O'Reilly

You forgot to use the word liberal somewhere in your rant.

you also forgot to CAPLIZE ND MISPELLL EVURYTANG! AND USE LOTSIES OF PUNKTIATIONS!!!!!!

You also forgot to tell Joe he's a racist.

Joe's a rascist? Big deal. Lots of conservatives like NASCAR.

What do the personal opinions and rantings of internet hooligans who don't have a personal bully pulpit have to do with O'Reily's comments to Joe Klein? Comparing the reach of internet commentary to the broadcast opinion shows of Hannity and Beck is silly. The messages may be the same, but level of gravitas isn't.Furthermore, Joe was called out specifically by O'Reily, thus he is responding to that. I'm sure had Keith Olbermann attacked Joe he would have respond in kind.

Except for the fact that Right Wing terrorists have killed eleven more people since Obama took office on American soil than either Al Queda or left wing terrorists.
.
I'm not far left, but there really is no equivalence here...

Perhaps Liz is afraid she'd play matchmaker between Rach and Liz's sister.

LMAO!

Hey Rusty, me no speako Talibano. How about an English translation of your screed?

Rusty! Dude!! Lay off the Red Bull!

Rusty, unfortunately you comparing journalism skill to Joe Klein and O'reilly as being the better, you have given yourself away as knowing nothing about Journalism.

But it's cool, keep outing yourself as a bafoon.

But Rusty!
.
You still didn't call Joe a racist!
.
I am very disappointed!

Guaranteeing auto company warranties. I don't recall reading where Congress gave the authority to the Treasury to enable this action. Or was Obama lying about the guarantees?

Setting compensation of public companies. Decades of corporate law being breached.

Oversight of Federal agencies being the responsibility of people approved by the Senate which several of the Czars (unconfirmed) do. That was pointed out by that right-wing nut Sen. Byrd.

Bankruptcy laws destroyed handing ownership to auto unions (Can you say bribe).

Attempting to have Tu-tu Rahm run the Census

The goes on

Dirks:
.
Simply begin with the 32 "Czars" which Obama has appointed.
.
Article II Section 2 – “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be
established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
.
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/29391/
.
32 “Czars” with only 7 confirmed by the Senate.
.
The current health care debate in and of itself if passed in its current form is unconstitutional. No where in the constitution does it give any rights to any citizen that we will provide for their health care. Nor is it constitutional for the government to “mandate” each citizen “must have health care insurance”.
.
And last but not least is Obama's failure to “Protect and Defend” this country. Months upon months have now gone by that he has “dithered” in his responsibility to send additional troops to Afghanistan. He has failed to uphold his position as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Article 1 Section 8 “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress";
.
And what freeinpa said before me.

you know what freeinpa and rustyreturns, you know what is implicitly inaccurate in everything you describe, unless Congress passes a law against it, or someone brings a court challenge to any of those items and the Supreme Court knocks down (such as recent Bush era mandates around Guantanamo for example) then nothing you said - and seriously rusty, invasion, of what, the Falklands, why don't you try walking to Afghanistan and let us know how you do - is inherently unconstitutional. That's the nature of the Constitution and so many of the laws and rights we enjoy - everything can be changed and argued unless it is EXPLICITLY written into the constitution or knocked down by the Supreme Court. Let the health bill past and knock yourself out with a lawsuit about its constitutionality and let's see how it does.

Oh and one last point about how unconstitutional the healtchare debate is Rusty...ahem "...promote the general Welfare" as so written in the beginning of the fine document.. alot of possible interpretations there.

You goon. Do you even try to be informed? If a corporation decides to voluntarily enter a contractual agreement with the federal government then they are bound by the terms of that contract. If the government, now a direct investor, decides that guaranteeing warranties better serves their bottom line, then they have every right to do so. I would also like you to specifically point out which federal agencies are being run by people who are not confirmed by the Senate. I have no idea what point you are trying to make about the auto unions. Finally, the argument that Rahm Emanuel will control the 2010 census is pure bunk. Don't bother giving me links, I've read the arguments already. Here is the executive staff chart and here is the organization chart. Do you see Rahm Emanuel anywhere in them? For the sake of the rest of us, get a clue!

hotbbq

Gee Paul you have rabid twins without a clue just bile and name calling.
TARP was Congressional Authority for bailing out financials. No word on autos. To pay any warranty costs Congress must approve any expenditure out of the Treasury. None mentioned in TARP.

Pick your czar and you have the agency being run by an unconfirmed bureacrat.

Charts are great but prove zero in actual operation. But more importantly, I stated the "attempt" of Tu-tu to run the census. Outrage by Republicans stopped the overt action. Your reading skills match your reasoning ones.

