Sen. Russ Feingold's Leadership PAC suggests the White House wants to wiretap political opponents.
Sen. Russ Feingold's leadership PAC sponsored an Internet video making an unfounded suggestion that President Bush is being urged to eavesdrop "on anybody who has the nerve to disagree with [him] - court order or not."
A Feingold spokesman says the ad is a parody. Funny or not, it makes an accusation for which there's no evidence.
Feingold himself says in the video that "our country hasn't stood for this kind of abuse of power in 200 years." We think he's forgetting such things as FDR's forced internment of 120,000 Japanese-Americans in World War II, and Lincoln's summary jailings of Confederate sympathizers.
Here is the far Left's poster boy...here is their leader...
Since the Left likes to use the word "lied" all the time...what would you call this...
Posts
36 comments:
I would call it something with which you and the administration are very familiar: spinning.
Oh, and the other thing you are familiar with is making an accusation for which there is no evidence.
President (off screen): Huh?
Advisor: I'm sorry, that probably doesn't seem appropriate for the king of the United States. Yes I said "King." Think about it. You don't have to settle for just being President GW. The war still got everyone running scared. They'll go along with whatever you say. Forget the rules and quit treating the Constitution like it's set in stone. For starters, we should be eavesdropping on anybody who has the nerve to disagree with you - court order or not.
its sad that jim does not see how stupid that sounds
Doesn't sound stupid at all. Sounds like satire grounded in fact.
The article you cited asserts that the ad "makes an accusation for which there is no evidence."
You didn't know that peaceful, non-violent groups have been spied on by the NSA? You are uninformed.
"The email showed that the NSA had been physically spying on the Pledge as it prepared to depart on July 3, 2004 (the trial for the 10/04/03 arrest was in 8/04) from the American Friends Service Committee on York Rd. in Baltimore to the NSA."
And here and here.
man are you a moron...
gathering information on anti-war groups when they are going to stage major protests is what the governmeent SHOULD be doing....there is no hope with you.
The ad clearly is talking about ANYONE, any person who disagrees with the president...
Is there cases of the average Joe being spied on, not someone apart of a far-left wing group...the same kind of groups that have caused violence in the streets...and since 9-11 the govt BETTER be looking at all those groups...your links show the govt doing their job...
my story shows the liberal poster boy looking like an ass...calling Bush a King, saying he spies on ANYONE who disagrees with him, that these are the worst offenses in American history...
anyone who believes that is too stupid and doesn't know a thing about the history of this country to be Preident....
Scorpion says---
Ridiculous Russ as mentioned before has to find ways to allow him to continue to be the mediocre
career politician he desires to remain,so he will continue to cater
to the "jumbled" mo-rons that he finds willing to support his laugh-
able publicity seeking. Remember, there are still enough competent
people who can see through these
bizarro imbeciles who must have huge amounts of "dead" time to find
all those hilarious "FACTUAL" posts
which always send me to the next day smiling and laughing waiting for the next comedy response to arrive.Everybody loves real satire.
Maybe one day we will see some.
so which is it jim, it is a joke or a factual commerical...and how is it funny if it is not trying to portray the president as a king who doesn't care about the consititution?
Game, towards your last comment, I'd say the facts speak for themselves.
no Jim, they don't....
See, this ad was meant to smear the President, and when you get called on it and you are far left wing Russ you say it wsa a joke...pathetic
No, if I said that the president was drinking again without evidence, that would be a smear. If I said that a presidential candidate injured himself to get a Purple Heart and be sent home, that would be a smear. If I implied that my political opponent had a baby out of wedlock with a black woman, that would be a smear. If I bugged my own office and claimed my opponent had done it, that would be a smear.
However, if I said that the president had ignored the Constitution and had lied, that would be fact.
It is not a smear if it is the demonstrable truth.
Speaking of wiretapping, knowing that the L.A. Times is considered as a liberal source, I think it's time to drop this in.
dedanna, linnk didn't work....
I give up on JIm
Give up on this. Here's your king.
WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.
Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, whistle-blower protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.
Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to "execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.
If I'm not mistaken, the Supreme Court is supposed to determine what is and isn't unconstitutional.
And how's Bush's war on terror going?
"The number of terrorist attacks worldwide increased nearly fourfold in 2005 to 11,111, with strikes in Iraq accounting for 30 percent of the total, according to statistics released by U.S. counterterrorism officials yesterday.
". . . The figures were compiled by the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) and released with the annual State Department Country Reports on Terrorism."
Link works for me -- still. Try clearing your cookies & cache. :)
Or, try running a news search for story: Data Show How Patriot Act Used
It's at the top of the news search @ Google right now. Get it while it's hot. Run the news search there under the story name itself --
And, Jim's correct. I've found it undisputable.
Game, what you need to learn, is that just because you have a prez in office that's of your political affiliation, it doesn't make him clean by any stretch of the imagination.
If you want a conservative in office, fine, but find a decent one, ok (if there is one)? Same for a liberal one.
What Jim's talking about I've seen myself way too much of; got tired of it long before the initial election.
