No. Shadesofgrey evidently doesn't remember that people coming in and dumping blogs with a title, a snide comment, and a link has always been considered a problem. These articles don't even have links. People have to recognize that as the next election gets nearer you are going to see this more and more, often as a dedicated effort to flood the Internet with material to be found and associated by search engines.

I dunno if AsWayOpens just can't put any original thoughts together, or just doesn't want to. I think DJBandit was being nice, actually, to make the latter assumption instead of the former. I'm not sure I would have been so generous.

As for shades, well, policing comments isn't any more righteous than policing articles. Whatever passes the time for you.

---

As for Feingold's bill it's an impotent little nothing that he can't even get support for from Democrats. Rushing through condemnation before items have been resolved is patently transparent. He's actually hurt Democrats, honestly, since people can point out that most of them opted not to officially condemn the President's behavior.

Given that this "wiretapping" has been misrepresented from the beginning, to the point that most people can't even discuss the issue without spouting lies makes it an even worse effort. He wants to smear to stick before people realize it isn't all that much of a smear.

He's going to run for President, and he's adding little flaccid acts to the bullet point lists he'll put on the brochures. Heck, Hillary might even ask him to be VP and make the millions he'll waste a little less heinous.

As for shades, well, policing comments isn't any more righteous than policing articles. Whatever passes the time for you.

Point well taken, Bakerstreet. And to be fair, had the comment come from you, I'd have ignored it. DJ Bandit gets under my skin--I should have just walked away. Which is what I will do now.

No worries. Like I say, whatever passes the time. I've been a lot more picky about a lot less.

#16 by BakerStreet Tuesday, March 14, 2006

Thanks for the further clarification baker.

Given that this "wiretapping" has been misrepresented from the beginning

Yeah, right. That's why there are so many Republicans who frown on the administration's arrogance in skirting the law. Feingold is trying to be moderate in calling for censure rather than impeachment. Too bad you can't even accept a slap on the wrist of Bush. Of course, I agree that the Democrats have no guts for it either.

Given that this "wiretapping" has been misrepresented from the beginning

Yeah, right. That's why there are so many Republicans who frown on the administration's arrogance in skirting the law. Feingold is trying to be moderate in calling for censure rather than impeachment. Too bad you can't even accept a slap on the wrist of Bush. Of course, I agree that the Democrats have no guts for it either.

"That's why there are so many Republicans who frown on the administration's arrogance in skirting the law."

No, Republicans have frowned on it because the polls tell them that in order to do well in this year's election they need to frown on it. And if you think the statement "wiretapping Americans" isn't a stretch of the truth, you've lost sight of the real reality.

I find it odd that people would skip criminal proceedings and go straight for censure and impeachment. Could it be they want to slide past whether or not this is really illegal? We can't have people taking advantage of loopholes we don't mind leaving until we can condemn their use for political effect.

Sen. Feingold is getting a lot of online support, but not a lot of public support.

That's because he puts himself so far out on a limb that no one can safely follow.

Wow. I can hardly believe that you'd have the gumption to call anyone else stupid. Absolutely astounding. Have you ever read what you write? [I rest my case]. I'm not usually horribly mean or nasty on this site, but you seem to bring out the worst in me. Who died and made you king critic of Joeuser? AsWayOpens is not writing for your benefit, so if you don't like it, move on. You seem to think that you are mister perfect (I've seen you crap on plenty of blogs in your short time here), and that everyone here is to please you. That's just not the case, and since no one else was calling you on it, I decided

Sorry shades but this time you are incorrect. When you blog you "invite" public opinion of what you write. And allowing someone to voice their opinion is what a blog is all about. If "aswaysopen" does not like what DJBandit's opinion is, she has a couple of choices. She can a) not write anything or b)lock it down and not allow any comment or c) blacklist DJBandit. Her choice not yours. And just for the record???? He's right!

I'm not a child or a dog, so you can refrain from reprimanding me.

And for what it's worth....you should learn to take your own advice.

Thanks, Shades. Sen. Feingold is getting a lot of online support, but not a lot of public support. It's just amazing to watch sometimes, isn't it? Many Senators questioning the legality of the wire tapping, but only wanting to change laws to support it, instead of acting on the fact the law was broken. The fact that they feel they need to change the law should prove it was broken to begin with.

You seem to be missing a very valid point here. "No one" and I do mean no one has come forth and shown that what GW did was illegal.

Link This will take you to the Bill.

Sorry to inform you....it isn't going to happen.

Instead of trying to block Feingold, who argues Bush broke the law by authorizing the wiretaps, Senate Minority Leader Bill Frist sought a quick vote on the resolution. Other Republicans, including Vice President Dick Cheney, used Feingold's proposal as a rallying point. Democrats, who had been gaining ground in polls testing perceptions of which party would deal with terrorism better, backed away from the resolution, prompting Feingold to complain that his party was ``cowering'' before the president. ``With no co-sponsors and fellow Democrats refusing to vote on Senator Feingold's fringe issue, I urge the minority to either allow us to vote or move on to addressing the real threats facing our national security,'' said Frist, a Tennessee Republican. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said on Monday, when Feingold's resolution was introduced, that he didn't know if he would support it. Senator Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat, said on NBC's ``Today'' show he sympathized with Feingold's ``frustration'' over the eavesdropping issue while declining to endorse the resolution. An `Unusual Measure' Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, who has supported Bush on defense and security issues, called Feingold's resolution ``a very unusual measure.'' ``Frankly, I'd prefer to spend our time figuring out ways to bring this very important program of surveillance of potential terrorists here in the United States under the law,'' Lieberman said March 13. Senator Mark Dayton, a Minnesota Democrat, was more direct. The resolution, he said yesterday, is ``premature, and over- reaching, which often involves losing more than gaining.'' Reid and other Democratic leaders succeeded in stalling a vote on the Senate floor that would have resulted in defeat in a chamber controlled by Republicans 55-44 with one independent.

For someone who "could care less" you certainly wrote a lot on the subject matter.

I'm can't say anything with a few words. I tend to write a lot just to get my point accross. Still I will drop it here cause there's no point in it, even others here have pointed out to you that I was right. Like I said, I don't care anymore.

#11 by AsWayOpens Tuesday, March 14, 2006

Thank you for the link BTW. A very interesting resolution. I am however curious about what some have said here. If Bush did break the law then why is he not facing a court or charges, instead Sen. Feingold makes a resolution to get him in trouble anyways. This to me sounds morer like Bush needs to get into trouble one way or the other. I don't get it. If Feingold feels Bush broke the law, why not get him charged rather than give him a "slap on the rist" like someone said here. I just doesn't seem right that if someone breaks a law that they should just get slapped but if he didn't he shouldn't get slapped at all.

Well, I guess it has been decided then.
Lazy, I am not. Limited on time, I am.
I also assume that others have the ability to read and see what I do, to look up issues brought up. I mean, are you all just going to go on the writer's blog or are you going to look into it for yourselfs?
I've written a few brief things that have brought about discussions, other than my blogging style.
Now, may I ask how I put this on my blog page?

Thank you for the link BTW. A very interesting resolution. I am however curious about what some have said here. If Bush did break the law then why is he not facing a court or charges, instead Sen. Feingold makes a resolution to get him in trouble anyways. This to me sounds morer like Bush needs to get into trouble one way or the other. I don't get it. If Feingold feels Bush broke the law, why not get him charged rather than give him a "slap on the rist" like someone said here. I just doesn't seem right that if someone breaks a law that they should just get slapped but if he didn't he shouldn't get slapped at all.

It opens up investigating it. The Republicans have done everything they can to stop an open investigation.

You seem to be missing a very valid point here. "No one" and I do mean no one has come forth and shown that what GW did was illegal.

Then why do they find it necessary to change the law?