Friday Democratic Talking Points [Vol. 5]

[ Posted Friday, October 12th, 2007 – 17:32 UTC ]

Welcome back to the weekly talking points for Democrats appearing on television this weekend. Before I begin, I'd like to wish Ted Kennedy a fast and easy recovery from his recent surgery. We need you in the Senate, Teddy! Good health and long life!

Since I have been focusing this column on the SCHIP bill almost exclusively for the past two weeks [Vol. 3 and Vol. 4], I am going to refrain from repeating any of these talking points this week. They're all still valid, so Democrats should check them out to brush up on their SCHIP answers.

I must say, Charles Rangel impressed me last weekend, on CBS' Face The Nation, as he is the first Democrat I've heard yet using the "block grant" argument against the Republican spin on SCHIP. Modesty forbids me to take any credit, but if he is indeed reading these columns I'd like to say, "Well done, Representative Rangel!"

One interesting development in the SCHIP debate is the group Catholics United announcing that they will start advertising in GOP House districts in an attempt to convince staunchly anti-abortion Republicans to reverse their vote on SCHIP. When the Catholic Church uses the term "pro-life," it is completely consistent with their other views -- on the death penalty (for instance), and now on children's health insurance. Many so-called "pro-life" groups are so single-issue (abortion) that they, in essence, ignore what happens after the baby is actually born. Whether any Republicans change their vote remains to be seen, but Nancy Pelosi's decision to postpone the override vote in the House on the SCHIP bill seems to be doing exactly what she intended -- give enough time to make GOP House members sweat from the pressure. It's telling where Catholics United will be making their ad buys, too: on Christian and talk radio.


Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week


Onward to the Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week award. For our second weekly award, sadly, we almost had a tie. Speaker Pelosi's recent remarks at a Washington luncheon with the press were pretty disappointing, but she will have to wait for some future date to be awarded MDDOTW. Because this week, we had Senator John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV), Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee show us once again the Democratic strategy for boxing matches with the president. This strategy consists of -- before the bell rings to start the fight -- diving to the canvas, covering your face with your hands, cowering and whimpering "Please don't hurt me." As the New York Times reports:

In the Senate, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia, is working with his Republican counterpart, Christopher S. Bond of Missouri, a main proponent of the August plan, to come up with a compromise.

Wendy Morigi, a spokeswoman for Mr. Rockefeller, said that retroactive immunity for the utilities was “under discussion” but that no final proposal had been developed.

For such a stupefying display of caving in before the fight has even begun, Senator Rockefeller earns the notoriety of being named Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week. Congratulations! Now go hide your head in shame.

Without further ado, here is this week's list of how to frame issues for Democrats appearing on TV.


Democratic Talking Points, Volume 5 (10/12/07)


(1) Steal a GOP fear-phrase:

Amnesty for AT&T

Republicans have pretty successfully demonized the term "amnesty" in the debate over illegal immigration. So turn the sword back on them. Whenever talking about FISA laws, use the term to describe what President Bush is pressuring Congress to grant: "amnesty" for the telecommunications giants. "We Democrats are surprised at Republicans throwing out the rule of law so casually and going along with President Bush's request for amnesty for AT&T and Verizon. We will fight such ex post facto efforts to legalize criminal behavior. We call on Republicans to uphold the rule of law."


(2) This one is a great opportunity to paint Bush as petty and partisan:

Bush was petty to not call Al Gore to congratulate him on winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

Salon's War Room column has a great list of winners Bush has called to congratulate on various things, which should be written down on an index card for any Democrat appearing on television this weekend (for easy reference). "George Bush can find the time to personally call the winners of the Super Bowl, the World Series, the Stanley Cup and the NBA championship. He even calls winners of collegiate-level sports contests, and a national spelling bee champion, but he couldn't be bothered to call the winner of one of the most prestigious awards on the planet -- the Nobel Peace Prize. Because Al Gore won the award, President Bush chose to play petty partisan politics and refused to congratulate Vice President Gore on his achievement. This is shameful behavior from the President of the United States of America."


