The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Honestly, I don't think I can go on debating this subject. Whenever I do, I get so angry and frustrated. People are making monsters out of these people. What's next? Concentration camps? History has told us that the next step after de-humanizing a people is genocide.

I just can't understand the hate, veiled and blatant, that I see in society right now; hate directed towards illegal aliens, legal aliens, and Hispanics alike. These are human beings we're talking about!

Who here has ever said that illegals are monsters or that they can't sympathize with their plight. I fear you are reading far more into what people are saying than what they are actually saying.

What hate has been expressed towards anyone here? Seriously. Nor has there been one criticism of legal immigrants, regardless of which country they are from.

You are trying to stereotype anyone with immigrations concerns as a racist and a supporter of concentration camps and genocide. At that point, I can't take your arguments seriously and that saddens me.

[Alex]

Where is the hate towards legal aliens and hispanics in general?

You offer only two reasons people don't get your point. Either we're too simple-minded to get it or we're willfully ignoring it. Perhaps you just aren't very successful at making your points? You're seven uninvited guests example, for example, wasn't very good.

The correct analogy would be you planned a dinner for five invited guests. Two uninvited people showed up and insisted on eating with us. Yes, I'm going to blame those two uninvited people if there isn't enough food to go around. I'm also going to blame you for not insisting that they leave the table. That isn't hate. That also isn't racism.

I don't hate illegal immigrants. I also don't hold them responsible for all of societies ills. But that doesn't mean that they don't contribute in part or in entirety to some of societies ills. And even if they contributed not at all to any problems and lived quietly in quaint little enclaves where they made attractive shoes and invited me to all of their birthday parties, I would still be opposed to illegal immigration.

[BarTopDancer]

From Dictionary.com
Illegal
1. Prohibited by law.
2. Prohibited by official rules: an illegal pass in football.
3. Unacceptable to or not performable by a computer: an illegal operation.
n.
An illegal immigrant.

True - There is a large population of people in SoCal, AZ and TX who are here illegally from Mexico.
True - There is a large population of people in NY who are here illegally from S.E. Asian countries.

If being anti-illegal aliens makes someone racist against Mexicans then it also makes them racist against Asians.

But my original question was never answered: Are all the Mexicans who are against illegal immigration from Mexico racist? So now Mexicans are racist against Mexicans?

[Prudence]

I curious what the alternative would be. If deportation is the wrong policy, what is the right policy? No immigration limits at all? No immigration limits for people from countries where the average income is less than here? A policy that says you should apply through official channels but if you can get here without that you can stay? Something I haven't thought of?

[Nephythys]

Not enough mojo to go around.

[BarTopDancer]

I curious what the alternative would be. If deportation is the wrong policy, what is the right policy?

I keep reading "If decapitation is the....".

[Prudence]

Don't make me start referencing snowcone concessions in this thread, too!

[€uroMeinke]

You know every year tre population in California grows from people moving here from other states - why do we let this happen unchecked? I bet many of the homeless were born in other places, they just came here to get out of the cold. Maybe we should deport people back to the dust bowl?

[Motorboat Cruiser]

You know every year tre population in California grows from people moving here from other states - why do we let this happen unchecked? I bet many of the homeless were born in other places, they just came here to get out of the cold. Maybe we should deport people back to the dust bowl?

Conversly, imagine the dent we could possibly make in helping the homeless, who are our citizens, if the illegal immigration process did not strain every social service we have.

Now granted, I'm not saying that if we didn't have an illegal immigration problem, we wouldn't have a homeless problem, but it seems logical that we could improve their situation.

[wendybeth]

If I have 7 uninvited guests it doesn't matter how many of them I like. They all have to get out because I'm not running a *&!!$^# restaurant.

You must spread some Mojo around before giving it to Prudence again.


:D

[Alex]

You know every year tre population in California grows from people moving here from other states - why do we let this happen unchecked? I bet many of the homeless were born in other places, they just came here to get out of the cold. Maybe we should deport people back to the dust bowl?
Unfortunately, that isn't true. Every year since 1990 or so has seen a net domestic migration out of California (here (http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/pops/pops06.htm) are the numbers; you can get them from the source at the U.S. Census web site but it requires more poking around and search queries as near as I can tell).

Since 1990 the entire population growth of California has been from internal reproduction, legal foreign immigration, and illegal foreign immigration.

[€uroMeinke]

So Condoms must be our first line of defense

[Alex]

I was thinking more along the lines of "kill the breeders" or at least forced sterilization. Just think how much better Disneyland would be if they stopped filling the place up with kids.

Actually, one thing that is interesting in those numbers is that even though the total population of California is about 50% higher than in 1981 the total number of births and deaths isn't all that much higher. That has nothing to do with immigration. Just found it interesting.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Best (i.e., worst) line of the day yesterday. In response to the report in USA Today that the government has been collecting entire databases of phone call data, Senator Jeff Sessions from Alabama had this to day:

"Let's talk about this in a rational way. We are in a war with terrorism."

Am I the only one who sees how absolutely ridiculous that statement is?

[Gemini Cricket]

The 'war on' slogans bug.

'The War on Terrorism'
'The War on Drugs'
'The War on Christmas'
'The War on Illiteracy'

Bleh. These are labels for events without end.

But to say we are at war with terrorism and then call it rational sounds funny.

[Ghoulish Delight]

To call for rationality, and the immediately play the "fear" card is...well...irrational.

[scaeagles]

In response to the report in USA Today that the government has been collecting entire databases of phone call data

Not to respond to the comment, but to the story.

Very deep in the USA today article, it is noted that no names or content of the calls - in other words, this database includes no recording of the conversation - are kept.

My point isn't that this is good or bad....only that I believe the story and headlines are intended to make it seem as if every call is being recorded and monitored. This is not the case.

[Ghoulish Delight]

My point isn't that this is good or bad....only that I believe the story and headlines are intended to make it seem as if every call is being recorded and monitored. This is not the case.I heard and read dozens of reports about it yesterday...every one of them mentioned that it was just phone numbers. I don't think there was an attempt to bury that.

And now, the White House is trying to block civil liberty cases from even reaching the courts under the guise of "national security" and "confidential information". What a GREAT way to erode civil liberties...just do it and then say imply that anyone who questions it is a traitor. I mean, it's not like the judicial system was set up as a part of a system of checks and balances or anything.

[innerSpaceman]

The reason this is going to be an even bigger problem for Bush than the warrentlesss wiretapping is that Joe America never made a phone call to al Queda, but he does make phone calls.

It doesn't matter so much that the conversations weren't tapped, but that they are invading what Americans perceive to be their privacy rights - on MILLIONS of Americans. That spells Trouble with a capital "T."






And with five years since the last foreign terrorist attack on American soil, 8 years before that, and um, never before that ... this is looking to most Americans - I daresay - less lilke a "war" and more like the individual criminal acts they truly are.

[scaeagles]

I heard and read dozens of reports about it yesterday...every one of them mentioned that it was just phone numbers. I don't think there was an attempt to bury that.

Yeah, it was reported. Probably the conspiracy theorist coming out in me.

I just think that the vast majority of news readers read the headline and perhaps the first paragraph. When I see the headlline "NSA keeping a huge database of phone calls", I don't think just the number, I think the entire conversation.

[scaeagles]

It doesn't matter so much that the conversations weren't tapped, but that they are invading what Americans perceive to be their privacy rights on MILLIONS of Americans. That spells Trouble with a capital "T."

You may consider this to be probelmatic, and I don't care much about polls, really, but I don't think there will be much of a problem, as a very recent poll based on this story showed 65% of people don't care.

I don't. Really. Because phone records are up for sale. You can go to any number of websites and buy cell phone logs. It's legal. Phone call data is far from private.

[Alex]

I need to know why the NSA wanted the information and how they use(d) it before I decide if I'm upset that they have it (though my assumption is that I'm not going to like it).

I am, however, upset that AT&T, Verizon, and the other one would just hand it over without forcing a subpoena or warrant.

I'm also firmly behind the idea that the construction "The War on X" should only apply where values of X are country names. Or at least specific political organizations.

[scaeagles]

I'm also firmly behind the idea that the construction "The War on X" should only apply where values of X are country names. Or at least specific political organizations.

So you would be fine with the "War on Terror" if it was redefined in several terms such as "War on Al Qeada" and "War on Hamas" and "War on Islamic Jihad" and "War on terrorist organization du jour"?

[Alex]

I'd be better with it. "War on Terror" is a war against a method. You can't defeat a method. And the most dangerous thing to a liberal democracy is a perpetual open-ended state of war.

The government rightly gains power at the expense of civil liberties in a time of war. It is therefore in the best interests of the unscrupulous to maintain a state of war. When you fight a specific thing there becomes a point at which war is a charade not easily supported (if we're fighting a nation and they stop fighting or officially surrender for example). Fighting a concept offers no such easy resolution.

The United States has spent most of the last 60 years at war with concepts. From 1945-1990 we were in a Cold War with communism. The civil liberty ups and downs of that conceptual war waxed and waned but generally suffered from us not having excuses to kill people (except for two sub periods in Korea and Vietnam). Fortunately for us, over time communism came to equal Russia. If it hadn't we could still easily be in a war with Communism.

The war on terror similarly is a conceptual war. Even if we killed every person who cast a pondering eye towards Al Qaeda, interested parties will always be able to find other groups on whom to continue a war. Because the method of terrorism will always exist. It has always existed. It isn't like "terrorism" is something that popped into existence on September 11, 2001, and can be put back in its box. It wasn't even invented in the 20th century or in the last two millenniums.

So yes, I'd be more happy with individual wars labelled as you describe. At least rational discussion can be made about whether we should be at war with Hamas but not Islamic Jihad or whatever. War powers are a very big hammer, and for those who make a profit selling hammers it is a huge incentive to define everything as a nail. And fighting a concept or method makes that way too easy.

[scaeagles]

I think that's a distinction without a difference, though. Will every terrorist organization go away? No. When one dies, another will rise in its place. Because as you rightly point out, terror is a method. There will always be organizations that employ that method.

So I see it as open ended no matter how it is named. Calling it a "war on terror" by default means that we do not accept terror as a method from anyone and will act to defeat organizations and/or countries that employ such methods.

[Not Afraid]

OH NO! The NSA will know that Ubergeek and I talke every day!

[JWBear]

I want to apologize for my outburst yesterday. It was a combination of a very frustrating day at work and the fact that the immigration issue gets me very emotional (why, I don’t know). I’m better now, but I’m going to avoid that particular debate from now on.

That being said:

I'd be better with it. "War on Terror" is a war against a method. You can't defeat a method. And the most dangerous thing to a liberal democracy is a perpetual open-ended state of war.

