Who will be President?

[dasbow]

I don't know why Americans would be scared. It's not like the current administration has done any fear mongering.

Yeah, we wouldn't want anybody thinking that terrorists might ever attack us or anything.

[ahole]

I don't know why Americans would be scared. It's not like the current administration has done any fear mongering.

Yeah, we wouldn't want anybody thinking that terrorists might ever attack us or anything.

I know, right, we should just hide while the GOP shreds the constitution for our protection, just like Ben Franklin told us to do. Wait, what did he say again?

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Franklin

That can't be right. Ah, F-ck Franklin, he was probably a terrorist, or a commie. BUSH FOR LIFE!!!

[dasbow]

Yeah, we wouldn't want anybody thinking that terrorists might ever attack us or anything.

I know, right, we should just hide while the GOP shreds the constitution for our protection, just like Ben Franklin told us to do. Wait, what did he say again?

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Franklin

That can't be right. Ah, F-ck Franklin, he was probably a terrorist, or a commie. BUSH FOR LIFE!!!

Shreds the Constitution? Sure, signing the McCain-Feingold Act was a mistake, but you can't find ONE single example of the President violating the Constitution.

[ahole]

I know, right, we should just hide while the GOP shreds the constitution for our protection, just like Ben Franklin told us to do. Wait, what did he say again?

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Franklin

That can't be right. Ah, eff Franklin, he was probably a terrorist, or a commie. BUSH FOR LIFE!!!

Shreds the Constitution? Sure, signing the McCain-Feingold Act was a mistake, but you can't find ONE single example of the President violating the Constitution.

I know, totally, that's what I'm trying to say. Wiretap the sh-t out of whoever you want.

[speedbump]

I know, right, we should just hide while the GOP shreds the constitution for our protection, just like Ben Franklin told us to do. Wait, what did he say again?

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Franklin

That can't be right. Ah, eff Franklin, he was probably a terrorist, or a commie. BUSH FOR LIFE!!!

Shreds the Constitution? Sure, signing the McCain-Feingold Act was a mistake, but you can't find ONE single example of the President violating the Constitution.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205205,00.html

From Fox News no less.

[ahole]

No Effing Way! The Liberals must have infiltrated Fox News and spun the No Spin Zone. This is F'd up. Next thing you know, they're going to start accussing Bill O'Reilly of sexually harrassing a female employee or some nonsense. Terror Alert: RED!!!

[Wiener Poopie]

No Effing Way! The Liberals must have infiltrated Fox News and spun the No Spin Zone. This is F'd up. Next thing you know, they're going to start accussing Bill O'Reilly of sexually harrassing a female employee or some nonsense. Terror Alert: RED!!!

HAHA, +1

[dasbow]

Shreds the Constitution? Sure, signing the McCain-Feingold Act was a mistake, but you can't find ONE single example of the President violating the Constitution.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205205,00.html

From Fox News no less.

And who is Fox quoting? The American Bar Association - an extremely liberal organization with an axe to grind. You may as well have just quoted a release from the DNC. C'mon, you can do better than that.

[zig]

Although I do think McCain would be better than Bush.

No one over the age of 60 should be allowed to run anything.

[ahole]

Who's this Ron Paul fella that keeps accusing Bush of violating the constitution?
He must be Ricky Bobby's gay/liberal cousin or some sh-t.

[ahole]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205205,00.html

From Fox News no less.

And who is Fox quoting? The American Bar Association - an extremely liberal organization with an axe to grind. You may as well have just quoted a release from the DNC. C'mon, you can do better than that.

Yeah! Take that you liberal d-bags! They're probably just as liberal as this gay talking Ron Paul that seems to completely agree with them. What a bunch of gays.

[dasbow]

Who's this Ron Paul fella that keeps accusing Bush of violating the constitution?
He must be Ricky Bobby's gay/liberal cousin or some sh-t.

Nah, he's a fringe guy. The "Truthers" seem to like him a lot.

