The Galactic Senate's Great Political Debate Thread [Archive]

T-bone

01-12-2006, 02:05 PM

Thursday, Jan. 12, 2006 11:34 a.m. EST

NY Times: 'Illegal' Spying OK Under Clinton

Last month, when the New York Times revealed to the world that the Bush administration had a top secret National Security Agency program that monitored communications between al Qaeda terrorists and their U.S.-based agents, it strongly condemned the operation as a dangerous and possibly illegal invasion of privacy.

However, the Old Gray Lady wasn't nearly as upset over a much broader surveillance program under the Clinton administration, which routinely monitored millions of phone calls between U.S. citizens without a court ordered warrant.

In fact, the paper called the blanket invasion of privacy a "necessity" - even though it was carried out without the justification provided by the 9/11 attacks.

The American Thinker web site has unearthed Times quotes from 1999, when the paper was reacting to reports on the NSA's Echelon project under Bill Clinton, which randomly trolled U.S. telecommunications looking for trouble.

"Few dispute the necessity of a system like Echelon to apprehend foreign spies, drug traffickers and terrorists," the Times explained helpfully.

The same report quoted an NSA official assuring Times readers "that all Agency activities are conducted in accordance with the highest constitutional, legal and ethical standards.”

These days, however, the Old Gray Lady doesn't like to talk about Echelon. In the dozens of stories on the Bush NSA operation since reporter James Risen "broke" the story on December 16, the Times has mentioned the older NSA program only once.

In a December 22 report by Timesman Scott Shane, the paper dismissed "reports on an agency program called Echelon [asserting] that the agency and its counterparts in the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand and Australia somehow intercepted all world communications," calling such claims "exaggerated."

redsabre

01-12-2006, 08:31 PM

<span style="color:red">Kennedy shouldn't talk about clubs on campus (http://www.drudgereport.com/flash6.htm)

PAPER: Sen. Kennedy was member of all-male club
Wed Jan 11 2006 22:40:10 ET

Conservative activists are eager to point out that Sen Ted Kennedy was on shaky ground accusing Judge Alito of associating with people opposed to the inclusion of women in private institutions, the WASHINGTON TIMES is fronting on Thursday.

The eight-term senator belonged to an all-male social club -- the Owl -- at Harvard University. The Owl refused to admit women until it was forced to do so during the 1980s, according to records kept by the HARVARD CRIMSON, the student newspaper.

A Kennedy spokeswoman said it was an entirely different matter.

"No one can question Senator Kennedy's commitment to equality, justice and civil rights," said Laura Capps. "What he was part of was a social club, not a radical group pushing a radical agenda."

Anyway, she said, even though women were admitted to the university during Mr. Kennedy's tenure, they weren't fully integrated to the campus until much later.

Developing... </span>

redsabre

01-12-2006, 08:36 PM

<span style="color:red">And speaking of Kennedy . . . (opinion piece) (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/debrasaunders/2006/01/12/182064.html)

If by some bizarre twist of fate the Senate fails to confirm Judge Samuel Alito's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, I have a suggestion for President Bush's next pick: Ted Kennedy.

After all, if some Democrats can make a federal case out of Alito's membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton -- target on his inclusion of that membership in a resume he submitted 20 years ago and present failure to remember being in the group -- then I'd like to see how they tackle Chappaquiddick.

(For you kids, the Massachusetts senator drove a car into the drink in Chappaquiddick in 1969. Kennedy swam away, passenger Mary Jo Kopechne, 28, drowned. The accident was tragic. Kennedy's behavior afterward, however, was criminal. Rather than rushing to police after the 11:15 p.m. accident so that they could try to rescue Kopechne, Kennedy went back to his hotel. He did not call police until the next morning. Kennedy said he delayed because he panicked and was in shock. Many suspect he spent those hours trying to construct an alibi. After an investigation probably less intense than the Democrats' vetting of Alito's resumes, Kennedy pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident. A judge sentenced Kennedy to two months, suspended.)

I've never understood what senators were thinking in allowing Kennedy on the Judiciary Committee in the first place. While Kennedy seems to consider himself a champion for the little guy, he is a walking tribute to a system that, in its low moments, allows the rich and powerful to get away with crimes that would put others behind bars. He is a discredit to the system.

In 1991, Kennedy had to scrunch down in his seat when his colleagues accused now-Justice Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment.

On Wednesday, Kennedy seemed like a crazy man when he suggested that the committee subpoena records relating to Alito and the Princeton alumni club. I know some people who don't buy Alito's "no specific recollection of that organization" answer. For my part, the older I get, the more credible I find it when other people claim lapses of memories.

In the end, this is all about smear. Some Democratic senators, like Dianne Feinstein, are ready to stick to the issues. I respect her questions. Alas, others -- like Kennedy -- dive deep into the sewer to make Alito look bad. They put what he did or said decades ago under a microscope. If they can't make Alito seem racist or sexist, they dig for some association, no matter how negligible, with a racist/sexist group. If Alito says he wasn't aware of how insidious the group was, he's lying -- or, critics intone with knowing cynicism, it's fishy.

For years, I've heard Kennedy fans say that it's a cheap shot to dredge up Chappaquiddick. Forgive and forget about Kopechne, they say-- but not the Concerned Alumni of Princeton.

That's why Bush should nominate Kennedy if Alito doesn't make it. There is no such thing as a cheap shot on the Senate Judiciary Committee.</span>

Copyright © 2006 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

redsabre

01-12-2006, 08:57 PM

<span style="color:red"> A Midwesterner's political Primer

DEMOCRATIC

You have two cows.
Your neighbor has none.
You feel guilty for being successful.
Barbra Streisand sings for you.

REPUBLICAN

You have two cows.
Your neighbor has none.
So?

SOCIALIST

You have two cows.
The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor.
You form a cooperative to tell him how to manage his cow.

COMMUNIST

You have two cows.
The government seizes both and provides you with milk.
You wait in line for hours to get it.
It is expensive and sour.

CAPITALISM, AMERICAN STYLE

You have two cows.
You sell one, buy a bull, and build a herd of cows.

BUREAUCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE

You have two cows.
Under the new farm program the government pays you to shoot one, milk the other, and then pours the milk down the drain.

AMERICAN CORPORATION

You have two cows.
You sell one, lease it back to yourself and do an IPO on the 2nd one.
You force the two cows to produce the milk of four cows. You are surprised when one cow drops dead. You spin an announcement to the analysts stating you have downsized and are reducing expenses.
Your stock goes up.

FRENCH CORPORATION

You have two cows.
You go on strike because you want three cows.
You go to lunch and drink wine.
Life is good.

JAPANESE CORPORATION

You have two cows.
You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk.
They learn to travel on unbelievably crowded trains.
Most are at the top of their class at cow school.

GERMAN CORPORATION

You have two cows.
You engineer them so they are all blond, drink lots of beer, give excellent quality milk, and run a hundred miles an hour.
Unfortunately they also demand 13 weeks of vacation per year.

ITALIAN CORPORATION

You have two cows but you don't know where they are.
While ambling around, you see a beautiful woman.
You break for lunch.
Life is good.

RUSSIAN CORPORATION

You have two cows.
You have some vodka.
You count them and learn you have five cows.
You have some more vodka.
You count them again and learn you have 42 cows.
The Mafia shows up and takes over however many cows you really have.

TALIBAN CORPORATION

You have all the cows in Afghanistan, which are two.
You don't milk them because you cannot touch any creature's private parts.
You get a $40 million grant from the US government to find alternatives to milk production but use the money to buy weapons.

IRAQI CORPORATION

You have two cows.
They go into hiding.
They send audio tapes of their mooing.

POLISH CORPORATION

You have two bulls.
Employees are regularly maimed and killed attempting to milk them.

BELGIAN CORPORATION

You have one cow.
The cow is schizophrenic.
Sometimes the cow thinks he's French, other times he's Flemish.
The Flemish cow won't share with the French cow.
The French cow wants control of the Flemish cow's milk.
The cow asks permission to be cut in half.
The cow dies happy.

FLORIDA CORPORATION

You have a black cow and a brown cow.
Everyone votes for the best looking one.
Some of the people who actually like the brown one best accidentally vote for the black one.
Some people vote for both.
Some people vote for neither.
Some people can't figure out how to vote at all.
Finally, a bunch of guys from out-of-state tell you which one you think is the best-looking cow.

CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

You have millions of cows.
They make real California cheese.
Only five speak English.
Most are illegal.
Arnold likes the ones with the big udders.</span>

Suzanne (ex CoS Leia)

01-13-2006, 12:22 AM

LOL redsabre - where'd the two cows post come from? It's hilarious.

Originally posted by Krogenar@Jan 13 2006, 12:04 AM
Ok, I'll start -- socialism is a crock of flapdoodle, and it undermines human liberty. So if any budding young socialists would like to make this a 'Capitalist Vs. Socialist' cage-match, I'm game.

[Krog angles his head just slightly, and the cracks and snappings of his various neck tendons re-aligning themselves can be heard for miles.]

C'mon, now, anyone? Anyone? Defend communism, socialism -- all those swarthy collectivist dead-end philosophies, if you dare!

No?

Ok, me go nappy time then.

[Sleeps.]
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

I want to, but I can't be bothered. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif

redsabre

01-13-2006, 08:14 AM

<span style="color:red"> Suzanne, I stole this from the web site of a Libertarian talk show host I listen quite frequently. The address is boortz.com (http://www.boortz.com) and here is the link for the Midwesterner's Political Primer (http://boortz.com/more/funny/midwestern_perspective.html)</span>

Tresk Im'nel

01-13-2006, 08:38 AM

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Oh I'm not sure if you want me to rant on about Canadian politics. Really, uh interesting right now.[/b][/quote]

Yeah, tell me about it. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif The attack ads are getting pretty nasty lately...

Suzanne (ex CoS Leia)

01-13-2006, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by redsabre@Jan 13 2006, 10:14 PM
<span style="color:red"> Suzanne, I stole this from the web site of a Libertarian talk show host I listen quite frequently. The address is boortz.com (http://www.boortz.com) and here is the link for the Midwesterner's Political Primer (http://boortz.com/more/funny/midwestern_perspective.html)</span>
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

Thanks redsabre. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif

Master Cephus

01-13-2006, 01:59 PM

What are everyone's thoughts about the Nuclear option in the senate? Should this be pushed through, or is it a bad idea?

goodwije

01-13-2006, 03:01 PM

ahh yes.. another bastion of conservative thought where the one or two more liberal minded may be pounced upon!

Uhmm, no.. no more debatey for me.

T-bone

01-13-2006, 03:36 PM

hmm - maybe we have enough. i should probably delete this then.
all those in favor?

Master Magnus

01-13-2006, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by goodwije@Jan 13 2006, 07:01 PM
ahh yes.. another bastion of conservative thought where the one or two more liberal minded may be pounced upon!

Uhmm, no.. no more debatey for me.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

I'm a liberal conservative (well, to Americans that may sound strange)...

flo fett

01-13-2006, 07:22 PM

I don't know where the hell I'd be placed according to the American system. I enjoy reading all your views though style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif

redsabre

01-13-2006, 07:47 PM

<span style="color:red"> But Flo, thanks to the magic of hyperlinking, you can find out! Clicky, clicky, clicky to take the political quiz. You know you want to. (http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html)</span>

flo fett

01-13-2006, 09:07 PM

well, I clicky clicked and I got:

The political description that
fits you best is...

.LIBERAL

LIBERALS usually embrace freedom of choice in personal
matters, but tend to support significant government control of the
economy. They generally support a government-funded "safety net"
to help the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation
of business. Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations,
defend civil liberties and free expression, support government action
to promote equality, and tolerate diverse lifestyles

Sounds about right style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif
*waits for everyone to attack her*

Rojo

01-13-2006, 09:12 PM

Not an American, but took the quiz anyway.

I'm also a liberal.

RollaFett

01-14-2006, 04:35 AM

I am an American, took the quiz, and came out as a Liberal. I'm not shocked by that, but I always thought I had a few conservative thoughts running around in my head. That said, the categories piss me off. You believe in what you believe in, period.

Master Magnus

01-14-2006, 05:51 AM

Originally posted by redsabre@Jan 13 2006, 11:47 PM
<span style="color:red"> But Flo, thanks to the magic of hyperlinking, you can find out! Clicky, clicky, clicky to take the political quiz. You know you want to. (http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html)</span>
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

I took the Political Compass quiz (http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/) which is more extensive, and I ended up almost in the dead center (which is unsurprising since I have both liberal and conservative values and votes for such a party).

Master Cephus

01-14-2006, 10:53 AM

^ That's a better quiz, but still there should be a radio button in the middle that says "no opinion" because there were a couple of quetions where I didn't agree, but I didn't disagree. Still, it was neat.

It said that I am on the line of right/left (that means I am dead in the middle when it comes to libertarian and authoritarian), but I am about 3 clicks to the right, thankfully style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif

Suzanne (ex CoS Leia)

01-14-2006, 11:11 AM

redsaber's quiz:

LIBERALS usually embrace freedom of choice in personal

matters, but tend to support significant government control of the

economy. They generally support a government-funded "safety net"
to help the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation

of business. Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations,

defend civil liberties and free expression, support government action

to promote equality, and tolerate diverse lifestyles.

Your PERSONAL issues Score is 80%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 10%.

Magnus's quiz:

Economic Left/Right: -7.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.69
(bottom left hand corner)
that makes me closest to Ghandi and The Dalai Llama...

Suzanne (ex CoS Leia)

01-14-2006, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by T'bone@Jan 14 2006, 05:36 AM
hmm - maybe we have enough. i should probably delete this then.
all those in favor?
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

Nah - it doesn't hurt to have it for non-specific political stoushes. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif

DarthSolo

01-16-2006, 07:43 AM

Took both quizzes. I was right on the border of Centralist, Liberal, and Libertarian for the first one. On the second I was quite close to Ghandi, which makes me happy! I feel good about occupying the bottom left with the likes of Ghandi and Nelson Mandela. I also foudn it interesting that Geroge W and Sadaam Husein were on the same opposite side of the economic issues, but the same side of the social issues. Hmm...

Tresk Im'nel

01-16-2006, 11:25 AM

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Wasn't Darth Vader also depicted in that particular political quiz, also? Not for anything, but, I don't think it's particularly fair to put George Bush in such close proximity to a fictional character.[/b][/quote]

Not that I'm aware of, and I've taken it several times over the past year and a half...

I agree that it would be quite silly to do so, but I have no indication that was ever the case on this particular quiz. If it was I missed it...

Master Cephus

01-16-2006, 12:42 PM

^ I think it's a little lazy to take an online quiz, and then say "I am an X" (where x indicates your political belief). It's made by people who probably leaned a little to a position. Like I said above, the last test doesn't really give you the option of not caring on some of the issues.

Sargoth

01-16-2006, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by Krogenar+Jan 13 2006, 02:08 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Krogenar @ Jan 13 2006, 02:08 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Master Cephus@Jan 13 2006, 01:59 PM
What are everyone's thoughts about the Nuclear option in the senate? Should this be pushed through, or is it a bad idea?
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

It should be done, because it is not the right of the Congress to prevent a sitting president from even getting a vote on his nomination to the SC. The Consitution is clear: the president selects the Justices, and Congress 'advises and consents'.
[/b][/quote]

But the Constitution is silent on what "consent" means in this regard. There is no constitutional guarantee of an "up or down" vote. The Senate determines *its own rules* for determining consent. You can argue that a filibuster is just another way of denying consent.

That being said, the Senate is within its rights to amend its rules to disallow filibuster. Whether or not this would be a wise rule to put in place is purely political. The Republicans know that they won't be in power forever: be it in 2006 or 2026, they will again be in the minority someday. They might very well, one day, regret the decision to do away with the filibuster.

T-bone

01-19-2006, 11:57 AM

First Lady Assails Sen. Clinton for Remark

By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press WriterWed Jan 18, 8:00 PM ET

Laura Bush criticized Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Wednesday for suggesting that the Republican-controlled House is run like a plantation where dissenting voices are ignored.

"It think it's ridiculous — it's a ridiculous comment," Mrs. Bush told reporters when asked about the remark during a return flight to Washington following her four-day swing through West Africa.

Clinton made the comment in Harlem at an event honoring the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. She said the GOP was running the House "like a plantation" because ideas from the minority Democrats were not respected. The White House on Tuesday called the senator's comments "way out of line."

Mrs. Bush, who said her next trip likely will be to New Orleans to visit schools damaged in the hurricane, also reacted to a comment by New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin that stirred controversy. Nagin had said: "This city will be chocolate at the end of the day." He later apologized.

Nagin also said the hurricane that devastated New Orleans was God's way of showing displeasure about U.S. involvement in Iraq. "Surely God is mad at America," Nagin said in a speech Monday. "Surely He's not approving of us being in Iraq under false pretense. But surely He's upset at black America also. We're not taking care of ourselves."

Asked about the comment, Mrs. Bush joked that she didn't really think she could speak for God. Then she added that she believes Nagin wants New Orleans to be rebuilt.

"He wants people who lived in New Orleans to come back," Mrs. Bush said. "I do to, and I know the president does to. You know it's going to take a long time."

The first lady headed home after reaffirming the U.S. commitment to help Nigeria treat AIDS patients and stem the spread of HIV. She said she hoped that "one day an entire generation" will be free of the disease that has ravaged Africa.

The first lady highlighted the $163 million in U.S. assistance that Nigeria will receive in 2006 to fight AIDS.

"We are all hopeful that one day an entire generation will be born free of HIV," Mrs. Bush said in a speech to the National Center for Women's Development in the Nigerian capital.

The crowd applauded with Mrs. Bush talked about attending Monday's inauguration of Liberia's president Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, the first woman president elected in Africa. She said Sirleaf is an example for women all over the world of what can be accomplished through hard work and a strong belief in education and democracy.

"The question we must answer now is 'how do we nurture the development of the next generation of women leaders in Africa and worldwide?'"' Mrs. Bush asked. "The answer begins with education."

Earlier, Mrs. Bush drove to the dusty outskirts of Abuja to visit a small AIDS clinic where a young woman told her of how drugs helped her escape death from the disease. Mrs. Bush visited St. Mary's Hospital, where she stood next to four cartons of anti-retroviral drugs __ enough to treat 500 people over the next year. It is the first U.S.-backed shipment of the drugs St. Mary's has received through President Bush's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.

T-bone

01-19-2006, 12:10 PM

It's the comedy hour with Ann Coulter:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>'CHOCOLATE CITY' SPRINKLED WITH NUTS
By Ann Coulter Wed Jan 18, 8:11 PM ET

So Hillary Clinton thinks the House of Representatives is being "run like a plantation." And, she added, "you know what I'm talking about."

First of all: Think about what a weird coincidence it is that Hillary would have made these remarks in a black church in Harlem on Martin Luther King Day. What are the odds? Did she even know it was a holiday? Bravely spoken, Senator. I haven't been this surprised since finding out Hollywood likes a movie about gay cowboys.

