Pick the winner from todays game:

Clevia Indians   1 vote - 100 %
 
1 Total Votes
We Were Soldiers by hulver (4.00 / 1) #1 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 05:55:22 AM EST
I thought the "FREEDOM" speech given by Mel just before he's captured by the gooks was pretty good. Although the Hanging, drawing and quartering were a bit graphic.
--
Cheese is not a hat. - clock
Yeah by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #4 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 06:08:19 AM EST
I was okay with most of it but I did have to turn away when they made him "squeal like a pig."

I've spent a lifetime trying to erase the Dom Deluise cinematographic squeal like a pig moment and don't need another one to try to get rid of.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob

[ Parent ]
Mel Gibson didn't fully convince me by georgeha (4.00 / 1) #2 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 05:59:08 AM EST
of his internal motivation to chop up Brando with an axe. I did like the Ride of Valkyries air attack surfing scene, but who wouldn't.

I think I have to root for the Twins, as our local minor league team is their AAA farm franchise, at least until the fall, whereupon I switch my loyalties to the Yankees, since I like to root the extremely overpaid underdogs.

My lunch shall be dandelion greens and mushrooms over linguine, leftovers from last night's scrumptious dinner prepared by the ever-so-rackilicious Mrs. Ha.


Blasphemy!! by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #6 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 06:12:04 AM EST
Damn infidel. Golly, you may as well root for the smelly Bahstahn Red Sox too while you're at it. I hope you get run over by a bus on the way home.

Speaking of Valkyries, I haven't played nethack in ages, I wonder if it's still installed. I need to download the latest version for my box at home too.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob

[ Parent ]
I was moderately surprised by lm (4.00 / 2) #3 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 06:02:41 AM EST
I honestly did not expect any evidence to surface before Jan of 2009.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
Hubris by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #7 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 06:14:56 AM EST
Guys like that usually get tripped up when they start to feel like they can do anything and get away with it. These guys have been acting that way for about 4.5 years now so this is long overdue.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob

[ Parent ]
Right, it is overdue by lm (4.00 / 2) #14 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 06:46:54 AM EST
But getting caught frequently depends on competent opposition.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Nina Totenberg was pretty harsh on Bush this morn by DesiredUsername (2.00 / 0) #5 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 06:09:20 AM EST
She mentioned that it was legal for the President to declassify information, but then gave chapter and verse on him denouncing the leaker and the administration starting investigations and lawsuits for other leaks.

Not that I expect an impeachment to come of it, certainly not before November.

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline

Yeah, I heard that by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #8 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 06:19:59 AM EST
Sadly I think she's mostly preaching to the choir. Now if the talking heads on FOX "News" start coming down on him that'll be news.

I don't think I even want an impeachment, I don't see it doing any long term good except to humiliate Bush and I don't really care about that. He's lost most of his power by now anyways.

I think if we can get back to a two party system then some good will come out of this mess. I'm not sure the Dems are up to it though.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob

[ Parent ]
IAWTDumpingBushIsMootNow by DesiredUsername (2.00 / 0) #9 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 06:25:18 AM EST
However, I think an impeachment could be a healthy source of division among Republicans--they'd be forced to choose either Bush or national security. Of course, with DeLay gone, maybe they'll crumble by themselves. They sure aren't doing well on immigration.

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline
[ Parent ]
what has he done illegally again? by garlic (2.00 / 0) #11 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 06:41:48 AM EST
impeachment is for when they've done something illegal right?


[ Parent ]
Make his own laws by cam (2.00 / 0) #12 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 06:46:06 AM EST
Executive orders are not legislation and cannot over-ride legislation.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic

[ Parent ]
So, again by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #15 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 06:50:08 AM EST
Which laws did he break?

Despite what the Democrats have been pushing, when the FISA judges went before Congress they didn't seem to think his NSA program violates FISA.

The Libby/Plame crap smells like hell, but if Bush authorized it, it wasn't a leak and didn't violate any laws - the executive controls the classification system.

The doctor said it was the worst case of cookie-blindness he'd ever seen.

[ Parent ]
When you say 'the FISA judges' by DesiredUsername (2.00 / 0) #21 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 06:55:03 AM EST
Are you including the guy that quit over it? In any case, your memory is selective. The way I remember it, some were for and some against and that's only based on the tiny bit that's been revealed.

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline
[ Parent ]
Yes. by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #24 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 07:00:43 AM EST
In the pieces of transcript that I read, Feinstein couldn't get any of the judges to flatly state that Bush had broken the law. She kept asking and one judge told her that he didn't think Congress had the authority to restrict Bush's wiretapping powers at all.

In other words, Congress could make any evidence gathered that way inadmissable in court, but they (Congress) couldn't limit Bush's constitutional powers to defend the country.

Now, I didn't read the entire transcript, so I'll admit there might have been other parts that say something different.

--
You're no good to me dead. Even half-alive would be socially awkward. - Hugh MacLeod

[ Parent ]
So one guy says it's not illegal by DesiredUsername (2.00 / 0) #26 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 07:03:13 AM EST
the others, at most, want more evidence.

I have to wonder about that first guy, though--what does he think his job as a FISA judge is, if not restricting Bush's wiretapping powers?

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline

[ Parent ]
What? by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #27 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 07:09:31 AM EST
Jeez, dude, where did you learn to read? Even Baker the judge who quit would only say that if the law was found constitutional then Bush would be bound by it - which certainly implies that he thinks it might not be constitutional.


    Judge Kornblum: Presidential authority to conduct wireless [Sic. Presumably Judge Kornblum meant "warrantless."] surveillance in the United States I believe exists, but it is not the President's job to determine what that authority is. It is the job of the judiciary. * The President's intelligence authorities come from three brief elements in Article II....As you know, in Article I, Section 8, Congress has enumerated powers as well as the power to legislate all enactments necessary and proper to their specific authorities, and I believe that is what the President has, similar authority to take executive action necessary and proper to carry out his enumerated responsibilities of which today we are only talking about surveillance of Americans. *

  Senator Feinstein: Now I want to clear something up. Judge Kornblum spoke about Congress's power to pass laws to allow the President to carry out domestic electronic surveillance, and we know that FISA is the exclusive means of so doing. Is such a law, that provides both the authority and the rules for carrying out that authority, are those rules then binding on the President?

    Judge Kornblum: No President has ever agreed to that. *

    Senator Feinstein: What do you think as a Judge?

    Judge Kornblum: I think--as a Magistrate Judge, not a District Judge, that a President would be remiss in exercising his Constitutional authority to say that, "I surrender all of my power to a statute," and, frankly, I doubt that Congress, in a statute, can take away the President's authority, not his inherent authority, but his necessary and proper authority.

    Senator Feinstein: I would like to go down the line if I could. * Judge Baker?

    Judge Baker: No, I do not believe that a President would say that.

    Senator Feinstein: No. I am talking about FISA, and is a President bound by the rules and regulations of FISA?

    Judge Baker: If it is held constitutional and it is passed, I suppose, just like everyone else, he is under the law too.

    Senator Feinstein: Judge?

    Judge Stafford: Everyone is bound by the law, but I do not believe, with all due respect, that even an act of Congress can limit the President's power under the Necessary and Proper Clause under the Constitution.

    Chairman Specter: I think the thrust of what you are saying is the President is bound by statute like everyone else unless it impinges on his constitutional authority, and a statute cannot take away the President's constitutional authority. Anybody disagree with that?

    Chairman Specter: Everybody agrees with that.


--
You're no good to me dead. Even half-alive would be socially awkward. - Hugh MacLeod

[ Parent ]
So your claim by DesiredUsername (2.00 / 0) #28 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 07:12:04 AM EST
is that a judge on the FISA court is likely to think that FISA is unconstitutional?

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline
[ Parent ]
So, your claim is by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #30 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 07:19:07 AM EST
that Baker didn't say what the transcript says he said?

Why would he raise the issue of constitutionality if it wasn't in doubt?

--
You're no good to me dead. Even half-alive would be socially awkward. - Hugh MacLeod

[ Parent ]
It's in Official Doubt by DesiredUsername (4.00 / 1) #34 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 07:23:09 AM EST
and he's a judge, paid to be impartial.

In any case, "Bush is OK as long as the law we've been enforcing turns out to be unconstitutional" is a far cry from "they didn't have a problem with it".

Sounds like you agree there needs to be an investigation. I look forward to reading your diary about suggesting impeachment to your representatives.

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline

[ Parent ]
Why would he not raise it? by lm (2.00 / 0) #39 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 07:40:18 AM EST
Legal opinions, like philosophy papers, are supposed to look at all sides of an issue. In the case of a law that hasn't been through judicial review, I'd expect the issue to come up and be suspicious of any opinion that didn't address the issue.

That said, to say that action X is fine because law Y is unconstitutional is a fundamentally different argument that action X did not break the law. The former actually implies that the perpetrator of X did, in fact, break the law but that the law needs to be modified. And, as far as I know, most laws are presumed to be constitutional until struck down by the courts.

Which means that your approach to this seems rather odd to me.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
A judge by ad hoc (4.00 / 2) #41 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 07:44:36 AM EST
will never say that a law has been broken unless there has been a trial to determine that fact. To say that he (a judge) has decided a law has been broken without there first being a trial is "prejudice" in the sense that he has pre-judged the outcome.

What's supposed to happen is the AG says it's legal. Then either the Congress gets off their asses and pass a law clarifying that it is not, in fact, legal or someone sues the AG and takes it to court where they then decide whether it's legal or not.

(Or, the AG decides it's illegal and files charges or sues and the defendant must defend himself. Although I don't believe I've ever heard of an AG filing charges or sueing a president.)

AFAIK, the FISA court does not try cases. They exist to issue subpoenas in secret.
--
Close friendships and a private room can offer most of the things love does.

[ Parent ]
Right by Bob Abooey (4.00 / 1) #25 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 07:02:42 AM EST
And really that proves nothing anyways.

It needs to be taken into a real court of law and argued like anything else. Bush's defence of checking with his lawyer buddies doesn't hold any water.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob

[ Parent ]
Yes. by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #29 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 07:17:57 AM EST
I think that's true. But I also suspect that the reason Congress hasn't pushed it into court is that they're afraid Bush would win - every president since Carter (when the law was signed) has said that they would comply with FISA only if it didn't interfere with their constitutional powers; the legendary "Echelon" program comes to mind.


--
You're no good to me dead. Even half-alive would be socially awkward. - Hugh MacLeod
[ Parent ]
Right on! by lm (2.00 / 0) #32 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 07:22:00 AM EST
This obviously has more to do with the Republican controlled Congress worrying about GWB winning a court case than with Republican party discipline.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
The democrats can't hold press conferences by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #38 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 07:38:19 AM EST
demanding special prosecutors? Or even demanding a vote to censure Bush for breaking the law?

