This is why the parliamentary system, with it's 'vote of no-confidence' is so effective, when not monopolised by single-party monoliths, as India was for a few decades.

Bulldog, which of these people has subsequently said that Bush is above the law?

Hoo-wee! Quotes without context!

I see this tactic everywhere. There's a string of quotes going around back from after 9/11 from Democratic politicians saying Iraq is a threat.

And some from Republicains in the late '90s saying Clinton shouldn't go to war.

It's like a bad episode on the Food Network:

"Here, taste these quotes."
"Meh."
"What's wrong?"
"They're flavorless."
"Oh shit, I forgot to add a teapoon of context!"

Matthew,

If you want the context of the quote, please feel free to click on the link I provided for each name. You can read each person's full record.

Nice try.

How are these quotes without context? They are about these men's attitudes towards Clinton and his impeachment. It's in the title and the first paragraph.

Baronius,

Nice straw man argument. LOL. The point is, none of these same "holier than thou" politicians who were so concerned with the "rule of law" are saying a peep against Bush and his obvious violation of federal statute and the Constitution.

"Hoo-wee! Quotes without context!"

Hoo-wee! A meaningless potshot [Deleted. You know why. As a quick sidebar, aka diversion, I'd just like to say this debate is a perfect example of one of the worst aspects of current US politics. It does neither your country nor the whole wide(r) world any good. And it's boring. Comments Editor]

I take back most of what I said.

Most. Delay's quote has no context. The linked post is the same as the blockquote.

This is also similar to when Democrats hate it when Republicans say "But Clinton did it." Now, in this case it's "But Republicans said it."

I think it's more wise to investigate Bush in this instance rather than time travel back. This wiretapping thing merits debate on whether or not Bush should have the authority to do such a thing.

And I'm not too keen on Republicans defending it with "B-b-b-b-but Carter and Clinton! They're Democrats!"

Neither Frist's quote.

Now we have editing with off-topic commentary?! When you guys look to hire an editor for the editors, please let me know.

I think those quotes are pretty clearly in the context of the Clinton impeachment and they're long enough to stand on their own.

The real relevant point here is made by Baronius in #2. I don't believe that any of these people have taken positions recently which contradict any of these quotes. Not one of those guys has officially changed his position on ethics or the rule of law.

Dave

Roger: You're welcome to contact me directly if you'd care to give me some food for thought. But what do you think of the News story Mr Bulldog (or should that be Mr Manifesto?) wrote?

Comments Editor sez...
*I'd just like to say this debate is a perfect example of one of the worst aspects of current US politics. It does neither your country nor the whole wide(r) world any good. And it's boring. Comments Editor]*

now THAT is just a lovely picture into an Editor's concept of free speech and public debate

allow me to Respecfully disagree [Apologies for jumpinmg in here, Mr Marx sir, but my remarks were directed at the comments, not the post itself. The debate had shifted to personalities not the topic. We can get into the wider topic anther time if you like. I bring no concepts here except the Comments Policy. Thanks. Comments Editor]

the original Post indeed does show many things, it shows how Legislative leadership felt about the Issue at the time and how they spoke on the Record

ya see...this is known as a "petard"

and what Bulldog did, was hoist some folks by it

now, you can say it is a sad commentary on the state of american Politics...but i put it to you all, that this is NOTHING "new"

as proven by the Quotes

interesting to note that DeLay is currently under indictment and Frist is under investigation by the S.E.C.

now, i'm not one screaming "impeachment" or anything like that...yet

however, if it does prove to be correct that the President in fact ordered Federal Law to be Violated...well then, the Rule of Law is quite clear

thanks for the Post Bulldog...the Quotes and the links...

Excelsior!

Well this BM is pretty much BS, cause it's based on unstated and false premises. Yup, if the president is committing felonies and lying under oath, that's grounds for impeachment. Bush is nothing like that.

Down in the comments, you have another little BM, "Bush and his obvious violation of federal statute and the Constitution." Back up, jack. I see no such things. Those are facts absolutely not in evidence.

Before these quotes would have any meaning like what the author intends, he'd have to in fact establish felonious activity. You haven't even started towards doing that.

ummm, sorry ta break it to ya big Al...but W has stated that he ordered those taps and that he felt he coudl do so

those actions are in clear violation of the federal FISA laws, and ANY type or "search" or "surveilance" without a Court Order woudl appear to be a violation of the Constitution on many counts

all that being said...you are being fallacious when you state
*Well this BM is pretty much BS, cause it's based on unstated and false premises.*

when the Post is all about Quoting GOP members abotu how they feel concerning the Law and the President

so where's the BS?

i think it might be strewn all over yer keyboard

try harder

Excelsior!

Gonzo, what's a better way to discuss grounds for impeachment?

Talk about what Bush did?

Or talk about what the GOP said about Clinton?

the original Post indeed does show many things, it shows how Legislative leadership felt about the Issue at the time and how they spoke on the Record

ya see...this is known as a "petard"

and what Bulldog did, was hoist some folks by it

This would be true had he provided some contemporary quotes where they tried to excuse the current administration for their misbehavior, but he didn't. As it stands it's just a sort of historical retrospective with nothing really tying it to current events, though a few of those comments - like the second to last one from Frist do stand on their own as remarkably stupid.

Dave

Bulldog, there is plenty of debate about whether Bush violated any statutes. No one is saying that Bush violated the Constitution. (Maybe someone is, but I mean people who don't drool.)

None of those people you quoted have called for an abandonment of the rule of law. They just dare to disagree with your interpretation of Bush's actions. We only have two examples of impeachment politics in the past 100 years, during the Nixon and Clinton presidencies. In the 1970's the Republicans showed themselves willing to impeach a leader of their own party. The Democrats have shown no such honorable behaviour.