The government rightly gains power at the expense of civil liberties in a time of war. It is therefore in the best interests of the unscrupulous to maintain a state of war. When you fight a specific thing there becomes a point at which war is a charade not easily supported (if we're fighting a nation and they stop fighting or officially surrender for example). Fighting a concept offers no such easy resolution.

The United States has spent most of the last 60 years at war with concepts. From 1945-1990 we were in a Cold War with communism. The civil liberty ups and downs of that conceptual war waxed and waned but generally suffered from us not having excuses to kill people (except for two sub periods in Korea and Vietnam). Fortunately for us, over time communism came to equal Russia. If it hadn't we could still easily be in a war with Communism.

The war on terror similarly is a conceptual war. Even if we killed every person who cast a pondering eye towards Al Qaeda, interested parties will always be able to find other groups on whom to continue a war. Because the method of terrorism will always exist. It has always existed. It isn't like "terrorism" is something that popped into existence on September 11, 2001, and can be put back in its box. It wasn't even invented in the 20th century or in the last two millenniums.

So yes, I'd be more happy with individual wars labelled as you describe. At least rational discussion can be made about whether we should be at war with Hamas but not Islamic Jihad or whatever. War powers are a very big hammer, and for those who make a profit selling hammers it is a huge incentive to define everything as a nail. And fighting a concept or method makes that way too easy.
I agree completely!

[Ghoulish Delight]

millenniums?

[scaeagles]

I want to apologize for my outburst yesterday.

That's cool. We all have bad days. No big deal from my standpoint, JW. But for some reason I have this evil urge to poke at you and say we were discussing illegal immigration, not immigration.:evil: :) But I would never do that!

[Alex]

But obviously that is not true. We have taken no action against most of the terrorist organizations in the world. This has not been a "war on terror." It has been a war against specific entities but by labelling it a war on terror we avoid the appropriate discussion.

There is a huge distance between "we oppose the use of terrorism as a tactic and will not support any organization that does (but know that we define terrorism as a case by case basis as defined by our personal interests)" and "we are at war with terrorism."

As I said, "war" gives the government powers it wouldn't otherwise have. And a war without end gives them those powers permanently. If the IRA gets back into business tomorrow, are we going to invade Ireland to battle the foe of "terrorism?" No. Because we're not at war with terrorism. That is just a label used as a tool. Are we going to invade Spain to snuff out the Basque separatists? East Timor? Chechnya? No, because we're not really at war with terrorism.

If somehow we go to war with Iran, will it be a war against terrorism? No. But it will be labelled that way because it gives the government the most power with the least effort. I supported (and still do) the war in Iraq, but it wasn't a war on terror.


It is a distinction with a huge difference. Because it is using vagueness as a tool to prevent examination.

[scaeagles]

millenniums?

???????

[JWBear]

OH NO! The NSA will know that Ubergeek and I talke every day!
I was listening to Stephanie Miller on the way to work today. She had a caller who suggested that we all throw words like “al-qaeda” and “terrorist” randomly in to our everyday phone calls in order to bog down their phone tapping system. (supposedly, there is a computer that scans phone calls for certain words and phrases.)

Well. I thought it was funny……

[Alex]

Yes, millenniums.

It is surprising to me, but having just looked, Merriam-Websters lists millenniums as a valid plural form. So I'm going to now claim that I knew this all along.

[scaeagles]

Because it is using vagueness as a tool to prevent examination.

Yeah, I can agree with that.

[Gemini Cricket]

I want to apologize for my outburst yesterday.
Personally, I don't think you need to apologize. Frustration is frustration. Vent it.
:)

[JWBear]

I might add... If the administration is so gung-ho on fighting terrorism, why is Bin Lauden still at large? Why is he not priority #1?

[scaeagles]

I might add... If the administration is so gung-ho on fighting terrorism, why is Bin Lauden still at large? Why is he not priority #1?

I see your REAL point of view by your typo, JW. You see Bin Laden as someone to be Lauded, and thus you have called him "Bin Lauden".

I'm just kidding. I'm bored at work and goofy.

I think it has to do with his relevance on the scene at present. I don't think he's calling the shots anymore. Would we love to have him? Oh yeah. Is it worth spending all of our resources on if we don't believe he is doing anything at present that can cause us more harm? No.

[Not Afraid]

I was listening to Stephanie Miller on the way to work today. She had a caller who suggested that we all throw words like “al-qaeda” and “terrorist” randomly in to our everyday phone calls in order to bog down their phone tapping system. (supposedly, there is a computer that scans phone calls for certain words and phrases.)

Well. I thought it was funny……

So, everyone call me so I can say the magic words.

Somehow fu<king with this whole ridiculous things sounds fun to me.

[Gemini Cricket]

Bin Lauden
I read that as Bin Lauder. "Osama by Este Bin Lauder - The fragrance for your special cave moments."

[FEJ]

Yes, millenniums.

It is surprising to me, but having just looked, Merriam-Websters lists millenniums as a valid plural form. So I'm going to now claim that I knew this all along.


You Rock!

[SacTown Chronic]

If the data mining operation is just a bit of harmless fun then the Bush administration should have no problem allowing those of us who don't want our phone records turned over (sold?) to the self-appointed morals police to opt out of their little program. Call it the no-spy list.

[JWBear]

I see your REAL point of view by your typo, JW. You see Bin Laden as someone to be Lauded, and thus you have called him "Bin Lauden".

I read that as Bin Lauder. "Osama by Este Bin Lauder - The fragrance for your special cave moments."

I deserved that. :blush:

[Prudence]

I don't understand why they wouldn't get a pen register for this info. Did they? I haven't actually been following this story. Pen registers are super easy to get. At least according to what we studied, which is but a narrow part of the whole topic, the reason they're easy to get is that it's considered "public" info - but the gov't is still supposed to get judicial approval.

[BarTopDancer]

When did fvck and the n-word become acceptible to say at work?

As in my co-worker is on the phone with his wife saying something about this guy always pulling the f-in n-word sugardaddy bullshyt.

[scaeagles]

I have found that those who use profanity in the course of the average daily conversation lack the vocabulary to express themselves and must add it for emphasis.

[JWBear]

I have found that those who use profanity in the course of the average daily conversation lack the vocabulary to express themselves and must add it for emphasis.
What the f*@# are you talking about!?! ;)

[xharryb]

When did fvck and the n-word become acceptible to say at work?

As in my co-worker is on the phone with his wife saying something about this guy always pulling the f-in n-word sugardaddy bullshyt.

Around the same time that the rest of our society's manners and sense of appropriateness went flying out the window. I won't deny cussing like a sailor at certain times, but I know when to filter myself. I recently attended a graduation ceremony and was completely appalled by the behaviour exhibited my 80% of those in attendance.

[innerSpaceman]

I cuss up a storm when Deadwood is on the air.





Yes, I know it's on a cable channel and is never "aired," but it sounds better that way.


Um, oh, politics? Well, I don't so much mind when civilians curse. But, since I, too, generally think of it as a lack of vocabulary skillz and a bit rude ... I deplore public figures (*cough*Cheney*cough*) who deploy vulgar speech in public situations.

[wendybeth]

I want to apologize for my outburst yesterday. It was a combination of a very frustrating day at work and the fact that the immigration issue gets me very emotional (why, I don’t know). I’m better now, but I’m going to avoid that particular debate from now on.

Blame it on Scaeagles- works for me!;):D

[wendybeth]

I have found that those who use profanity in the course of the average daily conversation lack the vocabulary to express themselves and must add it for emphasis. No shyt!

[Prudence]

I compare swearing to tobasco sauce. A little bit in some types of dishes improves flavor. If you dump it on everything you lose the ability to taste food without it.

[wendybeth]

I'm French. We have to swear, or we go all postal and stuff.

[Gemini Cricket]

Here is why Fox "News" is the worst news channel on the planet. This is from MediaMatters.org regarding 'The Big Story' with John Gibson:
On the May 11 edition of Fox News' The Big Story, host John Gibson advised viewers during the "My Word" segment of his program to "[d]o your duty. Make more babies." He then cited a May 10 article, which reported that nearly half of all children under the age of five in the United States are minorities. Gibson added: "By far, the greatest number [of children under five] are Hispanic. You know what that means? Twenty-five years and the majority of the population is Hispanic." Gibson later claimed: "To put it bluntly, we need more babies."
Source (http://mediamatters.org/items/200605120006)

"We" need to make more babies. "We" means white people. Some people can claim that this immigration thing isn't about race, but for some people it most definitely is.
:rolleyes:

[Alex]

The only person on TV worse than John Gibson is Rita Crosby. And the problem with her is more that I'm always said thinking about how her parents must have had her vocal cords scraped when she was a child to prevent barking.

[Gn2Dlnd]

HA!

[sleepyjeff]

Here is why Fox "News" is the worst news channel on the planet. This is from MediaMatters.org regarding 'The Big Story' with John Gibson:

Source (http://mediamatters.org/items/200605120006)

"We" need to make more babies. "We" means white people. Some people can claim that this immigration thing isn't about race, but for some people it most definitely is.
:rolleyes:

I read the article too and found it much more an indictment of the whole "zero poplulation" theories of the 60s and 70s and, if anything, a compliment to hispanics in that he wishes that All Americans emmulate what they are doing(having babies).

[innerSpaceman]

I don't much care if Latinos or the Chinese or whatever freaking ignorant people popping out too many babies become the majority population. Adding children to the 6-Billion-Plus planet population just for the sake of numbers is for retards only.

[Alex]

Can't go with you on that one sleepyjeff. The reason given for why whites need to have more babies is to keep browner people from gaining the demographic edge.

For this to be a valid reason presupposes that there is something bad about that outcome. I can't go along with that.

Also, he uses hispanic as a racial identifier which is a pet peeve and only reinforces his awfulness in my mind. I'm guessing John Gibson doesn't care if Caucasian Hispanics grow in numbers.

[sleepyjeff]

Can't go with you on that one sleepyjeff. The reason given for why whites need to have more babies is to keep browner people from gaining the demographic edge.



I must have missed where he said that....I watched the attached video twice and he never mentioned, in any way, that we must keep browner people from gaining any demographic edge. Maybe everyone is reading into what he said something I am not seeing:confused:

He ends his "word" saying So far, we are doing our part here in America but Hispanics can't carry the whole load.

Sounds to me like he is including Hispanics in our quest for more babies here not competing with them. ie; if you are on a baseball team you don't say "so far we are playing good here but their bull pen can't carry the whole load"...that's just plain nonsense babble. It would make more sense if the bull pen was on the same team.

[Alex]

To be honest I had just gone from the quoted material above. Having now read the whole thing I can only say it is stupider than I thought. At least the racist angle is a point of view that makes sense.

