Dubbya Is Gone In 2004

RBS · April-17th-2003, 09:32 AM

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 · April-17th-2003, 09:45 AM

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 · April-17th-2003, 09:54 AM

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 · April-17th-2003, 09:57 AM

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 · April-17th-2003, 10:45 AM

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 · April-17th-2003, 10:46 AM

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

MRS · April-17th-2003, 10:51 AM

Quote:

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 · April-17th-2003, 11:06 AM

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 · April-17th-2003, 11:09 AM

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 · April-17th-2003, 11:09 AM

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 · April-17th-2003, 12:27 PM

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 · April-17th-2003, 01:05 PM

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 · April-17th-2003, 01:07 PM

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 · April-17th-2003, 01:09 PM

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.

April-17th-2003, 01:12 PM

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."

April-17th-2003, 01:35 PM

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 · April-17th-2003, 01:38 PM

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 · April-17th-2003, 02:02 PM

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 · April-17th-2003, 02:35 PM

Quote:

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 · April-17th-2003, 02:37 PM

Quote:

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 · April-17th-2003, 02:42 PM

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 · April-17th-2003, 02:51 PM

Clinton, wank wank wank

Monte Smith · April-17th-2003, 02:54 PM

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 · April-17th-2003, 02:58 PM

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 · April-17th-2003, 03:09 PM

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 · April-17th-2003, 03:35 PM

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 · April-17th-2003, 03:51 PM

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

patricia · April-17th-2003, 03:51 PM

Quote:

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 · April-17th-2003, 03:52 PM

Quote:

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.

April-17th-2003, 03:56 PM

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...............