« The joys of divided government | Main | The libertarian dilemma »


I'll have to craft a better name for the phenomenon than "Rudy Denial," but for now it seems appropriate. For years, I've been told that Rudy can't possibly win the GOP nomination, let alone the November election. His lead in the polls will evaporate, you'll see!

The problem is they've been saying this basically since 2005, and Rudy's lead remains solid with the very first primaries occurring in a matter of weeks (can you believe it?)

Charles Rangel's got a particularly bad case of RD:

“It’s totally unbelievable,” said Charles Rangel, the dean of the New York Congressional delegation and a longtime adversary of Mr. Giuliani. “I refuse to believe that this could possibly happen to our country. I have too much confidence in our country to believe that this could really happen.”

Heh. If that's not reason enough to vote for Giuliani I don't know what is.


Go Rudy!

You know I'm rootin' for Rudy to get the nomination.

Personally, I think Rudy will run into trouble when it comes to looking for support from social conservatives. I don't see committed pro-lifers warming to Giuliani. On the other hand, Charlie Rangel enjoys the rare distinction of having been wrong about nearly everything. A stopped clock may be right twice a day...but not if the hands are gone.

Rangel was right about Bush being a criminal. It isn't like he missed weapons of mass destruction in a country that he invaded and continues to occupy.

Rangel is an idiot. Having him for an enemy boosts Rudy's image and like it or not Rudy's looking more and more like the man to beat.

Rudy is a baby murderer who thinks queers should be able to marry like normal people. How is an adulterer, baby killing, queer lover going to ignite the dopey Christer base of the Repug party?

Hillary is going to win. I can't wait!

Barely....and thanks for surrendering that inane moniker of "Bailey Hankins" (the real one was an internet icon from TX who actually made actual affirmative arguments for a number of extreme Libertarian, actually anarchist positions)...the Christian Right (some 50 million of them) are expanding their influence into BOTH major Parties.

Their current claim is that Heath Schuler (the Evangelical Christian from NC) is just the first of a vanguard of Christian Conservatives within the Democratic Party.

Personally, I don't know whether that would be a good thing or bad...I guess time will tell.

The upshot is that both Giuliani and Romney (whom I support) have an uphill battle in the GOP Primaries because of their somewhat Liberal social positions, coming from NYC and Mass respectively.

Either one of them outdraws any Democrat among Independent voters and that's what the hierarchy of the Republican Party wants - someone who can win a general election.

Huckabee plays well to the Conservative base (I love that guy), but he's not going to win a general election, Giuliani or Romney could.

The Dems and their stooges in the MSM keep repeating the mantra of "Just wait! When the loonies in the Christian Right find out about all of Rudy's weaknesses, they will never consent to his nomination!"

This despite the fact that, seemingly for months, they have indeed aired all that unpleasantness without seriously slowing him down.

They are scared that somehow the sacrosanct Right might choose between the lesser of two evils which would create a problem for Hillary.

Anyone who has observed the two NYers will note that Rudy is by far the sharper politician and better on the stump. The guy is really good at campaigning - a rarity among both party's candidates.

Mal, the two leading GOP candidates are Rudy and Romney.

Serious Conservatives may have legitimate problems with both those guys, even I like Huckabee more than either Rudy or Romney, but I'd take Rudy or Mitt over any of the Democratic alternatives.

The idea that "Red State Conservatives and the Religious Right will sit on their hands," is as absurd as the idea that far-leftists like (DBK, BW and BH) will sit on theirs should Hillary Clinton (who supported the invasion of Iraq and sat on the board of Walmart) get the Democratic nomination.

Just as for Liberals, Hillary's better than the alternative, for any Conservative, a Rudy or a Romney would be better than any Democratic alternative.

Only a complete moron would call me a "far leftist".

Oh, that was JMK. Never mind.

I certainly didn't mean to insult you DBK, but didn't you once say, right here in fact, that not only wasn't comparing the current administration to the Third Reich not sedition, but that in your view it was indeed comparable to it in many respects?

I'm pretty sure you did.

Isn't it also true that you consider Bill O'Reilly a "Right-wing extremist?"

O'Reilly, who opposes capital punishment, believes that "hate crimes statutes" are valid, believes in a "work visa" program for illegal aliens, that America's oil companies should charge Americans "not much more than it costs them to take it out of the ground here" (about $20/barrell)?

