Hannity suggested Edwards' "primping" is evidence that he does not "understand[] the nature of the battle in the war that's being waged against us"
On the May 24 broadcast of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity asserted that Democratic presidential candidate and former Sen. John Edwards (NC) -- whom he referred to as the "$400 haircut man" -- is "not really viewed as somebody that is up to the task of understanding the nature in the battle in the war that's being waged against us." As evidence, Hannity pointed to a video of Edwards fixing his hair prior to a televised interview and the fact that Edwards recently spent $400 on a haircut. Hannity then asked executive director of Young Voter PAC Jane Fleming: "You don't see inherent weaknesses here in this campaign?"
As Media Matters for America documented, the media recently devoted extensive coverage to the news -- first "broken" by Politico senior political writer Ben Smith on April 16 -- that Edwards' campaign spent $800 on two haircuts. The story was covered by major print, broadcast, and cable outlets, and often featured characterizations of Edwards as "pretty" and the "Breck girl" -- echoing Republican and conservative attacks on Edwards dating back to 2004. On April 19, Edwards said that charging the haircuts to the campaign was a mistake and said he was reimbursing the money.
Hannity also asserted that Edwards "charges $55,000 speeches on poverty to students" -- a reference to a speech at the University of California at Davis that the Edwards campaign said was largely or entirely funded through ticket sales and sponsorship, as Media Matters has documented -- and cited Edwards' statement in a May 23 speech that the "war on terror is a ... bumper sticker." Hannity failed to report that the speech, while critical of the Bush administration's approach, explained Edwards' own strategy for fighting terrorism, as Media Matters has also noted.
During the show, Hannity aired the YouTube video of Edwards fixing his hair, then immediately followed it with graphic still images of what he said was an "Al Qaeda manual." While airing the video and showing the graphic images, Hannity said: "And meanwhile, you know, when you juxtapose those images [of Edwards fixing his hair] that go on forever with the images that we have out today that came -- this Al Qaeda manual that talks about drilling hands, severing limbs, dragging people behind cars, eye removal, blow-torching people at the skin, suspending people from a ceiling, breaking limbs -- and then I think of the guy with the $400 haircut that primps his hair this way." He also asserted that Edwards "really is what [Democratic strategist] Bob Shrum ... describes him as. He is an intellectual lightweight." Hannity then told Fleming: "[T]he fact that you support him is frightening to me, because it tells me you don't understand the nature of the times we live in."
Near the end of the segment, co-host Alan Colmes asked: "Don't Republicans comb their hair, too?" Fleming then said: "Sean, I've seen you primp -- trust me. ... I've seen you get ready for your Fox things, too. You primp also." Hannity responded: "I take three minutes -- three and a half." Hannity had previously claimed that the Edwards video "goes on for five minutes."
From the May 24 broadcast of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
HANNITY: Jane Fleming, look. Bob Shrum comes out with a book, I mean, and he worked very closely with John Edwards in the Kerry campaign. He describes your candidate as an overambitious lightweight that Kerry regretted even putting on the ticket. If you look at -- he's now recently said he wants to use Memorial Day services for people to go out and make an anti-war statement.
We've got the $400 haircut man that charges $55,000 speeches on poverty to students, and now he says the war on terror is a bumper sticker. You add that with this video we have of him primping his hair prior to an interview -- he's not really viewed as somebody that is up to the task of understanding the nature in the battle in the war that's being waged against us. You don't see inherent weaknesses here in this campaign?
FLEMING: No, I absolutely don't. I think Edwards is a person of character and strength. And the Memorial Day weekend activities that you're talking about, it's called "Support the Troops. End the War," and it's absolutely correct. They're not only doing anti-war protests. A lot of people are going to Walter Reed. They're helping people that are veterans, and so that's completely off the table.
Let's talk about the $400 haircut just for once and for all, right? He did not know how much it was going to cost. He had somebody cut his hair on --
HANNITY: All right, let me show Ann Coulter.
FLEMING: -- location. It cost $400. Ann, wait, just one more thing.
HANNITY: I know. OK.
FLEMING: And you guys continue to talk about this.
HANNITY: Well, let's run some video. Hang on a second.
FLEMING: I am starting to wonder, do you think that Edwards' hair looks better than yours --
HANNITY: All right, but listen --
FLEMING: -- and that's why you keep on talking about it? I just -- I'm unclear.
HANNITY: No, I -- 100 percent. Let's run the video, which I think is the funniest video that YouTube has ever put up here of --
FLEMING: Yes, and your friend, Michelle Malkin, has it on her site, too.
HANNITY: -- John Edwards on the set, getting ready for an interview. This goes on for five minutes: the primping of the hair over and over and over again. And meanwhile, you know, when you juxtapose those images that go on forever with the images that we have out today that came -- this Al Qaeda manual that talks about drilling hands, severing limbs, dragging people behind cars, eye removal, blow-torching people at the skin, suspending people from a ceiling, breaking limbs -- and then I think of the guy with the $400 haircut that primps his hair this way, and I compare it to him saying that, you know, there's no global war on terror, he really is what Bob Shrum, the Democrat, describes him as.
He is an intellectual lightweight, and the fact that you support him is frightening to me, because it tells me you don't understand the nature of the times we live in.
[...]
COLMES: Don't Republicans comb their hair, too? They just don't do it on camera, maybe, but I hope they comb their hair.
FLEMING: And Sean, I've seen you primp -- trust me.
COULTER: Can I just say --
COLMES: All right, thank you --
FLEMING: I've seen you get ready for your Fox things, too. You primp also.
COLMES: Thank you both very much for hanging with us.
HANNITY: I take three minutes -- three and a half.
Hannity is a girl, Edwards is a girl, Trent Lott is a girl, George Bush is a girl, Barack Obama is a girl. They primp and preen, they wear make-up, they have make-up artists on the staff. They're girls. Metro-sexuals, they are what they wear...and they wear make-up.
And don't forget John Boehner who has cried twice on the Senate floor while wearing a pink tie at least one of those times.
Saw that. There's no crying in the senate!
About the Edwards stuff, another non-story. Hannity(who's a true partisan and not to be taken seriously) didn't really draw the dots the way MMFA suggests. More spin.
But does it really matter? Does anyone really think that Edwards has a chance? It's like picking on Ron Paul. Doesn't mean much but it might get you some airtime.
"Does anyone really think that Edwards has a chance?"
Yep, me... I'm not saying I think he'll drfinitely win the nomination but I think he's still got a shot. He's the dark horse in this race and I think it would be a mistake for Hillary and Obama to sell him short. Edwards will likely win the Iowa prmary whic will give him a nice credibility boost. Edwards is sharp, despite what Sean Hannity (or Bob Shrum) thinks, and he connects with regular people. He was a trial lawyer, for goodness sakes... how many jury trials do you think he has under his belt? I look for Edwards to gain momentum as Hillary and Obama continue their little waltz with each other. There's a long way to go is all I'm saying.
Likewise. My early favorite, he remains my current favorite, even though I could be cajoled to vote (in the election) for a different nominee. No, I lied: unless Satan himself enters the Dem race, and somehow wins the nomination, I'm going to vote for the Dem nominee. I have yet to resolve my dilemna as to how to vote if Satan were the Dem nominee.
For what it's worth, I believe Hillary Clinton is regarded as the Satanic candidate by the right wingers. ;>)
I could probabaly vote for Satan over a Republican this time, too. Of course, I'd have to see who his running mate would be first. ;>)
If Satan wins the Democratic Primary (Is he a US citizen?) I will write in Spongebob Squarepants as of yet I have failed to see a GOP candidate better than the sea denizen
House floor ... not Senate. He was drunk ... stewed to the "bohn-er"
A limerick on the manliness of the armchair righty pundits, president, V.P. and other scaredycats. Might you all live to primp and criticize another day.
There once was a large group of cons
Who felt manly when war was on
But they only had nerve
To let other men serve
When their time was neigh, they were thus gone
Gotta say Juliajayne that's the best one yet :-)
Thank, gracious lady.
X-L-NT!
To bad you won't be able to say that if John McCain becomes President. Not all proponents of the Iraq War are people who have never served. McCain is probably the most hawkish person out there when it comes to the Iraq War. Oliver North and David Hunt are two other examples.
The Iraq war? The war is over. Bush said so. We are occupying Iraq.
Also, Iraq has absolutely nothing to with our national security.
"Also, Iraq has absolutely nothing to with our national security"
I disagree. I actually think the Iraq War ended up being a mistake and we would have been better off if we never would've went in there. Without the WMD's, Iraq wasn't a threat to our national security. Unlike you and other liberals however, I don't believe that Bush went into Iraq for oil or for Haliburton or whatever other nonesense you guys come up with. Bush simply received bad intelligence. It was the same intelligence that most other intelligence agencies around the world received as well, and the same intelligence which led Hillary Clinton and John Kerry to conclude that Saddam had to be removed from power.
However, I also don't believe that we can pull all of our troops out at once or set an arbritrary deadline which lets Al-Queada know exactly when we are leaving. Iraq wasn't a central front in the war on terror when we invaded, but it is know. Al-Quaeda flocked to Iraq when we went there, and we would be showing weakness by backing down from them and leaving Iraq. If we pulled all of our troops out of Iraq, Al-Quaeda would have a safe haven there much like they had in Afghanistan before 9-11. They would have a huge country in which to conduct training and grow their organization, and Iraq's oil resources would give them a huge amount of money in which to fund their entire organization. Iraq is directly connected to our national security!
January 2003 NIC - A significant chance that domestic groups would engage in violent conflict and that rogue Saddam loyalist would wage guerrilla warfare either by themselves or in alliance with other terrorist.
It also warned that many angry young recruits would fuel the ranks of Islamic extremists.
A second assessment weeks before the invasion warned the war also could be "exploited" by terrorist and extremists outside Iraq.
It's happened. Al Qaeda is more spread out and active than ever before. They have set up shops all around the world. The longer we stay in Iraq the more fuel we provide to young angry men. The longer we stay we lose more and more young, bright, promising American men and women. This is not about appearing weak or letting our enemy know when we're leaving. Appearance should not be our first priority and they know that we are leaving, sooner or later we will leave.
This morning the US death toll for May 2007 was 90. This afternoon it's 93.
Rino Hunter said
"Bush simply received bad intelligence."
Wrong!!!!!
Bush had the same wrong intelligence as Clinton. That intelligence didn't lead Clinton to invade.
Bush not only had the flawed intelligence, but he had men on the ground telling him that the educated guesses from the intelligence people had been wrong, wrong, wrong.
He had flawed intelligence and actual facts before he invaded, yet he still invaded. That's what he gets blamed for, numbskull!
It's also clear that on a number of occasions, Bush was told that intelligence he was GOING to rely on was bad, and went forward anyway to use that intelligence to further his goal of invading Iraq.
Bush may have gotten some bad intel. But he also lied, plain and simple.
"That intelligence didn't lead Clinton to invade"
No, but it led him to impose sanctions which starved the people there and killed many. Sanctions are pretty harsh as well. Also, Clinton stated many times that he believed that Saddam did have WMD's. Did Clinton lie when he claimed that Saddam had WMD's? What about Hillary, Kerry, and Kennedy? Did they all lie about Saddam as well?
I never said that Bush lied about the intelligence, so WTF are you asking me if Clinton lied?
They were all misled by flawed intelligence, numbskull.
None of the others invaded.
Bush invaded! He's guilty of invading using the flawed intelligence and then ignoring the on the ground reports that disproved those flawed intelligent guesses from the intelligence agencies.
If ALL Bush had done was say I believe Iraq has WMDs I wouldnt be saying he lied. That isnt. He pulled a non existant IAEA report out of his ass, and he lied about the aluminum tubes. Those werent mistakes of intelligence, they were LIES. This oft repeated talking point you rightwingers keep dredging up is a false equvilalence. They didnt both do the same things. Bush went beyond making broad statements of belief and delved into the realm of specific LIES.
Dubya' didn't RECEIVE bad intelligence.
Dubya' (&his boss Cheney) DEMANDED bad intelligence.
Most of what you just said is speculation and opinion, and I have no problem with either, but what you said about the intel is just plain wrong. It is not true that all the other countries had the same intel we had. The Germans said that "Curveball" was not to be trusted and that any intel we got from him was suspect. The French disagreed as well and refused to support the Iraqi invasion as a result. Several countries flat out said that the "yellow-cake memo" was a forgery and yet there it was, prominently mentioned in the State Of The Union. The congress seeing the same intel as the president? No way. The president gets detailed daily CIA breifings, the congress gets occasional summaries, nowhere near the level of information the White House gets.
The fact is, there was a great deal of "intelligence" that didn't fit the plan and was simply rejected by the administration. They "cherry-picked" the intelligence to get only what could be used to support their lust for war, the rest was ignored. The DOWNING STREET MEMO makes that quite clear. Of course, you probably don't hear much about that on Faux News.
Have you signed up or are you just a RINO? A RINO is one who believes in strong defense yet doesn't sign up, right? RINOs are those who spend too much, right? RINOs believe in gay marriage right? Give me some criteria for your RINOs because I believe in a lot of ways, George W. Bush is a RINO, Dick Cheney has a very liberal view on gay marriage, even Rush has changed his views on drug addicts since becoming one. How many "liberal beliefs" can one have and still not be a "RINO?"
A RINO is someone who is liberal on more issues than he is conservative. Lincoln Chafee is one example. You probably would have to have lower than a 50% ACU rating to be a RINO. You can obviously deviate on a few issues and still be a true Republican. I oppose the flag burning amendment and want a smaller and more limited FCC. Those are things that go against the Republican establishment, but I'm still very conservative.
A Rhino is a stubborn animal with a very small brain who charges at anything that annoys him and has very poor eyesight which makes it extremely hard for him to recognize reality or what is really happening in the world
Also, I'm not sure why I would want to sign up for a war that I believe has caused more harm than good. Iraq has turned out to be a disaster, but it would turn into an even bigger disaster if we left prematurely.
Right, but since you think we still should be there, is it fair to have someone else fight for what you believe in?
Half of this country or more sat out our war for independence.
Most of the US didn't want to get involved in WWII.
Support of a policy or lack there of doesn't mean that, on the one hand, you have to enlist , or, on the other hand, that you have to march in protests.
Either way you're still entitled to your opinion. All this crap about, "if you've never served how dare you support this(or any war)war" is absurd.
What a boot licker argument. You can fabricate hypocricy out of Edwards' stance on poverty but can't piece together the hypocricy of cowards who cheer for war as they run from it.
Ehull,
That is very easy for you to say. The troops fighting this war have seen their tours extended from 12 to 15 months and the military by all accounts is being stretched to the limit. Since these things are reality, if you truly believe the war is as important as Bush says it is, its time to serve. If its as truly as important as Bush says it is, its time for a draft. If this is truly the biggest battle since WWII, we ALL need to be there, but since Bush only sends as few soldiers as he has, there is no doubt that what he is saying is false or at least an exaggeration.
If, on the other hand, you believe that the war is being portrayed as an exaggeration and you care about the true source of terrorism (a guy Bush doesn't "spend much time on" until now when Iraq is going badly), we need to use our precious military resources in countries and against people who have the capacity to attack us.
If you truly believe Bush is right, its long past time to step up. If you don't want to step up find.
I guess you don't personally believe in fighting for our country's national security (since you believe that the battle in Iraq is that important). Are you not willing to fight for this country's National Security?
It's a fallacious argument and you make yourself look immature, simple minded and unworldy for using it.
And, you have no idea if I've "served" or not.
I am just trying to say that if the battle is as important as you say it is, why is there no draft? Why aren't those who advocate it all fighting if its that important?
Rino. you obviously have not heard of the hyrdocarbon law that Bush is waiting for the Iraqi parliment to sign. It essentially divvies up the oil fields and opens them up to foreign companies. Greg Palast and The New York Times have both written about it. As for the intel, there was good intel and discredited intel. The Bush team used the discredited intel and then blamed the intelligence services afterward. A large number of career CIA people quit over that according to Larry Johnson. And just as Pearlene has stated we now know that Bush and co. knew that Iraq would devolve as it has. They don't care becasue they are out to steal resources while the chaos continues.
RH- I'm still not quite sure why you are posting here. Interesting to see I agree on one major issue with you- and that's that the US should have never launched a preemptive strike on Iraq- a country that had nothing to do with the attack of 9-11-01.
But there;s so much in your logic, opinion I disagree with.
Let's see if we can keep it about hair, the way Hannity seems to somehow find a connection between John Edwards hair stying and Al Qaeda. Kind of ridiculous, huh?
George Jr. did not receive bad intelligence- Tenant and so many others have said just the opposite. Yet another study released from the Pentagon this past week contradicts that faulty information as well. Rather he chose not to listen to the intelligence- and his VP tried really hard to get intelligence that would "fit" what he wanted to do- invade & occupy Iraq.
He clearly ignored the intelligence memo in August of 2001, while on a lengthy vacation in Texas and going a whole lot of hair combing that said' Bin Laden determined to strike In the US"
Though it's hard for me to break this all down in "bumper sticker" slogans for you- I will say that not only was there no connection and no Al Qaeda in Iraq or to Hussein and obviously no weapons of mass destruction, there were weapons inspectors in Iraq at the time W. kicked them all out, so he could attack.
Saying the Clinton's et al also though there were WMD is disingenuous at best and more "dumbing down" at worse- neither Clinton was advocating for the US to go in and attack and occupy an sovereign country. There were many ways to contain Hussein, and Bill Clinton used them all including bombing targeted sites in Iraq when he was President.
Was Hillary's vote to give Jr. the authorization to use force in Iraq if Hussein didn't comply- Hell yes!
Yes, we are there to control oil, and yes this has created a horrible dangerous and brutal situation in Iraq.
Al Qaeda operates in 80 countries- they attacked us on our soil twice with operations in Afghanistan, Pakistan, various African countries, and I believe Saudi Arabia.
Most of the terrorists who flew the planes into buildings or crashed in PA. were Saudi nationals.
There is a very corrupt and self-serving relationship with the VP and W. and the Saud Royal Family. Why don't they go fight Al Qaeda in Iraq? (and elsewhere)
Anyhow there's a long history here including the US supplying Iraq with via Rumsfeld with very nasty WMD when it suited their interests to have Iraq engage in the nasty warfare with Iran.
How we can keep our military in Iraq given the lies this occupation was built on is something I don't understand.
Yes, I do think we have a humanitarian obligation to Iraq to rebuild the country and make the best kind of reparations we can.
We also need to bring our troops back to the US, and develop some real security and intelligence here. As many much wiser than I have said- Iraq needs a political and diplomatic solution, not a military one.
And as John Edwards can clearly articulate without a hair out of place-- a plan to make America secure.
Are you on the Fox news pay roll? Or are you one of O'Reiley's secret thought police (producers) sent out to "get" those who disagree with him, or point out his lies? Just wondering...
Oh and McCain's flack about flak/flack that was a diversion. The man claerly has lsot his moral compass- on his last highly publicized trip to Iraq, calinimg the surge ahd made Baghdad safer. Not only did he have the flak on, he was surrounded on ground an in the air with milatary protection. Just a walk out in the market.
And Limbagh not insutling anyone... pleeze? In fact there's tons of stuff with him mocking McCain. He had a very hard time with McCain's challenge to W. You don't remeber that? Hmmm.
I guess he's more afraid of Senator Obama right now.
Are't you tired of being maniualted and brainwashed- using the tragic ttack of 9-11 shamelessly by the current admistration.
Aren't you a little concerned that coming up to the 6th year of the attack of 9-11, they don't have Bin Laden?
I'd be talking to your "real" Republicans in arms about this- cause the posers in the White House have not made America safer and have trashed our Constitution.
I'll take John Edwards any day he's elected.
Rino Hunter has regurgitated an often heard Republican talking point:
Which, of course, is not true. From the McClatchy News Service
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/17281224.htm
The full declassified report can be found here:
http://intelligence.senate.gov/prewar.pdf
If Al Qaeda is the real enemy in Iraq that means we presently have about 152,000 troops fighting probably fewer than 1,000 Al Qaeda fighters in Iraq. What do we have to show for it and wwhat are the prospects of 'winning" in Iraq in our lifetime? The fact that we've been dragged into a protracted war that is draining our manpower, equipment and money is exactly what Osama Bin Laden wanted. The smart play would be to withdraw most of our troops. re-define our goals in the Middle East, shore up our defenses at home and, oh by the way... kill Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda leadership in Pakistan.
Well no one compares to YOU when it comes to spouting nonsense. Al Queda had NO presence in Iraq BEFORE we invaded. Yet somehow perhaps your crystal ball you have discerned they will TAKE OVER Iraq if we leave. Iraq was never afghanistan. They have a well educated people who had no truck with the fanaticism BEFORE we invaded and I see no reason they will suddenly ebrace al Queda once we leave. Let us not forget how bad you rightwingers SUCK at making Iraqi predictions. A blind man throwing darts at a bullseye would have a better success rate. So I hope you dont mind if we take your NEWEST in a long line of failed prognostications with about a truckload of salt.
Iraq may have had little to do with national security before we invaded it but it's got a lot to do with national security now. To be believe otherwise is dangerously naive.
Say it's not worth the cost. Say it's not winnable. Say a totally different strategy is needed. But you can't say it has nothing to do with national security and be credible.
"Iraq may have had little to do with national security before we invaded it but it's got a lot to do with national security now. To be believe otherwise is dangerously naive."
So, the U.S. could have invaded any country causing that country to be a national security isssue.
But is Iraq a security risk to our freedom? Prove it.
now you divert and try to change the subject to "freedom" vs "security"
Or maybe you think the words are interchangeable?
Proving a future event is just a silly request. Prove that golbal warming will be a big deal in 20 years. Prove that Iran will act responsibly if they get a nuke. Etc. Etc.
how's this. Prove Iraq won't be a national security issue if we leave?
The word security is a word that means different things to different people. For the sake of clarity, freedom and security are interlinked in that there is no freedom without security, so yes, the question stands. Is Iraq a threat to our freedom?
Furthermore, security, in the long term, is threatened by so much more than Al Qaeda. Terrorism is an international problem. We can fight it more effectively in partnership with other nations than by going it alone. We must recognize that our long-term security is threatened by climate destabilization and pollution, by our dependence on foreign energy, by the growing gap between rich and poor, by our faltering public education system, and by the deterioration of our international reputation.
"Proving a future event is just a silly request. Prove that golbal warming will be a big deal in 20 years. Prove that Iran will act responsibly if they get a nuke."
Who was talking about the future? This discussion is about here and now.
"how's this. Prove Iraq won't be a national security issue if we leave?"
Iraq will not threaten our security when we leave, Al Qaeda will. But Al Qaeda is not Iraq. Al Qaeda can be nullified with sane strategies, not just projection of force, but intelligent initiatives that predict and manage threats.
“Say it's not worth the cost. Say it's not winnable. Say a totally different strategy is needed.”
How about not starting a war against a country that never attacked us, never threatened to attack us and didn’t have the means to attacks us?
“But you can't say it has nothing to do with national security and be credible.”
Every country is a potential threat to the United States and any unscrupulous politician can manipulate or cherry pick intelligence to build a case for it.
Of course I can and to believe it IS a national security issue is just dumb. So what if al Queda is there in some number NOW. That is because WE are there. If we leave al Queda will still be a threat whereever they are. As long as we are in Iraq we make it seem like we are doing nothing but USING terrorism as an excuse for imperialism and it makes it harder to get the international support to fight terrorism across the board. The kind of support we GOT in Afghanistan.
Uh um....a large group isn't meant to be exhaustive obviously. But by all means, let's include criminal Ollie North in the hawk group.
Most of the "architects" of this war did not serve. some of the elected representatives did serve.
And most of those in the media who've been selling the war (Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, etc.) did not serve.
Whether someone served or not does not mean that they're not entitled to an opinion. All sides must be heard. But for those who've actively avoided their own involvement in the "glory" of war (Cheney, Limbaugh, BO, etc.) to be advocating that others fight is despicable.
These same people are usually the first in line to denigrate those who have served. They have every right to practice their freedoms as defined in the constitution that others fought to preserve. And we have every right to use those same freedoms to say that these lying, cowardly Chickenhawks be exposed for what they really are.
It is appalling that McCain--having served in, and lived through the quagmire that was, Vietnam-- is the one guy that really ought to know better. Though I honor his sacrifices, with his hawkish enthusiasm for the Iraq fiasco, he proves daily that he has failed to learn from our nation's mistakes.
Yeah. That's real clever. So I guess the military's made up mostly of democrats? Is that what you're suggesting?
I guess McCain didn't serve? How bout George Bush I? Bob Dole? John Warner? Jeff Sessions? Tom Ridge? Chuck Hagel?
Perhaps you can explain why the military vote is overwelmingly republican?
The military vote split between Bush and Kerry in the last election was 57/43 and in 2008 I think the Democrats will win the majority of the military vote unless the nominee is McCain.
And that 57/43 split was AFTER the cleansing of voter rolls of all the minority military. Speculation is that the true total was much closer to 50/50 then, and is now about 45/55, despite the difficulties the Army and Marines are encountering in getting re-enlistments from non-officers (traditionally more likely to vote Dem). Rovian disciple Griffin, coincidentally the expired "interim" prosecutor still serving under unclear authority, was the primary manager for that effort in 2004, although it is unclear who will take the reins in 2008.
After the betrayals they've suffered from the "Support the Troops!" crowd, Iraq II veterans will be overwhelmingly Democratic.
Last time I checked Edwards did not lead this country into a needless, costly, and deadly war. Nor does he continue to pimp a needless, costly, and bloody war. The intellectual light weight, the one who does not understand the nature of the world we live in is Hannity and the spoiled rich kid we have as a president.
Yeah, funny how this group of draft dodgers "understands" war so well. If they knew what war was really like they would have been and would now be a lot more circumspect in their actions and words.
"If they knew what war was really like they would have been and would now be a lot more circumspect in their actions and words"
Hmmm. I guess someone forgot to tell John McCain.
Yeah, McCain went to war. God for him. I guess he didn't have a daddy in congress who could just call the TX Lt Gov and get his boy put ahead of thousands of others in line for the "Champagne Unit" and a pass on the war.
Also, I have yet to see a Dem organized group set out to slander his service, ridicule his Purple Heart(s), and defame every soldier who has ever been wounded in combat just to score some political points.
Just sayin'.
BTW, Where was Cheny, et al?
Cheney got 5 deferments. What a patriot.
Now now. That's not fair to Cheney. He wanted to leave open a slot for someone who really wanted to go.
Yes, he wanted to stay home and shoot lawyers in the face instead of Viet Cong.
Tom DeLay was rumored to have said that he would have liked to serve in the military, but that all of the positions were filled by minorities, leaving no room for "patriotic" folks like him.
Who knew that avoiding the draft could be spun to be "patriotic"?
Worrier, here is the quote and source you were looking for about Delay:
He and Quayle, DeLay explained to the assembled media in New Orleans, were victims of an unusual phenomenon back in the days of the undeclared Southeast Asian war. So many minority youths had volunteered for the well-paying military positions to escape poverty and the ghetto that there was literally no room for patriotic folks like himself. Satisfied with the pronouncement, which dumbfounded more than a few of his listeners who had lived the sixties, DeLay marched off to the convention.
http://www.houston-press.com/1999-01-07/news/which-bug-gets-the-gas/
DeLay is a lower form of life than the bugs he used to exterminate. Since he first arrived in Washington I've despised Texass for foisting him on the rest of us.
Careful - if word of this posting leaks out to Clear Channel, the Chicks won't be the only act banned from "country" radio!
Of course, if the price is right, I will do what I can to hide this from the censors.
For some reason (and this is mostly off topic), out of all the right-wing blowhards who have sold their soul to the neocon agenda, it's Hannity that gets my gets my goat the most. It's not like he lies more easily than any of the others, and it's not as if he says the most outrageous things, but he really get me. His topics are so lowbrow (example- this haircut "scandal"), and yet he speaks as if he is imparting some great truth to the American people. I don't know if it's the shared Irish heritage, but this guy, out of all of them, makes me the most upset. For me- THIS is the face of Orwellian propaganda.
God help those who listen/learn from him.
"I don't know if it's the shared Irish heritage, but this guy, out of all of them, makes me the most upset"
Relax then. I did a search through a geneological website about a year ago, because I felt the same way. Turns out Hannity is a name from the English Midlands, with no Irish connections. Of course, it is an Irish sounding name, and the Sean provides double jeopardy, so we'll get blamed for him anyway. But at least we can, if we choose, stop feeling embarrassed about him and concentrate on O'Reilly and all the crooked cops and pederastic priests with Irish names. Personally, they're the ones who drive me crazy.
"Hannity failed to report that the speech, while critical of the Bush administration's approach, explained Edwards' own strategy for fighting terrorism, as Media Matters has also noted"
Edwards' strategy for fighting terrorism: End the Patriot Act, end the NSA terrorist surveillance program, try to get information from terrorists by asking nicely instead of using tough methods, and pull out of Iraq right away and leave Al-Quaeda in control of the country. Does anybody seriously believe that Democrats are tougher on national security than Republicans? Seriously?
It's not about being a tough guy, that ploy has failed to defeat terrorism. It's about being smart, durable and strong.
You were expecting Terrorism to be "defeated" by now? I'd say we're talking about decades, not years or months to defeat "this" brand of terrorism(the muslims).
Didn't ever, have never, expected terrorism to be defeated by an invading army, that is an example of the absurdity of the war frame.
A war has a concrete enemy. A war has an opposing army, territory or resources to capture, and surrender, defeat or victory to claim. Radical ideology has no such related characteristics to traditional constructs of the definition of war. War is therefore a metaphorical limiting re-agent, or at best a non-reactive element, in a chemical rxn called terrorism.
Any approach to national security that narrows discourse to the use of force to fight terrorism will ultimately fail.
"You were expecting Terrorism to be "defeated" by now?"
Terrorism cannot be defeated. Terrorism has been used by humans for thousands of years and will continue to be used long after we're gone.
This was suppose to be a reply to Ehull.
Great point.
Bush and his supporters suggest that no one was fighting terrorism before his global war on terror.
It was Bush who didn't fight terrorism hardly at all in his first few months!
Previous Presidents were fighting terrorism in a variety of ways, and it minimizes their efforts and exaggerates Bush's capabilities!
Yes, Rinom and being someone who knows so much about the Constitution as you claim, you should abhor those acts. Just because the Democrats don't want to spy on their on people doesn't mean we don't take the fight seriously.
What you call a terrorist surviellance program is better known as a WARRANTLESS WIRETAPPING progam peruse the fourth amendment someday. Can you cough up some evidence Edwards wants to END the patriot act? All I have seen is him calling for dramtic REVISIONS. A position that has bipartisan support including from some staunch conservatives like Bob Barr. Appologies for torture make my skin crawl. It is a false dichotomy to pretend the only two alternatives are asking nicely and torturing people. This logic could be used to torture confessions out of American citizens, its a dispicable position unworthy of America OR anyone with a shred of human decency. Is there ANYONE with the brains God gave a baby harp seal that thinks Democrats arent SMARTER on national security than the GOP? Your post is the usual mishmash of strawmen, distortions and outright lies. You as usual have your programmed talking points down pat. Logic, and a cogent argument however have once again eluded you.
So Bush must comb his hair with a Glock 9 and brush his teeth with a switchblade.
The funniest thing about this segment was hearing a rabid Bush worshipper calling Edwards an "intellectual lightweight."
Sheesh, sounds like old man Tucker combing his hair with the wagon wheel and all.
Doh! On further rememberance, I think it was old Dan Tucker. Anyway, poor guy dies with a toothache in his heel.
The Republican strategy for fighting terrorism: Invade on false pretenses a country that has never attacked the USA, withdraw most of the troops from where the terrorists who actually attacked the US are hiding, spy on Americans without a warrant and lie about it, torture people, continue to drain the coffers and the military with an occupation that is opposed by a majority of both Americans and Iraqis so that Al-Quaeda, which had no significant power in Iraq before the invasion, continues to have one of its strongest recruiting inducements. Do this and more so that our own intelligence agencies conclude that the US is now more likely to be the target of a terrorist attack and that the world is less safe from terrorism.
Does anybody seriously believe that Republicans are actually fighting a war on terror? Seriously?
the moral majority and other 2 digit IQ interbred mongoloids in the red states (primarily).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AE847UXu3Q
Enough Said.
Yes, LDoren, that makes him unfit to lead. Good one! How did you feel about Boehner crying?
Would you rather have him do this?
That video is hilarious.
I feel bad for the comb
[link to www.thesmokinggun.com]
enough said.
Enough said to satisfy brainwashed, braindead propaganda parrots. Does anybody NOT comb their hair before going before the camera? I bet even John Wayne combed his hair before shooting a scene. How utterly inane can you possibly be?
Hannity is a GOP hack.
Rino, Since you didn't answer any of the substance of my questions in the last post I will ask you again here:
Rino, I am afraid I don't get your argumentative style. When you think a poll helps you, you cite it as evidence of your point's truth. Example, a majority of Americans think the media is liberal. You point to that as making the media liberal. Using that logic, Islam is the one true religion since more people in the world are Muslims. If you want an American example, look at the President's approval rating (if you agree with the p.oll, please don't reply to that, reply to the substance of this post)
You cite judicial activism as creating laws, but point to no evidence where that has happened directly. You may say that your interpretation of Roe v. Wade implicitly created a right to an abortion and that could be argued. However, in an earlier thread, you said that George Bush never linked 9/11 and Iraq. It may be true that he never said "Saddam ordered 9/11," but there were many posts with good evidence that Bush/Cheney suggested a link implicitly. However, you rejected that argument and said that since Bush never explicitly linked them 100%. How can you believe that the Supreme Court then created a right to an abortion when they didn't explicitly say it and excuse Bush/Cheney for their implicit arguments that Iraq was involved in 9/11? Could reasonable people think that Cheney saying a meeting between a member of Al Qaeda and an Iraqi minister was "pretty well confirmed" make that logical jump? I would say so.
The Lopez case which you cited earlier was a good case for your point and I commend you on it, but the role of the court, like in that case is to interpret the laws of the Congress and those of the states, is it not? And just because you disagree with a decision does not mean that a certain judge is an activist. It means he or she does not agree with you. Judicial activism is thrown out by many conservatives when they disagree with a certain opinion. The Times article that you refute may be a decent definition of activism. Since you don't think the SC should "create laws" why should they then reverse laws signed into legislation by two elected bodies? I am not saying they should not interpret the Constitution as they see fit, but both arguments are reasonable.
Finally, your posts on the free speech issues are always interesting, but not always Constitutionally valid. No one disputed that the hosts in question did not have a right to say what they said. They have that right. However, their employers also have the right to fire them for their speech and sponsors have the right to withdraw their support which happens often. No one advocated imprisonment for any of the people involved.
Since you are such an advocate for the 1st Amendment, what do you think of the military shutting down military blogs. What do you think of the Patriot Act? Also, read this case:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-473.pdf
A public employee's right to speak about what his employer was doing was found NOT to have freedom of speech protection by the conservatives on the court. Were they being activists?
"Example, a majority of Americans think the media is liberal. You point to that as making the media liberal"
I pointed that out because many of you think that's it's such a foregone conclusion that the media has a conservative bias. I was just pointing out that most people disagree. I didn't "prove" that the media has a liberal bias. I just proved that most people disagree with you.
"How can you believe that the Supreme Court then created a right to an abortion when they didn't explicitly say it"
Of course they're not going to come right out and say it. That would be ridiculous. I'm just giving you my opinion on that particular decision. You can disagree all you want. I'm just explaining my position on the Roe v. Wade issue and the position of originalist judges like Scalia and Thomas. Bush never said that Saddam was involved in 9-11. As much as you like to pretend he did, the fact is that he never linked the two. He certainly linked Al-Quaeda and Iraq, but he never claimed that Saddam was involved with the planning or execution of 9-11.
"Since you don't think the SC should "create laws" why should they then reverse laws signed into legislation by two elected bodies"
I never said that there aren't rights in the Constitution. The right to bear arms and the right of free speech are two rights which are mentioned specifically in the Constitution. The "right" to an abortion is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, and I feel that the people should be able to vote on such a controversial issue that the Constitution is silent on.
"No one advocated imprisonment for any of the people involved"
Right. But many advocated that conservatives like Rush and Hannity be taken off the air. You basically want to tell me what I can and can't listen to. If you don't like conservative talk radio, then don't listen to it. It's pretty simple. You have the right to boycott advertisers if you want to, but it would be much easier for you to simply change the station on your radio. After all, I thought that liberals were supposed to be pro choice.
"Since you are such an advocate for the 1st Amendment, what do you think of the military shutting down military blogs. What do you think of the Patriot Act"
I don't know anything about the military blogs. The Patriot Act doesn't infringe on anybody's free speech. The Patriot Act hasn't affected my life, and I don't know of anybody who has been personally affected by the Patriot Act. Whenever I ask liberals how the Patriot Act has affected them personally, they can't come up with anything.
"public employee's right to speak about what his employer was doing was found NOT to have freedom of speech protection by the conservatives on the court. Were they being activists"
Someone who works for the government doesn't have the same free speech rights as someone who works in the private sector. A private employee has an absolute right to free speech. It's more limited for a public employee. It's still a tough case, but it's clear that speech in the private sector has more Constitutional protections than speech in the public sector.
Thank you for your response. Your posts certainly make more sense now. I don't think anyone on here claims that everyone agrees with them. I know I certainly don't. Polls cited don't add to your arguments in those cases though. They just prove people agree with you.
I think your analysis on the Supreme Court is a very partisan one and you will throw your hat in with whatever Scalia and Thomas say, and that is your right. I appreciate you answering my questions.
Advocating for getting some one off the air is not censorship when the person is only relaying to that person's sponsors what is being said. Freedom of Speech problems would come in when that person legally allowed to say it.
Thanks again for the clarification and answering my questions
Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
It would seem to me that the idea of trying to find a right granted by the Constitution is to go about it bass-ackward. One should assume a right is there unless it is injurious to "a more perfect union, domestic tranquility, or the common good."
To call Scalia and his ilk "originalists" is, at best, disingenuous. They never miss a chance to aggrandize the power of the Executive, which is the one thing the "Originals" feared above all.
Well put, Concho. It was hard, as an attorney, to hear Rino lecture me on Scalia and Thomas and the Constitution. I wonder wht he does for a living...
Thanks, Boyo
To (almost) quote Tolkein, "Praise from the praiseworthy is a gift."
I hesitated to lecture on the Constitution myself. I'm an actor, facrissakes. I'm glad I got it right.
Hey dont let that stop you. You are good. I am just a conductor on the railroad and I lecture on foriegn policy all the time. As the old saying goes everyone is entitled to my opinion.
"Hey dont let that stop you." No worries there, Solon, but thanks.
"... everyone is entitled to my opinion." Are you related to my wife?
Seriously, I do respect your opinions, not solely because they usually agree with mine, but because they reflect your handle. I have to admit though, that I do enjoy it when you and Tommy get burrs under your saddle and go after each other.
It's become obvious that every single one of your posts uses the same logical fallacy over and over again. You use the Ad Hominem fallacy to try to discredit anyone with whom you disagree.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
I've never seen you try to debate an actual issue without making things personal. You try to discredit my opinion about Iraq by saying that I've never served. You never even tried to refute anything I said about the actual issue. The same goes for the role of The Supreme Court. I gave my view that the Constitution is something that was set in stone at the time when it was written and shouldn't "evolve," and you keep trying to discredit me simply by saying that I'm not a lawyer. Since you claim to be a lawyer, I find it funny that you haven't actually tried to refute any of my points. Instead you just try to discredit me by pointing out that I'm not a lawyer. It's a classic Ad Hominem attack. For someone who claims to be a lawyer himself, you haven't tried very hard to refute my actual argument about what the role of the courts really should be.
Rino,
Sorry if things seemed personal, but when you said there was only one intellectually honest liberal on this board, I took it as a personal attack. I tried to understand your argumentative style because you claimed on one hand because Bush did not explicitly say one thing (Iraq did not coordinate or was a part of the 9/11 attacks) that we could not say that he linked the two. Yet, in another instance where the Supreme Court of the United States did not explicitly say there was a Constitutional Right to abortion, you argued that they implied there was and that implication was a strong enough argument in that case. Why are the two different? I was just trying to understand the distinctions you were attempting to make.
When it comes to the Constitution, the Constitution was not meant to be an all-inclusive document. The Ninth Amendment to the Constitution simply states: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The role of the Courts in this country is to interpret the laws, not create them, but when they find certain laws that fit under the providence of the 9th Amendment, they are not found to be unconstitutional.
The 10th Amendment says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Both of these amendments were written by people who saw a society that was going to change and where government should not always be involved. Can you imagine the amount of time spent amending the Constitution had these two amendments not been included?
I probably got too upset when we discussed judicial activism and you dismissed any notions that Scalia or Thomas could be activists and accepted all of their decisions without question. The Court's (Supreme) power is at its lowest when it overturns laws passed by Congress and signed by the President, two elected bodies, yet, if your definition of activism holds, Scalia and Thomas are being activist because they have voted to overturn more of those laws than any other members of the Supreme Court. Could their interpretations of the Constitution be more valid, sure, but if you are saying when they do it, its ok because they know more is intellectually dishonest. It seemed to me that you were arguing that no interpretation done by Scalia or Thomas could be wrong because they were Scalia and Thomas and no liberal judge who voted against a law passed by Congress could be seen as anything other than an activist.
Because the Constitution has so many gray areas debate is going to occur. There is no doubt that any body of laws is necessarily incomplete because new situations arise every day. Thank God our founders gave us the three co-equal branches to debate these things. If you are truly concerned about the Constitution, the idea of any President making signing statements would be far more troubling than any of the ideas we discussed here.
Your free speech arguments trouble me as well. You claimed that people wanting Imus off of the air believed in censorship and we were the free speech police which is patently absurd. You also claimed that showing the advertisers what the hosts were saying was fine. I don't think there is another way to get someone off the air. I firmly believe, and would guess that you do to, that if Imus's sponsors had stood with his show, he would still be on the air.
I brought up MSNBC having Scarbourough and Carlson on as examples of them being at least a bit conservative in their programming and you told me that they had toned their rhetoric down without an ounce of proof. How do you know? I think the point is that neither of us do unless you have MSNBC memos that show this information.
(cont)
Lastly, sorry if you were offended by my urging of you to serve in the military. I just find it hard to take that people, like you, who believe that Iraq is so important to our national security will not stand up and fight for this country while others have repeatedly had their tours lengthened without any consultation and many military leaders are warning us that our military is being stretched to the breaking point. Since I don't believe that Iraq is as important as Bush says it is, I believe our brave men and women should be deployed elsewhere and fight against those people who hate our country and are able to attack us. I think binding benchmarks would cause the Iraqis to get their acts together. If this war (Iraq) is truly the struggle that Bush says it is, we should have a draft.
I also don't understand what makes a Rino despite your attempts to explain it. I am not of the belief that everyone in a party must have the same beliefs, but if you are, that is your right.
Again, sorry if I got offended about your interpretation of law and the courts. I would assume if someone dismissed every argument you made about something you studied for years, while allowing the same argument to be used when it suited him, you would be offended to.
Again, my apologies.
I understand your view on the Iraq issue. The Iraq War hasn't gone nearly as well as I hoped it would and ended up being a mistake. It's just my belief that it would turn into an even bigger mistake if we pulled out right away. Every American citizen has the right to voice his or her opinion on national security issues. If only those who actually fought in the War had the right to support the war, then 95% of the American people would literally be forced to oppose the war. I don't buy your argument that those who haven't served in the military are somehow discredited from expressing their views on national security issues. There are many people who simply feel that God has called them to do something other than join the army. But they still have the right to express their views on national security issues. Also, your apology is accepted. I wasn't really offended, but I just wanted you to respond to the actual point that I made about the various issues
Rino,
Again, thanks for the response. It is just my belief (and you are free to differ) that I would never send another person to fight for aa struggle I found as serious as you believe Iraq is if I was not willing to fight myself. I hear you on the different callings thing, but if I felt Iraq was as serious as some people seem to think it is, there would be no stopping me from getting on the front lines. Nothing, not my bad knees, my bad eyesight, nothing would stop me from fighting for my country, and more importantly, my beliefs.
Lastly, sorry if you were offended by my urging of you to serve in the military. I just find it hard to take that people, like you, who believe that Iraq is so important to our national security will not stand up and fight for this country while others have repeatedly had their tours lengthened without any consultation and many military leaders are warning us that our military is being stretched to the breaking point. Since I don't believe that Iraq is as important as Bush says it is, I believe our brave men and women should be deployed elsewhere and fight against those people who hate our country and are able to attack us. I think binding benchmarks would cause the Iraqis to get their acts together. If this war (Iraq) is truly the struggle that Bush says it is, we should have a draft.
I also don't understand what makes a Rino despite your attempts to explain it. I am not of the belief that everyone in a party must have the same beliefs, but if you are, that is your right.
Again, sorry if I got offended about your interpretation of law and the courts. I would assume if someone dismissed every argument you made about something you studied for years, while allowing the same argument to be used when it suited him, you would be offended too.
Again, my apologies.
"Sorry if things seemed personal, but when you said there was only one intellectually honest liberal on this board, I took it as a personal attack"
I apologize for painting the liberals on here with such a wide brush. I believe you when you say that you're intellectually honest and criticize Democrats for certain things. So again, my apologies. Sometimes I say things just for the sake of argument.
"I probably got too upset when we discussed judicial activism and you dismissed any notions that Scalia or Thomas could be activists and accepted all of their decisions without question"
I never meant to insinuate that Scalia and Thomas are always right. Even they don't agree with each other on every case. There are certainly cases in which I would probably disagree with one or both of them. But my main point is that I agree with their overarching judicial philosophy which is that the Constitution is something that was set in stone at the time when it was written and shouldn't "evolve" over time. It should be changed through Constitutional amendments and not activist judges. But again, I didn't mean to insinuate that Scalia and Thomas are always right. I just agree with their judicial philosophy.
"if your definition of activism holds, Scalia and Thomas are being activist because they have voted to overturn more of those laws than any other members of the Supreme Court"
My definition of activism isn't simply that judges are activist if they overturn Congressional laws. There are certain rights in the Constitution that can't be taken away by Congress or the states. I just don't believe that abortion is one of them. You apparently disagree. The main reason that Scalia and Thomas have overturned so many Congressional laws is because they are both federalists. They believe that these Congressional laws took too much power away from the states, and they were trying to preserve the balance of power between Congress and the states. I don't believe that it's judicial activism to strike down certain laws passed by Congress if they reach to far and take too much power away from the states. Scalia and Thomas are much more reluctant to strike down laws passed by states. Their desire to strike down laws passed by Congress is explained by their states' rights philosophy and federalist views. I'm not saying that laws passed by states shouldn't be struck down as well, but laws passed by the states are usually more likely to be upheld because they aren't as broad or far reaching as the laws passed by Congress.
“I never meant to insinuate that Scalia and Thomas are always right. Even they don't agree with each other on every case. There are certainly cases in which I would probably disagree with one or both of them. But my main point is that I agree with their overarching judicial philosophy which is that the Constitution is something that was set in stone at the time when it was written and shouldn't "evolve" over time. It should be changed through Constitutional amendments and not activist judges. But again, I didn't mean to insinuate that Scalia and Thomas are always right. I just agree with their judicial philosophy.”
The Constitution was not written to limit your or my rights; it was written to limit the power government. The first ten amendments should be interpreted as rights that the government cannot infringe upon under any circumferences. Every person in the United States has a right to do whatever they want until we as society decide that a right is injurious to another person or our society. We remedy this by passing a law to curb the right and impose penalties upon those who violate it. And if a law curbing our rights is in conflict with the first ten or a subsequent amendment, the Supreme Court has a duty to strike down the law.
“My definition of activism isn't simply that judges are activist if they overturn Congressional laws. There are certain rights in the Constitution that can't be taken away by Congress or the states. I just don't believe that abortion is one of them. You apparently disagree.”
The Supreme Court decided that laws banning abortion violated the fourteenth amendment and therefore any laws banning abortion by any state were unconstitutional.
“The main reason that Scalia and Thomas have overturned so many Congressional laws is because they are both federalists. They believe that these Congressional laws took too much power away from the states, and they were trying to preserve the balance of power between Congress and the states.”
They should be looking at whether those laws passed by Congress violate the Constitution because the standard Scalia and Thomas are using can be applied to any law passed by the federal gov’t.
“Scalia and Thomas are much more reluctant to strike down laws passed by states. Their desire to strike down laws passed by Congress is explained by their states' rights philosophy and federalist views. I'm not saying that laws passed by states shouldn't be struck down as well, but laws passed by the states are usually more likely to be upheld because they aren't as broad or far reaching as the laws passed by Congress.”
They are suppose to uphold laws that don’t conflict with the Constitution and strike down laws that do. It shouldn’t be about whether the federal gov’t or any state passed the law.
If the Constitution was set in stone why in the world would they put in the ninth and tenth amendments that CLEARLY set out parameters of rights they did not specify? The ONLY realistic reason to do that I can see is to set out GUIDELINES for an evolution of societal responsibility. To say there will be other things we havent thought of yet specifically that the PEOPLE will have rights to do and be. It is the polar OPPOSITE of setting something in stone.
"One should assume a right is there"
Huh? So we should just assume that rights are in the Constitution even if they really aren't? We should just hope that they're there but just neglect to read the actual Constitution? I hope that you were using satire there. If a right isn't in the Constitution, then it should be voted on by THE PEOPLE. It's called democracy. I'm a big fan of it. I'm not sure why you're so opposed to the idea of people voting on controversial issues. It's amazing to me how liberals try to take away rights which are mentioned SPECIFICALLY in the Constitution like the right to bear arms, but yet they want to make up new rights which aren't in the Constitution like the "right" to an abortion.
One need not "vote on it" to enjoy all those rights not specifically proscribed or restricted by the language of the Constitution: as pointed out, the 9th and 10th provide exactly that - all the rights not enjoined or limited by specific provision in the text, or designated specifically as preserves of the States. Otherwise, we'd still be voting on whether to allow non-whites to vote, or perhaps, to allow them to vote and (as we now do) simply refuse to count those votes, or perhaps, to count only "3/5" of those votes. So, in a sense, you are right - cast in stone the day it was approved; but insofar only as the very reverse of your argument. Rights not limited nor denied must, in fact, be assumed to be awarded.
As in another earlier thread, some of the limitations are explicit; others are consequent to powers and limits which are explicit, although not themselves specified as limited or denied. Therein lies the task for the Judiciary: to reason through the explcit to the implied, whether in limits or in powers awarded or proscribed or in rights specifically assigned or denied.
Should have read your post before I posted mine.
's OK; You said it straightforwardly, I sorta dragged it along. Both said the same thing, essentially.
The constitution itself that is the Ninth and Tenth amendments SPECIFICALLY disagree with your take on the Constitution.
Hannity is criticizing primping now? Will Ann Coulter start railing against shrill angry women? And the unanswered question, how much does Romney pay for haircuts?
Romney is now going to rail against Jay Leno for having that chin. HBL, where are you, we're talking about Romey's "comfortable" chin.
Julia Jayne. you're amiss
Body parts mixed up, that for this
The strong chin on Mitt
Is rugged and fit
And the comfortable one is on Chris
I've been trying to stay on the wagon, Enabler !
Doh! I did get the chins mixed up. Here's a limerick for all the madeup men. Don't hate them because they're beautiful.
There once was a war of the chins
Jay Leno's is broad, Mitt's is thin
Chrissy's jowels doing battle
He continues to prattle
While John Edwards' is sexy as sin
It takes "Pretty Boy" Sean longer than three minutes. He's lying. Before you go on the air, you go to make-up which can take longer than three minutes. Then you do the hair or vice-versa.
You have U.S. soldiers being killed and maimed in Iraq, and all Sean talks about his John Edwards' $400 haircut.
Sean is not that bright, Fox News Channel employees do all the research for him. All he does is dress in his suit and tie, and blue jeans, and look pretty before the cameras.
You're being awfully generous there, implying that Fox employees do "research".
Well, what else could you call it: they do check the latest issue of talking points, to be certain they include the daily smears, and defend Bungle against any Dems or intelligent creatures who question his actions.
hannity has so much cover makeup on he looks like he belongs in a coffin. His diet of grease, sugar and bleached white flour has turned his face into something he will never show the public. This guy is one homely piece of s___. He has but two fuctions in life: 1. to keep me laughing at his nonsensical gutteral utterances and 2. Keeping someone employed at his local waste treatment plant. That is it!!!
I can find "facts" that prove the earth is flat and the Grand Canyon was created by a glacial melt in a few years. There are "facts" to back up any looney tune concept you care to dream up. That is the m.o. of the fake noos channel. They then bring in their so called experts to back up these idiotic "facts". I have been watching b.o. and hannity for over 6 years (just to see what is happening in the alternate universe) and this is what they do. hannity is not an attractive individual, inside or out. Anybody that thinks he is would probably think barb bush would look good in a thong. I would have to have electro shock therapy if I were to ever see the latter. My eyes would probably catch on fire.
Pawn Hannity Is A Shill....... Having said that, Edwards is just another hypocritical high-priced ambulance chaser. Another in the long line of political prostitutes, right or left, that will say or do anything to get elected. Though many here will disagree, Edwards showed weakness when he chose to flee the FNC debate because he wouldn't be treated "fairly". As president, should he expect to be treated fairly by other world leaders? I don't care if he blows 10K on a haircut! If he can't stand up to the evil fiends at FNC, he certainly can't cut as leader of the most powerful nation in the world.
Edward's hair took two minutes longer than Hannity's hair to be done.
I guess two minutes is the standard amount of time that Hannity thinks "heavy weights" like himself should allow themselves to consider and issue directives concerning Iraq. Perhaps he bases this upon the current presidential administration's performance.
They're all just political pretty boys (in make up) who haven't got a clue what to do with a country.
hannity is a maggot ont he corpse of truth.
Don't sugar-coat your jaspersions.
I am looking for like-minded people to contribute to my new book: The RAPTURE: When the Christian-Right were the only ones left behind. Am also writing another one. It is 2,000 pages. It's titled: The Great things bush has done while in office. All the pages are blank. The book is sealed in clear plastic and priced at $47.95. I am placing it in Christian book stores. I wouldn't be lieing. I am SERIOUS ABOUT THE FIRST BOOK.
Excuse me, correction. A minute and a half, not two minutes.
hahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahhahaha, ha, hahaha, hahahahahahahahaha!
Hannity called someone an intelletual light weight!
hahahahaahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahha-ah, hahahahahahahahahahaha1
hannity IS a pathological liar by any definition. He HATES America so much that he wants to remake America into a theocracy with book burnings, mass executions of "heretics" (anybody that does not believe in his vengeful god), sensorship, getting rid of the EPA, turning the public school system into a seminary, Democrats would have to wear scarlet signs around their necks that read: evil pacivists. This guy is one load his daddy should have shot out the window. He is angry because he is an unsuccesful abotion. I would really like to run into him in a private place cause I would kick his pathetic ass. I don't hate him. I despise him and his litlle minded minions: b.o., coulter, malkin, limpbaaaaa, and on and on.
Malkin? I'd bang her until she says I love liberals!
:) :)
wear you b.o. mask. ( I detect a b.o. brown ring around the collar on her) You might catch asian flu or the bird flu. I have a feeling you would be on antibiotics for a period of time (that would not help a virus of course) and you might want to install hand rails or have a safety line around you. The word SKANK pops int my mind when I see her. When attractive people say ugly things, they become repugnantly ugly to me. I guess I am unique in that regard, right?
Hey pal, aside from your suspect taste in women, leave the locker room talk where it belongs. Sheesh.
That was for Dtrain.
sowwweee :)
I just have a thing for women (IF their cute or hot) that I disagree with politically...
God help you with that my brudder.
I don't want to offend anyone (I realize the post was not directed at me) but are we going to have to sensor owrselves on this site? Isn't this like TV? you can just turn it off? Or am I wrong about this? I can't vent my disgust about someof the garbage going on in this country and find this site a place where I can vent without jeapordizing my freedom. Justice in w. ky. costs $$$$. They have kangaroo courts here and it is scarry. Anyway, I will let it fly until I get banned from this site. ( thats when hannity will own contolling interest I hope
There's venting and then there's locker room. Everybody knows the dif., so don't get your knickers in a twist. That's to Jasper.
And Jasper, I agree with you about attractive (on the outside) being not so attractive when she (Malkin) opens mouth to speak her utter stupidity. Many so called attractive people aren't so attractive after they expose their hate and ignorance.
Hannity going on about a haircut leads one to ask, "Is that all they've got?" Edwards has the intelligence, the manner, and the policies to really lead this country in a progressive way. The "lightweight" spin on him is just that, all spin.
I don't know if the country is ready to evolve towards the policies that Edwards is proposing. Fair trade, humane immigration policies, support for the working man, alternative energy, corporations paying their fair share.
The right wingers will discuss none of these issues in a rational way. They'd all rather talk about hair cuts. Very sad.
Does anyone else see the irony of Hannity calling Edwards an intellectual lightweight while we have George Bush in office?
And Hannitys primping suggests that he does understand the threats against us? Conservitive logic escapes me.
Seeing as how most neoconservatives seem to vote based on who looks best in a cowboy hat, you'd think think they would be sympathetic to a candidate wanting to look good while campaigning.
Seriously, is this the crap that passes for political rhetoric these days? Edwards isn't qualified to be president because he was brushing his hair?