Of course, they feel like their Dear Leader should have the power to determine who is and who is not human, so it may be a moot point.

It’s a sad state of affairs, but at least we know the truth now.

I thought it would be restful, just for once, to have a Democratic candidate for President that I didn’t really care about — a guy I just could pull the lever for, without caring about his personal priorities, because at least this time he was *bound* to be better than Old John McSame.

But no matter how cynical I think I am, our politicians can always find a nadir below my expectations.

(Of course I’ll still vote for the Democratic nominee, because if it’s Obama, he’s established that his convictions are for sale to the loudest voice, and there will be *lots* of voices calling for hanging an examination of the Cheney/Bush interregnum come January 2009… )

It’s a sad state of affairs, but at least we know the truth now.

Who is the enemy here? You guess it.

Quite clearly, it is the fear-driven fools and the useful idiots, who possess ignorance in abundance and live by the “let’s you and him fight” creed.

But, if that Senator or three can insert language requiring lists of weapons from gun owners – or maybe be just gun owner/dealers even, and also requiring compliance with on-demand inspection by DHS/ATF, then this bill goes down in flames.
Just so long as the NRA gets incensed and publicly involved, it’s toast.
I mean, if you’re going to take a dump directly on the 4th Amendment, and splatter the 14th and maybe 9th, well, why not go for broke and hit #2, too?
It’s not like hundreds of Americans are killed every year by gunfire, and you never know when another DC-type sniper(speaking of inspecting gun dealer inventories) is going to crop up.

Exactly. I get what you’re saying. My point is that the people who benefit from the war should pay for it with their own lives, not any others. Poor white Republicans don’t make any money from the war. It’s a class thing, not a race thing. If you want to invade a foreign country, go do it. But don’t pull a Bill O’Reilly on me, and be a total chickenhawk. If you advocate taking over a foreign nation aggressively, put your ass on the line. Or run away.

But they didn’t think of that.

That justifies all the bullshit they’ve pulled so far – secrecy, rendition, torture, secret prisons etc. The U.S. government, using 9/11 for justification, simply changed the rules while we weren’t looking. I hate to break it to you, but your so-called inalienable rights are long gone. Now you are guilty until they say you are not – which may be never, since you won’t get any due process if you are considered an ‘enemy combatant’ (which they get to define). And it doesn’t matter if you are a U.S. citizen btw (Jose Padillia leaps to mind). Guilty or not, his treatment at the hands of his captors was outrageous.

Any frightwing bedwetter that doesn’t understand this – that anyone, ANYONE will be treated this way if they become ’suspect’ – had better get it through their thick fucking skulls that their rights went right down the toilet with the so-called terrorists’ rights.

Supreme Court decision or no, the rule of law will continue to be flagrantly abused by BushCo. as long as they can get away with it. Getting an actual constitutional lawyer elected president would be a nice first step to turning the U.S. back to the rule of law our country was founded on.

However, hanging Saddam is one of the very few things Bush succeeded at, and I’d really appreciate the irony.

Well, actually, what Bush succeeded at was keeping Saddam Hussein alive until the end of the trial, after which he was unceremoniously handed to his political enemies and subjected to a public execution by death squad.