The auto bribe is simple even you might eventually grasp. The union was given significant ownership over other shareholders and creditors for what consideration-- election support for Obama.

Now clean the spittle off your keyboard and settle back into the delusions that liberals have a clue

And last but not least is Obama's failure to “Protect and Defend” this country
-
Hate to break it to you, but Obama kept us safe longer than Bush did.

P.S. Bush started the whole "czars' thing, so you really can't blame Obama for that.

@freeinpaYour posts get progressively dumber. TARP was passed before Obama was elected POTUS. Here is an excerpt from the actual legislation:

"Troubled assets" are defined as "(A) residential or commercial mortgages and any securities, obligations, or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages, that in each case was originated or issued on or before March 14, 2008, the purchase of which the Secretary determines promotes financial market stability; and (B) any other financial instrument that the Secretary, after consultation with the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, determines the purchase of which is necessary to promote financial market stability, but only upon transmittal of such determination, in writing, to the appropriate committees of Congress."[1]

Using that language:

On December 19, 2008, President Bush used his executive authority to declare that TARP funds may be spent on any program he personally deems necessary to avert the financial crisis, and declared Section 102 to be nonbinding. This has allowed President Bush to extend the use of TARP funds to support the auto industry, a move supported by the United Auto Workers.

I'll go ahead and assume you already knew all of this, which further enforces how bone headed you are. President Bush was responsible for TARP. Furthermore, you have yet to point out which federal agency is run by someone who was not appointed by the Senate or reports to someone who is. Also, I'll make sure to print out my companies org chart next time I have a review and tell my boss that it is irrelevant. Finally, the UAW was given a larger stake over other creditors because they demanded it. The bankruptcy court felt they had a larger stake than the bond holders, i.e., their livelihoods.

hotbbq

So what are you arguing; Bush exceeded his authority which he did or that Bush is actually responsible for restoring stability to the markets? While the Narcissist in Chief takes credit for it.

"Finally, the UAW was given a larger stake over other creditors because they demanded it. The bankruptcy court felt they had a larger stake than the bond holders, i.e., their livelihoods"

That is idiotic even for a liberal. The Union keeps demanding more from a failing institution and those who place actual money in the business have a bigger stake than any worker from the CEO on down. Now do you want to use the argument that the UAW had been offering huge concessions to make the deal work? Oh right, another liberal lie for supposed good intentions. GAO has already determined that the taxpayers will not see all of their money back and GM through it GMAC sub. is already looking for more money. Let the new owners fund their business since they now have so much at stake.

My argument is that President Obama did nothing unconstitutional, which was alleged by rusty. Congress wrote legislation that President Bush signed into law. Not liking the law, President Bush used an executive order to ignore a key provision and provide TARP funds to the auto industry. Where again did Obama do something unconstitutional here? Furthermore, the GM owed the UAW a metric ton of money for contractual obligations. GM offered that the UAW common stock and stake a %17.5 stake in the company. The union accepted after giving up some concessions of their own. Again, what does President Obama have to do with this? Please, keep replying. I really love ripping into your arguments.

And just for good measure how about using a non-profit, NEA, to push its pathetic liberal agenda.

"hotbbq

"Bush exceeded his authority which he did" That is what I wrote and your response is that Obama continued what he did. So you and ohiolib, who argue that Bush started the czars, are ok with Obama performing an illegal act because Bush did. Let's see, I can not pay taxes then argue witht the IRS that Charlie Rangel did it. Yeah that will work. To quote everyone's mother," if he jumped off a bridge would you follow him"

Back to the sandbox with the both of you.

freeinpa & rusty

Where were you guys when Bush gutted the Constitution under the "American Patriot Act", talk about an Orwellian name of a bill . . . . . . . . . .

Conservatives complain Obama has push the health care bill too soon, too fast, but NO ONE actually read the American Patriot Act and all of the civil liberties which were undermined.

When LIBERALS complained, the Bush adminstration told the American people, "Trust us, we won't abuse our power." WHERE WERE ALL OF THE CONSERVATIVES? SINCE WHEN DO CONSERVATIVES BELIEVE THE GOVERNMENT WHEN IT SAYS, "TRUST US, WE WON'T ABUSE OUR POWER."

It was enough to get Bob Barr and Dick Armey to join forces with the ACLU, but where were the rest of the Conservatives fighting to protect the Constitution?

Now, you may disagree with Obama's policies and believe he is growing the power of government too much, but let's be serious and stop with the "Socialist, Communist" crap. You guys are starting to sound like Liberals saying Ronald Reagan was going to blow us up!

