(POL) US AG says he doesn't believe Constitution demands habeas corpus

[SirFozzie]

I'm surprised that it took over a week to make the news.

http://baltimorechronicle.com/2007/011907Parry.shtml

Consider the source, please however, but if the quotes are true, then this is the most blatant attempts to rip up the constitution I have ever seen.

In one of the most chilling public statements ever made by a U.S. Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales questioned whether the U.S. Constitution grants habeas corpus rights of a fair trial to every American.

The key section:

There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there’s a prohibition against taking it away,” Gonzales said.

Gonzales’s remark left Specter, the committee’s ranking Republican, stammering.

“Wait a minute,” Specter interjected. “The Constitution says you can’t take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there’s a rebellion or invasion?”

Gonzales continued, “The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right shall not be suspended” except in cases of rebellion or invasion.”

“You may be treading on your interdiction of violating common sense,” Specter said.

[SirFozzie]

Could someone get rid of the "There is no expre" section from the title?

[cartman]

Could someone get rid of the "There is no expre" section from the title?

If you click on Edit, then Advanced, then you can edit the title.

[John Galt]

That news story really makes a total mash of the law (and unfortunately it is repeated in the title of this thread). Habeas corpus rights have NOTHING to do with a right to a "fair trial." A habeas right, among other things, is afforded persons detained the right to be heard. That right to be heard has nothing to do with a "trial," much less a "fair" one. It simply means a person can be heard before a judge so that they are not just hidden away by a government without recourse.

With that being said, what Gonzales said is chilling and a bizarre (and virtually unprecedented) reading of the Constitution. Habeas rights have existed since the Fourteenth Century in English common law socities. There is no doubt that the framers of the constitution assumed a habeas right existed when they drafted the relevant clause in the Constitution. For Gonzales to say habeas rights don't necessarily exist for anyone in America (note he is not talking about detainees) is just hogwash.

[BishopMVP]

[blatantly stolen from some blog]There's also no specification that the judicial branch is the only one that can issue warrants, so they can just get around the FISA court that way.[/blatant stealing]

Daily Show and Colbert were all over this nights ago ;)

EDIT - Oh, and Gonzalez is an idiot. I would have failed high school Con Law if I tried pulling this shit.

[BrianD]

If the Constitution has a prohibition against taking away a right, doesn't that imply that the right exists? There would be no need to prevent taking away a non-existent right.

[Subby]

Attorney General Gonzlaes was at my kids' baptism. That church has since split from the Episcopal Church of the US and we have left the parrish but I am pretty sure his family still attends.

/non-sequitir

[ISiddiqui]

If the Constitution has a prohibition against taking away a right, doesn't that imply that the right exists? There would be no need to prevent taking away a non-existent right.

And that'd be the common sense that Specter was alluding to. Gonzales is such an idiot.

[KWhit]

You have got to be kidding me.

Sigh.

[SirFozzie]

If you click on Edit, then Advanced, then you can edit the title.

Thanks. Edited that and changed the topic to further clarify Gonzales's remarks

[Bubba Wheels]

Well, this is exactly what liberals do when they try to extend rights enjoyed by U.S. citizens onto illegal aliens and foreign war criminals. So why the surprise now when others now want to alter the constitution for their own purposes? Liberals opened the door for it to happen.

[wade moore]

Well, this is exactly what liberals do when they try to extend rights enjoyed by U.S. citizens onto illegal aliens and foreign war criminals. So why the surprise now when others now want to alter the constitution for their own purposes? Liberals opened the door for it to happen.


Ummm.. huh?

[SirFozzie]

Well, this is exactly what liberals do when they try to extend rights enjoyed by U.S. citizens onto illegal aliens and foreign war criminals. So why the surprise now when others now want to alter the constitution for their own purposes? Liberals opened the door for it to happen.

Bwahahahaha. Shoulda known Boobala Bubba would try to justify this.

[Bubba Wheels]

Ummm.. huh?

When you allow the constitution to be altered for nothing other than a 'point-of-view', say like in the case of abortion in Roe vs. Wade where phony things are found within the 'living document' that never really existed...you open the door for anyone to basically do anything they want to do to the document. This is just the next step. Should be no surprise.

[SirFozzie]

How you can spout that crap with a straight face is one of the mysteries of the world, Boobies.