The one he is actually putting forward is just stupid.

[wendybeth]

'You must spread some mojo around instead of giving it to Alex, because he doesn't want mojo and prefers a person take their time and post an appreciative response, even if you are in a hurry and just popped in to check out the boards real quick.'


:D

[sleepyjeff]

We live in a society in which more and more it really doesn't make economic sense to have children. Before the Great Depression when one got too old to take care of oneself one relied on their children....but with social security and other programs one relies on children thru the intermediary of the Federal Government....if one has no children then one is relying on, in essense, other peoples children to take care of them.

This is why we need more babies and why it is anything but "retarded" to campaign for such.

[wendybeth]

The cynic in me thinks they're really talking about cannon fodder.

[Alex]

But we don't need more babies. John Gibson admits as much. Though he then says that the Hispanics can't keep providing enough of them. He doesn't offer any support for this idea.

Also, the reason Europe needs more babies is because they have exactly the huge government entitlement programs against which John Gibson is thoroughly opposed. So, the need for more babies to perpetuate next-generation-funded entitlements is only a sensible conclusion if you support the next-generation-funded entitlements. The lack of babies will bring about the end of the entitlements that Gibson already opposes.

Further, the true demographic change that is stressing American next-generation entitlement programs is not a falling birth rate (for we are still popping them out at more than replacement levels, even among the gringos) but an extending lifespan. If John Gibson really wants to save the entitlement programs that he so strongly opposes then rather than unprotected sex he should be advocting a Logan's Run policy (though perhaps at an age that would allow his continued existence).

[sleepyjeff]

All true..............and once again I have debated myself into a corner defending John Gibson;)

[scaeagles]

I will not be watching or listening the Presidential address this late afternoon/early evening. I have no reason to believe that Bush has any desire to control the border, and listening will simply make me.....ill. Temporary national gaurd troops on the border? Not going to do anything, unless they are stringing hunderds of miles and layers of razor wire.

[SacTown Chronic]

Hey Leo, c'mon over and we'll not watch it together.

[Not Afraid]

I feel I must apologize to my fellow pasty white comrades for not having children and populating the earth with more of our good pasty white genes. But, at 44, it's not likely to happen and, I'm actually pretty happy with not having a little rug rat to support. Maybe they need to work on breeding the selfish gene out of us pasty white folks.

[scaeagles]

I am reasonably tan, as are my children. Do we not count?

[Not Afraid]

No.

[scaeagles]

I wish to puke.

The Senate voted to allow illegal aliens to get social security benefits even if the benefits were earned using forged or stolen documents. :confused: Why? They committed a felony to get those benefits. I just don't get it. I stole a million and invested it. Years later I am caught. DO I get to keep the investment earnings?

Then, with all the shouts of "Energy independence! Energy independence!", the off shore drilling ban off the coast of Florida was extended.

That does remind me of a humorous story to make me less ill.....a few years ago, there was a photo of Ted Kennedy on his Yacht off of Cape Cod surrounded by a couple of scantily clad young ladies. Senator Ernest Hollings, upon seeing the photo, commented (and you have to know what he sounds like, because it's much better coming from his voice) "I thought Kennedy was against off shore drillin'."

[Prudence]

So I'm guessing this is not the place to discuss my potential procreative-ness? Moving along...

[wendybeth]

So I'm guessing this is not the place to discuss my potential procreative-ness? Moving along...

Do you have something to tell us, missy?:eek:

[sleepyjeff]

Then, with all the shouts of "Energy independence! Energy independence!", the off shore drilling ban off the coast of Florida was extended.



To be fair; that ban has strong support from the President(but it does make sense to me a little; That area of Florida has about 3* million forms of life to every form found on the North Slope)



*number made up by me.

[scaeagles]

I don't care if the ban has strong support of the President.

To my understanding, and i have not done much research on it, off shore oil rigs become like artifical reefs and the natural sea life flourishes around it in a similar way, not unlike sinking a large ship which then becomes a pseudo-reef.

[Moonliner]

"Energy Independence" does NOT mean getting more oil. It means finding a better/cleaner long-term way to power all our toys. Hydrogen, Solar, Fusion, whatever.

The "oil rigs are good for nature" argument is ludacris. The way those platforms leak (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/Ospr/organizational/scientific/nrda/NRDAirene.htm)and sink (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Kielland_(platform)) can you really argue they are good for the environment?

[scaeagles]

A better long term solution is part of it, yes. The reality of the situation, though, is those things don't do what oil does yet. Therefore, we must do something to increase out own oil production.

I would also suspect that the new solutions will have their own setbacks. Take hydrogen, for example. What is the exhaust for hydrogen fuel cells? It's water vapor. In a community such as Phoenix, what does the daily commute do when water vapor is being put out by several hundred thoughsand cars? It would completely alter the desert ecology.

There is no panacea. I'm all for something better than oil. But there isn't anything yet. And it's not looking like there will be for quite a while.

Of course oil rigs can leak and sink. Oil tankers crash, too. The best one can do is to try to utilize sources in the best and cleanest way possible. However, not all oil rigs leak and not all oil rigs sink. They do take on properties of reefs.

[Gn2Dlnd]

In a community such as Phoenix, what does the daily commute do when water vapor is being put out by several hundred thoughsand cars? It would completely alter the desert ecology.


I'm pretty sure that even if every home in Phoenix decided to boil water all day long, it couldn't possibly alter the desert ecology.
"Quick honey, run inside and dry off, your sweat is going to kill the box turtles!"

I kid because I love.

Do you have box turtles?

[Gemini Cricket]

I'm French. We have to swear, or we go all postal and stuff.
I love to fu cking swear. It's fun.

[wendybeth]

I love to fu cking swear. It's fun.

It's also an art- like with the Father in A Christmas Story.:D

I'm nowhere near as proficient as him, but I work on it daily.

[Moonliner]

A better long term solution is part of it, yes. The reality of the situation, though, is those things don't do what oil does yet.

Yet. Let gas get to $10/gallon and we'll see how fast "Yet" changes to "Now". It's not the government that will provide energy independence and it's not the rabid eco freaks either. It's the free market. The longer gas is held to artificially low levels (yes $3/gal is low) it will retard development of alternatives. So I say NO NEW WELLS, no new sources of oil, and let George fulfill his wet dreams by invading another oil producing country or two. Then let the market sort itself out and we'll be energy independent in no time.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Yet. Let gas get to $10/gallon and we'll see how fast "Yet" changes to "Now". It's not the government that will provide energy independence and it's not the rabid eco freaks either. It's the free market. The longer gas is held to artificially low levels (yes $3/gal is low) it will retard development of alternatives. So I say NO NEW WELLS, no new sources of oil, and let George fulfill his wet dreams by invading another oil producing country or two. Then let the market sort itself out and we'll be energy independent in no time.I go back and forth on whether I'm okay with that path. On the one hand, I totally agree. Nothing will drive innovation like truly high gas prices.

On the other hand, because the price of oil/gasoline does NOT just affect how much we pay at the pump, I worry about the wide reaching effect on the overall economy being too much to bear. Increased fuel and engery costs will affect the price of every single good bought and sold in this country. Costs will go up in every single link of the supply chain, from manufacturing, to transportation, to warehousing, to the cost of running a storefront.

The increase in oil price has thus far been modest, all things considered, and suppliers have done fairly well to not pass off their increased costs to the consumer. But that won't last much longer. I guarantee that by the time we start seeing $5+/gallon at the pump, the cost of living in this country will start to take a serious hit. And I shudder to think what that will mean for the level of poverty.

[Moonliner]

... too much to bear.

What is too much to bear? We made it through the depression, WWII, 1987 stock market crash, .com bust, etc...

Hell perhaps if people had something REAL to worry about like how to get to work or how to put food on the table perhaps we'd stop pissing away billions on worthless programs like the Department of Homeland Security.

[Ghoulish Delight]

What is too much to bear? We made it through the depression, WWII, 1987 stock market crash, .com bust, etc...

Hell perhaps if people had something REAL to worry about like how to get to work or how to put food on the table perhaps we'd stop pissing away billions on worthless programs like the Department of Homeland Security.
Well, I'm glad you're willing to sacrifice the bottom 30% of our country's wage-earners...I'd personally rather find a solution that doesn't involve mass poverty and starvation.

[scaeagles]

Free market....are you suggesting there is no monetary incentive to inventors and innovators at present to come up with the practical hydrogen fuel cell? They would get rich regardless of the current oil price. $10/gallon doesn't change that.

Considering that right now oil can be (and is being) excvtracted from the nearly limitless supply of shale in the rocky mountains at a cost of about $90/barrell, it is not practical to think that oil will ever get much above that. As the price of oil increases and the processes to extract that oil becaome more efficient and economical, more and more of our domestic supply will come from that source (until radical enviromentalists stop it :) ).

[Moonliner]

Well, I'm glad you're willing to sacrifice the bottom 30% of our country's wage-earners...I'd personally rather find a solution that doesn't involve mass poverty and starvation.

I suppose a tie-in to the illegal immigrant issue would be a bit much...

[Ghoulish Delight]

Free market....are you suggesting there is no monetary incentive to inventors and innovators at present to come up with the practical hydrogen fuel cell? They would get rich regardless of the current oil price. Not particularly. Look at hybrids. It seems like the companies should be making a fortune off of them, but they're not? Why not? Because the volume isn't there. And because the volume isn't there, the cost of manufacture, parts, and repair is high. And because those are high, the consumer doesn't save money by making the switch. So consumer adoption has been slow. It won't accelerate until it gets past that balance point (it's been about a wash to own a hybrid vs. a similar class traditional compustion engine vehicle for a few years now).

The same will be true for any alternate fuel solution. The cost of manufacturing, of implementing the infrastructure to support the technology (fuel stations, e.g.), and the cost of maintaining a vehicle with a new technology will be expensive compared to the ridiculously cheap production of tradictional vehicles. Therefore, owning one will remain expensive compared to traditional vehicles. So, adoption will remain slow until there's enough of a demand and infrastructure for those costs to drop below the costs of owning traditional vehicles. And one way that could be accelerated is with a significant increase in fuel cost.

Or to put it more succinctly, if gas were double what it is now, everyone would be buying hybrids.

[scaeagles]

I guess I don't see owning a hybrid as a form of energy independence. Still needs gas, though significantly less. I haven't run any numbers (nor would I really know how to in the instance), but while I'm sure if everyone owned a hybrid our need for oil would go down, it wouldn't make that huge of a dent in what we import. Energy independence means we don't import energy.

[Moonliner]

Free market....are you suggesting there is no monetary incentive to inventors and innovators at present to come up with the practical hydrogen fuel cell? They would get rich regardless of the current oil price. $10/gallon doesn't change that.

