Greenwald Bitch Slaps Feinstein, Obama...Others

[kalm]

kalm...I'm not sure why you are harping on the right wing. They are doing what they said they would and should do. I oppose that, but respect that they have the guts to say that they want more control in fewer people's hands.

Because of this:

It is the left wing that are two-faced, ignorant, lying sacks of shvt...as are their supporters. dbacks boyfriend is going to have a government camera shoved up his arse and dback is OK with it because Obama is, according to the sheeple, doing what he needs to do to protect everyone from the Republicans.

Constitution!

Limited government!

4th amendment:

I'm critical of both sides and praised Rand Paul. We're almost to page two and we have not one conk willing to come out and acknowledge Republican hypocrisy.

[Baldy]

Because of this:

Constitution!

Limited government!

4th amendment:

I'm critical of both sides and praised Rand Paul. We're almost to page two and we have not one conk willing to come out and acknowledge Republican hypocrisy.

J.F.C.

What part do you not understand?

It has nothing to do with political parties and everything to do with ideology. It's not that difficult to understand.

[kalm]

Constitution!

Limited government!

4th amendment:

I'm critical of both sides and praised Rand Paul. We're almost to page two and we have not one conk willing to come out and acknowledge Republican hypocrisy.

J.F.C.

What part do you not understand?

It has nothing to do with political parties and everything to do with ideology. It's not that difficult to understand.

So you're for the unamended renewal and I'm not. Ron Wyden and Rand Paul must share the same ideology. Got it.

[houndawg]

need a hug, bro?

So young, so bitter.

Wow, you really are a hypocrite. Not even a little bothered this abandonment of progressive ideals?

Bothered? Yes. Surprised? No. See Patriot Act, Gitmo, still in Afghanistan, etc.....

Frankly, I'm a little surprised that you're surprised that this happened...

[houndawg]

Do you people really think that some silly-ass pieces of paper like warrants and the Constitution are going to keep these technologies from being used whenever and however the ruling class see fit?

[kalm]

Here's an excellent article on all types of constitutional hypocrisy including the current debate.

Alpha...you can now close the thread.

Who’s Attacking the Constitution Now?
Many ardent supporters of the Second Amendment are not quite so ardent about the First.
A. Barton Hinkle | December 31, 20

A few days ago CNN host Piers Morgan got into it with the head of a gun-rights group. Now more than 87,000 people have signed an online petition demanding that Morgan, who is British, be deported for his “hostile attack against the U.S. Constitution.” But the First Amendment does not exempt British nationals, which means those signing the petition are also committing a hostile attack against the Constitution. The irony is probably lost on them......

Liberals say many things about Second Amendment rights that they would not say about other rights. For instance: Nobody “needs” a semi-automatic rifle. True enough. But what other people need and do not need does not define what the government should and should not ban. Nobody needs Twitter, but it doesn’t follow that Congress may therefore outlaw tweeting. Liberals also point out, correctly, that no other nation has anything like the sort of gun rights – or gun mayhem—that America does. True also. But no other nation has an exclusionary rule, either. Anywhere else in the world, improperly obtained evidence will land you in the slammer. In the U.S., it will get you out. Uniqueness is not an indictment.

Many gun-rights supporters, being law-and-order types, detest the exclusionary rule. They see it as a judicially contrived technicality that lets criminals walk free to murder, rob, and maim at will. But it is a reasonable corollary to the Fourth Amendment—and a necessary one if we read the Fourth Amendment as expansively as gun-rights supporters want to read the Second.

And they should want to read it expansively. A common talking point among gun enthusiasts is that the Second Amendment provides the people with the means to protect their other rights. But what’s the use of having arms to protect rights you don’t believe in? You can hardly claim to be defending the First Amendment in one breath, after all, when you’re demanding Piers Morgan’s deportation in the next.

http://reason.com/archives/2012/12/31/w ... tution-now" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ibanez]

I love how the hicks screaming about protecting the 2nd Amendment don't like Piers using the 1st Amendment. What hypocrites. I know the guy isn't American,but he's living here and used our rights accordingly. I wish we could deport those 87,000 morons.

[Baldy]

J.F.C.

What part do you not understand?

It has nothing to do with political parties and everything to do with ideology. It's not that difficult to understand.

So you're for the unamended renewal and I'm not. Ron Wyden and Rand Paul must share the same ideology. Got it.

Unfortunately, you don't.

[kalm]

So you're for the unamended renewal and I'm not. Ron Wyden and Rand Paul must share the same ideology. Got it.

Unfortunately, you don't.

[Baldy]

I love how the hicks screaming about protecting the 2nd Amendment don't like Piers using the 1st Amendment. What hypocrites. I know the guy isn't American,but he's living here and used our rights accordingly. I wish we could deport those 87,000 morons.

Meh...nothing more than a "protest vote". Similar to kalm voting for Jill Stein (or whoever) even though he still wanted Obama to win.

[kalm]

I love how the hicks screaming about protecting the 2nd Amendment don't like Piers using the 1st Amendment. What hypocrites. I know the guy isn't American,but he's living here and used our rights accordingly. I wish we could deport those 87,000 morons.

Meh...nothing more than a "protest vote". Similar to kalm voting for Jill Stein (or whoever) even though he still wanted Obama to win.

I'll bet I voted for a more conservative than you.

[Baldy]

Meh...nothing more than a "protest vote". Similar to kalm voting for Jill Stein (or whoever) even though he still wanted Obama to win.

I'll bet I voted for a more conservative than you.

I have no doubt...anybody but Obama...with your fingers crossed behind tour back.

[kalm]

I'll bet I voted for a more conservative than you.

I have no doubt...anybody but Obama...with your fingers crossed behind tour back.

The thought of an independently minded liberal that shares some conservative values really frightens you doesn't it?

[Baldy]

I have no doubt...anybody but Obama...with your fingers crossed behind tour back.

The thought of an independently minded liberal that shares some conservative values really frightens you doesn't it?

Terrified.

[SDHornet]

I'm critical of both sides and praised Rand Paul. We're almost to page two and we have not one conk willing to come out and acknowledge Republican hypocrisy.

This.

Kalm running roughshod in another poli thread.

[CID1990]

I love how the hicks screaming about protecting the 2nd Amendment don't like Piers using the 1st Amendment. What hypocrites. I know the guy isn't American,but he's living here and used our rights accordingly. I wish we could deport those 87,000 morons.

I fully support his right to say whatever the hell he wants.

But what some of you are missing is that he has no "right" to be in America. He has permission to be in America. He is not a citizen. So, he cannot go to jail for criticizing the Second Amendment. But he most certainly could be deported.

It won't happen of course, but I see no hypocrisy in 2nd Amendment supporters calling for it. He's lower than some Hollywood hypocrite, since most if them are citizens.

Morgan's rant, to me, is a lot like a photonegative of the Dixue Chicks going to a foreign country and sh!tting on their President. You keep that SH!t in house. And, if you are a foreign wimp like Morgan, then you can SH!t on our Constitution all you want, but do it from London.

[death dealer]

Wow, you really are a hypocrite. Not even a little bothered this abandonment of progressive ideals?

Bothered? Yes. Surprised? No. See Patriot Act, Gitmo, still in Afghanistan, etc.....

Frankly, I'm a little surprised that you're surprised that this happened...

I'm with you in the bothered, disappointed crowd. Surprised? Not at all. Politicians are just like everybody else. Their ideals only apply to the other guy. It's ok for them to violate their own principles, after all, they're the good guys.

[houndawg]

I love how the hicks screaming about protecting the 2nd Amendment don't like Piers using the 1st Amendment. What hypocrites. I know the guy isn't American,but he's living here and used our rights accordingly. I wish we could deport those 87,000 morons.

I fully support his right to say whatever the hell he wants.

But what some of you are missing is that he has no "right" to be in America. He has permission to be in America. He is not a citizen. So, he cannot go to jail for criticizing the Second Amendment. But he most certainly could be deported.

It won't happen of course, but I see no hypocrisy in 2nd Amendment supporters calling for it. He's lower than some Hollywood hypocrite, since most if them are citizens.

Morgan's rant, to me, is a lot like a photonegative of the Dixue Chicks going to a foreign country and sh!tting on their President. You keep that SH!t in house. And, if you are a foreign wimp like Morgan, then you can SH!t on our Constitution all you want, but do it from London.

I think they went to a foreign country and shit on our President, no? This reminds me more of Romney going to England and telling them they weren't ready for the Olympics.


Seriously, CID, deport him for criticizing us?

[Baldy]

I fully support his right to say whatever the hell he wants.

But what some of you are missing is that he has no "right" to be in America. He has permission to be in America. He is not a citizen. So, he cannot go to jail for criticizing the Second Amendment. But he most certainly could be deported.

It won't happen of course, but I see no hypocrisy in 2nd Amendment supporters calling for it. He's lower than some Hollywood hypocrite, since most if them are citizens.

Morgan's rant, to me, is a lot like a photonegative of the Dixue Chicks going to a foreign country and sh!tting on their President. You keep that SH!t in house. And, if you are a foreign wimp like Morgan, then you can SH!t on our Constitution all you want, but do it from London.

I think they went to a foreign country and shit on our President, no? This reminds me more of Romney going to England and telling them they weren't ready for the Olympics.


Seriously, CID, deport him for criticizing us?

Another myth...Romney didn't say they weren't ready for the Olympics. All he said was from what he read in the papers in England that they were having problems with security.

The British got their little oversensitive uptight panties in a wad because Romney repeated what he read in the paper. And of course, it was a perfect opportunity for the US media to have a field day with it.

[houndawg]

I think they went to a foreign country and **** on our President, no? This reminds me more of Romney going to England and telling them they weren't ready for the Olympics.


Seriously, CID, deport him for criticizing us?

Another myth...Romney didn't say they weren't ready for the Olympics. All he said was from what he read in the papers in England that they were having problems with security.

The British got their little oversensitive uptight panties in a wad because Romney repeated what he read in the paper. And of course, it was a perfect opportunity for the US media to have a field day with it.

Are you getting the irony, baldy, or does kalm need to explain it for you?

[Baldy]

Another myth...Romney didn't say they weren't ready for the Olympics. All he said was from what he read in the papers in England that they were having problems with security.

The British got their little oversensitive uptight panties in a wad because Romney repeated what he read in the paper. And of course, it was a perfect opportunity for the US media to have a field day with it.

Are you getting the irony, baldy, or does kalm need to explain it for you?

There's no irony, just fact.

Do you need me to explain that to you?

[JohnStOnge]

Not a single conk willing to comment on the issue and Republican origination and continued support of it either.

I guess you'd probably consider me a "conk;" though I don't know if most of those you consider to be "conks" would want someone who wants to legalize recreational drugs, legalize prostitution, etc., counted as in their number.

I just saw this thread for the first time. My comment is that the whole thing with keeping us secure from "terrorists" is consistent with the general mind numbed tendency on the part of the American public to accept government measures that take their liberty and privacy away as long as it "keeps us safe."

I don't like it. I've always thought we over-reacted to the 9/11/2001 attacks in terms of expanding law enforcement powers, etc. I think our reaction to the attacks hurt us more than the attacks did. But it's the way it is. It's a current population characteristic and I don't see it changing.

[JohnStOnge]

We're almost to page two and we have not one conk willing to come out and acknowledge Republican hypocrisy.

There's no "new" hypocrisy here as far as I can tell. The Republicans have always been over the top on national security and willing to wink at the Constitution when it comes to that. At least the majority of them.

And I think there is immediate hypocrisy on the part of progressives any time they start talking about the Constitution because, fundamentally, they don't believe in following it. They're the ones most strongly aligned with the "Living Constitution" philosophy. You know; the thing where it has to be flexible and we can't stick to what it says and how it was understood because we're living in the 21st Century and 18th Century authors could not possibly have anticipated what we have to deal with. Progressives, in general, don't mind fudging on and ignoring the Constitution at ALL when it serves their purposes.

But then if something they DON'T agree with happens all of a sudden they have all this respect for the Constitution. All of a sudden it's CRITICALLY IMPORTANT that we stick to it.

[houndawg]

We're almost to page two and we have not one conk willing to come out and acknowledge Republican hypocrisy.

There's no "new" hypocrisy here as far as I can tell. The Republicans have always been over the top on national security and willing to wink at the Constitution when it comes to that. At least the majority of them.

And I think there is immediate hypocrisy on the part of progressives any time they start talking about the Constitution because, fundamentally, they don't believe in following it. They're the ones most strongly aligned with the "Living Constitution" philosophy. You know; the thing where it has to be flexible and we can't stick to what it says and how it was understood because we're living in the 21st Century and 18th Century authors could not possibly have anticipated what we have to deal with. Progressives, in general, don't mind fudging on and ignoring the Constitution at ALL when it serves their purposes.

But then if something they DON'T agree with happens all of a sudden they have all this respect for the Constitution. All of a sudden it's CRITICALLY IMPORTANT that we stick to it.

Kinda sounds like the Council of Nicaea.

[kalm]

We're almost to page two and we have not one conk willing to come out and acknowledge Republican hypocrisy.

There's no "new" hypocrisy here as far as I can tell. The Republicans have always been over the top on national security and willing to wink at the Constitution when it comes to that. At least the majority of them.

And I think there is immediate hypocrisy on the part of progressives any time they start talking about the Constitution because, fundamentally, they don't believe in following it. They're the ones most strongly aligned with the "Living Constitution" philosophy. You know; the thing where it has to be flexible and we can't stick to what it says and how it was understood because we're living in the 21st Century and 18th Century authors could not possibly have anticipated what we have to deal with. Progressives, in general, don't mind fudging on and ignoring the Constitution at ALL when it serves their purposes.

But then if something they DON'T agree with happens all of a sudden they have all this respect for the Constitution. All of a sudden it's CRITICALLY IMPORTANT that we stick to it.

I think Jefferson felt we should have a constitutional convention every 20 years or so.