--
You're no good to me dead. Even half-alive would be socially awkward. - Hugh MacLeod
[ Parent ]
They can, but that's besides the point ... by lm (2.00 / 0) #43 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 07:45:21 AM EST
That the Democrats in Congress are presently mostly inept has no bearing on whether or not the Republican controlled Congress would allow impeachment to reach the floor. The present GOP has the type of party discipline that one usually on reads about in epic romances of eras gone by. Thus far, I've seen no evidence that this party discipline will splinter.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
mostly inept by wiredog (2.00 / 0) #44 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 07:47:58 AM EST
I don't think so. They've been pretty good about staying out of the way while the Republicans come apart at the seams. Oh, and the Republican Party Discipline began to come apart several months ago.

Earth First!
(We can strip mine the rest later.)

[ Parent ]
I'm open to having my mind changed by lm (2.00 / 0) #48 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 07:54:08 AM EST
But while I've seen a few promising signs of Democratic party discipline, I haven't seen much meat on the table yet. This may very well change come early fall, but I'm inclined to believe that 2006 will be a repeat of 2004, 2002 and 2000 in more ways than one. If you have reasons for believing otherwise, I'm all ears.

Also, why do you say that Republican party discipline was begining to fracture months ago? You'll here one or two GOP senators say something that doesn't hold the line, but when the votes come out on the table, they're almost always straight in line with the party platform.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
The immigration debate is some evidence by DesiredUsername (2.00 / 0) #45 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 07:49:24 AM EST
But I don't see the Ds taking much advantage of the rift between corporate, "we want cheap foreign labor" GOP and hicksville "we represent cheap domestic labor" GOP.

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline
[ Parent ]
That's because they can't figure out by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #49 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 07:54:21 AM EST
if they support "good jobs at good wages" or "poor people doing work lazy americans won't do".

--
You're no good to me dead. Even half-alive would be socially awkward. - Hugh MacLeod
[ Parent ]
IAWTP by DesiredUsername (4.00 / 1) #51 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 07:56:19 AM EST
I think they are really missing the boat. Right now is the perfect opportunity to give a boost to unions at the expense of corps, winning back big swathes of the heartland. They could even do it without being racist or isolationist. But no.

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline
[ Parent ]
They're afraid of losing the hispanic vote. by ObviousTroll (4.00 / 1) #54 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 08:02:26 AM EST
Too many people, by which I mean "too many hispanics" see this as a racial issue rather than an economic or law-and-order issue.

To be honest, I was way over on the "throw open the borders" side of things until I saw all those idiot protestors waving Mexican flags on American streets. I mean, Christ, what message, exactly, are they trying to send?


--
You're no good to me dead. Even half-alive would be socially awkward. - Hugh MacLeod

[ Parent ]
not so hot for the law and order side. by garlic (4.00 / 1) #71 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 08:43:10 AM EST
but don't go all lou dobbs and say that there should be NO flag waving but American flag waving.


[ Parent ]
Well that's the thing, isn't it. by ObviousTroll (4.00 / 1) #77 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 08:51:37 AM EST
Obviously people have a right to wave what ever flag they want - but if you're trying to convince 300 million nervous people that you mean them no harm, waving the flag of your old country and flashing banners about how you deserve to live here more than they do is probably not how to make friends.


--
You're no good to me dead. Even half-alive would be socially awkward. - Hugh MacLeod
[ Parent ]
by the way by garlic (4.00 / 1) #72 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 08:44:41 AM EST
I like the way you put the issue, law and order, vs economic. It seems pretty race neutral, and not overly biased to either side.


[ Parent ]
Ultimately that's what it comes down to by ObviousTroll (4.00 / 1) #75 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 08:49:46 AM EST
I have a lot of sympathy for anyone wanting to come here to earn more money and I think they should be able to do it legally without fearing the law - but I also have sympathy for Americans whose wages are driven down by the tidal wave of below-minimum-wage workers. I honestly can't figure out where the balance should be.


--
You're no good to me dead. Even half-alive would be socially awkward. - Hugh MacLeod
[ Parent ]
Enforcing existing laws would go a long way by lm (4.00 / 1) #84 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 09:15:35 AM EST
I don't know if its true or not, but I heard that the IRS used to kick back invalid SSNs filed on payroll taxes to employers, giving them one quarter to remove the worker from their payroll or to correct the SSN. Between mechanisms such as these and vigilant prosecution of employers following illegal employment practices, demand for undocumented workers would dry up and, arguably, illegal immigration would begin to decline.

Such tactics won't completely eliminate the problem. But it would go a long way towards reducing the problem. There is, after all, no silver bullet. Instead, there is are just various ways of managing the process.

Another good way to manage the problem is universal conscription, but that's another discussion altogether.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Absolutely. by ObviousTroll (4.00 / 1) #86 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 09:34:58 AM EST
The whole reason the previous amnesty didn't work was because they never actually did any enforcement - and the same cycle will begin again if they don't do it this time.

I actually love the idea of universal conscription - with the caveat that it shouldn't be limited to military service. I think the idea of spending a year or two out of school actually doing something that contributes to the well being of society would do wonders both for the country and for the people who live in it.

Repairing and maintaining parks, working in a government office, hell, just picking up the litter, would help people understand that they are the government or at least they're supposed to be.


--
You're no good to me dead. Even half-alive would be socially awkward. - Hugh MacLeod

[ Parent ]
Let me help by theboz (4.00 / 1) #96 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 10:21:24 AM EST
I have a lot of sympathy for anyone wanting to come here to earn more money and I think they should be able to do it legally without fearing the law - but I also have sympathy for Americans whose wages are driven down by the tidal wave of below-minimum-wage workers. I honestly can't figure out where the balance should be.
Historically, big business has used immigrant labor to drive down wages. That's why Americans tend to hate latinos, that's why they used to hate the Irish, the Italians, etc. more than any other reason.

