Pretty Petulant Party, Pal

The compromising, principled, cups-overflowing-with-the-cream-of-human-goodness Democratic members of the House displayed their unwavering commitment to national security in yesterday's vote on renewal of the Patriot Act. That vote, 277-148, failed to reach the 2/3 majority it required for renewal. Funny thing, though - last year it passed pretty easily. What was the difference?

Patriot-Act-Renewal.gif


In 2010, of the Democrats who voted, 62.5% voted "Aye." But in 2011, only 35.4% voted in favor of renewal. [...for Republicans, those numbers are 93.9% and 88.6%, respectively.]

Boy do they get pissy when they have a bad election year.

Posted by: Geoff at 08:40 AM



Comments

1 Never been first before. Am I now?

Posted by: havedash at February 09, 2011 08:42 AM (sFD5n)

2 And you're saying the TEA Party DOESN'T have an "unwavering commitment to national security"?? Granted, the Dems motives are suspect here. But it was the right vote; PATRIOT is in serious need of revision.

Posted by: Jeffrey Quick at February 09, 2011 08:45 AM (g9neE)

3 I'm a little confused over the apparent love for the Patriot Act in this post.

Sure - it was a good idea back when it was being used to listen to terrorists on the phone - but now that it's an excuse for people to stick their hands down your wife's pants, or judge your "intent" on your way into a stadium...well, not so much.

It essentially removes the fourth amendment because of the possibility of one type of crime. The streets could also be teaming with pedophiles or shoplifters - but the police don't stop random people on the street to figure out if they're one of them.

Posted by: Oh, Hi Mark at February 09, 2011 08:45 AM (pk7FG)

4 So the Patriot Knee Jerk Act is dead, good. Can the TSA be next?

Posted by: GGE of the Moron Horde at February 09, 2011 08:45 AM (7Y12r)

5 PATRIOT act is not behind the TSA.


But I am confused I keep hearing on the news that the Republicans are why the renewal failed.

Posted by: blaster at February 09, 2011 08:47 AM (aU7Ox)

6 What a great way to get back at the voters! Make them less secure! I wish I could have thought of that.

Posted by: ObamaCare at February 09, 2011 08:49 AM (71LDo)

7 What's the difference? the tea party? Is it possible that they are suddenly seeing all those cards and letters and emails faxes and phone calls that they refused to see during the healthcare rape?

Posted by: curious at February 09, 2011 08:50 AM (p302b)

8 But I am confused I keep hearing on the news that the Republicans are why the renewal failed.
They made us cranky and drove us into a ditch, you know.

Posted by: Democrats Who Voted No at February 09, 2011 08:52 AM (XdlcF)

9 Posted by: Oh, Hi Mark at February 09, 2011 08:45 AM (pk7FG)

I agree. The Patriot Act is overly broad, and needs to be tuned to the current, real threats. Surveillance of foreigners is a given. Surveillance of who they are contacting in the U.S.A. is a different issue and needs to be addressed by Congress.

Of course setting up the robotic machine guns from Aliens on the borders is a no-brainer, but hasn't entered the discussion.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at February 09, 2011 08:52 AM (LH6ir)

10 Well, as a conservative, hearing that some states were using Patriot Act provisions to monitor doctors who weren't falling into line with the whole work for free thing, makes me less of a fan.

Apparently, Iowa is prosecuting doctors who consult with each other regarding fees as price fixing. If they're able to use Patriot Act, then they need to redo it better.

Posted by: joeindc44 at February 09, 2011 08:53 AM (Du09Y)

11 Sure - it was a good idea back when it was being used to listen to terrorists on the phone...

Buy into the MFM memes much???
But I am confused I keep hearing on the news that the Republicans are why the renewal failed.

More MFM spin, including Fox. 8 freshmen Republican voted against it. They are probably buying into the MFM spin as well.

Posted by: Vic at February 09, 2011 08:55 AM (M9Ie6)

12 For every one of you who say the P.A. is bad how about providing a link or quote to that portion of the act you think is bad and why it is bad.

Every tine I have looked at the things the media wanted to jump on it was NOTHING.

Posted by: Vic at February 09, 2011 08:56 AM (M9Ie6)

13 RON PAUL FTW!!!

Posted by: Ed Anger at February 09, 2011 08:57 AM (7+pP9)

14 OT but this is a pretty good political cartoon today! It fits well.

Posted by: CDR M at February 09, 2011 08:58 AM (5I8G0)

15 Islamists have long memories and they're very patient.

I vote it stays, but put amendments in it to prevent abuses of it. (Like the eavesdropping on doctors as an example---)

Posted by: Double Ply at February 09, 2011 09:01 AM (ezdtY)

16 Posted by: Vic at February 09, 2011 08:56 AM (M9Ie6)

The expansion of so-called "sneak and peak" warrants. The expansion of warrantless surveillance of American citizens.

It means that they can do pretty much whatever they want to American citizens and get ex post facto approval.

Sorry, but the Constitution says no.

And...Dick Armey didn't like this stuff very much. He forced through sunset provisions on lots of it, thus the need for reapproval.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at February 09, 2011 09:02 AM (LH6ir)

17 What good is the Patriot Act if we don't have secure borders? What good is it if we let CAIR set policies? What good is it when we can't profile those who have never denounced terrorism and the stated goals of making America an islamic state? What good is it when islamic political correctness effectively neuters those who would strive to make us safe? When serious actions and policies that would provide a measure of security are thrown on the alter of political correctness, then what good is the Patriot Act other than to serve as a mechanism to spy on those not in a protected class?

Posted by: havedash at February 09, 2011 09:04 AM (sFD5n)

18 Vic, I think people assume that h o m e l a n d s e c u r i t y is the result of the Patriot Act and I think they aren't happy with it and what it is doing therefore they think they can neuter it by defeating the patriot act.

I'll admit that I don't know enough about the Patriot Act or the other place run by miss jan, but that is what I believe people are thinking, including the lawmakers.