[Bubba Wheels]

How you can spout that crap with a straight face is one of the mysteries of the world, Boobies.

Well, what is really funny is how types like you that were all for 'new found rights' within the constitution are now suddenly all 'bent out of shape' that someone else could find a way to manipulate it for their own purposes. ;)

[Ksyrup]

Subby's non-sequitur comment was apparently misplaced in this thread.

[SirFozzie]

Well, what is really funny is how types like you that were all for 'new found rights' within the constitution are now suddenly all 'bent out of shape' that someone else could find a way to manipulate it for their own purposes. ;)

Ah. The classic "He hit me first" defense. :rolleyes:

[Bubba Wheels]

Ah. The classic "He hit me first" defense. :rolleyes:

Sorry, just strikes me as really funny/ironic. The constitution has been trashed beyond recognition, yet this one point suddenly wants to bring your types out of the 'woodwork' in outrage. Just depends on whose 'ox is gored', really.

[cartman]

So, Arlen Specter is a liberal, one of "those types"? Wow, I never knew...

:rolleyes:

[Bubba Wheels]

So, Arlen Specter is a liberal, one of "those types"? Wow, I never knew...

:rolleyes:

LOL, if you don't know Arlen Specter is a liberal nothing more can be said for you.

[SirFozzie]

LOL, if you don't know Arlen Specter is a liberal nothing more can be said for you.

Liberal, in this case, meaning anyone who doesn't want to turn the US into a religious oligarchy.

[cartman]

LOL, if you don't know Arlen Specter is a liberal nothing more can be said for you.

And you wonder why no one takes you seriously...

If you think habeas corpus is a right/left issue, then you are seriously delusional.

[Bubba Wheels]

Liberal, in this case, meaning anyone who doesn't want to turn the US into a religious oligarchy.

One of the Prez's many sins vs. conservatives is that he backed Specter over a true conservative in the primaries last time Specter ran. Specter made promises then that he would 'behave' (act more Republican than Democrat). Yeah, sure he will.

[Bubba Wheels]

And you wonder why no one takes you seriously...

If you think habeas corpus is a right/left issue, then you are seriously delusional.

Didn't say it was a left/right issue. Only said that the left has been playing 'fast and loose' with the intent, if not the actual content, of the constitution for decades. Why would this suddenly be so surprising? Because its being done by (supposed) conservatives and not liberals this time.

[wade moore]

When you allow the constitution to be altered for nothing other than a 'point-of-view', say like in the case of abortion in Roe vs. Wade where phony things are found within the 'living document' that never really existed...you open the door for anyone to basically do anything they want to do to the document. This is just the next step. Should be no surprise.

I'm going to actually attempt to discuss this with you... And I'm someone that I think most people on the board would characterize as right leaning...

First off, the whole "he did it first" argument is so flawed it's laughable. You can't take the stance of a strict interpretation in one breath and then defend it being manipulated in the next when it is done by "your side".

The difference here, at any rate, is that Roe vs. Wade was interpretting a vague statement in the constitution. FWIW, and i do NOT want to debate this, I disagree with Roe vs. Wade. However, what Gonzalez is doing here is directly going against something that is very clearly stated in the Constitution.

[Bubba Wheels]

I'm going to actually attempt to discuss this with you... And I'm someone that I think most people on the board would characterize as right leaning...

First off, the whole "he did it first" argument is so flawed it's laughable. You can't take the stance of a strict interpretation in one breath and then defend it being manipulated in the next when it is done by "your side".

The difference here, at any rate, is that Roe vs. Wade was interpretting a vague statement in the constitution. FWIW, and i do NOT want to debate this, I disagree with Roe vs. Wade. However, what Gonzalez is doing here is directly going against something that is very clearly stated in the Constitution.

Well, what part about congress making no law 'abridging free speech' in the first amendment didn't congress and the courts understand when they allowed the 'campaign finance reform bill' to pass? Suddenly pornagraphy is free speech but actual free speech within 60 days of an election is not? Whose delusional?

As we speak, some liberals of congress are attempting to bring back the 'fairness doctrine.' This means some arbitrary medium somewheres will be allowed to make subjective judgements on what is and is not 'acceptable' speech in television and radio. This is not 'abridging' free speech? Just two other examples of what I'm talking about.

How about U.S. citizens rights for illegal aliens and foreign war criminals? Just a few 'altered constitutional' issues that come to mind.

[cartman]

Well, what part about congress making no law 'abridging free speech' in the first amendment didn't congress and the courts understand when they allowed the 'campaign finance reform bill' to pass? Suddenly pornagraphy is free speech but actual free speech within 60 days of an election is not? Whose delusional?

As we speak, some liberals of congress are attempting to bring back the 'fairness doctrine.' This means some arbitrary medium somewheres will be allowed to make subjective judgements on what is and is not 'acceptable' speech in television and radio. This is not 'abridging' free speech? Just two other examples of what I'm talking about.

How about U.S. citizens rights for illegal aliens and foreign war criminals? Just a few 'altered constitutional' issues that come to mind.

Why do you never reply to the question you were asked? You invariably start throwing in other tangents that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. If you can point me to numerous people on both sides of the aisle that support the viewpoint of AG Gonzalez regarding habeas corpus, then you might have an argument. Until then, you are just on an anti-liberal rant that does not add anything to the discussion.

[wade moore]

Well, what part about congress making no law 'abridging free speech' in the first amendment didn't congress and the courts understand when they allowed the 'campaign finance reform bill' to pass? Suddenly pornagraphy is free speech but actual free speech within 60 days of an election is not? Whose delusional?

As we speak, some liberals of congress are attempting to bring back the 'fairness doctrine.' This means some arbitrary medium somewheres will be allowed to make subjective judgements on what is and is not 'acceptable' speech in television and radio. This is not 'abridging' free speech? Just two other examples of what I'm talking about.

How about U.S. citizens rights for illegal aliens and foreign war criminals? Just a few 'altered constitutional' issues that come to mind.

You just LOVE shifting the argument, don't you?

I'm not saying there aren't things out there that seem to go against the constitutional model.

However...

Either you're for a strict interpretation of the constitution or you're not. You can't have it both ways. If you're saying you're no longer for following the constitution, then let's have at it... Then we can discuss the merits of one event vs. another.

[Bubba Wheels]

Why do you never reply to the question you were asked? You invariably start throwing in other tangents that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. If you can point me to numerous people on both sides of the aisle that support the viewpoint of AG Gonzalez regarding habeas corpus, then you might have an argument. Until then, you are just on an anti-liberal rant that does not add anything to the discussion.

I'll just refer to my original point: Its just funny to me that this particular issue is causing the 'uproar' when the method in question (find what you want to within the constitution to suite your purposes) has been going on for some time now.

[Bubba Wheels]

You just LOVE shifting the argument, don't you?

I'm not saying there aren't things out there that seem to go against the constitutional model.

However...

Either you're for a strict interpretation of the constitution or you're not. You can't have it both ways. If you're saying you're no longer for following the constitution, then let's have at it... Then we can discuss the merits of one event vs. another.

I'll side with the Federalists. But many of those bemoaning this newest developement by our AG find those same Federalists as 'bad guys' or worse.' Ironic.

BTW, nowhere have I said that I agree with what the AG is doing. I don't.

[wade moore]

I'll side with the Federalists. But many of those bemoaning this newest developement by our AG find those same Federalists as 'bad guys' or worse.' Ironic.

Ok, I see your point.

I think the argument would be that this is far more disturbing than the specific examples that you've mentioned. Even when I disagree withs ome of the things you mentioned, I would agree that this is far worse than any of them.

[Bubba Wheels]

Ok, I see your point.

I think the argument would be that this is far more disturbing than the specific examples that you've mentioned. Even when I disagree withs ome of the things you mentioned, I would agree that this is far worse than any of them.

Yes, but I see it as just the continuing of the trend. Regardless of who is in power.

[wade moore]

Yes, but I see it as just the continuing of the trend. Regardless of whose in power.

There are levels to it. Minor changes or "exceptions" is different than sweeping statements that imply tha bility to arbitrarily take away rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

Everyone has a breaking point of when it "goes to far".. this just happens to be past that point for many people whereas the others are not.

[cartman]

I'm pretty sure the root cause of the uproar is that the AG's statement is a spectacularly bad viewpoint, not because "liberals" are surprised that it's being done by a "conservative".