I think that if Bush is found to have broken the law, D's and R's will drive him out of town. We may one day see if I'm wrong. But you're condemning Republicans for the way you expect them to act. You may as well criticize Frist for not beating Charlemagne at tennis.

You are familiar with the concept of preemptive stike?

I think that if Bush is found to have broken the law, D's and R's will drive him out of town.

Clinton was found to have broken the law and wasn't driven out of town. It's entirely possible that Bush could also be impeached and face no real penalty for it.

There is also one very real and significant difference between Bush's alleged crimes and Clinton's. What Clinton did was a crime committed as a private individual. Bush is being accused as committing crimes as president. That's a huge difference. It makes Bush's alleged crimes potentially much more serious, but it also raises the standard and changes the criteria for defining them as crimes. This isn't something anywhere near as simple as lying about getting a blowjob. There's some question as to whether it's even possible for actions taken by the president in the interests of national security to be considered crimes at all.

Dave

Mr Nalle sez...
*There's some question as to whether it's even possible for actions taken by the president in the interests of national security to be considered crimes at all.*

no...no there isn't

but i do Agree that all the Facts are not in yet

and Suss...when discussing complex issues, especially where it concerns Law and Politics on this high end level, it hels to set the background and establish the ground Rules

i find it Ironic to the Sublime to have those Quotes, and hundreds more, hanging around

it appears that we are forced to endure an old Chinese Curse...considered the most horrible
"may you live in Interesting Times"

Excelsior!

no...no there isn't

There may not be for you, or for me, but we're going to see that argument made, I guarantee it. There are definitely folks who believe that the role of Commander in Chief in time of war pretty much gives Bush carte blanche.

Dave

if there was a fucking Declaration of War..i might actually agree with you

but there isn't

and in a very real, and legally binding sense(again, that pesky Constitution and Federal Law)that makes it a different ball game

it seems that you and i are of very close Opinion on most of this Mr Nalle...which is encouraging, neither wants any rash bullshit and we have agreed that IF Laws were broken, then those who did so face the apllicable penalties

the big Questions seems to revolve around which Laws are applicable...now, since part of the problem originates with circumventing the entire concept of Separation of Powers(to wit: not going to the proper court(FISA) to gain review and warrants for surveilance)..it will be a wild ride to see who gets to sort all this out

and should make NOvember 06 truly of historic proportions, no matter hwo it sorts out

Excelsior!

if there was a fucking Declaration of War..i might actually agree with you

but there isn't

Democratic leaders and legal authorities alike agree that the resolution which authorized the use of force is in all but name the equivalent of a Declaration of War, and it's likely to be viewed that way legally.

it seems that you and i are of very close Opinion on most of this Mr Nalle...which is encouraging, neither wants any rash bullshit and we have agreed that IF Laws were broken, then those who did so face the apllicable penalties

That's another issue, of course - what the hell are the proper penalties for things like this? It's more like the kind of offense which should be addressed by a civil suit rather than any existing criminal penalties.

the big Questions seems to revolve around which Laws are applicable...now, since part of the problem originates with circumventing the entire concept of Separation of Powers(to wit: not going to the proper court(FISA) to gain review and warrants for surveilance)..it will be a wild ride to see who gets to sort all this out

Can't argue with you there.

Dave

Impeachment is a serious topic, so the words of these men must be taken as such (I mean, that's the contextual element anyway). What is an impeachable offense? Getting, uh-um, satisfied under the Oval Office desk? Sending off American soldiers to die based on a lie? Raiding the offices of a rival party?

It certainly stirs a healthy and necessary discourse.

What a bunch of shit. Blogcritics now has FUCKING WORD POLICE WHO COMMENT ON THE THREAD THEY'RE CENSORING?!

[self-deleted] you--- whoever you are.

...and you know what: it's really NOT YOUR FUCKING PLACE to edit a comment and then pass explicit judgment on the manner and style of the public "debate".

You should be fired, but the way things are going around Blogcritics [read "visual online garage sale"] I expect you'll be promoted to having your own "weekly column" featured at that big ugly block at the bottom of each page.

feh.

Jeesus, am I the only person bothered by the idea that partisan "editors" are not only deleting words and lines they deem "personal attacks" -- but that they're adding their own opinions as to the nature and quality of the thread?

jeesus.

I'm a poor wandering troll now - in search of a bridge worth guarding where wretched fools can still have a good ol' disreputable verbal brawl...where the stick and yield of it all are respected rather than ridiculed and lectured away

where achieving some bland middle ground of agreement through cool reasoned argument is not The Only Way

perhaps BC could set up dual threads for each article - one spicy and based on free speech and the other child-mild and edited for respectability

This is really sad. Shark and Roger are right. Heavy handed editing, followed by nannyish comments by the editor do this web site no good at all.

Yes, it does bother me.

No, it's NOT freedom of speech, and [self edited] you and your "jumping into" the middle of an independent comment to push YOUR world view. If you want to comment Christopher, then fucking COMMENT!

Stay the hell out of our comments with your bullshit opinions.

The only reason I jumped where I did was to try to maintain a timeline.

My opinions have just as much value and weight as everybody else's, no more and no less. You've all been requested to abide by the Official Comments Policy, which I suspect none of you have read lately, so if you have any complaints, it would have to be about the policy itself, which you can raise separately if you would like.

The subject of this thread is Impeachment and the political argument around the circumstances of Clinton and Bush2.

Personally, I don't trust governments that much; they all seem to develop delusions of "leadership", when all I want is more like a competent CEO. If the boss can't follow the rules, bust their ass in court say I.

troll, you and shark could have been flatout banned from here many times over for multiple breaches of the Comments Policy if anybody really wanted to be strict about things.