Posted by: curious at February 09, 2011 09:05 AM (p302b)

19 No fan of the Patriot Act either. No matter what the motives of the Democrats were, its time to rethink this.

Does this put that lousy Dept of Homeland Security in any danger?

Posted by: Leigh T at February 09, 2011 09:07 AM (qhzb9)

20

GREAT NEWS!

Posted by: Bob Barr at February 09, 2011 09:08 AM (7+pP9)

21 Look for a repeat of this on the Debt ceiling. Thats why they are trying to bury Toomey's legislation.

They want to portray it as the Republicans killed the world economy if they don't pass it. But they won't vote for it.

Posted by: Zakn at February 09, 2011 09:09 AM (zyaZ1)

22 In 2010, of the Democrats who voted, 62.5% voted "Aye." But in 2011, only 35.4% voted in favor of renewal.
The large losses of blue dog Democrats in the elections probably accounts for a large part of the drop.

Posted by: Nash Rambler at February 09, 2011 09:11 AM (9IOHF)

23 Posted by: havedash at February 09, 2011 09:04 AM (sFD5n)

This.

And let's face it; the Patriot Act is an expansion of government power and control over us. Everyone who decries the growth of government control, claiming that they are all socialists or communists, but then supports the Patriot Act in its entirety is deluded. Government will invariably use all of the power it is afforded by the people.

Take a look around this country and point out where the government doesn't have enough power to do anything it wants, and I'll support the Patriot Act. Otherwise, let's decrease the power of government and force it to do what it should be doing. As havedash just pointed out; securing the borders is a prerequisite to any meaningful domestic security, and they don't need the Patriot Act to do it!

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at February 09, 2011 09:11 AM (LH6ir)

24 18 Vic, I think people assume that h o m e l a n d s e c u r i t y is the result of the Patriot Act . . .
I see what youdid there.

Posted by: Janet Napolitano at February 09, 2011 09:17 AM (9IOHF)

25 Who needs anything like the Patriot Act when you've got the sea-to-shining-sea protective aura of teh one radiating over this great land?

Posted by: Purple Avenger at February 09, 2011 09:20 AM (A9x4x)

26 I think the earlier comment about the many "Blue Dog" lap-dog donks that got the boot by their constituents is spot on. Most of the donks left are of the secular progressive/socialist flavor.
The Patriot Act probably needed go anyway. Especially since it seems that Big Sis has decided that, if you think the federal government should actually be limited to those powers actually enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, you are a terrorist-in-waiting.

Posted by: Retired Buckeye Cop at February 09, 2011 09:27 AM (8Y0cc)

27 When spies give away nuclear secrets, they get executed for treason. When the president does it, he gets bratwurst and ice cream for his super bowl party.

Posted by: Truman North at February 09, 2011 09:28 AM (G5JPI)

28 I am confused as to which of the expiring provisions, we conservatives are not supposed to like?

Roving wiretaps - make sense that the warrant is issued on a person, vice a method, so no problem with that; surveillance of foreigners - go ahead - so whats the problem?

Posted by: Jean at February 09, 2011 09:29 AM (WkuV6)

29 Truman - It would be great if State hands over a sealed list of Trident S/N to the Russkies, Boris runs home with it and with giggling excitement sits down with the GRU to open the envelope. Only to find the S/N's are all zeros, like the cold war PALs.

Posted by: Jean at February 09, 2011 09:31 AM (WkuV6)

30 Yeah. Gotta say. The Patriot Act is over 500 pages long. Any single piece of legislation longer than about 25 pages can't be good.

Posted by: Truman North at February 09, 2011 09:34 AM (G5JPI)

31 In Obama's defense; he had to bulk up after that terrible bout with Lono's Revenge.

Posted by: Fritz at February 09, 2011 09:34 AM (GwPRU)

32 The expansion of so-called "sneak and peak" warrants. The expansion of warrantless surveillance of American citizens.

If you actually look at those so-called "warrantless" surveillance things it was ONLY for calls coming in from outside the US and from known terrorists.

In addition, they did have to be reviewed after the fact by the court. The problem was the ability to buy multiple phones. Once you got a court order under the old rules it was only good for ONE phone.

And no, the Constitution is SILENT on wire taps. The BS about wire taps is an invention of the Warren Court.

Posted by: Vic at February 09, 2011 09:37 AM (M9Ie6)

33 I'm kind of entertained that the same people who think, say, Nidal Hasan (American citizen) should be able to call known terrorists overseas in absolute privacy also think the gov't should be able to review my medical records to tell me whether or not I should be allowed to be treated for breast cancer (assuming I beat the age/race/ZIP code algorithm for "who deserves to be allowed a mammogram...).

Posted by: HeatherRadish at February 09, 2011 09:39 AM (ElYV9)

34 Don't get me wrong on this. If we have cases where the government is abusing the Patriot Act and usnig it in a manner that is not right then lets fix that.

1. First get the facts and not just what the MFM says.
2. Second air out the facts.
3. Look for solutions. If that involves taking away that part of the act, then fine do that.

Posted by: Vic at February 09, 2011 09:40 AM (M9Ie6)

35 All I know is, this thread would be way funnier with logprof.

Posted by: Truman North at February 09, 2011 09:42 AM (G5JPI)

36 And no, the Constitution is SILENT on wire taps.
Posted by: Vic
---------
If it is SILENT on something, it means the feds don't have the power. Only those specific items granted the federal government by the Constitution are allowed. All other powers are retained by the states or citizens.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at February 09, 2011 09:47 AM (f9c2L)

37 Does this get us any closer to flying cars?

Posted by: eman at February 09, 2011 09:50 AM (gZVTR)

38 Chi-Town and Raddish nails it.

Posted by: Zakn at February 09, 2011 09:53 AM (zyaZ1)

39 No.. but we got high speed trains!

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at February 09, 2011 09:53 AM (f9c2L)

40 Posted by: Vic at February 09, 2011 09:37 AM (M9Ie6)

The Constitution is silent on the internet, so we should cede all rights to the government?

I don't think that anyone is complaining about following a tap through multiple media. That is a rational extension of a warrant to tap a phone.

