No citations. No surprise.

But unfortunately, Raj, you whined that doing that (amending the constitution) was illegal.

Oh, really? Where?

Cite chapter and verse, with links. From experience, I have learned that your “paraphrasing” is usually wrong.

Not really. Hence the drive for the Marriage Protection Amendment.

But unfortunately, Raj, you whined that doing that was illegal.

You also are admitting that the Constitution doesn’t mean what it says. Apparently 2Ls are unaware that the Constitution can be explicitly amended to make it say what you want it to say.

So self-described conservatives really shouldn’t complain when the courts judicially “amend”–in their view–the Constitution to say what they don’t want it to say. But they do it–complain, that is–quite often. The rhetoric about “unelected judges,” don’t you know?

You, too, are admitting that the Constitution doesn’t mean what it says. Apparently 2Ls are unaware that the Constitution can be explicitly amended to make it say what you want it to say. I guess that explicitly amending the Constitution to mean what you want it to mean is too much bother for self-described conservatives.

So self-described conservatives really shouldn’t complain when the courts judicially “amend”–in their view–the Constitution to say what they don’t want it to say. But they do it–complain, that is–quite often. The rhetoric about “unelected judges,” don’t you know?

Cute raj… now, try googling on 1st A natl security and read a couple of seminal decisions by SCOTUS, even head over to your beloved Wiki and glean some knowledge about things other than snake pits and religious cults, and then take some time to reflect on this kernel, raj baby… the #1 reason a federal govt exists is to protect and defend the security of American citizens and the Nation. #1 raj baby… the NYTimes journalistic “duties” are a tad down the list.

Your trying to be cute and it isn’t working… the 1st A language encompasses SCOTUS decisions and federal legislative action… any 1-L student could tell you that. Cute may win in your neck of the woods, but it hasn’t for HarryReid, NancyP, the HillaryBeast, or drive-me-2-drink Kennedys. And any voter could tell you that… and he doesn’t need a 1-L student to tell him what the NYTimes did in this case was treasonous despite your insincere and ineffective ploy that terrorists knew about all this a while ago.

It isn’t a game anymore, raj. Your 3 minutes of cute ankle biting expired.

Just want him to know, that his arguments aren’t working.

Facts and arguments based on those facts rarely “work” with ideologues with their pre-conceived notions.

BTW,

Haaretz is the NYT of Israel, every so often they will cross the line to the detriment of Israel. Though I have yet to see them as blatantly seditious as the NYT is.

Oh, so let me guess. In your view, it was apparently borderline seditious of Ha’aretz to now publish an article that released facts that were known to Palestinian terrorists almost two years ago. That’s amazing.

And further in your view, it was apparently more than borderline seditious of the NYTimes to now publish an article regarding the Treasury Department’s investigation of international banking transactions to combat international terrorism notwithstanding the fact that the Treasury Department itself released at least one major press release touting its program almost three years ago (and probably others before and since) and even as recently as April 6, 2006, the Treasury Department posted the Testimony of Stuart Levey, Under Secretary, Terrorism and Financial Intelligence touting the program. Just how secret do you believe the Treasury Department’s program could be when it, itself is publicizing the program?

The part, Ian S, that says it trumps issues of national security.

Odd, I went back to my copy of the Constitution–which stemmed from pre “politically correct” days–and found nothing in the 1st amendment that provided any exceptions. Apparently, 2L’s nowadays have trouble reading.

Be honest, Kevin; if Bush were a Democrat, you would call that “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.

Just like you did with John Kerry and Inez Tenenbaum.

Giving more and more tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans at the same time miring the middle and lower classes with mere pennies in tax savings certainly is breaking something; not to mention growing the defecits to their highest levels in US history.

That is because the wealthiest Americans pay the most in taxes. You Democrats are obviously unfamiliar with the fact that, if you cut taxes, people with higher incomes are going to have larger amounts of tax savings.

Furthermore, given that Democrats like yourself want to triple spending while doubling taxes on working people, as John Kerry’s economic “plans” laid out, it is obvious you don’t have a problem with deficits; if Democrats create them, you support them.

Like others, I have family serving in Iraq. They truly believe we should be there and openly they give their full support to the President (they are career military). In private however, they have voiced their concern over how much support they are actually receiving in the way of weapons and protective gear.?

the munitions they talk about are not the ones claimed in the reports back in 2003 and they don’t have any appearance to have been in a position for immediate usage (hell, why didn’t Saddam’s forces try to use them against the US and the “coalition of the willing” in 2003?)

Because, Kevin, the US battle plan was drawn up specifically to isolate and negate the chance for Saddam to do so.

We understand that, as a Democrat, you view the military as incompetent, bumbling fools and baby-killers, but in actuality, they aren’t.

In private however, they have voiced their concern over how much support they are actually receiving in the way of weapons and protective gear.

I would be concerned too, given that Democrats like Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore are funding terrorists and improved terror weapons.

Do you tell them how you support her and her party, too?

Giving more and more tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans at the same time miring the middle and lower classes with mere pennies in tax savings certainly is breaking something; not to mention growing the defecits to their highest levels in US history.

And (the grand-daddy of all his lies): taking us into a war based upon information that is now being refuted by people in just about every level of government who have come across it. (Claims of WMDs) And don’t quote the Santorum announcement to me…I read those links….the munitions they talk about are not the ones claimed in the reports back in 2003 and they don’t have any appearance to have been in a position for immediate usage (hell, why didn’t Saddam’s forces try to use them against the US and the “coalition of the willing” in 2003?) If it has been so important to validate the original reasons, then why are we only hearing this now? Additionally, why is it the independent news sources don’t seem to be reporting this story? It’s only 2 republicans and conservative websites (like this one) who wag their fingers and have a vested interest in vindicating Bush.