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Bubba enter thread. I leave it.

[ISiddiqui]

There are levels to it. Minor changes or "exceptions" is different than sweeping statements that imply tha bility to arbitrarily take away rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

Bingo. Interpretations of things that are vague in the Constitution (ie, is financing of campaigns actually "speech"), arguments can be made for both sides. Things that are explicitly stated in the document, it is harder to go against the clear words.

[John Galt]

And even though Bubba is pretty much completely wrong and out of it as usual, he is even moreso in this case. It isn't really relevant who started the so-called "living constitution." But if you want to find the case that probably started the "discovering of rights" in the Constitution, you might want to research Lochner v. New York (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_v._New_York) and its progeny. I'll give you a little teaser about it - it wasn't liberals who found a "right to free contract" in the 14th Amendment. But feel free to blame the "liberals" for everything.

[wade moore]

And even though Bubba is pretty much completely wrong and out of it as usual, he is even moreso in this case. It isn't really relevant who started the so-called "living constitution." But if you want to find the case that probably started the "discovering of rights" in the Constitution, you might want to research Lochner v. New York (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_v._New_York) and its progeny. I'll give you a little teaser about it - it wasn't liberals who found a "right to free contract" in the 14th Amendment. But feel free to blame the "liberals" for everything.

I wasn't even touching any of this part of his argument because I am admittedly ignorant on the history of interpreting the Constitution.

[Bubba Wheels]

And even though Bubba is pretty much completely wrong and out of it as usual, he is even moreso in this case. It isn't really relevant who started the so-called "living constitution." But if you want to find the case that probably started the "discovering of rights" in the Constitution, you might want to research Lochner v. New York (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_v._New_York) and its progeny. I'll give you a little teaser about it - it wasn't liberals who found a "right to free contract" in the 14th Amendment. But feel free to blame the "liberals" for everything.

I believe that I said it was bad for either side to be mucking with with great work for their own purposes. But it cannot be denied that liberals have a far greater track record in mucking than the conservatives do.

[wade moore]

I believe that I said it was bad for either side to be mucking with with great work for their own purposes. But it cannot be denied that liberals have a far greater track record in mucking than the conservatives do.

If there is one thing you have proven in your time here, it's that anything can be denied.

[Bubba Wheels]

Bubba enter thread. I leave it.

LOL, I don't see your previous post(s). Where were you in it before to leave it?

[John Galt]

I believe that I said it was bad for either side to be mucking with with great work for their own purposes. But it cannot be denied that liberals have a far greater track record in mucking than the conservatives do.

Bubba, by the mere fact that you state something, it can, and should, be denied.

[wade moore]

If there is one thing you have proven in your time here, it's that anything can be denied.

Bubba, by the mere fact that you state something, it can, and should, be denied.

Nice.

[Bubba Wheels]

If there is one thing you have proven in your time here, it's that anything can be denied.

Why...thankyou!

Its really too funny. You cannot pay for this kind of entertainment. And to think I was going to dissappear for awhile. Too many laughs.

[QuikSand]

Bubba is who we thought he was.

[John Galt]

Bubba is who we thought he was.

:D

[Huckleberry]

1.) Republican-appointed Attorney General blatantly misreads the Constitution.
2.) People mock him for his stupidity.
3.) Bubba Wheels yells about how liberals started it.
4.) John Galt points out liberals didn't start it.
5.) Bubba Wheels says yeah, but they've done it more.

Is that where we are?

[wade moore]

1.) Republican-appointed Attorney General blatantly misreads the Constitution.
2.) People mock him for his stupidity.
3.) Bubba Wheels yells about how liberals started it.
4.) John Galt points out liberals didn't start it.
5.) Bubba Wheels says yeah, but they've done it more.
6.) Bubba Wheels implies that FOFC is entertaining because everyone but him is clueless.

Is that where we are?

Fixed it for ya.

[Subby]

7) Bubba Wheels has roleplay sex with polar bear

[WVUFAN]

It doesn't matter whether it's been done before, or by whom.

To me, it doesn't take an expert to know that is a right cannot be revoked that the right exists.


Suddenly pornagraphy is free speech but actual free speech within 60 days of an election is not? Whose delusional?