Those warrantless taps were expanded to Americans. That should be discussed and voted on by Congress. Expansion of federal power is always a bad thing, even in the interest of security.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at February 09, 2011 09:54 AM (LH6ir)

41 The Constitution is silent on the internet, so we should cede all rights to the government?

No, when the Constitution is silent on the subject it means that the State law being challenged holds sway. The wire tap ruling came as a result of local police tapping a phone and SCOTUS overturning it.

Posted by: Vic at February 09, 2011 09:57 AM (M9Ie6)

42 Come on, ya'll are making it sound like it was a bad thing that it failed. It was in dire need of serious revision to remove the BS that was allowing the abuse of the 'law' though unintended consequences.

Posted by: Gmac at February 09, 2011 09:58 AM (k2Fyd)

43 "I think something is happening with the Republicans and the right which is disturbing. Michelle Bachman is now enemy number 1, even those in congress are distancing themselves from the tea party. Sarah Palin has always been pilloried by the right same as me. Are decks being cleared or is the 2012 presidential election raising it's head now and is anyone who talks about freedom and is a political wild card, are they being politically assassinated at this point?"

asks Glenn Beck.....just now on his radio program

Posted by: curious at February 09, 2011 09:58 AM (p302b)

44 Those warrantless taps were expanded to Americans.

I have seen NOTHING that says that warrentless taps were expanded to include calls made by Americans to Americans inside this country; NOTHING.

Have you got a link?

Posted by: Vic at February 09, 2011 09:59 AM (M9Ie6)

45 sigh ... read through, not though.

Must ... get ... coffee

Posted by: Gmac at February 09, 2011 09:59 AM (k2Fyd)

46 37 Does this get us any closer to flying cars?
Posted by: eman at February 09, 2011 09:50 AM (gZVTR)
Forget flying cars. Does it get us closer to HIGH SPEED RAIL?
Also, OT, but sometimes the true snobbery of uppercrust Brits is... Well, you'd think they'd have grown out of it by now. You'd be wrong.
Bus drivers and waitresses? Those sorts of people aren't important, claims Tory peer
Bus drivers, waitresses and other people in ‘unimportant’ jobs are not fit to sit in judgement on the business interests of former ministers, a senior Government adviser said yesterday.
Tory peer Lord Lang said ordinary people were not qualified to judge whether former ministers such as Lord Mandelson should be allowed to take well-paid jobs in the private sector...
‘I would hope...it would be a lay member who had experience and proven success in a relatively important profession or trade – somebody who had achieved distinction – rather than a waitress or a bus driver.’

Posted by: MWR at February 09, 2011 10:00 AM (4df7R)

47 The warrantless wt were only for calls going or coming from outside the US and were reviewed by the court subsequently to safeguard against any abuse.

Posted by: Mr. Sar Kastik at February 09, 2011 10:01 AM (8fiyZ)

48 It's bad enough we get the Brits to spy on US citizens for us while we spy on theirs and then we trade intel. But, I sure as shit am not going to approve our government spying on us directly!

I was thinking of trying an experiment, but I've been too chicken to do it. It would go something like this: start emailing and using the phone and start dropping key words like "b o m b" and "n u c l e a r" and "a s s a s s i n a t e" and see just how long before the feds drop by for a visit. I have no doubt the feds have computers monitoring every phone call and piece of email for just those kinds of keywords.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at February 09, 2011 10:02 AM (f9c2L)

49 Posted by: Vic at February 09, 2011 09:57 AM (M9Ie6)

We are talking about the Patriot Act, which is federal law.

You seem very willing to give up your rights to a federal government that has demonstrated in every case that it will abuse its power. I don't trust the federal government, and giving it expanded power is a recipe for disaster.

The excuse that these things are necessary for national security is a red herring. The federal government always has a wonderful sounding reason to grab power. Roosevelt in the 1930s, Johnson in the 1960s, Bush in the 2000s, and Obama now. When will it stop?

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at February 09, 2011 10:02 AM (LH6ir)

50 vic, why when Americans were told the TSA would not be able to unionize, that this is something that they didn't have to worry about, why are they now being unionized? Maybe people can't give you substantiating links cause it has been two lines in a lot of stories about arrests for things which may not fall under what most Americans think the Patriot Act should cover. But, the fact that people think this, that you may be able to prove it with a link, shows that people don't trust what the government is doing and the TSA stuff is a prime example. it's not a good thing, but I bet the polls support my gut feeling.

Posted by: curious at February 09, 2011 10:03 AM (p302b)

51 Reread post 34 and then lets discuss specific abuses, not abstract BS.

Posted by: Vic at February 09, 2011 10:04 AM (M9Ie6)

52 I cannot understand why patriotic Americans would not vote for a law allowing them to spy on other Americans without any sort of warrant or court review.

Because if there is one thing I know the government would never do, it's to take advantage of such a law to infringe on citizens' rights and freedom.

After all, we trust those government people.

Posted by: JEA at February 09, 2011 10:05 AM (lP8dE)

53 Allen West to give closing keynote address at CPAC. This should be good.

Posted by: dagny at February 09, 2011 10:05 AM (HLFbQ)

54 28 I am confused as to which of the expiring provisions, we conservatives are not supposed to like? Roving wiretaps - make sense that the warrant is issued on a person, vice a method, so no problem with that; surveillance of foreigners - go ahead - so whats the problem?
To me, none of these provisions mean anything while our borders are wide open and our leader and those in authority stand on their heads to avoid offending the religion of peace. Much like the TSA, it's all window dressing when solid effective measures cannot be taken due to political correctness. Do those laws written into the Patriot Act make you feel safer when flying knowing that only x number of a given group of Arabic passengers can be pulled aside for advanced screening for fear of lawsuits? If the intended purpose of the Patriot Act is to protect us, then demonstrate it by sealing the borders, clearing the mosques in America of radical islam, profile those who refuse to denounce terrorism, and laugh in the face of those who would propose to build a mosque in the shadow of the World Trade Center. Anything short of this tells me that the real purpose of the Patriot Act is something other than what it was touted to be. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining!