You're bound not to get a response from him at this point. Too many facts for game and scorpion to retort. and its too late....
The primary stat for 'crappy stat game' is that since the start of GWB's war on terror, the number of terrorist attacks have gone up.
Does this mean anything?
Let the con spin begin.....
It's ok. :)
Tomorrow, we're gonna take that gamer to the next level. :)
Watch.
Scorpion says---
Terrorist attacks go up around the world? Imagine that!I"guess" that means it has become harder to
attack in the United States? You mean it is easier to get publicity
for your cause elsewhere? Imagine that!This will still work well for terrorists as while they continue to cause chaos we will still have enough"JUMBLED"thinkers blaming our
leadership for their actions.We are to blame for terrorists having to maim and destroy.Imagine that!Too bad these facts can't be of any
real benefit except to provide some daily comic relief. That is really and truly a fact.
(picture a whimpy crying liberal)
Its bush's fault there are more terrorists...we need to understand these people, not fight them...
war is always bad....sniffle sniffle...
Ahhh, I love it when I say, "Let the spin begin," and you let it riiiiide.
Ok, Game, here's how to do it:
Rather than make blanket general statements or whines about Dems or Liberals, I need for you to replace them with specific liberals (which ones) or Dems, backed up with references to particular links that we can all reference and see for ourselves.
This is how you win debates, and get people to come over to see your point of view on things.
If you generalize, you're not going to get anywhere -- have told you this before. You need to make specific references to what you're complaining about.
If you do make these references, you'll have a kick-ass blog that is both informative about conservatives, and isn't just about a bunch of conservative rhetoric, where people will come to inform as well.
Told you we'd take that gamer to the next level, Rhyno. How's that for starters?
For instance, I'd like to see concrete links that back up this statement you made:
that is why there is no discipline in public school, why liberals want us to run away like pussies in Iraq, why they think socialism works...
Where is there anything showing that there is no discipline in public school? Where is there anything that shows that liberals want us to run away like pussies in Iraq? Where is there anything that shows that liberals think socialism works?
Tie in all these words you said together --they are blanket statements, reflecting that all liberals are like this. I want to see it.
Thanks.
I give specific example examples all the time...you seem to forget them or don't want to remember them...every time I get a chance I post them here...and when I do, you will have a reason to trash it...
This is not a professional blog, but it is hard work, and I do my best...thanks for reading it
your boy Russ wants to leave iraq on a certain date...
I teach in a school, I know what is going on, don't need a link
you are getting to caught up on links...personal knowledge is much more informative than what someone else wrote
Where did I say that Russ is "my boy"?
And yes, blanket general statements should be backed up with specific concrete links.
You do generalize a lot without doing so.
I reference the last post you made where I last cited you.
For that matter, where have I ever said I was a liberal?
As a matter of fact, I've said I'm an independent, not affiliated with Dems or Repubs.
This is the one I really love:
Game said: "the fact that you do associate any liberal thought with facts shows how you don't know what you are talking about"
Can anybody here tell me exactly what that means?
Does it mean that facts can be disregarded if they support a liberal position?
Game --
"Its bush's fault there are more terrorists...we need to understand these people, not fight them..."
That's *exactly* what these guys think.
I love how whenever a Democrat politician is criticized for unethical behavior, all these clowns can do is scream BUUUUUSSSSH! The sad thing is, Bush will not be around much after 2008, but the Kennedys and the Pelosis and the Deans working hard to keep us safe (snicker) will.
Scorpion says---
Maybe Teddy will find more water before he drowns what should
happen down the road.Of course we will still have all these comical "credible" sources to laugh
at as stupidity never goes away,it
just jumbles along,and rambles on.
I LOVE it when you say let the spin
begin tooooooo!I know my amusement is about to get even better.
Jim --
Only a fraction of the Muslim community embraces Islamic supremacism. We shouldn't let these people overthrow democracies, and if they do take power someplace, letting them have NBCs is out of the question.
The Democratic plan is to abandon the Iraqi democracy and let al Zarqawi run the country; to let Ahmadinejad have nukes so he can have his apocalypse; to stop all monitoring of al-queda phone calls coming into the United States -- all while starting a full scale investigation of the White House for possible wrongdoing.
After all, you guys think Bush is pure evil, but Islamic fundies who want to give Allah a heap of carnage just want to be understood. I acknowledge that Bush isn't perfect, but the left clearly doesn't have its priorities straight.
What democracies are being overthrown by Islamic supremacists? If, and it's a huge if, you count Iraq as a democracy, the people fighting against that democracy are Iraqi insurgents who don't like that they are not in power.
What is an "NBC"?
Don't forget that it is the Bush White House that had the opportunity to take out al Zarkawi for a year prior to the invasion of Iraq, but they didn't because they feared it would weaken their case for the war.
You continue spouting the outragious lie that Democrats want to "undertand" or negotiate with terrorists. This is a lie, and you know it's a lie. Democrats want to search for and destroy terrorists. You can keep saying it and I'll keep reminding everyone that it is a lie.
Post a Comment