On the flip side, the problem was solved with those ethnic groups when they were brought into unions with the people born in the U.S. That strategy seems to be what many of the unions are taking now which is why they do not oppose immigrants. Unfortunately, many unions are corrupt and inefficient right now, so it is possible that they are doing it purely as a way to get more dues rather than any real concern for immigrant or U.S. born workers.

As far as our immigration laws are concerned, they are not fair at all, and seem almost intentionally designed to make people suffer, rip them off, and destroy families. I won't go into a big rant on this right now, but consider the fact that undocumented immigrants often die on the way to coming here, or at least risk serious injury. Our immigration laws must be pretty bad if people end up risking death by freezing, lack of water, murder, or snakebite as an alternative. If all they had to do was get in a line, wait a few months, and pay some money, they would gladly do it. Any real immigration reform has to focus primarily on our horrible immigration policies, then on things like enforcement, border protection, dealing with employers, etc. Anything else simply doesn't work. It also helps those of us born in the U.S. because then we compete with these people on a level playing field economically, which is a benefit to everyone.
- - - - -
That's what I always say about you, boz, you have a good memory for random facts about pussy. -- joh3n

[ Parent ]
I agree with every single one of those points by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #98 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 10:48:48 AM EST
Unfortunately, I still don't see how that helps strike a balance between immigration and local workers. Unions would be of limited help because monopolies always create problems - and a monopoly on the labor supply is still a monopoly.

But, yes, any first step has to involve a complete rework of the immigration laws.

--
You're no good to me dead. Even half-alive would be socially awkward. - Hugh MacLeod

[ Parent ]
I disagree on the monopoly point by theboz (2.00 / 0) #99 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 11:08:18 AM EST
Only because currently the companies have a monopoly on the money and organization, so it would help to have unions equally powerful as the corporations. Workers need the jobs and money to make a living, while the corporations need the workers to make a profit. There's more to it than that, but it can be balanced so that neither side has any choice but to deal with the other fairly. Current labor laws and structures put way too much power in the hands of businesses.
- - - - -
That's what I always say about you, boz, you have a good memory for random facts about pussy. -- joh3n
[ Parent ]
hrm. by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #100 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 11:37:26 AM EST
It's a tough call. Certainly unions today are a far cry from what they were; and they should be stronger.

I guess a lot of my opinions about unions come from a summer job I had at a nuclear power plant construction site - some of the stuff the unions got up to was as rapacious as anything I've seen since; and stupid since the blue collar guys were the ones who were going to be living in the fall out radius long after Bechtel packed up and moved away.


--
You're no good to me dead. Even half-alive would be socially awkward. - Hugh MacLeod

[ Parent ]
About unions by theboz (2.00 / 0) #101 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 12:14:59 PM EST
I was never impressed with them either based on current unions and how they act. There seems to be corruption and problems with how they work now. However, I read up on the history of the unions in this country, and they did some pretty good things in the past, and many of them were 100 years ahead of their time when it came to civil rights. They also helped bring about some of the labor laws we take for granted, and really helped bring fairness into our workforce and helped Americans better realize our right to the "pursuit of happiness."

Like I said though, I was never impressed with them based on most current union activities, but they are impressing me for their stance on immigration.
- - - - -
That's what I always say about you, boz, you have a good memory for random facts about pussy. -- joh3n

[ Parent ]
Curious by theboz (4.00 / 1) #74 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 08:47:14 AM EST
To be honest, I was way over on the "throw open the borders" side of things until I saw all those idiot protestors waving Mexican flags on American streets. I mean, Christ, what message, exactly, are they trying to send?
Do you also get offended on St. Patrick's Day when people wear green and wave Irish flags and drink Guinness?

Also, as someone who has both seen the protests and seen pictures taken by people who attended them in other cities, there were more American flags being flown. It's just that the media, especially the most right wing elements, always want to make the controversial elements appear as if they were the default thing. They ignore 20 American flags that people walking by carried and zoom in on the two Mexican flags and it becomes a big deal while neonazi talk radio hosts froth at the mouth with their idiotic reconquistadora white supremacist bullshit.

By the way, I'll be participating on the April 10th marches, and the organizations here in Houston that are putting it together have made it very clear that it's cool to bring Mexican and other nations flags, but even better to fly U.S. flags. As someone who at least sees what is going on here in Houston up close and personal, I can assure you that you are being mislead by what you see on the news.
- - - - -
That's what I always say about you, boz, you have a good memory for random facts about pussy. -- joh3n

[ Parent ]
No, but they don't usually also wave signs saying by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #82 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 09:06:33 AM EST
that this is their country and we invaded it.

It's a damn stupid way to try and convince people that you're friendly and should be allowed to stay.

--
You're no good to me dead. Even half-alive would be socially awkward. - Hugh MacLeod

[ Parent ]
I've not seen that by theboz (2.00 / 0) #94 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 09:57:46 AM EST
I don't know of anyone who holds up signs like that or even believes anything like that, but I do think that a handful of people in this country could think that way. Still, it doesn't represent the majority of the people who have been marching.
- - - - -
That's what I always say about you, boz, you have a good memory for random facts about pussy. -- joh3n
[ Parent ]
Feh. Google is failing me. by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #97 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 10:44:10 AM EST
I can't find the link to the radio station that was actually handing the signs out, I went there the day of the protest - they were basically pushing the idea that California was stolen from Mexico and that whites are the invaders.