(3) This point should be made forcefully:

I long for the days when "torture" meant "torture."

"I long for the days when the President of the United States could stand before the world and say 'We do not torture,' and have the world believe him -- instead of responding with cruel and mocking laughter. I long for the days when the world could believe such a simple statement of the principles on which this country was founded. I long for the days when a U.S. president could address the United Nations on the subject of human rights without the audience snickering behind their hands at the irony of such castigation from our country. I long for the days when 'We do not torture' meant exactly what it says -- that we do not torture people for any reason whatsoever."


(4) On a related subject:

War crimes

"I long for the days when the United States was prosecuting war crimes instead of covering them up under the thin legal blanket of 'national security.' The United Nations is reportedly looking into whether war crimes were committed by Blackwater in Iraq. A German citizen was recently denied justice by the U.S. Supreme Court when it refused to hear his accusations that the United States kidnapped him, flew him to a foreign country, and tortured him for months -- before realizing that he was totally and completely innocent. In both instances, it is conceivable that the United States may face charges in front of the World Court, because our own legal system refused to deal with them. I truly long for the days when we were prosecuting Nazis at Nuremburg for crimes against humanity such as torture, instead of being accused of the very same thing."


(5) Fix the underlying Blackwater problem:

Hire the Blackwater-type security forces as Marines

"I think it would make a lot more sense to use Marines to guard embassies and State Department personnel than to contract the job out at exorbitant rates. Give every security guard in Iraq a choice: join the Marines and perform exactly the same duties for a Marine's salary, or else get out of Iraq. Privatizing only makes sense when it saves money, not when it costs more. I think it is war profiteering for America to be paying such guards $445,891 per year -- that's over $1,200 per day -- when the Marines have traditionally performed this service at a much lower cost to the taxpayers. We will expand the Marine Corps as necessary, but we will end such security contractors in Iraq as soon as we can, and save the taxpayers a lot of money by doing so. This will once and for all rein in the abuses of such private security contractors."


(6) This one should be obvious:

Genocide is genocide

I simply cannot improve on Representative Tom Lantos (D-CA) talking about the House committee vote on an Armenian genocide resolution on PBS' News Hour last night, so I have pasted his words in here rather than trying to rewrite them:

"One of the worst things that happened to the United States in recent years has been the plummeting globally of our moral authority. This is a significant step in restoring the moral authority of U.S. foreign policy. U.S. foreign policy was strong when it was based on a sound foundation of a moral authority. It's Abu Ghraib and similar episodes which have diminished our standing globally. And the international community is not critical of the fact that the United States calls a genocide a genocide."


(7) This one's easy:

Even the Marines want to get out of Iraq

That's all you need to say about this story. Keep it short and simple: "The Marines want out of Iraq."


Cross-posted at The Huffington Post


-- Chris Weigant


19 Comments on “Friday Democratic Talking Points [Vol. 5]”

  1. [1] 
    CDub wrote:

    I like item 5,
    Hire the Blackwater-type security forces as Marines
    It's a bit of a 2 edged sword though,
    once they've got a taste of killing for fun and profit, somebody's going to pay them. They probably don't care who.

  2. [2] 
    spermwhale wrote:

    RE: Bush was petty to not call Al Gore to congratulate him on winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

    Two words come two mind: "AS IF!"

    This is the same DECIDER, who never visted the vets in the hospital in San Antonio. As a matter of fact it took him how many years to finally walk into Walter Read in DC?

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    First off, let me say that I really really REALLY wish that we could get to some subject matter that I don't have to defend the conservative point of view..

    Can't we discuss Gay Marriage, Abortion or practically ANY other topic that allows me to support REAL liberals???

    Anyways, moving on..

    Let me explain how the Right can respond to some of your talking points and turn them around to make the Left look ineffectual and downright incompetent. Much like they did with that Rush non-issue of a week or so ago...

    1) Amnesty for AT&T

    Bad move trying to tie this issue into illegal immigration.. The expected GOP response would be, "WHAT!! You are trying to compare patriotic American companies who were trying to CATCH terrorists to illegal immigrants who are, by definition, criminals!! For shame..."

    The Democratic Party response would have to acknowledge that either the TelCom companies are as criminal as the illegal immigrants or that neither are criminal in nature...

    Again, a lose/lose for the Dem Party... Especially when they companies they are trying to castigate contribute HEAVILY to the Democrats.. Do you HONESTLY think that the Democrats are, all of the sudden, going to grow a pair and bit the hand that bribes them???

    I think not....

    2)Bush was petty to not call Al Gore to congratulate him on winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

    Oh pullleeeezeee... This has got to be THE BIGGEST joke of the last decade... Al Gore is a snake oil salesmen and con artist par excellence.. If there was ever ANY DOUBT that the Nobel Peace Prize is nothing but a political lollipop from Doctor Nobel, this "award" to Gore'acle clinches it...

    However, I would like to call Al Gore and congratulate him on the fact that his movie has been declared a FICTION movie and is replete with factual errors and downright bogus assertions.. So much so that a British judge has ruled that it's a "political film" (something I have said all along) and, when showed in schools, it should be offset by facts and REAL science...

    Al Gore is a joke and a con man.. NOTHING more... Why do you think he is not running for President?? Because he KNOWS he is a fraud and a run for the presidency will simply prove it to all..

    3>I long for the days when "torture" meant "torture."

    I long for the days where we didn't have over 3,000 innocent Americans and others brutally butchered by complete cowardly scumbags who do not deserve to live..

    If it takes a little coercive interrogations against same-type scumbags to save innocent lives....??? Well, I can't believe ANYONE would have a problem with that...

    Terrorists are animals and deserve LESS rights than those rights we afford cockroaches..

    It's really THAT simple...

    It's been a long day... I'll pick up on the rest later...


  4. [4] 
    PlacitasRoy wrote:

    If AT&T is innocent of any wrong doing, why are they seeking amnesty? What happened to that myth that the 'publicons were the law & order party? If amnesty is going to be given to anyone, give it to the Quest CEO who refused to go along with the outrageous demands that his company spy on law abiding citizens.

    "Why do you think he is not running for President??" He'll be too busy saving the world from damage the deniers are doing with their fossil-based industry propaganda.

    “…a British judge has ruled that it's a "political film"” And everyone knows that a low level British judge has terrific grasp to the science involved and is imminently qualified to rule on the Oscar-winning film. Besides real ‘mericans don't listen to foreign courts....I know cause the Reich-wing said so. (Okie Sen. Tom Coburn suggested during the Roberts confirmation hearings that justices who cite foreign authority might deserve impeachment. In 2004 more than 50 ‘publicon representatives proposed resolution to express outrage that judicial decisions sometimes referenced foreign laws or court decisions.)

    I thought Gore deserved an award, or at least acknowledgment for his efforts in evacuating 2 plane loads of refugees from New Orleans during the Katrina fiasco. He succeeded even though FEMA and military officials tried to stop them.

    "Terrorists are animals and deserve LESS rights than those rights we afford cockroaches.." And if we have to torture them to get them to admit they are terrorists, so be it. And if the torture creates more terrorists so be it. And if the torture is inflicted on innocent persons, so be it. And if torture lowers America to the lowest level of the “same-type scumbags” so be it. And if those who do the torturing are able to view human beings as animals that deserve less rights than cockroaches, so be it….the public can deal with them later.

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:


    >If AT&T is innocent of any wrong doing,
    >why are they seeking amnesty?

    Probably because the laws haven't caught up with current events..

    Much like CONGRESS had to pass the MCA to protect our interrogators from legal repercussions that would arise from bleeding hearts when the interrogators were just trying to protect the country...

    >He'll be too busy saving the world
    >from damage the deniers are doing
    >with their fossil-based industry

    Well, since it is Gore'acles propaganda that the US is the biggest polluter of the world, as POTUS, Gore could do more for the environment then he EVER could do as the radical con man he is now...

    But, you see... As POTUS, Gore could not line his pockets with MILLIONS of dollars a year...

    THAT is why you won't see the Gore'acle run for President. Because, it would PROVE that he and Human Caused Global Warming is a fraud..

    Perhaps you can explain why scientists were FIRST cautioning about Global "Cooling"... Then it was Global "Warming".. THEN it was Global "Cooling" again.. NOW it's Global "Warming"... AGAIN...

    It doesn't take a genius to realize that Climate Change is a fact of the universe... And no amount of action from the pissant (globally speaking) species called Homo Sapiens will change that...

    >And everyone knows that a low
    >level British judge has terrific
    >grasp to the science involved
    >and is imminently qualified to
    >rule on the Oscar-winning film.

    In other words, let's listen to the courts (foreign or otherwise) when they rule in favor of your beliefs, but when they make rulings that you disagree with, they are "low level" and moronic..

    Can you say, "HYPOCRITE"??? I am sure you can, because you act the part so perfectly....

    >I thought Gore deserved an award

    Fortunately, people like you are in the minority...'s+prize%3A+A+fraud+on+the+people&articleId=c55c0e3e-f569-4b50-83f6-8431bde279dd

    This "award" has simply confirmed to the world that the Nobel "Peace" prize is nothing but a political joke..

    >And if we have to torture them to
    >get them to admit they are terrorists,
    >so be it.

    Sorry, son.. You lose...

    The only "torture" is applied to known terrorists..

    If you shed tears for them, then you are no better then they are...

    Whose side are you on, anyways?? You want to protect the "rights" of people who would as soon slit your throat as spit on you???

    I have to say, your so-called "principles" are seriously out of whack...


  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Making a comment about LAST week's talking points..

    I believe I called it dead on balls accurate how trying to castigate Rush Limbaugh over his alleged "attack" on the military would come back and bite the Dems on the arse...,2933,301656,00.html

    You really have to love it how the Democrats are so afraid of this issue, even after making such a big stink about it, that they won't even comment anymore....

    Personally, though.. As a member of both the U.S.A.F and the U.S.A. and an L.E.O., I must personally thank Senator Reid and the 40 other Democrats who signed such a ridiculous and outright baseless attack on an American citizen. If they had not done this totally outrageous thing, then the USMC/LEO Foundation would not be receiving such a generous donation...

    Keep up the "good" work, Democrats.. You'll guarantee a GOP majority and a GOP President in 2008...

    Dunno how good it will be for the country, but it will be all thanks to you....


  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, for the record....

    I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with viewing a person who would kill hundreds of innocent men, women and children as a cockroach, worthy of being stepped on..

    And, frankly, I simply cannot even comprehend the mindset of someone who would look upon these animals with sympathy and understanding... Perhaps such a pathetically ignorant person should investigate the L.A.R.K. program...

    A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist...

    And any person who tries to mitigate or excuse the actions of a terrorist is no better than a terrorist them self...


  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    As far as Al Gore goes.. (Don't blame me, CW!! YOU brought him up!!! :D)

    Gore gets a cold shoulder

    When you have the acknowledged world's foremost authority as a meteorologist saying "Yer whacked" maybe it's time to reconsider your position...


  9. [9] 
    PlacitasRoy wrote:

    >If AT&T is innocent of any wrong doing, why are they seeking amnesty?
    Probably because the laws haven't caught up with current events..
    YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION. Even "laws haven't caught up with current events," AT&T wouldn't need amnesty unless they broke the law.

    "people like you are in the minority…" You make an unsubstantiated statement and then waste our time to refer to a Reich-wing editorial that was totally unrelated to my comment and has absolutely no more credibility than the drug-addled Limpbaugh has.

    "The only "torture" is applied to known terrorists.." What a bullshit statement!

    "…the so-called state secrecy privilege has been invoked regularly to bar judges or juries from hearing claims of those who say they were beaten, abused or spied upon by the government during its war on terrorism. Administration lawyers have argued successfully that hearing such claims in open court would reveal national security secrets." (LA Times)

    Canada Will Pay $9.75 Million to Man Sent to Syria and Tortured “…the inaccurate information passed by Canadian police to U.S. authorities "very likely" led to their decision to send Arar to Syria. [where he was tortured.] “

    “If you shed tears for them, then you are no better then they are…’ I shed no tears for the terrorists, or even for those innocent folks who have been tortured. I do shed tears for my country.

    “Whose side are you on, anyways??” My country’s. My sense of humanity, ethics, and morals.

    “You want to protect the "rights" of people who would as soon slit your throat as spit on you???” The answer to that stupid question based on an illogical and outrageous premise is HELL YES. You think I want to let terrorists destroy the country by allowing our rights to be taken away? I’m much more afraid of immoral liars, cowards & bullies in leadership positions and their cowardly minions seeking the illusion of security.
    “And any person who tries to mitigate or excuse the actions of a terrorist is no better than a terrorist them self…” I think that opinion is masquerading as an absurd, illogical, & ridiculous statement.
    You might benefit by reading Frank Rich’s NY Times article, The ‘Good Germans’ Among Us. They too fell for the “Big Lie” and were very patriotic conservatives.

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    >AT&T wouldn't need amnesty unless they broke the law.

    Not necessarily..

    Again, I refer to the MCA.. The existing laws don't cover the actions so new laws are creating to cover current circumstances and provide guidance to cover all possible PAST actions.

    It's like when you are suing an employer for an on the job injury. During the course of the litigation, they fire you. When you finally settle, part of the settlement requires you to agree that you voluntarily quit your job.. In effect your employer is asking for "amnesty" in firing you, even though you have not accused them of wrongful termination.

    It's the same concept...

    I realize it's kind of complex, but if you think about it hard enough, I am certain you can get your brain around it..

    >What a bullshit statement!

    Actually, you making that claim IS a "bullshit statement" unless you have something to back it up.

    You don't and therefore it is YOUR statement that is a "bullshit statement"...

    >I shed no tears for the terrorists,

    Your posts here prove a different story..

    >You think I want to let terrorists
    >destroy the country by allowing our
    >rights to be taken away?

    Ya know, I have been asking this SAME question for OVER A YEAR now and not ONCE has there been a reasonable and correct answer..

    Maybe you can do better..

    What rights have you lost??

    With the minor exception of not being able to take hair gel on an airplane (I hope you are not too traumatized by that) the simple fact is, you have lost ONE right or ONE liberty...

    Go ahead.. List me "all" the rights and liberties that you have lost...

    The simple fact is, you haven't lost one. As an American citizen, you have the same rights you always have had...

    All you have is theory, conjecture and 'possibilities'... You haven't lost a single right..


  11. [11] 
    benskull wrote:

    Michale, at this point I question your sanity. For one, we have already discussed the Gore issue. If you truly believe a panel, funded by exxon, with relations to the Bush administration, is to be believed over a panel of 2500 scientists, and Gore, recognized by the nobel prize (not sure why you castigate that)than I understand why your views are as they are. Dillusional. Here's a link.

    Next subject.
    As far as terrorsts are concerned, they do lose civilized rights, once proven guilty, as do convicts. Yet human rights are another story. Who has the power to take those away? Granted terrorists are deserving of punishment and need to be stopped, yet the use of torture, as widely as it has been under bush, since his admin has bent the law to make it legal, can not be used on innocents. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? There are documented cases of innocents being treated in this manner, and let go upon discovery of innocence. What about them? Do you think that is ok? I would have a hard time believing that if you were abducted beaten and tortured by our government, and then let go upon discovery of your innocence, you would thank them for their patriotism.
    And as far as rights, this administration has put a priority on extending their power beyond that of any admin prior. Thereby allowing them to circumnavigate many obstacles meant to KEEP THEM IN CHECK. Removing lawyers (with CIVIL RIGHTS experience) from the civil rights branch of the justice dept for those with less experience, and stronger political ties. Doing this through the exec office, rather than using the depart heads, like in the past. Or the mass amounts of signing statements Bush has used? More reduction of checks and balances needed to preserve integrity in the oval office. Why the need for such secrecy? Where is the transparency in your adminstration?
    Here's another link about this from a pulitzer prize winning author, or do you doubt the integrity of the pulitzer as well?

    As far as the communications companies, they broke a law, written in 1978, that requires a warrant to perform such surveillance. That is what they are hoping for amnesty from, because your heroic leader told them he could work around laws.

    The right to democracy is pretty important. If your willing to give that up for a party intent on imperialism, I pity you.

  12. [12] 
    spermwhale wrote:

    I suggest you now join the rest of us and just shine the jerk on! He is a total waste of time and energy to even reply too. We can only hope he will some how float away and join some right-wing whacko blog, where he can find other idiots of his own ilk.

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:


    The overwhelming proof of the fallacy of Human Caused Global Warming is all around you, if you truly want to see it..

    You have yet to address:
    ALL the bogus claims made by the Gore'acle hysterics. Greenland Glaciers, Mt Killamanjaro, Polar Bears, etc etc...

    The fact that there has ALWAYS been Climate Change. First "scientists" cried about Global Warming.. Then it was Global Cooling... Then it was Global Warming again... etc etc...

    Your Gore'acles partnerships in the VERY "Carbon Credit" companies that he pushes on people. Companies that have PROVEN to be fraudulent.

    If you can rationally address these points, I will concede that you might have something...

    >As far as terrorsts are concerned,
    >they do lose civilized rights, once
    >proven guilty, as do convicts. Yet
    >human rights are another story.
    >Who has the power to take those away?

    Someone who has seen and experienced, first hand, the depravity of terrorists..

    The MCA is only invoked in situations of extreme necessity and only against those who have already been A> proven to be terrorists and B>have been proven to have key knowledge that will save innocent lives..

    Under these conditions, I really have a problem with ANYONE who has a problem with the MCA...

    Now, if you have **PROOF** that the MCA has been invoked in situations other than what is described above AND you have **PROOF** that such actions were directed from the very top (and not the actions of a single person or group taking the law into their own hands) then I will join with you in condemning the Bush Administration.

    But if all you have are the unsubstantiated rantings of terrorists, then don't even bother...

    >There are documented cases of innocents
    >being treated in this manner, and let go
    >upon discovery of innocence.

    Let's see them...

    >I would have a hard time believing
    >that if you were abducted beaten
    >and tortured by our government

    With my record, it would never happen..

    It's very easy to avoid being abducted and beaten by your own government. Don't commit treason and become a terrorist..

    It's a no brainer....

    >And as far as rights, this administration
    >has put a priority on extending their power
    >beyond that of any admin prior.

    Yea, it's called WAR... Perhaps you have heard of it??

    What did Lincoln have to do in the Civil War?? Suspend Habeas Corpus for Americans and jail critics of his war policies..

    What did FDR have to do in the WWII??
    Incarcerate HUNDREDS and THOUSANDS of American Citizens without a trial, based solely on their ancestry...

    Has Bush done either of those things?? Nope, he hasn't...

    Like I said, ya'all would be a lot more believable about things if you weren't so caught up in hysterical theatrics..

    >As far as the communications companies,
    >they broke a law, written in 1978, that
    >requires a warrant to perform such
    >surveillance. That is what they are
    >hoping for amnesty from, because your
    >heroic leader told them he could work
    >around laws.

    First off, Bush ain't my heroic ANYTHING..
    Secondly, Bush doesn't have to "work around" anything. Congress gave him the authority to do what he thinks he needs to do to prosecute the War On Terror... PERIOD..

    Now, why do you think Congress has not revoked that authorization???

    As far as breaking privacy laws, your "heroic" Democrats seem to have a problem with that as well..

    At least, when Bush directs it, it is to protect the country.. Your "heoric" Hillary Clinton listens in on private phone calls for POLITICAL GAIN!!

    So, you really aren't in a position to sport the holier than thou attitude, are you??

    >The right to democracy is pretty important.
    >If your willing to give that up for a party
    >intent on imperialism, I pity you.

    I haven't given up a thing..

    Neither have you..

    That is why all your rants are falling on deaf ears...

    Because the REALITY of the situation is that no American Citizen has lost their rights, unless they have taken actions against this country that has EARNED them the loss of their rights.

    It's that simple. And no amount of hysterical rants will change that one simple fact.


    The more you make your personal attacks, the more you prove my position is the correct one..

    For someone who castigates and demonizes the Right so much, you sure employ their tactics with zeal...


  14. [14] 
    PlacitasRoy wrote:

    I agree with Benskull when he says, “Michale, at this point I question your sanity.” I would bet there was not a single ‘good German’ who would admit they were brainwashed. As Screenwriter Dashell Hammett said “All fascists are not of one mind. There are those who give the orders, and those who take them.”

    “It's the same concept…” What utter nonsense! Comparing a civil employment issue to the POWER of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to engage a publicly traded corporation to SPY on AMERICANS!

    You still haven’t answered the question: If AT&T didn’t violate the law why do they need immunity?

    Quest’s executives had the courage and the moral fortitude to resist the assault on the rights of their customers. They don’t need immunity for what they didn’t do.

    “Actually, you making that claim IS a "bullshit statement" unless you have something to back it up.” You obviously failed to read the 2 sources that followed my statement. Here are a couple more sources to validate my claim that your statement is bullshit: Disappeared: Five Years in Guantanamo Tortured And Innocent (Reuters) Freed Swede Says He Was Tortured in Guantanamo

    “What rights have you lost??” The right to privacy. The right to peaceably assemble. The right to travel freely. Read the so-called ‘patriot act.” It isn’t “theory, conjecture and 'possibilities.'

    >I shed no tears for the terrorists,

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    >What utter nonsense!

    You obviously do not understand the word "concept", do you??

    >If AT&T didn’t violate the law why do
    >they need immunity?

    If you are not suing your employer for wrongful termination, why are they requesting you state for the record that you resigned???

    For that matter, why do we have a concept of "NO CONTEST" in our legal justice system??

    As to your "proof", nothing but hearsay and undocumented rantings... Nothing which can be presented in a court of law...

    >The right to privacy. The right
    >to peaceably assemble. The right to

    You have, PERSONALLY, lost all those rights??

    Please provide documented instances of these rights being deprived of you..

    Can you??

    Of course you can't, because it's all theory..

    What you are saying is, "If I wanted to get together with a bunch of my friends and talk about assassinating the President or blowing up the White House, I would be harassed and arrested.."

    You do not have ONE INSTANCE where your rights have been violated..

    So how can you whine and moan about your loss of rights??

    Sounds like you are simply lying to make a point..

    >I shed no tears for the terrorists,

    Then why do you have a problem with them being tortured to reveal operational details of impending plots and plans???

    Seems to me that you are more than willing to fight for the rights of terrorist scumbags, but you don't give a rat's ass for their intended victims..

    As I said, you should check out the L.A.R.K. program.. You would be ideally suited for it.. Not that you would live long, but hay... At least you were true to your principles, misguided though they may be...


  16. [16] 
    PlacitasRoy wrote:

    > I shed no tears for the terrorists,

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:


    > I shed no tears for the terrorists,

    Yea... That means as much as "I didn't inhale", "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is" and "I did not have sex with that woman"...

    You are already on record as supporting "rights" for known and proven terrorists..


  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    And you have yet to detail any rights that you have, personally lost...

    Why is that???


  19. [19] 
    benskull wrote:

    Well Michale, did you see the latest NY times? Looks like ALL the repub candidates are acknowledging HUMAN CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING. Leaves you standing alone with Bush and Exxon. Polar bears? TIME mag, middle of the issue two page spread. Torturing innocents? MCA? how about USA? Linked above, did you read it?
    And you really are reaching. I haven't voted for Hillary, for one, for two, an allegation in one book from 1992? And the employee firing analogy doesn't work with AT&T. Placitas is right. And he did list them. Cool it over there. And why'd you never comment on the soverignty of iraq article?

Comments for this article are closed.