1 When's the movie coming?

2 Help! I'm being attacked by fascist torturers! They're clawing my ankles! Oops, no wait, that was my kittens. Still, I feel oppressed, and that's what matters. Down with fascists (except in Iraq, where it would be wrong to remove them)!

3 Great - now I have to Windex my screen again, I'm laughing so hard. Nice work!

4 As a friend of KKKarl and new Food Nazi for the nation, I hereby banish every brand using the words "health", "lite", or "natural"; all organic vegetables and all reduced-fat versions of everything. Possession of synthetic sweeteners will henceforth be punishable by death. Women, you have nothing to lose but your anorexia!

5 Imagine a R-wing blog without snark. No, really !

6 I know you think a lot of this is hyperventilizaion, but the concern for loss of habeus and other liberties is a respect for where the slippery slope leads us. You can shrug this stuff off because you adore and love this president. But imagine the most hideous possible Democratic candidate actually elected. Whoever your big bugbear is. And then gin up a new conflict. Another domestic terrorist blast like OkCity. And imagine these sorts of powers in the hands of someone you simply do not trust (and we simply no longer trust this President to do the right thing). Really. Trust me. This isn't a country you want to be living in. As sweet the fantasy is of rounding up "enemies of the state" and treating them roughly, it simply isn't what the good guys do. We've lost the moral high ground with much of the world. Here, we are losing it with ourselves. You might shrug and say it is ridiculous, but you really do want hard-line differences between the worst of the behaviours of our side and theirs. I never want to legitimize anything approaching torture. It's just plain wrong. As is the loss of habeus corpus.

7 Congrats on being pro-torture...maybe you aren't getting enough here in the states and should move to kazakhstan...don't let the door hit you on the way out, but then I know how rethugs like bending over and taking things that way.

8 You might be sorry when President Clinton arrests Dick Cheney as an enemy combatant and sends him to Syria for rendition.

9 The President is perfect. Let me know if the voters buy this in a couple of weeks. I'll keep my fingers crossed for ya!

10 Whiny hippies always trot out the fact that we picked up a handful of what turned out to be (after all the facts came in) innocent people and made them disappear without a trace while their families wondered what had happened to them for a few years. We didn't charge them with anything and the only reason we picked them up was because we had a suspicion they might be involved in something shady. We had them tortured and kept in coffin-sized cells for a year or so before we realized we made a huge mistake and finally let them go back to their families. Stupid hippies. Well sure, innocent people will get picked up and tortured sometimes, but by far the majority of people we pick up and torture and imprison without charges will end up to be guilty. Most of them CONFESS (after torture,sure--but that's legal now) to being guilty of SOMETHING. I hate wimpy liberals that remind us that one day Hillary will have the powers we have given to Bush, as if that will scare brave Republican warriors like us. I don't care if she sends the CIA after me. They can waterboard me all they want. I won't ever confess to being guilty of anything. Only a wimp would confess under tortute to something they didn't do. Sure the Founding Fathers fought so All men are created equal would become the Law of the Land, but they never had to fight scary Arabs. All they had to fight was white guys from England. And libs always bring up the fact that Reagan never had to ask for the powers Bush has demanded, even though Reagan had to fight the whole USSR, with all their nukes and their massive army. Well I hate to break it to you hippies, but Reagan wasn't up against the rag-tag band of misfits that now terrorize us. No offense, but George Washington and Ronald Reagan were wimps compared to Bush. Bush isn't afraid to suspend everything this country was founded on to keep us safe from those scary guys with those spooky bandanas on their heads. I don't know about whiny libs, but those guys scare the crap outta me.

11 When you sign up as a Democrat, do they remove your humor bone on the spot or give you a few weeks of laugh withdrawal drugs before scheduling the surgery? Just wondering. "SnarkMom"

12 When you sign up as a Democrat, do they remove your humor bone on the spot or give you a few weeks of laugh withdrawal drugs before scheduling the surgery? Im not a Democrat, personally, I'm one of those crazy independent libertarians. But I have a hard time finding any humor in taking away our freedoms and rights. And I'm not sure if it's comforting or troubling that Republicans have put so much blind trust into our federal government. Since when was a fair trial or checks and balances such a bad thing?

13 How did those "lefties" get in here? I thought the Patriot Act and Bushs' reelection stifled their speech. I thought that after they expressed their dissent of his policies that they were all rounded up and put away. Well, with this new law, any lefty that dares to question Bush will now be labelled as an illegal combatant and then we can clear the streets of them and get our theocracy installed. I hear that Cheney has ordered NBC to create a new hit tv series about the Bush presidency. He has proclaimed that the show will be called "Right Wing". All rounded up lefties will be forced to watch the pilot, first episode, and all reruns, every night. The only commercials allowed will be Televangilists.

14 armagednoutahere - when you sign up as a Republican, do they remove your brain and replace it with a testosterone pump? Or is it compensation for some hmm... inadequacies down south.... "Only a wimp would confess under torture to something they didn't do." Torture is USELESS as a way to find out the truth. If I shot your foot with a nail gun and told you to confess to molesting a House page, you would confess after the third nail, hands down. Anybody would do it. You would tell yourself that no one would believe it if they heard it, just to make yourself feel better.... Look at history - the Inquisition, Salem witch trials, police interrogations with a rubber hose. This is a bad idea and another example of the incompetence of the Bush Administration - all style (punish the 'evil Arab') and no substance ("well sure, innocent people will get picked up and tortured sometimes, but by far the majority of people we pick and torture and imprison without charges will end up to be guilty")

15 Hah! Bu-shitler! That's funny! Why the vast majority of comedy writers are left-wing I'll never know... you guys put them to shame! Seriously, though: Capture and torture brown people all you want. Even put up a fence to keep more of them out. Hell, you can even spend every last cent in the treasury on foreign wars and bankrupt my kids and grandkids futures... But if you even so much look sideways at my 2nd amendment... Well, sir, I can't be blamed for what happens afterwards. Not an all white male jury across the land would convict me! Har!

16 This is fun! It's kind of like the Onion... Shrillary becomes 1st Female President, Issues decree to castrate all Republicans Shrillary Clenis took her oath and became the 1st female American President today according to top conservative blogs, opening the floodgates of communism and completing AmericaÂ’s rapid descent from a land of unrivaled prosperity and freedom into a nanny state exactly like China under Mao's benevolent rule. "You know, We can't wait to take all the guns away from all those red-neck idiots' cold dead hands," said the President and newly crowned "First Gentleman" Bill Clenis. "ItÂ’s a great day to be alive... as long as you arenÂ’t a gun nut, or a Christian." When approached for comment by the White House Press Corps, reporters were gleefully given copies of the "Little Red Cookbook" and a chart to figure out their fixed-for-life "wage station". The House Democratic leadership pledged to help push through landmark legislation that would make capitalism a crime and install Clenis as "Chairman for Life." Also on the legislative dockett is an amnesty program that gives free chocolate and any white man's job to all Mexicans who can make the journey as well as a forced "First Gentleman" intern program that all women between the ages of 16 to 28 will be required to register for. Vice President Howard Dean was sited celebrating with Osama BinLaden, freshly out of hiding and rumored to have been offered a Cabinet Position. Former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has been given Texas as a "Sorry about the invasion" gift. Hussein, in an attempt at humor, described Houston to be "Hot as Hell, and I would know..." Churches around the nation are currently under siege, and Christians have now been ordered to pay a "God-fearing" tax of $29.95, payable directly to the Democratic National Committee. Ronald Reagan has reportedly been dug up and revived only to be used for sodomy by the new all-gay army. Nancy has apparently been forced to watch while wearing a burlap sack.

17 ...but then I know how rethugs like bending over and taking things that way. Is that a gay joke matt? Using an accusation of homosexuality to disparage an opponent... What's next, calling them nigger lovers? Seriously, though: Capture and torture brown people all you want. Even put up a fence to keep more of them out. How about we free 30 million brown people from a homocidal dictator and give them the fundamental human right to self determination? Oh wait, we already did that. And people like you bitch that they were better off under the dictator. You big lovers of human rights you. Leftists are so cute when they try and talk like grownups.

18 "Congrats on being pro-torture...maybe you aren't getting enough here in the states and should move to kazakhstan...don't let the door hit you on the way out, but then I know how rethugs like bending over and taking things that way." oh for christsakes, quit being so melodramatic. Did you even read the bill?

19 Is there going to be a bag limit on hippies? I need this clarified.

20 How about we free 30 million brown people from a homocidal dictator and give them the fundamental human right to self determination? Oh wait, we already did that. whoo-hoo! that's right! mission accomplished! 9/11! but, ah, 30 million? now even the preznit himself doesn't brag like that--oh no. in fact, i hear that even that 655,000 figure is kinda high. we've "freed" at most say 40, 50 thou ... but we'll get there! and what's this about saddam hatin' homos? news to me ... but hey, see, you can always find somethin' to like about a person, sometimes you just gotta dig a little deeper into the ol' spider hole to smoke it out!

21 Ich erliege dem Willen von Bush.

22 It is just like the Onion, except for the humour.

23 The rightards are so stupid that they do not realize that another administration -- a Democratic one -- may want to use these unfettered powers against them. The GOP won't always be in absolute control. In the meantime, there are a few countries where these morons would feel at ease, e.g., Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, etc... They could torture political opponents all day long. I suggest that, when the Democrats return to power, they waterboard the rightards to make them admit that they are the ennemies of the state. What goes around, comes around.

24 In truth Saddam did kill homosexuals and he had prostitutes beheaded as well. He did it to make the masses think he was as religious as the nutcases next door who regularly hang gays and stone women. From time to time he felt the need to do some PR. But who cares about that? Too busy worrying about some terrorist listening to loud music to worry about gays and women being killed for public consumption.

25 The rightards want Dubbya to have dictatorial powers so that he can protect them. The rightards are afraid of their own shadow (that's why they are all chickenhawks). The rightards have big mouths, but they really are snivelling little cowards.

26 Devil's Advocate wrote: "The rightards are so stupid that they do not realize that another administration -- a Democratic one -- may want to use these unfettered powers against them." So... While the Republicans are using these mystical "powers" to fight terrorism, Democrats would use them against Republicans. Thanks for letting us know, you patriot.

27 I'm not a member of any political party, but I am a student of history and sociology. In my opinion, the "Global War On Terror" has had an interesting side-effect: it's drawn a stark line between those who are committed to the Constitutional ideals of America and those who are ready to part with those ideals as it becomes expedient. Our government was designed to have "firewalls" that insulate against infection from within. We were created as a nation of laws, not men, because we were never intended to trust the benevolence of any one leader for our due process. The language of this new bill leaves a very grave power in the hands of one man, or a "tribunal", which he selects. Presidential powers are rarely rescinded and I'm sure this broadening of the executive authority will be no exception. Love the new law or hate it, there can be little doubt that it would have made our founding fathers uneasy. I wonder how the republican party would've reacted if a democratic president had tried such a power-grab while in office, even if we were fighting terrorism at the time (and we always are, somewhere)? Conversely, I wonder if the democrats would react with such moral outrage in that same hypothetical situation.

28 You guys do realise that all these lefty posters are the same two knuckleheads, right?

29 To anonymous for now If you believe that Bush and his gang are not going to use their new powers to go after their political opponents, you are not only stupid, but also gullible and naive. As for being a patriot, go to Iraq, chickenhawk, instead of hanging around in your basement cowering in fear and soiling your pants everytime you hear the Cretin-in-Chief utter the word "terrorist". Where is Osama Bin Laden, chickenhawk? Has Commander Codpiece found him "dead or alive" yet?

30 cf...you and your conservative friends are cowards. pure and simple. you have willingly surrendered the very thing that is worth fighting for...your freedom. you just stood up and waved the white flag. you must be so proud to have undone what tens of thousands have fought for.

31 cf...you and your conservative friends are cowards. pure and simple. Is that why the military as a whole traditionally tends to vote for conservative candidates, whether they be Democratic or Republican conservatives? you have willingly surrendered the very thing that is worth fighting for...your freedom. Would you care to provide specific examples of how freedom has been "surrendered?" Links would be nice, preferably those not belonging to liberal bloggers and newspaper columnists, but to recognized legal authorities. I'm guessing that you can't. you just stood up and waved the white flag. Really? Last I checked we had declared war on Isalmic fascism on two large fronts, and dozens, if not hundreds of smaller ones. Democrats are the ones call for us to "redeploy" out of the very regions where we are capturing and killing the most terrorists. Who advocates running up a white flag? you must be so proud to have undone what tens of thousands have fought for. Actually, that would be tens of millions over the course of this nation's history. Again, you miss the mark miserably. * * * I've waited for a long time to read a non-hysterical, reasoned explanation of why strong interrogation methods that leave no lasting physical damage should be voided in favor of a "do nothing" approach. I'm still waiting for Democrats to come up with a viable alternative method of gathering intelligence from captured terrorists, and they have offered not one in response. I'm waiting for Democrats to offer up their own solutions. Sadly, all they seem to be able to do is complain.

32 Yeah! Why don't liberals have a sense of humor?! I mean, ignoring the fact that the most gifted, insightful comedians working in America today and their large base of faithful fans are liberals... and the stereotypical snarking found on this blog is really just hateful gradeschool-style bullying.

33 I'm still waiting for Democrats to come up with a viable alternative method of gathering intelligence from captured terrorists, and they have offered not one in response. And I'm still waiting for Republicans to tell me why we needed to get rid of the Bill of Rights and fair trials to combat terrorism.

34 Yup, here we go; more of those crazy, jive-talking liberal hepcats in their zoot suits! There's nothing more pathetic and clownish than when Republicans try to tar Democrats with insults like "hippie" that were badly dated 40 years ago. As to Bush, every defense is yet one more stanza of the identical song: "He's not as bad as Hitler." Though it's foolish to even dream of asking Republicans for the factual basis of their propaganda, I wonder if one of them might someday point to a single instance in which any Democratic politician, journalist, educator, or anyone else has ever said that Bush is as bad as Saddam Hussein. All they've ever really said is that he's a cretinous, lying sack of shit. But, yes, the Republicans are right; Hitler was even worse.

35 This has been repeated ad nauseum, but it's worth saying again: Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. - Benjamin Franklin But hey, what did the Founding Fathers know? They only defeated the world's most powerful empire and established a new and vital form of government that lasted for over 200 years.

36 Legaleagle "But, yes, the Republicans are right; Hitler was even worse." The murderous cretin and his henchmen have two more years to go. They definitely can outdo themselves.

37 first of all democrats have, and are, offering plenty of solutions. in fact joe biden originally offered up the solution that baker is now doing...gathering the adults and determining a real course of action. meanwhile the white house and their blind loyalists (that would be you cf) are only for staying the course. check the polls...the military is turning it's back on the gop. (and oh by the way...the guys in the white house, and thus whoever supports them, aren't really conservatives.) let's start with the right to privacy. and freedom of speech. how about the very concept of justice. you've given up in afghanistan, the taliban is back...and you aren't so much fighting terrorists in iraq as training them. the fact is you are in the middle of a civil war and it is spinning out of control. only cheney talking to limbaugh says it's going remarkably well. sorry about the wrong number...i was trying to not make you feel so bad about letting that many dead patriots down (i'm talking about real patriots - not like you).

38 "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." President Bush, December 18, 2000 The Constitution of the United States, Article 1, Section 9: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

39 Not surprisingly, liberals even lie when they try to quote historical figures. phranqlin provided this: Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. - Benjamin Franklin But that isn't what Ben Franklin wrote, is it? What Franklin said was this: Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." I guess phranqlin's comments can be said to be "reality-based." For those of you on the left unable to keep score at home, Franklin was discussing essential liberties given up for temporary safety. The Military Commissions Act only applies to enemy aliens determined to be an "unlawful enemy combatant engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States." By definition, that means that your habeas corpus rights as an American citizen are untouched by the bill the president signed into law. But don't let facts get in the way of a good hissy fit. It's never stopped sock puppet or any of his many personalities, so why should it stop you?

40 Part of the error I think Democrats make is the constant – and thoroughly understandable – emphasis on Republicans’ ostensible incompetence. To a large degree, I think said incompetence is an illusion. Specifically, while the Republicans are, indeed, mind-numbingly inept at everything they do, there’s nothing inadvertent about it. It is simply part of the Republicans' long-term plan to destroy the foundation of American democracy by undermining the ability of the government to serve any useful function besides diverting the public’s resources to cops and defense contractors. Every bloated, rotting corpse that washes up on the banks of the Mississippi; every 85-year-old Parkinson’s patient that has to make a monthly decision between his medication and air-conditioning; every uninsured asthmatic child that has to wait for three hours to be seen by some overworked quack in a filthy emergency room is a testament to the triumph of Republicanism, a confirmation of the principle that government is futile and corrupt, and that the only assurance of security rests in a servile obedience to Wal-Mart and Halliburton.

41 the military commisions act does not only apply to alien enemies. it applies to whoever the president and the tribunal he appoints say it applies to. if they say it applies to you...then it applies to you. i'm sad that you are so scared of the boogeymen, so desperate for temporary safety that you are willing to give up any liberties. coward.

42 Jay, trying reading the actual text instead of making a fool out of yourself by beleiving everythign you hear, okay? Since you obviously cna't read much on your own without being led, I'll even tell you exactly what to read. Go to HR 6054, page 6 of 80, lines 7-9. Persons subject to military commissions "Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter." Note that the Military Commissions Act only applies to someone that is an "alien." That means it does not apply to citizens of the United States. Nor does it apply to legal combatants. Just alien unlawful enemy combatants. Foreign terrorists. I know it is a novel concept for some, but try reading the actual text of the legislation. This may come as a shock to your delicate systems, but some liberal bloggers and pundits and sock puppets aren't above lying to you about what the MCA says to get you shrieking right along with them.

43 Actually, the new legislation would broaden the definition of enemy combatant to include anyone who "has purposely and materially supported hostilities" against America. And to add a further note of confusion, elsewhere in the bill an enemy combatant is defined in circular fashion as anyone so designated by a new Defense Department entity, the Combatant Status Review Tribunal [that is: an enemy combatant can be who the president says is an enemy combatant]. There also remains some question whether it might be permissible under the bill to declare an American citizen an "enemy combatant," thereby stripping him of any access to the courts. Even if the protections you trumpet are in fact rock solid, they don't cover me because I'm an 'alien'. I am, however, a alien of Australia - a country that has fought beside the US in more wars than even the British. Thanks a bunch for treating me as your human equal under law.

44 If you can't trust Li'l Georgie (what a perfect nickname for someone so over his head in his position. Of course, he'd be in over his head if his position was 1st Grade Bathroom monitor) with these new powers, who can you trust? Rove?

45 "I've waited for a long time to read a non-hysterical, reasoned explanation of why strong interrogation methods that leave no lasting physical damage should be voided in favor of a "do nothing" approach. I'm still waiting for Democrats to come up with a viable alternative method of gathering intelligence from captured terrorists, and they have offered not one in response." There's so much snarkiness here it's hard to know who's being serious, but it is entertaining to see the kool-aid-drinkers prostrate themselves at the Altar of BushCo no matter how he sodomized their alleged sacred cows. Neal Horsely, anyone? Despite my inclination to invoke the Hippocratic Oath in response to the false dilemma posed by the host, I will assume this is a sincere question and give a sincere response. Leaving aside minor things like moral authority, public relations, treaties, and law, torture doesn't generate valuable intelligence. Don't take the word of a whiny liberal, investigate for yourself. I encourage you to look at 20th Century US Military doctrine. According to the U.S. Army, the best intelligence comes from a cooperative source, and subscribing to the Geneva Convention saves American lives. Shrub's myopic, genital-compensating bluster weakens our political strength with allies, provides proof to our enemies that they indeed are right, and endangers the lives of military and civilian Americans. Now if you want to play "The meaning of 'IS' is" with regard to "...strong interrogation methods that leave no lasting physical damage ..."-isn't-torture game, I suggest that if patriotic Americans can't tell the difference, then the "evil-doers" shouldn't be expected to think any differently than they do. p.s. To all the "conservatives" here, if you're having trouble reading long sentences, just say so, and I'll provide a "My Pet Goat" version free of charge.

46 phranqlin, Gee. I wonder if the founding fathers you speak of held prisoners of war during the revolutionary war? Do you think they held "trials" for these prisoners, or were they put in front of "tribunals" and firing squads. Or did they just hold on to them until the war was over? You figure it out. Get over it. The amazing thing in all of this hypocrisy from the left is that if the Dems did not want this law to pass they could have at least have attempted to bottle it up - as in "filibuster" - someething they chose - repeat CHOSE not to do. They did not even put up a fight. Maybe they were too busy chasing after Foleygate to pay attention to the real issues facing the country. All the legislature (the ENTIRE legislature that is) is put into law what the SC told them they had to to for handling things the way they were being handled anyways. Get over it. Done deal. Dems were complicit in the process so too bad. Stop bellyaching and write your reps and senators. Tell them you disagree - maybe that is something you should have done when the bill was up for debate. You all sat back and let it happen and now you want to crucify the President for signing it into law. Maybe you need to go back to civics class and learn how our government works.

47 CY, HereÂ’s a copy of the law: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3930enr.txt.pdf This site has a breakdown of the potentially offending components of the law (they even give you a hat-tip for your snarkiness): http://poljunk.gloriousnoise.com/2006/10/the_military_commissions_act_of_2006_wil.php#more What bothers me most about this law is that it has the potential to set the stage for radical abuses. The law allows for searches and seizures without warrants; it allows hearsay evidence; it allows for the use of evidence obtained by torture; it allows for practically indefinite detention; and it allows for a suspension of habeas corpus (http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h001.htm). LetÂ’s assume for the sake of this discussion that nobody in the Bush Administration would ever use this law for purposes other than those purported. This will still be law when Bush is gone. The next administration (or the one after, etc.) might view this as a golden opportunity to stifle political dissent here in America. If fundamental due process is effectively eliminated, then a defendant would have next to no chance of surviving being charged with a crime against the state. The charge itself, for all intents and purposes, would equal a guilty verdict. As for the law only applying to aliens, a constructive application of hearsay, as allowed by this law, could render any American citizen suddenly an alien. There is also the possibility that provisions in this law might effectively set precedents. If we can suspend habeas corpus in terrorism cases, then why not in murder cases, grand theft auto, or shoplifting? IÂ’m sure there are some overly zealous prosecutors and activist judges who are already imagining the possibilities. On the one hand, youÂ’re right; without the hassles of traditional due process, terrorists could be dealt with much more efficiently. On the other hand, so could the rest of us. It is a trade that might not work in AmericaÂ’s best interests (but, I suppose it could be a dream come true for a ruling party). YouÂ’ve probably heard this before, but think long and hard about your political arch-nemesis having the powers set forth in this law. Would you trust Hillary to execute the law faithfully? How about Kerry? How about some unforeseen George Soros-backed presidency? - I didnÂ’t think so. By the way, when the hell did Republicans become so loving and trusting in an omniscient and omnipotent government?

48 Specter, Please do blame the Democrats for all our problems. It's really all Clinton's fault anyway, right? It is true the Congressional Democrats, apparently suffering from Battered Wife Syndrome, tend to just roll over and take the hits with little more than a whimper, but Democratic Party voters are cleaning house. What about the GOP? "Run, Foley Run, or you can't become a lobbyist," said the GOP. All but one Republican voted for granting Shrub those pernicious powers. All but one. The GOP has control of all three branches of our government, and what a mess they've made. Quit playing the blame game and take some responsibility. The name should be Republican'ts. Can't balance a budget Can't find one terrorist Can't win a war Can't handle a natural disaster Can't take responsiblity Can't live without corruption Can't keep this country safe

49 Never thought I'd see the day when the Republican majority started clamping down on our freedoms. First, Bush and his Administration now have demonstrated and instituted the worst of all liberal traits. The first is their "spend and spend" policies, with no end in sight as our President promises aid to Lebanon, with no respect for the conservative philosophy of reducing our debt, not increasing it. I suggest that "spend and spend" is more liberal than tax and spend. And make no mention of the fact that our government, under this Administration, has created the largest deficit ever and the most debt, ever. For holders of assets, such as myself, this "spend and spend" policy (in pursuit of the "Bush doctrine") will mean that our government issued bonds will be worth less and less, and this will drag our economy down and make us vulnerable to holders of these bonds, such as the Chinese. Putting the war expenses on a credit card further hides the growing debt. Taxes also get pushed down to state and local governments as they struggle to pay for needed programs, let alone pork. The other area in which Bush and his Administration is incontestably "liberal" is in his unfettered growth of government; it cannot be contested that our government is now the biggest it has ever been. This is very liberal, I'm afraid "big government" is now a hallmark of a Republican administration; I never thought I'd see a "spend and spend" and "create Big Government" Republican administration. And "create big government" leads to cutting back more and more on our personal rights, while the Big Government starts telling us what to do and how to do it. A good friend, a staunch capitalist, recently wrote me: "At heart I am a liberterian. I think Bush is Lyndon Johnson Jr. guns & butter.. The only voices I hear in Congress for more financial responsibility are from a minority of the Republicans, nothing from the Democrats. I do agree power corrupts. Face it, the Republicans now in power aren't anything like what the Libertarians think they are. They're more like Liberals in terms of "spend and spend", and "create more bigger government". Both happened on Bush's watch. If that isn't contrary to what Libertarians stand for, I don't know what is. These Republicans obliterate personal liberties right and left, from the torturing to the mandating of certain types of testing in education. They also are greedy spenders, spending on everything with an abandonment that makes the old political machines look like pikers. They've driven up the deficit so high, gotten us in debt so deep, it boggles the mind. Libertarians stand for honesty, for financially responsible government, for fairness in letting contracts, for freedom to act. For all these reasons, this Republican group has to be stopped, and the only way they can be, for the short run, is to put in a Democratic majority. Once that's in, we can work to get Libertarians back in a powerful place with the real Conservatives who believe much of the same. You deceive yourself if you think the Republicans will do anything more than exactly what they've been doing.

50 From Olbermann: "And if you somehow think habeas corpus has not been suspended for American citizens but only for everybody else, ask yourself this: If you are pulled off the street tomorrow, and they call you an alien or an undocumented immigrant or an “unlawful enemy combatant”—exactly how are you going to convince them to give you a court hearing to prove you are not? Do you think this attorney general is going to help you?"

51 Kevin Allison Olbermann is right on the money. The rightards think that somehow they are immune from the viciousness of the new law. Let's imagine that one of the rightards is denounced to DHS by someone who has a grudge against him/her. As Olbermann points out, if they are taken off the streets and deemed "dangerous" by the powers that be, good luck getting a hearing. If the powers that be decide that said rightard is a liar, and deem him/her an ennemy combattant (or a legal or illegal immigrant, his/her goose is cooked. The rightard will be spirited away, denied contact with a lawyer, and won't get a hearing since the courts are now barred from hearing those cases.

52 Okay, I think I’ve heard everything now. Keith Olbermann is a legal expert now? And you have the unmitigated gall to cite him as such? Gee I wonder what Chris Berman and Stuart Scott think. They are, after all, equally well qualified. His show was factually debunked before it even aired. Again, please read the actual legislation, a relevant section of which I directly quoted from above. Only aliens—non-American citizens—that are unlawful combatants—not legally-protected classes like civilians and soldiers as covered under Geneva, but those excepted by 3rd Geneva 4.1.2—are subject to the MDA 2006. It only applies the following, which you apparently need repeated back to you again and again so that it will sink in: Persons subject to military commissions "Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter." No American citizen can be made subject to this law. Not One. That is what "alien" means. It cannot be applied to enemy combat soldiers, who are lawful enemy combatants (and who, by the way, have never had habeus corpus rights in any war in American history). A very exhaustive, thorough explanation in available from John C. Bambaneck and posted here. Please attempt to educate yourselves with the facts, not the uneducated opinion of a second-rate sportscaster.

53 Confederate Yankee, Perhaps you are correct that a conservative reading of the law agrees with your opinion. Perhaps people express worry because of two things. 1) Shrub is a liar with a demonstrated disdain for observing limits on his behavior, and a record of narcissistic callousness. 2) Everything, and I do mean *everything*, BushCo has predicted has not only been wrong, it has been the very definition of "opposite". A small sampling of wrongness: "We'll be greeted as liberators." "These tax cuts will pay for themselves." "No one could have predicted this would happen." (you choose, 9-11 or Katrina) Respectfully, the whole lot have proved they are unworthy of being trusted.

54 Thank you. That was the funniest thing I've seen all day.

55 OC Patriot/Devils advocate, I am just curious do you ever do any research or do you just pull your statements right out of your fourth point of contact? Please tell me what things you could do before Bush was in office that are now illegal? Oh and by the way, if you ever read the Geneva Convention, combatents dressed as civilians are considered spies and can be shot either on site or after they are captured and questioned. I have not seen an Al Queda uniform while in Iraq, and I am told that neither the Tali's or Al Queda wear them in Afganistan. So basically, we will have the right to shoot all of those we have captured whenever we feel like they are no longer useful to us. So go ahead and push for their right to be placed under the Geneva conventions protections. I am sure that there will be no shortage of soldiers/marines willing to carry out their sentence. But we wil be nice, we will use a bullet to the head or chest, not a dull knife to the throat.