The CP is a flimsy document comprising only nine sentences in total. The bulk of it comes in the first three sentences:-

"Please think of the comments as a conversation between individuals and interact with civility.

We will edit/delete spam comments, duplicate comments, unsupported accusations, personal attacks of any kind, and terms offensive to groups when used in a pejorative manner.

In addition, we reserve the right to edit/delete comments that are some combination of pointlessly vulgar, vile, cruel, without redeeming qualities, and an embarrassment to the site."

It's also not looked kindly upon if people use more than one ID and impersonating other people is a total strict no-no.

Despite the more hawk-ish attitudes of some folk around here, I am trying to take a more tolerant line than they might like and as I have repeatedly said, I am always disappointed when the moment comes that I have to edit or delete comments and the way that is handled is kept under constant review. Thank you to everybody for my continuing education.

We have a problem: long-time commenters who are well aware of the comment policy against personal attacks continue to flout that policy and leave personal attacks in the comments. Shark, you are one of the most frequent offenders, and you know it.

I wouldn't normally single anyone out like that, and I think it's unfortunate that Christopher did so. Nevertheless, I did so to make it clear to everyone that Christopher's mistake (in my opinion) was by far the lesser offense here. If all of you would simply realize that -- as it says in red letters you can see while leaving a comment -- "Personal attacks are not allowed," then Christopher would never have to utter a word.

I've talked to Christopher about better ways to handle situations like this one in the future, but I suggest that you not violate the policy to see what happens, because I'm not sure you'd like the agreement on which we settled.

more threats...sigh

so banish me for disagreeing with you about the implementation of your capricious and repressive policy...I've already self-edited myself out of existance anyway - poof

troll

Every bridge needs its troll

From Comment #7: [Deleted. You know why. As a quick sidebar, aka diversion, I'd just like to say this debate is a perfect example of one of the worst aspects of current US politics. It does neither your country nor the whole wide(r) world any good. And it's boring. Comments Editor]

Wow, that seems presumptious, even aside from its placement in someone else's comment. Since when does the comments editor speak for the whole wide world? I'll bet a good portion of the rest of the world would love to see U.S. tied down in domestic infighting and out of everybody else's business. A very good argument could be made that Americans tearing each other apart would be good for humanity and for the planet.

In fact, some fraction of Americans would like to see the country Balkanized. In that light, to state that divisive argument does no good is pure opinion.

And "boring" is highly subjective too.

Jeesus, am I the only person bothered by the idea that partisan "editors" are not only deleting words and lines they deem "personal attacks" -- but that they're adding their own opinions as to the nature and quality of the thread?

I just want to point out that the comments editor is politically sympathetic to you, Shark, so I don't think his deletions were motivated by partisanship.

That said, I do think that the comments editing should be done with a great deal of restraint in the political area where passion is often a positive rather than a negative.

Dave

Coupla points:

1) there are thousands of little implicit and explicit insults thrown around here every day -- and depending on which BC Nanny is "monitoring" the halls -- some pass and some get deleted.

EXAMPLE: the whole "Mary reborn literally" sideshow is ONE LONG INSULTFEST -- it's a bit more subtle, but I submit, it's much more cruel and disturbing than me giving Sussman a taste of his own insults. (no one slapped him down when he "insulted" me, but then again, I didn't complain like a whiney French schoolgirl, either)

Oh, and if BORING is a criteria for censorship and/or EDITORIAL COMMENT, Mr. Rose better sharpen his modem, 'cause *99% of Blogcritics is guilty of BORING. (*exception: where I choose to post. heh)

2) Once you start whacking words because of the arbitrary and often highly subjective criteria of "insult" -- it's a slippery slope that ends with people like Christopher Rose wielding power over people whose feet he's not worthy of anointing.

3) THE NEW POLICY SUCKS. We're big boys and girls. These "words" are friggin' DOTS ON A SCREEN, folks. Sticks and stones... remember that? Jeesus. Protect us from glowing phosphorus dots. Protect us from being offended. Protect us from entertainment, honesty, and Sharks.

4) This place is starting to suck. But hey, there's a BARGAIN SALE GOING ON!

feh.

Blogcritics used to be an independent coffee shop. Now it's a Fuckin' Starbucks filled with Psychic Nurses.

Fuck.

It.


fffttt.

I think Bulldog's original blog was rather quite good. Pointing out the double standards of some of the most corrupt politicians in the United States (and the world) is a much needed antidote to the sickening fanaticism of the Bush supporters, who see Bush as some kind of divine being, capable of no sins too great. It's ridiculous.

Bush should've been impeached ALREADY for dereliction of duty, but I really can't expect much from the United States government any longer. It's just too far gone into a pit of corruption and lies and corporate money to expect any form of justice. It's truly pathetic. We're losing the country people, let's get real for a change.

Dave, thanks, but anybody who writes want Rose wrote IS NOT POLITICALLY SYMPATHETHIC to Shark.

But Dave, I think we agree. (Mark yer calenders!): I think a POLITICS section in an AMERICAN BLOG should be a Free Speech zone.)

troll sez...
*...I've already self-edited myself out of existance anyway - poof*

and the blogosphere is much Poorer for the loss

/mourn

Excelsior?

Shark, some of your points above - especially about psychic nurses - are spot on. But stop ragging on the 'bargain sale'. The site needs to make some money to keep operating. That's a fact of life. Until you manage to get blogging socialized and underwritten by the government that's the way things have to be.

Dave

Dave, before they ban me, I just gotta get it off my chest -- 'cause, y'know, life is short and ya just never know when it might yer last moment:

























I love you, maaaaan.

I am utterly happy to apologise to Mr shark and Mr gonzo marx for entering into their comment boxes.

In shark's case, I was trying a different, more open approach to the customary terse "Personal attack deleted" type of message that I have had to do before. I thought his iconoclastic approach might prefer it that way.

