The truth
McCain loses by not winning - Roger Simon - Politico.com
The Hillary Hater
MCCAIN'S MISSING KO PUNCH - New York Post
The patronizing
Op-Ed Columnist - Palin’s Kind of Patriotism - NYTimes.com
The Socialist (they no longer need to hide).
The GOP Peddles Economic Snake Oil - WSJ.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
The only way McCain could distinguish himself last night was to try to out-socialism the socialist. How else can you explain "his program" of directly transferring $300 billion to home owners by having the government buy stressed mortgages and then renegoiating them to today's market values? That is not intended to stimulate the economy or loosen credit; it is intended solely to buy votes. And, it is guranteed to cause a real loss to the taxpayers which, by the way, is directly contrary to the expressed (albeit disingenous)intent of the bailout bill. As I have said before, you fiscal conservatives out there need to ponder whether there really is a dime's worth of difference in the fiscal policies of the two major parties. If you discover aftr mature reflection that there is not, it seems to me that you have two realistic choices: insist that your party's nominees at all levels of government are , in fact, fiscal conservatives or join a third party.
Jim -- as long as I am on my soap box this morning, I have three questions for you on the topic that you seem to think Linda and I punted on. Actually, we thought our statements before you posted your "are we at war" question provided a clear indication of our thoughts and response. But, in the interest of directness: 1) do you believe that every person who has had their constitutional rights violated, whether by bugging, warrantless searches, indefinite imprisonment, torture, etc, were, in fact, legitimate enemy noncombatants; 2) if so, how do you explain the ultimate release of so many without charges being filed; and 3) why do you believe that what happened to them cannot happen to you?
Bottom line: our constitutional rights are there to protect all of us from the oppressive power of government. Once we let them slide for some, we are all in danger of them beling allowed to slide when we may need them. It can happen to anyone. When I used to represent mother rapers, father stabbers and child molesters who I knew were guilty, I did so in order to protect and preserve the consititutional rights that the next man, who may be you and/or innocent, will need. I have also represented people who were innocent, but without the full utilization of their constitutional rights, unvarnished and unweaked, they would have been up a creek without a paddle.
There is no way to tell who is and who is not guilty (or an enemy noncombatant) without the process running its course according to the rules. We are, afterall, a nation committed to the rule of law. Or, did the terrorists really win on 9/11 by compelling us to give up the one thing that really makes us better than the rest of the world?
Tom: I just love your soap box. Such a lovely scent.
At the crescendo of every election cycle both parties seem to go into this frenzy of offering everything to all. No I don't agree with it but let's be honest, there are few Libertarians in office. Besides we have folks like Flake and Shaddeg who, at least for me, make me proud of my party.
OK, now watch this Rich: Let me address your questions directly.
1) do you believe that every person who has had their constitutional rights violated, whether by bugging, warrantless searches, indefinite imprisonment, torture, etc, were, in fact, legitimate enemy noncombatants.....Yes, mostly 2) if so, how do you explain the ultimate release of so many without charges being filed;... we are being mean to the enemy. ...and 3) why do you believe that what happened to them cannot happen to you? Because is hasn't, and no I am not being naive, I will stand by you with a pitch fork at the gate the first time there is even a hint of political retribution, but there has not or we would have be indudated with the news. We are at war, the lines of the battlefield are obscure and this is serious business stopping terrorism. What you describe, I respectively submit (Rich you can only wish), is naive. That was the point of my post! We are at war and this is not a law and order issue.
As the Jack Nicholson character in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" said, after almost killing himself trying to lift the sink, "I tried, God damnit. At least I tried."
BTW, I agree wholeheartedly (now that I can) with your comments about Flake. I just don't understand Shadegg sometimes. Why did he vote for the bailout?
Jimmy -
You are the one with the naive view. We are certainly at war but that doesn't mean we've canceled the constitution. If Bush wanted to, he should have pressed for a 28th amendment giving the president dictatorial powers.
None of Bush's illegal activities helped anything. They were lazy and sloppy shortcuts. FISA provided for all that he needed to listen in on potential bad guys.
Torture doesn't work and we lose our moral authority if we employ it.
If we do such things as a result of 911 then, truly, the terrorists did win. And for what!?
PS - Welcome back, KO!
Post a Comment