Both of which are valid points but, as I said, a stupid way to convince whitey that he should let them stay.

--
You're no good to me dead. Even half-alive would be socially awkward. - Hugh MacLeod

[ Parent ]
Broken laws by ad hoc (4.00 / 1) #47 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 07:52:47 AM EST
I see at least two.
  1. Releasing the name of a covert agent is illegal. Period. Full stop. This was made law after someone released the names of a bunch of CIA agents in Greece (I think) and most were then killed. Whether the identity of the agent is classified or not is not the issue. The releasing of the name is the issue.
  2. Wiretapping without a warrant was made specifically illegal after Watergate Wiretaps are only legal with a valid warrant. The FISA court was established to grant those warrants in the very special case of sensitive national security issues. But those special issues don't make the warrant any less required.
Neither of these laws has anything to do with declassificaion of secrets.
--
Close friendships and a private room can offer most of the things love does.
[ Parent ]
To those points by ObviousTroll (4.00 / 1) #52 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 07:58:52 AM EST
  1. If it is shown that Bush ordered Plame's name released then I agree. That has not yet been shown.
  2. The whole argument here is that (a) although it has been claimed, no evidence has been shown that Bush has broken FISA. (b) In any case, FISA cannot override Bush's constitutional authority to defend the country.
Which is actually to Bob's point - they really should push the FISA law into the courts to determine it's constitutionality. Earlier I said Congress is afraid to because they're afraid they'll lose - but on reflection I suspect that Bush is afraid, too, and for the same reason. I think neither side has any confidence they would win such a court case.


--
You're no good to me dead. Even half-alive would be socially awkward. - Hugh MacLeod
[ Parent ]
To those points by ad hoc (4.00 / 1) #56 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 08:13:18 AM EST
  1. Exactly what I said. NO JUDGE will say that he or anyone else broke the law without a trial. Charges must be brought (in some cases, this is called "impeachment") and proved.
  2. (a) it's early yet. (b) you're looking at it the wrong way around. The FISA court does not "override" presidential authority. The president is, however, bound to act within the law. It's the oath he swore to uphold. He doesn't say "to preserver, protect, and defend the Constitution" for everyone except himself. The law says "in order to do X, you must first do a, b and c." If you don't do a, b, and c, you cannot legally do X. If you do X without first doing a, b, and c, you have broken the law. Being a president does not exempt you from that rule. That's what Watergate was all about. Nixon thought the rules did not apply to him and he was shown otherwise. I see no difference here.

--
Close friendships and a private room can offer most of the things love does.
[ Parent ]
Sigh. by ObviousTroll (4.00 / 1) #65 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 08:36:42 AM EST
Okay, let's review:

If the constitution say "the president can do X" then any law congress passes that says "the president can't do X without court approval" is unconstitutional and the president is not obligated to obey it.

So, the critical point is:

Does the President's authority and duty to defend the country extend to warrantless wiretaps? This is actually not clear to me. When I read Article II of the Constitution, I don't see any absolute powers in there; but I'm not a lawyer. I do know that every president since Carter (when FISA became law) has held that they can wiretap on non-americans all they want. In addition, the courts have sided with the President in the past. From a 2002 court case:

"The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power. The question before us is the reverse, does FISA amplify the President’s power by providing a mechanism that at least approaches a classic warrant and which therefore supports the government’s contention that FISA searches are constitutionally reasonable."

Which is a really interesting statement - they seem to be saying FISA is allowed to expand the president's powers but not limit them and, frankly, I'm not sure what that means.

--
You're no good to me dead. Even half-alive would be socially awkward. - Hugh MacLeod

[ Parent ]
That is quite an oversimplification by lm (2.00 / 0) #81 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 09:05:38 AM EST
If the constitution say "the president can do X" then any law congress passes that says "the president can't do X without court approval" is unconstitutional and the president is not obligated to obey it.

In the present discussion:

(a) it is a matter of controversy over whether the consitution says that the president can do X

(b) even if it says that the president can do X, it is unclear over whether it also says that the president can't do X

(c) even if were if (a) and (b) don't obtain, it isn't altogether clear that the legislative branch is not able to restrict the fashion in which a sitting president must go about doing X.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
I agree by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #83 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 09:11:46 AM EST
As far as the topic under discussion is concerned it is a matter of controversy and debate and the courts should clear it up.

But that's a far cry from, say, cam's position that Feingold is right "because he's a fucking legislator and Bush has to do what he's told".


--
You're no good to me dead. Even half-alive would be socially awkward. - Hugh MacLeod

[ Parent ]
I don't see any controversy between the points by lm (2.00 / 0) #85 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 09:17:35 AM EST
Cam's position seems to me to be a subset of my position and, outside of a few corner cases, might even be all of my position.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Quit misstating the case by ad hoc (4.00 / 1) #87 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 09:39:48 AM EST
I never said "the president can't do X without court approval". What I said is that if there is a law that says anyone wants to do X, he must do a first, that law applies to the president. The president can disagree and take it to court. He can ignore it at his peril. The crucial point is that the president is not above the law. That is settled case law.

Take a look at Amendment 4:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It can't be much clearer than that.

  1. shall not be violated
  2. but upon probably cause
It doesn't say "shall not be violated unless the president feels like it". Probably cause is not "because the president wants to".
--
Close friendships and a private room can offer most of the things love does.
[ Parent ]
You do realize by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #89 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 09:47:34 AM EST
that Ammendment IV only applies to citizens, right? And that no one has actually shown that Bush was wiretapping Americans?

Because if I thought there was any actual, you know, facts, that said he was then I'd be pushing for impeachment.

--
You're no good to me dead. Even half-alive would be socially awkward. - Hugh MacLeod

[ Parent ]
You're right, by ad hoc (2.00 / 0) #91 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 09:54:32 AM EST
It's worth noting by Bob Abooey (4.00 / 1) #92 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 09:55:34 AM EST
The reason they wanted to circumvent the FISA court was that they were concerned the FISA judges would deny some of the requests because of the lack of compelling evidence. In other words, they wanted to be able to tap someones phone lines based upon a whim or very sketchy information.

This tends to fly in the face of the way our justice system was setup but I guess if one blindly goes along with the "9-11 changed everything" mantra then one wouldn't have any issues with this.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob

[ Parent ]
They weren't *afraid* it would happen, by ad hoc (4.00 / 1) #95 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 10:01:40 AM EST
Bush's constitutional authority to defend by cam (4.00 / 1) #61 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 08:20:50 AM EST
the country does not include breaking the law, or creating new laws. This oath from the constitution;

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Requires that he upholds Congress's monopoly on legislation and to faithfully execute the laws that Congress makes (section 8).

Article II contains nothing about Bush being able to pull a Cincinnatus and claim tumultus suspending the constitution indefinately.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic

[ Parent ]
And yet, the courts apparently disagree. by ObviousTroll (4.00 / 1) #67 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 08:39:05 AM EST
See my response, above.

--
You're no good to me dead. Even half-alive would be socially awkward. - Hugh MacLeod
[ Parent ]
Please define this by theboz (4.00 / 1) #76 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 08:50:39 AM EST
FISA cannot override Bush's constitutional authority to defend the country.
Please show me where in the Constitution the president has such a right. Congress is required to declare war, and I'm unaware of any such authority on the part of the president.

Also, since I'm a smartass, if he really cared about defending the country, why would he allow himself to stay in office and keep making the world hostile to us? Also, why would he not simply go over to Afghanistan and look for bin Laden himself? I think Bush vs. al Qaeda people in hand to hand combat to the death would be a great idea. Either way, we win!
- - - - -
That's what I always say about you, boz, you have a good memory for random facts about pussy. -- joh3n

[ Parent ]
Actually, I agree with you there. by ObviousTroll (4.00 / 1) #80 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 09:04:05 AM EST
When I read article II, I don't see it either. But, apparently the courts do. As I referred to in a previous reply the courts literally take it for granted that the president's authority to act in defense of the country is absolute.

--
You're no good to me dead. Even half-alive would be socially awkward. - Hugh MacLeod
[ Parent ]
Then the courts are stupid by theboz (4.00 / 1) #93 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 09:56:04 AM EST
Of course, I'm a big fan of starting from scratch in this country, but that's not going to happen anytime soon. I don't know what the rulings say that you are speaking of, but I have a feeling that the Bush administration has interpreted the law rather loosely.
- - - - -
That's what I always say about you, boz, you have a good memory for random facts about pussy. -- joh3n
[ Parent ]
From the constitution by cam (4.00 / 1) #50 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 07:56:18 AM EST

Scope of legislative powers;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, ....

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

From Feingold's censure motion;

Whereas the FISA act of 1978 states that it and the criminal wiretap law are the "exclusive means by which electronic surveillance" may becnoducted by the United States Government and makes it a crime to wiretap individuals without complying with this statutory authority. ...

Whereas the President's inherent constitutional authority does not give him the power to violate the explicit statutory prohibition on warrantless wiretaps in the FISA Act of 1978; ..

..... has authorized and continues to authorize wiretaps by the NSA of Americans within the US without obtaining court orders required by the FISA act ...

Not only did he break the law, he broke the doctrine of separation of powers which is essential in liberal democracy. Legislative makes laws, the executive (Presidency) implements and executes those laws. Executive Orders do not constitute legislation.

America has one of the purest forms of seperation of executive, legislative and judicial; don't give it away.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic

[ Parent ]
I missed the part where by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #53 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 07:59:56 AM EST
Senator Feingold had been appointe to the Supreme Court.

--
You're no good to me dead. Even half-alive would be socially awkward. - Hugh MacLeod
[ Parent ]
What? by cam (2.00 / 0) #55 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 08:11:27 AM EST
The censure motion carries the information that answers your question. I dont see what Feingold himself has to do with it unless you are more interested in party than the constitution.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic

[ Parent ]
LoL. by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #60 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 08:15:52 AM EST
Last time I checked, Feingold did not have the power to rule that FISA trumped Bush's constitutional authority.

And, as an aside, I'm still waiting for someone to actually say "Bush wiretapped persons X, Y, and Z and that clearly violates FISA" instead of just blindly claiming that random unspecified Americans had their rights violated.


--
You're no good to me dead. Even half-alive would be socially awkward. - Hugh MacLeod

[ Parent ]
Feingold does have that power by cam (2.00 / 0) #62 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 08:23:48 AM EST
he is from the fucking legislative. He is from the body that makes the laws which Bush executes and FISA oversees. Bush has no constitutional authority here other than to follow and execute the laws that congress passes.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic

[ Parent ]
Uh. no. by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #69 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 08:42:09 AM EST
No. Bush has no obligation to obey laws that contradict the constitution. Neither does anyone else.

Sorry, dude.