Pornography ABSOLUTELY falls within free speech rights. To me, it's one of the things that define the very term -- the type of "speech" that is looked down upon by society should be the very thing that is protected the most.

How does campaign reform impose upon free speech?

[st.cronin]

I know there are some American history buffs here, was habeas corpus an issue of particular significance to the founding fathers? I am under the impression that it was, and that certain British abuses were the reason for that particular wording in the Constitution.

[dawgfan]

7) Bubba Wheels has roleplay sex with polar bear
I <3 Subby...

[BishopMVP]

If the Constitution has a prohibition against taking away a right, doesn't that imply that the right exists? There would be no need to prevent taking away a non-existent right.It's as if you hold that right to be self-evident.How does campaign reform impose upon free speech?Not to jump in on Bubba Wheels side or steer the thread in the direction of a real debate, but there is a pretty strong argument that money is speech, and some specific prohibitions in McCain-Feingold I believe against certain people/groups spending money on advertisements within 60 days of an election that I considered unconstitutional when I went over the regulations and kind of knew what I was talking about. (That was probably around the time the SC ruled on at least part of it, and I don't even remember what exactly they ruled to be honest, except that they declined to throw out the entire bill by split decision.)

[Brillig]

In other news... Right to life groups around the country are closing their doors after discovering that the Bible does not guarantee a right to life, only a prohibition of taking it away.

[Desnudo]

7) Bubba Wheels has roleplay sex with polar bear

So what's his role?

[Ben E Lou]

FYI, Bubba Wheels has been suspended for his trolling in this thread.

[John Galt]

FYI, Bubba Wheels has been suspended for his trolling in this thread.

And not for his roleplay sex with the polar bear? ;)

[John Galt]

In other news... Right to life groups around the country are closing their doors after discovering that the Bible does not guarantee a right to life, only a prohibition of taking it away.

Who would have thought this thread would have so many good one-liners? Well done.

[stevew]

Crown his ass!

[WVUFAN]

Not to jump in on Bubba Wheels side or steer the thread in the direction of a real debate, but there is a pretty strong argument that money is speech, and some specific prohibitions in McCain-Feingold I believe against certain people/groups spending money on advertisements within 60 days of an election that I considered unconstitutional when I went over the regulations and kind of knew what I was talking about. (That was probably around the time the SC ruled on at least part of it, and I don't even remember what exactly they ruled to be honest, except that they declined to throw out the entire bill by split decision.)

I'd be more than interested to read up on this. Did this pass? What groups are prohibited from spending money within 60 days?

I'll have to do some research on this. I hadn't considered the idea of spending money for ads to be free speech before.

[albionmoonlight]

Wow. I saw this thread. Saw that Bubba was posting in it. Made the express decision to stay out of the thread. But reminded myself to check in at the end of the day to see if he had gotten boxed yet or not.

Rarely do I call them so completely.

(Though I admit that calling a Bubba boxing here is a bit like calling that Aaron Brooks won't be a first ballot hall of famer.)

[Fonzie]

Didn't Bubba promise to go away a while back?

[BishopMVP]

I'd be more than interested to read up on this. Did this pass? What groups are prohibited from spending money within 60 days?

I'll have to do some research on this. I hadn't considered the idea of spending money for ads to be free speech before.Some decent backround is at - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mccain-feingold
and
http://www.oyez.org/cases/case/?case=2000-2009/2003/2003_02_1674In response to challenges that the law was too broad and unnecessarily regulated conduct that had not been shown to cause corruption (such as advertisements paid for by corporations or unions), the Court found that such regulation was necessary to prevent the groups from circumventing the law. Justices O'Connor and Stevens wrote that "money, like water, will always find an outlet" and that the government was therefore justified in taking steps to prevent schemes developed to get around the contribution limits.From a practical standpoint, this was my main objection. If money is always going to find an outlet, then the government shouldn't impose restrictions that just funnel it more discreetly or through loopholes - like the 527 groups.

[JPhillips]

I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but I don't think Bubba deserved a boxing for this. He's been generally civil and hasn't gone off the deep end as is typical for him. I'm sure this is some sort of life-time achievement and I won't shed any tears for Bubba, but this just illustrates how random and capricious the rules are around here.

[cartman]

but this just illustrates how random and capricious the rules are around here.

I don't think you understand what those words mean. The crazy guy's selection of Navin Johnson as his shooting target in "The Jerk" is an example of random and capricious.

[Glengoyne]

FYI, Bubba Wheels has been suspended for his trolling in this thread.

This just simply doesn't make any sense. There was NOTHING he was saying that was in any way harmful. There wasn't any sort of attack, just his opinion. Are you saying that his position was so out of whack with what most of us consider reality, that it could only be interpreted as trolling?

I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but I don't think Bubba deserved a boxing for this. He's been generally civil and hasn't gone off the deep end as is typical for him. I'm sure this is some sort of life-time achievement and I won't shed any tears for Bubba, but this just illustrates how random and capricious the rules are around here.

We maybe in the minority on this, but random and capricious both seem to fit this instance.

What the hell?

[dawgfan]

I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but I don't think Bubba deserved a boxing for this. He's been generally civil and hasn't gone off the deep end as is typical for him. I'm sure this is some sort of life-time achievement and I won't shed any tears for Bubba, but this just illustrates how random and capricious the rules are around here.
Good point. As little as I care about Bubba and as happy as I am to not see his posts for a week, I'm not really sure what this boxing tells the rest of the community in terms of what's allowed and what isn't.

[sabotai]

To play devil's advocate, Bubba came into the thread with his usual insane ranting, kept doing is his dodging tactic that he likes to do, and then posts: " Its really too funny. You cannot pay for this kind of entertainment." Claiming that the replies to your posts are providing entertainment could be seen as an admission of trolling.

[st.cronin]

Complaining that Bubba being boxed is capricious is like complaining that Saddam's trial wasn't fair.

[cartman]

To play devil's advocate, Bubba came into the thread with his usual insane ranting, kept doing is his dodging tactic that he likes to do, and then posts: " Its really too funny. You cannot pay for this kind of entertainment." Claiming that the replies to your posts are providing entertainment could be seen as an admission of trolling.

Exactly. A couple of months ago he said he was leaving the board, then he comes back and pulls this crap. If he had made some attempt to justify his posts, it would be different. But he was stirring up trouble just for the sake of doing it. Not a good way to reintroduce yourself to the board, considering he's been boxed for similar postings in the past.

[Glengoyne]

Complaining that Bubba being boxed is capricious is like complaining that Saddam's trial wasn't fair.

Exactly. A couple of months ago he said he was leaving the board, then he comes back and pulls this crap. If he had made some attempt to justify his posts, it would be different. But he was stirring up trouble just for the sake of doing it. Not a good way to reintroduce yourself to the board, considering he's been boxed for similar postings in the past.

So this was some sort of lifetime acheivement suspension?

I don't believe he crossed any line that he hadn't crossed hundreds of times before. If the deal is that Bubba's threshold for a suspension has been lowered, then I think it would only be fair to disclose such things.

[Subby]

First capsicum, now Bubba Wheels. Which one of you nutjob reactionary nazi's is next? :D

[sterlingice]

There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there’s a prohibition against taking it away,” Gonzales said.

Gonzales’s remark left Specter, the committee’s ranking Republican, stammering.

“Wait a minute,” Specter interjected. “The Constitution says you can’t take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there’s a rebellion or invasion?”

Gonzales continued, “The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right shall not be suspended” except in cases of rebellion or invasion.”

“You may be treading on your interdiction of violating common sense,” Specter said.

To get slightly back on topic (I know, I know, I'm sorry)- this is the type of thing I'd pay to see on some sort of CSPAN pay-per-view :D

SI

[Glengoyne]

I'm really a big fan of Arlen Specter. I guess that makes me a RINO.

[JPhillips]

I guess I think that Bubba was being sincere. Misguided, foolish, ignorant, but sincere. I don't think he was trolling, he's just spouting what he's heard from Pat Buchanan.

I understood what PSU did. I understood what IMTG and jb did. I really don't get what Bubba did. If his crime is "being Bubba" then you should go ahead and ban him and get it over with.

I should add that I really don't care that the rules are arbitrary, but let's call them what they are.

[BishopMVP]

To get slightly back on topic (I know, I know, I'm sorry)- this is the type of thing I'd pay to see on some sort of CSPAN pay-per-view :D

SI
http://youtube.com/watch?v=dPxpdOvEJD0