Hardly "Conservative positions," any of them.

Again, I don't mean to offend, but Bush = Hitler and Bill O'Reilly = Right-wing extremist are two pretty far-Left positions.

Only a complete moron would call me a "far leftist. Oh, that was JMK. Never mind.

Are you really surprised?

Once again you post a long pile of bullshit that proves you're a bigger idiot than I even suspected you of being, JMK. To call you "stupid" is to praise your intelligence. Christ on a cracker, what a lot of ass-wipery that was. Valid comparisons to the Third Reich somehow make someone a "leftist"? That's your argument? Shit, you're too fucking stupid. You post all your horseshit on this site all the time and don't even know what "left" means. What a dope.

"Valid comparisons to the Third Reich somehow make someone a "leftist"?" (DBK)

Uhhhh, in a word, YES, BELIEVING that there are "valid comparisons" between the current administration and the Third Reich, indeed makes one a FAAAR-Leftist.

It also makes anyone who'd believe that to be severely perceptually impaired (a/k/a "a fringe KOOK")....since, you know, not to put too fine a point on it, there just aren't ANY such "valid comparisons." Next thing you know, you're going to say something like, "Ya know, those "Truthers" make a lot of sense." (Please DON'T....because THEY don't).

Comparing the current administration to the Third Reich is about as abominable an insult to the victims of the Holocaust as is out-and-out Holocaust denial.

Here might be a good time to switch the topic to say, Bill O'Reilly???

"To call you "stupid" is to praise your intelligence."

LOL LOL. That is one of the coolest comments in this blog ever :-) By the way, how do you dare to think that O'Reilly is a far-right winger? According to JMK O'Reilly is a socialist. And Ann Coulter is a liberal centrist. Oh and George Bush is a social-democrat. Face it DBK you are sooooo out of toych with reality :-) Only JMK knows what is right and left.

As crazy as Anne Coulter may be, she hasn't compared this or any other administration to the Third Reich....in fact, outside the Soros precincts (the MoveOn-HuffPoo-D-Kos fringe) I don't believe ANY reputable person has.

You guys are on that fringe that actually has.

Thanks for proving yourself retarded yet again, JMK. Bailey Hankins is from TX, but he has never posted anything on the internet. He doesn't even own a computer.

Thanks for praising me as an "internet icon", which I truly am.

Now you can see what a dumb piece of shit you truly are -- like I said, I am the true conservative.

You are a corporatist stooge.

Bush is a traitor. The Patriot Act is unconstitutional, and everyone who supports it, from either party, is also a traitor.

Let the hangings begin, beginning with YOU.

The "real" Bailey Hankins is indeed a TX based internet figure who (used to) defend anarchistic positions.

What makes HIM noteworthy (even a bit of an "internet icon") is that he actually makes full, detailed arguments in favor of his positions.

I've had exchanges with THAT fellow, so in a sense "I know Bailey Hankins, and you Barely, are no Bailey Hankins."

WoW! I can't believe that I really got to use that line!

That's why I've always called you "Barely," BH, because I refuse to call you someone else's name and in the process, besmirch that other guy's reputation.

He actually MAKES detailed arguments.

You don't....I'm virtually certain that you CAN'T.

JMK, let me repeat this:

Bailey Hankins, a good friend of mine, does not even own a computer. I use his name with his blessing.

This is simply a fact.

The only "Bailey Hankins" you have ever read on the internet, is ME.

Like I have always said, I am a registered Republican, and a conservative.

What you really mean to say is that you LIKE my old arguments, because they agree with what you believe now. You are a "Rush Limbaugh" Republican, a retarded, simple minded, easily contolled lemming who mindlessly parrots the lies you hear every day on the radio from Rush Hannity O'Reilly.

Bush is so clearly a traitor and a criminal who has been an utter disaster on every front, that only a complete fool would continue to back him the way you do.

He doesn't represent conservatives in any way, and he has tarnished the Republican party forever, like Nixon, only much worse.

You are reading my old stuff, from back when I believed that the Republican party was really about what they claim to be about: America.

They aren't. They have led the hardest charge against America in our history. What they want doesn't resemble America. They just want to go back to the Robber Baron days, with themselves playing the roles of the Robber Barons. They want to destroy the middle class, and return to the grand old days of the ultra rich in their finery being served by everyone else.

The country's wealth has grown enormously since 1970, but your average person is actually worse off. It now takes two working people to sustain a household on average, because real income is down. It has all gone into the pockets of a few.

Arguing that it isn't so is just your inability to think for yourself.

Stop listening to Rush and open your eyes.

Barely, to be kind, you're a dufus...and that's being very kind.

You hold to no anarcho-Libertarian ideas and the ONLY arguments you've attempted to make have ironically enough, argued AGAINST your own positions (ie. RICO & H-1Bs).

On those subjects you proved yourself dumb (that is stupid, or unable to understand or process the information at hand), not merely ignorant (lacking in facts).

Enough said on that.

I point of fact, I am a "Zell Miller Democrat" and support my family who are all active in Democratic politics locally. I remain a registered Democrat.

A cousin of mine is a State Assemblyman from SI, an Uncle of mine was the Public Administrator there until his death and a number of other family members are judges throughout the state.

I proclaim myself a Conservative because I'm a pro-Free Trade, pro-Supply Side Conservative.

Those "Moderate Republicans" who oppose Free Trade, etc ARE Liberals, with far more in common with Liberal Democrats than any Conservatives.

There are NO (that's ZERO) Libertarians who oppose Free Trade, as BOTH Free Trade and Open Immigration are Libertarian staples.

What YOU actually are is a racist, xenophobic, neo-nazi who inanely thinks those positions are "Conservative" ones.

You're like the owner of that Army/Navy Store in that flick Falling Down who said to Michael Douglas' character, Don't ya see, we're the same me and you...I'm with you, I'M with YOU," and I respond to you Barely, the same way Douglas' character did to that cretin, "You're not like me, you're some demented racist, asshole, I'm just a guy trying to get back home."

Hey, maybe that Army/Navy store guy thought he was someone else in his "internet life" too?

Ya think?

Heh, you are the one who called me an "internet icon", boob.

You're a Corporatist Lemming at best, JMK -- but the real truth is that you are just a dumbass with a union job who listens to Rush too much.

That's it.

Wrong again.

I never called YOU anything.

There is another BH, he's a radical Libertarian, not a "Republican" who doesn't know what "Conservative" means.

And actually, we're a radio arbitron household and I encourage everyone I meet, due partly to family considerations to listen to WFAN between 1pm and 6pm....but MOSTLY because that duo is just THAT GOOD.

If anyone could actually post an direct quote from Limbaugh that was factually erroneous, or anti-Conservative, anti-troop, etc., I'd certainly lambaste him for those, BUT to date, no one has ever produced a single such quote.

N.B. Media Matters quotes are unwelcome. I know Dave Brock personally. I like to say, that "He's just a little less talented, and a little less intelligent that I am," though I have to give him credit for his career (to date) far outstripping his relatively meager talents.

Translation: Yeah I'm jealous and somewhat bitter (mainly because the GOP took to Brock and not myself over a decade ago...did his being gay help make him more appealing to a GOP that was looking to appear more diversified??? I don't know.)....BUT, it's NOT any personal malice that motivates me not to take any MediaMatters quotes (you'll just have to believe that...I didn't take to GOP-hating because of any of that and I'm not even a Republican....OK that may have had something to do with it too)....the FACT is that MediaMatters has been caught in more lies and distortions than any such group ever!

I'd need a direct quote that could be vetted by some independent site or better still an online unedited recording of a full clip.

There is no other Bailey Hankins on the internet, never was. If there is, show him to me.

Finally you come clean. You really do listen to Rush every day, just like I said. How sad.

JMK, believe it or not, almost everything Rush says is not only wrong, but most of what he says are outright lies.

There are entire BOOKS, 300 page BOOKS, detailing Rush's incredible lies. He is absolutely nothing more than an RNC propogandist.

Rush lies:








Sorry, the source doesn't matter, just the content. If Media Matters exposes Rush's endless lies along with everyone else, why should they not be heard?

1,300,000 hits for "limbaugh lies", check it out JMK, and see if you can find ONE that you believe!


Aw, you widdle hero worshipping fool.

Limbaugh said, "The Earth is not fragile?"

Well, he's right. It's an incredibly self-sustaining, self-correcting mechanism.

The MSM DOES blame things like AIDS and homelessness on a non-existant "cold-hearted society."