I also think it is funny how Conservatives are complaining that the recovery is too slow and blame Obama. When Reagan was in office, the recession started after he was in office (though clearly it was the fault of the Carter administration) and lasted 14 months. And Obama has been in office less than 10 months?

As far as "czars", they date back to the Nixon administration and Bush had more czars than Obama has now. Czars are merely advisors, they do not impliment policy, Secretaries of departments do. You may not like czars, but that's nothing compared to the legislation concerning the environment that Vice President Chaney wrote in secret with energy executives whom he has refused to name.

So is the Czar question, simply partisan politics? No, there is always a tension between the executive branch and the legislative branch, regardless of which party is in power. Congress always tries to assert its power, and the administration is always having to with them.

I going to keep asking you to show me someone who is in charge of a federal agency that was not confirmed by the Senate or reports directly to them. 'Czars' are not illegal. Bush did not start the tradition, President Nixon did. If President Obama wants to call the Secretary of Defense the 'Defense Czar' does that mean Robert Gates unconstitutional? Keep it coming freep.

Actually, freeper, my argument was, first, that rusty cannot pick and choose who he criticizes for doing something unconstitutional. He can't blame Obama without also blaming Bush. Secondly, seven of those czars have been appointed, so rusty can't claim they are unconstitutional on senatorial advice and consent grounds.

I'm sorry, that second point should read appointed and confirmed

"But since this is a war of words and ideas, I think your only choice is to fight back with everything you have. Because to leave Bill O unchallenged is worst than doing nothing. If only the WH thought like that."

.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
.
Joe Klein and Barack Obama couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag with a hole in the bottom of it!!!!

rusty:

Not true. Obama has written stern letters to Russia, Iran and Iraq. They are now on double secret probation.

You know tough love.

Run out of the country like a little girl? Riiiight. Going to Afghanistan to do actual reporting is definitely the cowardly thing to do. Joe Klein has more stones than the entire Fox bloviators combined.

hotbbq

"Greetings from Pakistan" Either you or Joe needs a geography lesson. Check the times Hannity has visited the troops. Not to debase the war effort but to cheer them on.

And the stones Joe has can be treated with Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL). Hopefully he doesn't have the public option.

My mistake on Afghanistan. I actually did check on the number of times Hannity has gone over seas to visit the troops. I only found one report of him going to Iraq with Donald Rumsfeld in December of 2006. Big freaking deal. He didn't even bother to do any actual reporting while he was there. It was one big ego stroke. Stephen Colbert did a much better job of raising morale for the troops. He actually stayed a whole week! You and rusty are complete idiots.

Nice mis-direction. Hannity going once is "big freaking deal" but Joe fleeing to Pakistan is a man of stones. Then you compare to Colbert. I would bet Drew Carey and Angelie Jolie did a better job than Hannity as well. What does that prove?

If you wish to find the idiot grasshopper --- look in the mirror

He goes for the triple straw man! One time. One stinking time for all the crap he spews. He went arm and arm with the worst Defense Secretary this nation has ever had on an ego tour-de-force. His report was a list of cheer leading points. My point about Colbert was to show that if you want to go to boost morale, do it the right way, with the U.S.O., not by sucking up to Rumsfeld.

hotbbq

The only point you make is that you have a psychotic hatred of Hannity. To quote Rusty "wahwahwha" you big whining baby

Take your meds lie down

Fantastic rebuttal freep!

hotbbq

Thank you - short and accurate. You offer nothing but hatred for Hannity and you think that is a deep intellectual argument. In liberal land yes. Maybe in the next response you can work in racist and homophobes- that's all you have left

It's funny, I haven't used the word conservative or Republican in any of my posts. I'm merely trying to show you the facts. I'm not vouching for quality or soundness of this or any administration's politics. We can debate those until the cows come home. You're entitled to your opinions, but I'm going to call you out again and again when you are plain wrong.

hotbq:
.
Have you noticed that as you tighten the noose of factuality, freepee's comments get more insulting, more rhetorical, and less cogent.
.
I'm guessing it's because he's either running short of oxygen or facts.
.
Take yer pick...

One of my favorite band names of all time:
.
"The Cunning Stunts"

I should have used an asterik.
.
High sheriffs, if you liberate my comment I promise to drop the f-bomb less often.