Posted by: havedash at February 09, 2011 10:07 AM (sFD5n)

55 Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at February 09, 2011 10:02 AM (f9c2L)

I think most people assume these computer programs are reading everything. But if you are truly someone with ill intent then I'm sure you are being really careful to not use any of those words in your correspondence. Probably you are using innocuous words used by everyone only the person reading your correspondence knows what you mean. I'm hoping that the government realizes this and has stuff in place for exactly this scenario.

Posted by: curious at February 09, 2011 10:08 AM (p302b)

56 "warrentless taps were expanded to include calls made by Americans to Americans inside this country"

Posted by: Vic at February 09, 2011 09:59 AM (M9Ie6)

I didn't say that.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at February 09, 2011 10:08 AM (LH6ir)

57 vic, why when Americans were told the TSA would not be able to unionize,
that this is something that they didn't have to worry about, why are
they now being unionized?

Because the Dems succeeded in amending the TSA law that the House passed (which forbade it) to allow the secretary of HS to determine if they were allowed to collective bargain or not.

When the Republicans get the WH back they can turn around and ban it again according to the way the law is currently written (stupid). Of course, if we get another RINO squish that will never happen.

Blame your Senator at the time for the current law, Hillary.

Posted by: Vic at February 09, 2011 10:09 AM (M9Ie6)

58 Michelle Malkin notices that General Electric will get its piece of the $53 billion the Obama administration wants to spend on high-speed rail: "In another such fortuitous coincidence, one of the top beneficiaries of the new White House rail bailout is GE Transportation -- the leading manufacturer of diesel-electric locomotives. President Obama recently named GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt to head the new White House jobs council."

Posted by: dagny: Release logprof damnit! at February 09, 2011 10:10 AM (HLFbQ)

59 Interesting, Beck just said that vicks vapo rub is only bought by people in their seventies. Guess he doesn't know any hipsters.

Posted by: curious at February 09, 2011 10:13 AM (p302b)

60 What really astounds me about people who complain about the P.A. and loss of freedom is that the same people usually have no problem with the abuses of other acts that are much much worse. Specifically use in the drug war:

1. Ability to confiscate your property because your property committed a crime, all separate from the actual criminal penalty.
2. Ability to confiscate money with NO DAMN CHARGES AT ALL.
3. No knock drug raids
4. Abused RICO Act
5. Multiple prosecutions for the same act under the color of different laws covering the same crime. (to me that is a direct violation of the Constitution).

The list can be expanded forever and there are ample instances documented. You get a few people griping about these things above but nowhere near the outcry that relative minor things in the P.A. do.

Posted by: Vic at February 09, 2011 10:14 AM (M9Ie6)

61
Yeesh, I thought we had hashed out all the inflated Patriot Act concerns 4 years ago. Is it odious? Yes. Is there a potential for abuse? Yes. But has it resulted in a perceptible erosion of American's rights?

Not so much.

Posted by: geoff at February 09, 2011 10:15 AM (zoXrj)

62 so if the mayor of my town wants to renovate the town hall and he uses his brother in laws company to do the renovations and he buys all the computers from his sister's company and he buys all the desks from his other brother's company well, when this is discovered he gets investigated and booted out of office. So why is it different with the federal government?

Posted by: curious at February 09, 2011 10:16 AM (p302b)

63
As far as the Blue Dog Democrat theory goes (i.e., the drop in Democratic support for the Patriot Act was due to a reduced number of Blue Dogs in the House), the drop in Democratic votes was 95, while the drop in Blue Dogs was 31.

Posted by: geoff at February 09, 2011 10:19 AM (zoXrj)

64 I am in favor of the Patriot Act, but only if we have an American in the White House. With an Indonesian, I want him to have as little power as possible, especially as our nation is too cowardly to investigate even one of his many, many criminal acts, abuses of power, and working to aid and abet our enemies. Our nation is at a place where there's an America-hating enemy in the White House. Given that, the Patriot Act is more dangerous than worthwhile. After all, Toonces doesn't use the act to go after his buddies. He uses it to go after Americans.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at February 09, 2011 10:20 AM (N49h9)

65 geoff

do you pronounce your name "jeff" of "gee off"? i'm just wondering....

Posted by: phoenixgirl at February 09, 2011 10:21 AM (eOXTH)

66 I mean, this is the despicable White House that has been labeling any opposition to his anti-Americanism as 'homegrown terrorism' when they won't even call muslim terrorists, "terrorists". One of the first things he did in office was give almost $1 billion to Hamas.

Personally, I'd rather have the Patriot Act passed again, but only if it was attached to an impeachment of Barky.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at February 09, 2011 10:22 AM (N49h9)

67 Could be that a lot of the Democrats who voted for the renewal were defeated--not because of that vote but because my understanding is that the Democrats who lost were generally blue dogs. The caucus that remains is dominated by true lefties.

Posted by: Nicholas Kronos at February 09, 2011 10:23 AM (KktlX)

68
do you pronounce your name "jeff" of "gee off"? i'm just wondering....

"Jeff"

Posted by: geoff at February 09, 2011 10:24 AM (zoXrj)

69
67
Could be that a lot of the Democrats

See 63.

Posted by: geoff at February 09, 2011 10:25 AM (zoXrj)

70 geoff...thanks...i'll adjust how i read it....

Posted by: phoenixgirl at February 09, 2011 10:26 AM (eOXTH)

71 Yes. But has it resulted in a perceptible erosion of American's rights?Not so much.

Posted by: geoff at February 09, 2011 10:15 AM (zoXrj)
You haven't seen Barky in his lame-duck suicide run, yet. Remember what the lame-duck 111th Congress did? Multiply that by 10000. You have to remember how despicable these people are, especially the Indonesian who has been pushing all this crap.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at February 09, 2011 10:30 AM (N49h9)

72 I am no fan, let it be gone.

Posted by: Kemp at February 09, 2011 10:31 AM (vSiVD)

73 Yes. But has it resulted in a perceptible erosion of American's rights?

Not so much.