In gonzo's case, I didn't see what he wrote until much later after the event and thought that a normal chronological comment would make little sense due to the many comments inbetween and I was also a little flustered to be possibly misunderstood by him.

There are really only two ways I can think of to carry out the Comments Editor's job. The first is just to apply the policy in a justice is blind way, by the rules; the other is to try and see each article's commentary as a discrete space with its own unique order, like multiple subtly different parallel worlds. That's a lot harder to do. Additional input is always welcome as we try to get it right.

no worries Christopher...as i said before, your's is a thankless task

no need fer any "Mr" with me , since my "name" is a triple entendre, it just seems silly

but i digress...

Excelsior!

Or you could let people write whatever they want, and if anyone's offended, he can go somewhere else. I've been insulted on this site many times, and if I'm ever actually offended by anything, I'll be gone. So what? Who's gonna miss me?

There are regular writers here who are so unbelievably and transparently stupid it makes my head hurt.

If I'm commenting on something, I have a simple policy: As soon as something stupid or offensive is thrown my way, I stop reading and commenting on that post forever. No big "I'm leaving" announcement, no "just one more thing before I'm gone forever," no nothing. Works for me.

That was a part of the whole contrition thing, gonzo.

Actually, I am unaware of both what shark's politics are or that Mr Nalle knows what my politics are. I suspect I have quite a bit in common with gonzo; we both seem to prefer the plain cold facts of a matter rather than any politically tinted approach.

That's why I don't trust governments that much; they all seem to develop delusions of "leadership", when all I want is more like a competent CEO. If the boss can't follow the rules, bust their ass in court say I.

It was a lot more fun when it was a lot more evil!!! Or wasn't the word sinister?

Delete all the nasty stuff and it changes from sinister to...I don't know...but it ain't sinister anymore.

There are a few on here that might get carried away and I may have been one of them once or twice...but hey...it was entertaining!

I wonder, would "ugly 'murrican" be deleted these days? Jim's probably rolling in his grave...

Christopher, you may have changed to using your real name, but I at least still know who you are and remember things you've posted in the past. You're not a nut, but you're certainly left of center by American standards.

Dave

Andy - spot on! Jim IS rolling, and I agree with the idea that the politics posts should be a free for all brawl.

I don't think I ever read a comment by Troll that was a personal attack Wry? Yes! Pointed? Yes! Barbed? Well, maybe...

The world needs more Trolls, Sharks, and Gonzos.

Oh, GREAT points made by Clubhouse Cancer.

"Troll, come back, Troll!" <---[Shark **looking and sounding exactly like *Brandon DeWilde]



** that would be real innocent, Phillip Winn



*extra points if'n ya get it

"Gonzo's got things for you to do, and Shark wants you. I know he does."

Clubhouse...i'd miss you if you weren't around...

Bennet...Bog forefend there is ever any other "like" me...

/shudders

/agree with Shark

oh troll....i'm sitting here dangling a random pinhead's toes over the Edge of the bridge fer ya, i'll do my best to ensure ya get "fed" regularily...puh-lEEEeeeEEEeeeeeesssse git yer non-self-edited hide back under our Bridge where it belongs

Roger...wherever you got that "Quote" gave you the Funny...use it Wisely, it can be a powerful Force , and a seductive Mistress

oh yes, Christopher..i do have to agree with Bennet about troll...i can't recall him ever really "insulting" anyone directly...JuJu knows i am MUCH more guilty of such behavior than troll has ever been to my Knowledge

argh

must...have....root beer

Excelsior!

Troll is occasionally a bit snide, but I don't remember him engaging in direct insults either.

Dave

Dave, I don't quite know what you're on about in the first part of your #48, I suspect you've got yourself confused with another convo entirely. You still would be making a mistake to infer my politics based on the limited exposure my views have had here.

I think if you step back from your obsession with US political detail, you'd find that it's the current political landscape in the USA that is skewed off to the right.

If I seem left of centre to you, that's just a "doppler shift" effect you're experiencing. It is actually the USA that needs a political reality realignment back towards the mainstream.

As for the troll-shark-bennett-clubhouse axis, I'm not in disagreement with them. I was asked to do the comment editor's job and apply the comments policy as appropriate. The judgment of where that point is located is clearly the subject of much debate.

The two positions can be summarised as "free speech at all costs" versus "check your weapons at the door". I'm told that historically the first route has been tried and resulted in unreadable, pointless and embarrassing-to-the site squabbling.

So it seems we're stuck with some kind of restraint. That doesn't mean any kind of censorship beyond the comparatively mild standards at BC so troll and shark can be as funny as they like within that. I too would miss them if they were gone.

Shark, troll is now Shane?

As Dave knows, there is definitely a debate about the exact role of the comment editor. Overall, I'd say that Christopher has done an outstanding job, though his attempt to "try something new" here ended up not being the greatest thing ever.

Nevertheless, we're still not letting people run around with swords flailing. Keep the claws sheathed, and I think you can all still say what needs to be said.

no swords????

oh my stars and garters...WTF is happening!!

ok..cereally

Christopher, as i have said..you have a thankless Task...and please don't take any critique of said Task for anything personal...

now..i'll "check my weapons" at the door, meaning the six guns of Insult and Personal Assault

but i'm keeping my hold-outs

and yer only getting my "swords", named Wit and Reason, after you pry them out of my cold, stiffening fingers

oh yeah...i keep Occam's Razor in my boot

anything else?

Excelsior!

Here's another paraphrase from Shark's mystery film that seems apropos.

"A keyboard is a tool, Marion, no better or no worse than any other tool, an axe, a shovel or anything. A keyboard is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that."