AIDS is the result of reckless and irresponsible behaviors, and 93% of the homelessness have been found to suffer from severe emotional or psychological problems - ergo the primary cause of homelessness was deinstitutionalization.

I WON'T even look at the MediaMatters site because of their grossly overt distortions. They recently assailed O'Reilly for "claiming phony military experience,"

That was a demonstrable lie.

O'Reilly has often boasted, "I've seen actual combat, I've been in combat and I didn't carry a gun, I carried a pen."

As I noted, BOTH combat journalists (I'm presuming O'Reilly was one, since he claims to have been one) and battlefield medics experience combat without carrying guns, nor being "soldiers."

An overt LIE by Dave Brock! Not a mere distortion, but an overt and outright lie. I'd proffer that no one can trust anything that site offers up ever again.

As I said, to date, I haven't seen a single direct quote of Limbaugh's that could be proven to be "factually erroneous, anti-Conservative or anti-troop." I should modify that to "bigoted, anti-conservative or anti-troop," as EVERY on-air personality occasionally gets the facts wrong. Sam Donaldson, Dan Rather, Keith Olberman have all been caught many times in mangling the facts....Olberman virtually on a daily basis. So, I'd bet every once in awhile Limbaugh may get something wrong too, but I'd suppose he also offers corrections and retractions.

I'm glad you didn't bring up that recent smear about Limbaugh comparing some soldier to a suicide bomber as I checked the full audio on a reputable site (The Radio Equalizer) and there was no substance to that at all.

As I said, I think Rush Limbaugh, Walter E Williams, Tom Sowell, Mike Savage, and other such real hardcore Conservatives are GREAT!

I've never said, nor implied any different.

I don't get to listen to the radio except when I'm in my car, however, whenever possible, I DO try to listen to a show produced by a second cousin that unfortunately happens to be on opposite Rush Limbaugh. It's the greatest sports talk show in the history of radio.

Suufice to say, there are absolutely no "Conservatives" who believe in protectionism and oppose Free Trade.....that's a socialist position.

There are absolutely no "Conservatives" who believe that Supply-Side policies are bad and Keynesianism (ie. "We are currently under taxed and under regulated") is good....again, that's a socialist positions.

You are a National Socialist - a racist, xenophobic jerk who mistakenly thinks positions like "Capitalism is bad," "Israel is not an ally of the U.S." and "Free Trade costs American jobs," are "Conservative" positions.

They are NOT. They are socialist positions and that's why you are so often politically confused.

There's this inane myth that goes, "Talk Radio and FoxNews have corrupted America and turned a once great, predominantly Liberal nation into a cesspool of Conservatism."

That is one of the dumbest myths ever uttered and one based in a complete and utter ignorance of America and its even recent history,

SEE: http://workingclassconservative.blogspot.com/2007/10/myth-of-earlier-more-liberal-america.html

You're just another vapid Dittohead, JMK.

I heard Rush lie a few weeks back, and then I heard him lie about having lied the very next day.

I heard him say that all of the soldier opposing the war were "fake soldiers". The implication was crystal clear.

The next day, much like you when you've been caught with your short pants down, he tried to wordsmith exactly what he said in the most absurd way. He lied again.

Oh, and I was also listening on the show when he announced that he had pretty much gone deaf. He said it was a medical condition that ran in his family! FUCKING LIE! It was all that Hillbilly Heroin he was choking down like a blubbery walrus sucking down anchovies.

The first day back on the air after being busted, Fatboy had completely changed the format of his show, and was rambling on about how his show was just entertainment, and that he was just an entertainer. He was playing music and all kinds of weird stuff.

He seemed utterly shocked when dumbasses like you called in and told him to just to carry on as before. He couldn't believe it. He was more guilty than OJ. He was a drug addict. He lied about it repeatly. He broke the law repeatedly.

Sorry JMK, I was THERE. I was listening.

Sorry there little guy, but your hero Rush is just another lying Repug con man.

I heard about that faux scandal (the "phony soldier" scandal) and went to YouTube and heard the entire clip - Limbaugh was clearly responding to a caller (another caller who claimed to be a soldier who was referencing Jesse MacBeth).....and it's true the Left and the MSM have used a number of "phony soldiers" like Jesse MacBeth in their anti-war pieces. Jesse MacBeth was/is indeed a phony soldier.

The only "lie" in all that, was on the part of MediaMatters (MM).