Considering that right now oil can be (and is being) extracted from the nearly limitless supply of shale in the rocky mountains at a cost of about $90/barrel, it is not practical to think that oil will ever get much above that. As the price of oil increases and the processes to extract that oil become more efficient and economical, more and more of our domestic supply will come from that source (until radical environmentalists stop it :) ).

I'm suggesting there would be a MUCH larger market for fuel cell's and thus much more development if economic conditions changed to favor it.

So if we have ~$3.00/Gallon with oil at ~$70 per barrel then is it safe to assume we would see something like just over $4.00/Gallon if the price went to $90? Humm, you're right. That's not enough. Of course I doubt we have the production capacity to turn enough shale into gas for every car,truck,van,ship,plane,etc.. in the country.. It would take years to build that. By then we should have some real solutions.

(Edited to add: Damn you GD and your fast typing fingers too for getting this same basic argument out faster... )


Oh, and on a techie side note, the part of the equation that is missing is not efficient/affordable fuel cells, it's separating massive amounts of hydrogen from water cheaply/cleanly.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I guess I don't see owning a hybrid as a form of energy independence. Still needs gas, though significantly less. I haven't run any numbers (nor would I really know how to in the instance), but while I'm sure if everyone owned a hybrid our need for oil would go down, it wouldn't make that huge of a dent in what we import. Energy independence means we don't import energy.I didn't say that hybrids are a solution. But they are a good case study that shows that altruistic value is not enough to make a product sell. Economic incentive on the demand side is what will drive this country to a long term energy solution.

[scaeagles]

Economic incentive on the demand side is what will drive this country to a long term energy solution.

Agreed there. However, I wish politicians would see (and they most likely do, but they fail to address it) the immense risk to national security by importing so much of our energy (which is oil at this point). What happens if Iran decides to detonate a nuke in the Persian Gulf? Or Chevez of Venezuela pulls out of OPEC and decides to only sell oil to China?

The safest thing is to increase what we can produce domestically of the current market choice of fuel, which is oil. Barring off shore drilling, ANWR (and the estimates vary immensely on how much is there), and other such projects is just remarkably short sighted and risky.

[Moonliner]

Agreed there. However, I wish politicians would see (and they most likely do, but they fail to address it) the immense risk to national security by importing so much of our energy (which is oil at this point). What happens if Iran decides to detonate a nuke in the Persian Gulf? Or Chevez of Venezuela pulls out of OPEC and decides to only sell oil to China?

The safest thing is to increase what we can produce domestically of the current market choice of fuel, which is oil. Barring off shore drilling, ANWR (and the estimates vary immensely on how much is there), and other such projects is just remarkably short sighted and risky.

The goverment should not, will not and most of all cannot effect this type of change. At least not in this country. Just look at what the Bush administration is doing with their "Freedom Car" initiative announced in the state of the union speech. All of the research dollars are going to major oil companies to research ways to create hydrogen using fossil fuels. Doh! Zippy is being spent to further development of clean alternatives such as solar and wind.

[scaeagles]

A congressman is under investigation by the FBI. He was on tape accepting 100K in bribes. He had 90K in his office in the fridge. There was a search warrant for the office signed by the judge.

The house leadership is upset about separation of powers.

What????????

[Ghoulish Delight]

A congressman is under investigation by the FBI. He was on tape accepting 100K in bribes. He had 90K in his office in the fridge. There was a search warrant for the office signed by the judge.

The house leadership is upset about separation of powers.

What????????
Yeah, good one eh? Here's the Republicans' chance to get out from under the corruption label. A Dem pulling shady parkinglot briefcase handoffs. But all they're worried about is, "Oh sh*t, the Feds can search my office?!" (not saying the 'pubs are worse than the 'crats, just finding it ammusing to see where all congress's priorities lie)

[Scrooge McSam]

That discussion needs to be had.

I am gratified to see Democratic leadership calling for his resignation.

[scaeagles]

I think the republicans don't want him to be punished at all so he can be the poster boy for them when hammered on corruption, and the dems do so that they can continue on their "culture of corruption", regardless of the fact that both parties have members that are corrupt.

[Alex]

It's a valid complaint, I think, even if the congressman is dirty as all hell. With a president using, in my opinion, too strong a definition of executive power the penetration of the executive into the legislative area should be strongly scrutinized.

I'm not saying that a Congressman should be able to avoid discovery by simply keeping all of the evidence in his office. But there should be a process by which the Department of Justice works with the Congressional leadership (with appropriate exceptions and ways allowing investigation of corrupt leadership) to ensure that such investigations are appropriately targetted and giving Congress the chance to seek judicial remedy if they feel there is a valid separation of powers issue (much like the White House first goes to court when arguing a documents subpoena from Congress.

[scaeagles]

I disagree. Having such a process would violate equal protection laws. Just because someone is a congressman does not mean that special consideration should be made in terms of consulting with the leadership. A judicial warrant is good enough to search my office. Should be good enough to search the office of a congressman. I see no separation of powers issue. I see bruised egos of the house leadership as the issue.

[Alex]

Then in that case Congress already violates equal protection laws. They are granted official immunity from legal responsibility for the results of their official actions. Similarly, as was highlighted recently, they can break many laws in the persuit of performing their official duties (they can speed -- or drive drunk -- so long as they are on their way to cast an official vote, for example).

It is not the person who is being treated differently, it is the institution. Similarly, a subpoena from Congress is sufficient to compel quite a lot of behaviors from you and yet the president would be immune from most of them.

[scaeagles]

I don't have time to look, but isn't that immunity from prosecution or civil action in the Constitution? I seem to recall that it is for the express purpose of not allowing endless lawsuits or criminal prosecution to paralyze that branch of office.

[Gemini Cricket]

I think this country needs better looking politicians. A lot of them are bloody goofy.
:D

[Alex]

The Speech and Debate Clause (Section 1) is the only consitutional source of immunity and narrowly only protects congressman from arrest or harrassment while engaged "speech and debate" in a session of congress. This has been expanded a bit by the courts in the last 30 years. Other sources of immunity are all legislative, I believe.

But it appears that for this search (which was to seize documents that had been requested with no response) standard procedure was not followed. From the Department of Justice Criminal Resource Manual (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm02046.htm):

The Speech and Debate Clause provides the "legislative acts" of a Senator or a Representative "shall not be questioned in any place." It applies in criminal as well as civil litigation involving the Senator or Representative, and provides absolute immunity to United States Senators and Representatives while they are engaged in legislative acts. United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501 (1972); United States v. Helstoski, 442 U.S. 477 (1976). Its purpose is to assure the Congress a wide and unfettered latitude of freedom of speech in the deliberative process surrounding enacting legislation, and to shield that process from potential intimidation from the Executive and Judicial Branches. Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606 (1972); Powell v. McCormick, 395 U.S. 486 (1969).

While the Speech and Debate Clause has been expressly held not to shield Senators or Representatives against bribery charges, Johnson v. United States, 383 U.S. 169 (1964), it does impose significant limits on the type of evidence that can be used to prove such an offense. The Clause broadly protects members of Congress "against inquiry into acts that occur in the regular course of the legislative process and into the motivation for those acts," United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501, 525 (1972), and "precludes any showing of how [a member of Congress], acted, voted, or decided." Id. at 527. The Supreme Court has declared that "past legislative acts of a Member cannot be admitted without undermining the values protected by the Clause," including speeches in committee as well as those on the Floor of the Chamber, the Senator or Representative's votes, and his or her explanations for them. A somewhat wider latitude has been allowed insofar as the admissibility of activities that took place occurred prior to a legislative act. United States v. Helstoski, 442 U.S. 477, 489 (1979). However, the parameters of what constitutes a "legislative act" are quite broad, and can severely impair the ability of prosecutors to prove bribery and gratuity cases where the recipient is an elected Member of the Legislative Branch.

When evidence embraced by this privilege is introduced--either in trial or in grand jury proceedings--the effect can be as troubling to the prosecution as introducing the fruits of an illegal search. See United States v. Durenburger, 1993 WL 738477 (D.Minn 1993); Helstoski, supra; compare Johnson.

In addition, both the House and the Senate consider that the Speech and Debate Clause gives them an institutional right to refuse requests for information that originate in the Executive or the Judicial Branches that concern the legislative process. Thus, most requests for information and testimony dealing with the legislative process must be presented to the Chamber affected, and that Chamber permitted to vote on whether or not to produce the information sought. This applies to grand jury subpoenas, and to requests that seek testimony as well as documents. The customary practice when seeking information from the Legislative Branch which is not voluntarily forthcoming from a Senator or Member is to route the request through the Clerk of the House or the Secretary of the Senate. This process can be time-consuming. However, bona fide requests for information bearing on ongoing criminal inquiries have been rarely refused.

The big issue as I see it is that in such a search the Executive Branch would, almost by definition, have to search through reams of explicitly privileged materials to find the documents they are justified in possessing. I'm not saying that the congressman should have immunity from disclosure but that the executive branch should work with the congressional leaders, sergeants-at-arms, and Capitol Police to procure the items in question without otherwise violating the privelage of the Legislative Branch from intrusion by the Executive Branch.

[JWBear]

A congressman is under investigation by the FBI. He was on tape accepting 100K in bribes. He had 90K in his office in the fridge. There was a search warrant for the office signed by the judge.

The house leadership is upset about separation of powers.

What????????
A point of clarification.... The $90K was found in a freezer in his home, not in his office.

[Moonliner]

I'm sure that Hastert righteous indignation at this event is purely due to a love and respect for the constitution and is in no way motivated by the fact that he is also under investigation (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/federal_officia.html).

I'll bet if was to listen real hard I could hear the sound of the paper shredders on overdrive from here...

[Scrooge McSam]

I'm sure that Hastert righteous indignation at this event is purely due to a love and respect for the constitution and is in no way motivated by the fact that he is also under investigation (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/federal_officia.html).

Why, Moon, I'm astonished at you for suggesting such a thing.

We must have drinks sometime ;)

[Alex]

Depends on the papers I guess. They served William Jefferson with subpoenas for the documents they were after several times before deciding to go in and get it themselves. Apparently he still hadn't destroyed them even.

If the Speaker of the House is part of the investigation then I think that would be an obvious exception situation. Though in this case I'm pretty sure it is a different investigation.

Just to be clear, I am not at all suggesting this search was inappropriatein scope or motive but it is a tool that could be easily misused by the executive to exert leverage over the legislature and it should, I think, go through cooperative channels in almost every situation (as the DOJ rules themselves say).

[scaeagles]

Apparently Hastert is not under investigation.

DOJ says Hastert not under investigation (http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/052506/doj.html)

In fact, Hastert wrote a letter to ABC warning of libel, because ABC ran with the story after the DOJ said he was not under investigation.

By the way, I hold no love in my heart for Hastert. He is a spineless leader picked because he was as non-controversial (at the time at least) as they had.

[Gemini Cricket]

Skilling was found guilty on 19 counts of conspiracy, fraud, false statements and insider trading. He was found not guilty on nine counts of insider trading.

Lay was found guilty on all six counts of conspiracy and fraud. In a separate bench trial, Judge Sim Lake ruled Lay was guilty of four counts of fraud and false statements.

Both Lay and Skilling could face 20 to 30 years in prison, legal experts say.

Lay and Skilling are found guilty... (http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/25/news/newsmakers/enron_verdict/index.htm?cnn=yes)

[Alex]

Based on the details I've read over the years I'm a bit surprised that the DOJ was so successful. But jury certainly got a better look at everything than I did so I'll assume they know better.

But it is a case where the most overtly criminal action (Andy Fastow's illegal side deals to enrich himself, which also triggered the cascade effect that brought Enron down) gets the least jail time because he rolled first.

[Gemini Cricket]

For some reason, I was prepared to hear that they were going to get off on some technicality or something.

[Not Afraid]

reeWHeeneeee eeeeeeIe eeeeeeeeeeheeeeeaereeeeedeeee eeeteheeiesee eneeeeeewe eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeteheeiese eemeeoeereneiee

[Not Afraid]

^ That was Charlie's take on it.

For me, when I heard the new this morning I was driving and making a left hand turn. I "saw" the judge in Toad saying GUILTY!

[Gemini Cricket]

^ That was Charlie's take on it.
Okay, now I understand. For a moment I was thinking it was in some sort of code. Too much DaVinci on the brain, I guess.
:D

[scaeagles]

I thought she was making another typo. An extreme typo, but a typo nonetheless.

[Not Afraid]

The Mac is super flat and the cats think they can sit on it.

[JWBear]

I think that it isn't a good idea to allow the DOJ to have the power to raid the offices of members of Congress. It gives the executive too much power over the legislative. IMO, the legislative branch should only be answerable to the people. Giving the executive that kind of power could lead to an intimidated and controled congress, and a president who is a dictator.

[scaeagles]

Without judicial warrant, yeah. With judicial warrant, no problem.

ETA: I would argue that the current two party system leads to intimidated and controlled legislators.....by their own parties. Withholding of campaign funds, support of a challange, etc, all largely beholden to voting the party line.

[JWBear]

Without judicial warrant, yeah. With judicial warrant, no problem.
Of course, no President would everappoint judges who would do whatever they were asked to do by said President. Nope. Never. ;)

ETA: I would argue that the current two party system leads to intimidated and controlled legislators.....by their own parties. Withholding of campaign funds, support of a challange, etc, all largely beholden to voting the party line.
Very true.

[sleepyjeff]

The Mac is super flat and the cats think they can sit on it.

Funniest thing I've read all day:D

:snap: :snap: :snap:

[Scrooge McSam]

Capitol and House Office building shut down by air hammer?

I know I shouldn't laugh at this.

Bad Scrooge!

/resolve to try harder

[scaeagles]

Scrooge! I'm shocked!

(says scaeagles while snickering to himself as well)

[scaeagles]

Gotta love Harry Reid. He takes free ring side seats from the Nevada Athletic Commission while he is considering federal legislation on boxing.

If he comes out and says "It was poor judgement", I'd give the guy a break. But this is remarkable - and pretty stupid - spin.

Reid defended the gifts, saying they would never influence his position on the bill and was simply trying to learn how his legislation might affect an important home state industry.


(link to article quoted from) (http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/May-30-Tue-2006/news/7681315.html)

So to understand the affect he has have $1500 ring side seats?

[Moonliner]

I could also see people complaining if he was involved with making decisions on boxing without doing some first hand investigations.

What I did have a question about was this comment


"Anyone from Nevada would say I'm glad he is there taking care of the state's No. 1 businesses," he told The Associated Press.


The states No. 1 Business? Boxing? I'll give you 10-2 odds that there is another (albeit somewhat related) business that would lay claim to the #1 spot in Nevada.

[Gemini Cricket]

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b268/braddoc310/31.jpg

[SacTown Chronic]

And we sit around twiddling our thumbs while we complain about corruption from those we send to Washington.


Bob Knight sez, "If rape is inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it". Words to live by as far as the American electorate is concerned.

[scaeagles]

I could also see people complaining if he was involved with making decisions on boxing without doing some first hand investigations.

So you need $1500 ring side sets for first hand investigation? And more than once? I would suggest there might be differing ways to do such investigations.

I also will note that McCain was there. I am no McCain fan (in fact if it is Hillary vs. McCain in 2008 I have no idea what the hell I will do). At least he had the sense to pay for the tickets himself. While just having the opportunity to acquire such seats is a perk, it at least isn't as bad.

[Gemini Cricket]

And we sit around twiddling our thumbs while we complain about corruption from those we send to Washington.
I didn't vote for him. I didn't vote for him twice.

[Scrooge McSam]

I am no McCain fan (in fact if it is Hillary vs. McCain in 2008 I have no idea what the hell I will do).

Do you mean to suggest that it is even remotely possible that you would vote for Hillary as opposed to McCain?

What am I misreading here?

[Moonliner]

I'm not even thinking about the next presidential campaign, I am looking towards the interim elections where hopefully the Dems will take back congress.

I firmly believe in the old adage: "The government that governs best governs least" and a divided white house/congress is a very good step in that direction.

[scaeagles]

I don't think voting for someone means that you lose justification to complain about them.

I voted for Bush. Twice, though not in the 2000 primary (he ran unopposed in 04). I complain about things he does.

I voted for McCain. I have more than once, though never in a primary.

Often times voting is about the lesser of two (or more) evils. That was certainly the case with McCain. Often times people promise certain things during a campaign and reneg on those promises. I will complain about those things.

[scaeagles]

Do you mean to suggest that it is even remotely possible that you would vote for Hillary as opposed to McCain?

What am I misreading here?

I think Hillary is more honest than McCain. I think I have a better idea what to expect from Hillary than from McCain. I think McCain will do more to harm true conservatism than Bush has. I think McCain will undo the things Bush has done that I like. I think McCain will bend over backwards to win the primaries by promising conservatism, which he will have to do during the primary to win it, and won't follow through on them and will change his tune more than any other politician ever has during the general.

So yes, it is remotely possible. I do not want a President that will continue to erode what the republican party used to stand for. I'd rather have a liberal President that I would expect liberal things from that perhaps can rally conservatives to actually be conservative once again.

I suppose it is also likely - and the thought of doing this almost makes me more sick than voting for either Hillary or McCain - that I may not vote at all.

[innerSpaceman]

Lemme ask you something, scaeagles ... if it really became a sort of toss-up for you whether to vote for Hillary or McCain, would the fact that Hillary's win would mean the first-ever female PotUS make any sort of difference to you?

[scaeagles]

No....I'd vote for Condoleeza Rice. Are you wondering if I have an objection to a female President or if I just wouldn't want Hillary to have the distinction of being the first one?

[Motorboat Cruiser]

No....I'd vote for Condoleeza Rice.

i don't think that leaf falls very far from the Bush. Why do you feel she would be any different from her mentor, who you appear displeased with?

[scaeagles]

I am displeased with Bush in areas that I have not heard Condoleeza Rice comment on, and the two biggest things I am displeased with Bush about are border control and lack of any sort of fiscal discipline. There are other lesser issues to me that are bugging me, but those are the majors. I suspect that, particularly with border control and our relationship with Mexico, that she must disagree with Bush on those things and that is why she is silent on them. She is the Secretary of State, and for her not to be involved with the influx of illegals is very strange. In fact, I haven't heard much from Condoleeza on anything lately.

From what I know of Condoleeza right now, I would vote for her against Hillary without question. Whether I would vote for her in a primary remains to be seen because there are questions i would have regarding various policies.

I was wanting to let ISM know there is nothing about a female PotUS that I am against.

[BarTopDancer]

I'm voting for her:

http://img432.imageshack.us/img432/9455/jessicarabbit0ju.jpg

[innerSpaceman]

Oh, I didn't think you would be against a female president. Rather, I was just wondering whether such a history-making occurence would cast a tie-breaking vote for Hillary, if the choice were only HER and McCAIN (no Condi on the ticket)

[CoasterMatt]

I vote for Zippy!
http://members.dslextreme.com/users/coastermatt/images/zippres04shirtfinal.gif

[scaeagles]

Rather, I was just wondering whether such a history-making occurence would cast a tie-breaking vote for Hillary, if the choice were only HER and McCAIN (no Condi on the ticket)

Well, like I said, it is a possiblity in an election between the two I wouldn't vote. I couldn't stomach either. So I'd let it go to the House if I were truly casting the tie breaking vote.

[CoasterMatt]

House of Pain? House of Wax? House of Ill Repute? Amazing how much they resemble each other these days...

[Gemini Cricket]

The Boston area this year will receive nearly one-third less federal grant money to help buy equipment and train emergency workers for possible terrorist attacks, the Department of Homeland Security announced yesterday.

The federal government will give Boston and its surrounding communities about $18.2 million in urban area antiterrorism grants, down from about $26 million last year. As a whole, Massachusetts will receive about $41 million from several homeland security grant programs, down from $58.8 million last year, the department said.

The cuts were echoed in other major cities as well. The two cities that were attacked by terrorists on Sept. 11, 2001 -- New York and Washington, D.C. -- lost about 40 percent of their funding. At the same time, several smaller cities, including Louisville, Ky., and Omaha, saw their funds rise.

Source (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/06/01/us_slashes_hub_grants_for_security/?page=full)
I don't understand this. We're cutting funds for antiterrorism grants?

[Moonliner]

Source (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/06/01/us_slashes_hub_grants_for_security/?page=full)
I don't understand this. We're cutting funds for antiterrorism grants?

I don't know that they are cutting funds exactly. They are just re-allocating the funds to cities that, in the eyes of the current administration, are in greater danger. Greater danger of their candidate not getting re-elected. Oink, Oink.

[scaeagles]

I think they may be inviting terrorists to blow up Ted Kennedy....and the problem with this is what?:)

[Gemini Cricket]

New York and DC lost 40% of their funding. Louisville and Omaha got increases.
That makes no sense to me.

[scaeagles]

I suppose it depends on the overall figures rather than percentages and also what has been done thus far. I haven't done any research, so the following is hypothetical.

Let's say that most of the funding went to big cities originally to do things like put up concrete barriers so that car bombs couldn't drive into a building. Well, once that is done, the funding doesn't need to be there to do that and can be diverted elsewhere.

I would guess that the large portions of the funding went to large population centers to do that kind of stuff first. Once improvements like that are done, the funding then moves to smaller population centers to do similar facility improvements that only need to be done once.

Just a thought on why it may be happening. It may not be the reason, but it is plausible and logical.

[JWBear]

New York and DC lost 40% of their funding. Louisville and Omaha got increases.
That makes no sense to me.
New York and DC - solidly "blue". Louisville and Omaha - solidly "red". Fairly obvious, IMO.

[Gemini Cricket]

New York and DC - solidly "blue". Louisville and Omaha - solidly "red". Fairly obvious, IMO.
I got that part. :D But what I'm wondering is is that DC and NY got attacked already. Shouldn't they be focusing on those places as possible repeat targets? I mean, I don't remember Louisville and Omaha being on the Al Qaeda tape... Then again, I'd be sad if they put concrete walls around Sleeping Beauty Castle...

[Moonliner]

I think the bigger issue is that we are a nation of soft targets. You simply cannot defend every building, stadium, fairgrounds, restaurant, train, bus, plane, concert hall, park, beach, bar, festival, church, etc... The money being spent on this type of "defense" is simply waisted. It would be much better spent on the CIA and incentives to foreign nationals. The best defence is a strong offense.




Ohh, and to our new NSA overlords who I'm sure are reading this domestic message (http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,71022-0.html)due to all the key words: ;)

[scaeagles]

While I agree, Moonliner, a sad pathetic man named Frank Church led an effort to change the operating rules of the CIA back in the 70s. The CIA can't pay informants if those informants maintain relationships with "unsavory" characters.

How can you have an informant who doesn't maintain relationships with unsavory characters?

[Gemini Cricket]

But isn't this administration's mantra all about national security, protecting the homeland... yaddah yaddah yaddah? Why would they cut funds from NY and yet remind us about 9/11 every chance they get?
:shrug:

[scaeagles]

Again, I would guess many of the funds were for infrastructure type things that only needed to be done once.

[Moonliner]

While I agree, Moonliner, a sad pathetic man named Frank Church led an effort to change the operating rules of the CIA back in the 70s. The CIA can't pay informants if those informants maintain relationships with "unsavory" characters.

How can you have an informant who doesn't maintain relationships with unsavory characters?

By it's very charter the NSA is prohibited from domestic surveillance and yet there is a data room in the San Francisco AT&T office crammed full of their monitoring gear. This administration does seem to be taking a very liberal attitude towards what can and cannot happen.

[scaeagles]

By it's very charter the NSA is prohibited from domestic surveillance and yet there is a data room in the San Francisco AT&T office crammed full of their monitoring gear. This administration does seem to be taking a very liberal attitude towards what can and cannot happen.

You can disagree with that all you want, but don't kid yourself into thinking that such surveillance started with the Bush administration.

I also find it interesting that you are saying that the CIA should disobey the laws as passed by the congress in regards to paying informants, but yet you say that the adminstration is doesn't seem to care much about violating intelligence gathering rules.

I happen to agree with you that hey CIA should be paying informants for good intel regardless of what their past entails (of course there are concerns and verifications necessary until the informant has proven to do that, and also counterintelligence concerns).

[Moonliner]

You can disagree with that all you want, but don't kid yourself into thinking that such surveillance started with the Bush administration.

I also find it interesting that you are saying that the CIA should disobey the laws as passed by the congress in regards to paying informants, but yet you say that the administration is doesn't seem to care much about violating intelligence gathering rules.

I happen to agree with you that hey CIA should be paying informants for good intel regardless of what their past entails (of course there are concerns and verifications necessary until the informant has proven to do that, and also counterintelligence concerns).

I never said it started with Bushy but I do think he has taken it to a new level. However in any case "he did it too" is hardly a defense in this case.

I never said the CIA should disobey the law, I said this administration is going to interpret the laws so that they can do whatever they damn well please. Then if/when they get in trouble they will just blame the entire thing on some mid-level manager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_North)who's dedication to duty lead him to be overzealous or some such BS.

"Unsavory" leaves a lot of wiggle room, if interpreted technically it would mean the CIA could not work with the white house.

[scaeagles]

I'll accept that's not what you said, but I think my conclusions of what I thought you meant were logical.

You did not say it started with Bush. You criticized the program and then in the next sentence talked about how the Bush administration takes a liberal stance on what it can do, so I hope you can see why I thought you might be suggesting it started with them.

You did not say specifically that the CIA should disobey the law, but when you suggested they should be offering incentives to foreign nationals (which I interpretted to mean paying informants), I took that as meaning you thought they should violate the existing law against it.

Your last statement was funny.

[innerSpaceman]

It's not just that the CIA deals with unsavory characters; they become those unsavory characters. Just take a look at what went on (and for all I know still goes on) with drug running around the world. CIA operatives are hip-deep in it, and it goes far beyond their need to gather intelligence.

If we take what the CIA has done in the war on drugs and move it over to the war on terror, it will be the CIA itself that is blowing up buildings in America.

Or perhaps they'll only blow up buildings in other countries, and leave it to their new associates to blow up the Americans ... with the CIA's full knowledge and consent.

I have no idea what valuable intelligence the CIA has been able to supply our government, but they have proven to be a far greater danger to American society than the value of any intelligence could possibly be worth.

[Gemini Cricket]

Well, at least two people in the GOP get it. Thank you Laura Bush and Mary Dinglecheese Cheney. Yes, the Republicans are using gay marriage as a campaign tool.
:rolleyes:

[innerSpaceman]

As a sign of electoral desperation, I'm not altogether unamused.

[Gemini Cricket]

I'm going to put on my black top hat and cape, paint on a handlebar mustache and I'm going to go out and destroy some straight marriages right now. Nyuk nyuk nyuk! :D

[Gemini Cricket]

In an open letter released this morning, the head of the Log Cabin Republicans takes President Bush to task for supporting the proposed federal marriage amendment, which the U.S. Senate begins debating today. Patrick Guerriero, the outgoing executive director of the gay GOP group, calls the president's support of the discriminatory amendment "an insult to millions of fair minded Americans from all walks of life."

The full text of the letter follows:

Mr. President,

On behalf of millions of gay and lesbian Americans, I write to denounce your decision to divide the American family by promoting an amendment that would insert discrimination into the United States Constitution. Your decision to use the grounds of the White House—America's House—to advance discrimination is an insult to millions of fair minded Americans from all walks of life...
Boom, baby! (http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid31797.asp)

[wendybeth]

Wow-' boom, baby' is right. Great letter, and one I think should be printed in every newspaper in this country.

[blueerica]

I actually have a political rant to go on... But I have to go to work. I'll spend those hours serving coffee and becoming bitter.

BBL

[Scrooge McSam]

Open letter to Patrick Guerriero:

President Bush is not listening to you. He never has. He never will.

I'm supposed to care that you're outraged? Why, pray tell?

Tell me, when did you figure out that Mr. Bush would throw you under a bus if there's political gain to be had? Most everyone else with at last 2 functioning brain cells figured that out THE LAST FREAKING TIME IT HAPPENED.

Straighten your "support the troops" sticker, keep waving your flag and continue to pretend you matter.

[Gemini Cricket]

Acid-spitting Ann is at it again:
" These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9-11 was an attack on our nation and acted like as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing bush was part of the closure process."

And this part is the part I really need to talk to you about:

"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much."

Source (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/06/06.html#a8602)

This is from her book. Oy vey! What a nutcase. If this was someone on the left, this person would be labelled as an unpatriotic liberal. But since this is Ann, it's okay.
:rolleyes:

[scaeagles]

Apparently, or so I've read today, the Bush adminstration is getting ready to give Iran nuke power tech if they will stop enriching uranium on their own.

I thought it was dumb and criminal (though legal) when the Clinton administration did the same with North Korea. Yet the North Koreans now have nukes.

Why on earth does Bush think that giving Iranians nuke power tech will stop them from pursuing nuke weapons? Why does anyone think a ruthless dictator will do what he says?

I wish to vomit.

[Alex]

Why do we feel we have the a authority to dictate what scientific, technological, and warmongering advances another sovereign nation should be allowed to make?

[scaeagles]

I would suppose it is because of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. While I am no expert on the treaty itself, I do believe that there are restrictions within that treaty that the Iranians are violating with respect to their nuclear advancements and inspections by the IAEA.

Does your post mean, Alex, that you oppose things such as economic sanctions to apply pressure to a sovereign state to abide by certain guidelines that they have agreed to? If a sovereign state violates a treaty such as the nuclear non-pro treaty, should we or the rest of the world stand idly by?

[Nephythys]

yeah- let's stand by and let a country that has vowed to exterminate another country build nukes...

Squeeeeee- what fun

[wendybeth]

If Iran is violating a treaty, then they should be dealt with accordingly. However, if a nation that has not signed such a treaty should wish to pursue such a program. I don't see where we have the right to intervene. We just need to be ready to kick their asses should they decide to use them in any way that threatens us or countries we have agreed to helped defend.

[scaeagles]

So does this mean if Iran nukes Isreal you support us nuking Iran? Because I fear that is a real, real possiblity.

[wendybeth]

Is Iran part of the non-proliferation treaty? If so, then no- we have every right to stop them however possible. I'm just saying that we can't possibly police the whole world- if there are rogue nations out there that have not signed on, then we have no choice but to watch them closely and then sic Mossad on them.:D

We are Israel's allies, and we should defend them. Iran has stated that they want to erase Israel fromthe map, so it's a fair assumption that if they have the means, they will probably try. I'm not clear as to whether they signed any non-prolif treaties in the past- if so, then we need to stop them, and we have the right. None of this handing them technology in the hopes that they will cease their pursuits, because let's face it- they aren't looking for cheap energy alternatives.

However....We simply cannot just barge into another country because they are engaging in behavior that makes us nervous, at least if they are not breaking any treaties, etc. We can make things uncomfortable for them, but this pre-emptive strike business is dangerous and contrary to who and what we, as a nation, are supposed to represent. Tread on us or our friends and your ass is grass. But we are in danger of becoming the neighborhood bully, beating up anyone who we see is a threat, and one day those other kids are gonna grow up and come back at us.

[Gemini Cricket]

I want to meet Mitt Romney someday. Just so I could mess up his hair.

[BarTopDancer]

Because Freedom Isn't Free

http://www.moviepropking.com/team%20america(1).jpg

[wendybeth]

Is that the Mormon guy, GC? If so, use caution. They cornered the Aqua-Net market years ago.;)

[Gemini Cricket]

Is that the Mormon guy, GC? If so, use caution. They cornered the Aqua-Net market years ago.;)
That's him. The Mormon moron: Sh!tt Romney. He's on Charlie Rose at the moment talking about how marriage is only about procreation. So, I guess people who are sterile/impotent shouldn't wed, eh Mitt? What a dinglecheese.

[Not Afraid]

He's on Charlie Rose at the moment talking about how marriage is only about procreation.

Does that mean I'm not married anymore?

[BarTopDancer]

He's on Charlie Rose at the moment talking about how marriage is only about procreation.

So that means all the kids who were born out of wedlock aren't really here?

[Gemini Cricket]

Does that mean I'm not married anymore?
Yes. And I hear he hates cats.
So that means all the kids who were born out of wedlock aren't really here?
Yes. And I hear he really hates sharks.

[wendybeth]

How does he feel about laser beams?

[wendybeth]

Lol! My MIL, who is Mormon, just finished watching Dr. Phil, where there were apparently people on who were saying that gayness can be cured through prayer, blah blah blah....Also, it's caused by being abused as children! So, she is now on the phone to her daughter in Ohio, mockingly apologising for abusing her and telling her we'll pray away her gayness.:D

Sometimes she surprises me with her coolness.

[Gemini Cricket]

How does he feel about laser beams?
He shoots them from his anus. And I hear he hates hairstylists... thus the toupee I'm convinced he wears.

[wendybeth]

Ooooh! He has friggen laser beams up his friggen anus?

[Gemini Cricket]

Ooooh! He has friggen laser beams up his friggen anus?
Yuh huh. And he loves Tonya Harding.

[Not Afraid]

Sometime I just want to be on these talk shows.

Or, maybe, I can just be famous for spewing my own brand of BS.

[wendybeth]

Sometime I just want to be on these talk shows.

Or, maybe, I can just be famous for spewing my own brand of BS.

You have a fabulous typo-thing going! Run with it!

[Gemini Cricket]

Welsome to the Not Afraid Show!
With your host: Not Afriad!
:D

[Alex]

I would suppose it is because of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. While I am no expert on the treaty itself, I do believe that there are restrictions within that treaty that the Iranians are violating with respect to their nuclear advancements and inspections by the IAEA.

Does your post mean, Alex, that you oppose things such as economic sanctions to apply pressure to a sovereign state to abide by certain guidelines that they have agreed to? If a sovereign state violates a treaty such as the nuclear non-pro treaty, should we or the rest of the world stand idly by?

Since I don't think you'd suddenly feel we should stand by if Iran would just go through the formal process of making a statement that they were withdrawing from the non-proliferation treaty I assume you derive authority from somewhere else.

While I would prefer that Iran not develop nuclear weapons (but then I would prefer that Canada not do so either) I think they have every right, as a sovereign nation, to do so if they so choose. Of course, since they are signatory to an agreement to not do so, I think they should officially withdraw from that agreement.

No, I don't support economic sanctions and incentives as a tool of societal reform. But then, for the most par, neither do you; at least when it is our government doing it internally. You're just ok with doing it to other people.

I'm a free trade kind of guy and that has uncomfortable repercussions. I would certainly support the government refusing to do governmental business with Iran and any private efforts to cut off ties to Iran, but no the government should not regulate private trade with nations unless we are actually at war with them. To extend this, if I want to open a doughnut shop in Cuba or North Korea, that is my business, not George Bush's.

And if Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons despite world pressure otherwise, that is their prerogative. I also have no problem with taking a position that the United States will act unilaterally to defend sovereign international borders no matter where they are. So if Iran wants to blow up Israel once they have the bomb they will hopefully understand the potential repercussions.

[scaeagles]

No, I don't support economic sanctions and incentives as a tool of societal reform. But then, for the most par, neither do you; at least when it is our government doing it internally. You're just ok with doing it to other people.

If you would show me where I said I support economic sanctions against other countries, I'd appreciate it. I don't support them, because economic sanctions don't hurt the governments of the countries that are sanctioned, they hurt the already poor and starving masses while the dictators stay in power and suffer no ill effect. As the UN oil-for-food program showed, even humanitarian efforts to overcome economic sanctions are corrupted to the benefit of the dictator.

In the little reading I've done on the NPT, and specifically North Korea's withdrawal from the treaty, there is a great deal of international debate over the legality and their withdrawal. I guess I don't know why that should be so hard to determine, but that's another story.

So we come to the conundrum.....Iran wants nukes and has said that Israel does not have the right to exist and that they should be destroyed. One great thing about the cold war was dealing with the Soviets who didn't want to die either. The leadership of Iran? I would figure they don't necessarily fall under that same category and would embrace the chance to be remembered as the destroyers of Israel. So....do we (and the international community) allow Iran to have the chance to give nukes to terrorists or use them on Israel?

I respect sovereignty.

I believe your question earlier about the right of outside influences to dictate what a sovereign country does was misreading my post about my disgust with the Bush administration thinking, in the same way that the Clinton administration thought, that giving Iran nuclear power technology as a bribe to stop the enrichment of uranium will work. In North Korea, Clinton sped up the process of them acquiring nuclear weapons. In Iran, I believe the same thing will take place.

It makes no sense to do it.

[Alex]

Ok, I took the second paragraph of the post I was responding to you as taking a defensive position of a view you felt I opposed. If not then cool.

No, the government shouldn't give nuclear technology to Iran. They should just let Iran buy it from the lowest bidding company able to provide it.

The statement that Israel should not exist is not relevant, in my opinion, to whether they should be allowed to develop a bomb if they so choose.

As for whether Iran can legally withdraw, about the only punishment I can see the United Nations being able to exact on a sovereign nation is either invasion, which wouldn't happen, and expulsion from the United Nations, which also wouldn't happen as it would be an acknowledgement that membership isn't paricularly vital to a countries existence.

[JWBear]

So... I click on the last page of this thread... And see this:

How does he feel about laser beams?
He shoots them from his anus.
I was just beginning to think that nothing I read on LoT could surprise me anymore... (That's what I get for skipping a page and a half!) :rolleyes:

[wendybeth]

So... I click on the last page of this thread... And see this:


I was just beginning to think that nothing I read on LoT could surprise me anymore… :rolleyes:


:D

[Prudence]

I wish Tim Eyman would fall off the face of the earth. Damn him and his government by initiative and referendum. Micromanagement of the state legislature. If they decline to do something he wanted, it's initiative time. If they do something he doesn't like, whip out the referendum. Oh, but he's not a politician. NO! He's just out there, taking a ginormous salary to defend the common man! Never mind that the common man apparently elected those legislatures, and is presumably capably of not re-electing them if they really cared so much. No, we're going to pay those legislators with our tax dollars to conduct meaningless activities that Saviour Tim will swoop in to undo before the ink is dry.

And yet, his initiatives pass. Because people are so fvcking stupid they fall for his nonsense. And then act all baffled. Gosh, it's just not fair for him to pay more to license his brand new BMW than some 20 year old clunker. Mandated property tax limits that are far surpassed by inflation. Oooh! But waaaaah! Why are my roads so crappy? I want the same level of services I got 10 years ago when the same about of money I pay now went a lot further, only I want to pay half as much! *I'm* not using the bus, public schools, fire department, whatever, so why should I have to pay for it?

Oh, but he's not trying to single-handedly shape state policy. No. He's just helping correct errors out of the goodness of his heart. No, there's nothing in it for him. No, he's not pulling in a salary who knows how much greater than in his former position. No, he's not enjoying his moment basking in the spotlight. No, he's not enjoying being a household name. No, he's not exploiting the initiative process to apply his own policy preferences without the hassle of actually running for office.

GAH!

(pant, pant, pant)

[Alex]

And that is why I vote no on all propositions and referendums out of principle (except in very rare cases where the legislature has actually sidestepped its responsibility) no matter how much I approve of the measure in theory.

[wendybeth]

It's a point of pride that I've never voted for an Eyman prop- the bastard is a snake-oil salesman, and his Peter Principle is going to hit him hard. He just a weasel in Everyman's clothing and it astounds me that he has enjoyed any success whatsoever in his endeavors.

[Nephythys]

That's him. The Mormon moron: Sh!tt Romney. He's on Charlie Rose at the moment talking about how marriage is only about procreation. So, I guess people who are sterile/impotent shouldn't wed, eh Mitt? What a dinglecheese.

damn, guess I am all out of luck huh? Had my kids, had cancer- and I'm divorced----but according to this asshat I have no reason to marry unless I can breed?

I just hate people sometimes.

[wendybeth]

He's an idiot. Even my Mormon MIL rolled her eyes at his mention. It must be nice to live in such a black and white world, eh? I wonder if he's ever experienced the shades of grey that most people have to endure in their lifetimes. GC is right- total dinglecheese.

[Alex]

He's right, to a degree, though. The only even remotely reasonable justification for government sanctioning of marriage is as a device for creating a automatic protections for children. Ideally this would mean that marriage would only be available as a state sanctioned institution once children are produced of course. But then this still wouldn't necessarily preclude homosexuals (as this need for protection extends to the guardianship responsibilities not just the fact that you personally own or have visited the vagina through which it was extruded).

For marriage as it exists (where people can do it all willy nilly), there is no reasonable justification at all for state involvement of any type.

[innerSpaceman]

How about the incentive for people to take care of each other in their old age, rather than have that responsibililty fall to the government?

Oh, I know Alex doesn't support any time of economic incentive. But considering that the tax code is one of the government's main avenues of governing, the incentive method IS going to happen.

So among many economic incentives, isn't a tax break to marriages one that makes some sense ... in keeping the feebs off the dole?

[Gemini Cricket]

All I want to know is who is going to push my wheelchair and change my colostomy bag at the hub during Disneyland's 100th Birthday?

[scaeagles]

All I want to know is who is going to push my wheelchair and change my colostomy bag at the hub during Disneyland's 100th Birthday?

Even true love has its limitations.

[Gemini Cricket]

Even true love has its limitations.
Oh, Ralphie will be long gone. I will have upgraded several times by that time. :D

[innerSpaceman]

Heheh, yeah people scoff at me for robbing the cradle now .... but just you wait!

[Nephythys]

LOL- I'm part of the cradle robbing group too....the way I figure it, women live longer, by having a younger one, maybe he'll last longer. :D

I feel like Demi Moore- without the money and the perfect body ;)

[scaeagles]

My wife is older than I am, but looks 10 years younger. What does hat make me?

[Gemini Cricket]

A constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage was defeated as predicted in the Senate Wednesday, but supporters say new votes for the measure represent progress that gives the GOP's base reason to vote on Election Day.

And senators will have to answer for their positions, one sponsor of the amendment warned.

"People are going to be responsible for this vote," said Sen. Sam Brownback (news, bio, voting record), R-Kan. "We are making progress in America on defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman."

Source (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060607/ap_on_go_co/gay_marriage_11)
Rejected... until the next election year, I'm thinking...

