
This image was prominently displayed in a comment thread on FreeRepublic about the President's State of the Union speech.
Words fail me.
Feingold began by pointing out that the administration, including Gonzales, has many times accused opponents of the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" -- meaning those who insisted that eavesdropping take place within the law, within the FISA framework -- of "opposing eavesdropping on terrorists" (I can find 20 examples in 5 minutes of that).
Feingold's first question - "do you know of any one in the country who opposed eavesdropping on terrorists?"
Gonzales: Sure - if you look at blogs today, there is a lot of concern about all types of eavesdropping, who don't want us eavesdropping at all.
Feingold: Do you know anyone in government who ever took that position?
Gonzales: No, but that is not what I said.
Feingold: It is a disgrace and disservice to your office and the President to have accused people on this Committee of opposing eavesdropping on terrorists.
Gonzales: I didn't have you in mind or anyone on the Committee when I referred to people who oppose eavesdropping on terrorists. Perish the thought.
Feingold: Oh, well it's nice that you didn't have us "in your mind" when making those accusations, but given that you and the President were running around the country accusing people of opposing eavesdropping on terrorists in the middle of an election, the fact that you didn't have Congressional Democrats in "mind" isn't significant. Your intent was to make people think that anyone who opposed the "TSP" did not want to eavesdrop on terrorists, even though that was false. No Democrats oppose eavesdropping on terrorists.
Gonzales: I wasn't referring to Democrats.
So, apparently, all those speeches Bush officials and their supporters have spent the last year giving accusing people of opposing eavesdropping on terrorists, and all the television commercials making the same accusations throughout the months leading up to the election, were not about Democrats at all, but were about random bloggers who are against all eavesdropping. Where? Maybe on Smirking Chimp and Democratic Underground. That is who they meant when they were talking about opposing eavesdropping on Osama bin Laden. They didn't mean Democrats in Congress. The entire campaign and all of those accusations were directed only to the bloggers who don't want them eavesdropping at all.
I confess to finding that exchange deeply revolting though satisfying at the same time. Can't they just all yield all of their time to Feingold?
Far from being a "fine mom," Mary Cheney is behaving on the level of an animal being bred for its offspring, so she and her partner in delusion can selfishly continue playing "pretend family."A Freeper's head explodes when George W. Bush says Mary Cheney will be a "fine mom." Instead, clearly, she's closer to an animal that can still play "pretend family." Sort of like a mentally-ill horse with a Play-Doh set.
The selfishness in this is demanding to experience motherhood and having a child, just because she can. there are plenty of children worthy of adoption that she could raise and devote her life to. just because one is capable of bearing a child doesn't mean one SHOULD, and especially if the lifestyle she has chosen doesn't encompass bearing a child as a consequence thereof. yes, it is extremely selfish of her.OK. So you're in favor of gay people adopting?
As far as I know, both Cheney and her husband/wife/roommate/partner/whatever are working women. So unless one of them is planning on giving up their career, this child will be raised, in effect, without either a true mother or father. But of course, children of the "elite" have always been abandoned by their parents and raised by nannies. That's why so many of them are so incredibly screwed up to begin with.Hmm. So the real problem is that Mary Cheney is rich, is that right? When will you right-wingers stop hating the rich?
It looks like FReepers are now going pro-gay. Or is it just selectively pro-gay because it's Dick Cheyney's daughter? 'It's ok when this person does it, but no one else can.' Despicable. No wonder conservatives are losing. We can't even be consistent in our message.Yes - you need to be more consistently anti-gay. Good luck with that!
As a matter of fact, a lesbian couple that I know had a baby through artificial insemination and then when the child was ready to enter school, the mother realized that she didn't want to be a lesbian anymore because it would make life too difficult for the child. She's now married to a man.Whew! Glad everything worked out.
Wait, I'm confused. Mary Cheney wants us all to skip underwear and ride in limos?But when you consider that Mary Cheny has an agenda. One that includes gay marriages, gays adopting children, special rights for gays, then on to abortion rights, abandoning the WOD, Cutting and Running, and even going panty-less in limo's...
Well the point is that Mary Cheney's baby DOES affect us all.
The fact that Cheney had a lesbian daughter to begin with should have disqualified him from being on a conservative Republican ticket. Its not like he just found out in 2001. The idiots in charge of Bush's campaign are to blame for this even coming up.If only. If only.
"They formed a study group. That's great - but the test was three years ago."
-Jon Stewart, last night on The Daily Show
"In all my time in Washington I've never seen such smugness, arrogance, or such insufferable moral superiority. Self-congratulatory. Full of itself. Horrible."Memo to Bill Bennett: Look in the mirror, dude.
-Gambling addict and moral scold Bill Bennett, on National Review Online's "The Corner" weblog
"Clearly the Iraqi people are not embracing freedom, so imposing order through a military strongman might be the only way."
-Bill O'Reilly tonight, channeling Bill Maher in his call for installing a new military dictatorship in Iraq
"As much as I love the president and what he stands for, this "saving face" stubbornness is really not representative of conservative values. He must own up, change the tune, and come up with a new plan. It's a civil war, and it's all because we tried to give them democracy too quickly. A pro-USA dictator would have done the job and kept them from fighting."
-FreeRepublic commenter aristotleman, on Bush's inability to say the phrase "civil war" when talking about Iraq
Democrat (n.), Democratic (adj.), for the party and its members. Do not use Democrat as a modifier (the Democrat Party), that construction is used by opponents to disparage the party.Now that the right-wingers don't control every aspect of American society, expect this sort of crap to ramp up, along with fake outrage at everything even remotely liberal. Remember when Bill Clinton's haircut was a giant scandal? Multiply that by 1,000, and you might get close to how it's going to be for the next two years.
I think what's important here is to understand the difference between civil and religious marriage. Religious marriage is a sacrament, and I don't believe the government has any business telling any religion who they can and cannot marry. But civil marriage is a legal contract that's enforced by the state, and that confers rights on the citizens that enter into that contract. I believe Americans are a fundamentally fair people. And this is about fairness - allowing people who want to enter into committed relationships, relationships that strengthen the society, to get the rights conferred by civil marriage.See? That wasn't so difficult, now was it?
There's a lot of talk about civil unions these days - trying to create a system alongside civil marriage that would involve the same rights. But why create a new system, a new bureaucracy, to try to simulate something already in place? Is that fair? I don't think it is. "Separate but equal" didn't work in the civil rights era, and it doesn't work here. I know there are a lot of Americans who are uncomfortable with homosexuality. But that unease shouldn't be enough reason to deny basic rights to citizens of the United States of America.