Same with the erroneous claim that Limbaugh claimed to have "compared a soldier (Brian McGough) to a suicide bomber."

Again, thanks to YouTube the entire clip shows that to be untrue, as Limbaugh actually said, "You know, this is such a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said, then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media and a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into. This man will always be a hero to this country with everyone. Whoever pumped him full of these lies about what I said and embarrassed him with this ad has betrayed him. They're not hurting me. They're betraying this soldier. Now, unless he actually believes what he's saying, in which case it's just so unfortunate and sad when the truth of what I said is right out there to be learned."

In the 1970s I wrote for a College newspaper and found that you could actually misquote a person, so long as the views you quoted were in keeping with that person's and the misquote was relatively close to what was actually said.

I was suspended from school over an incident with that paper in 1974 and I went to an uncle who was then (God rest his soul) a state court of appeals judge.

I didn't ask him "Could I be sued for X, Y and Z," because the answer any lawyer would give to that kind of question is "Yes, you could be," as you can be sued over anything. It's like asking an oncologist, "Can I get cancer from eating those, drinking this, and breathing that?" The answer will always be "Yes," because there are so many variables involved in the etiology of cancer.

So I asked, "If I were misquoted by someone and they said THIS and I actually said THAT, could I sue?"

My uncle thought about it and then asked, "Isn't that close to what you said, and isn't it pretty much what you believe?"

When I answered "Yes," he noted that I'd really have no significant grounds for a lawsuit.

So, I rightly inferred, neither would anyone that I misquoted! I knew then that I'd be re-instated and I was.

Later on, cousin of mine went to Berkeley at the same time as Dave Brock and my cousin also wrote for a The Daily Californian.

Through my cousin I met Brock and others. They were all interested in how I determined how far you could go in misquoting someone and I carefully explained what I did above (same views, and close to the actual quote).

Ironically enough Brock, at that time, took the tack (perhaps from a devil's advocate perspective) that any deliberate misquote could be actionable because, in his mind, "it SHOULD be" actionable.

I'd forgotten about David Brock, as he was like most "kids" pretty forgettable and probably also because I considered my cousin to be a much better writer then Brock at that time.

I really only heard about David Brock almost a decade later when he wrote that sliming of Anita Hill.

It seemed even then that David Brock took the idea of the "close misquote" a lot further than I ever did, though in The Real Anita Hill he primarily used a lot of inuendo and anonymous sources, rather than actual misquotes.

Today his name is poison and the worst thing that's been done to MediaMatters was O'Reilly's associating David Brock (a known pathological liar) as the face behind that entity. Few MSM sources reference MediaMatters any more.

Brock and MMs no longer misquote people even close to what they said, nor in keeping with their views and that's eroded any credibility that group COULD'VE had.

You can't, for instance, reasonably try to make Limbaugh appear anti-troop, as anyone who's ever heard of him sees Limbaugh as very pro-troop.

And when you misquote even public figures in grossly misleading and obviously erroneous ways, as Brock/MM routinely does, that may very well be actionable.

A producer at WOR says that O'Reilly is looking for just such an obvious misquote, one that is obviously mis-interpreted by MM to sue that organization.

My opinion is that many of the misquotes by Brock/MM are so obviously misquoted as to prove the maliciousness of intent on their face, making them actionable by surpassing what is generally the most difficult hurdle (proving malicious intent) for slandering a public figure in America.

So, you've just quoted Brock's/MM's misquote about "Limbaugh's phony soldiers claim," when it's clear by the clip that Limbaugh was referring to Jesse MacBeth who was indeed a faux soldier.

You've repeated a MM lie.

Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Olberman, Beck and every other Commentator ALL deliver commentary/opinion on the news of the day.

While Left-wing opinion/commentary is generally wrong-headed, most Conservative commentary is just common sense Americanism.

No stupid, I was listening to the show AS IT AIRED. Limbaugh was CLEARLY stating that the soldiers (note, he used the plural) who spoke out against the war were "phoney" soldiers.

Rush is all for the troops: the ones who blindly carry out the orders of the "Commander Guy", Bush. But he is ready and willing to slam any veteran who speaks out against Bush Inc. He loved joining in with the Swift Boaters to lie and discredit a three-time decorated veteran, John Kerry.

Funny, he didn't have a problem with the way Bush dodged his military service, and couldn't even comply with National Guard duty because he was too busy drinking, snorting coke, and partying.

Maybe that is because Rush lied about a boil on his ass to get out of duty.

I've heard Rush predictably tear down every single military person who has spoken against Bush, including vicious attacks on the mother of a dead soldier. What could be more heinous and obscene than attacking the mother of a dead soldier?

Rush doesn't give a shit about the troops one way or the other. He is a political hack, and all that matters is their politics.

Really, you are such a child.

You took your lead from David Brock and mediamatters.

The YouTube rebroadcast clearly showed that Limbaugh was speaking of the phony soldiers (there were over a half dozen aside from Jesse MacBeth) used by the left.

Whether he really "cares about the troops" or not is both unknowable to us (we're no mind readers) and really quite irrelevant.

What I DO KNOW is that SUPPORTING the Troops means SUPPORTING what they do (right now that's killing Islamists - as one Marine I know claims, "The more Islamists killed the freer we are"), just as SUPPORTING the police means SUPPORTING what THEY DO (arresting bad guys)...and SUPPORTING firefighters means SUPPORTING what THEY DO (putting out fires)...so those who want fewer laws DON'T support the police, those who want fewer fires DON'T support their firefighters (I was proud the UFA opposed the "fireproof cigarette").

We SUPPORT those folks by SUPPORTING what they do...supporting their jobs!

Oh for god's sake, you don't give a crap about the troops. I work with them every day. People like you with your meaningless, empty words make them sick, to be honest.

They know that people like Bush and Limbaugh and you are all supportive until they need medical or particularly psychiatric care, or until they want to be paid enough to live a decent life. You all love the troops until they speak out against Bush's stupid lies and absurd occupations that make them sitting ducks. You all love the troops, but not if they want body armor and armored vehicles that actually work, and your corporate-crony profiteer buddies can only supply them with shit that doesn't work. No, then they become "phony" and "whiners".

I didn't take my lead from anyone, retard, I WAS LISTENING WHEN HE SAID IT.

God damn you're stupid.

I'm sick of your wimpy, whiney complaining. You are in every respect a poor excuse for a human.

Seriously, if you're so angry at America, so disgusted with the way things are, then why don't you consider killing yourself?

I'll let you in on something, you're so insignificant, that if you killed yourself tomorrow, no one would even notice you were gone.

I don't mean to be so blunt about it, but that's about the size of it.

Angry at AMERICA???


OMG, you just hit the bottom of the barrel, you intellectually and morally bankrupt baboon.

I'm angry at TRAITORS, like BUSH, and his supporting TRAITORS, like you, who are destroying AMERICA.

Bush = America
JMK = America

No, Bush/JMK = Mexico or let's be really blunt:

Bush/JMK = Nazi Germany.

My family was here in the 1600's, and we didn't kill ourselves, we killed off Nazi fuckers like YOU and sent your asses back to England to continue bowing and scraping to KING GEORGE.


Supply-Side policies are pro-Capitalist policies...and pro-Capitalist policies are pro-American policies. This country was founded on Liberty (self-ownership and personal responsibility) NOT "freedom/license" ("doing whatever one wants, so long as you don't hurt anyone else"), and it's foundation is PRIVATE PROPERTY, which makes socialism inherently anti-American. Even if it worked (it doesn't), it would be anti-American.

Supply-Side policies have resulted in more open markets, and yes, a "smidge" more turbulence for both businesses and workers via less stability in both the business environment and the job market.

In short, they've helped America shed its 19th Century era manufacturing-based economy for the new "Information Economy."

Usually such transitions bring about a good deal of pain and dislocation, but this one, so far, has brought about 25 YEARS of unprecedented prosperity!

Those who today oppose Supply-Side policies are the real nazis...and they, quite simply, have to go.

If you really oppose Free Trade and Supply-Side policies Barely, then really GET OUT!

You don't belong in America, at least not in THIS America.

Maybe you could find work in India!

IF terrorism could merely be seen as a CRIME, then privacy rights would be an issue, but they're not an issue because terrorism is a "War Crime," and acts of war are treated "extra legally," that is, OUTSIDE our conventioanl legal system and its Constitutional protections.

Sad to say, YOU'VE become "the nazi," you revile....and that's why you hate so much of what you see around you and that's why I suggested what I did.

Post a comment