Calling them on the phone is pathetic.

Calling liberal “ass clowns” is pathetic.

Calling liberal ass clowns WHAT is pathetic?

I’ve thought about the implications, too, but I have come to the conclusion that any terrorists who would talk to the press over unscrambled cell phone links would have to be idiots. Sophisticated terrorists might be vile, but it is unlikely that they are idiots. If a sophisticated terrorist wants to dialog with a news organization, it is likely that he would do so over a scrambled link. Or just do what bin Laden does, have audio or video tapes delivered.

BTW, it has been reported that the Madrid rail bombings were coordinated by disposable cell phone links. Of course, since nobody was expected to answer the phones, scrambling would not have been necessary.

When Bush embraced socialized health care (the prescription drug giveaway) he did not transmute it into a conservative idea.

Apparently you know little of history. When Otto von Bismarck (German Reichskanzler) instituted the German social security system in the 1880s–which included a government organized but not government provided health care funding system–he did it in an attempt to forestall the advance of the Social Democrats. Bismarck was very conservative, but he also understood politics.

GWBush’s embrace of a rather complicated prescription drug program was also a defensive measure for Republicans, since it was clear that some form of government support for prescription drug payments was relatively popular with much of the citizenry. After GWBush opposed any form of prescription drug payment assistance for some time, his administration figured out a way to make it (i) ridiculously complicated, which might discourage participation and (ii) largely a welfare program for the pharmaceutical companies.

Conservatives are as conservatives do. And as conservatives are widely considered. GWBush in 2000 ran on a public relations slogan of “compassionate conservatism.” Remember? And more than a few people who consider themselves conservatives apparently believe that he is a conservative. You do not believe that he is a conservative? Fine with me. I don’t really care. In large part because I don’t either–he’s a “borrow-and-spend” liberal. Except on social issues of course, on which he really toes the social conservative “party line.” But it is likely that most people in the country who would self-identify themselves as being conservative would consider GWBush as being conservative. That would mean that he is a conservative. But, bait&switch.

Uh, think about the implications of that, boss.

Oh, and if you read what Bob Barr actually said about wiretapping terrorists (according to wiki) he said it was ALWAYS wrong, under any circumstances.

I know full well that the ACLU hired Bob Barr as a “privacy expert” after he left the Congress. It caused quite a stir. That doesn’t denigrate from the fact that he was one of the chief sponsors of the federal Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. Of course, Barr was trying to embarrass Clinton. It didn’t work, did it?

I was never a big fan of Bob Barr, but conservatism is a philosphy of ideas, not a Cult of Personality.

Sorry, this is incorrect. Conservatism, such as it is, is defined by the people who most people consider to be “conservatives” at any point in time. That is why Nixon was considered to be a conservative, that is why Reagan was considered to be a conservative, (who knows what GHWBush was?), that is why GWBush is considered to be a conservative.

And that is why Bob Barr is considered a conservative.

Conservatism isn’t a philosophy of ideas. Conservatism is a set of beliefs held by people who, at any particular point in time deign to call themselves conservatives.

Liberalism is, too, by the way, but that hasn’t been raised here. So is libertarianism, for that matter.

Much of this labelling is silly, but them’s the breaks. Conservatism as a “philosophy of ideas”? Give me a break. I was born at night, but not last night.

Nutter.

Oh, has something changed regarding Bob Barr since 1996? He was one of the chief sponsors of the federal Defense of (one of his three) Marriage(s) act. He was lauded by conservatives then.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm

However, his dissident viewpoint does highlight a difference between Donks and Reps. The Reps have a much higher tolerance for dissent within the party than Donks do. Just ask Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman.

I guess they’ll be in the good company of Republicans then:

Former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, chairman of PRCB, was joined by fellow conservatives Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR); David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union; Paul Weyrich, chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation and Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, in urging lawmakers to use NSA hearings to establish a solid foundation for restoring much needed constitutional checks and balances to intelligence law.

“When the Patriot Act was passed shortly after 9-11, the federal government was granted expanded access to Americans’ private information,” said Barr. “However, federal law still clearly states that intelligence agents must have a court order to conduct electronic surveillance of Americans on these shores. Yet the federal government overstepped the protections of the Constitution and the plain language of FISA to eavesdrop on Americans’ private communication without any judicial checks and without proof that they are involved in terrorism.”

It was breaking news as of 3-4 hours ago.

Just to let you know, it really isn’t that difficult to construct explosive devices. I made some in high-school chemistry class in the mid 1960s, and it was somewhat fun setting them off in the back. I suspect that instructions for making explosive devices can be found all over the internet. I doubt that Timothy McVeigh needed the assistance of al-Qaeda to generate the explosive device (which I will not describe) that he used to blow up the Murrah Federal Office Building in OK City. I also doubt that the Moroccans who blew up the Madrid subway needed al-Qaeda assistance to build the explosive devices. And I doubt that the IRA needed the assistance of al-Qaeda to build their bombs used in London, particularly since most IRA bombing occurred before al-Qaeda was formed.

If this report is true, it is an interesting development, but it would be a mistake to read too much into it.

This is a joke, right? You criticize others, using the epithet “leftist,” yet whine when others criticize conservatives who were ChickenHawks–calling it “name-calling.”

I don’t particularly care whether or not you are a registered Republican. You do not practice what you preach. And that makes you something of a hypocrit.

For your information, I have criticized Democrats who oppose gay marriage, and I will continue to do so. I haven’t seen the topic raised here (I don’t normally come here–I was prompted by a recent link on IndeGayForum) and so I haven’t posted on the topic here. Your “domestic policy” is so vague as to be virtually worthless to respond to. Border neglect is rather silly, since businesses on the US side of the borders with Canada and Mexico wants porous borders and resents the self-styled “militias” in Arizona that have been patrolling the border down there and who have migrated up to Northern Vermont to “patrol” the border with Canada. They are bad for business on the US side of the border.

I really don’t care whether “contemporary conservatives” would consider Nixon to be a conservative–he was considered one when he ran for office, and that is what matters. Saint Reagan was too, and so was GWBush. Although it should be clear that the latter two were “bait and switch” conservatives: actually “borrow and spend” liberals, in my book.

BTW, I am not a Democrat. I am what is, in Massachusetts, “unenrolled.” (There used to be an “Independent party” and so the state election authorities came up with the “unenrolled” category to distinguish them from the registered members of the Independent party.) I have resided in MA for 25 years, and I could give you a long list of Democratic politicians who are homophobes, some of whose names you might recognize. Especially Michael Dukakis. Remember him? Although there are others here in MA that I could name.

Zing!

Take that, asshats!

Hell, no.

But I also don’t consider so-called “liberals” to be liberals at all. Liberals would champion the toppling of the Taliban, Saddam and the Ayatollahs. They would never support Kim Jong Il. They would abhor islamofascism and any other form of fascism. They would not ask why dictators, terrorists and bigots hate us. They would be proud to be hated by such monsters.

That’s why they are better referred to as lefties, commies and other terms that never adequately capture their moral bankruptcy and utter disingenuousness.

I guess a rose by any other name…