[benpet76]

not sure why but i dont think we are ready for a non white president yet.its still to big of an issue.if obama wins something tells me someone will pull a jfk on him.sorry but somebody had to.

[ahole]

Who's this Ron Paul fella that keeps accusing Bush of violating the constitution?
He must be Ricky Bobby's gay/liberal cousin or some sh-t.

Nah, he's a fringe guy. The "Truthers" seem to like him a lot.

I know, that's totally what I said. (Fringe does equal gay right?)
He's always gay talking about "fiscally conservative this", and "constitution that". I'm so glad he's not a GOPer like us. Woot-Woot!!!

[ahole]

not sure why but i dont think we are ready for a non white president yet.its still to big of an issue.if obama wins something tells me someone will pull a jfk on him.sorry but somebody had to.

Exactly, that's not a retarded statement no matter how incredibly retarded it may sound. I mean, soceity doesn't progress by people becoming active and rising up or some bullsh-t like that. Everyone with half a brain knows that you have to wait until those in power tell you that you're ready. Duh Barack, wait in the back of the bus until you're invited up, just like Rosa Parks did. That's how progress is made. Woot Woot!!!

[dasbow]

Nah, he's a fringe guy. The "Truthers" seem to like him a lot.

I know, that's totally what I said. (Fringe does equal gay right?)
He's always gay talking about "fiscally conservative this", and "constitution that". I'm so glad he's not a GOPer like us. Woot-Woot!!!

Sounds kinda like Ross Perot without the bad haircut.

[speedbump]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205205,00.html

From Fox News no less.

And who is Fox quoting? The American Bar Association - an extremely liberal organization with an axe to grind. You may as well have just quoted a release from the DNC. C'mon, you can do better than that.

Those Effing retard lawyers. They don't no shit about the constitution.

Honestly, you shouldn't need a source to figure this out. Read the Patriot Act, then read the Bill of Rights.

[ahole]

I know! Especially those "Constitutional Law" Attorneys. How do they even call themselves that, when they haven't written a single Constitution in their entire effing lives? I've written just as many Constitutions as those liberals have. We should just get rid of all the d-bag lawyers and let Emperor Bush decided what's "legal" and "what's not". Every non-gay with half a brain knows that Bush sh-ts pure justice.

[dasbow]

It's not lawyers, it's the ABA. They're supposed to be nonpartisan, but it didn't work out that way.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?a..._id=290186

[dasbow]

I know! Especially those "Constitutional Law" Attorneys. How do they even call themselves that, when they haven't written a single Constitution in their entire effing lives? I've written just as many Constitutions as those liberals have. We should just get rid of all the d-bag lawyers and let Emperor Bush decided what's "legal" and "what's not". Every non-gay with half a brain knows that Bush sh-ts pure justice.

Tell you what - find me a copy of the Constitution that even contains the word 'privacy' and I'll tear mine up.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?a..._id=290186

[ahole]

I know! Especially those "Constitutional Law" Attorneys. How do they even call themselves that, when they haven't written a single Constitution in their entire effing lives? I've written just as many Constitutions as those liberals have. We should just get rid of all the d-bag lawyers and let Emperor Bush decided what's "legal" and "what's not". Every non-gay with half a brain knows that Bush sh-ts pure justice.

Tell you what - find me a copy of the Constitution that even contains the word 'privacy' and I'll tear mine up.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?a..._id=290186

No need my man. I'm with you! I'm so sick of these liberals saying that just because the 4th Amendment protects them from unwarranted search or seisure, that Supreme Ruler Bush shouldn't be allowed to listen in on their phone calls. The only people that should be worried about anyone listening to their calls are gay-talkers and terrorists. Am I right or am I right?! Terror Alert back to Green! Woot Woot!

[dasbow]

Tell you what - find me a copy of the Constitution that even contains the word 'privacy' and I'll tear mine up.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?a..._id=290186

No need my man. I'm with you! I'm so sick of these liberals saying that just because the 4th Amendment protects them from unwarranted search or seisure, that Supreme Ruler Bush shouldn't be allowed to listen in on their phone calls. The only people that should be worried about anyone listening to their calls are gay-talkers and terrorists. Am I right or am I right?! Terror Alert back to Green! Woot Woot!

Actually, it says 'unreasonable', and we're only wiretapping calls that originate from or go to suspected terrorists. We obtain warrants ahead of time when possible, or retroactively when timeliness is an issue. The people we're after aren't dummies - they use trac phones and switch cell phones/numbers frequently. We've done this for years going after the Mafia, but now that we're using it to keep tabs on terrorists the left finds it objectionable.

[Biff]

Did you do that photoshop? It's Effing beautiful!

[ahole]

No need my man. I'm with you! I'm so sick of these liberals saying that just because the 4th Amendment protects them from unwarranted search or seisure, that Supreme Ruler Bush shouldn't be allowed to listen in on their phone calls. The only people that should be worried about anyone listening to their calls are gay-talkers and terrorists. Am I right or am I right?! Terror Alert back to Green! Woot Woot!

Actually, it says 'unreasonable', and we're only wiretapping calls that originate from or go to suspected terrorists. We obtain warrants ahead of time when possible, or retroactively when timeliness is an issue. The people we're after aren't dummies - they use trac phones and switch cell phones/numbers frequently. We've done this for years going after the Mafia, but now that we're using it to keep tabs on terrorists the left finds it objectionable.

Now I'm super excited because I must be talking to someone pretty high up in the Bush Administration. "We're only wiretapping calls that..." WE'RE?! Please tell me this is Karl Rove! I'm so excited right now I could sh-t!

Thanks for bringing the Mafia argument into this too, because we never had to get warrants to tap their phones. I totally hear you about the Left messing things up too. It's probably because they all have gay crushes on terrorists. Instead of making Bush appoint more right wing judges, we should just get rid of the Supreme Court and allow him to interprit the Constitution. That would save us right-wingers a lot of time.

[Queenie]

Geez . . . I go away for a couple of hours (because the mfers expect me to actually work while i'm at work) and you guys go crazy.

P.S. I retracted my initial vote . . . I kinda liked what Biff had to say!!

[donttasemebro]

dude its gonna be McCain hands down because I said so, I'd much rather see red than blue any day

[providencecrow]

I am honestly writing in "None of the Above", because its pathetic that once again we have to choose between awful and awful. I don't care if its a throw away vote, id rather throw it away than vote for more of the same (and lets face it, with McCain or Obama, either way youre going to have no real change, except for the worse)

[zig]

Did you do that photoshop? It's effing beautiful!

Naw, can't take credit, just found it.

[speedbump]

Again, read the Patriot Act, then read this:

"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."

The paper proves nothing. Just because Clinton appointees received higher ratings, doesn't mean anything. Bush could have just as easily appointed judges that don't follow ABA guidelines as closely. Either way, even if there is a bias, it doesn't mean they're wrong.

[Queenie]

Again, read the Patriot Act, then read this:

"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."

The paper proves nothing. Just because Clinton appointees received higher ratings, doesn't mean anything. Bush could have just as easily appointed judges that don't follow ABA guidelines as closely. Either way, even if there is a bias, it doesn't mean they're wrong.

Dude . . . your squirrel looks hungry!

[Queenie]

All of those who have voted for Obama . . . have you got shoes with his face on the side too?

[dasbow]

Again, read the Patriot Act, then read this:

"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."

The paper proves nothing. Just because Clinton appointees received higher ratings, doesn't mean anything. Bush could have just as easily appointed judges that don't follow ABA guidelines as closely. Either way, even if there is a bias, it doesn't mean they're wrong.

No, it means they're biased. Liberals criticizing conservatives or vice versa has to be taken with a grain of salt. It's only their opinion that signing statements violate the Constitution, and they have an agenda to push.

[speedbump]

Again, read the Patriot Act, then read this:

"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."

The paper proves nothing. Just because Clinton appointees received higher ratings, doesn't mean anything. Bush could have just as easily appointed judges that don't follow ABA guidelines as closely. Either way, even if there is a bias, it doesn't mean they're wrong.

No, it means they're biased. Liberals criticizing conservatives or vice versa has to be taken with a grain of salt. It's only their opinion that signing statements violate the Constitution, and they have an agenda to push.

How about you tell me why this doesn't violate the 4th Amendment.

-The FBI can issue National Security Letters demanding an organization to turn of record on a person or entity. They can be issued with no probable cause, and have a gag order so that whoever receives the letter cannot say they received it. This issuing of NSL's was found unconstitutional by a court because there was no way to challenge an NSL because of the gag order. It was reissued, but was again found unconstitutional in 2007 by a U.S. Distict Court.

So tell me, how is it not unconstitutional? Just one provision of it has been found unconstitutional by courts twice.

[Biff]

Did you do that photoshop? It's effing beautiful!

Naw, can't take credit, just found it.

Well I'll just up your karma 5 points rather than the 50 had you created it.

[dasbow]

No, it means they're biased. Liberals criticizing conservatives or vice versa has to be taken with a grain of salt. It's only their opinion that signing statements violate the Constitution, and they have an agenda to push.

How about you tell me why this doesn't violate the 4th Amendment.

-The FBI can issue National Security Letters demanding an organization to turn of record on a person or entity. They can be issued with no probable cause, and have a gag order so that whoever receives the letter cannot say they received it. This issuing of NSL's was found unconstitutional by a court because there was no way to challenge an NSL because of the gag order. It was reissued, but was again found unconstitutional in 2007 by a U.S. Distict Court.

So tell me, how is it not unconstitutional? Just one provision of it has been found unconstitutional by courts twice.

How about YOU tell me how something implemented in 1978 is George Bush's fault?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Letter

[Wiener Poopie]

The real George Bush:

[susan78]

I so agree Ahole......in fact the whole freakin' country cannot take any more GOP molestation.

[speedbump]

How about you tell me why this doesn't violate the 4th Amendment.

-The FBI can issue National Security Letters demanding an organization to turn of record on a person or entity. They can be issued with no probable cause, and have a gag order so that whoever receives the letter cannot say they received it. This issuing of NSL's was found unconstitutional by a court because there was no way to challenge an NSL because of the gag order. It was reissued, but was again found unconstitutional in 2007 by a U.S. Distict Court.

So tell me, how is it not unconstitutional? Just one provision of it has been found unconstitutional by courts twice.

How about YOU tell me how something implemented in 1978 is George Bush's fault?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Letter

Did you even read the article? Until 2001 they could only be used if there was probable cause of terrorism, and even then compliance was voluntary.

[ahole]

I so agree Ahole......in fact the whole freakin' country cannot take any more GOP molestation.

You must be mistakening me for some gay-talking liberal. I love being molested by the GOP even more than I love Freedom. That's why I'm totally ok with GWB tearing up the Constitution and sh*tting justice right down my throat. Everything is going so great in this country, I think we should sign the Bushster up for 8 more years. Who's with me?!

[dasbow]

How about YOU tell me how something implemented in 1978 is George Bush's fault?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Letter

Did you even read the article? Until 2001 they could only be used if there was probable cause of terrorism, and even then compliance was voluntary.

And in 2001, we went to war against terrorists. In a war, you spy on the enemy to figure out what they're up to. Like back in WWII when we broke the Japanese and German codes. You may not want to know what Al Qaeda is up to, but I sure as hell do. When you're going after the drug cartels it's OK to wait until they've made the sale, then arrest them. In a war against terrorists, it's simply not good enough to wait until AFTER they've killed a bunch of people then spring into action.