"Where were all you at when MSNBC was using the same type words and comments concerning than President George Bush.? One example was "Baby Killer" concerning Bush's support of the war in Iraq."
.
I know that this will be difficult for you and I doubt that my explanation will teach you why one thing is not like the other but: GEORGE BUSH WAS A WAR CRIMINAL!
.
Barack Obama didn't launch a disastrous war and occupation, based on a pack of lies, against a country that was no threat to us. He didn't kill, maim or displace millions of innocent non-combatants, didn't set up a torture regime and domestic spying operation and then lie to the public to cover it up and didn't expose a clandestine CIA anti-WMD-proliferation unit for political revenge (and I'm just getting started)
.
MSNBC didn't even begin to tell us the disgusting truth about George W Bush, which is a far cry from the disgusting lies FOX and friends have manufactured about Obama.

Mean Joe:
.
Yeah. Riiiiiiigggghhhht. Ahyuh. I just bet you don't listen.
.
How many times have I heard that one. Next, are you going to tell us that you're not a Republican?
.
Inquiring minds really wanna know...

I think any sane definition of hell is being forced to listen to Bill O'Reilly indefinitely, with breaks for Keith Olbermann (who is equally execrable, just in different ways).
.
And Joe, given that the word "sedition" has a loathesome history in America (i.e., the Alien and Sedition Act), I suggest you give up trying to defend its use. Hopefully, we can all agree on that.

Spob, don't take this the wrong way, but I look forward to the day when the right wing regains its sanity, and people like you become the lunatic fringe again, because finding myself agreeing with you is disorienting. It's like living in Bizzaro world.

Hey billiecat, you know, even the blind pig gets the acorn every once in a while.

Well, at least, spob, I'm reassured that we do still have wide disagreement on this one.
.
There are statements from a wide variety of far right operatives, most recently the Imam Steve Anderson spewing some of the greatest arguments in favor of the adjective "seditious". I don't think saying the crap coming from the far right is seditious is anything like abridging free speech. As a point in fact, voicing that sentiment is free speech as well.
.
Add to that the fact that the right wing terrorists are out in front of Al Queda for body counts on American soil.
.
Fair is fair. We all know that FOX won't disappear tomorrow, (don't give me a magic wand, now!), so calling them seditious is fair.
.
After all, during the Bush Administration, and even now, what progressive leaning individual hasn't been called a traitor or worse...

Shep - I respectfully disagree. The First Amendment does not allow for the crime of sedition in the United States. Legally, it has no meaning.
.
Now, if you are arguing that what Beck & Co. are doing is dangerous demagoguery, I agree. But it's not sedition - a criminal act - and it's not illegal.

"discontent", heck, many many political speeches do that, by that rationale, John Edwards' "Two Americas" speech did that. And what of Obama's reference to the "just us" system (get it?).
.
Try again, sw. The issue is not whether the actions of Beck et al. fit into some stretched meaning of sedition, but whether a word with that connotation should be applied to what they're doing, particularly in a nation which prides itself on its freedom of speech.

..."discontent", heck, many many political speeches do that, by that rationale, John Edwards' "Two Americas" speech did that. And what of Obama's reference to the "just us" system...
.
Do tell us how those speeches incite discontent against government in the manner of Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, FOX, "conservatism"...etc. You can't because it's just more right-wing, unable to discern, bullsh!t.

Here I am in Bizzaro-land, agreeing with spob. "Sedition" is a loaded term in America. Jefferson rightly condemned the "Alien and Sedition Acts":

If the Alien and Sedition Acts should stand, these conclusions would flow from them: that the General Government may place any act they think proper on the list of crimes, and punish it themselves whether enumerated or not enumerated by the Constitution as cognizable by them: that they may transfer its cognizance to the President, or any other person, who may himself be the accuser, counsel, judge and jury, whose suspicion may be the evidence, his order the sentence, his officer the executioner, and his breast the sole record of the transaction . . .

This is exactly why a lot of us, you included, IIRC, were so offended by the "objectively pro-terrorist" rhetoric flying around during the last administration. Remember, Eugene V. Debs was jailed for sedition when he argued the U.S. should stay out of WWI. The phrase does not have a good pedigree, and despite my loathing for Beck and his ilk, I loathe attacks on free speech even more. Casually tossing around the words "sedition" and "treason" isn't a tactic I want to resort to, no matter how hateful they are. And just because they did it first makes no difference - I respect free speech and the rule of law, even if they don't.

Bizzaro-land is making me dizzy. I gotta sit down and stop spechifyin'.

"Casually tossing around the words "sedition" and "treason" isn't a tactic I want to resort to, no matter how hateful they are."
.
Me neither. But neither do I think Debs or, certainly, people who were arguing that attacking and occupying a Muslim country that didn't threaten us and torturing Muslims who hadn't done anything to us was either just or smart policy, were doing anything near what "conservatives" are doing now. The word sedition has a meaning and it also happens to be dangerous to the country. At the very least, it should be called-out when it happens.