--
You're no good to me dead. Even half-alive would be socially awkward. - Hugh MacLeod

[ Parent ]
The Truthiness Constitution by cam (2.00 / 0) #78 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 08:53:42 AM EST
rather than the US constitution. I noticed you havent pulled out the actual sentence that you claim contains his constitutional authority to ignore laws passed by the legislative even though I quoted the section that contains the legislative's monopoly on making laws.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic

[ Parent ]
By the way, by ObviousTroll (1.00 / 1) #70 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 08:42:58 AM EST
were you such a big fan of legislative power when Congress was impeaching Clinton for a clear breach of the law?


--
You're no good to me dead. Even half-alive would be socially awkward. - Hugh MacLeod
[ Parent ]
What do you mean by `a fan'? by lm (4.00 / 1) #88 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 09:42:28 AM EST
I know lot's of people that thought it was a moronic thing to do.

But I don't know of a single soul that argued that doing so wasn't within the power of Congress.

Aside from which, the power of impeachment of a sitting president is a case where the US Congress is granted extra-legislative power.

Consequently, I don't think you've got any real traction there.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Cam's pushing the argument by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #90 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 09:51:41 AM EST
that law always trumps the President. Well, if that's true then Clinton should have been impeached because he was in clear violation of the law. Somehow, I doubt Cam holds that opinion.

But, yeah, it was just a cheap shot because he's taking such an absolute position. I mean, come on, "Bush broke the law because an actual U.S. Senator says he broke the law" is as moronic as saying that the president is never subject to Congressional authority.

--
You're no good to me dead. Even half-alive would be socially awkward. - Hugh MacLeod

[ Parent ]
Heh... by Bob Abooey (4.00 / 1) #63 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 08:34:06 AM EST
And, as an aside, I'm still waiting for someone to actually say "Bush wiretapped persons X, Y, and Z and that clearly violates FISA" instead of just blindly claiming that random unspecified Americans had their rights violated.

Obviously, due to the fact that nobody really knows who they're wire-tapping, this isn't possible.

However, we're talking about a guy who thought about painting a US plane to look like a UN plane and flying it over Iraq in the hopes of luring Saddam into shooting it down so he could go to war. I don't think it out of the question that he would abuse his powers with something as silly as tapping someone's phones.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob

[ Parent ]
You don't believe that web site, do you? by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #68 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 08:41:02 AM EST
I mean, come on, it's pink.


--
You're no good to me dead. Even half-alive would be socially awkward. - Hugh MacLeod
[ Parent ]
Yeah by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #73 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 08:46:06 AM EST
I just did a quick google search and that one came up. As this info was part of the Downing Street Memo I should have provided a better link.

It's still a mystery to me why this never got any traction here in the USia. I'll bet the majority of the US citizens never heard about it.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob

[ Parent ]
What ??? by ad hoc (2.00 / 0) #59 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 08:15:15 AM EST
Bullshit by theboz (2.00 / 0) #18 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 06:52:07 AM EST
Not that I really disagree with you about what the limits are to the power of the presidency, but with the lack of anyone enforcing those limits, they are worthless. Bush has regularly written riders onto bills after they have passed Congress in such a way that he actually alters the law. Additionally, he has declared himself above the law with regards to many topics but most obvious is the illegal wiretapping scandal. This is simply another case where he obviously broke the law, but without anyone in power to stand up to him, he will get away with it. He effectively has dictatorial power in this country, even if it is not codified by law yet.
- - - - -
That's what I always say about you, boz, you have a good memory for random facts about pussy. -- joh3n
[ Parent ]
Wha? by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #33 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 07:22:14 AM EST
What are these "riders" you speak of?

Bush has no power to alter laws after they have been passed; as for the wiretapping scandal - I wait with bated breath your evidence that Bush broke the law, seeing how the FISA judges don't seem to think he did.


--
You're no good to me dead. Even half-alive would be socially awkward. - Hugh MacLeod

[ Parent ]
Whoops! by DesiredUsername (2.00 / 0) #35 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 07:28:49 AM EST
There you go again. They think he did break the law, assuming the law is constitutional.

PS: signing statements

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline

[ Parent ]
Debatable by wiredog (2.00 / 0) #42 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 07:45:03 AM EST
Which is what many people are doing. Maybe those statements are just Dubya saying "This is what Dick Cheney I think the law means."

Earth First!
(We can strip mine the rest later.)

[ Parent ]
Eh. You may be right by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #46 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 07:50:15 AM EST
but I can't help wonder why the Democrats in the Senate don't make a bigger deal out of it, why the Republicans didn't make a big deal out of Clinton also issuing such statements (although Bush's statements do seem more aggresive) or why the courts don't seem to think they have any effect.

Now, to your side of the argument - I found an interesting DOJ briefing on signing statements from 1993 that talks about all sides of the signing statement controversy. It indicates that the practice of using the statement to "create legislative history" was apparently invented by the Reagan administration - but that such history is of dubious value in a court case.

--
You're no good to me dead. Even half-alive would be socially awkward. - Hugh MacLeod

[ Parent ]
Yep by theboz (4.00 / 1) #64 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 08:35:37 AM EST
What are these "riders" you speak of?

Bush has no power to alter laws after they have been passed

Whether he has the Constitutional authority to do it or not does not matter. He does it anyway. One example was how he altered the torture ban when signing it:
In fact, Bush has used signing statements to reject, revise or put his spin on more than 500 legislative provisions. Experts say he has been far more aggressive than any previous president in using the statements to claim sweeping executive power - and not just on national security issues. ... "They don't like some of the things Congress has done so they assert the power to ignore it," said Martin Lederman, a visiting professor at the Georgetown University Law Center. "The categorical nature of their opposition is unprecedented and alarming."
As to your other concern:
as for the wiretapping scandal - I wait with bated breath your evidence that Bush broke the law, seeing how the FISA judges don't seem to think he did.
That's not entirely true, unless you exclude Judge James Robertson who resigned in protest of Bush's activities. Additionally, my evidence that Bush broke the law because it's now completely out in the open and his actions are not debatable:
Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible "dirty numbers" linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said.
What he did was illegaly because the U.S. Constitution says:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I guess if you wanted to use Republican logic, you could twist the amendment to justify it by ignoring the first part and then say, "see, no warants were issued, so Bush is ok." The bottom line is that FISA was way too lenient in the first place, and allowed them to get warrants after the fact and only denied warrants something like less than 1% of the time. There simply was no reason to violate the U.S. Constitution and bypass even FISA (which is probably unconstitutional in itself) unless the Bush administration wanted to spy on people for things other than having ties to al Qaeda. That's another topic though, and unfortunately can only be speculation.
- - - - -
That's what I always say about you, boz, you have a good memory for random facts about pussy. -- joh3n
[ Parent ]
The constitution remains the law of the land by cam (2.00 / 0) #57 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 08:13:19 AM EST
until it is revoked; so no bullshit.

Politicians ignore it at their legal peril.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic

[ Parent ]
Theoretically yes by theboz (4.00 / 1) #66 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 08:37:45 AM EST
However, as I pointed out to OT, the politicians of both parties are ignoring it. Sure, Bush hasn't declared himself president for life, and I doubt he would do something that obvious, but he is openly ignoring the law and the constraints of his office, while Congress is not living up to their responsibilities.
- - - - -
That's what I always say about you, boz, you have a good memory for random facts about pussy. -- joh3n
[ Parent ]
This is politics by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #16 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 06:51:48 AM EST
They impeached Clinton because they could, not because he broke a law.

It wouldn't be hard to dig up some law that Bush has broken if they wanted to. The whole domestic wire tapping thing may very well fit in that category.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob

[ Parent ]
No by DesiredUsername (2.00 / 0) #19 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 06:52:11 AM EST
For one thing, an impeachment is an investigation. For another, the intent of the framers was apparently to have it be a method to keep the executive from taking over, which is exactly the situation we have right now.

Besides, what makes you think he didn't do anything illegal. He can declassify documents but I bet he can't instruct a witness to perjure himself to cover up that declassification.

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline

[ Parent ]
good point on what an impeachment is. by garlic (2.00 / 0) #22 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 06:55:20 AM EST
my bad.

I'm not saying he hasn't done anything illegal, I'm just saying that it's not clear at this point if he has or not.

A congress unwilling to censure bush would take something very very obvious to impeach him.


[ Parent ]
Thus no impeachment before November by DesiredUsername (2.00 / 0) #23 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 06:56:43 AM EST
Possibly not after then either. Despite the very very obvious need that an investigation needs to take place, and along multiple fronts.

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline
[ Parent ]
Without a big whopper of a smoking gun ... by lm (4.00 / 1) #36 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 07:28:57 AM EST
... I don't expect any impeachment. I don't think the Dems have either the party discipline or the killer instinct to bring up impeachment. Without clear evidence of a crime that the average citizen can relate to (like the Watergate burglary), I don't think that the Dems have the guts to seriously pursue impeachment. For impeachment to happen, not only would we need a new Democratic majority in the US Congress, but a new Democratic majority made up of angry young turks willing to go to the mat. I don't see that as being very likely.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
IAWTP by DesiredUsername (4.00 / 1) #37 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 07:31:26 AM EST


---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline
[ Parent ]
An ImpeachableOffense by wiredog (4.00 / 2) #40 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 07:41:46 AM EST
Is anything Congress says it is. According to Gerald Ford, anyway.

Hell, if Congress wanted to it could impeach a President for lying about getting a blow job.

Earth First!
(We can strip mine the rest later.)

[ Parent ]
Y aknow wht makes Opening day *just right*? by joh3n (4.00 / 1) #10 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 06:29:23 AM EST
A big ol' box of NerdsTM.

----

You know, comments like that just aren't right by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #17 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 06:51:57 AM EST
without a big ol' T-Rex to say them for you.

The doctor said it was the worst case of cookie-blindness he'd ever seen.
[ Parent ]
I agree by joh3n (2.00 / 0) #58 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 08:14:24 AM EST
oh, how I agree

----

[ Parent ]
I suspect the Humus guy will be along shortly... by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #20 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 06:54:31 AM EST
I've emailed the Runts company for proof on why they're a better candy than nerds. I'll get back to you when I get a reply from them.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob

[ Parent ]
Speaking of hummus by theboz (2.00 / 0) #79 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 08:56:00 AM EST
It's great stuff. There's a store called "Eatzi's" nearby that has really good hummus and a rosemary baguette that make a great sandwich together, along with a few crunch veggies like carrots, lettuce, and cucumbers.
- - - - -
That's what I always say about you, boz, you have a good memory for random facts about pussy. -- joh3n
[ Parent ]
Disco Inferno by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #13 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 06:46:53 AM EST
I thought I smelt fried polyester.

Speaking of which, how did those new boots work out for you?


The doctor said it was the worst case of cookie-blindness he'd ever seen.

Interesting We Were Soldiers Fact: by wiredog (2.00 / 0) #31 Fri Apr 07, 2006 at 07:21:53 AM EST
The guy on the cover of the book is Rick Rescorla, who died in the south tower of the WTC on 11 Sept 2001.

Earth First!
(We can strip mine the rest later.)