Dubbya Is Gone In 2004

[RBS]

Why?

Yeah, he's got good "approval ratings" because of his take-down of a regime that the United States could beat with both arms tied behind its back, and it makes America feel good for a few short minutes.

But your average bohunk in middle America who thinks that we actually got revenge for 9/11 won't give a rat's ass when he loses his job and his friends lose their jobs and the economy sinks even FURTHER into the tank!

Meanwhile, tax breaks for the rich will piss him off even more, and then W. and his lying bunch of cronies will be gone, gone, gone.

Of course, the Republicans could always try to blame Clinton!

[Gary Sisco]

I agree that in the end most Americans care more for their wallets than they do about the war or terrorism or anything else. By the time of the election, the economy will be good and fucked fe true.

In any case, as I've said before, I'll be voting for anyone, literally anyone, running against the Gang-in-Charge. (No one seriously believes Bush to be in charge of anything, even Repubs.)

I'd vote for a chimp, at this point.

And this from a guy who's never in his life voted for either a dem or a repub for president, even in '72.

[Brian Olewnick]

Way too early to say, of course, but at the moment it's tough to see the Dems putting up anyone that will seriously challenge Bush. Barring an intensely charismatic character emerging, I think the Dems almost have to nominate a Southerner to win (to have a shot at winning some of the Southern states). The only serious fellow they have at the moment who fits the bill is Edwards, who I think might, if nominated, pull off a "Clinton"; he's similarly bright and affable. His problem, obviously, is getting nominated. If they go with a Kerry or a Gephart, I think they're doomed. And they better hope that Bush doesn't pull a (politically) very smart move and discreetly retire Cheney (ostensibly for health reasons), substituting Rice as VP. As much as Chris A might despise her, imho that would objectively be a strikingly strong move on the Rep's part.

[Gary Sisco]

Well, George I had his war and lost over the economy. I'm hoping for repeat performance.

I don't care who they put up, I'm voting for him. There are millions of others who feel the same way. Including many, who, like me, haven't engaged in that business at all or for many years. So, there'll also be many "new" voters out there, who aren't going to be giving a damn about anything except getting George II out of the White House.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

RBS,

You're dreaming. You're assuming the American public has the desire to do a serious analysis of public policy and how it affects them.

Bush is amaster of offering simplistic solutions to complex problems. It doesn't matter if they work or not. Remember the stimulus that was supposed to come about from the last tax cut? It never happened, but he's not being held accountable.

Bush is very good at staying on message. He's highly scripted. But if you repeat the same thing over and over eventually it becomes the truth. He never offered proof nor did he directly say Iraq aided and abetted the 9/11 attackers, yet a majority of Americans believe that Iraq was directly responsible for 9/11.

One major difference between Bush I and Bush Bush II is that once the first Gulf War was over there was no direct threat to the US. Well, you constantly hear that 9/11 changed everything and it has.

Before the Republicans had Communismand ta cuts as their primary issues. Once the Berlin Wall went down they only hadtax cuts going for them. Politically 9/11 was the best thing to happen for this administartion. Terrorism replaced Communism as a boogie man to beat over the democrats head. The mid-term elctions proved that. Whe a Senator that left three limbs in VietNam can lose an election because he wasn't deemed patriotic enough what does that tell you? Max Cleland of Georgia got voted out because he wanted union protection for workers in Hoemland Security Department. A department that was originally rejected by Bush because it would be a new government bureacracy. It was the Democrats' idea!.

So we're in an open ended war on terrorism. That war wil keep Bush in office because the majority of Americans feel the Democrats do not have the wherewithall to defend this country.

[Jimmy Cantiello]

If nominated, I will not run. If elected, I will not serve..............

[MRS]

Originally posted by RBS
But your average bohunk in middle America who thinks that we actually got revenge for 9/11 won't give a rat's ass when he loses his job and his friends lose their jobs and the economy sinks even FURTHER into the tank!

Why the middle of America? Is this where you think there is the highest concentration of unintelligible, destitute, alcoholic, drug-abusing, non-voting, war-supporting and irresponsible peoples in the United States? We'll lose our jobs in the steel mills of Granite City, IL, the coal mines of West Virginia, the farms of Western Kansas whilst the venerably enlightened literati of New England frown upon we who initiated our collective demise in the first place?

[Troy D]

Well, I'd definitely say this administration is starting to worry about the state of the economy. An amazingly successful war in Iraq, followed by a stagnating economy right before a national election--sound familiar to anyone? It's happened before.

And that's not the only thing they're worried about. Apparently they're really putting the heat on the guys over there to hurry up and find some of these "weapons of mass destruction," which apparently have been hidden pretty well. Bush invested *a lot* of political capital in tricking --ahem, assuring--us that this was the primary danger Saddam posed to the west. Don't you think a complete failure in this regard could provide some fodder for a Democratic candidate ready to use it? Whether there'd be any Democrats with the balls to do so is another matter--but I guarantee you Bush is starting to get real antsy about this issue.

[clinthopson]

RBS -
I hope you are right but have serious doubts about the ability of the masses to actually think and analyze the damage that Shrub and his crowd are doing to international relations, the environment, the economy and individual rights by pursuing a path of finding a bad guy to root out (no luck so far - where's Osama and Hussein?) and making the idiotic claim that cutting taxes for the rich will help the economy.

I want the Dems to come up with a candidate who is NOT from the South. We've had a string of Southerners who leave things in a bigger mess than when they came in. Even Billy Jeff, who I think was pretty effective, managed to create an atmosphere that allowed Shrub to get into office.

I don't know who I will support, but it certainly won't be a Southerner - or a Californian for that matter (we gave the world Nixon and Reagan).

Let's cross our fingers that Shrub's house of cards collapses before next year.

[patricia]

Looking at this from the outside, as I do, it strikes me that Mr Bush has been campaigning from the first day after he assumed the office of President.
His administration, as is not unusual, but even expected, has been doing all the heavy lifting and what the public sees is patriotic speeches, delivered to receptive crowds of schoolkids, the military and friendly fellow Republicans. His news conferences invited no real opposition to his policies. There has been no real debate and the ultra-choreographed news conference which was much ballyhooed was evidence, to me, that even the news media seem to have fallen into line, at least when confronted with an opportunity to actually pose questions.
Although it was evident that it was hardly spontaneous, I wonder how many ordinary citizens could see the artificiality of it.
Knowing who was going to be able to ask questions and what the questions would be is hardly a challenge. Mr Bush was not asked anything the least bit controversial.
Couple the carefully managed public appearances of the President with the lack of a strong opponent, or a convenient scandal, I think that a second term is likely.
Mr Bush is riding on the high of his successful war on a country which was the least likely to put up much resistance and now he is hinting at Syria being next, to continue to be a "wartime" President. This may prevent him from having to deal with the economy, and a "wartime" President is, traditionally a shoo-in, if the war is seen to be successful.
Meanwhile, the Democrats have not put anyone out there, getting face-time, which has captured the public's imagination, and seem almost timid about opposing any of the legislation dealing with budget issues, which will take time to do visible harm to ordinary citizens. Meanwhile, the war tactic may very well result in a bump upward in the economy, with the "reconstruction" contracts being awarded to American companies, creating wealth for some.
Unless the Dems come up with somebody who is willing to confront Mr Bush I predict a second term. After four years of Mr Bush campaigning, there may not be enough time, before next year's election, to present an alternative to the status quo.
Surely, among the entire Democrat roster, there is somebody who can capture the public's interest. If there is, they better roll him/her out and get them some face-time, or it will indeed be too late.

[Monte Smith]

It is April 2003. You cannot predict politics further out than maybe three months these days in America.

Having said that, the Democrats don't get it. This election will probably not be a repeat of 1992. Unless the Democrats remove their head from the sand and address serious concerns of national security--and stop putting forth arguments better befitting French leftists or straight jihadis--then look for a repeat of two thousand and two, not 1992.

Doesn't look good for the Dems based on something Jim Jordan, campaign manager for Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, said in the NYT yesterday.

He said: "Unless the Democratic nominee can make a compelling and convincing case--a case built on story and persona instead of just rhetoric--that he can keep Americans safe in a dangerous world, we're looking at McGovern-like results."

That's sweet! The Dems are looking beyond rhetoric to embrace the high ground of story and persona.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Commander in Chief topples terrorist regimes. There's "story" for ya.

[RainyDay]

As long as Americans are scared of peple who don't look like them, they're going to support the guy who talks and acts out a tough line. The economy will have to be on the brink of total collapse for there to be a change in administrations. Like someone earlier said, this isn't the same as Bush I.

People are afraid. People will act against their own self interest out of fear and right now folks are scared. Bush II & Co. have done a fine job of convincing the public that there is a terrorist on every block ready to blow them up. Every town in American has some hamboned idea about why their burg is a favored terrorist target. "We're the site of the first MacDonald's, run for the hills!"

Watching the national post 9-11 reaction is like watching a huge collective nervous breakdown. Which I find scarier than any terrorist threat.

One wild card is if a lot of US service personnel end up dying in various excursions in the Middle East. If enough blue collar folks end up burying their dead, the tide could turn.

I remember a poll that came out just before the 2000 election. Sixty percent or so of the public said that they didn't think Bush was as smart as Gore and that Gore would make a better president but they could relate to Bush better. Better led by a dummy you can relate to than a smart guy who might know more than you. I got your mediocre government right here.

[RainyDay]

And at this point, I don't think 2004 will have anything to do with what the Democrats do. If they win, it will be by default.

[patricia]

As I said, Monte, roll him/her out, before it's too late to have a face out there.
As for toppling regimes, dare the Bush administration ride on this easy victory over an apparantly ill-prepared, ill-armed [despite the accusations of WOMD possession] adversary, or will it be necessary to declare a "pre-emptive" strike on another tyrant? This would bolster the President's victorious "war-time" position, defending the country against yet other "evil-doers", or even those who simply oppose his strategy of bringing "freedom" to the oppressed of the world.
Solving the strife in the Congo would be a bright plume in his beanie. Unlikely though. However, I think that, since the guys are already there, Syria or Iran may be likely recipients of democracy, but Saudi Arabia [where the Sept 11 terrorists actually came from] and Israel are safe from "liberation". Of course, there's still North Korea, but that's not too likely, since they do actually have WOMD, as do India and, Pakistan.
So, the situation seems to be how to maintain this high of moral and military superiority long enough to ride on it to a second term. Given that the Dems have not gotten their butts in gear and brought out a visible, viable candidate, I think that the results are predictable, as much as these things can be.

[Scott Dolan]

Sorry all my 'fair' minded libby's, here's part of the Democrat legacy anybody with half a brain will be remembering when they go to the polls next time:


Thursday, April 17, 2003 10:53 a.m. EDT
Bin Laden Bungle Deja Vu: Clinton's Abu Abbas Blunder

When ex-President Bill Clinton decided to pass up a 1996 deal to extradite Osama bin Laden to the United States, it wasn't the first time he let a notorious Mideast terrorist who had killed Americans off the hook.

In May 1996, the same month he turned down Sudan's offer to hand over bin Laden, Clinton refused to enforce a Senate resolution seeking the extradition of Palestinian terrorist Abu Abbas, who masterminded the 1985 hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro, where New Yorker Leon Klinghoffer was brutally executed.

On May 1, 1996, Clinton held a White House press conference with Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yassir Arafat, where the president was asked about the Senate's Abbas extradition resolution.

According to a transcript of the exchange obtained by NewsMax, a reporter asked:

"Mr. President, 99 Senators asked for you to and for Chairman Arafat to authorize the extradition of Abu Abbas, the mastermind of the Achille Lauro hijacking. Will you ask the Justice Department to issue an extradition request?"

The reporter continued, "And, Chairman Arafat, would you honor such a request if it came from the United States?"

Clinton declined to respond to the question, even though it was addressed directly to him. Instead, Arafat stepped up to the microphone and praised Abbas as a peacemaker while the president remained silent.

"We should not forget that Abu Abbas came and attended the PNC and voted to change the Covenant of the PLO and to support the peace process," Arafat told the White House gathering.

Clinton had a good reason to bite his tongue on the Abbas extradition question, since a year earlier he had signed an agreement pardoning all PLO members for terrorist acts committed before the signing of the Oslo Peace Accords in 1993.

On Wednesday, Palestinian negotiator Saed Erekat invoked the Clinton deal to seek the release of Abbas, who was captured Monday night in Baghdad by U.S. Special Operations forces. A State Department official told Reuters that the 1995 agreement did not apply to the legal status of individuals being held in a third country.

Clinton's decision not to enforce the Senate resolution seeking Abbas' extradition came during the same month he turned down Sudan's offer for bin Laden.

Though former administration officials have denied that any such arrangement was ever in the works, Clinton himself let the cat out of the bag in an address to a New York business group last year.

"We'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start meeting with them again," Clinton told the Long Island Association in February 2002.

"They released [bin Laden]. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."

[Scott Dolan]

Or maybe most clear minded, taxpaying Americans with an IQ above 45 will also keep in mind when they go to the polls in 2004 these telling little statistics of what the democratic party brings to the dance:




The Clinton Legacy


The Progressive Review


RECORDS SET

- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad

* According to our best information, 40 government officials were indicted or convicted in the wake of Watergate. A reader computes that there was a total of 31 Reagan era convictions, including 14 because of Iran-Contra and 16 in the Department of Housing & Urban Development scandal. 47 individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes with 33 of these occurring during the Clinton administration itself. There were in addition 61 indictments or misdemeanor charges. 14 persons were imprisoned. A key difference between the Clinton story and earlier ones was the number of criminals with whom he was associated before entering the White House.

[patricia]

Well, Scott, let's just roll out the sins of the past.

There may be some who have forgotten the massacre of the Kurds, after the Repuplicans, then in power, stood by and did nothing. This was after the Kurds were encouraged to revolt by Bush #1. They now, with this latest conflict, foolishly, I think, believe that they will gain ground that they lost. The Turks oppose this and I don't see any positive signs to the contrary of this being resolved.

Also, the apparant U.S. hand-picked new leadership of the newly "liberated" Iraq is not sitting well with some very influential would-be leaders. The Shites, the largest body in Iraq, boycotted the first meeting yesterday. This could mean a long-term occupation of the country by outsiders, rather than the much-touted government by the Iraqis. It may start to look like a U.S. controlled puppet regime, rather than a democratic government.
If the Bush administration doesn't acknowledge that a U.S. style government is not going to work in a country composed of many warring factions, there could be worse conditions for the people than they suffuered under the toppled regime. Their country is in tatters, which doesn't make for friendly negotiations.
Bringing the peace by restoring order and prosperity to the people of Iraq, not just winning a lop-sided war, will be key.

As for Osama bin Laden having slipped through Clinton's fingers, he, as far as I know, had no basis, given that bin Laden was just "planning" to attack the U.S., to extradite him. The present administration could, because of the Sept 11 and SS Cole obscenities, if they knew where he was. Speaking of that, where is he? Does it matter any more?

[Monte Smith]

Quoth the Rainy: "As long as Americans are scared of peple who don't look like them, they're going to support the guy who talks and acts out a tough line."

Rainy, as long as demagogues on the left accuse Americans of rank racism in the war on terror (or rank greed in seizing oil fields, or rank ambition in building an American empire, or rank stupidity as RBS would have it in his initial post), then voters are going to support the guy who looks serious and actually fights jihadis.

[RainyDay]

Originally posted by Chris A
The "list" on post #19 is obviously lifted from a grasping-for-straws right-wing site.

Silly boy, why do you think there is no citation?

[MRS]

Originally posted by Scott Dolan
RECORDS SET

- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.


A. In the United States of America the accused are innocent until proven guilty.

B. I don't fault Pres. Clinton for trying to defend himself.

C. 'Witnesses to die suddenly' You can't possibly qualify this statement.

And as far as illegal campaign contributions, are you telling me Pres. Clinton shoould be the only Commander in Chief in the eighties and nineties to be questioned about this?

[tippy]

I'd say Bush is basking in the mighty fine afterglow of a swift military campaign at this moment, tenuous or not, he's not got long to ride this into next election. Now if enough people lose their jobs and if the ballot is still secret by the time we get to the next election, maybe just maybe...

I know you guys don't like Natty, I don't like Natty I don't think but this article was pretty chilling although I guess it's just more of the same old same old. What would that dog on Conan say to these people?

Nat Hentoff
Vanishing Liberties
Where's the Press?
April 11th, 2003 12:00 PM

If Americans win a war (not just against Saddam Hussein but the longer-term struggle) and lose the Constitution, they will have lost everything. —Lance Morrow, Time, March 17

On March 18, the Associated Press reported that at John Carroll University, in a Cleveland suburb, Justice Antonin Scalia said that "most of the rights you enjoy go way beyond what the Constitution requires" because "the Constitution just sets minimums." Accordingly, in wartime, Scalia emphasized, "the protections will be ratcheted down to the constitutional minimum."

I checked with the Supreme Court for a text of this ominous speech and was told Scalia didn't use a text that night, but the quotation appeared to be accurate. I said, would Justice Scalia let me know? My question was relayed, but I've heard nothing since.

Most of the radical revisions of the Constitution that I and others have been writing about will ultimately be ruled on by the Supreme Court. Scalia indicates he will come down on the side of Bush and Ashcroft. A few days after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said that as a result, we would have to give up some of our liberties. That's two of nine justices we are not likely to be able to depend on.

And in his 1998 book, All the Laws but One: Civil Liberties in Wartime (Knopf/Vintage), the chief justice of the United States, William Rehnquist, admiringly quoted Francis Biddle, Franklin D. Roosevelt's attorney general: "The Constitution has not greatly bothered any wartime president." And Rehnquist himself, who will be presiding over the constitutionality of the Bush-Ashcroft assaults on the Constitution, wrote in the same book:

"In time of war, presidents may act in ways that push their legal authority to its outer limits, if not beyond." (Emphasis added.) And writing of Lincoln's suspending habeas corpus during the Civil War, Rehnquist said, "It is difficult to quarrel with this decision."

Reacting to Rehnquist's deference to the executive branch in previous wars, Adam Cohen, legal affairs writer for The New York Times, wrote: "The people whose liberties are taken away are virtually invisible" in the pages of Rehnquist's book.

Meanwhile, in an invaluable new report by the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, "Imbalance of Powers: How Changes to U.S. Law and Policy Since 9/11 Erode Human Rights and Civil Liberties" (available by calling 212-845-5200), a section begins: "A mantle of secrecy continues to envelop the executive branch, largely with the acquiescence of Congress and the courts. [This] makes effective oversight impossible, upsetting the constitutional system of checks and balances."

So where is the oversight going to come from? If at all, first from the people pressuring Congress—provided enough of us know what is happening to our rights and liberties. And that requires, as James Madison said, a vigorous press, because the press has been, he noted, "the beneficent source to which the United States owes much of the light which conducted [us] to the ranks of a free and independent nation."

But the media, with few exceptions, are failing to report consistently, and in depth, precisely how Bush and Ashcroft are undermining our fundamental individual liberties.

For example, in writing here about the Justice Department's proposed sequel to the Patriot Act (titled inoffensively the Domestic Security Enhancement Act), I noted that it had been kept secret from Congress. A week before it was leaked by an understandably anonymous member of Ashcroft's staff, a representative of the Justice Department even lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee about its very existence.

A few sections in that chilling 86-page draft were briefly covered in some of the media. But as I predicted after providing more details here ("Ashcroft Out of Control" and "Red Alert for the Bill of Rights"), these invasions of the Constitution were only a one- or two-day story in nearly all of the media.

How many Americans know that if the bill is passed (and Bush certainly won't veto it), they can be stripped of their citizenship if charged with giving "material support" to a group designated by the government as "terrorist"? Sending a check for the outfit's lawful activities—without knowing why it landed on Ashcroft's list—could make you a person without a country and put you behind bars here indefinitely. As Chief Justice Earl Warren said, "you lose the right to have rights" when you lose your citizenship.

How many Americans know that the FBI can get a warrant from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and go to a library or bookstore to find out what books you read or borrow if you are somehow, according to the FBI, connected to "terrorism"?

In the First Amendment Center's "Legal Watch" newsletter (March 11-17), Charles Haynes writes that "a warning sign greets patrons entering all 10 of the county libraries in Santa Cruz, California." It says: "Beware, a record of the books you borrow may end up in the hands of the FBI. And if the FBI requests your records, librarians are prohibited by law from telling you about it." The message to the readers ends: "Questions about this policy should be directed to Attorney General John Ashcroft, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530."

Librarians—and bookstore owners—are also forbidden by this section of the law from telling the press of these visits by the FBI to inform John Ashcroft of what people on the list of suspects are reading.

I've checked with the American Library Association and am told that very few other libraries are warning their patrons to be cautious about which books they ask for. Shouldn't the press spread the news of this risk more widely?

And I've seen little in the media about a bill, "The Freedom to Read Protection Act of 2003," introduced in the House by Bernie Sanders (Independent, Vermont) that prevents the government from "searching for, or seizing from, a bookseller or library . . . materials that contain personally identifiable information concerning a patron of a bookseller or library." Under the bill, a higher standard than mere FBI suspicion will be required.

How many of you know the answer Assistant Attorney General Daniel J. Bryant sent Democratic senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont about our expectation of privacy in bookstores and libraries?

"Any [such] right of privacy," says the Justice Department, "is necessarily and inherently limited since . . . the patron is reposing that information in the library or bookstore and assumes the risk that the entity may disclose it to another."

Have you ever assumed that the librarian or bookstore owner has a right to bypass your First Amendment right to read what you choose by telling "another" (the FBI) whether you read, for example, the Voice? Senator Leahy's office made that Justice Department letter available to the press. Have you seen it before now?

[tippy]

Clinton, wank wank wank

[Monte Smith]

I agree that we should bury Clinton and his legacy.

But before Chris A and Rainy take umbrage at Scott sneakily pulling that list off of an internet site and not attributing the source, they should see that he clearly cites the source as The Progressive Review. Try reading, folks.

[patricia]

Having grown up in a household which encouraged reading everything I could get my hands on, that is truly chilling. To read about "subvesive" subjects, for most people, only increases their understanding and knowledge of them. It doesn't, in any way, assume that they are a student of subversion, but merely curious about the world around them. To make a judgement on a citizen's intentions, based on what they read is ridiculous.
Over the years I've bought books about Satanism, Naziism, Socialism, Canniballism, Sensualism, Cultural Genocide, Militarism and any number of things, too numerous to mention. What would Mr. Ashcroft think about my intentions, based on the brief, by no means complete list of my reading history??
Scary stuff.

[tippy]

I agree Patricia, completely. The best way to combat your enemy is to think like him/her and the prospect of having one's citizenship taken away if the feds so choose based on a burden of proof that they keep secret is just disgusting. Who here is going to defend the FBI scrutinizing one's library reads...that's not a good indicator of anything except that you read. When you hear about this type of random scrutiny it's difficult not to feel paranoid.

[MRS]

Hilarious, Albertson. . .reminds me of a Modern European History Prof. I had in high school who warned his students to always be wary of any political party with the word "American" in it's title.

[Clay Fink]

I'm sorta getting to like that Bush guy, you know. I think Scott and Monte have turned me around.

[patricia]

Originally posted by Michael Schaumann
Hilarious, Albertson. . .reminds me of a Modern European History Prof. I had in high school who warned his students to always be wary of any political party with the word "American" in it's title.

Or any newspaper article or book with a title like "The Truth About................"
It almost never is. :)

[Monte Smith]

Originally posted by Chris A
You're right, I missed that. I don't know what the Progressive Review is, but it sure sounds regressive to me--what is it, pulp fiction?

I'm glad you asked, Chris. I have no idea, never heard of it. Judging from the website, it looks like the crank publication of one guy, Sam Smith (no relation). Yes, he may have the bead on Clinton, but Clinton is the past. Mr. Clinton is the past, I should clarify.

[Scott Dolan]

Yes, lets bury Clinton. Where's my shovel?

My point is this, my dearest libby's. The slant of this thread is why Bush will lose the next election, which of course was followed by the usual brain dead lib venom.

Well, my posts are simply a counterpoint to show how 'great' it was the LAST time we had one of your favorite sons in the White House. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT RBS??? And gee, Hillary is still looming my friends, so there is still a great deal of significance to it.

It's a counterpoint to all the insignificant lib whining about the things that the Republicans have alledgedly done to destroy this country.

Jesus, you people will gladly settle for any crack whore or rapist that you could prop up for election. And you're chomping at the bit to do just that. Almost everything i hear from the libs around here is reactionary bullshit. Yet you try and cite me for not sourcing things I post? Thanks to Monte for actually READING what I posted and directing the superficial zombies to the fact that I had sourced it.

Chris A, no grasping at straws here at all. I would be glad to put Clinton's record up against Reagans anyday. Just go ahead and post Reagans, and if you want me to continue with Clintons I will. Put up or shut up asshole. You constantly run your mouth about the Republican party yet you never back it up with even the tiniest thread of evidence. You can have any opinion you want, but I try to back mine up as much as I can. Why not do the same?

Gee whiz, Richard Nixon, my goodness we're diggin deep now. Never heard that one before. Didn't he at least have the respect to LEAVE when he was impeached?

"How many Americans know that the FBI can get a warrant from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and go to a library or bookstore to find out what books you read or borrow if you are somehow, according to the FBI, connected to "terrorism"? - quoted from Nat

Uh-oh, urban legend time now folks. I'm not sure how anyone other than conspiracy freaks from the mtv generation could entertain such blatant sensationalism.

More importantly, how many libs and bleeding heart types will take this and start coming up with all kinds of unproven and unfounded hypothetical situations where THEY could suffer from unconstitutional search and seizure from their own government?

Why, we've already got a winner.......

Patricia, I usually always have respect for what you say, you're very sensible and always stress your own view without taking cheap shots at others(something I definitely don't do, but should). But you are hypothetically grasping at straws and mistakenly considering yourself far too important when you ask what Mr. Ashcroft would think of your reading. But this has been a problem with the left ever since these new revisions were put in place.

NEWSFLASH PEOPLE: If you're not doing anything wrong or illegal, what the hell are you worrying about?

So before anybody comes up with some quick ill-founded response to this, can anyone actually give me a situation that really happened that would illustrate all of these lost liberties? Anyone here been turned in by their librarian? Know anyone who has been?

Random scrutiny? Does that really exist because Nat says it does? Yeah, o.k. Tippy...............

[Scott Dolan]

Yes RBS!!!! You are the number guy they're looking for down at the video store. Burn your Blockbuster card, sell your house and get out of the country before it's too late!! They're coming to get you!!!

The libs have me scared to leave my house!!!!!!!! The evil Bush regime is gonna get me!!!!!!!!!! Oh shit, I just bought some fertilizer and paid with my credit card!!!! I'm a dead man!!!!!!! And what will they do to my family when they find my Archie Shepp cd's???!!!!!!



"Or any newspaper article or book with a title like "The Truth About................" - Patricia

Uh-oh, what about Michael Moore's 'The Ugly Truth'?

[Chris A]

Originally posted by Scott Dolan
Chris A, no grasping at straws here at all. I would be glad to put Clinton's record up against Reagans anyday. Just go ahead and post Reagans, and if you want me to continue with Clintons I will. Put up or shut up asshole. You constantly run your mouth about the Republican party yet you never back it up with even the tiniest thread of evidence. You can have any opinion you want, but I try to back mine up as much as I can. Why not do the same?

Thank you for that intelligent response. I wish I could be as astute and polite as you are--I guess it's breeding, huh?

The redin the above quote is mine. I feel that it deserves highlighting. :)

[Scott Dolan]

"Methinks thou dost protest too much." - RBS

Got to. Too much imbalance here. Besides, thats what this thread was about anyway right? Everybody celebrating the Democratic party and their sure win in 2004? I disagree, and celebrate why the Democratic party has made the Republican party look so good.

And just as an aside, I was a lib for most of my life, and though I didn't vote in either of those elections, I would have voted for Clinton. *an audible GASP is heard round the country* but towards the end of his stay, I began to open my eyes to what was going on, and was officially soured to the Democratic party.

Chris A, you're always so polite, I should really try and learn something from you. Next time I'll just look up some of those kind things that you call President Bush on a daily basis and use one of those intelligent and polite terms when talking about you. :)

Or was that all just a nice way of saying you have no intentions of ever backing up a single thing you say?

[patricia]

Originally posted by Scott Dolan


My point is this, my dearest libby's. The slant of this thread is why Bush will lose the next election, which of course was followed by the usual brain dead lib venom.


Patricia, I usually always have respect for what you say, you're very sensible and always stress your own view without taking cheap shots at others(something I definitely don't do, but should). But you are hypothetically grasping at straws and mistakenly considering yourself far too important when you ask what Mr. Ashcroft would think of your reading. But this has been a problem with the left ever since these new revisions were put in place.

NEWSFLASH PEOPLE: If you're not doing anything wrong or illegal, what the hell are you worrying about?

So before anybody comes up with some quick ill-founded response to this, can anyone actually give me a situation that really happened that would illustrate all of these lost liberties? Anyone here been turned in by their librarian? Know anyone who has been? ...............

First of all, I have never been described as a "liberal", particularly by my children, who thought of me as a benevelant dictator, or my friends, who consider me a politically uncommitted fence-sitter and they're probably right. Believe me, I'm well aware of my position, as well, for that matter yours, in the Big Picture. I could die today and little, if any attention would be paid to it. I am not deluded into thinking that my opinion or my reading habits matter a tinker's damn.

However, one thing that people don't realize, is that any government, whichever label they have, can do exactly what the present one is doing, with regard to civil liberties. They can restrict your freedom, examine your reading habits or any number of things, all against what we believe to be imbedded rights which protect us. That they choose not to use these powers is the amazing thing, given the power that they have been given and choose, in ordinary times, not to use. Should your civil liberties be violated, your recourse is to hire a lawyer and go through the courts, in the future. By the time anyone does that, the damage has already been done.
Many people forget the harm which was done during the McCarthy years, when merely being accused was enough to ruin lives and kill careers.

[RainyDay]

I missed the citation. I thought it was the brilliant title of the piece. Discussions here have become pretty shrill and hysterical with a shortage of fact. For the record Whitewater was a scandal that people unsuccessfully tried to pull the Clintons into. I will assume those prosecutions are not included since they have nothing to do with the presidency. And the accusation that the Clintons had something to do with Vince Foster's murder is just sleazy right wing lies. People who say this stuff sound like victims of alien abductions--just plain crazy.

[Clay Fink]

Originally posted by Monte Smith
I'm glad you asked, Chris. I have no idea, never heard of it. Judging from the website, it looks like the crank publication of one guy, Sam Smith (no relation). Yes, he may have the bead on Clinton, but Clinton is the past. Mr. Clinton is the past, I should clarify.

Sam is a local DC activist. My guess from hearing him talk on local politics is that he's progressive/liberal AND anti-Clinton.

Insainity seems to infect most Clintonphobes whether they are right or left. There's just something about the guy that some people don't like.

There was nothing unusual about the corruption in the Clinton Administration other than their being amaturish about it. Clinton was especially reckless about his personal life, his campaign people were sloppy about money and contributions. All in all they were not very good at being crooks. This is in stark contrast to the Bush adminstration which has been masterful at its corruption. We're talking about some first class plutocrats here and REAL money. As far as the moral angle, my understanding is that buisness for escorts (female, male and otherwise) has increased quite a bit here in DC since the GOP took over. What this says, I don't know. You fill in the blanks. If anyone thinks that this town has turned into Mayberry since Bush has been in office then they are seriously deluded.

Scott: don't forget that a lot of us "libs" disliked Clinton because he was too conservative. In my opinion he and the DLC have neutered the Democratic party. That's why we have a White House to the right of Reagan. Unlike when Regan was around, we do not have any serious opposition to the Bush adminstration's policies in congress. I think Conservatives and Progressives would both be better off if we had a real opposition in Congress.

HTF did this turn into a Clinton thread anyway?

[Scott Dolan]

Hey everyone, I get your point, so I'll lay off the lib icons of the past. Nuff said.

But instead, lets look at some of the anti-American Bile thats being spread these days by the media's favorite lib son(gee whiz, just how 'past' is this guy?). From Newsmax.com:





Wednesday, April 9, 2003 12:04 a.m. EST

Clinton's Bizarre Claim: Bush Plotting to Invade North Korea

Ex-President Bill Clinton's attacks on his successor reached a new low last week when he told a University of Florida audience that President Bush was planning to invade North Korea.

Though Clinton's address was widely covered in the mainstream press, only the university's campus publication "The Oracle" noted that he "criticized the Bush administration for looking for multinational support in a possible North Korean invasion."

The prediction by the former U.S. president, however erroneous, that the current commander in chief is preparing for a military strike against North Korea is likely to further exacerbate tensions between Pyongyang and Washington, D.C.

Clinton's comment may also inflame North Korea's already unstable leader Kim Jong-il, who has become delusional about the prospects of just such a U.S. attack - and who has lately begun threatening to respond pre-emptively with a nuclear attack on the continental United States.

Though coverage of Clinton's speech last Thursday focused on the few words he offered in support of the Iraq war effort, local reporters saw the address very differently.

"Clinton's central message was a clear rebuke to Bush administration policies that many believe value unilateral force over multilateral diplomacy and engagement," reported the Gainesville Sun's Carrie Miller.

In other quotes picked up by the Sun, Clinton painted Bush as a shoot-first-ask-questions-later cowboy.

"The Bush administration," the ex-president said, "believes they should maximize power at home and abroad and force the changes they want and that multilateralism is often a fool's errand."

Clinton suggested that Bush's approach to foreign policy boiled down to "We've got the power, we've got the juice, we should do the job."

And he made no secret of his own disagreement.

"I am more in the other camp," the ex-president told the University of Florida crowd. "I think we ought to bend over backward to build a world where we are sharing responsibility, sharing benefits and sharing values."

[Darryl G. Thomas]

The Progressive Review's web-site. Judge for yourself:

http://emporium.turnpike.net/P/ProRev/

Scott's doing his best to play the "Ugly Republican" and bringing up Clinton seems to be the favorite tactic of his ilk.

I believe the Reagan Administration beat out Clinton's for the most convictions (which is nothing to brag about I guess).

Because I'm a cynic I believe we have the possibilty of 12 more years of Bush. Isn't Jeb being groomed for the throne?

Something to think about.

All joking (?) aside, as someone has already said, the economy will really have to be in the tank by '04. And if that's the cost to get rid of Bush it's not worth it.

I think the only thing that will bring te Democrats back to power is to start at the ground floor. I'm talking precinct by princinct. They've tried emulating the Republican;s PACs, Think Tanks, etc. and kind of lost their soul. If you're just going to allow yourself to become a version of the Republican Party then what's the point? Would you prefer to listen to Coltrane or a Coltrane imitator?

[patricia]

So, is invasion of Iraq the only invasion planned, or will there be a movement of the troops and military force toward another spoke in the "axis of evil", perhaps Iran, or yes, North Korea?

Syria is being waved around right now. Will they be next? There are, so far, unproven accusations of Syria harboring terrorists and of floating the WOMD, not found in Iraq, into their country.
If the elation at the victory in Iraq cools down, how will these good feelings of moral and military superiority be maintained?

Although Afghanistan is being held as an example of victory over tyranny, the appointed leader there is afraid to leave his house, lest another [yes, another] attempt on his life be successful. Democracy has not yet been embraced, but that conflict is yesterday's news. Short attention spans seem to be being counted on by most, it seems.

[MRS]

Originally posted by Scott Dolan
More importantly, how many libs and bleeding heart types will take this and start coming up with all kinds of unproven and unfounded hypothetical situations where THEY could suffer from unconstitutional search and seizure from their own government?

NEWSFLASH PEOPLE: If you're not doing anything wrong or illegal, what the hell are you worrying about?

"If you're not doing anything wrong, then prove it by taking the urine test!"

Scott. . .first I'll say you definitely are a lone soldier in here and to that I'll concede you have a more difficult time disproving so many others in opposition. To that I applaud your unrepentance.

The fact is. . .Nat Henthoff (whom I loathe almost as much as Antonin Scalia) cites facts. You're right. Perhaps this biblio-flagging system has yet to be put into practice. Patricia is indeed speaking in hypotheticals (God I feel like Ari in saying that). But to assume that we should ignore this system's implementation merely due to the fact that I am innocent even though I may have checked out 'Mein Kampf' is tantamount to spitting on the Constitution.

My hypothetical: an ostensible fanatic has assasinated a highly prominent US gov't official. Feds run library checks. They find that you have checked out myriad tomes covering everything from Neo-Naziism to weapons manuals. You are apprehended and interrogated. You are then cleared of any wrongdoing or involvement in said assasination. Can you still take comfort in the due process of your gov't? The way I see it--if this system is indeed implemented and indeed employed, how is this not directly in egregious ignorance of the Constitution?

[Chris A]

Originally posted by Scott Dolan


Chris A, you're always so polite, I should really try and learn something from you. Next time I'll just look up some of those kind things that you call President Bush on a daily basis and use one of those intelligent and polite terms when talking about you.

Scoot, I don't wish to get into a silly exchange with you, but let me just point out that there is a difference, IMO, between aiming derogatory personal remarks at Bush, a public figure, and calling fellow posters assholes when they disagree with you.

Originally posted by Scott Dolan
Or was that all just a nice way of saying you have no intentions of ever backing up a single thing you say?

I guess the way you backed up the list of Democratic sins in your post #19 ought to serve me as a model.

[Scott Dolan]

I'm not touting the Progressive reviews website, I've only been to it once. But thanks for the link Daryl, I'll even have to check that out.

If you believe the Reagan admin beat out Clinton's in any criminal category, thats cool. I believe that the Yugo was a superior car to the Porsche.

Here's the deal folks. Bill Clinton is no longer President. But Bill Clinton still speaks publicly almost daily and is covered in the media at least that often. It is perfectly clear in the statements that he made in my above post were quite recent and also quite imflammatory as well as completely unfounded. He's pontificating in a highly dangerous way and from a position of being a former president which is giving his imaginary ramblings a little to much credibility and exposure to the general public.

And the possibility that he may become our next first lady is incredibly frightening.

"There are, so far, unproven accusations of Syria harboring terrorists..." - Patricia

As opposed to the unproven accusations that we're looking to attack another country at this point?

And as far as Afghanistan goes, does anyone here have any idea how long it takes to rebuild and stabilize a country that has been turned inside out? No? Me neither. So how credible of an example is that?

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Scott,

I prefer to deal with the Administration in power. Here is another one of their pet projects: T.I.A.

http://www.darpa.mil/iao/iaotia.pdf

Another administration initiative.

[patricia]

Your hypothetical [I get few opportunities to say that too ;)] is true, in that merely being accused, is enough to ruin your life, whether you have a chance to defend yourself or not.
Chances are that you won't be able to resume your former life. I think that that is something to be concerned about, even if Scott says that if you haven't done anything wrong, you shouldn't be worried.
Martin Niemoeller's essay, which starts:
"First they came for the Trade Unionists............................"
is well worth reading again.

[Scott Dolan]

"Scoot, I don't wish to get into a silly exchange with you, but let me just point out that there is a difference, IMO, between aiming derogatory personal remarks at Bush, a public figure, and calling fellow posters assholes when they disagree with you." -I'm always right A

Scoot. Good one........

Did you forget the last sentence, or am I just supposed to assume what you may mean? O.k., in your opinion there IS a difference. And the difference is.......................?

Michael, while your point is made about your hypothetical situation, it still has yet to have any practical grounding. Which was really my main point. Could this happen? Well of course, anythings possible. HAS it happened?

Hell we can even go as far as to say 'well, maybe it HAS happened but we just don't know about it'. So then the guessing game continues while many are up in arms over a situation that doesn't even exist.

I think it's not only silly, but dangerous(to a certain extent) to sit around and cook up hypotheticals(a perfect example is the statement from Bill Clinton in my above post). They may have the potential to be very real scenarios, but as of yet, they aren't. But people seem to be putting too much stock into these, as of now, flights of fantasy.

Nat's sensationalism is a classic scare tactic that is meant to elicit a reactionary response from those who wish to look no deeper into the situation in it's entirety. Anything pulled from it's context can be given new and limitless meaning.

[Clay Fink]

Originally posted by Scott Dolan
[BAnything pulled from it's context can be given new and limitless meaning. [/B]

You mean like oral sex?

[Dr Dave]

Schauman, you could not be more wrong about the Midwest and the Coasts. The Coasts finance the goddam "Heartland" that everyone is so sentimental about. And if you don't know that the new major scenes of drug abuse are small Midwestern towns (methamphetamine being the drug of choice) then it's time you did. It's all those small-population "blue" states that vote Republican--and why shouldn't they, since they are in the front car of the Congressional Gravy Train--that lead us to such whacked-out individuals as George "God Is My Co-Pilot" Bush running the country.

[Monte Smith]

Originally posted by Dr Dave
It's all those small-population "blue" states that vote Republican.

Those are red states, Dave. The blue states were for Gore. But if you are going to paint whole swaths of America with a broad brush, why be picky about the color?

:)

[patricia]

Originally posted by Monte Smith
Those are red states, Dave. The blue states were for Gore. But if you are going to paint whole swaths of America with a broad brush, why be picky about the color?

:)

That's your rebuttal?? You disappoint me. ;)

[Gary Sisco]

Bronwyn's slogan:

"Vote Who's Sane 2004"

Gone, gone, gone. Americans don't need to know about this bill or that one in Congress. What they do know about is this bill or that in their mailbox, and their diminishing ability to pay them.

They didn't know about this bill or that in Congress in George I's day, either. Or Jimmy Carter's, for that matter.

This is the only country where a submoron could be called "great" by anyone with a straight face.

[MRS]

Originally posted by Dr Dave
Schauman, you could not be more wrong about the Midwest and the Coasts. The Coasts finance the goddam "Heartland" that everyone is so sentimental about. And if you don't know that the new major scenes of drug abuse are small Midwestern towns (methamphetamine being the drug of choice) then it's time you did. It's all those small-population "blue" states that vote Republican--and why shouldn't they, since they are in the front car of the Congressional Gravy Train--that lead us to such whacked-out individuals as George "God Is My Co-Pilot" Bush running the country.

Employ some fact. How exactly do the "Coasts" finance the "Heartland?"

What is the "Heartland?" Whatever Brokaw says it is?

Yes, Meth would be about it from Western Missouri to Western Kansas to Nebraska. What does this have to do with anything I alluded to?

You mean all of us blokes who live in states with 2 to 3 electoral votes? It's the Midwest's fault our current President is in office? Are we too misinformed and unintelligible to think "correctly?" I would say Florida has more to do with that that any Midwestern state.

Even Dolan backs up his claims with facts. Try some fucking substance before you criticize major regions of the country and blame the "Heartland" for the situation we're in.

[Dr Dave]

Red, blue, whatever. It's true.

Re: Are we too misinformed and unintelligible to think "correctly?"

Yes. What use are polls when so many people think Saddam engineered 9/11? Bush lies, people believe it because he's likeable, and because the stories he tells make more sense to them than reality. But you're not unintelligible. You've been misled, is all.

[tippy]

>>In the First Amendment Center's "Legal Watch" newsletter (March 11-17), Charles Haynes writes that "a warning sign greets patrons entering all 10 of the county libraries in Santa Cruz, California." It says: "Beware, a record of the books you borrow may end up in the hands of the FBI. And if the FBI requests your records, librarians are prohibited by law from telling you about it." The message to the readers ends: "Questions about this policy should be directed to Attorney General John Ashcroft, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530."<<

Scott, that's not hypothetical.

[MRS]

And the only people that believe Saddam's regime is tied to 9/11 make their homes in the Midwest.

All black people are good basketball players.

All Asian people are good at math.

All French people are chicken-shits.

Get it fixed, "Doctor"



Nice fucking EDIT, Doc. . .unbelievable.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

I vaguely remember the map, but it seems Gore did the best on the coasts (except for Florida of course) and Bush in the South and the middle of the country. Usually when someone goes on about the "Heartland of America" they're talking about those areas away from the media centers of New York, DC, Chicago, LA, etc. Those are supposed to be the "real" people, with "real American values" as the rhetoric goes - in otherwords, non-liberals. Liberals being those who are fellow travelers with communists, maoists, abortionists, gays, minorities, gun controllers, tax and spenders, French wine makers, the list goes on.

[Scott Dolan]

Wow! I obviously missed some good stuff going on here!

Dr. Dave, who made you the all seeing, all knowing big brother who gets to decide who has or has not been misled? How the hell do you know it all? You don't, all you can do is collect information and use rationale and make the most well informed ascertation possible. Same as anybody else. I beg your pardon here Doc, but your head seems to have outgrown your body quite suddenly.

O.k. RBS, now THAT is actually a credible example. Keeping my fingers crossed.

Tippy, so what? What does that mean? You're missing my point entirely. Whats hypothetical is for everyone who reads that sign to think that THAT WILL happen to them. Once again, I ask you, how many people do you know of that this has actually happened to? How many innocent, law abiding citizens do you know that have been needlessly harrassed because of the books they've checked out? How many people have actually had the government check their library records and bring them in for questioning because of it?

The key word in the quote that you give is 'MAY'. I'm sure the government has much more important things to do with their time than investigate every Joe Lunchbox who checks out questionable material. But should they gain intelligence on individuals where patterns point to possible terrorist activity, then the whole library thing just gives the government one more avenue to check into this person. Big fucking deal folks!

It reminds me of the deal with the cameras on the streets. Not long before I moved, they had installed these special cameras throughout various sections of Tampa that could photograph people's faces and cross reference them with a criminal database. Well, surprise surprise, the lefties, hippies, and first amendment loons were absolutely up in arms screaming about the invasion of privacy that these cameras were guilty of. They sued the city and lost. They sued again, they lost. They pouted, they whined, but the one thing that they never did was come up with one single case where somebodies liberties had been violated. My thoughts? They were cameras on city streets. Public streets!! Get over it people, and before you start whining about invasion of privacy, take note that you are on a public street, then go to your local library , grab a dictionary and look up the words public and private. If they caught one criminal, then it was worth it, because they'll catch more and more in the long run. And soon enough these criminals won't be able to show their face around the city of Tampa at all. Sweetness!!

[Scott Dolan]

Hey Daryl, I can tell you one thing for sure. Having recently moved here from Florida, I can honestly say that the people here ARE different. Floridians for the most part are the most shallow, uncaring, and nasty bunch of fuckers I've ever met. I remember how people would move down from up north, and other than complain about the heat, the thing that I would hear from them the most was 'people are pretty nasty down here'. I never even thought about it much myself because I was born and raised there so it was just normal for me.

But after moving here, I was really blown away by how different the people here in the midwest really are. There are similarities in all people of course, but people here are much more intelligent, patient, and mannerly than I've ever seen before. When my wife interviewed for her job here, the biggest argument that ensued was who's school was better. People here are very hardcore about their childrens education. When she got her job in Florida, no one even mentioned the word school although they knew we had a son.

So yes Daryl whether you want to consider it a myth or not, I've actually seen the difference and can tell you that it does indeed exist.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Scott,

There's no denying there are regional differences that can explain voting patterns. What bugs me is the implication that certain regions are morally superior to others. The "heartland" has been presented as such. Maybe it's because the "heartland" is more homogenic that the media centers?

Back to civil liberties. It bothers me that the government wants to monitor the things I read, the movies I watch, the web-sites I frequent, etc. seeing as how I'ma law-abiding citizen. Isn't it one step closer to greater government control?

[Scott Dolan]

RBS, if someone is starting to understand me, then i must be doing something wrong;) And of course once again that ugly phrase about what may become of something comes into play again. I can understand to a certain degree why people are scared about the cameras in the streets. But once again I think this goes back to a mind-set where you create hypotheticals, or are given some by blithering dooms day-ers like our man Nat, and then you take those to some of ther most possible extremes. I guess my main contention is, look at how old this country is, and how many liberties have we had taken away in that time? Although I do feel it is smart to be vigilant and always keep an eye on these types of things, but I think that all of these things also must be kept within their context. Doesn't it somewhat reek of paranoia to sit around and say this is what COULD happen? 1984 was a great book, but I think that some have taken it way too literally. And once something like that gets inside someones head, it's hard for them to ignore it no matter how rational it is or not.

Daryl, once again, who said the government 'wants' to moniter what Daryl G. Thomas watches, reads, etc.? They are simply saying that if you create a pattern that would lead them to believe that you are involved in terrorist type activities, then they reserve the right to investigate you even further without you knowing it. Now number one, lets be perfectly honest here, I'm sure that this is much more complicated than anyone here is giving it credit as being. everyone here likes to make it sound as though if you check out a questionable book or visit a certain website, you will be investigated. I personally think thats a load of shit. And until someone can offer up tangible proof to the contrary, I will continue to believe that.

Do I think that is one step closer to greater government control? No. If they had the power and authority to investigate in this fashion before September 11th, the patterns that were discovered after the fact would most likely have alerted them to what was going on and there is a very real possibility that it could have averted one of the most deadly attacks in our nations history. Possibly. Greater government control? No, greater government powers to protect innocent Americans.

I fully agree that the government needs to be kept in check by the people that it represents, and they will not always do the right thing. But this particular situation I feel is completely relevant to a more dangerous age, and I do not feel that it is detrimental to the average American citizen at all.

RBS, absolute truth? Whats that?

[Rob C]

Scott: Just out of curiosity, what do you think about gun registration?

[MRS]

Originally posted by Scott Dolan
Daryl, once again, who said the government 'wants' to moniter what Daryl G. Thomas watches, reads, etc.? They are simply saying that if you create a pattern that would lead them to believe that you are involved in terrorist type activities, then they reserve the right to investigate you even further without you knowing it.

Again. . .if Scott Dolan checks out 'Mein Kampf,' weapons manuals, picks up Reifenstahl from Blockbuster and you are apprehended and interrogated--you have no problem with this? I don't care if this has been implemented by the current office of the Grand Ole' Op--I mean Attorney General or not, would you have a problem with this?

And frankly I don't care if I speak in hypotheticals or of impractical or improbable situations--the Justices of the Supreme Court do so EVERY TIME they hear a case!


Yes. . .I am in love with Nina Totenburg.

[tippy]

Scott, I do get your point but the thought of having my citizenship revoked in conjunction with what I read (or any other reason for that matter) is discomforting and, no, I would not like to see such a bill passed that gives the feds rights to summarily revoke my citizenship because they don't like how I think or what I say. Paranoid or not, I live here, I'm paying for this and hell no I don't want such a clause to become law, why would you want to give such power to any branch of government? And how is it necessary?

[Scott Dolan]

Rob, I really couldn't make heads or tails of it logically. I guess there may be a certain logic to it, but it simply eluded me. But then again, I don't believe in gun control period. I'm not really sure that gun registration will really be a tangible 'preventive' at all. It's the same old party line that I'm sure everyone here has already heard time and again: if criminals want guns, they will get them, I really don't care what kind of policy is in place. Gun control laws are like fences and locks, they only deter the honest people.

Michael, you continue to assume that your over-simplified hypothetical has any true basis whatsoever. But I'll humor you. If my indulgence in the THREE things that you listed were to cause me to be aprehended and interrogated, then yes, I would have a problem with it. But I would also be willing to bet the farm that thousands of people have done this kind of thing and more, and likely have no sordid tale of government shake down to tell. And i would also bet that both you and I could go out and indulge in these three things and absolutely nothing would come of it. I believe you are simplifying the process and study of patterns to a rediculous and sensational degree.

Tippy, your assumption that you would have your citizenship revoked just based on the material your read or watch, again, is a gross over-simplification that has absolutely no foundation at all. I would guarantee that the patterns that the government looks for are far more complex and complicated than any of us could even imagine. But because someone can write a piece of nonsense and stress the 'fact' that this could happen to you, people refuse to look at it from all logical angles and therefore become that much more paranoid.

Orson Welles must be dancing in his grave over the simple minded approach that otherwise intelligent people are using when facing this 'reality'.

[MRS]

In closing. . .and beating Secretariat with a blunt object:

Even if Henthoff was making this shit up and there is no such policy remotely in place. . .

If the US gov't enacts laws which enable them to monitor what an American citizen reads for whatever end--it is in flagrant violation of the Constitution.

I don't think I'm sensationalizing anything in this post. Thank you for the argument.

[tippy]

Scott, I think it's paranoid to believe that expanding the parameters of existing law, especially to such an extent, is necessary. You believe that no abuse will take place. I say why write such an opportunity in? You know, human nature and all that.

[Scott Dolan]

"Scott, I think it's paranoid to believe that expanding the parameters of existing law, especially to such an extent, is necessary." - Tippy

Thats fine. Would it have been paranoid to think that people were going to fly airliners into the world Trade Center towers(now think about that one closely and honestly answer)? If we can have a policy in place that has no detrimental effect on John Doe and his family, but has the possibility of preventing another attack like that one, then I say let 'er rip.

"I say why write such an opportunity in?" - Tippy

And I say why start chanting 'big brother' about a law that ultimately will never affect you in any other way than to even better ensure your safety and the safety of your friends and family?

[tippy]

>>And I say why start chanting 'big brother' about a law that ultimately will never affect you in any other way than to even better ensure your safety and the safety of your friends and family?<<

I guess you've never run into a bad cop, Scott.

[Scott Dolan]

And Tippy, I guess you're either forgetting or didn't see the thread where i disclosed that I did a few years in prison...........

And besides, what does a bad cop have to do with any of this? What, if they didn't pass this law, there would be no more bad cops? And furthermore, think about what you just said, 'bad cop'. If they are truly bad, do you think they really care what powers the law says they have?

[tippy]

I don't know what else to say except "Happy Easter"

[bbrooksux]

Originally posted by Scott Dolan
"And I say why start chanting 'big brother' about a law that ultimately will never affect you in any other way than to even better ensure your safety and the safety of your friends and family?

But Scott, aren't you now talking in hypotheticals??

[Scott Dolan]

"But Scott, aren't you now talking in hypotheticals??" - bbrooksux


Well, yes to a certain extent. But I just feel that there is no proof, none, that all these evil deeds that people like Mr. Schaumann, Tippy and others have cooked up are going to be unleashed on the general public. Maybe the new law will amount to nothing at all, good or bad.

But, that guy that they recently started looking for down in Florida, they gained a lot of their information using these new provisions, so maybe he'll be our first litmus test that will prove one of the two sides right.

But until then, I'll go ahead and bank on the positive side and not get myself all worked up worrying about every little purchase, rental, book from a library, or website i indulge in wondering if the feds are breathing down my neck ready to trump up fantasy charges on me.

And by the way, who is bbrook and why are you so angry at him?

[Gary Sisco]

The principles and rights in the Bill Of Rights precede any and all states and no "law" that violates them, regardless of rationale, is Constitutional. Period.

If that's not the case, then the Constitution's just a scrap of parchment that the people have been billed millions to preserve for sentimental reasons, alone.

I doubt very seriously if Dubbya's even read it, to tell the truth, or ever will. I'm not sure he has the wherewithall to understand it even if he did ever bother to try to read it. He can barely get through his scripted sound bites.

And the Geneva Conventions, international law, UN resolutions, etc, also either apply to everyone or no one. Today, it's no one. Therefore, the US has no standing for complaining about any violations of them, in any way, since this Gang has gone *way* out of its way to assert that it's above any and all law and indeed is a law unto itself, self-justifying and willing to kill if you don't dig it.

[Rob C]

Scott: The reason I asked about your thought on gun registration is that the usual anti-gun control responses to proposals for registration are that (a) guns are a hedge against tyranny and therefore we don't want the gov't to know who has guns and how many, and (b) registration is a step down the slippery slope to confiscation. These arguments seem analogous to some of the concerns presented here about granting the gov't more intrusive surveillance and information-gathering powers.

(Actually, Ashcroft & Co. is making me rethink my own gun control position--I never thought a true tyranny in the U.S. was a serious possibility until after 9/11. Now I'm wondering....)

I also have to respond to this:

"And I say why start chanting 'big brother' about a law that ultimately will never affect you in any other way than to even better ensure your safety and the safety of your friends and family?"

Emphasis added.

So who cares as long as it's only Muslims and Arabs who have to worry about this stuff?

(Until they come for you and there's no one left to speak up.)

[willy]

For those who don't believe gun registration leads to confiscation all you have to do is look at England and Australia. The only people in these countries who have guns now are the criminals. As a result violent crimes are higher now in the UK (per capita) than here in the US. This includes murder and rape. It is safer to walk the streets of New York, Chicago, and LA than it is in London or Sydney.

Tony Blair, who I applaud for his stance on Iraq, just doesn't get it when it comes to guns. He is looking for more gun laws to make England safe again. How can one impose more gun laws if nobody (but criminals) has a gun in the first place? Here's a novel idea: why not crack down on armed criminals and leave law abiding citizens alone.

Canada seems to be next in the registration/confiscation game. Luckily, it appears our neighbors to the north are putting up a tougher fight than our friends in England. Here's hoping the Candians give a hearty "Fuck You" to the government in regards to gun registration.



As for 2004: The Democrats have to give the public a reason to vote for them. Not just a reason to vote against their opponent. If the economy does come around in the next year the Democrats will have nothing to fall back on. They are banking everything on the economy (hoping it's in the dumper next fall) . But if they can't give the people a reason to vote "for" them then it will be 2002 all over again: The Republicans will pick up even more seats in the House and Senate. Bush will be re-elected. Tom Daschle will acuse the American people of being mean-spirited in voting for Republicans.

[Uli]

Originally posted by willy



As for 2004: The Democrats have to give the public a reason to vote for them. Not just a reason to vote against their opponent. If the economy does come around in the next year the Democrats will have nothing to fall back on. They are banking everything on the economy (hoping it's in the dumper next fall) . But if they can't give the people a reason to vote "for" them then it will be 2002 all over again: The Republicans will pick up even more seats in the House and Senate. Bush will be re-elected. Tom Daschle will acuse the American people of being mean-spirited in voting for Republicans.

This of course assumes that everything "goes well" on the war front. An assumption of course I would hope is correct but for which I don't share your optimism. I am not into predicting the end of the world. But all kinda shit can happen between now and the elections. Just because we militarily beat one of the weakest armies in the world really ain't much reason for celebration for me. I also don't see many good signs that the economy 'will come around' as I don't see the government having any real plan to create an environment for that to happen. Even if it does I don't think that a majority of people will profit form it. How all this is gonna affect the voting, I have no clue. Two things for me are a given. The Bushis will have one of the best oiled campaigns in the history of this country and "American citizenry" will be more divided as it has be for a long time.

I think the elections will be very intersting. Probably one of the biggest freak shows we ever witnessed.

[willy]

I hope Al Sharpton gets the Democratic nomination. At least he's interesting and makes people laugh (he alone would guarantee the freak show you speak of). The rest of them are about as interesting as Aaron Brown.

Whoever gets the nomination needs to give the people a reason to vote for him. Simply calling Bush an idiot isn't going to get you many votes, especially when a majority of americans like the man you refer to as the "illegitimate" President. The people want a reason to vote "for" you, not a reason to vote "against" Bush.

This is one area where the Democrats are hurting in a big way.

[Uli]

Originally posted by willy

Whoever gets the nomination needs to give the people a reason to vote for him. Simply calling Bush an idiot isn't going to get you many votes, especially when a majority of americans like the man you refer to as the "illegitimate" President. The people want a reason to vote "for" you, not a reason to vote "against" Bush.

This is one area where the Democrats are hurting in a big way.

I am not sure who you refer to, but I am not one who dwells a lot on his illegitimacy, Willy. Sure, without the little election frauds of his brother and the bad decisions by the sometimes supreme court, the moron would not even be president. But that's old snow now for me. I do agree with you, that the Democrats may need a strong candidate to win, though. But I am not quite sure if the majority of americans like Bush and his gang.

[willy]

The Democrats better find a winning candidate, and soon. If Bush wins in 2004 I think Chris might have a coronary.

I want Bush to win for no other reason then to be able to view Albertson's seething hatred for Bush on a daily basis for another four years here in the alley.

If we're lucky maybe all those hollywood bozos who threaten to leave the country if the election doesn't go the way they want will actually follow through on their promises this time. I'm tired of being teased.

[Scott Dolan]

"So who cares as long as it's only Muslims and Arabs who have to worry about this stuff?" - Rob C


I'm sure there's actually supposed to be a really deep meaning behind this, but for the life of me can't figure it out. Do you mean Muslims and Arabs who live here?


I also asked a question a few posts back that either got lost in the shuffle, or no one felt like answering. But over the past 200 years lets say, how many liberties have been taken away from American citizens? What effect has it had on your life or the life of your family throughout the ages? My very good friend RBS made a statement earlier that liberties are never taken away in one fell swoop, but rather they are slowly chisled away. On the surface this would be an extremely easy statement to agree with, but after I really thought about it I have to ask for some really pertinent examples of how this has worked over the years. And i mean definitive, concrete, look-em-up if you don't believe me kind of things. No Albertsonized unfounded ramblings, please. Anyone?

And i too want Bush to win in 2004 so that I can watch the agonizing hatred of life itself continue on in Albertson. It makes me feel so much better to know that there is someone out there that is a hundred times more miserable than me. Actually Chris, I owe you a serious debt of thanks, you single handedly cured my depression:)

[Chris A]

No seething hatred, Willy, just utter disrespect. True, I hate what his unelected regime has done and continues to do to our country and other parts of the world, but the man himself is just a plain idiot, a puppet in the hands of far more treacherous "advisors." We need to get rid of the whole bunch, just as we did in 92, when they worked for an elected, albeit mis-guided Bush.

[willy]

"I also asked a question a few posts back that either got lost in the shuffle, or no one felt like answering. But over the past 200 years lets say, how many liberties have been taken away from American citizens? What effect has it had on your life or the life of your family throughout the ages?"


People argue back and forth about politics, but if everyone is honest then they will have to admit it doesn't matter much who's in office. I, for one, have yet to meet a person that has convinced me that their life was better or worse because President X was in office as opposed to President Y.

We may like to think that our guy (or gal in the future, hopefully) will make a major difference in our lives. This is because of our personal views on politics. However, if your are honest, you will have to admit that your life hasn't changed much because of Reagan being in office. Or Bush 41. Or Clinton. Or Bush 43.


Some of us around here complain because of partisonship. Others just like to complain, period. But, when the face changes in the oval office every four or eight years it has very little effect on the lives of average americans. It may make you "feel" better knowing that "your" President is now in office. Aside from this false sense of euphoria ain't nothin' much changin' around here.

[willy]

Chris,

Name the last Republican President that, in your mind, was not an idiot.

[willy]

I agree that Nixon was no idiot. In fact, I believe out of the last seven or eight Presidents he, by far, had the most formidable mind. He also was a paranoid nutcase that thought the entire world was out to get him. That is what pushed him over the edge (IMO).

[Scott Dolan]

"People argue back and forth about politics, but if everyone is honest then they will have to admit it doesn't matter much who's in office. I, for one, have yet to meet a person that has convinced me that their life was better or worse because President X was in office as opposed to President Y. " - Willy


Just thought this bore repeating, because at the end of the day I don't know that there could be a more accurate statement than this.

[Gary Sisco]

Gone, gone, gone, baby. Lots and lots of folks (like myself -- I couldn't bring myself to vote for any of them without gagging) who didn't vote last time will vote next time, rest assured.

And I don't care who it is. I'll be voting *against* the Klingons, not *for* anyone. At this point, the worst that could happen with a regime change would a continuation of the status quo. At least it would be a change of channels and talking heads. Probably even to a talking head who can speak without having to read ... each ... word ... one ... at ... a ... time ...

See Spot run.

Run, Spot, run!

[willy]

"Gone, gone, gone, baby. Lots and lots of folks (like myself -- I couldn't bring myself to vote for any of them without gagging) who didn't vote last time will vote next time, rest assured."


This is true. Many people, who were outraged at Gore trying to steal the election, will make it a point to vote this time.

[Chris A]

Let's take a closer look at the outrageous appointment:

Silence Of The Lambs:
The Election Story Never Told

By Greg Palast

Here's how the president of the United States was elected: In the months leading up to the November balloting, Florida Governor Jeb Bush and his Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, ordered local elections supervisors to purge 64,000 voters from voter lists on the grounds that they were felons who were not entitled to vote in Florida. As it turns out, these voters weren't felons, or at least, only a very few were. However, the voters on this "scrub list" were, notably, African-American (about 54 percent), while most of the others wrongly barred from voting were white and Hispanic Democrats.

Beginning in November, this extraordinary news ran, as it should, on Page 1 of the country's leading paper. Unfortunately, it was in the wrong country: Britain. In the United States, it ran on page zero--that is, the story was not covered on the news pages. The theft of the presidential race in Florida also was given big television network coverage. But again, it was on the wrong continent: on BBC television, London.

Was this some off-the-wall story that the Brits misreported? A lawyer for the U.S. Civil Rights Commission called it the first hard evidence of a systematic attempt to disenfranchise black voters; the commission held dramatic hearings on the evidence. While the story was absent from America's news pages (except, I grant, a story in the Orlando Sentinel and another on C-Span), columnists for The New York Times, Boston Globe and Washington Post cited the story after seeing a U.S. version on the Internet magazine Salon.com. As the reporter on the story for Britain's Guardian newspaper (and its Sunday edition, The Observer) and for BBC television, I was interviewed on several American radio programs, generally "alternative" stations on the left side of the dial.

Interviewers invariably asked the same two questions, "Why was this story uncovered by a British reporter?" And, "Why was it published in and broadcast from Europe?"

I'd like to know the answer myself. That way I could understand why I had to move my family to Europe in order to print and broadcast this and other crucial stories about the American body politic in mainstream media. The bigger question is not about the putative brilliance of the British press. I'd rather ask how a hundred thousand U.S. journos failed to get the vote theft story and print it (and preferably before the election).

Think about "investigative" reporting. The best investigative stories are expensive to produce, risky and upset the wisdom of the established order. Do profit-conscious enterprises, whether media companies or widget firms, seek extra costs, extra risk and the opportunity to be attacked? Not in any business text I've ever read. I can't help but note that the Guardian and Observer is the world's only leading newspaper owned by a not-for-profit corporation, as is BBC television.

But if profit-lust is the ultimate problem blocking significant investigative reportage, the more immediate cause of comatose coverage of the election and other issues is what is laughably called America's "journalistic culture." If the Rupert Murdochs of the globe are shepherds of the new world order, they owe their success to breeding a flock of docile sheep, the editors and reporters snoozy and content with munching on, digesting, then reprinting a diet of press releases and canned stories provided by officials and corporation public relations operations.

Take this story of the list of Florida's faux felons that cost Al Gore the election. Shortly after the UK and Salon stories hit the worldwide web, I was contacted by a CBS network news producer ready to run their own version of the story. The CBS hotshot was happy to pump me for information: names, phone numbers, all the items one needs for a quickie TV story.

I also freely offered up to CBS this information: The office of the governor of Florida, brother of the Republican presidential candidate, had illegally ordered the removal of the names of felons from voter rolls--real felons, but with the right to vote under Florida law. As a result, thousands of these legal voters, almost all Democrats, would not be allowed to vote.

One problem: I had not quite completed my own investigation on this matter. Therefore CBS would have to do some actual work, reviewing documents and law, and obtaining statements. The next day I received a call from the producer, who said, "I'm sorry, but your story didn't hold up." Well, how did the multibillion-dollar CBS network determine this? Why, "we called Jeb Bush's office." Oh. And that was it.

I wasn't surprised by this type of "investigation." It is, in fact, standard operating procedure for the little lambs of American journalism. One good, slick explanation from a politician or corporate chieftain and it's case closed, investigation over. The story ran anyway: on BBC-TV. Let's understand the pressures on the CBS producer that led her to kill the story on the basis of a denial by the target of the allegations. (Though let's not confuse understanding with forgiveness.)

First, the story is difficult to tell in the usual 90 seconds allotted for national reports. The BBC gave me a 14-minute slot to explain it.

Second, the story required massive and quick review of documents, hundreds of phone calls and interviews, hardly a winner in the slam-bam-thank-you-ma'am school of U.S. journalism. The BBC gave me two weeks to develop the story.

Third, the revelations in the story required a reporter to stand up and say the big name politicians, their lawyers and their PR people were freaking liars. It would be much easier, and a heck of a lot cheaper, to wait for the U.S. Civil Rights Commission to do the work, then cover the Commission's canned report and press conference. Wait! You've watched "Murphy Brown," so you think reporters hanker every day to uncover the big scandal. Bullshit. Remember, "All the President's Men" was so unusual they had to make a movie out of it.

Fourth, investigative reports require taking a chance. Fraudsters and vote-riggers don't reveal all their evidence. And they lie. Make the allegation and you are open to attack, or unknown information that may prove you wrong. No one ever lost their job writing canned statements from a press conference.

Fifth--and this is no small matter--no one ever got sued for not running an investigative story. Let me give you an example close to home. The companion report to my investigation of the theft of the election in Florida was a story about Bush family finances. I wrote in the Guardian and Observer of London about the gold-mining company for which the first President George Bush worked after he left the White House. Oh, you didn't know that George H. W. Bush worked for a gold-mining company after he lost to Bill Clinton in 1992? Well, maybe it has to do with the fact that this company has a long history of suing every paper that breathes a word it does not like--in fact, it has now sued my papers. I've gotten awards and thousands of letters for these stories, but, honey, that don't pay the legal bills.

Finally, there's another little matter working against U.S. reporters running after the hard stories, papers printing them or TV broadcasting the good stuff. I'll explain by way of my phone call with a great reporter, Mike Isikoff of Newsweek. Just before the elections, Isikoff handed me some exceptionally important information about President Clinton, material suggesting corruption in office--the real stuff, not the interns-under-the-desk stuff. I said, "Mike, why the hell don't you run it yourself?" and he said, "Because no one gives a shit!" Isikoff was expressing his exasperation with the news chiefs who kill or bury these stories on page 200 on the belief that the public really doesn't want to hear all this bad and very un-sexy news. These lambchop editors believe the public just doesn't care.

But they're wrong. When I ran my first story in the London Observer about the theft of the Florida vote, Americans by the thousands flooded our Internet site. They set a record for hits before the information-hungry hordes blew down our giant server computers. When BBC ran the story, viewership of the webcast of Newsnight grew by 10,000 percent as a result of Americans demanding to see what they were denied on their own tubes. Obviously, some Americans care.

And it's for them that I say, This is Greg Palast reporting from exile.

--Investigative reporter and MediaChannel advisor Greg Palast (gregory.palast@guardian.co.uk) writes a fortnightly column, Inside Corporate America, for The Observer of London (Guardian Media Group). His stories about the purge of Florida voters are collected on his Web site, www.GregPalast.com.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Chris,

The reason the story wasn't printed here in the US is because the political elite of this country didn't want it to be. Everyone came to the consensus that it would be "good for the country" to get beyond the 2000 election. It would be bad for business.

Scott, reading your posts I wonder if you've heard of the Patriot Act that was passed by Congress in 2001?

It would seem to me that the only way the government could find patterns of potential terrorism in purchases, book reading, etc. is to inventory all information concerning purchase, book reading, etc.

Finally, who's President does matter. Fiscal policy can be adversely affected, judges are named, a war could be started (!). Would we have gone to war in Afghanistan if Gore was President? I don'y know. Iraq? Probably not.

Saying who's President doesn't matter is a cop out. It matters.

[Scott Dolan]

"It would seem to me that the only way the government could find patterns of potential terrorism in purchases, book reading, etc. is to inventory all information concerning purchase, book reading, etc." - Daryl G Thomas


Hey Daryl, I've already gone over this, but I didn't want to leave you hanging. This is simply rediculous and I'll tell you why. Do you have any clue what the current census is? Do you really think that the government could afford to carefully and fully study every last little purchase made by every citizen? Do you really think that they care THAT much? And what I mean by the last is, you and others here really seem to have this great old fashion notion of Big Brother where the government will be watching not only your every move, but the move of every citizen within and without it's borders. And once again, I do have to apologize to you personally when I say this is purely sensational paranoid fantasy. Read the act in it's entirety, don't just read about someone else's definition of it.

Do you people really believe that tracking terrorist patterns is so incredibly easy that you can sum it all up in a sentence or two?

And I also think that you may have over interpreted what Willy was saying. Of course it matter's who's President or else we wouldn't have elections(jesus, i can hear Albertson now). What he was saying is that if you were to sit down and try to elaborate on the, say, last three Presidents, and how they either positively or adversely affected you, you probably wouldn't be able to come up with much of anything. If he's offbase, then why not tell us how you personally were affected by the last two Presidents. Did one make your life so much brighter or worse than the other? And besides that Willy was really answering my question which so far no one else has even tried to. How bout you Daryl, I'd love to hear it, and I'm not trying to sound like a smart ass about it, I'm actually quite interested. I think it would even lend more credibility to yours, and others notions here about the slow decline of liberty in America.

As for me the only thing I can think of is the de-legalization of drugs that were once legal, Heroin, PCP, Marijuana. But Prohibition failed miserably, and beyond that I'm at somewhat of a loss as to what other liberties we've seen taken away from the American citizens. Which is why i am choosing to take a much different stance on this supposed invasion of everyone's privacy thing that has so many up in arms, even though they have no foundation to point to to show WHY this is going to go the way they think it is.



"....a war could be started (!). Would we have gone to war in Afghanistan if Gore was President? I don'y know. Iraq? Probably not." - DGT

And your point here is what? Dem's don't go to war? Might be a tough one to prove.

[patricia]

I agree that it doesn't matter which single person is elected to the Presidency. But, when a President assumes office, he/she is really the public face of his/her party and, apart from holding a veto, is merely a cog in a much bigger wheel. The policies which are, or are not adopted are not the policies of the President alone. Much as when one marries, one marries not just their spouse, but their spouse's family, so too with electing a President. The people around the President are advising him/her and are the ones who have the real power to change government policy. It is actually an advantage, from their standpoint, if the President has no personal knowledge of the world outside his own comfort zone. He/she is a blank slate, totally dependant on others' views. That is painfully evident when this President gives his speeches to schoolchildren, the military and at gatherings of the faithful. I get the feeling that if he were confronted by reporters with questions to which he didn't already have a canned answer, he would be lost for an answer.
This President has admitted that he knows little of cultures outside his own, simply by the decisions he has made since assuming office. He has relied on the advice of his advisors to propose actions and those advisors, from his father's era, are reputed to have an agenda, developed in the eighties, of their ultimate view of the Middle East and indeed the world.

The advisors to this President are from the same era as Ronald Reagan, during whose tenure human rights meant little, compared to the threat of Communism. I've often thought, recently, that it was amazing that Mr Reagan being as he was, in the early stages of Altzeimers', was hailed as "The Great Communicator". At least he could read his prepared speeches, even if he had no idea what was going on. He was giving a performance.
Mr Bush doesn't seem to understand what he's saying and is not nearly the convincing speech-giver that Ronald Reagan was, even though Reagan often dozed off during meetings.
One thing that is seldom mentioned is that Mr Reagan did not "come down" with Altzeimers' suddenly, after he was out of office. That's not the nature of the condition. He developed it over a long period, as all sufferers do, perhaps over twenty years. I find it astounding that those around him were unaware of it, given the information about the condition available to anyone who cares to look for it. When he said, during the Iran/Contra hearings that he "had no recollection", he was right. He didn't. He had no short-term memory at that stage of his condition. Although he could tell you what he was doing in 1953, he probably didn't remember what he'd had for breakfast yesterday. His handlers were running the country.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Scott,

The Pentagon's already put in place a program called TIA (can't remember what the acronym stands for). DARPA (the predisesor to the world wide web) is to be used to create such a database that I'm talking about. Sure it'll cost money, sure it'll be hard, but it's being planned. I'm not makin it up. They've got their own web page that explains the purpose of the database alon witha disclaimer that it won't be used in a way to abuse civil liberties.

About Gore and war. My point is maybe Gore wouldn't have gone to war against Iraq because the members of Bush's administration who advocated the war wouldn't have been able to influence Gore. So the 2000 election had an adverse affect on the 100 + Americans who lost their lives in Iraq as well as their families.

[Scott Dolan]

"When he said, during the Iran/Contra hearings that he "had no recollection", he was right. He didn't." - Patricia

So what was Hillary's excuse for all of her 'I don't recall' proclaimations when she was in court?

Daryl, yes I visited that link that you gave me about DARPA. And as far as what I read about it on their site, to me personally, it doesn't look to be the least bit threatening. As you mentioned, their disclaimer says that it won't be used to abuse civil liberties. And I don't personally have any reason NOT to believe that. With nothing more than history on my side to enforce this reasoning, I'll stand by my belief until concrete proof of abuse arises. Some may look at that as blind Patriotism, but when all I can get out of opponents to it is a bunch of dreamed up 'what if's', they will look to me like paranoid conspiracy theorists.

Hey, maybe I'll be completely wrong, who knows? But until then........

[Uli]

Originally posted by Scott Dolan
"When he said, during the Iran/Contra hearings that he "had no recollection", he was right. He didn't." - Patricia


With nothing more than history on my side to enforce this reasoning, I'll stand by my belief until concrete proof of abuse arises.

I don't even think history is on your side. A lot of what the Feds ever did was harrassing lefties an minorities.

[patricia]

Scott, I don't recall mentioning Hillary's memory. I was talking about Ronald Reagan's Altzeimers'.
No connection between the two.

[Scott Dolan]

Yes Patricia, I was just having a little fun. My point being that at least Reagan had a ligitimate excuse.

Uli, well, thats fine, but I kinda needed something more than just 'the feds harrass the lefties'. I mean, thats cool if you feel that way, but it in no way reinforces the fantasy of something like TIA or the Patriot Act being a total invasion of everyday citizens privacy or diminishment of their personal liberties. Nor does it even point the way for showing that you will be investigated for the books, movies, etc. that you indulge in.

And if you think that history ISN'T on my side, please do tell.

I mean, lets be serious here. If these flights of fantasy had any true basis, then you're all basically saying that the feds will be knocking down Albertsons door because of some of the things that he posts here(which I would fully support...........kidding, I'm just kidding:)). Sorry folks, it just all seems too 'action movie'-esque for my tastes. Now, if they start pulling the books and movies mentioned in this thread, or start banning the websites, o.k., then there would be a reason to start worrying, and a solid piece of evidence to shut me up.

But, again, until then.................

You guys believe WMD's are a fantasy, and I believe all your cooked up theories are fantasy, so, who wins? Nobody's perfect.......

[Tanager]

I'd avoided this thread, then I saw Scott had posted on it, so I just had to come needle him. Although I agree that Albertson lives in a fantasy world, I do find the push to remove the time limits on the Patriot Act provisions reprehensible.

[Gary Sisco]

These guys are just doing what they've always wanted to do but never had the chance til Bin Laden gave it to them on a platter. They've always been an authoritarian bunch, and each time in power have sought to centralize power in the executive, and each time they have rendered Congress a mere consultative (nonbinding) body, to which they could lie or not, depending on what they'd get out of it, but one which could and always has been completely ignored if they disagreed with whatever laws it passed (as in Nicaragua, for one example).

Bush himself is a moron figurehead, as was Reagan in his time. George I was more in the loop as he'd played a larger and longer role in the creation of the national security state. He wasn't as stupid as he acted, but he was as dishonest as he seemed.

Their entire life histories show their utter contempt for democracy, wherever it rears its head, including especially in the US.

By the way, the Pentagon database program alluded to above has been "officially" discontinued -- but only by a Congressional ruling, which we know from history is meaningless with this Gang -- and is headed by, yes, convicted felon John Poindexter, another lying, murderous Reagan/Bush Era vampire.

Happily, however, we can rest assured that they're way too incompetent to actually get it up and running (the IRS *still,* after many billions of dollars, doesn't have an agencywise computer system that can talk to itself) and even if they did, the US intelligence agencies, without exception, couldn't find a pattern in a seamstress shop. If they want to go for someone, they just do, evidence or intelligence or not. What it would really be is a makework program. Welfare for the bureaucratic class. And a way to keep the oligarchy's friends -- like Poindexter -- feeding from the public trough. And very well, too, I might add.

[clinthopson]

All candidates should be required to answer the folowing questions:

Are you a creationist or an evolutionist?

Do you believe in heaven? or hell?

Do you believe in Angels? devils?

Do you think helping the rich helps the nation?

The answers should be result in the determination of mental competence.

[Uli]

Excellent, Clint.

Would add:

What do you think about Arabs?

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Having John Poindexter proposed to be the head of TIA was a nice touch. You almost get the feeling the Administration was trying to rub TIA in the faces of civil libertarians.

You can't have a litmus test for candidates... unless it's the other guys' candidates. Then it's cool.

The major difference between the Patriot Act and the WMDs is that there is actual proof that the Patriot Act exists. Take a look at Gitmo Bay with all the "non-POWS" fenced in. Or that Padilla cat. Is he still in jail?

Maybe we'll find the WMDs when we invade Syria? Nah Syria will just ship them to Jordan. At this rate they'll be heading back to I