielding:

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., said Bush should spend more time negotiating about the Patriot Act with Democrats and others on Capitol Hill and less on "staged meetings with hand-picked participants" at the White House.

"Contrary to the president's misleading comments, nobody wants to see the Patriot Act expire," Feingold said Tuesday. "We want commonsense changes to the act that would give the government the power to combat terrorism while protecting the rights and freedoms of law-abiding citizens.

The Patriot Act does not make us safer. It only makes us less free. Congress needs to refuse to re-authorize the Patriot Act unless some of the worst provisions of the Conference Report are deleted. We must hold Senator Feingoold to his promise that "The conference report is not going to pass without meaningful changes.” The ACLU has more here.

< Former Prosecutors Who Go for the Money | It's Official: Ana Marie Leaves Wonkette >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: Bush Still Faces Resistance Over Patriot Act R (none / 0) (#1)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 05:16:56 AM EST
    I have to say, I am warming up to Feingold, particuarlly these last couple of weeks.

    Re: Bush Still Faces Resistance Over Patriot Act R (none / 0) (#2)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 05:32:29 AM EST
    Except for his comment that "Contrary to the president's misleading comments, nobody wants to see the Patriot Act expire" Feingold seems to be, for a politician, a reasonable man. Even that comment by him I see as a recognition that "you have to give a little to get a little" in politics. Art of compromise, and all that... And just maybe he is starting to recognize the the negative economic impacts the Patriot Act, and other acts, are starting to have, and wants to warm up to the business community in time for the elections this year. In comparison to BushCo, I'd warm up to wild hyenas. At least they'll stop attacking for a while once their bellies are full.

    Re: Bush Still Faces Resistance Over Patriot Act R (none / 0) (#3)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 06:18:53 AM EST
    I'm going to nominate you, Charlie. You're way more gooder at "plain speakin'" than dubya is! ;-) "We look forward to hearing your vision, so we can more better do our job. That's what I'm telling you." —George W. Bush, Gulfport, Miss., Sept. 20, 2005

    Bush is a bad joke and the patriot act can someday be used against us all and as far as the war on terror is going ask where is bin laden? and why so many dead in iraq? and what about the borders of the u.s.a.? and really where is bush coming from with his Ideals about freedom when we have 2.5 million in prisons? and 1.4 million gang members here in the land of freedom with well over 10 million homeless. and i will say nothing about jobs, if you know what i mean.

    FD, Bush may well be a joke (or at least the punch line to several I know), but whether he is or not won't solve most of the problems you list: The Democrats sponsored and voted for the Patriot Act, and even Russ Feingold, one of the most liberal/"progressive" members of Congress says he doesn't want to see it go away. Bin Laden? He's dead. Has been for years. Otherwise he would have released a video tape by now to rally the jihadis. The fact that no one has been able to prove it doesn't mean it isn't so. They haven't found Jimmy Hoffa yet either. Why so many dead in Iraq? It's called war, and it sucks. I'm not making any excuses for the administration's lame conduct of the war to date, but given how often the left screams about tactics, I'm not sure what else they could have done that would have met with approval, short of surrendering, of course. The borders? Talk to the liberals in this country, who do not believe in border security. Every time anyone suggests any means of making the borders more secure, it is denounced by the left as racist, xenophobic, and hate-filled. What do YOU propose we do? 2.5 million people in prison for crimes they committed and were convicted of is not a demonstration of a lack of freedom; quite the opposite. It shows a dedication to allowing the rest of us to live free of murderers, rapists, and gang bangers. Sadly, we have too many people in jail for stupid things like drug possession and use, but it's not as if anyone in jail on those charges had any reason to believe they were not breaking the law. 1.4 Million gang members? How is this a measure of the lack of freedom or the president's belief in it? Are you suggesting that he should ban people from congregating as they choose? 10 million homeless does indeed suck, but how it fits in with the rest of your list of woes as being the president's fault is unclear. And of course you won't say anything about jobs, since they are on the rise and unemployment is falling ( which I ascribe to the resiliency of the American people, not anything Bush has done). Not much to argue against there, unless you prefer unemployed homeless people as props for your arguments.

    Re: Bush Still Faces Resistance Over Patriot Act R (none / 0) (#6)
    by soccerdad on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 08:45:34 AM EST
    I'm not making any excuses for the administration's lame conduct of the war to date, but given how often the left screams about tactics, I'm not sure what else they could have done that would have met with approval, short of surrendering, of course.
    This of course is pure nonsense and a feeble attempt at slamming the left. The tactics for dealing with terrorism in general as well as Iraq in particular were all laid out by the military experts before the war started. They emphasized the need for a quick and well planned reconstruction period after the fall of saddam. Bush chose to ignore this and many experts of all political persuasions have stated that the lack of planning for reconstruction is the major error. Now if you step back and look at the forest its easy to see that the tactics adopted by Bush were those suited for occupation not for liberation. The biggest piece of evidence for this is the almost complete disreagrd for winning "hearts and minds". In fact the almost sole use of "shock and awe" implies their main goal was to beat the Iraqis into submission.

    Re: Bush Still Faces Resistance Over Patriot Act R (none / 0) (#7)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 08:52:06 AM EST
    justpaul, unemployment is the most twisted stat in this nation. it doesn't count all unemployed people. and with real wages having been stagnant for decades, employment is no guarantee of earning enough to actually live on. the prison population is larger than any other country because we throw people in jail for non-violent drug offenses. please don't claim it's all murderers and rapists. you can easily get a longer sentence getting caught with a certain amount of drugs than you would for rape. and most murders go unsolved. and since we have a ridiculously high murder rate, i'd be more worried about that than happy how many people are locked up. as for the war, how can you say it's been carried out in a lame way and then say it's the left who screams. it's either lame or it isn't, and if you think it is YOU should be screaming. as for tactics, how about not going to war for fraudulent reasons? how about investing in the opposition? how about loudly and clearly announcing we are ashamed of our supporting Hussein for son long, we understand we shouldn't be trusted, and all we want to do is make up for our monumental errors of judgement in empowering dictators AND radical islamists for so long. I mean, think about it: at the same time we were supporting Saddam Hussien we were also supporting radical Islamist fighters to fight the USSR in Afghanistan. That's a nonsense policy, a fool's policy, a policy of those who USE other people for their benefit. the imagination is a powerful thing, and equally destructive when you ignore it. we ignored it entirely.

    Re: Bush Still Faces Resistance Over Patriot Act R (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 09:03:25 AM EST
    Soccerdad: The biggest piece of evidence for this is the almost complete disreagrd for winning "hearts and minds". In fact the almost sole use of "shock and awe" implies their main goal There was a cartoon I recall floating around editorial pages about six month after the invasion. Drawing of three soldiers in a foxhole aiming at a group of Iraqis. The caption said "Aim for their hearts and minds, boys!" Sad, but there was a grain of truth in it.

    please don't claim it's all murderers and rapists. Dadler, Try reading the entirety of a comment before responding to it. I made it quite clear there were far too many people in prison for BS drug offenses. As for the unemployment numbers: Sure, they are easily spinnable, expecially if you make nebulous claims about them not counting all unemployed people. But the fact is that the market continues to grow and create more jobs, which means more people employed. No matter how you spin it, that much is true. Wages are another easily spinnable issue, and whether they are stagnant depends on which industry you are looking at. I work in publishing and wages have been going up for years. As for the war, how would you prosecute it, Dadler? Please provide specific improvements to the current plans. As for my protesting it: what makes you think I don't? Some of us find better outlets for that than adding to the already predominately anti-war comments at TalkLeft. The government has followed fool's policies for years, Dadler, underboth Democratic and Republican administrations. Is that all somehow Bush's fault?

    Re: Bush Still Faces Resistance Over Patriot Act R (none / 0) (#10)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 09:56:15 AM EST
    justpaul, i never would've fought this "war", go read the post i just wrote to variable in the "more missteps in iraq" thread. you may not agree, but you've offered zero alternatives except the fatalism of war. saying there are too many people in jail for bs drug offenses makes a mockery of your argument in the first place. half the jail population is in for that. unemployment is a b.s. statistic. any statistical expert will tell you that. look it up. as for wages, for the average worker, for the MASS OF AMERICA, wages have been utterly stagnant. come on, bud, we live in the largest capitalist country on earth. the entire point of the system is make as much money you can while paying people as little as you can. that's the profit motive, and it entirely ignores the society motive. Of cousrse we've f'd up through many administrations -- and if you think I really believe it ALL BUSH'S FAULT, that's a pretty extremist idea with no backing in what I write. To me, in my humble opinion, I cannot imagine a less competent, less intelligent, less deserving man to be president. His actions and words follow from these traits, and he continues to damage the country with his inability to learn, to understand, to express, to sell, to do anything but tell us how afraid we should be, how much we should keep shopping, and how he wouldn't do anything different in hindsight (which means, even with MORE KNOWLEDGE AND INFORMATION I WOULD WALK OFF THE SAME CLIFF). That, JP, is just plain nuts. Clinton was a raging disappointment, but at least he was a Rhodes' Scholar who pulled himself up from poverty, who had some knowledge of the world beyond his own isolate upbringing of advantage, and I think it's a safe bet he'd have been a tad less sloppy and plain stupid than Bush has been in his tenure during this crisis. When Bush called this a "crusade", did you not understand the kind of cultural ignorance of the "enemy" this man possessed??? Did you not question how incompetent his advisors could've been to not school him a LITTLE??? That one line, believe it or not, still resonates so negatively in the ME that it's still doing damage, as is the brand of cowboy American nonsense Bush represents to the world. Bush is not the person for this job, that's the rub for me. He has proven this exponentially. And since HE IS THE PRESIDENT RIGHT NOW, he is the one who must suffer the slings and arrows. And he deserves every one, along with his adminstration, whose entire nitwit "plan" this was. The last time he seemed to care about anything personally was with Terry Schaivo. That says it all to me. Have a good one, bud. I appreciate the change to roll it around with the loyal opposition. Go read my other post for an alternate "war" plan. Like I said, you won't like it, you may laugh at it, but I laid it out. I've seen NOTHING but the same failed violent ideas from the administration.

    Re: Bush Still Faces Resistance Over Patriot Act R (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 11:33:12 AM EST
    dadler writes:
    as for tactics, how about not going to war for fraudulent reasons? how about investing in the opposition?
    Dadler, that is not a plan. For war, or anything else. It first is a statememt of "we will not fight no matter what." Secondly, to even think about "investing in the opposition" is, and I hate to be harsh, dumb. I can think of no other description. This war that we are in is not about land, or oil, or anything except, culture as it relates to religion. Period. Nothing else. That has been said by OBL and every other jihadist. We could leave the ME while groveling and asking for foregiveness while promising to give them a 100 trillion dollars and the result would be only to encourage them, because they don't want to "live in peace." They want to convert the world into their brand of Islam. It really is that simple. And the inability of the Left to understand that speaks volumes to how far our country has sunk. Dadler, please read this article. It lays it clearly before anyone who has any ability to do critical thinking.

    Re: Bush Still Faces Resistance Over Patriot Act R (none / 0) (#12)
    by swingvote on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 11:48:45 AM EST
    Dadler, Please explain how my statement that too many drug offenders are in jail refutes "my argument". Please be specific. This should be good. I haven't said a word about the fatalism of war, except to note that people die in wars and that it sucks. I guess you could consider a reference to fatalities in war as commenting on the fatalism of war, but you'd most likely be alone in doing so. As for how it could be better prosecuted: It could be better prosecuted by getting serious about it, both in Iraq and around the world, by which I mean stop pussyfooting around, stop listening to all the naysayers who decry every offensive as "genocide" or "an assualt on human rights" and just kill the stupid M-Fs who have declared war on civilization as we know it. Multiculturalism is a grand thing in theory, but when the other "culture" (for lack of a better term) desires your complete and total destruction, it's also a suicidal theory. Do you have any actual evidence to support your claims about wages being stagnant, Dadler? I know people in many lines of work, and all of them are doing much better than they were 5, 10, or 15 years ago. On what do you base your claims otherwise? As for your view of capitalism, I would suggest it is rather one-sided and narrow-minded. No capitalist truly tries to underpay his employees at rock bottom wages because those employees are also his customers, and without a decent enough salary they can't afford to buy the things they produce, which results in the capitalist losing money. And while it is true that the capitalist always tries to get as much productivity as he can for the wage dollar, it is also true that the worker always tries to get as much wage dollar for the hour of productivity. A balance must be struck between the two, and the capitalist has the natural advantage in that he is the one who gets to determine what the hour's worth of work is worth to him (blasphemy to most "progressives" but a simple fact of life to rest of us.) As for Bush: He's Bush. Not the president I would have chosen, but better than either alternative the Democrats have offered in his place. And I'd say the same thing about Clinton. I didn't think much of many of his policies, but he was a better choice than Bush Senior or Dole. It's that lesser of two evils thing again. And chances are it will be the same thing in 2009, because neither party gives a rat's patootie about how you or I may feel about their candidates. Another fact of life. Finally, I have no idea why you consider me "the loyal opposition" or what it is you think I'm opposed to (I'm opposed to a lot of things, in truth, but I doubt you are aware of many of them because, admittedly, I don't tend to write screeds about my own feelings here). All I can say, once again, is that opposition to much of the "progressive" agenda does not necessarily make me a supporter of the "conservative" agenda. Where I stand on an issue depends on the issue. My politics are not one-dimensional and they are not partisan-based. Enjoy. I've got work to do.

    Re: Bush Still Faces Resistance Over Patriot Act R (none / 0) (#13)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 11:53:55 AM EST
    Just a reminder. This thread is about the subject "Bush Still Faces Resistance Over Patriot Act Renewal".

    Re: Bush Still Faces Resistance Over Patriot Act R (none / 0) (#14)
    by glanton on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 12:44:12 PM EST
    Jim, I took the liberty of reading the WSJ editorial. The stuff you read and take seriously, man--wow. _Reagan's War_ for your History, _WSJ_ for your newspaper, FNC for your television. Cotton candy for the brain. "Et al": Here's a representative snippet from the "editorial" Jim linked us to:
    just as the AIDS pandemic greatly facilitated societal surrender to the gay agenda, so 9/11 is greatly facilitating our surrender to the most extreme aspects of the multicultural agenda.
    This inane quote loops us back quite nicely to the topic of the thread, for here, in the diseased collective consciousness of those who fear some menacing "gay agenda," you will find the grassroots lemmings who make things like the Patriot Act possible in the first place. Edger: Thought you'd appreciate this: yesterday I'm listening to Right Wing Talk Radio and they're talking about the government spying on American citizens. Some caller from Texas gets on the line and blurts, "if you don't have anything to hide, this won't bother you." Ignorance. Bigotry. Hallmarks of the GOP base, ready to throw it all to the dogs just for a fleeting moment of feeling morally superior to someone, anyone.

    Re: Bush Still Faces Resistance Over Patriot Act R (none / 0) (#15)
    by soccerdad on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 12:53:06 PM EST
    PPJ - that was a great article. It had me rolling on the floor laughing for its stupidity, its racism, its complete lack of reality. Its just another in the long line of neocon fear pieces. And as their endevor in Iraq goes in the toilet, they are becoming even more shrill. But this article belongs in some rag. The fact that it appeared in the WSJ, hard core backers of Bush, shows that desperation must be setting in and this is their lame attempt to scare the crap out of us.

    Re: Bush Still Faces Resistance Over Patriot Act R (none / 0) (#16)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 01:05:42 PM EST
    Glanton, I wonder how that caller will feel if his identity is stolen one day by some poor, broke low level government employee with gambling or drug debts who happens, in the course of his work, to run across the guys social security number and other useful tidbits of information, and sees an opportunity. Then he has the FBI kicking his door in one night wanting to search his house... Paranoid delusion? Uh course, boy. What're you smokin'? "if you don't have anything to hide, this won't bother you." A bit...

    Re: Bush Still Faces Resistance Over Patriot Act R (none / 0) (#17)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 01:08:01 PM EST
    I took the liberty of reading the WSJ editorial. Too. Right... gotcha... ^ ^ O O

    Just a reminder. This thread is about the subject "Bush Still Faces Resistance Over Patriot Act Renewal".
    edger, it may well be "OT" but I, for one, am enjoying the hell out of the debate. Intelligent and honest viewpoints well presented. It's an example of why I come here.

    Re: Bush Still Faces Resistance Over Patriot Act R (none / 0) (#19)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 01:28:42 PM EST
    I am too, Sarc :-)

    Re: Bush Still Faces Resistance Over Patriot Act R (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 07:59:41 PM EST
    glanton writes:
    just as the AIDS pandemic greatly facilitated societal surrender to the gay agenda,
    The point is correct. Your problem is you seem to think that it was not proper for the gay community to have an agenda, or else you think that anyone noting that is wrong. In fact, they did, many do, and they should (have). The fact that 9/11 has helped the MC agenda, is also correct. Tragedy, when used as a wedge, can be very effective. In the first use it was positive. In the second negative.

    Re: Bush Still Faces Resistance Over Patriot Act R (none / 0) (#21)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 08:06:29 PM EST
    Can you expand on what agenda you think gays have, Jim?

    Re: Bush Still Faces Resistance Over Patriot Act R (none / 0) (#22)
    by glanton on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 08:06:35 PM EST
    Hey, everyone! For an example of somebody totally missing the point of a post to which they are feebly attempting to respond, look no further than Jim's utter misreading of what I wrote. (Jim, stop being silly, you know I didn't write that quote you abstract. The quote comes from your ersatz little GOP water carrying pundit. But this is not the GOP convention, Jim. People can look upthread and see who posted what, and then evaluate what they said. If they said anything a'tall. Which, on this thread, you have not.)

    Re: Bush Still Faces Resistance Over Patriot Act R (none / 0) (#23)
    by glanton on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 08:17:32 PM EST
    Edger, In response to your earlier post about the Texas caller. Sadly, we have been eharing this defense of the Patriot Act from the very beginning. And now we hear it in defense of the outright spying on American citizens, as well. Obviously, such corruption of the American consciousness and, by extension, it's system of governance, is far scarier than anything a terrorist can do. But if that caller represents the majority of us, then we deserve it all. To scum are awarded pond crust. Secret courts. Spying on citizens. Library records scoured. Corporate media outlets spreading wholesale the idea that "everything is going great, just keep shopping." Perpetual war for obscure reasons. What a beacon of liberty we've become.

    Re: Bush Still Faces Resistance Over Patriot Act R (none / 0) (#24)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 08:22:25 PM EST
    Glanton - it's an old transparent trick. Attributing something said by another to a target, with the insulting assumption that readers are too dumb to notice.

    Re: Bush Still Faces Resistance Over Patriot Act R (none / 0) (#25)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 08:27:03 PM EST
    Glanton, our posts crossed... anyway... you said: if that caller represents the majority of us I don't there are enough people in the world, much less the US, as dumb and brainwashed as that caller, to account for the number of votes "credited" to Bush last election. There may have been tha many people voting for him out of fear. but that number is dropping, fast I think.

    Re: Bush Still Faces Resistance Over Patriot Act R (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 10:01:09 PM EST
    Glanton - So I didn't say the quote was from your quote. Sorry about that but I doubt that anyone thought it was from you. And if they did, they now know different. edger - Why don't you tell us why you think gays, as a group, shouldn't have an agenda? They have been discrimnated against for years, and about 50% of the country wants to deny them the basic right of marriage. I find it astounding that you seem to think otherwise. et al - Your problem is that since I disagree with you on national defense, you think I'm a Repub conservative. Well, as I have been posting for years, I am a registered Independant, social liberal, and I support gay rights, national health insurance, tax reform, women's right to choose. Don't believe me? Check the archives.

    Re: Bush Still Faces Resistance Over Patriot Act R (none / 0) (#27)
    by glanton on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 10:33:31 PM EST
    Jim, Your response to edger re "gay agenda" is one thing. But then, the fact that you cite an obviously homophobic pundit on this very thread is another. Perhaps you have drunk enough kool aid at this point to where you cannot see words for what they actually are; but if you think that the politicans and pundits you're always quoting don't actively promote discrimination against homosexuals, then that's pretty bad. Also, I find the term "gay agenda" very peculiar. Is asking that you be covered under the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, and normal human decency constitutive of an "agenda," in the sense with which that term is currently bandied about? Better to just say, homosexuals continue to fight an uphill battle in seeking their rights, seeking to avoid pesecution, imprisonment, and redneck violence in the Redneck United States. And if you support that fight, Jim, then more power to you. Though voting straight ticket GOP aint exactly backing up your words.

    Feingold is the only name being dropped as a potential Democratic Presidential Candidate that I would vote for based on their record and current rhetoric. I have a strong feeling I'm abstaining in '08.

    Re: Bush Still Faces Resistance Over Patriot Act R (none / 0) (#29)
    by glanton on Wed Jan 04, 2006 at 10:50:14 PM EST
    I'm with ya, Tampa. I think I've finally come around to the good ole bumper sticker that reads "Don't vote: it only encourages them." There is, though, a vibrant part of me that wants to vote Dem just because of the destructive nature of the GOP. It is, as you are no doubt aware, a destructiveness that goes beyond whomever the candidate is. It is "quite a pickle." BTW: How was your semester break? I hope you didn't just work straight through like I did!

    Re: Bush Still Faces Resistance Over Patriot Act R (none / 0) (#31)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 03:18:11 AM EST
    Jim to Glanton: Your problem is you seem to think that it was not proper for the gay community to have an agenda, or else you think that anyone noting that is wrong...In fact, they did, many do, and they should (have). Me to Jim: Can you expand on what agenda you think gays have, Jim? Me to Glanton it's an old transparent trick. Attributing something said by another to a target, with the insulting assumption that readers are too dumb to notice.: Jim to me: Why don't you tell us why you think gays, as a group, shouldn't have an agenda? ... I find it astounding that you seem to think otherwise. Well, there you go again, Jim. Attributing something to me that I did not say, after attributing something to Glanton that he did not say. Now you know why I rarely respond to you anymore.

    Re: Bush Still Faces Resistance Over Patriot Act R (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 07:26:22 AM EST
    Edger - Why are you complaining? You asked a snarky rhetorical question meant to "prove" that I am anti-gay rights, and you got a snarky response. Why are you surprised? Snark begets snark. DA - Pick, pick, pick. What a way to waste your time. Glanton - What proof do you have that the author is homophobic? I think you are just using his comment to attack his overall point regarding Islam. I repeat. Gays do, have had, and should have an agenda. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a group having common goals. And that defines "agenda." And the point you quote regarding their response to the AIDS epidemic is correct. Their demonstrations regarding the public's lukewarm response to this terrible health problem energized many people who had never really thought about how gays were treated, and because of that came to understand that gays were not being treated as if they were US citizens, with all the rights thereof. I also thing your suggestion of how to say the same thing, is wrong. Agenda is not a dirty word. It simply means:
    : 1. a list or outline of things to be considered or done 2 : an underlying often ideological plan or program
    BTW – You have no idea of how I vote, so your comment re straight Republican ticket is totally unfounded. Again I make a point I have made in the past. National defense is the issue. If we lose the WOT then there will be NO women’s rights, no gay rights, no civil right, no freedom of religion, etc. You will live in a radical Islamic world, and they have zero tolerance. And that was the author’s point. We have become so politically correct we are afraid to stand up and say that our rights are worth defending. Diversity is good. We should be tolerant of all, but not afraid to take a stand against an enemy who is attacking us.

    Re: Bush Still Faces Resistance Over Patriot Act R (none / 0) (#33)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 07:49:58 AM EST
    Edger - Why are you complaining? You asked a snarky rhetorical question meant to "prove" that I am anti-gay rights, and you got a snarky response.
    You change your name to "Kreskin"? YOu can read minds now? Right....

    Re: Bush Still Faces Resistance Over Patriot Act R (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 10:56:16 AM EST
    DA - sigh.... You have become such a bore.. pick, pick, pick.. Now can you think of some more insulting type names to call me? I know. Why don't you jump up and down and hold your breath? And some more psycho babble? Edger - In your case recognizing intent is very simple. So snark away, Edger. Snark away. BTW - I note that neither of you have brought anything to the table of any substance regarding the post, the WOT, the article... anything. pick, pick, pick

    Re: Bush Still Faces Resistance Over Patriot Act R (none / 0) (#36)
    by glanton on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 11:02:27 AM EST
    Jim, As you probably know, I have always taken at face value your declamations in favor of gay rights, women's rights, etc. But at the same time I have never seen you speak favorably of any politician whose platform involves, in any meaningful way, protecting American civil liberties-- nearly all of whom, at least on the national stage, are Democrats. Meanwhile, you always seem to have an equivocation or a qualifier ready for even such neanderthals as Falwell and Robertson; much the same for pols such as Coburn, Santorum, and George W. Bush. So why, based on the things you say, would anyone think you vote anything other than straight ticket GOP? To speak in the journalistic terms with which you are most familiar: Inquiring minds want to know. BTW: Re that clause in the WSJ "editorial" we keep circling. Here it is again:
    just as the AIDS pandemic greatly facilitated societal surrender to the gay agenda, so 9/11 is greatly facilitating our surrender to the most extreme aspects of the multicultural agenda.
    Now, of you cannot see that the author is framing both of these, ahem, "developments" as negative then I'd love to sell you this piece of the cross that I have. If it's really that hard for you to see, note the use of the term "societal surrender"--like the term "Gay agenda," such is the stuff of Tom Coburn, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and Jerry Falwell. Jim, have you ever heard a spokesperson for gay rights say that their goal if for to surrender to their gay agenda? Of course you haven't. The whole thing reeks of the pejorative--a word which, while you've got that dictionary handy, you might wanna look up. Stay alert, and stay with the Wall Street Journal.

    Re: Bush Still Faces Resistance Over Patriot Act R (none / 0) (#37)
    by roger on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 11:11:32 AM EST
    Jim, If we lose all of our rights, then who cares about the WOT? We just all join the state religion of Islam. Kind of like; Do you live to work, or work to live

    Now can you think of some more insulting type names to call me? I know. Why don't you jump up and down and hold your breath? Why, is that what you do in your spare time when I bore you? Very revealing, PPJ. As for psychobabble, I think a find example can be found here And as I told you then:
    I couldn't resist the opportunity to help you look like an idiot, you provide the ammo unwittingly as you do on many occasions.
    and you then used your potty mouth to attempt to be witty:
    Be happy. The sun don't shine on the same dog's butt every day.
    Read it all folks, - I note that neither of you have brought anything to the table of any substance regarding the post, the WOT, the article... anything. Actually, I think this is the only proper response, from Pandagon.net
    Mark Steyn wrote some long-assed piece of c*** in the opinion journal today. I had to cut out large swaths of it for the sake of space, and also because I'm not clever enough to respond to eleven pages worth of the same stupid drivel. Anyway. Git r' done F*****s!
    Link TTFN, Whizzy

    Re: Bush Still Faces Resistance Over Patriot Act R (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 05:54:27 PM EST
    Glanton - Your defense doesn't work because you are attacking something that we all agree is correct. The right for anyone - gays included - to have an agenda. Roger - Note my last sentence. And show me a "right" that you have lost. DA - You have made three comments in a row that are just attack pieces with no substance.. oops.. You finally copy a short insert.. DA, you refute nothing. It is not even worth arguing with you. Pick, pick, pick......Boring....sigh.

    Re: Bush Still Faces Resistance Over Patriot Act R (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 06:02:56 PM EST
    Glaton - BTW - My lack of support for most Demos is, as stated, based on their lack of support for the troops. Now I know those are hard words, but facts are facts. I did, in the past, vote for Carter based on his social issues. (I know, I know. I'm embarassed also.) Either way, I see no national Repub that I would vote for if you removed the war. I see only one Demo if you keep the war issue, and that is Lieberman. Shame he didn't head the ticket in 2000.

    Re: Bush Still Faces Resistance Over Patriot Act R (none / 0) (#41)
    by glanton on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 06:13:32 PM EST
    Either way, I see no national Repub that I would vote for if you removed the war.
    That's really funny. The GOP starts a war and then it becomes necessary to vote for them because there's a war. Gasp! I forgot! David Limbaugh, from his comfortable office between sips of coffee, tells us that we're "fighting for our very lives, fighting for Western Civilization!" Ypu'd better be having "appropriate conversations." Lions and tigers and bears oh my. Let's be wiretapped by all means. And I thought Lord of the Rings was hyperbolic. :-0
    something that we all agree is correct. The right for anyone - gays included - to have an agenda.
    "All" of us, that is, except the sources you cite as legitimate here on TalkLeft, and the politicians you defend.

    Re: Bush Still Faces Resistance Over Patriot Act R (none / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 05, 2006 at 08:39:58 PM EST
    Glanton - Outside of claims you have provided no proof that the author is anti-gay. That is hardly a defendable position. It certainly is not a liberal position. You wrote:
    That's really funny. The GOP starts a war and then it becomes necessary to vote for them because there's a war.
    The last time I checked there were no US troops attacking anyone when the terrorists in Tehran siezed the embassy. And that follows down through the years right on up to 9/11. Glanton. You know better. Or do you?
    This utopia would come about if only each person in all the tribes danced the elaborate Ghost Dance.


    PPJ, this doesn't seem pro-gay rights, now does it?
    A few years back, after her ruling striking down Ontario's definition of a spouse as a member of the opposite sex, Madame L'Heureux-Dubé flew on to London to join her chum Michael Kirby, Australia's most senior gay judge, at an international gay-rights conference. Mr. Justice Kirby and Her Ladyship are the Rock Hudson and Elizabeth Taylor of the activist-judge jet set, gaily cartwheeling across the hot-button issues of the day. As she told the crowd, she would continue to fight against "a general failure in the political process to recognize the rights of lesbians and gays." A church group objecting to being forced to conduct same-sex marriages might wonder if they'd get an impartial hearing from such a judge, but, as Madame L'Heureux-Dubé declared to loud applause, "You can call it partiality. I call it human."
    Of course, there are no plans afoot in Canada, or anywhere else where gay marriages take place, to force church groups to conduct same-sex marriages, so he seems a bit hysterical, eh? Link TTFN, Whizzy.

    Re: Bush Still Faces Resistance Over Patriot Act R (none / 0) (#44)
    by glanton on Fri Jan 06, 2006 at 10:38:17 AM EST
    Jim with the hanging curve ball of a Steyn citation in a thread essentially about civil liberties. Several of us crush it out of the park. Jim ignores his catcher and comes right back with Steyn again--'hey, he's not anti-gay!'--and DA finishes the inning, and the game, with a walk-off dinger. p.s. I really like it, in the link upthread, when Steyn magnanimously writes:
    I'm a conservative--I'm not entirely on board with the Islamist program when it comes to beheading sodomites and so on,[my emphasis]
    Well aint it nice of him to not be "entirely" with beheading homosexuals. I guess that makes him a real friend to liberty doesn't it? Oh, and re your claims of war: I was, of course, talking about the current War with Iraq, which the GOP undoubtedly started. That's what I thought you were talking about too. Not Tehran or 9/11 or any other past instance. But conflating is a big part of your repertoire. Keep it up.