As Hillary explained, the House "has been run in a way so that nobody with a contrary view has had a chance to present legislation, to make an argument, to be heard."

Yes, that's what was really missing on plantations during the slavery era: the opportunity to present a contrary view. Gosh, if only the slaves had been allowed to call for cloture votes. What a difference that would have made!

Madam Hillary also said the Bush administration "will go down in history as one of the worst that has ever governed our country." While Hillary is certainly qualified to comment on what the all-time worst presidential administrations were, having had firsthand experience in one of them, I think she might want to avoid the phrase "go down in history."

All I can say is: It's a good thing we had a stealth candidate like Harriet Miers to tiptoe past these powerful, scary Democrats! Sorry if that sounds churlish, but after Judge Samuel Alito's magnificent performance last week, I think Republicans can stop being afraid of their shadows when it comes to our judicial nominees.

Ever since Bork, Republicans have been terrified of nominating candidates with something in their background that might possibly suggest the nominee did not get down on his knees (another phrase Hillary should avoid) and thank God for
Roe v. Wade every night. That's how we ended up with mediocrities like David Hackett Souter and Anthony "Third Choice" Kennedy on the Supreme Court.

Besides being stunningly qualified, the characteristics of the current stellar Supreme Court nominee include these:

# His mother immediately told the press, "Of course he's against abortion."

# He had expressed support for the Reagan administration's positions on abortion in a 1985 memo.

# He refused to accede to the Democrats' endless browbeating and tell them that Roe was "settled law."

And the Democrats couldn't lay a finger on him. Sam Alito marks the final purging of the Bork experience.

All the Democrats could do was scream about his inactive membership -- back in the '70s -- in CAP, Concerned Alumni of Princeton, which had a magazine called Prospect, which once ran an article, apparently satirical, complaining about Princeton admitting co-eds. In my mind, the only potentially disqualifying aspect of Alito's record was that he wasn't a more active member of CAP, a group opposed to quotas, set-asides and the lowering of academic standards at Princeton.

Then this week, we found out Sen. Teddy Kennedy still belongs to an organization that doesn't admit women. Oh -- also, he killed a girl.

I'm fairly certain I've mentioned that before -- I don't recall, Mr. Chairman -- but I don't understand why everyone doesn't mention it every time Senator Drunkennedy has the audacity to talk about how "troubled" and "concerned" he is about this or that nominee. I bet Mary Jo was "troubled" and "concerned" about the senator leaving her in trapped in a car under water while he went back to the hotel to create an alibi.

It's not as if Democrats can say: OK, OK! The man paid a price! Let it go! He didn't pay a price. The Kopechne family paid a price. Kennedy weaved away scot-free.

But the Democrats are "troubled" about Sam Alito's membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton 30 years ago. If they're "concerned" about lifetime appointments for people with memberships in "troubling" organizations, wait until they hear about Bob Byrd! (Former Kleagle, Ku Klux Klan.)

They're a rotten bunch, these Democrats, and I'm happy to see an end to their reign of terror.

Now that Zell Miller is out of office, the only office-holding Democrat I like anymore is Ray Nagin, mayor of New Orleans. I had never heard of him until Hurricane Katrina, but after his "gaffe" this week, he's my favorite Democrat. I like a politician who casually spouts off insanely politically incorrect remarks in front of large audiences and TV cameras.

Nagin cheerfully told a crowd gathered for a Martin Luther King Day celebration that New Orleans would soon be "Chocolate City" again. I don't know who's supposed to be offended by that. I'm not. Perhaps all the white mayors who know they couldn't have said it. True, life's unfair. Oh well.

When it comes to choice-of-word crimes, I'd prefer detente to mutually assured destruction. Lead us off the chocolate plantation, Mayor Nagin![/b][/quote]

Master Cephus

01-19-2006, 12:14 PM

^ Ann Coulter, she's unafraid to say her mind...

goodwije

01-19-2006, 01:28 PM

pffffttt!

Just like nearly every one of her columns she simply must throw some reference to gays or gay movies.. or something.

Someone explain to me what the frick Brokeback Mountain (which I haven't seen) has anything at all to do with Hilary Clinton? Absolutely nothing, except that as far as I can tell, Coulter hates gays as much as she hates liberals.

pffftt!

Master Cephus

01-19-2006, 01:33 PM

I can't agrue with that. I think she uses it for shock value.

goodwije

01-19-2006, 01:42 PM

as one of the most prominent conservative columnists out there her spewing hate on a daily basis does not concern you? It is because of people like her that we on the other side always complain intolerance and devisivness. She isn't speaking solutions only to disregad, embarrass, and ridicule anyone who she disagrees with.

Master Cephus

01-19-2006, 02:05 PM

Is it not the same "on the other side" talking about how stupid it is to be conservative or religious? It happens. Whether they really mean it or they are looking for shock value, I don't know and I really don't care.

Ann Coulter doesn't speak for me. She speaks for herself and she does it to make money. Same as everyone else.

T-bone

01-19-2006, 05:34 PM

You have to remember that she's satirical most of the time - much like Al Franken claims that he's full of satire but i don't see him getting slammed...

and i DO agree with her 100% on Ted Kennedy - he's a puzzle to me.
i mean, how is it he's still in there... vote him out already.

Sargoth

01-19-2006, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by T'bone@Jan 19 2006, 02:34 PM
and i DO agree with her 100% on Ted Kennedy - he's a puzzle to me.
i mean, how is it he's still in there... vote him out already.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

Don't you find it peculiar that out of nearly all of Joe Kennedy's children (and their children, cousins, step-siblings, and former roomates), Teddy's the only one still alive and kicking?

It's like King Willie said: "There's no stoppin' what can't be stopped. No Killin' what can't be killed!

And w.r.t. Al Franken; Hannity, O'Really, and Drudge are always slagging on him. He takes his hits just like every other pundit does.

T-bone

01-19-2006, 06:01 PM

i thought there was another kennedy around...whatshisface?

Sargoth

01-19-2006, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by T'bone@Jan 19 2006, 03:01 PM
i thought there was another kennedy around...whatshisface?
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

He's next...it's just a matter of time. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif

T-bone

01-19-2006, 06:27 PM

Teddy's sharpening his horns...

goodwije

01-20-2006, 04:54 AM

Originally posted by Krogenar+Jan 19 2006, 04:14 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Krogenar @ Jan 19 2006, 04:14 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-goodwije@Jan 19 2006, 01:42 PM
as one of the most prominent conservative columnists out there her spewing hate on a daily basis does not concern you? It is because of people like her that we on the other side always complain intolerance and devisivness. She isn't speaking solutions only to disregad, embarrass, and ridicule anyone who she disagrees with.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

Ok, so it's knee-jerk homophobe time, huh?[/b][/quote]
yes, I am a knee-jerk, mindless, "party of bin laden" follower as you would put it.

If there is anyone in the world of political comentators who is a homophobe it is Ann Coulture almost every one of her columns she interjects some derogatory remark. My dislike of her is hardly news.

I have no idea about Al Frankin, don't have his radio show aroung here (does it even still exist?) and I haven't read his books.

Blizzard

01-20-2006, 11:26 AM

Al Frankin can kick all your asses. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif

Krogenar

01-20-2006, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by goodwije+Jan 20 2006, 04:54 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(goodwije @ Jan 20 2006, 04:54 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Originally posted by Krogenar@Jan 19 2006, 04:14 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-goodwije@Jan 19 2006, 01:42 PM
as one of the most prominent conservative columnists out there her spewing hate on a daily basis does not concern you? It is because of people like her that we on the other side always complain intolerance and devisivness. She isn't speaking solutions only to disregad, embarrass, and ridicule anyone who she disagrees with.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

Ok, so it's knee-jerk homophobe time, huh?
yes, I am a knee-jerk, mindless, "party of bin laden" follower as you would put it.

If there is anyone in the world of political comentators who is a homophobe it is Ann Coulture almost every one of her columns she interjects some derogatory remark. My dislike of her is hardly news.[/b][/quote]

Well, I could hardly considering marrying Ms. Coulter if she were a homophobe, Goodie. Can you quote something she's said that's more direct proof of her anti-gay bias? If you can, then... then I guess I'll just ask for my ring back. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cry.gif

Originally posted by Goodie
I have no idea about Al Frankin, don't have his radio show aroung here (does it even still exist?) and I haven't read his books.

Air America still exists, but its ratings have dwindled to the point where modern scientists can no longer detect it. It may not be listed on Arbitron, I'm not sure. Also, they actually resorted to asking for donations on-air from listeners. It went something like this:

Al Franken: "If anyone's listening, we will accept food to stay on the air. Send your canned fruits and vegetables to the refrigerator box over the exhaust grate at that back alley of Canal Street and Houston. Ask for either of my administrative assistants, Turbo or Rooster."

T-bone

01-20-2006, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by Blizzard@Jan 20 2006, 11:26 AM
Al Frankin can kick all your asses. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

I'm sorry - did you say kick or lick? style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/peck.gif

Master Cephus

01-20-2006, 01:38 PM

Air America is funny.

I think it's funny to read the rhetoric of some of the more popular columnist from both sides. Most of the louder ones are the more extreme of both sides, but it's what sells is that over-the-topness of what they say.
-----
Here's a question, if could pick 5 people to be removed from congress, who would they be?

Here's mine:

Teddy Kennedy
John Kerry
Nancy Pelosi
Harry Reid
-Tie between Hillary Clinton/Charles Schumer/Dick Durbin/Russ Feingold

If I were speaking in the ear of the heads of the Repub party, I would be using all money possible to have Hillary defeated in the senate this year. This way she has no platform to speak when it comes presidential elections

Marbleman

01-20-2006, 01:49 PM

Great Miss Coulter quote:

". . . it's far preferable to fight them in the streets of Baghdad than in the streets of New York (where the residents would immediately surrender). "

So satirical yet so substantial. What a vixen. *howls lustfully*

style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cuddle.gif

T-bone

01-20-2006, 02:05 PM

I can probably name a few left and right folks i'd like to remove from congress actually.

Krogenar

01-20-2006, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by T'bone@Jan 20 2006, 02:05 PM
I can probably name a few left and right folks i'd like to remove from congress actually.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

I would probably remove some Republicans without spines, and substitute them with toaster cakes. Or just mannequins. Honestly, the Era of Republican Big Government is upon us. They spent just as drunkenly and foolishly as the Democrats did when they were in power.

Sargoth

01-20-2006, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by mc
Here's a question, if could pick 5 people to be removed from congress, who would they be?

Moot point. Most of the ones on my list are either under indictment, facing indictment, or convicted. Removal will take care of itself. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/chortle.gif

goodwije

01-21-2006, 05:43 AM

That's is just the liberal media sargoth.. no conservative would be capable of doing wrong.. they are religious you know.

goodwije

01-21-2006, 06:06 AM

Originally posted by Krogenar@Jan 20 2006, 11:14 AM
Well, I could hardly considering marrying Ms. Coulter if she were a homophobe, Goodie. Can you quote something she's said that's more direct proof of her anti-gay bias? If you can, then... then I guess I'll just ask for my ring back. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cry.gif many of her columns she inserts some snide remarks belittling gays.. and well anyone else she has a mind too.

Hey if you want to marry her more power to you.. IMO you where made for one another.

Master Cephus

01-21-2006, 09:47 AM

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>That's is just the liberal media sargoth.. no conservative would be capable of doing wrong.. they are religious you know.[/b][/quote]

Way to take the high road...

Sargoth

01-22-2006, 01:00 AM

Originally posted by Master Cephus@Jan 21 2006, 06:47 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>That's is just the liberal media sargoth.. no conservative would be capable of doing wrong.. they are religious you know.

Way to take the high road...
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]

I think what goodie is trying to say (pardon me for speaking for you), is that there are many on the right of the hill who put up a facade of being "pious, godly men" simply to garner the favor of the faithfull.

Time Magazine (faaaar from being a leftie publication) this week had a very good description of the Abramoff scandal, from its beginnings in Newt's '94 through today. No small part of this fraud was placing "religious" leaders to champion causes for his clients - causes that were faaar from being in line with Christian values (or even *my* values). He also set up several "Faith-based" non-profits that were advertised (and tax-exempt) on the premise that they were "using religion to bring morality back to America". When all they really did was run negative smear ads against Abramoff's client's opponents, and launder money to help bypass Congressional lobbying rules.

Master Cephus

01-22-2006, 10:53 AM

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I think what goodie is trying to say (pardon me for speaking for you), is that there are many on the right of the hill who put up a facade of being "pious, godly men" simply to garner the favor of the faithfull.[/b][/quote]

I totally agree with that statement, there is an Alabama judge turned politician in my mind doing the same thing. That's the thing:

"Not everyone who says 'Lord, Lord' shall enter the gates of Heaven" - Jesus.

I agree wholeheartedly that people sometimes used others faith to persuede them to vote or support them. But I also realize that people are well, people. They are going to make mistakes. Not taking up for anyone/anything, but when you put someone on a pedestal, then you are going to be disappointed. People fall. It's fact.

Sargoth

01-23-2006, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by Krogenar@Jan 23 2006, 09:38 AM
I just can't see them competiting with America because a fair number of the countries in the EU are socialist-heavy states.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

Yeah, socialist nations could never offer cheaper products, steal American jobs, or have a government that is actually profitable. *cough*China*cough* Seriously, man, most of our national debt is *owned* by socialists.

Master Cephus

01-23-2006, 01:50 PM

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Yeah, socialist nations could never offer cheaper products, steal American jobs, or have a government that is actually profitable. *cough*China*cough* Seriously, man, most of our national debt is *owned* by socialists.[/b][/quote]

But the question about that is what type of treatment are those working in China getting? Isn't it just above slave labor? Is that the type of country you want to champion socialistic ideas?

Krogenar

01-23-2006, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by Sargoth+Jan 23 2006, 01:42 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sargoth @ Jan 23 2006, 01:42 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Krogenar@Jan 23 2006, 09:38 AM
I just can't see them competiting with America because a fair number of the countries in the EU are socialist-heavy states.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

Yeah, socialist nations could never offer cheaper products, steal American jobs, or have a government that is actually profitable. *cough*China*cough* Seriously, man, most of our national debt is *owned* by socialists.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]

China is your example of a socialist success story, Sarg?

Just gimme a second to compose myself, ok?

China's decision to dabble in capitalism is the reason why they are exporting more goods, Sarg, not socialism. Socialists control the Chinese government, not the factories. They're allowing capitalism to work, Sarg, not socialism. Do you think the goods that China exports come from government run factories? Do you? style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif

Oh, and thanks for the class warfare pabulum ('steal American jobs'). The only way something can be stolen is if you own it. Just as employers don't 'own' their workers, American workers don't own their jobs, they enter into an agreement with their employers. And just today, Ford has announced it will be laying off 30,000 workers and closing down 14 factories. What is probably being unreported is that Ford is opening plants elsewhere, overseas, where the workers won't crush their profits, and have a less adversarial attitude.

So, I'm actually pleased to see those workers losing their jobs. They acted foolishly, and strong-armed their employer into agreements that ultimately forced the company to move their operations elsewhere. So those workers are getting what they deserve. Actually -- that's not even true -- the workers of today and tomorrow are getting the shaft that the current retirees and pensioners of Ford should be getting. From my perspective, those retirees basically sold out the auto workers of the future for their own security. So now I'm actually sad. Oh well, the market keeps moving. Maybe someday people will get wise and give up on all this class warfare crap. A few decades from now, workers overseas will probably complain about GM and Ford closing the plants and moving back to America.

Sargoth

01-23-2006, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by Master Cephus@Jan 23 2006, 10:50 AM
But the question about that is what type of treatment are those working in China getting? Isn't it just above slave labor? Is that the type of country you want to champion socialistic ideas?
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

The issue wasn't about the treatment of labororers. The issue was weather or not a Socialist state can compete against the US in the World Market. The sad question is: How many of the goods we consume on a daily basis are produced by pro-democracy political prisoners? This is why I refuse to believe the "We're in Iraq to spread Freedom" crap. When it comes down to brass tacks, the Powers that Be don't give a damn about freedom. They care about profit. Have you ever wondered why some of our closest trading allies are led by some of the most opressive regimes in the world? If we really cared about "spreading freedom" shouldn't we start with our "allies"?

The sad FACT is, it is often more profitable to ally with an oppressor. And that's the bottom line...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>China is your example of a socialist success story, Sarg?
[/b][/quote]

Well, they are our number one trading partner (if you consider importing $1 of goods for every $100 that they export a "partner" - but you get my drift). They also financed a large portion of our little Iraqi adventure. The Chinese government is one of the most powerful economies in the entire world. They've learned how to embrace capitalism globally, while maintaining a socialist police state internally.

Imagine how wealthy *you* would be if you had 1 billion "slave" laborors working for you.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>China's decision to dabble in capitalism is the reason why they are exporting more goods, Sarg, not socialism. Socialists control the Chinese government, not the factories. They're allowing capitalism to work, Sarg, not socialism. Do you think the goods that China exports come from government run factories? Do you?
[/b][/quote]

But who controls the *LABOR* Krog?? Who sets the wages that each laborer earns? Who passes out the work assignments? This is the result of China's blended economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China). Who runs the factory is irrelevant here - this isn't traditional Soviet Communism here. It is a blending of the (socially) worst of both Communism and Capatilism. Socially repugnant - yet *very* profitable.

goodwije

01-24-2006, 06:04 AM

Originally posted by Sargoth+Jan 22 2006, 12:00 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sargoth @ Jan 22 2006, 12:00 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Master Cephus@Jan 21 2006, 06:47 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>That's is just the liberal media sargoth.. no conservative would be capable of doing wrong.. they are religious you know.

Way to take the high road...
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]

I think what goodie is trying to say (pardon me for speaking for you), is that there are many on the right of the hill who put up a facade of being "pious, godly men" simply to garner the favor of the faithfull.
[/b][/quote]Yes that explains it well Sargoth. I hear conservatives, granted these are politians and pundits, talk about how they are religious while at the same time spewing hate, or breaking the law, or harrass a co-worker. If I where conservative, especially where I a religously minded conservative, I would be pretty ticked off about a lot of what has been going on.

Hey liberals screw up all the time as well, so I hope I am not coming across as eliteist not my intent.

.. and you are right MC, that was a pretty low shot- and not well thought out before posting, I regret it now and apologize.

Krogenar

01-24-2006, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by Sargoth+Jan 23 2006, 06:59 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sargoth @ Jan 23 2006, 06:59 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sargoth)</div><div class='quotemain'>Imagine how wealthy *you* would be if you had 1 billion "slave" laborors working for you.[/b]

Yeah! I'd be prett-- Hey! I thought the way the workers were treated wasn't the issue?! I think you toss the word 'slave' around when it suits your argument, and then ignore it later, but anyway... you correctly pointed out that the real issue is...

Originally posted by Sargoth@
The issue was weather or not a Socialist state can compete against the US in the World Market.

What you've focused on (somehow) is how Americans profit from Chinese mistreatment of their citizens. Now I have to confess, I don't know specifically how the Chinese factories are operating. I would assume that they are not run by government bureaucrats, and are instead run by private Chinese businesspeople, who hire Chinese workers. The Chinese government isn't ordering peopel to report to a factory to make Beanie Babies. They're justs skimming off the top in the form of taxes. If that assumption is correct, then we're not competing with a socialist-run factory, but with a capitalist-run factory.

Now let's focus on your use of the word 'slave' labor. If those workers have no choice but to make Beanie Babies (or be imprisoned by the government) then yes, they are slaves in the sense that they have no choice. But I do not believe that is the case.

<!--QuoteBegin-Sargoth
The sad question is: How many of the goods we consume on a daily basis are produced by pro-democracy political prisoners? This is why I refuse to believe the "We're in Iraq to spread Freedom" crap. When it comes down to brass tacks, the Powers that Be don't give a damn about freedom. They care about profit.[/quote]

I fail to see the connection. If you're so upset about the state of Chinese workers, shouldn't you be upset with the Chinese, Sarg? Also, do we know how the average Chinese factory worker's wages compare to his previous job? Have we converted his current salary (I dunno, $.25 a day?) into Chinese currency? Upon what basis do you call these workers slaves, Sarg? And finally, freedom and profit are hardly mutually exclusive. I believe that economic freedom is the key freedom, the basis upon which all other freedoms are built. Once you take away economic liberty, the other liberties cannot be defended. In that way, I believe encouraging the Chinese to dabble in capitalism is a way of insinuating economic freedom into their system. Eventually, other freedoms will follow.

Krogenar

01-24-2006, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by Sargoth+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sargoth)</div><div class='quotemain'>Have you ever wondered why some of our closest trading allies are led by some of the most opressive regimes in the world?* If we really cared about "spreading freedom" shouldn't we start with our "allies"?[/b]

Who are you talking about, besides China?

Originally posted by Sargoth+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sargoth)</div><div class='quotemain'>The sad FACT is, it is often more profitable to ally with an oppressor.* And that's the bottom line...[/b]

Again... to whom else are you referring to, besides China?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sargoth)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Krogenar
China's decision to dabble in capitalism is the reason why they are exporting more goods, Sarg, not socialism. Socialists control the Chinese government, not the factories. They're allowing capitalism to work, Sarg, not socialism. Do you think the goods that China exports come from government run factories? Do you?

But who controls the *LABOR* Krog?? Who sets the wages that each laborer earns? Who passes out the work assignments? This is the result of China's blended economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China). Who runs the factory is irrelevant here - this isn't traditional Soviet Communism here. It is a blending of the (socially) worst of both Communism and Capatilism. Socially repugnant - yet *very* profitable.
[/b][/quote]

I'll examine the link, but I doubt that the factories are centrally managed.

Krogenar

01-24-2006, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by Krogenar@Jan 24 2006, 11:33 AM
I'll examine the link, but I doubt that the factories are centrally managed.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

Great link, Sarg! And it proves my point:

Originally posted by Sarg's Excellent Wiki Entry on China's 'Blended' Economy+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarg's Excellent Wiki Entry on China's 'Blended' Economy)</div><div class='quotemain'>The Economy of the People's Republic of China is the second largest in the world when measured by purchasing power parity, with a GDP (PPP) of US $7.124 trillion in 2004. When measured in USD-exchange rate terms, it was the 6th largest in the world in 2004 with a GDP of US$1,929.21 billion, leapfrogging to the 4th largest in 2005 with approximately US$2.18 trillion. It is the world's largest developing economy, and its continued growth is critical to the overall health of the world economy and to the welfare of its population of 1.3 billion (most of whom have yet to enjoy western style affluence). Its per capita GDP was approximatly US$1,665 in 2005.[/b]

You are correct that their economy is growing. But now let's see how economic liberty (which capitalism underscores) fits into the picture:

Originally posted by Sarg's Excellent Wiki Entry on China's 'Blended' Economy+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sarg's Excellent Wiki Entry on China's 'Blended' Economy)</div><div class='quotemain'>Since 1978 the People's Republic of China (PRC) government has been reforming its economy from a Soviet-style centrally planned economy to a more market-oriented economy but still within the rigid political framework imposed by the Communist Party of China. This system has been called "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" and is one type of mixed economy.[/b]

So in other words, it's capitalism... but the Socialists are still in charge!
So the Communists have political dominance over everyone, but they're letting their citizens have some economic liberty and autonomy. The entry continues:

Originally posted by Sarg's Excellent Wiki Entry on China's 'Blended' Economy
To this end the authorities have switched to a system of household responsibility in agriculture in place of the old collectivization,

They decentralized control of agriculture.

Originally posted by Sarg's Excellent Wiki Entry on China's 'Blended' Economy
increased the authority of local officials and plant managers in industry,

They have decentralized control of the factories, as I correctly assumed.

<!--QuoteBegin-Sarg's Excellent Wiki Entry on China's 'Blended' Economy@
permitted a wide variety of small-scale enterprise in services and light manufacturing,[/quote]

Individuals can now open up factories and autonomously run them. Sounds like capitalism to me, watered down and with the political spectre of socialism hovering over it, but still capitalism.

<!--QuoteBegin-Sarg's Excellent Wiki Entry on China's 'Blended' Economy
and opened the economy to increased foreign trade and foreign investment. The government has emphasized raising personal income and consumption and introducing new management systems to help increase productivity. The government also has focused on foreign trade as a major vehicle for economic growth. The result has been a quadrupling of GDP since 1978.[/quote]

So, since the Chinese communist government has allowed some economic freedom, even in a limited form (they're still in charge!), their economic power, and the affluence of their population have increased. It seems to me that we're not competiting with a socialized (i.e. centralized) economic Chinese force, but with a capitalistic (decentralized, individualized) economic force. Don't you agree, Sarg? Oh, and I'm still eager to hear why you believe Bluth's ideas are 'crazy'. (He's the American Leftist whose work is on OBL's 'Book-of-the-Month Club' and compared it to being endorsed by Oprah Winfrey.)

T-bone

01-24-2006, 05:29 PM

Democrat blasts Bush before State of the Union
By Donna Smith

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid on Tuesday urged President George W. Bush to "swagger" less and show more honesty and humility in his annual State of the Union speech to the nation next week.

In a speech at a liberal think tank, Reid gave a scathing assessment of the state of the nation under Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress.

"Republicans run good campaigns, but when it comes to actually governing and protecting Americans, they have a record of incompetence," Reid told an audience at the Center for American Progress.

Reid's speech was part of an effort to lay the groundwork for the November congressional election in which Democrats hope to win control of Congress or at least shrink the Republican majority.

Reid took aim at the president's national security record, saying Bush "must unite the nation behind our most important goal -- keeping our people and way of life safe. We need to hear honesty and humility from the commander in chief, not swagger from the campaigner-in-chief."

Bush is to deliver his State of the Union address before Congress on January 31 and lay out his priorities for the year. He is expected to talk about national security and suggest expansion of tax-free "Health Savings Accounts" to help people pay medical expenses.

Reid accused Bush of making promises in past State of the Union speeches and doing the opposite. In 2003, Reid said, Bush promised not to pass the nation's current bills on to the next generation.

Noting that the government will breach the $8.184 trillion debt limit next month, Reid accused Bush of "bankrupting our country and placing an enormous tax on our children and grandchildren, simply so he can hand out tax breaks to special interests and the wealthy."

The White House has asked Congress to raise the credit limit by mid-February, saying the Treasury would have to take extraordinary measures to keep paying bills for everything from Social Security and national defense. Since 2002, Congress has raised the debt ceiling by $2.2 trillion.

Reid also urged Bush to offer a plan to fix the new Medicare prescription drug program for the elderly. Since the plan was launched on January 1, many poor and elderly people have been snagged by problems that have made it difficult for them to get their prescription costs covered.

About half of the states have stepped in to pay the costs of people who have run into problems. The drug plan relies on private insurers, pharmacies and healthcare companies to provide coverage to Medicare's 42 million beneficiaries.

Krogenar

01-24-2006, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by T'bone@Jan 24 2006, 05:29 PM
Noting that the government will breach the $8.184 trillion debt limit next month, Reid accused Bush of "bankrupting our country and placing an enormous tax on our children and grandchildren, simply so he can hand out tax breaks to special interests and the wealthy."

After sifting through all the hypocrisy and hyperbole in Reid's statement, of this much we can be sure -- the Republicans did not usher in a new age of fiscal responsibility. Granted, the Democrats were just as bad, but the Republicans came into office as reformers. Bush has done just about nothing to curb Republican pork. On other areas, Bush has succeeded -- after the 9/11 attacks, you would have been hard-pressed to find someone who would be willing to bet that we'd go nearly five years without another attack. And yet we have.

So let's see what Bush has to say.

Krogenar

01-26-2006, 04:15 PM

*bumpity-bump*

T-bone

02-02-2006, 04:12 PM

IA Chief Says Wiretap Disclosure Damaging
By KATHERINE SHRADER, Associated Press Writer

CIA Director Porter Goss said Thursday that the disclosure of President Bush's eavesdropping-without-warrants program and other once-secret projects had undermined U.S. intelligence-gathering abilities.

"The damage has been very severe to our capabilities to carry out our mission," Goss told the Senate Intelligence Committee. He said a federal grand jury should be empaneled to determine "who is leaking this information."

His testimony came after National Intelligence Director John Negroponte, who directs all intelligence activities, strongly defended the program, calling it crucial for protecting the nation against its most menacing threat.

"This was not about domestic surveillance," Negroponte said.

Leaders of the nation's intelligence agencies appeared before the panel in a rare public session to give a rundown on threats facing the world.

Negroponte called al-Qaida and associated terror groups the "top concern" of the U.S. intelligence community, followed closely by the nuclear activities of Iran and North Korea.

Committee Democrats sought to change the focus to the president's decision to authorize the National Security Agency to eavesdrop — without first obtaining warrants — on communications to and from those in the United States and terror suspects abroad.

"The president has not only confirmed the existence of the program, he has spoken at length about it repeatedly," while keeping Congress in the dark, said Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the panel's senior Democrat.

"The administration wants to have it both ways," said Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich.

Goss complained that leaks to the news media about the surveillance program and activities such as reported CIA secret prisons abroad had damaged his own agency's work.

"I use the words `very severe' intentionally. And I think the evidence will show that," Goss said.

He said not only have these revelations made it harder for the CIA to gather information, but they have made intelligence agencies in other countries mistrustful of their U.S. counterparts.

"I'm stunned to the quick when I get questions from my professional counterparts saying, `Mr. Goss, can't you Americans keep a secret?'" he said.

Goss cited a "disruption to our plans, things that we have under way." Some CIA sources and "assets" had been rendered "no longer viable or usable, or less effective by a large degree," he said.

"I also believe that there has been an erosion of the culture of secrecy and we're trying to reinstall that," Goss said.

"I've called in the FBI, the Department of Justice. It is my aim and it is my hope that we will witness a grand jury investigation with reporters present, being asked to reveal who is leaking this information," he said.

Rockefeller suggested that the "leaks" Goss talked about most likely "came from the executive branch" of the government.

That brought a terse response from FBI Director Robert Mueller, who said, "It's not fair to point a finger as to the responsibility of the leak."

T-bone

02-03-2006, 06:34 PM

Senate Intelligence Chairman: Bush Can Spy
By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts said Friday the Bush administration's domestic spying is within the president's inherent power under the Constitution, and he rejected criticism that Congress was kept in the dark about it.

The program is "legal, necessary and reasonable," the Kansas Republican wrote in a 19-page letter, taking a particularly expansive view of the president's authority for the warrantless surveillance.

"Congress, by statute, cannot extinguish a core constitutional authority of the president," Roberts wrote.

Presidents from George Washington to George W. Bush have intercepted communications to ascertain enemy threats to national security, Roberts told the chairman and ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Roberts' letter came just three days before that panel was to question Attorney General Alberto Gonzales about the surveillance.

All eight Judiciary Committee Democrats urged Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., to call more top Bush administration in for questioning, including former Attorney General John Ashcroft and ex-Deputy Attorney General Jim Comey. Comey reportedly objected to parts of the program.

Roberts said the Bush administration's notification of just eight members of Congress fulfilled the legal requirement that the legislative branch be kept fully and currently informed.

Roberts has received a dozen briefings on the program; the committee's ranking Democrat, Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, half that many.

Rockefeller says he does not have enough information to make a judgment about the legality of the program, about which he says he has concerns.

With Congress preparing to plunge into a hearing focused exclusively on the warrantless wiretapping, Vice President Dick Cheney said exposing the effort has done "enormous damage to our national security." The New York Times revealed the program's existence in December.

"It, obviously, reveals techniques and sources and methods that are important to try to protect," Cheney said. "It gives information to our enemies about how we go about collecting intelligence against them. It also raises questions in the minds of other intelligence services about whether or not they can work with the United States intelligence service, with our CIA, for example, if we can't keep a secret."

Cheney said he agreed with CIA Director Porter Goss, who told a Senate hearing on Thursday that such leaks are undercutting U.S. intelligence efforts. "I thought Director Goss was rather restrained in his comments, but he was absolutely correct," said Cheney.

Cheney's remarks came in a radio interview with conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham.

Sargoth

02-08-2006, 01:08 PM

Veterans Return to Fight for Votes (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/07/veteran.candidate.ap/index.html)
Campaigns for Congress are the new battlegrounds

Tuesday, February 7, 2006; Posted: 8:53 p.m. EST (01:53 GMT)

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colorado (AP) -- After 20 years in the Air Force and Bronze Star service during the 1991 Gulf War, Democrat Jay Fawcett decided to come home and run for Congress, largely out of disgust with the way American troops were being used in Iraq.

"I think it's just gotten to the point where a significant number of us who've served are looking at this administration particularly -- and Congress doesn't get off the hook -- and saying, `What're you doing? What's the plan?' " he said.

Fawcett is part of a large and possibly unprecedented number of former soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines running for Congress this year.

About 40 of the candidates are Republicans, while at least 55 are Democrats. By one count, at least 11 veterans of the Iraq war or Afghanistan are hoping to get elected to the House or Senate, all but one of them Democrats.

The fighting Democrats, as some call themselves, say their military experience could give them the credibility to criticize the war without being dismissed out of hand by the GOP as naive and weak on defense, as the Bush administration has often done.

"One of the things I think is behind this movement is, we're not stupid in the military. We know when we've been used and misused," said Navy veteran Bill Winter, a Democrat who hopes to challenge GOP Rep. Tom Tancredo in the Republican suburbs of Denver, Colorado.

Former Sen. Max Cleland, D-Georgia, who lost both legs and an arm while serving in Vietnam, said the Iraq war veterans running as Democrats will offer "a direct rebuttal" to the administration on the Iraq war.

"This administration, come April, will be going into the fourth year of this war after the president said three weeks into it `Major combat over, mission accomplished, bring them on,' " Cleland said. "You tell me who's out of touch. It's not these Iraq veterans that are coming back and saying, `This is not the way it was on the ground there, and I'm going to do something to change this.' "

Carl Forti, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Democrats are trying "to manufacture momentum wherever they can find it."

"The sad reality is that most of those people the (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) is promoting are in districts they can't possibly win," Forti said. "It doesn't make much sense to me."

Fawcett, who spent years as a defense contractor after leaving the Air Force, wants to take on Republican Rep. Joel Hefley in a Colorado Springs-area district that has one of the country's biggest concentrations of veterans. It includes the Air Force Academy, two Air Force bases, a major Army installation and NORAD, the air defense command. The district has been represented by a Republican since the seat was created more than three decades ago.

The roster of Democratic veterans includes engineers, teachers, lawyers, business owners and a pastor. Their stands on the war range from calling for immediate withdrawal to demanding a clearer timetable and a way out. Fawcett, for example, says that pulling out now would be a mistake, but that the Bush administration has failed to clearly state its goals and an exit strategy.

Among other veterans running for office:

- Marine reservist Paul Hackett, who served in Iraq and is running for the Senate in Ohio. The Democrat narrowly lost a special House election last year in a district where President Bush won 64 percent of the vote in 2004.

- Former Army Maj. L. Tammy Duckworth, a helicopter pilot who lost her legs in a grenade attack in Iraq. She is running as a Democrat for the Illinois congressional seat of retiring Republican Rep. Henry Hyde. She said she privately disagreed with Bush's decision to invade Iraq but still volunteered to serve. "We should have been fighting the enemies that attacked us at home on 9/11," she said in December. "We should have been out there trying to catch Osama bin Laden."

- Democrat Eric Massa, a 24-year Navy officer challenging freshman Republican Rep. Randy Kuhl in western New York.

Elections after the end of World War II and the Vietnam War also saw large numbers of veterans running for Congress.

Republicans this time around could have a difficult time countering opposition to the administration's war plan -- or the war itself -- from veteran-Democrats, said Gary Jacobson, a congressional scholar at the University of California at San Diego.

"Popular sentiment is not terribly pro-war now, and there's lots of doubts about the administration's honesty and the purposes of the war," he said. "So, if you have a veteran come back and start trashing the war, that's a problem for Republicans."

Still, a veteran cannot count on a win, said Ed Patru, another spokesman for the Republican congressional committee.

"Being a veteran, it's great to have that on your resume," he said. "People appreciate veterans, but if you're wrong on taxes and the economy, the bread-and-butter, kitchen-tabletop kind of issues, being a veteran is not going to save you."

Sargoth

02-08-2006, 01:10 PM

Come on, Dubbya. Try "swiftboating" these guys. I dare you!!

Krogenar

02-08-2006, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by Sargoth@Feb 8 2006, 01:10 PM
Come on, Dubbya. Try "swiftboating" these guys. I dare you!!
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

What Dubya needs to do is create a fake memorandum about these guys. That'll work! style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif

Sargoth

02-08-2006, 07:00 PM

Moved from Coretta Scott King memorial thread

Originally posted by Count Dookie+Feb 8 2006, 03:08 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Count Dookie @ Feb 8 2006, 03:08 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Sargoth@Feb 8 2006, 05:58 PM
Spying on American citizens without a warrant sucks as bad today as it did in 1968.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

Even if it means protecting you and all of us from terrorists? I find a blanket statement like that unrealistic.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]

Here's a very *realistic* blanket statement for you:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

And no, CD, if the government needs to trash the Constitution in order to "protect me" from all those scaaaaaary terr'rists, they have no business running the country. 1978 FISA law clearly states that any foreign to domestic wiretapping done without FISA court oversight is illegal. (And ergo, an impeachable offense).

We have enough legal tools at our disposal to fight the War on Terror that are in line with our laws and our liberties. Were these tools used properly, 9/11 *never* would have happened.

Originally posted by Count Dookie
Now let's see, under which party's administration did the federal wiretaps of MLK occur?

...And what does that have to do with the price of curry in India? It was wrong then. Its wrong now. I don't care *who* was running the show.

Master Cephus

02-08-2006, 07:44 PM

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>And no, CD, if the government needs to trash the Constitution in order to "protect me" from all those scaaaaaary terr'rists, they have no business running the country. 1978 FISA law clearly states that any foreign to domestic wiretapping done without FISA court oversight is illegal. (And ergo, an impeachable offense).

We have enough legal tools at our disposal to fight the War on Terror that are in line with our laws and our liberties. Were these tools used properly, 9/11 *never* would have happened.[/b][/quote]

Actually Sargoth, the 9/11 commission's report states that the FISA process is too slow...

Sargoth

02-08-2006, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by mc
Actually Sargoth, the 9/11 commission's report states that the FISA process is too slow...

Fine and dandy. Why then, 4.5 years after 9/11, hasn't this recommendation been acted upon? Congress has the power to overhaul the law to bring it up-to-date. USAPATRIOT tore through Congress like a bat outta hell in 30 days.

I suppose I only need to look as far as my wide open border 200 miles to the south to remind myself how serious the feds are about implementing the Comission reccommendations.

CrucifiedTurtle

02-09-2006, 12:27 PM

Why Iraq Will Not End in Victory.

You hear it tossed around pretty casually these days, they're insurgents, rebels, terrorists, killers, murderers. There's no good among them, there's no way to let them live. They have to be wiped out. Its for our safety.

Let me explain something. This war cannot be 'won.' This is not an actual enemy per se. Its an amorphous collective, with no clearly defined plans or strategies, but with one goal in mind. There are no fronts to be taken, or key points or anything traditional about this type of war.

And what makes it even worse, is this...You kill one "terrorist" and you create a hundred more in his place.

In the Middle East no government has been stable for very long. There are people there that have seen three regime changes in their lifetimes. How are they supposed to view us? To them, we are not the freedom fighters that we would like to make ourselves out to be, we're just another group of tanks that will flatten their homes, tell them what is best for them, and then oppress them further. Think about that.

Our tanks are no different than Saddam's as far as most Iraqis are concerned. Think about that. To them, we are just more tanks rolling through.

The answer is not as simple as putting democracy in place. They don't know how to handle it, such as thing has never existed for them. What do you expect? This is culture clash, we're forcing our ideals and principles on a people that can't understand them.

We're no better than any other army that has come to them in the past, we're simply some other group encroaching where we are not entirely welcome.

Of course they're going to rebel, and fight against us. Say it happened the same way, assume that the Middle East, as a collective, came marching in to America and said that we'd be happier if we lived under a calif such as they did. And then began trying to put that in place in our country, would we allow such as that? Or would we do anything at all costs to preserve our own culture?

Have you ever thought of it that way? I'm sure that you haven't.

Maybe you should.

Democracy is our way of life, and its fading fast on our side, by the way...but I digress. Democracy is our way of life, not theirs. Its not our job to force them into it.

T-bone

02-09-2006, 03:35 PM

CORE Blasts King Funeral 'Outrage'

The head of one of the nation's oldest civil rights organizations is blasting former President Jimmy Carter and Rev. Joseph Lowery for politicizing the funeral of Coretta Scott King.

In a press release Thursday, Roy Innis, chairman of the Congress of Racial Equality, called comments by Carter and Lowery attacking President Bush "crass" and "disrespectful."

"It was an outrage for such behavior to be exhibited in the presence of the President of the United States, and it was particularly outrageous for it to occur at a funeral for a dignified lady, the wife of Martin Luther King, Jr.," the CORE chief complained - after attending the service in person.

President Carter's comments slamming the president over Hurricane Katrina and for surveilling terrorists were "disappointing," Innis said.

Rev. Lowery's complaint that the U.S. didn't find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was "equally reprehensible," the civil rights leader added.

Mr. Innis also noted that there were "many in the audience who did not support this outrage," explaining, "They understood the inappropriateness of bad behavior at a solemn funeral."

Sargoth

02-09-2006, 04:18 PM

Here's my take on it. Rev Lowery has been an integral part of King's movement from the beginning. They protested together, they were arrested together. He's not some "random leftie", he was part of King's innermost circle of confidants. He, if anyone, should be able to judge how this fantastic woman would want to be eulogized.

King's movement was so much more than just about de-segregation. He was also very much anti-war (Vietnam). He saw the waste of an unjust war - not only in terms of human life (many of whom were poor minorities who "werent' smart or well connected enough" to get a draft deferrment), but also in terms of government financial waste. Billions of dollars that could have gone to poor schools or social programs was being deferred into the belly of the insatiable War Machine - Just like today. How many federal cuts have been made this month alone in Medicare, student loans, and public education in the face of record "defense" spending?

The King family showed the POWER of peaceful civil disobediance. IMHO, Lowery honored this tradition majesticly. Bush is the master of the staged photo-op. Press conferences are stacked. Questions are pre-screened. And only friendly audiences are ever spoken to. This isn't an opinon, my friends. When was the last time you saw a member of the press throw a hard ball at the president? Watch old Reagan press conferences - he couldn't even pardon the Thanksgiving Turkey without being bombarded with Iran/Contra questions. The current cadre of white house press corps has not one pair of testicles between all of them. Give me one example in the past 5 years that proves otherwise!!

So, in the ultimate act of Civil Disobediance, Lowery *dared* to speak what was on the collective minds of the funeral congregation. He *dared* to pull the president out of his Ivory Tower, away from the safety of his sycophants and yes men. For the first time - Bush heard real anger. And with the cameras rolling, he was *forced* to endure it. This wasn't a sanitized debate. This was raw, and it was real.

Now, being a white thirty-something suburbanite, I cannot speak for the King family, or their dearly departed. But I do feel I can speak to their legacy. And from what I saw, the flame of Justice, truth, and peaceful resistance that this noble family gave their lives to nurture, is shining just a little bit brighter today.

T-bone

02-09-2006, 04:20 PM

Here's my take on it. BS.

It's almost as if the Democrats needed to make sure they still had the black vote.

What a crock.

Sargoth

02-09-2006, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by T'bone@Feb 9 2006, 01:20 PM
Here's my take on it. BS.

It's almost as if the Democrats needed to make sure they still had the black vote.

What a crock.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

But Lowery was black... And he's not a politician.

T-bone

02-09-2006, 04:36 PM

But Carter is white, and he is.

Krogenar

02-09-2006, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by Master Cephus@Feb 8 2006, 07:44 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>And no, CD, if the government needs to trash the Constitution in order to "protect me" from all those scaaaaaary terr'rists, they have no business running the country. 1978 FISA law clearly states that any foreign to domestic wiretapping done without FISA court oversight is illegal. (And ergo, an impeachable offense).

We have enough legal tools at our disposal to fight the War on Terror that are in line with our laws and our liberties. Were these tools used properly, 9/11 *never* would have happened.

Actually Sargoth, the 9/11 commission's report states that the FISA process is too slow...
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]

And you're also blatantly wrong, Sargoth, when it comes to FISA. The law very clearly states that when national security is at stake, that FISA places no restrictions on the President. Don't believe me? Of course you don't! Yer libr'rrls, after all, maddened by the looming reality that the Democratic Party will soon implode for lack of a theme. So take the word of U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales:

Prepared Statement of AG, Dated 02/06/2006 (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/nsa/gonz20606stmnt.html)

Originally posted by Gonzales
More recently, in 2002, the FISA Court of Review explained that -quote - "all the other courts to have decided the issue [have] held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain intelligence information." <span style="color:blue">The court went on to add, quote, "We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that it is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional powers."</span> It is significant that this statement stressing the constitutional limits of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, came from the very appellate court that Congress established to review the decisions of the FISA Court.

So there is a constitutional authority vested in the executive branch to conduct these searches. The usual standard of due process applies to criminal (i.e. domestic) cases, but not in a time of war, not in cases of national security. I am tempted to claim that Democrats are unaware of this issue, but that's not so! They know that what the President did was necessary and important -- they all but said so at the hearings. But then they shake their heads and furrow their brows and say he went about it all wrong, you see. They agree completely with what was done (they're 'tough' on terrorism, you see) but they reserve their right to be ridiculous scolds anyway.

Gonzales goes on:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>By its plain terms, FISA prohibits the government from engaging in electronic surveillance - quote - "except as authorized by statute."

Those words - except as authorized by statute - are no mere accident of drafting. Instead, they constitute a far-sighted safety valve. The Congress that passed FISA in 1978 included those words so that future Congresses could address unforeseen challenges. The 1978 Congress afforded future lawmakers the ability to modify or eliminate the need for a FISA application without having to amend or repeal FISA. Congress provided this safety valve because it knew that the only thing certain about foreign threats is that they change in unpredictable ways.

Mr. Chairman, the Resolution Authorizing the Use of Military Force is exactly the sort of later statutory authorization contemplated by FISA's safety valve. Just as the 1978 Congress anticipated, a new Congress in 2001 found itself facing a radically new reality. In that new environment, Congress did two critical things when it passed the Force Resolution.

First, Congress recognized the President's inherent constitutional authority to combat al Qaeda. These inherent authorities, as I have explained, include the right to conduct surveillance of foreign enemies operating inside this country.

Second, Congress confirmed and supplemented the President's inherent authority by authorizing him - quote - "to use all necessary and appropriate force" against al Qaeda. This is a very broadly worded authorization. It is also one that must permit electronic surveillance of those associated with al Qaeda. Our enemies operate secretly and seek to attack us from within. In this new kind of war, it is both necessary and appropriate for us to take all possible steps to locate our enemy and know what they are plotting before they strike.[/b][/quote]

So please, Sargoth -- keep pushing this issue. It makes liberals look weak and stupid on terrorism. If someone immigrates to America, becomes a citizen, but is plotting with Al Qaeda to launch another 9/11-style attack... should they be allowed the same protections as other citizens? Of course not. If liberals keep pressing this line of flapdoodle, all they'll force upon themselves is the question of whether they believe that terrorism rises to the level of a national security threat. And only the most crazed Leftists believe that terrorism should be handled as a mere criminal offense.

Increasingly, Democrats can only say what they're against, but not what they're about. They're ready to serve up the red meat, politically, but they have no real alternatives themselves. That's not going to play well in 2006, or in 2008.

Krogenar

02-09-2006, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by Sargoth+Feb 9 2006, 04:18 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sargoth @ Feb 9 2006, 04:18 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Here's my take on it. Rev Lowery has been an integral part of King's movement from the beginning. They protested together, they were arrested together. He's not some "random leftie", he was part of King's innermost circle of confidants. He, if anyone, should be able to judge how this fantastic woman would want to be eulogized.[/b]

What a load of pretentious flapdoodle!

What you're really saying, Sarg, is that only black people can comment on the King family. That's racist! So, because this man was arrested with King, that somehow makes him more qualified to talk about ... the Iraq War?

It should have been a day when people put aside politics and just remember someone, and what she cared about. But no, the Democrats just can't resist any opportunity to bash Bush. And I find it extremely pathetic.

And what can Bush do? Should he take the podium after these attacks, and say, "*cough*444daysashostages*cough* Thank you, President Carter for those kind words..." No, he can't, because sitting Presidents are supposed to be above the fray, and gracious. It was a long-standing tradition that former Presidents were to remain helpful to sitting Presidents, but largely non-political. Not so, President Clinton and Carter. Carter, arguably one of the worst presidents of the 20th century is now clearly the worst ex-president as well.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sargoth)</div><div class='quotemain'>The current cadre of white house press corps has not one pair of testicles between all of them. Give me one example in the past 5 years that proves otherwise!![/b]

Originally posted by Helen Thomas@ White House Press Bureau Chief
"If Cheney runs for President, I'll kill myself."

Hrm, she sounds pretty open-minded to me.

<!--QuoteBegin-Sargasm
So, in the ultimate act of Civil Disobediance, Lowery *dared* to speak what was on the collective minds of the funeral congregation. He *dared* to pull the president out of his Ivory Tower, away from the safety of his sycophants and yes men. For the first time - Bush heard real anger. And with the cameras rolling, he was *forced* to endure it. This wasn't a sanitized debate. This was raw, and it was real.[/quote]

Hold on, I gotta clean my glasses, the tears are fogging them up.
Dude. How is it an act of Civil Disobedience to lambast the President at a funeral service? There's no frickin' law preventing him from doing it -- besides decency. No is required by law to not be an idiot.

Krogenar

02-09-2006, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by Sargoth+Feb 9 2006, 04:22 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sargoth @ Feb 9 2006, 04:22 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-T'bone@Feb 9 2006, 01:20 PM
Here's my take on it. BS.

It's almost as if the Democrats needed to make sure they still had the black vote.

What a crock.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

But Lowery was black... And he's not a politician.
<div align="right">Quoted post</div>
[/b][/quote]

Blacks can get away with saying outrageously dumb things, things that would get anyone else in deep, deep poop. Because as everyone knows, to criticize a black person for saying something stupid is proof of deep-seated racism. The following links made me feel good. Turn your speakers on, please.

George Bush Doesn't Care About Chocolate! (http://bushchoco.ytmnd.com/)

Ray Nagin Remix (http://naginsmovieposter.ytmnd.com/)

Ray Nagin's Superdome Reconstruction Complete. (http://chocolatedome.ytmnd.com/)

Sargoth

02-09-2006, 09:20 PM

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'> So take the word of U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales....[/b][/quote]

style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rofl.gif

In case I haven't made myself perfectly, 100% crystal clear by this point Krog. I'll say this, for your benifit, one...more...time

I will sooner eat my own buttocks before I give any member of this administration the slightest iota of trust, support, or faith.

I don't care what Gonzales has to say - he's lying.

I don't care what Rice has to say - she's lying.

I don't care what Cheney has to say - he's lying.

And just so my intentions are totally clear to you Krog. There is but one issue I care about for 2006: "Mr. Prospective Congressman, will you make it your foremost priority to bring up articles of Impeachment against this administration? Ms. Prospective senator, will you vote 'yea' on the articles of impeachment when they are brought in front of you. Will you commit yourselves to putting this administration in prison for their crimes against our citizens and our Constitution?"

If they tell me 'yes', they have my vote. If they say 'no', they don't. Simple terms, black & white. You want to pigeonhole me as a "one issue loonie"? Here you go!!

Krogenar

02-10-2006, 12:40 AM

Originally posted by Sargoth+Feb 9 2006, 09:20 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sargoth @ Feb 9 2006, 09:20 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sargasm)</div><div class='quotemain'>And just so my intentions are totally clear to you Krog.* There is but one issue I care about for 2006:[/b]

A one-issue voter, yeah! Score!

<!--QuoteBegin-Extended One-Month-Long Sargasm
"Mr. Prospective Congressman, will you make it your foremost priority to bring up articles of Impeachment against this administration? Ms. Prospective senator, will you vote 'yea' on the articles of impeachment when they are brought in front of you.* Will you commit yourselves to putting this administration in prison for their crimes against our citizens and our Constitution?"[/quote]

Do you need a hanky, Sarg, for the little dots of congealed spittle that must surely have formed at the corners of your mouth? Here you go. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif No, you can keep it, I have more.

Originally posted by Sargoth
If they tell me 'yes', they have my vote.* If they say 'no', they don't.* Simple terms, black & white.* You want to pigeonhole me as a "one issue loonie"?* Here you go!!

I don't need to pigeonhole you Sarg. You've done that already -- to every potential Democratic candidate. Ow. It hurts to smile as much as I am right now. The Democrats are doomed if there are enough voters like you, and I know there are. Election 2008, I predict, will be a Republican romp-fest.

Sargoth

02-10-2006, 01:46 AM

Originally posted by Krogenar@Feb 9 2006, 09:40 PM
Do you need a hanky, Sarg, for the little dots of congealed spittle that must surely have formed at the corners of your mouth? Here you go. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif No, you can keep it, I have more.

Naah, my rage is totally under control. Whenever I feel utterly repulsed by the latest political atrocity; be it state sanctioned torture, cronyism, war profiteering, or watching the truth being flushed down the memory hole, I simply need to go to my happy place...

...Seeing Bush sitting behind Lowery with that "Deer-caught-in-the-headlights 'Help me Karl!!" glaze in his eyes". If you listen reeeeealy close, you can almost hear the sphincter tighten.

Sargoth

02-10-2006, 02:15 AM

Libby: White House 'superiors' authorized leaks

Associated Press
Feb. 9, 2006 04:50 PM

WASHINGTON - A former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney told a federal grand jury that his superiors authorized him to give secret information to reporters as part of the Bush administration's defense of intelligence used to justify invading Iraq, according to court papers.

Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said in documents filed last month that he plans to introduce evidence that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's former chief of staff, disclosed to reporters the contents of a classified National Intelligence Estimate in the summer of 2003.

The NIE is a report prepared by the head of the nation's intelligence operations for high-level government officials, up to and including the president. Portions of NIEs are sometimes declassified and made public. It is unclear whether that happened in this instance.

In a Jan. 23 letter to Libby's lawyers, Fitzgerald said Libby also testified before the grand jury that he caused at least one other government official to discuss an intelligence estimate with reporters in July 2003.

"We also note that it is our understanding that Mr. Libby testified that he was authorized to disclose information about the NIE to the press by his superiors," Fitzgerald wrote.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan refused to comment. "Our policy is that we are not going to discuss this when it's an ongoing legal proceeding," he said.

William Jeffress, Libby's lawyer, said, "There is no truth at all" to suggestions that Libby would try to shift blame to his superiors as a defense against the charges.

Libby, 55, was indicted late last year on charges that he lied to FBI agents and the grand jury about how he learned CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity and when he subsequently told reporters. He is not charged with leaking classified information from an intelligence estimate report.

Plame's identity was published in July 2003 by columnist Robert Novak after her husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, accused the administration of twisting intelligence about Iraq's efforts to buy uranium in Niger. The year before, the CIA had sent Wilson to Niger to determine the accuracy of the uranium reports.

Wilson's revelations cast doubt on President Bush's claim in his 2003 State of the Union address that Niger had sold uranium to Iraq to develop a nuclear weapon as one of the administration's key justifications for going to war in Iraq.

On Thursday, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said Cheney should take responsibility if he authorized Libby to share classified information with reporters.

"These charges, if true, represent a new low in the already sordid case of partisan interests being placed above national security," Kennedy said. "The vice president's vindictiveness in defending the misguided war in Iraq is obvious. If he used classified information to defend it, he should be prepared to take full responsibility."

In the summer of 2003, White House officials - including Libby - were frustrated that the media were incorrectly reporting that Cheney had sent Wilson to Niger and had received a report of his findings in Africa before the war in Iraq had begun.

In an effort to counter those reports, Libby and other White House officials sought information from the CIA regarding Wilson and how his trip to Niger came about, according to court records.

Fitzgerald, in his letter to Libby's lawyers, said he plans to use Libby's grand jury testimony to support evidence pertaining to the White House aide's meeting with former New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

During the meeting with Miller on July 8, Libby also discussed Plame, Fitzgerald said. "Our anticipated basis for offering such evidence is that such facts are inextricably intertwined with the narrative of the events of spring 2003, as Libby's testimony itself makes plain," the prosecutor wrote.

Miller spent 85 days in jail for refusing to discuss her source.