Like others, I have family serving in Iraq. They truly believe we should be there and openly they give their full support to the President (they are career military). In private however, they have voiced their concern over how much support they are actually receiving in the way of weapons and protective gear.

And as far as the “mission accomplished” sign, it’s but a small example of how people in the white house circle are continually lying to us to engrandize Bush as some sort of demi-god. If the white house did it as a tribute to the sailors, as you say, then why did they initially lie about it and change their story?

When the Americans and allied forces entered Berlin at the end of WWII and Hitler committed suicide, that was a mission accomplished. What we now have is guerilla warfare with terrorists in that country that shows no end in sight as well as waning support at home and abroad. (By the way – in a few months it will be 5 years since 9/11/01 and for all the kick-ass talk from George, et al, we still have yet to find and capture that SOB Osama Bin Laden)

You see, Kevin, when you talk about what a terrible “lemon” of a president Bush is, you have to talk about “Mission Accomplished” signs (meant to praise the sailors on that carrier). Or maybe “plastic” turkeys. Or else Rummy stating what anyone in uniform agrees is a truism. For the most part the military likes Bush. They even *like* Rummy. And while everyone always wants better stuff and the supply Sgt is GOD… a person in the military fears nothing quite so much as when someone higher up decides to *help* you.

You have to talk about immegration policies… Bush is nearly to the liberal side of moderate on that one… and then start with claims that the economy is bad. In what reality?

In other words, Kevin… you can’t *actually* come up with anything that would even imply that this president is a lemon, much less that he’s actually managing to break anything important. Obviously he’s not doing everything exactly the right way but you’re still left with minor complaints (Mission Accomplished) and ordinary policy disagreements.

If he was breaking something *important* people would be scrambling to mitigate the damage, not trying to tear things down even farther.

“trying to take up slack for his mistakes”? If his mistakes are that bad it means he’s hurt the country and should be oh, say, impeached and removed from office. “worked twice as hard for some poetic payback”? So a lot of people have to work to do the old “What the president meant to say was…..”.

I noticed you spent a lot of time on how to “fix” Georgies problems problems, but niether of you seemed to refute anything I mentioned about his past/history. interesting.

How exactly does he put the country first when there are more and more people who are being put out of work by large greedy companies and the president suggests a guest worker program to pay lower wages (meanwhile at the same time when we’re allegedly trying to keep down immigration as a security precaution). And don’t give me that tired old line about “aliens will do jobs Americans won’t do”. There are many Americans out there who would do unskilled labor jobs, as long as they could make some kind of basic living wage.

Or how about promises that our millitary personnel come first, yet the men and women in combat in Iraq/Afghanistan can’t get all the materials need to fight and protect themselves (at the same time, record fines are levied against companies like Haliburton for ripping off the government)

Or, how about the infamous “mission accomplished” banner that appeared on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln? Originally, the story given was that the crew of the carrier arranged, but as it turned out, the White House actually had it made.

PS – I’m not affiliated with the DNC, thank you very much. Jumping to conclusions must be the only exercise you guys get…

It’s not “okay” to harm national security or reveal military secrets (or even OPSEC) just because Bush is a moron.

If the newspaper is putting their dislike of a “lemon” of a president first… they deserve to be loudly criticized.

When an elected leader is *really* bad… or at least people think so… the most reasonable response is damage *control*. My mom said Minnesota was like that when Jesse Ventura got elected… I don’t know if he turned out to be a poor governor, he seemed to do okay, but when he was elected both parties freaked and, apparently, started cooperating to avert the disaster they imagined was looming. They cared more about the State than proving the voters made a mistake.

Putting the *country* first, given a lemon of a president, would mean trying to take up the slack for his mistakes… trying to mitigate damage and get a good result despite the lemon-ness and hold everything together until the next (praise God) election.

I had a “lemon” NCOIC once… believe me, in a crisis, NO ONE was trying to undermine this guy. Everyone worked twice as hard to make everything work because as much as we’d have loved some poetic payback, we weren’t willing to let anything *important* fail just to get to see it.

Murtha (gotta love the guy) has been going on about how Iraq needs a non-military solution. (Most of us are like… Duh! The military is for military problems, not *all* problems.) But rather than push a non-military agenda… I’m not sure what he’d like to see that isn’t being done already, but maybe we could do it *more* or something… it’s all about doing his best to make the “failed” military policies fail even more.

Which leads me to believe that Bush isn’t a lemon president. People aren’t scrambling to make his plans work, somehow, so that things don’t tank too badly or get irrevocably broken. The “fear” is all oportunistic… just a tool to make political points.

As a leader, GWB has a lot going for him to bash. When I look at George, he doesn’t measure up to what I want in a leader. He showed no kind of individual achievement in his life prior to politics; he cant’ finish a sentence when speaking on his own. If you removed his family name, his family wealth and the entourage of advisors who have surrounded him since he began his successful career in politics when he became governor Texas, there’s not much there. Like many politicians (of both parties), he panders to the emotions of people to get votes (gay equal rights being a favorite these days) and many times his actions doesn’t match his words. The majority of of our leaders in the past have shown some quality, through leadership, intellectual achievements, etc, which have distiguished them as people who can be a leader. GWBs roles as a governor and now president show for the first time a true win of marketing over real substance in a leader on a presidential level. Even conservative posters to this board more and more (like the american public) have a growing dissatisfaction with this guy and can’t wait to see him gone from the White House.

So don’t attack a newspaper when, in fact, we got stuck with a true lemon of a president.

That part, Ian S. Go read it –it isn’t absolute… unless you’re Ben Bradlee or Bill Moyers or some other unpatriotic leech of journalism’s lower class.

They can put the letter on toilet paper for all the good it will do them. What part of the First Amendment is unclear to you?