As possibly the biggest needler of Christopher, at times justified, at times not, he has an impossible task that I wouldn't envy and I'm know he's not getting paid enough for it. Unfortunately, he's at the forefront and has to suffer our slings and arrows. It's not fair, but to quote SuperChicken, "he knew the job was dangerous when he took it." I apolgize for the grief, but can't honestly say I won't do it again.

I only called him to task originally for inserting his opinion into a deletion because it seemd like a line was being crossed. If he made the comment separately, I never would have said anything because he's entitled to comment as well.

The problem stems from not knowing what is it exactly that those at the top wish to accomplish with this site and the continual scouring of the comments, especially when that same brush isn't used on articles.

And no offense, but if you are going to say that traffic and comments are up since the enforcement of the policy, you will have trouble convincing me with the B5 deluge and the mad rambling of of the Virgin Mother gummin' up the works.

Dave, I don't quite know what you're on about in the first part of your #48, I suspect you've got yourself confused with another convo entirely. You still would be making a mistake to infer my politics based on the limited exposure my views have had here.

Your view have had a bit of exposure in the past.

I think if you step back from your obsession with US political detail, you'd find that it's the current political landscape in the USA that is skewed off to the right.

I did say that you were on the left compared to current US politics, not compared to some objective standard. What may be moderate in Spain where neo-Marxists run the country isn't exactly moderate elsewhere.

If I seem left of centre to you, that's just a "doppler shift" effect you're experiencing. It is actually the USA that needs a political reality realignment back towards the mainstream.

If that's the way you see it, then I submit that perhaps you are a bit politically off-course. Some of us think that the US has stayed the same while the rest of the world has shifted left.

The two positions can be summarised as "free speech at all costs" versus "check your weapons at the door". I'm told that historically the first route has been tried and resulted in unreadable, pointless and embarrassing-to-the site squabbling.

I'm confident we can have pointless squabbling without violating the comments policy at all. But sometimes we also have posts which HAVE a point and do contribute to the discussion which also violate the comments policy. That's the nub of the problem here I think.

Dave

I believe the standard is slightly more tolerant in comments than the posts, Roger, though it's all a question of degree.

I've explained and apologised to Shark and gonzo above and I did clearly indicate which words were mine in an obviously flawed attempt to maintain some clarity. Lesson learned on my part.

BlogCritics is still a relatively young place and is experiencing multiple types of rapid growth pain. I trust I speak accurately on behalf of the editorial team in saying that EVERYBODY's input in how that growth is channeled is appreciated. Just as nobody is above the law, nobody at BC is beyond reproach, as those who read the yahoo group know all too well.

Christopher, I echo gonzo's and Roger's sentiments about yours being a thankless job. Keep up the good work.

Roger sez: "if you are going to say that traffic and comments are up since the enforcement of the policy, you will have trouble convincing me with the B5 deluge and the mad rambling of of the Virgin Mother..."

Right on! I wrote up a response shortly after Shark cut loose (different thread I guess) and it pointed out that little bit of comment-reality. Unfortunately my browzer froze up before I could hit "publish" and I said fuck it.

No WAY the comments are up, unless you count all the B5 and VM crap.

BTW Christopher, I haven't dropped in on B5 in a while as it takes too long to load, but are those girls still calling each other "bicthz" or "biotchez" or even "bitch"? Or have you introduced them to the polite comment rules?

Just curious...

Dave, trust me, those who think that the world has changed around an unaltered USA are simply wrong. And missing the point entirely.

How's the impeachment story going? On what we've heard so far in Europe, there doesn't seem to be a plausible case yet. I suspect there won't be.

I haven't said anything about the traffic and know little about it, that was a pre-emptive strike by Roger! They're a popular tactic these days. Many hold Bush II responsible but I blame Tom Cruise.

And yeah, B5/Pretty Ricky land is worse than ever, now they've added threats of violence to the name calling.

I agree with the BC-Yahoo opinion. Pull the plug on B5. VM is a tougher call however.

Best of luck with that one.

"BC_Yahoo opinion"

aww damnitalltafuckingHell!!

i know, technically i am a "member" of BC..even though i've only ever done what....2 Posts?

so now..ta find out whas going on, rather than just come here...i gotta join some group of yahoos.....i mean Yahoo group and look around?

geeEEEEeeEEeeeezzz

i fucking hate yahoo
..:::mumbles some anti-social shit and waves to everybody:::..

Excelsior!

Heh! Don't sweat it Señor Marx, it's just the behind the scenes stuff, review materials and policy, and what to do about the B5/Pretty Ricky Chatrooms that are "Now Being Hosted By Blogcritics!"

I say blame it on bandwidth and pull the plug, or, open a members only B5 Area and charge a buck a comment, swearwords spelled however you like for an extra dime, threats will cost you a sawbuck...

HEY! That . might . work!

It's my fault gonzo, I wrote the email (I'm seldom among the Yahoos myself; I have a thing about email groups, they intimidate me). It was after it looked like the threads might be getting too rough. And I had an aesthetic issue with them, too.

Dave, trust me, those who think that the world has changed around an unaltered USA are simply wrong. And missing the point entirely.

Having lived in Europe off and on during the last 40 years and having relatives there I can tell you that Europe has definitely changed and done so enormously. The US has changed too, but the US is an inherently more conservative society, clinging to tradition in a way that a lot of Europeans don't so much anymore.

How's the impeachment story going? On what we've heard so far in Europe, there doesn't seem to be a plausible case yet. I suspect there won't be.

That's about the size of it. Bush did some things which are questionable, but not 'high crimes and misdemeanors'. Nothing even as cut and dried as perjury.

Dave

i have ti disAgree with Mr Nalle's assessment...

at the very least, the President ordered the NSA to commit surveilance without going to a Judge (see the rules of FISA)...the entire data mining bit raises a host fo Issues relating to possible violations of Rights under the 4th and 5th Amendments

now, we are a long way from having all the Answers, but there is more than enough to warrant an Investigation...if nothing else, this whole mess looks like it ain't gonna help the Administration get the Patriot Act passed the way they want it

and there are soem Issues with actual bad guys whose smart lawyers are going to use the Issue of Due Process being tossed aside for the convenience of the WH as possible grounds for having evidence tossed out, or even convictions overturned

ANY of these instances, (remember the President himself has admitted ordering the Operation), could rise to the "high crimes and misdemeanors" bar

not to mention after how much that bar was lowered by the GOP during the last Administration...as shown in the original Post

Fun Stuff, eh?

Excelsior!

Best reasons to come here today:

1) Gonzo: "...oh yeah...i keep Occam's Razor in my boot"

2) RogerMDillon" "..."A keyboard is a tool, Marion, no better or no worse than any other tool, an axe, a shovel or anything. A keyboard is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that."

Both caused me to *LOL



*may The Muse forgive me for using an emoticon

=========

Re: Comments, traffic up, etc.

I think I agree with Roger, et al on this.

But as far as keeping this place nice and FRIENDLY for the fragile "new visitors" -- It strikes me that -- despite the "data" -- there are about the SAME 15 to 20 people POSTING COMMENTS on BC. You'd think that with the alleged thousands of hits every day, you'd see a new name every now and then, but it ain't happenin'. You rarely see a new name in comments.

We all know each other here. We know who'll meet in music, film, tv, sports, and POLITICS -- and frankly, I think it's bullshit/EGO to think that thousands of strangers are reading these comments and give a flying fuck when I call some motard a fucking motard.

Just one assholes opinion.

=======

Carry on.


PS: I have two suggestions for Bush:

a) IMPEACH THE CRIMINAL MOTHERFUCKER

b) Make him visit the troops, ie. drive his ass through the streets of Baghdad in a very slow Lincoln convertible

Gotta run. The NSA is at my door!



Nice knowin' ya,
Shark

Gonzo - as far as some things being thrown out of court...won't the folks that they catch up in this illegal gill net be tried in those super secret military tribunals? Or just left to rot in Gitmo?

such editorial mellow drama - yum - goes well with the speculative stew which is the rest of the thread

Dave sums it up with: *we can have pointless squabbling without violating the comments policy at all. But sometimes we also have posts which HAVE a point and do contribute to the discussion which also violate the comments policy*

ok...here's the thing -

change the policy...proposal:

'Poorly written pointless personal attacks and hollow humorless heckling are not allowed'...etc

get out ahead of those nasty complaints about subjectivity...but

take your bogus attempt at objective editing off my bridge

troll

ps xxoo to the alien (who is a silly slut if he takes any of this as a personal affront)

Andy...the folks i am talking about are american citizens, and caught in the USA,,,many are currently in the US Judicial system(like Padilla)

check yer news sources..a lot of those examples were out there in the last few days

and my day is made..i come on with coffee this morning to find not only did i make Sharlk laugh, but troll popped in..and it's good to *see* you back around too, Andy

w00t!

one happy gonzo

Excelsior!

Yeah, Troll popped in with some words of wisdom; a proposal which I endorse wholeheartedly!

Creative and well written attacks are one of the highest forms of BC intercourse, and they should be recognized as such.

PS - Bulldog, thanks for bringing the original post to BC, it's good to have those quotes to toss back into the face of the appologists.

Is Padilla in the US Judicial system? I was working in Charleston when they were holding him down there. Or are they still holding him down there? I haven't worked in Charleston for about 3 years now...so shouldn't there be a bigger argument for the speedy trial thing?

Now that I've figured out this RSS thing, my news sources are getting a little deeper.

And do we know that Padilla was caught on one of these wire taps?

I gave up on discussions on here for a while...the conspiracy threads were really getting to me! Plus I spent 2 1/2 months in Germany. Great country!

As far as the comment policy and editing personal attacks. I don't think the issue was so much that a comment was edited but that it was edited and commented on...I'm getting to the point where I expect to see "comment edited for personal attack" or what ever it is, epsecially in the politics section, but not one that says edited and then has comment on the subject matter as well.

It felt like the thought police were trying to tell me what was a good discussion and what was a worthless discussion.

ok Andy...as for Padilla

as near as i understand it at this time, there is a struggle going on between the Executive and the Judiciary over Padilla

he is a US citizen that has been held for over 3 and a half years with NO Due Process as an "enemy combatant" merely because the Executive branch has called him such...NO formal charges have been brought against him besides the whole unproven "dirty bomb plot" accusation...

now the Attorney General's office wants him handed over to the Florida Court system on some other charges(of which he is most likely guilty, by all accounts, but which have NOTHING to do with the original allegations)

and an Appeals Court has basically said "wait a minute, before you can do that, you have to deal with the original allegations and show why you have held him without Due Process for the last 3 and a half years...then we will talk about changing his status and Jurisdiction"

and the Executive branch has balked and the whole thing is going up in front of the SCOTUS

so yeah, speedy trial..habeus corpus, right to face the Accuser...hell he hasn't ever been formally CHARGED with ANYTHING

now, i don't care if this guy is an Angel, or Al fucking Capone...he IS a citizen of this Nation, and as such he has certain Rights under the Constitution...many of which have ben blatantly Violated

and THAT is why this whole mess is VERY important to your humble Narrator, and should be to everyone as well...

our Government should NEVER be able to blatantly violate our Rights under the Constitution...period

nuff said?

Excelsior!

It's completely off-topic but #76 just about perfectly describes how it happened. And the situation is as sick as it gets for those who respect law. Padilla was "caught with a wire-tap." Um, doing what? Not anything that's brought a charge against I-Rod - I mean Padilla.

The justice system is now doing something right as it is designed to do - but fighting against itself. That's great. Nothing like getting it right the first time around . ... Oh ...

Just fer the record:

In Comment #53, Nalle made a personal insult against Troll:

Nalle: "Troll is occasionally a bit snide..."


[Shark using non-existent "objective criteria" to define "insult"]

===========


Neener, neener.

thanks for the support Shark...needless to say I've been devastated since reading that vile insult...

but there is hope

after several hours yesterday first with the base chaplain and later with my psycho therapist I am almost convinced that Dave is not my first belly button cohort (read wife) and that he might kinda be right - (ya think?)

troll

I'm just wondering about the term psycho therapist...is she really psycho? and if so, how did she get a job as a therapist???

Andy - as some will quickly point out (not me of course)...the statistics show that most therapists are fucking wack jobs - almost a prerequisite

troll

So Clinton lied under oath, why was he under oath in the first place? Why don't they arrest alterers on the street and put them under oath, what the fuck is the deal with that? and then I saw this clip from the daily show, they had Haliburton or some oils companies or some shit in a court and the judge refused to swear them in, so that they could lie and not get in trouble for it later if someone found out.

Shark: Technically, it's a description of troll's attitude. It would only have been any kind of attack at all if it were utterly baseless and even then merely a mild one. You're just going to have to accept that the road to hell is indeed paved with my good intentions ;-)

Moving on, I still can't see any significant evidence to substantiate impeachment of Bush II but I really hope that the broader issue of appropriate conduct whilst in public service is seriously re-examined.

Christopher, "no evidence" is directly correlated to the lack of Investigation

Bush's own words over the last few years ..from his insistence that "a wire tap needs a court order" to this months "I ordered the NSA to conduct those taps"...are, primae facia, evidence of violating FISA and possibly the 4th and 5th Amendments...both in direct Violation of his Oath of Office

not saying he is "guilty" just yet...merely that the Case can be made...and that a proper , non-partisan, Investigation SHOULD be conducted to either charge or clear all Involved to the satisfaction of both the legal standards and the concerns of the American public

fair enough?

Excelsior!

this case has been seen by 4 federal jugdes, all finding that there was no breech of the Constitution...Don't tell that to Gonzo...his mind is pretty well made up...plus he's a whole lot smarter than any federal judge...just ask him...

juff ned!

Blowjob!

"hey joe, where ya goin' with that, gun in yer hand"

as is well established joe, final ruling on Constitutional matters rests with SCOTUS and not any single Judge...or even apellate Court...again, part of the checks and balances within the Judicial system

and nice try at attempting to smear me a bit...ever see anyplace where i claim to have cornered the Market on brains or the like?

don't fucking think so...

now, back up YOUR shit here...could you enlighten us by providing a link to these supposed cases, or some documentation of what the fuck you are talking about?

if you look at comment #31-34 on this Thread you will find some nice links that troll provided that show the FISA court/Attorney General discussion on some of this

but it appears that trivial things like Facts don't interest you as much as insinuating aspersions on my commentary

ball is in your "court", joe...let's see what you can do with it

Excelsior!

believe me, SCOTUS won't get involved in this.
betcha that's 'cause bush has all-ready replaced the justices with clones under his control!

i also heard that bush molests collies...
i also heard that bush wets his bed...

(insert Rod Sterling voice-over here)

Christopher, "no evidence" is directly correlated to the lack of Investigation

That just sounds like a fishing expedition to me. Start the investigation and it will tell us what we're supposed to be investigating. Not a good way to do things.

Bush's own words over the last few years ..from his insistence that "a wire tap needs a court order" to this months "I ordered the NSA to conduct those taps"...are, primae facia, evidence of violating FISA and possibly the 4th and 5th Amendments...both in direct Violation of his Oath of Office

And do we have any reason to think that he didn't intend to eventually tell FISA about it, but the dog ate his paperwork or somesuch?

Dave

Why is everyone screaming about POSSIBLE illegal action by the president...isn't the fact that secret info was realeased by someone at NSA bothering anyone? It sure seemed to bother people when there was a leak dealing with a possible CIA operative....just a thought...

gonzo...always trying to throw facts into the mix...some nerve you got there!!!

Andy - so...your working for the NSA and you come across evidence of a program that circumvents congress and the constitution on orders from the 'highest levels' of government

what do you do?

troll

I had a pretty good feeling that whistle blower defense would come up...not sure how I'd treat that...

I figure, from what I've been reading, that the pres is using that executive order I referenced in Al's impeach bush thread. I think it's 12333, written by Uncle Ronnie back in the day...and used by both clinton and bush 2 since...maybe in w's daddy...but I can't say for sure...

As far as what I do if I come across something that's been going on at least since the clinton administration is the same thing I did when there was a dem in office...if it was good enough for him then I guess I should do my job, not be partisan and shut the fuck up...that's just me and my 20 year military mind though...

so andy..ya would obey an unlawful Order?

and what we are talking abotu here is circumventing the FISA laws...which has NOT been done by previous Administrations...the cases cited by the Rovian media types have been proven to have been taken out of context( here on BC as well as other places) so THAT shit don't fly

i am more than happy to wait for more of the Facts, including the details about HOW this info got out there

THEN we can allow the Law to do what needs to be done, to the whistleblower all the way up to the one who ordered anything illegal

fair enough?

need....more....coffee

Excelsior!

I'm pretty sure there is a policy in place for gov't whistle blowers...they have a process to follow...it's supposed to save/protect their job, you know, protect them from their bosses...I would think...if I worked for a super secret org like the NSA...that I'd be sure and know these kinds of policies...

As far as obeying an unlawful order gonzo...I had enough trouble in 20 years with the lawful ones! They can get you for anything with article 86!

I agree with you gonzo...let's wait for the facts...and then hang all the fuckers!!!well...at least the guilty ones!

I still don't understand one thing...if this is such a big crime...why is the justice dept investigating the leak...and not the alledged crime? My understanding of this is that this is an independant probe launched by the JD...they don't seem real interested in the wire taps...or have I missed something???

no you ain't missed anything but the Obvious...

the Attorney General is who?

who gave him his job?

and did ya know that before he had the job of Ag, he was a WH counsel, as a matter of fact, this particulat WH counsel is the one that wrote the legal breifs on torture, GITMO, enemy combatants and MORE!!

so, ya think there may be a problem with this guy's "impartiality"

i do

it would have been like asking RFK to investigate JFK

nuff said?

Excelsior!

RFK is dead gonzo...where you been???

I get what ya mean here...so then...who atarts the investigation on the wire taps???

*why is the justice dept investigating the leak...and not the alleged crime*

good question Andy...

but what mechanism is in place at the JD to get an investigation of the Pres off the ground?

troll

Andy sez...
*I get what ya mean here...so then...who atarts the investigation on the wire taps???*

so far, it looks like Arlen Spector is going to be holding hearings on it this month

our system of "checks and balances" sez that it shoudl be the proper oversight committee in either the House or Senate

now, notice yer having almost the same problem here...since ALL those committees are controlled by the GOP

so i give props to Spector for at least being mensch enough ta start the process...we will see how it goes

but picture this fer a sec...if this had happened with a Dem Pres, don't ya thing AM radio, Fox news and the whole GOP noise making factory woudl be freaking out? (before ya answer...remember good old Monica, and ask yerself which is a bigger Issue...what happened there, or the possibility that the Pres broke FISA laws and possibly the 4th and 5th Amendment)

so yeah...right now, i'm all for BOTH investigations...let's see what is going on and then figure out what Laws were/are broken

fair enuff?

Excelsior!

now, notice yer having almost the same problem here...since ALL those committees are controlled by the GOP

so i give props to Spector for at least being mensch enough ta start the process...we will see how it goes

So you're coming around to my perspective, eh? Because if it was a democrat Senate and a democrat president there would be no investigation at all.

Dave

* Because if it was a democrat Senate and a democrat president there would be no investigation at all*

thank you for sharing your objective perspective

troll

Nalle sez...
*Because if it was a democrat Senate and a democrat president there would be no investigation at all.*

ummm..ya have forgotten yer History so soon?

who appointed Ken Starr?

spare me yer partisan cheap shot...especially when they don't match the facts

note...Clinton appoints the Republican Starr....but Bush appoints the GOP Fitz

now, i give mad credit to Fitz for being a pro and doping the Job...would that more GOP folks would demonstrate that kind of Integrity

hint...hint

Excelsior!

Yeah ,but reno only started that investigation 'cause she was pissed at bill. She didn't no he went for ugly fat chicks...she might've prettied herself up a bit!

Gonzo said:

"no you ain't missed anything but the Obvious...

the Attorney General is who?

who gave him his job?

and did ya know that before he had the job of Ag, he was a WH counsel, as a matter of fact, this particulat WH counsel is the one that wrote the legal breifs on torture, GITMO, enemy combatants and MORE!!

so, ya think there may be a problem with this guy's "impartiality"

i do"

i was wonderin' when somebody was gonna start in with conspiracy theories.

this debate has deteriorated to the ridiculous!

well loon...no "theory" has really been put forward

other than an oblique Reference to the observation of human Nature that one does NOT bite the hand that feeds them

now..show me whatever "theory" i put forward

and/or show me where i have not been accurate in my use of facts

ridiculous i may be, but this Debate most certanily is NOT so

what could be MORE important than the Discussion of our Nation's Liberty and Security?

nuff said?

Excelsior!

you theorize that the AG is on the take...

No, Sir, where are YOUR facts?

By your reasoning, every AG was corrupt.

You live in a sad narcissistic world.

Excelsior!

and you are the first to quote out of context...I did not say that this debate was ridiculous, only that it had deteriorated to that point.

Excelsior!

loon sez...
*you theorize that the AG is on the take...*

umm,yer mistaken..i question whether his motives are pure based on past record and who "filled his rice bowl"..."on the take" inplies birbery, and i never said such....

loon sez...
*and you are the first to quote out of context*

if you look, you will see that i actually did NOT quote you..i called myself ridiculous in a self-deprecating manner...quite a different thing, actually...when i Quote someone i use >insert name< sez... and then *.....* to indicate the text quoted

i am very consistent about that

loon sez...
*You live in a sad narcissistic world.*

might i state that you have no fucking clue about me, or my world...but you are entitled to your Opinion

Excelsior!

I AM NOW OFFICIALLY BORED.

Excelsior!

Bored? I'm disappointed, dismayed and disillusioned.

Dave

Thought you guys might appreciate this...from the leader in honest reporting...the New York Times, comes this: WASHINGTON, Jan. 3 - The National Security Agency acted on its own authority, without a formal directive from President Bush, to expand its domestic surveillance operations in the weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, according to declassified documents released Tuesday.

You can read the rest of it here

Just something I found while I was following gonzo's instruction to learn some stuff...of course, he didn't say it like that...but I don't have that way with words that gonzo does!

You can actually read the whole thing off of Drudge without signing up for the NYT

Simulated diamonds have long been held in disfavor, because of the assumption that simulation necessarily implies inferiority loose diamond images. So it might come as something of a surprise that many professional gemmologists are now selling simulated diamonds alongside the real thing. Many of mans finest creations have been born in the lab, and moissanite diamonds are no exception. diamond ring mountings http://www.gold-custom.com/Ring-Settings/Solitaire-Settings.aspx