This is all an election year ploy for the Repubs to say, 'The guy I'm running against voted FOR same-sex marriage. Is that what we want?'
Bleh.

[Nephythys]

My wife is older than I am, but looks 10 years younger. What does hat make me?


lucky?:D

[Ghoulish Delight]

Source (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060607/ap_on_go_co/gay_marriage_11)
Rejected... until the next election year, I'm thinking...

This is all an election year ploy for the Repubs to say, 'The guy I'm running against voted FOR same-sex marriage. Is that what we want?'
Bleh.Rejected...but with a higher yes count than last year's attempt. Not comforting.

[Gemini Cricket]

Rejected...but with a higher yes count than last year's attempt. Not comforting.
True. Even though it failed in the Senate, the House is going to vote on it any way. Oh well.

[JWBear]

...(as this need for protection extends to the guardianship responsibilities not just the fact that you personally own or have visited the vagina through which it was extruded)...
LOL!! :snap:

[Gemini Cricket]

Rejected...but with a higher yes count than last year's attempt. Not comforting.
I got this email from a gay activist friend of mine:
This vote was better than expected. The gay bashers were claiming that they would have a majority. Our side picked up two GOP votes, Specter and Judd Gregg. Chris Dodd and Jay Rockefeller, who would have voted with us, were absent. Chuck Hagel, who would have voted against us, is in Omaha with the President. If everyone was present, the vote would have been 50-50. That means the Vice President would have had to break the tie. Now, that would have been interesting. (Of course, with a cloture vote, the 50-50 tie doesn't matter, but it's still fun to think about.)

[Ghoulish Delight]

This has nothing to do with politics...but for some ridiculous reason, GC's Wolverine avatar has me always thinking his posts are Mousepod. Out of the corner of my eye, it is for some reason similar to Mp's old avatar of himself.

[Promo-Man]

Marriage is something that the government should keep out of. The validity of a marriage should be determined by one's church.
Recognizing a union between two people for the purpose of financial benefits is what the government should be involved with.
I want my government to stop wasting my money on such senseless maneuvering

[Gemini Cricket]

...Mp's old avatar of himself.
It would be totally rad if Mousepod had Wolverine hair. Totally.

Promo Man: Agree 100%

[SacTown Chronic]

All I can think about when I see GC's avatar is that Mr. Cricket better not get a reach around from Wolverine.

[Alex]

How about the incentive for people to take care of each other in their old age, rather than have that responsibililty fall to the government?

Oh, I know Alex doesn't support any time of economic incentive. But considering that the tax code is one of the government's main avenues of governing, the incentive method IS going to happen.

So among many economic incentives, isn't a tax break to marriages one that makes some sense ... in keeping the feebs off the dole?

There is nothing in the current government set up of marriage that does much to guarantee financial support and care in ones dotage. Unless you were willing to do so anyway, escape from this responsibility is easy and fast. We also already have a system that pretty much automatically puts every old person on the dole rather than keeping them off of it.

If you want guarantees of comfort in your old age, find the person you think would be willing to provide it and then get yourself to a lawyer. The government doesn't need to be involved.

[Gemini Cricket]

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b268/braddoc310/1149655833_8715.gif

[Gemini Cricket]

I'm wondering if the death of al-Zarqawi will change the course of the way things are going in Iraq. I'm thinking this will only lead to a hydra effect. Cut off this head and more will pop up...
:confused:

[scaeagles]

What al-Zarqawi did was give al Qaida organization. With bin Laden in hiding and only putting out an audio or video pep talk every three months or so, I think it creates a power struggle within the organization. I think many terrorists will want to be the next al-Zarqawi and it may lead to a certain amount of in fighting.

I have no doubt it will be spun as a non victory in certain circles, but a blood thirsty islamofascist terrorist leader is dead. This is a good thing. And I am particularly happy that he has found the afterlife contains no 72 virgins for him.

[Gemini Cricket]

And I am particularly happy that he has found the afterlife contains no 72 virgins for him.
And we know that... how? :D *


*I'm not saying he deserved to be rewarded, but no one knows what happens after.

[CoasterMatt]

Did they soak the 500 lb bombs in pigs blood?

[Moonliner]

Did they soak the 500 lb bombs in pigs blood?

VERY shortly after the bomb expolded. Yes.

[innerSpaceman]

Hey! Lookie! Someone started an actual separate thread (http://www.loungeoftomorrow.com/LoT/showthread.php?t=3687) on a political topic!!! Howzabout we break away from the miscellaneous thread once in a while to discuss things on a specific issue in a specific place??!

It's a novel idea, but who wants to try?

[Gemini Cricket]

It's a novel idea, but who wants to try?
Yes, but imagine all the moderating you'd have to do if all of the different subjects here had their own individual threads. This is one-stop moderating. We had your best interests in mind, Steve-o. :D :p

[scaeagles]

It's a novel idea, but who wants to try?

The populace prefers it this way. So neener.

[Not Afraid]

Cut off this head and more will pop up...
:confused:

Don't tread on and ant
he's don'e nothing to you.
There might be a day when he's treading on you.
Don't tread on an ant
you'll end up black and blue.
Cut off his head, legs come looking for you.

[sleepyjeff]

...but everyone know an ant can't...


;)

[Not Afraid]

Move a rubber tree plant.

[Scrooge McSam]

but he's got...

[katiesue]

Hiiiigh hopes!

[scaeagles]

I hate ants. I squish 'em every chance I get.

[Gemini Cricket]

I hate ants. I squish 'em every chance I get.
More with the violence and the animal hurtings and the squishing with the feet and all...
:D

[scaeagles]

You should see what I can do with a magnifying glass. Ant flambe, baby.

[CoasterMatt]

Saltshakers and snails are even more entertaining...

Escargot, going, GONE!

[Alex]

Just saw Berg's dad on CNN. While I can't argue with the quote up above, the guy is really quite the crank.

[scaeagles]

Were you referring to this quote from the Zarqawi thread?

BERG: No. How can a human being be glad that another human being is dead?

I heard a quote from him today saying that he wanted reconciliation with Zarqawi and wanted to sit down and talk and learn more about Zarqawi and have Zarqawi learn more about him, and he was lamenting that he'll never have the chance.

I think what he fails to realize is that he would have never had the chance anyway, and that Zarqawi would just as quickly cut his head off as well and has (had) no desire to learn any more about him.

[Alex]

I don't really have a problem with his Pacifism, and in the face of his son's murder, it seems all the more heartfelt. It was more the conspiracy theories he was putting out.

When asked if his son's body had been returned to him he responded "that's what they tell me" suggesting it is perfectly reasonable to believe that another body or an empty coffin were brought back.

[innerSpaceman]

Um, without the head, I find that a reasonable suspicion to have if your son's coffin were arriving from any country in, say, latin america or africa, much less the chaos of Iraq.

[Gemini Cricket]

A bipartisan Senate report released on Thursday documented more than $5.3 million in payments to Ralph Reed, the former director of the Christian Coalition and a leading Republican Party strategist, from an influence-peddling operation run by the corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff on behalf of Indian tribe casinos.
Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/washington/23abramoff.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)
Remember when Ralph Reed was the Mr. Moral Values Man for the GOP? :rolleyes:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b268/braddoc310/23abramoff.jpg

[scaeagles]

Yikes. What really bothers me in reading that is Reed says the report "confirms that I have not been accused of any wrongdoing."

Just because something isn't illegal doesn't mean it isn't wrong.

The other thing that kills me - Reed wanted assurances "that I would not be paid with funds derived from gambling." A two minute accounting maneuver can take care of that.

Reed has always been antigambling, so I see this work on his part to be consistent at least. I have no problem wioth being paid for doing this kind of work. However, he should have passed on the money from gambling interests that were simply looking to control their monopoly.

And interestingly enough, this actually was something Abramoff used money for that was apparently in the interests of the tribal casinos he was being paid by.

[Gemini Cricket]

Rush Limbaugh just got busted at an airport for possession of drugs without a prescription. One of the drugs was Viagra.
:D
No, that wasn't a joke. It's all over the news...

[scaeagles]

The viagara part is true. However, he was not busted, not arrested. He was interviewed only and allowed to go on his way. The most recent update says he was detained for three hours while being interviewed. The viagara has his doc's name on it, not his, which could be a second degree misdemeanor.

[Scrooge McSam]

What a dope! After his recent drug problems, I'd hoped the guy would learn his lessons. D'oh!

How ironic is it he and his doctors concocted this scheme "for privacy purposes"?

Will his doctors have to answer for their part in this little scheme?

How will this affect his standing with the court under the previous charge?

[Gemini Cricket]

The viagara part is true. However, he was not busted, not arrested. He was interviewed only and allowed to go on his way. The most recent update says he was detained for three hours while being interviewed. The viagara has his doc's name on it, not his, which could be a second degree misdemeanor.
He got busted, caught...

Here, let me use the right wing media filter and restate what I said:

"America's sweetheart and exposer of everything vile and liberal, Rush Limbaugh, was escorted by airport security and terrorism screeners to the airport security lounge for an amusing conversation. Apparently, Mr. Limbaugh was part of some innocent shenanigans and petty chicanery in regards to his pharmaceutical needs. After a lark, a couple of amusing tales of old, Limbaugh and security personnel took part in a jig and drank some non-alcoholic ale. Nothing to see here, move right along."
:D

[scaeagles]

I think that same "right wing" media originally said he was arrested, but I could be wrong.

Regardless of legal ramifications, it was remarkably stupid in light of his previous problems.

[Gemini Cricket]

"right wing" media
If you think that the majority of the media is left, then you're not paying attention.

[scaeagles]

All perspective. I could say the same thing to you. Most likely the case is that they are to the right of you and to the left of me.

[Gemini Cricket]

All perspective. I could say the same thing to you. Most likely the case is that they are to the right of you and to the left of me.
Fox"News" is too left for you?

[scaeagles]

Fox"News" is too left for you?

We can play the back and forth game all day citing examples that suit our purpose. The perspective of news being slanted to the left or right is determined by the political positioning of the viewer/reader/listener of said news.

[Gemini Cricket]

The perspective of news being slanted to the left or right is determined by the political positioning of the viewer/reader/listener of said news.
A lot of the news is being manipulated by this Administration. There's very little room to determine anything.
Mark Malloch Brown was right in saying that lots of what happens in this country and outside of the US is dumbed down or excluded by news outlets like Rush and Fox"News".

[scaeagles]

Yeah....this is actually why Katie Couric moved from Today to the CBS Nightly News. Because she is so friendly to the administration, there was a coup planned by Rove to oust Rather and replace him with a Bush yes-woman. But then again, Rather was clearly being used by the right in the whole forged docs scandal on he eve of election.:rolleyes: