The reason the Dems were able to take over the Majority in both the House and the Senate is because they ran more conservative-leaning Dems that won. It's the only way they could win. And thank God for those Dems who will continue to keep the looney left under control.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

You know, I mean, we're kinda in the "phase of the campaign" where everyone's kinda stomping their feet going "my model is better"!

But yeah, Ron Paul's in the single digits, but he's steadily climbing - and look at those poll numbers in Iowa - he's doing better than McCain!!!

So you know, SS, I hear you man. You're kinda pointing at my ideas and painting them as "kooky". That's fair enough. You know, I can't "fight" that kinda thing, it ain't gonna help me to say, "you're full of it", right?

So, what I'm gonna do now, is just kick back and SHOW you.

I mean, you're absolutely right. Me sitting here arguing with you, would be just "me wasting my time".

So, you know, SS, I'd like to apologize to "you personally", 'cause I mean, I've been really picking on you and raking you over the coals about some of your political ideas, and I'd like to state unequivocally and for the record that I wasn't meaning to attack "you personally" for your beliefs.

What I was trying to do, is "highlight" some aspects of the Neo-Con thought process. And I mean, "mission accomplished", right? The words are there for everyone to see, and that was my only goal in this discussion.

You know, so kinda how "I" look at this kinda stuff, is like, exactly what happened here - you know, you float your ideas, I float mine, and "at that moment", we might be at loggerheads or whatever, in terms of our mutual understanding -

But then what tends to happen, over time, is that the ideas kinda sit there and float around and circulate, and we have an opportunity to "digest" them, and "evaluate" them relative to other ideas and "models", and so, I mean, all this contributes to the pile of "evidence" that goes into our ultimate voting "decision" come November, right?

So SS - you know, I'd like to thank you for having the willingness and taking the time to participate in a discussion like this, 'cause I mean, most people wouldn't have even bothered to "justify themselves" politically in such a patient manner as you did.

(And I mean, "for an arsehowl like me" who's obviously mainly interested in showing everyone how "wrong" you are.... ) -

And you're absolutely right, I can make no claims whatsoever to any kind of "superiority" in my model - and in fact, I don't. My only claim is that it's "operational" - it "describes" a lot of things, and it's useful in the sense that it allows me to have "enough" of an understanding to where I can start "manipulating" and "engineering" the environment that I ultimately want.

Um.... SS.... part of what I do here, is gather lyrics for my songs. 'Cause like, I'm in the music business, and all these "words" that we're tossing around here, you know, they "resonate" with people, and they're a great source for "ideas" too, I mean even if you need a "rhyme" or something -

So what I did, I kinda wrote a song about this little discussion here....

And I mean, it says something "different", right? But the "concepts" that are in there, pertain directly to what we're talking about here, and also, they "came" directly from what we're talking about here.

So, I'll post a copy of the song for you over in "Off Topic" or something, in a couple of days when I finish tracking it, it's pretty cute, it has a nice little hook to it, it goes something like this:

What you bring to the table
Is what you leave behind
If you leave my house in disarray
You ain't no friend of mine
And there's no use chasin' windmills
It's just a waste of time
And what you bring to the table
Is what you leave behind

I used to want to be a Renaissance Man
But now I'm just tryin' to do the best I can
Cause there's too much to know, and too little time
And you sure can't take it with you down the line


And then it starts talking about the "real" point.... which is kinda what we've been talking about here.

So ah.... "national security", eh? Well, we'll talk about that one in "some other thread" sometime. Hopefully we'll get a chance to hoist a beer too.....



Well done, SS. Thanks for the engagement!

So like, you know, we can continue this thing if you want, but it seems to me we've both been pretty clear on where we stand, yes?

So you know, I'm gonna go make some money so I can feed the kiddies, and then I gotta go spend some time with my mom, and see if I can expain and articulate "something important" to her, and then I got a young lady comin' over to lay down some vocal tracks for the latest love song, and then after that I'll check back and see how we're doin' here.

Cheers!

That was a typo. Sorry for the confusion, but it should have been obvious by the context what I meant. Aside from that slip up is anyone seriously advocating not observing terrorists within the limits of the law?

The "war on terror" is an abstract war at best. Its a term coined up to drive fear and create sensationalist rhetoric. Its not anything like a conventional war. There are no standing armies, no real chain of command, no treaties that can be signed, and no way to win. There is never going to be a point where we throw parades in the street because the war on terror is finally over. There is always going to be some group out there that wants to harm this country, especially considering how our actions now are insuring future generations hostility.

It is an eternal war, and so what you are advocating is an eternal suspension of rights.

Furthermore, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, ruled that "a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation’s citizens." Not even a intangible "war on terror."

How you can casually mention that millions of citizens can be wiretapped without choking back your disgust is beyond me. I thought Republicans were for limited government?

The history of the NSA, and other clandestine organizations like it, is such that we should not put even an idea like that beyond suspicion. There is simply no reliable way to enact a system like that without it being wide open for abuse.

Consider being a journalist, or a scholar, or a contractor, or simply someone discussing the news. How easy would it be to have your conversations flagged? How many buzzwords would it take? You are now being listened to without a warrant. Right to privacy violated.

Consider all the reasons someone might abuse a universal tap on American phone lines... Eavesdropping on political opponents (Nixon and Watergate for example), opposing activists (Martin Luther King was tapped illegally in his time) business rivals, black mail or extortion, or simply over someone's private disputes (a jealous husband keeping tabs on his wife.) All of these circumstances are pretty reasonable to expect from an unscrupulous NSA agent.

While the computer originally listening in might be dispassionate and mechanical, the conversations are accessible by fallible and corrupt people. That is the whole point of checks and balances. To provide a stop gap against immoral action.

Current law: You cannot wiretap without a warrant.
Desired new law: You can wiretap without a warrant.

How is that changing the interpretation?

There is certainly precedent for my point. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) was a United States Supreme Court decision that extended the Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches and seizures to protect individuals in a telephone booth from wiretaps by authorities without a warrant. What precedents are you claiming?


The law has not been changed yet.... This isn't on the books. The NSA has been doing it illegally. They are currently in the midst of voting on it. And if you think that this Congress passes things based only on proof than you are seriously naive on the state of American politics.

I love how the latest Republican tactic seems to be to label any outspoken liberals as part of a ridiculous fringe minority, like this cutesy "loony left" meme that is making the rounds on here.


Again, ONLY when ESSENTIAL. You need a hell of a lot of proof to show me that.

Lets put it this way. The country would be much much safer if we suspended other rights. Get rid of Free Speech, and suddenly we can't criticize the government. Get rid of Freedom of Religion and theres no Islamic fundamentalists to worry about. Get rid of the Right to Assembly and terrorists can't meet. Get rid of Due Process and we can lock up anyone we suspect of treason. You get the picture. Of course, all of these suggestions are absolutely repugnant to American ideals aren't they. Yes they would certainly make us safer, but at the cost of some of our liberty.

This situation is no different. Hell, strapping a microphone to us and recording everything we said would certainly make us safer, but I'm not ready to do that and neither are you. Why is this any different?

Does that make sense?

I was trying to show that Congress is not doing its job at providing a check to Executive power. Besides, I never claimed that the govt actually had unchecked power. I only said "I just value my rights and am wary of unchecked government power, as any patriotic American should be."

Are you wary of unchecked government power? If the answer is yes, then you should be very wary of this new power it is looking for.

__________________
DILIGITE JUSTITIAM QUI JUDICATIS TERRAM

Not according to RealClearPolitics (a cumulation of polls). He's in 6th behind Thompson with 6.2% while McCain has jumped up to 10.5%. His climb (creep) has been very slow.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...aucus-207.html

He has not had to deal with any negative criticism (which could easily be brutal) because he is not a serious contendor.

You say that as if I should be impressed.


The difference between me and everyone is that I am the one who is right.


Climbing from 1% to 2% isnt terribly impressive.


Apologies are irrelevant, since I would have to be offended to require an apology.

I dont ask for an apology. Its a waste of time. I just ask that you are clear and consistent.


I would not care even if you were. It makes no difference either way. My positions do not rest on the assumption that you are attacking me personally. So an apology changes nothing.


If you say so. IMO you do not understand neocon ideology very well. You make assumptions that are inaccurate.


Nazi ideology was also operational. That does not mean it is not inferior to our's. Merely being operation is insufficient.


If I thought we were absolutely clear I would not be responding. Actions speak louder than words, remember?


Thats fine. I believe you.


I didnt want to put words in your mouth, so I did not alter your quote.


I suppose it depends.


I agree. But we do not have an adequet definition to encompass what we are facing right now. This type of situation has not existed before.


I disagree that that is the reason behind the term.


I agree. See above.


We can win by reducing the threat posed by terrorists to pre-"war" levels. There are a number of ways to accomplish this.


I agree. But it is a war of attrition. If we continue to gain ground, we will eventually return to pre-war threat levels.


No, it is not. It may take a long time, but it is not eternal. That is an exaggeration.


I never suggested otherwise. I agree with that ruling, if that is what it says.


I already explained why. I will repeat myself for your benefit. Please pay attention this time.


Is there any part of that quote you still do not understand?



We are...except when it comes to Defense. That is what separates neocons from other flavors of conservatives.


All of the alternatives are worse. The scope of the powers are not infinite, and are not permanent. There is no law that cannot be changed.


In this case not easy at all unless the conversation is over international lines.


I do not agree that your privacy is violated by a computer.


I am willing to take that risk. The alternatives are worse.


We already have checks and balances. The fact that Congress does not choose to override the president does not mean they do not have the ability to do so.


You dont get to decide that.


Their motives are irrelevant. They have the power to override the President.


Obama's supporters are a fringe minority.


IMO this counts as essential.


Not necessarily. But they are in this context.


Maybe. But that isnt what you actually said. I already told you, I am not going to try to re-interpret your posts. I am not going to put words in your mouth intentionally. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you mean what you actually say.

So if I interpreted it wrong, just clarify. Like you did above.


Yes. This power is checked though.

__________________
My Political Blog (Updated Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

Fair enough.


Yeah yeah, on what you define as "within the law" and all that. Semantics. But seriously, does anyone advocate not keeping an eye on terrorists.

The War on Drugs? The War on Organized Crime? The War on Gangs? They are comparable in a lot of ways. Its also not as if we haven't had threats of terror for decades. There was simply an increased awareness of the problem of terrorism after the success of the 9/11 hijackings. The "war" didn't exist any less on September 10th.

What would you say the reason is?


Again, the day we declared the "War on Terror" it did not magically begin. Hell, the Weather Underground was bombing buildings left and right decades ago without a war on terror being declared. We were fighting the same enemies before it was so painfully brought to our attention, and became politically beneficial. How do we even measure the return to these "pre-war levels." Is there a big thermometer in the Pentagon?


How do we "gain ground" when there are no conventional lines to press forward? All it takes to lose that ground is waiting a little longer for the newest generation of potential terrorists to grow up, or for more people's minds to be convinced that radical violent action against the government is the best idea.

Yes maybe literally "eternal" is an exaggeration, but not in practical terms. Its going to exist eternally in our lifetime. This isn't a conflict that is going to be measured in months, or years, or even decades.

I guess what I am confused about is why you think, given the long history of corruption in our government, that these calls are only going to be listened to by a computer. MLK Jr. was wiretapped illegally without the aid of calls being automatically logged. This would make it far far easier to do the same thing.

You are quite simply confused about what this country was founded on. I live in the fine state of New Hampshire, where everyday I see the motto, "Live Free, or Die." This country was based upon the idea that our rights are worth preserving, even in the face of death. Isn't that what we cite so often on Veteran's Day, that our armed forces gave their lives to ensure our freedoms? While we may be slowly becoming a nation of suburbanites afraid of of our own shadow, I'd like to fight that trend. So no, the alternatives are not worse. I am going to risk the utterly slim chance that I will be killed by terrorists against the far more likely chance that our government will abuse our rights with the ability to wiretap without warrants.

It is far far easier to grant the government more power than it is to take it away. If passed they won't revoke this power easily, even if by some miracle the war on terror suddenly is declared won.

Why should making an international call suddenly void you of your right to privacy. I know its a slippery slope argument and all that, but is there a fundamental difference between what this current bill asks for, and them asking for this program to apply to domestic calls in the future? The principles are fundamentally the same, and if the public can accept this bill, then they can accept more invasive ones with the same premise.

In that case would you feel comfortable emailing me all of your most personal secrets to an address I provide? I promise not to look at it, of course. And since its just a computer with the records, then your privacy is not violated.

I doubt it.

...the point is that no, a computer on its own might not be a violation of privacy. But once that information is available it can be accessed by actual people. Whether they be NSA spooks, corrupt politicians, or enterprising hackers. Information isn't recorded on a computer for giggles, its recorded to be looked at. The point is a warrant is to make sure that only specific information is ever recorded, and only in a specific way.

For the last 225+ years since our country has been founded, the alternative to warrantless wiretaps has worked out pretty well. Again, stop fear mongering. You are risking incredibly slim chance of being hurt by a terrorist attack, to an almost certain abuse of power.

That is a check against a bill being made law. I am talking about a check against a government agent abusing their wiretapping access. A warrant provides that. Without a warrant that check disappears.


This bill is not law yet. The Administration ADMITTED to a warrantless wiretapping program. I'm not deciding it, its a matter of public record.

The motives of the representatives of the people are anything but irrelevant.

Depending on the poll you listen to, Obama has anywhere from 20-30% of the Democratic vote. He's currently the second place candidate. Thats anything but fringe.


What was that about opinion not being enough? We seem to have been doing alright for years and years without this power being granted. Buck up and show my why it is essential beyond quoting something nebulous like "the war on terror" and "the alternatives are worse"


Don't dodge such a crucial point of my argument. We would be safer for sure if we suspended the rights I mentioned. But, any red-blooded American would rightly be furious if such measures were enacted. What you are suggesting is the equivalent: a sacrifice of a fundamental liberty, for an intangible and unmeasurable increase in safety. Surely you know the Benjamin Franklin quote on just that issue?

If a government is allowed to wiretap any citizen without warrants there is no check on that power. The balance of power is fundamentally tilted to the Executive branch. Where is the check coming from in your mind?

__________________
DILIGITE JUSTITIAM QUI JUDICATIS TERRAM

We understand each other!

Darn cowboys.....

I do like a "robust" attitude though - you know, "until" it starts involving things like "trampling on my space" or "stripping me of my rights" or things like that -

But you know, till then, I kinda think in terms of "what you bring to the table".

And I mean, "national security", that's a good thing, right?

But I mean, you can't "pick and choose" what parts of an ideology you wanna keep, right? You always get the "whole package" - so like, in this case, along with "national security", you get the wiretaps and the torture and all the rest of it.

So, you know, I "like" tne national security concept, but I "don't like" the methods you guys wanna use, and I mean, you're waving your hands over the concept of "morality", by using them in the first place, so, you know.... I just see a huge "disconnect" between what you're telling me is the "ideal behavior", and what you're showing me is your "actual behavior". (That is, "you generic", as in, "you Neo-Cons"... ) -

So, stuff like this - you know, it I can draw a "fundamental assumption" out of you, like, "national security is primary", then that tells me a lot of things. 'Cause I mean, you know, of all the things you could be thinkin' about, in the space of politics, where you choose to place your "emphasis", is on "national security". So, I mean, that tells me that you have some "concern" in that area, and so, you know, the next step for me, would be to find out "why", and to probe you on that piece a little -

You know, 'cause I've kinda told you "my" view on that, right? I'm not gonna be "mortally scared" just 'cause some idiot terrorist decides to blow up a building. That, to me, is not "national security"-related. It doesn't quite rise to that "scale", that "magnitude". In my eyes, 9/11 was more like a very large version of an SLA bank robbery or something. The scale of it in terms of "lives", was right up there with Pearl Harbor, but the "type" of action it was, was entirely different - it wasn't a real threat to "national security", like what occurs when a nation wants to put the full force of its concerted energy behind an effort to wipe your nation off the face of the planet.

But that's not what's going on with these terrorists. They're just a bunch of pissed off moralists, is all, and I mean, they have some "reason" to be pissed off (politically speaking), and they're obviously very "frustrated" in terms of the idea that their past actions haven't been able to generate the results they want - so I mean, I look at the equation in those terms - human terms. I don't really "fear" terrorists like that. I fear a nation with hundreds of nuclear weapons - that, would definitely be "national security". You know, if someone like that wants to kill you (I mean "you, your nation"), they have a good chance of actually doing it. But terrorists tryin' to light their shoes on fire? Who don't even have a nation backin' 'em up? Nah, I don't really see that as a "serious threat". I might become a more serious threat at some point, it it isn't handled correctly in the diplomatic space, but I mean, I wouldn't engage the national machinery and put the country on a war footing, over less than couple dozen disaffected people.

But hey, that's just "my" view. You may see it differently. The Israelis obviously see it differently, only they, have a justifiable reason to be concerned. "We", don't, I don't think - at least, that's the way it seems to me. You know, no one's gonna mess with us. If they do, they're gonna wind up with nukes in their backyard, and no one wants that, right? So I mean, this whole idea that George freakin' Bush wants to be the policeman of the world, and he can't even bring a single terrorist idiot (OBL) to justice - you know, that kinda thing just has "failure" written all over it. I mean this feeds into the stereotypical image of the strutting cowboy who's so freakin' arrogant and clueless that everyone else is just laughin' at him while he's struttin' around with his 200 dollar leather boots, thinkin' that makes him a "big man" or something.

So I mean, my take on this, is that "national security" is a very serious concept - you know, it's like "treason", it's a very serious thing, and you don't wanna be battin' that around in loose political terms, like calling your opponents on the opposite side of the aisle "traitors", or I mean, making claims that a few dozen terrorists with bad intentions somehow equate with a "national security crisis". You know, if there ever was a real threat to national security, I would probably feel very differently in terms of what is an "acceptable" response to that kinda thing - I mean, those are the situations in which the "boundaries move", right? You, one minute you're walkin' around in a nicey-nice world going, "murder is wrong and I would never kill anyone", and then the next thing you know you're forced to shoot someone in the head 'cause they're trying to kill your wife and kids for no reason other than that you're an "American".

You know, I mean, I 'understand" that position, fully. Been there, done that. I know what it means when those boundaries move.

But here's the thing - in "my" eyes, having had such an experience, it's important to me, that I subsequently remain aware of those things, right? 'Cause I mean, the first time your boundaries change, you aren't even gonna notice it. One day you're gonna wake up and realize you just killed someone ('cause you "had to", in self-defense or whatever), and then you're gonna go, "aiiiiiieeeeee", ...... you know, that kinda "conflict" in the model can be very dangerous psychologically.

But then, the second time it happens, you're kinda gonna "notice" it, right? You're gonna go, "uh oh, I feel like I'm about ready to cross this line", and then, right then and there, is when you oughta come up with a "rationale" and a "process" for how to do that.

'Cause I mean, if you don't "organize" that piece, then it's gonna continue to occur "randomly", see what I'm sayin'? And I mean, that's the dangerous part, 'cause people can justify practically anything to themselves, in terms of "logic" and "morality" and "belief systems" and all that.

So I mean, I hear you on the "national security" idea - you know, in a world where things are getting seriously out-of-kilter politically, it's gonna take some GOOD people and some SMART people to set things on their proper course again -

And I mean, this is not something you wanna do "blind", or "ignorantly", or "let matters take their own course", right? 'Cause I mean, if you allow that kind of thing to happen, you might end up back in the Dark Ages, politically speaking, and then you're just gonna have to start all over again.

Do you understand my perspective on this?

That's why I think we need to be very careful with these "methods", and these "justifications". Always keep the principles in mind. All men are created equal, and therefore have the same set of God-given Rights. Government is an instrument of We the People, all true power rests with individuals. No man is above the law, not even the king. These things, they're somehow "more important" than national security. These ideas will survive, even if the United States manages to commit suicide.

This site was down most of the day so I just getting to it.

1. Please explain why you think that, given these facts, the NSA has strangely enough NOT actually wiretapped without a warrant.

What facts? What law has been determined broken?
"The companies participated at a great risk of exposure and financial ruin, for one reason and one reason only: In order to help identify terrorists and prevent follow-up terrorist attacks," said Democrat Jay Rockefeller, who chairs the Intelligence committee. "They should not be penalized for their willingness to heed the call during a time of national emergency."

2. Please explain why the telecoms need to be let off the hook for helping to violate the law when they could have chosen not to instead?

Again, for those of you loony reading impaired liberals;

"The companies participated at a great risk of exposure and financial ruin, for one reason and one reason only: In order to help identify terrorists and prevent follow-up terrorist attacks," said Democrat Jay Rockefeller, who chairs the Intelligence committee. "They should not be penalized for their willingness to heed the call during a time of national emergency."

3. Please explain to me why obtaining FISC warrants are insufficient.

Again slick, what laws have been broken? They do what they do to protect us, what part of that don't you understand.

Minority leader Mitch McConnell praised Majority leader Harry Reid for bringing a version of the FISA overhaul that passed in the intelligence committee under intense pressure from the White House.

Here's the bottom line BarTaby, you lose, we win, whine all you want, it won't matter. Again please, elect the democrats, because all things on national security will remain the same. Don't that just make you feel warm and fuzzy all over?


I guess you and your terrorist friends will have something to worry about. I wouldn't be calling the middle east any time soon.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=17332377
Dodd and others said that, should the phone carriers be given immunity, courts will never be able to determine the legality of the surveillance with which they were asked to cooperate. But prospects for stripping that immunity from the bill look dim, as lawmakers rush to get President Bush a bill he'll sign.

__________________
Cheney is the second executive officer to shoot someone in the face and chest. Clinton was the first.