Posted by: geoff at February 09, 2011 10:15 AM (zoXrj)

Well thank God that our superiors are so benevolent.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at February 09, 2011 10:34 AM (LH6ir)

74
You haven't seen Barky in his lame-duck suicide run, yet.

It is true that I haven't really recalibrated my impression since the Bush administration's responsible use of the Patriot Act provisions.

Posted by: geoff at February 09, 2011 10:34 AM (zoXrj)

75 Posted by: geoff at February 09, 2011 10:24 AM (zoXrj)

I have a good friend named "Geoff," and if I want to piss him off I call him gee-off.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at February 09, 2011 10:35 AM (LH6ir)

76 I have a good friend named "Geoff," and if I want to piss him off I call him gee-off.

Fortunately most Geoffs become hardened to "Jofe," "Gofe," "Gee-off," etc. by early elementary school.

Posted by: geoff at February 09, 2011 10:37 AM (zoXrj)

77
"Jeff"

and the "j" is silent, yes?


Posted by: Soothsayer has a problem with Wang Dong at February 09, 2011 10:42 AM (uFokq)

78
Or do you go by the Norwegian pronunciation: "yeff?"

Posted by: Soothsayer has a problem with Wang Dong at February 09, 2011 10:43 AM (uFokq)

79
You know what's worse than the Patriot Act?

Hate Crime laws and "Anti-Bullying" laws.

Posted by: Soothsayer has a problem with Wang Dong at February 09, 2011 10:45 AM (uFokq)

80 I still haven't seen ANY actual cases where someone has had their "rights" violated by the Patriot Act. The ACLU has been working hard for years to get this thing vacated and so far they haven't been able to come up with any credible case.

That right there should tell you that all the MFM screaming about this act is BS.

The bottom line people, if you find yourself arguing on the same side as the MFM and the ACLU you need to seriously take stock of your position and go back and examine the actual FACTs, not the hype and verbiage.

And that is my last word on this subject.

Posted by: Vic at February 09, 2011 10:45 AM (M9Ie6)

81 I was pronouncing it "Larry".

Sorry, Ma'am.

Posted by: eman at February 09, 2011 10:49 AM (gZVTR)

82 According to Fox, the GOP screwed up by bringing this to the floor with the assumption they had the 2/3 majority and wound up short because of Republican votes:

"Eight Republicans whom the GOP regards as freshmen voted against the
reauthorization. That's precisely the number of yea votes Republicans
needed to pass the bill."

Link here: http://tinyurl.com/6hq2hv5

Damn, you know I just hate it when pesky facts get in the way of a narrative.

Don't you?

Posted by: JEA at February 09, 2011 10:52 AM (lP8dE)

83 That Drudge link is chilling. If I were the Brits I would assume that Barack Obama was going to betray me at every turn, and act accordingly.

Posted by: joncelli the rather frustrated taxpayer at February 09, 2011 10:54 AM (RD7QR)

84 Damn, you know I just hate it when pesky facts get in the way of a narrative. Don't you?

Posted by: JEA at February 09, 2011 10:52 AM

Let me guess, you work for the MFM

Posted by: kbdabear at February 09, 2011 10:55 AM (vdfwz)

85
"Eight Republicans whom the GOP regards as freshmen voted against the
reauthorization. That's precisely the number of yea votes Republicans
needed to pass the bill."

Yup - 27 GOP "Nay"votes out of 148, and that 18% makes it the GOP's fault.

Posted by: geoff at February 09, 2011 10:56 AM (zoXrj)

86 They should q2uit calling it THE PATRIOT ACT and call it the BIG BROTHER ACT becuase its all about watching us 24/7 and not about protecting us from any terrorists

Posted by: Spurwing Plover at February 09, 2011 10:57 AM (vA9ld)

87 It is good to step back once in a while and see if we are accepting the BLM narrative on a topic. This is one of those times.

Posted by: SurferDoc at February 09, 2011 10:57 AM (o3bYL)

88 we don't need the Patriot Act to fight terrorism, we only need the political will.
I don't trust the Government with this power no matter who is running it.

Posted by: GOP Establishment at February 09, 2011 10:59 AM (ehKDD)

89 damn sock puppets

Posted by: Shoey at February 09, 2011 11:00 AM (ehKDD)

90 three cheers for the Freedom 8!

Posted by: Shoey at February 09, 2011 11:01 AM (ehKDD)

91 I have seen NOTHING that says that warrentless taps were expanded to
include calls made by Americans to Americans inside this country;
NOTHING.
Just because they haven't, doesn't mean they can't.

Posted by: Lone Marauder at February 09, 2011 11:13 AM (HzR5W)

92
Just because they haven't, doesn't mean they can't.

But that would require a new Act of Congress.

Posted by: geoff at February 09, 2011 11:17 AM (zoXrj)

93 "The bottom line people, if you find yourself arguing on the same side
as the MFM and the ACLU you need to seriously take stock of your
position and go back and examine the actual FACTs, not the hype and
verbiage.

And that is my last word on this subject."

Posted by: Vic at February 09, 2011 10:45 AM (M9Ie6)


That's the stupidest thing I have read on this blog in a long time. I, and many people here think for ourselves, and whether the ACLU agrees has very little to do with anything.

But you have spoken, so the debate is over.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at February 09, 2011 11:21 AM (LH6ir)

94 I am cautiously in favor of renewal.

Posted by: toby928™: Free nickless the still-banned (99.174.64.43) at February 09, 2011 11:26 AM (GTbGH)

95 63 As far as the Blue Dog Democrat theory goes (i.e., the drop in Democratic support for the Patriot Act was due to a reduced number of Blue Dogs in the House), the drop in Democratic votes was 95, while the drop in Blue Dogs was 31.

Point taken. I estimate support by non-blue dog dems droppedfrom roughly 52%to 27%.

Posted by: Nash Rambler at February 09, 2011 11:30 AM (9IOHF)

96 But that would require a new Act of Congress.


Posted by: geoff at February 09, 2011 11:17 AM

Or a president who doesn't give a shit about the law.

"iknowtheleft" is correct. Laws that could conceivably affect Americans negatively if misused represent little, if any, danger to us when authority is given to honest, patriotic Americans. No one, except maybe a leftoid wet-brain, would think Dubya was a traitor.

But Dubya is not in the White House now. The Mohammedan Mouthpiece, a man who has already proven that he considers himself and his regime above the law, whose distaste, even hatred, for America is readily apparent to everyone except the mouth-breathing 52% and the MBM, is in power. He should not have the PA's -- or any other -- powers.

Sorry, Heff, that's the way I see it.

Posted by: MrScribbler© at February 09, 2011 11:41 AM (Ulu3i)

97 BOO!!

Posted by: Patriot Act at February 09, 2011 11:42 AM (Ez4Ql)

98 "Yup - 27 GOP "Nay"votes out of 148, and that 18% makes it the GOP's fault."

Sorry, I thought the party whip's job - in both parties - was to make sure they knew who was going to vote how before they put something on the floor.

Posted by: JEA at February 09, 2011 11:45 AM (lP8dE)

99 Duck and Cover.

Physics remain the same, though politics may change...

And human nature remains the same, regardless of who's in charge. Authorize authoritarianism, and you get it in spades.

I still haven't seen ANY actual cases where someone has had their "rights" violated by the Patriot Act.

"Actual?"

When the full force of the authoritarian Federal Government targets you,
your innocence of charges become as irrelevant as your Constitutional
Rights.
I've read accounts in the MSM that disappear after only one appearance. One was from the mother of a high school boy taken abruptly with his computer from his home, no warrant served by DHS, refused any attorney, and refused any contact with his family, naturally refused habeas corpus. No resolution to that story ever appeared in the news.

It's even easier to ignore or discredit actual cases when the accurate message is relayed by reactionary and deluded characters.

Posted by: Plateau Plato at February 09, 2011 11:48 AM (H+LJc)

100
Sorry, I thought the party whip's job - in both parties - was to make sure they knew who was going to vote how before they put something on the floor.

Nobody's happy with the Majority Whip's performance, but that doesn't change the fact that it was the huge drop in Democratic support that caused the bill to fail in the first place.

Posted by: geoff at February 09, 2011 11:48 AM (zoXrj)

101 I'm not going to whine about this vote, it's just not that important.

A government (under Dem and GOP Presidents) that at least passively conspires with the UK in letting Megrahi skedaddle back to Libya is still looking for a clue anyway.

Posted by: JEM at February 09, 2011 11:55 AM (o+SC1)

102 Boehner had his position when the Republican Party "lost its way" during Bush's administration. And on THAT RECORD, he was reinstated. Bush bragged that he had reformed the Republican Party into the progressive neoconservative big government with big spending, open borders and federally mandated socialist pencil pushing brain twisting exercises that remove educational logic and calculation, leaving all children behind in the wake of bi-partisan globalist segregation promoting the elitists to own the rest of the world's population.

And in their wisdom, incumbent Republicans with seniority saw to reinstating Boehner for more of the same ol' same ol' schmaltz of "compassionate conservatism" with lots of tears to wash Marxism down the public's "sincere messaging" throats of receptivity. So long as you're sincere, you can say anything was the 1970s leftist mantra being touted in high schools. I rejected it then as I still do now.

The official Republican leadership eschew Michele Bachmann's leadership. The proof's in the Washingtonian pudding: "Just say no" to constitutional governance. But keep on claiming conservative credentials for re-election and to bamboozle indignant taxpayers.

Posted by: Plateau Plato at February 09, 2011 12:08 PM (H+LJc)

103 Good for them. The "Patriot Act" is an abomination. You put COMPETENT officials in place that have the best interests of the United States at heart instead of their private "fiefdoms" with competing agencies and you can get the job done. Why wouldn't the CIA share information with the FBI and vice versa?
Remove political correctness from the system, not freedom.
CC

Posted by: CapedConservative at February 09, 2011 12:08 PM (GS0sl)

104 Vic's right, fix what if anything needs fixing. What's the political upside to dropping it. Some few on the right stay home or skip some names on the ballot vs. "We dropped the ball" from the MBM constantly after the next attack.


Posted by: Dave at February 09, 2011 12:15 PM (zkbPS)

105 Yeah... I notice less republicans voted to renew it as well, and this despite the fact that there's now more republicans and less democrats over all.
That skews the numbers a bit.
I'm not hiding under my bed crying because the terrorists are going to blow us all up now that we haven't adequately over-funded 16 redundant layers of bureaucracy, and/or empowered the government to go around checking the names on the slip cards in the front of library books.
Before you lament the lack of government action to protect us (and/or the children) think: TSA.

Posted by: Entropy at February 09, 2011 12:16 PM (IsLT6)

106
That skews the numbers a bit.

That's why I used "% of those who voted" rather than absolute numbers.

Posted by: geoff at February 09, 2011 12:23 PM (zoXrj)

107 <i>What's the political upside to dropping it.</i>
Because it's unneccessary crap. Stop worrying and learn to love the arab. Apart from one collosal and isolated incident that provoked 2 wars, terrorists kill less people per year than deer.
So I ask you, what is the government doing to protect us from the white-tailed menance? Does the FBI have authority to trace hoofprints and use RF tagging to identify suicide-roadblock deerwithout aFISAwarrant? Why isn't anyone concerned?
You know the whole point of "terrorism" is to inspire fear and terror. I use to mock towel-headed jihadis as (gratefully)ridiculously incompitent, what for all their failed shoe bombs, but maybe I was missing the point.

Posted by: Entropy at February 09, 2011 12:25 PM (IsLT6)

108 Laws that could conceivably affect Americans negatively if misused represent little, if any, danger to us when authority is given to honest, patriotic Americans.
Good lord.
Have fun with that.

Posted by: Entropy at February 09, 2011 12:34 PM (IsLT6)

109 Col. West's reasons for voting for the Patriot Act extension:

1- Several of the 911
terrorists used public computers to review their September 11th plane
tickets- ( this happened in the very district I represent- so this is
personal to me)
2- Without roving wiretap authority,
investigators would be forced to seek a new court order each time they
need to change the location, phone or computer that needs to be
monitored. Terrorists and foreign spies use multiple communications
devices to evade detection.3- This provision would
prevent terrorists who work on their own from escaping surveillance
simply because they are not agents of a foreign power or avowed members
of an international terrorist group: think Major Hasan- Fort Hood, and
the Times Square BomberI care about this country and this
all comes down to protecting us from a REAL enemy that has found a new
battleground: The United States. Law abiding citizens liberties will be
respected.


Via his FB page.

Posted by: Y-not at February 09, 2011 12:49 PM (pW2o8)

110 "Some few on the right"

Promptly illustrated by the "it's never right enough" paleo and the colossally incompetent speller who IS missing the point entirely.

Posted by: Dave at February 09, 2011 12:49 PM (zkbPS)

111 http://tinyurl.com/yg2tdl5
Listen to Uncle Milt. There are no 'right people'. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Government, which rules over men, is not comprised of angels but rather of other men. Incompitence is inescable in any arena of life, and the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
The logic that suggests giving government the precedent for power so long as it's given to the 'right people' totally refutes the entire concept ofa Constitutional Republicand limited government, and taken to it's logical conclusion,begs for an all-powerful but 'benevolent' tyrant.
You do indeed have things to fear from the benevolent tyrants - much moreso than the honestly corruptthieving ones.
Do you drink alchohol ever? Were the school-marms who ran the Temperance movement unpatriotic self-interestedliars? Do you like the mafia? Do you know how many people prohibition killed?

Posted by: Entropy at February 09, 2011 12:50 PM (IsLT6)

112 Vic, you have it 100% right. Everybody on this thread is bitching about stuff that isn't in the Patriot Act or has nothing to do with it.

Hint: TSA unionization isn't in the Patriot Act.

Every single person who objects to it -- every single one -- misrepresents it. A phone call to somebody in Pakistan that is intercepted is not "domestic spying". When you point out the truth, they end up diverting the conversation to some security issue they object to that isn't in the act.

I also tend to take personally when people are on the side of people who lie for political purposes.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 09, 2011 12:56 PM (T0NGe)

113 Dems numbers changed probably because Blue Dogs got booted.

Posted by: Swamp Yankee at February 09, 2011 12:59 PM (3DIBw)

114 Posted by: AmishDude at February 09, 2011 12:56 PM

RINO!! eleventy!11!!!

Posted by: Y-not channels her inner purity policewoman at February 09, 2011 01:03 PM (pW2o8)

115
113
Dems numbers changed probably because Blue Dogs got booted.

See #63.

Posted by: geoff at February 09, 2011 01:03 PM (zoXrj)

116
See #63.

By which I mean, no, the Blue Dogs had an effect, but it is the inherent hypocrisy of the Dems that accounts for the majority of the drop in support. They're taking their toys and going home.

Posted by: geoff at February 09, 2011 01:05 PM (zoXrj)

117 Every single person who objects to it -- every single one -- misrepresents it. A phone call to somebody in Pakistan that is intercepted is not "domestic spying". When you point out the truth, they end up diverting the conversation to some security issue they object to that isn't in the act.Nope - I don't find the act objectionable. I wouldn't be particularly pissed if they had renewed it. Nor am I at all pissed they didn't. Because it doesn't really matter what's in the act. You're not going to die in a terrorist explosion. With or without the patriot act.
You have a "real enemy" that, apart from one left-fieldunprecedented incident (even including all their "big" successes like the Cole of years past) threatens less people than white-tail deer. One incident, by the way - that caused us to go stomp the hell out of their networks around the world and depose two foreign governments. So it's not like it hasn't been addressed. It's also not like our security procedures haven't changed. It's no so easy to take control of a plane anymore. With or without the act - they can't do that again. And in 30 years of trying they've never had much success with anything else.
Also, convienently, an enemy that can NEVER be decisively defeated, ever. You're telling me the government needs such-and-such power, whatever it is, to stop something that kills less people than drunk driving, or else all hell will break loose and people will die.
If terrorism justifies the patriot act, fine - but what does drunk driving justify?? Hell, what does the higher mortality rate amongst the obese justify? It's certainly - empirically - a much larger menace to society than terrorism.
I also tend to take personally when people are on the side of people who lie for political purposes.
You can always attribute ulterior motives or doubt people's intent. Liars vs. Fearmongers. Pick your poison. Let's just say some people grossly overstate the dangers of a failure to reinstate the act.

Posted by: Entropy at February 09, 2011 01:12 PM (IsLT6)

118 Meanwhile, Obama's executive - and numerous state governments - are churning out reports that label a majority of american citizens as terrorist suspects.
Just because it hasn't been abused yet, doesn't mean it won't, or can't. Yet we are to assume the danger of abuse is justified and the law is neccessary - because of a threat to the public that's quantifiably less serious than talking on a cell phone while driving.
It's antithetical to write laws for limiting government based around the assumption of having the 'right people' in power. You write the laws assuming you have the worst people in power. Because sooner or later you will.
If we had all the 'right people', we probably wouldn't need laws to begin with.

Posted by: Entropy at February 09, 2011 01:18 PM (IsLT6)

119 Posted by: AmishDude at February 09, 2011 12:56 PM (T0NGe)

Nice reading comprehension.

As you would have discovered if yu had read what I wrote, there are some parts of it, like roving wiretaps, that are fine. There are other parts that are disturbing because of the high probability of abuse.

You are welcome to hope that our masters in DC have our best interests at heart, but I would rather rely on the Constitution.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at February 09, 2011 01:28 PM (LH6ir)

120 According to the US State Dept., which - well, there's some argument that the numbers are skewed by what they consider "terrorism" - terrorism kills about 20,000 people a year... worldwide.
And that's mostly in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, as well as deaths due to the likes of FARC running around Columbia or whatever, and international kidnappings too.
Terrorism - killing 20,000 a year worldwide.
The number of Americans killed in the US by the seasonal flu: 36,000 a year.
Time for a multi-trillion dollar HHS War on Influenza?
Which, while we're on the subject... thatH1N1 swine flu thing? That was a normal flu. Flus normally kill that many people. The media just doesn't hyperventilate over it usually.The whole thingwas totally fuckin pedestrian.
But human beings are ridiculously terrible at intuitive risk calculation. And fear is a terrific motivator to compel action.

Posted by: Entropy at February 09, 2011 01:40 PM (IsLT6)

121 @Entropy,

Excellent description of the issue.

Thanks.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at February 09, 2011 01:40 PM (LH6ir)

122 Entropy CBD(NJC)
Terrorism - killing 20,000 a year

Your both completely missing the point.
Deer vs. hirabists sp? is an apples-oranges BS argument.
The #s killed is a flippable vs. guns BS arg.
Its also a murdered vs. accident BS arg.
And 3rd its a relying on their incompetence, location, lack of WMD, and failure to think of another mode of attack BS arg.

If there's some specific wrong with it, (besides the stupid name) point it out and suggest a fix.

Posted by: Dave at February 09, 2011 02:12 PM (zkbPS)

123 it's about consistency, we say we are on the side of individual liberty, but every new power we give to the government reduces that individual liberty
don't give them any more power, and don't let them stampede us into giving up our freedom in the name of security.

Posted by: Shoey at February 09, 2011 02:30 PM (ehKDD)

124 the patriot act gave us the dept of homeland security - an entire dept that can be deleted from the budget

Posted by: julius at February 09, 2011 02:31 PM (2iVD6)

125 The other night we had some Democrat doofur (BIRM) on tv saying Gov. Walker killing the high-speed rail between Milwaukee and Madison, 75 miles, would cost the state 5500 jobs.I guess they were going to hire Irish and Chinese workers to build it with picks and shovels.

Posted by: bigred NO NICKLESS, NO PEACE at February 09, 2011 02:33 PM (cX9pO)

126



منتديات اسلامية
اناشيد
سياحة
منتديات
دردشه المها
مركز تحميل

طبخ
ازياء
طب
خواطر
شعر
قصص

نكت
توبيكات
برامج كمبيوتر
برامج جوال
صور انمي
صور

منتديات
منتدى
المها
مركز تحميل
رسائل قبل النوم 2011


المها الألعاب

مستشفى المها للهبال والصرقعه


ديكور - اثاث منزلي - غرف نوم - مطابخ

ديكور - اثاث منزلي - غرف نوم - مطابخ
منتديات حواء

مكياج - تسريحات - ميك اب - اكسسوارات
مسنجر - توبيكات - توبيكات ملونه

Posted by: منتديات المها at February 09, 2011 04:41 PM (sOYD3)

127 If there's some specific wrong with it, (besides the stupid name) point it out and suggest a fix.
Talk about missing the point!
It's not needed. It doesn't need a fix. Apart from the possibility of it being abused... it isn't really important.
Beyond that... I'm not sure what you're talking about. I didn't understand a word of anything else you wrote.

Posted by: Entropy at February 09, 2011 05:13 PM (eL+YD)

128 And 3rd its a relying on their incompetence, location, lack of WMD, and failure to think of another mode of attack BS arg.
Remember to Duck Cover, fetal position against a wall or under a desk.
And watch out for the avian flue or Y2K or something.
Look: I think I have discovered the problem.
Do you people not watch zombie fiction? You need an outlet. Try it.
God willing, we will prevail, in peace and freedom from fear, and in true health, through the purity and essence of our natural fluids. God bless you all.

Posted by: Entropy at February 09, 2011 05:19 PM (eL+YD)

129 T-Virus zombiepocalypse survival kit contents checkne forty-five caliber automatic; two boxes of ammunition; four days' concentrated emergency rations; one drug issue containing antibiotics, morphine, vitamin pills, pep pills, sleeping pills, tranquilizer pills; one miniature combination Russian phrase book and Bible; one hundred dollars in rubles; one hundred dollars in gold; nine packs of chewing gum; one issue of prophylactics; three lipsticks; three pair of nylon stockings.

Posted by: Entropy at February 09, 2011 05:37 PM (eL+YD)

130

"It's not needed."
2 Presidents most of the National Security community disagree.

"Apart from the possibility of it being abused..."
No evidence yet huh.

"it isn't really important."
See above.

"Beyond that... I'm not sure what you're talking about. I didn't understand a word of anything else you wrote."
I understood yours misspelling and all. I only repeat explanations when I'm getting paid.
1 analyst listening to hundreds of Vacation in the beautiful mountains of the NWFP plans vs. dozens of teams in Federal Fords asking questions, getting on the news sued by CAIR seems like a good use of resources to me.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/6ylupba





Posted by: Dave at February 09, 2011 10:00 PM (zkbPS)

131 altın çilek - fx15 - leke kremi - yudali - maurers - ozon yağı

Posted by: petrelli at February 14, 2011 04:14 PM (xZ63V)

132 While I acknowledge absolutely her status as an "iconic film star" of passing
generations, most of her films have never appealed to me, with one exception:
"The Taming of the Shrew" in which she starred with Richard Burton....Perhaps a
little too ironic given the <a href="http://www.weddingdresses4y.com/weddings-white-one-c-2_65.html">White Wedding Dresses</a> eventual situation, but nevertheless and in my
opinion, a film where I personally fully appreciated the brilliance that others
saw in various films she acted in. It's on my library shelves and I wouldn't
part with it.

Posted by: Christina Wu Wedding Gowns at March 28, 2011 03:01 AM (SVJAQ)

133 christian louboutin shoe soles for sale discount christian louboutin watches and stylish concepts are almost always incorporated into the newly developed timepieces These new hot accessories are specially loved by teenage people orange boutiques Though they do not have enough money to purchase luxurious items christian louboutin they wear other cheap accessories to make them

Posted by: louboutin at April 07, 2011 05:55 PM (kTC4E)






Processing 0.03, elapsed 0.0394 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0236 seconds, 142 records returned.
Page size 91 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat