“This bill is all about authorizing the President to invade the homes, e-mails and telephone conversations of American citizens in ways that are expressly forbidden by law.”

That’s how excitable Pat Leahy described the legislation that passed from the Senate Judiciary Committee to the Senate floor today

Hugh Hewitt say: “Every vote for any Congressional Democrat is a vote against victory and a vote for vulnerability.”

And that’s a fact!

24 Responses to “Democrats are simply not serious about the war or about preventing terrorism.”

1. San Francisco Liberal
   September 13, 2006 - 05:53 PM on September 13th, 2006

   “Every vote for any Congressional Democrat is a vote against victory and a vote for vulnerability.”

   LOL…lame ass fear-mongering. gotta love it.

2. Robert
   September 13, 2006 - 05:59 PM on September 13th, 2006

   The Democrite party doesn’r care how many more poeple are killed, how much more it costs. They cannot let Bush and the republicans get credit politically for anything. The Democrites have already demonstrated that they are willing to trade defeat for America for their own political advantage.

   The party of treason, imo.

3. Peejz
   September 13, 2006 - 06:13 PM on September 13th, 2006

   They are more concerned about litigation than lives.

4. San Francisco Liberal
   September 13, 2006 - 06:59 PM on September 13th, 2006

   LOL…do you guys actually believe that crap?

5. San Francisco Liberal
   September 13, 2006 - 07:06 PM on September 13th, 2006

   Seriously, I wonder just how long your team can fear-monger before its effectivness peters out…

   are we there already?

6. San Francisco Liberal
   September 13, 2006 - 07:07 PM on September 13th, 2006

   I mean, it used to be insulting, now it’s just a joke!

7. TedintheShed
   September 13, 2006 - 07:24 PM on September 13th, 2006

   1.

   You don’t think your liberal buddies are doing the same thing?

8. Robert
   September 13, 2006 - 10:10 PM on September 13th, 2006

   I had to laugh at the extreme irony and hypocrisy: Bloated traitor ChapaTeddy whining that Bush used the anniversary of the 9/11 attack for political purposes—when the Democrites have been doing nothing but playing politics with it since about 9/15/2001 or so.

9. snowy egret
   September 14, 2006 - 07:58 AM on September 14th, 2006

   The demacratic chicken/donkey just continues to run away showing its yellow streak down its back:roll:

10. Zelda
    September 14, 2006 - 07:51 PM on September 14th, 2006

    “The Democrite party doesn’r care how many more poeple are killed, how much more it costs.”

    $350 Billion and 2,500 dead Americans in Iraq. And we are going to stay the course for at least 2 more years.

    I’m sorry. I was wrong about you.

    Coming to this site gives me that same feeling as when I’m in Wal-Mart.

11. TedintheShed
    September 14, 2006 - 08:10 PM on September 14th, 2006

    “$350 Billion and 2,500 dead Americans in Iraq. And we are going to stay the course for at least 2 more years.”

    While these figures are neither a suprise to me or out of the ordinary (I fully expected to be there for at least one generation), I think those numbers don’t reflect any sort of failure in Iraq. I agree that “staying the course” is not the answer as I believe that the post invasion plans were made through rose colored glasses. I don’t think that Iraq is a complete failure either.

    That said, the problem isn’t the fact that we have made mistakes, but the problem is how we have reacted to those mistakes. By “we” I don’t just mean George Bush, Don Rumsfeld and company (although they carry much of the burden for this problem) but the characterization of the opposition party to use every small mistake as politial leverage instead of being interested in finding a genuine resolution to those problems.

    To say the Dems have a solution to the problem of Iraq is idiocy, as they are as much of the problem as Bushco.

12. Peejz
    September 14, 2006 - 08:27 PM on September 14th, 2006

    And Ted, when one of the most prominent bloggers comes out with a statement that the Kurds are no better now, then they were under Saddam, it is not helping the situation.

13. TedintheShed
    September 14, 2006 - 09:53 PM on September 14th, 2006

    Peejz,

    What bloggers say really mean jack shit in the whole of things. Like news sources and Oped “journalists”, I look at what they present with a very wary eye.

14. Peejz
    September 14, 2006 - 09:57 PM on September 14th, 2006

    13- You may look at it with a wary eye Ted, but unfortunately, many people in today’s society get their news from the blogs. So what bloggers say, does mean something.

15. TedintheShed
    September 14, 2006 - 10:02 PM on September 14th, 2006

    14.

    If peoiple get their news from bloggers, then people are bigger fools than even I thought they were and my Father’s America is pretty much dead.

16. Peejz
    September 14, 2006 - 10:05 PM on September 14th, 2006

    It is sad and it’s true. Radio and newsprint is taking a hit big time. Google a subject and 9 out of 10 times, you are sent to a blog for the information requested.

17. TedintheShed
    September 14, 2006 - 10:14 PM on September 14th, 2006

    16.

    It is worse than sad. Our founding fathers understood that if governement controls the media, then they control the masses. This is why a free press is in the Constitution. Well, through bloggers this is what the parties are doing. They are controling the masses.

18. Peejz
    September 14, 2006 - 10:41 PM on September 14th, 2006

    17- Correct. Bloggers on both sides of the aisle know how to manipulate the system. You can manipulate a subjects exposure on google. Take for instance The Path To 911. Controversial to say the least…Michelle Malkin suggested those on the right bombard technocrati with positive news of the film..just make sure to state the title in your post..on the left, and the name of the site escapes me, but I believe MyDD, told their audience to do the same, but pan the film etc…The sites with the highest exposur are going to be the first ones found in a google search.

    Both sites are wrong for manipulation!

    Now take the gen whatevers…They aren’t listening to the radio, as they are going to websites for music..they have Myspace for discussion forums and they hit the big blogs..this isn’t just the left either. Make no mistake that ignorance knows no boundaries!

    There is nothing wrong with getting info from blogs, but there is something dangerous about believing everything you read without checking to make sure you aren’t getting snowballed.

    I used Ariannas comment as an example..she appeared on Fox News…therefore, she must know what she’s talking about..as she is speaking they are posting her web address. Well she was on Fox and she has a website where Senators speak, therefore she must know what she talking about…Now you know better, but take a look around…you are one of the few..the proud.:wink:

19. FrmrArtyOffcr
    September 14, 2006 - 11:25 PM on September 14th, 2006

    Personally, I find it almost painful to even listen to Arianna Huffington speak. She and Susan Estridge both. Not only are their arguments so weak on logic and poorly thought out, but their voices are like nails on the chalkboard. You would think that people with their kind of money could afford either a good speech pathologist or a good speaking coach to improve their diction. I can barely understand Susan Estridge half of the time. Huffington has this major Zsa Zsa Gabor accent that drives me crazy as well. It doesn’t help that she comes off with a “Let them eat cake” arrogance either.

20. Zelda
    September 15, 2006 - 08:02 PM on September 15th, 2006

    “The problem is how we have reacted to those mistakes.”

    President Bush’s administration hasn’t recognized ANY mistakes. How can you fix something if you don’t admit it is messed up???

    “the problem is how we have reacted to those mistakes.”

    Agreed:

21. Zelda
    September 15, 2006 - 08:04 PM on September 15th, 2006

    “The characterization of the opposition party to use every small mistake as political leverage instead of being interested in finding a genuine resolution to those problems. To say the Dems have a solution to the problem of Iraq is idiocy, as they are as much of the problem as Bushco.”
    President Bush has had 5 years of control. He has had the support of the Senate and the House; and the American people. He will continue to have the support of the Senate and the House for probably 2 more years. The great irony of President Bush defeating Senator Kerry is that whatever happens in Iraq will be entirely on President Bush’s shoulders.
    The Democrat don’t have any solution because President Bush’s people have fucked things up too much to fix them. (And the nut jobs in Iraq haven’t been dealt with in a way that will render them ineffective)

22. Peejz
    September 15, 2006 - 09:17 PM on September 15th, 2006

    21- (And the nut jobs in Iraq haven’t been dealt with in a way that will render them ineffective) What are you suggesting here?

23. Zelda
    September 16, 2006 - 12:15 PM on September 16th, 2006

    I am saying that the nut-job Muslims in Iraq haven’t been dealt with in a way that will effectively neutralize them; our tactics in Iraq and elsewhere aren’t working.

24. Peejz
    September 16, 2006 - 01:53 PM on September 16th, 2006

    Well leveling the M.E. isn’t an option nor is assasinating the Mullahs..Peace treaties are a joke as they are hell-bent on destroying the State of Israel.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Right Voices uses Gravatar to display individual comment author icons. If you'd like your own icon next to your name, then go to Gravatar.com and sign up - it's easy!

more »

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail