Washington Post: Bush authorized domestic spying...

[PatrickG]

Link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10489609/)

This doesn't look good to me.

It won't change the minds of any die hards on either side, I imagine.

But it's just not kosher, IMO.

Some excerpts:


President Bush signed a secret order in 2002 authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens and foreign nationals in the United States, despite previous legal prohibitions against such domestic spying, sources with knowledge of the program said last night.

The super-secretive NSA, which has generally been barred from domestic spying except in narrow circumstances involving foreign nationals, has monitored the e-mail, telephone calls and other communications of hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of people under the program, the New York Times disclosed last night.


The bottom line?

Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies at George Washington University, said the secret order may amount to the president authorizing criminal activity.

The law governing clandestine surveillance in the United States, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, prohibits conducting electronic surveillance not authorized by statute. A government agent can try to avoid prosecution if he can show he was "engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction," according to the law.

"This is as shocking a revelation as we have ever seen from the Bush administration," said Martin, who has been sharply critical of the administration's surveillance and detention policies. "It is, I believe, the first time a president has authorized government agencies to violate a specific criminal prohibition and eavesdrop on Americans."

[Winslow]

Niot that I want to defend Bush or anything, I just find it interesting what is reported and what's not. From Forbes (probaboly a conservative spin):

The Bush administration had briefed congressional leaders about the program and notified the judge in charge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret Washington court that handles national security issues.

http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/feeds/ap/2005/12/16/ap2397026.html

If there were illegalities, its sounds like the entire government was involved - congress and judicial. Which is even more disturbing.

Seems like we're (the United States - that's all of us) still trying to figure out how to detect terrorists and still protect our civil liberties. Not an easy tightrope to walk.

[Shellhead]

Apparently the ideals that America represents are so fragile that our government will abandon all of them in fear of a terrorist attack. We should come up with a new name to reflect this change in national identity... maybe the Nervous States of America.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Seems like we're (the United States - that's all of us) still trying to figure out how to detect terrorists and still protect our civil liberties. Not an easy tightrope to walk.

Especially when we have an administration which is contemptuous of civil liberties.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Apparently the ideals that America represents are so fragile that our government will abandon all of them in fear of a terrorist attack. We should come up with a new name to reflect this change in national identity... maybe the Nervous States of America.
Or we should abandon or severely restrict most of the Patriot Act provisions, and kick the people who do this sort of shit - and those who support them - out of office.

[Shellhead]

Or we should abandon or severely restrict most of the Patriot Act provisions, and kick the people who do this sort of shit - and those who support them - out of office.

I thought they just renewed the Patriot Act this week. Or was that some other 9/11-spawned piece of legislation?

[JeffreyWKramer]

I thought they just renewed the Patriot Act this week. Or was that some other 9/11-spawned piece of legislation?

The House has. The Senate is set to vote on it today, and it faces potential fillibuster from both Dems and those rare Republicans who still care about civil liberties unless changes are made to add more protection to the citizens and limits on the government's ability to use the provisions. Here's hoping guts wins out over partisanship nonsense and totalitarianism.

[Noah Johnson]

When did the phrase "secret court" stop being one that made people reach for a weapon?

[JeffreyWKramer]

When did the phrase "secret court" stop being one that made people reach for a weapon?

When people forgot the lessons from the 60s and 70s about how giving government more power to engage in covert surveillance against citizens always leads to such power being abused and misapplied.

[PatrickG]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/16/senate.patriot.ap/index.html

And the extension is down for right now.

Five Republicans (including Sununu) sided against it. (Although Frist did so primarily to be a dick.)

I have to say... What are the odds of Russ Feingold running of the Democratic ticket next time?

I plead ignorance of the man in general but he seems very intelligent and articulate and sensible whenever he's on TV.

[Sam]

Between this and more than half of the Republicans in the House voting in favor of torture, I really don't see how anyone with even the faintest idea what's going on could still support these people.

[Brian M.]

That article is pretty interesting. I'd like to know the whole story behind and who the people were they spied on.

As for the comment above that stated that half the people voted for Torture. That is not what voting against that bill was about. That bill would have banned techniques that are legal now but would be illegal after the bill. All this talk about how the Government imposes on all civil liberties I wanna ask how have your rights been violated? You personally. Have you in the last 4 years had any of your rights violated. I'm not asking for generalizations I want to know you personally.

[JeffreyWKramer]

That article is pretty interesting. I'd like to know the whole story behind and who the people were they spied on.

Why does it matter, really? If there was good reason for it to happen, it should have happened via appropriate channels.

The laws restricting government surveillance of US citizens, and restricting intelligence activities on US soil, are there specifically because time and again, such measures have been misused.

All this talk about how the Government imposes on all civil liberties I wanna ask how have your rights been violated? You personally. Have you in the last 4 years had any of your rights violated. I'm not asking for generalizations I want to know you personally.

So, if I haven't been personally raped or had a family member murdered, I should wait until it happens before I speak up about such crimes?

Sorry, but yours is a ridiculous argument. Civil liberties are not something you only get concerned about when it affects you. If you ignore it when it happens to someone else, sooner or later it might be you, and then it will be too late.

[Charles RB]

All this talk about how the Government imposes on all civil liberties I wanna ask how have your rights been violated? You personally. Have you in the last 4 years had any of your rights violated. I'm not asking for generalizations I want to know you personally.

So, what- it doesn't matter if your government has the power to violate your civil liberties as long as they aren't doing it to you personally? Well that's a lovely viewpoint to take on the whole thing, that is.

[mortari]

Isn't the Gov having the right to Violate my civil liberties a violation of my civil liberties. And shouldn't that be enough?

[The Mirrorball Man]

I said it before, I'm saying it again: Watergate wouldn't even make the front page these days.

[Sam]

As for the comment above that stated that half the people voted for Torture. That is not what voting against that bill was about. That bill would have banned techniques that are legal now but would be illegal after the bill.

This is patently untrue. It's BS made up by the Republican leadership, who seem genuinely intent on using torture. The bill bans "cruel and inhumane treatment of detainees," and everything it bans was already considered to be against US law, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, before the Bush administration began covertly undermining those rules.

To say that some of these torture methods are "legal now" isn't very meaningful -- go back five years, and they certainly weren't.

All this talk about how the Government imposes on all civil liberties I wanna ask how have your rights been violated? You personally. Have you in the last 4 years had any of your rights violated. I'm not asking for generalizations I want to know you personally.

Actually, given my reading habits in both book form and on the internet -- it's been acknowledged that the government monitors those things -- it is extremely likely that I have been, to some extent or another, spied on by the government. It came out a couple weeks back that the FBI have secretly gathered information on literally tens of thousands of Americans since the Patriot Act was passed, so the odds aren't all that bad. Of course, there's no way to check.

There was also an incident this past summer where a stranger took a picture of me and my friends from across the street. Then, when we noticed, immediately turned around and began studiously inspecting the storefront on the sidewalk next to her -- which we found fairly interesting, since it was a store that had been abandoned for years and the storefront was empty. Of course, maybe that was nothing. There's no way to check.

(Ok, granted, I may have brought it on myself. Me and my friends may have prank called the Echelon system once or twice. Which in retrospect was maybe not the wisest course of action, but trust me when I say it was hilarious at the time.)

[cactusmaac]

President Bush signed a secret order in 2002 authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens and foreign nationals in the United States, despite previous legal prohibitions against such domestic spying, sources with knowledge of the program said last night.


This really isn't very surprising.

Conventional infiltration of groups like Al Qaeda by US agents is likely to be very difficult - if not impossible - to pull off, so intelligence is going to have to rely heavily on increasingly sophisticated electronic surveillance.

[JeffreyWKramer]

This really isn't very surprising.

Conventional infiltration of groups like Al Qaeda by US agents is likely to be very difficult - if not impossible - to pull off, so intelligence is going to have to rely heavily on increasingly sophisticated electronic surveillance.

Sure. And there are legal routes by which such things can be done.

What's not surprising at all, given his proven disregard for civil liberties, is that Bush would bypass the legal way to do things.

[Mike Smash!]

But much of this surveillance is on peace groups and anti-war activists -- who have never been proven to have any connection to terrorist groups. This sort of thing has been done for decades (COINTEL PRO anyone?) and there have been proven cases of Homeland Security people "inflitrating" anti-war groups and spying on them. What worries me is that we could pass the spying level and go back to the tried and true, "incite violence from the inside to bust them or discredit them" bullshit.

Democracy Now! just did a show on this topic (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/15/155223) and files releases through the Freedom of Information Act with a list saying that yes, the Administration has been spying on peace groups.

[Johnny_Storm]

I think the government is starting to get a little too paranoid, when a person or group get's too scared anything can happpen. Having a secret court that hand's out warrants for domestic survalience is pushing the envolpe far enough, but bypassing the warrant's, that's pretty drastic. Any buearocrat or politician with an agenda can abuse that kind of power, and government likely won't be able to intervine until the damage is done. I never thought Bush or congress, they are both responsible for this, had gone this far. I never voted for him or any Republican, but If I hadn't seen this on MSNBC I would have thought it leftist anti-Bush propaganda.

On another note other countries should examine what is happening to the U.S. and help us a bit more in breaking up Al Queda. They should recignize that a paranoid super power is potentially deadlier than any terrorist organization. They saw what happened when the U.S. went after countries that were suspected of promoting communisim, (edit) some leaders went down through covert or out right military means, some who didn't even belive in communisim. Trust, that nobody's safe from a paranoid U.S.

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

Democracy Now! just did a show on this topic (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/15/155223) and files releases through the Freedom of Information Act with a list saying that yes, the Administration has been spying on peace groups.

Did you see the Daily Show piece re: spying on Quakers? I'll see if I can find the link.

EDIT: My bad. It was Olbermann on Countdown. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10467922/

[Iangould]

I'm not asking for generalizations I want to know you personally.

"When they came for the gypsies, I did not speak, for I am not
a gypsy. When they came for the Jews, I did not speak, because I
wasn't a Jew. When they came for the Catholics, I did not speak, for I
am not a Catholic. And when they came for me, there was no one left to
speak." -On the Wall at the Holocaust Museum in Washington

[Mike Smash!]

"When they came for the gypsies, I did not speak, for I am not
a gypsy. When they came for the Jews, I did not speak, because I
wasn't a Jew. When they came for the Catholics, I did not speak, for I
am not a Catholic. And when they came for me, there was no one left to
speak." -On the Wall at the Holocaust Museum in WashingtonThat's not the exact quote, it's:

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.


-- Pastor Martin Niemöller

[Bloopinator]

"When they came for the gypsies, I did not speak, for I am not
a gypsy. When they came for the Jews, I did not speak, because I
wasn't a Jew. When they came for the Catholics, I did not speak, for I
am not a Catholic. And when they came for me, there was no one left to
speak." -On the Wall at the Holocaust Museum in Washington
What was the person?

[Dennis K]

http://bkmarcus.com/blog/images/fascism/BushStiffArm.jpg
Goose-stepping practice begins promptly at 9:00 a.m.

[Iangould]

What was the person?

As Mike points out it Pastor Martin Neimoller - a Lutheran clergyman who was sent to a concentration camp during World War II for criticising the Nazis.

Mike: I went googling because I couldn't remember how to spell Neimoller and that was the first version I found.

Edited to add: assuming the original statement was in German, any version in English can only be an approximation.

[Mike Smith]

Did you see the Daily Show piece re: spying on Quakers? I'll see if I can find the link.

EDIT: My bad. It was Olbermann on Countdown. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10467922/

onegoodmove.org Speaking of Daily Show, this site usually streams clips, which is refreshing as it provides a daily mockery of this administrations shananigans and a good progressive/liberal site. What can I say, they have some very valid points. :)

On topic, Brandeis elucidates my beliefs quite well...

Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means-to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal-would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this court should resolutely set its face."

--Justice Brandeis dissenting in Olmstead

[Mabels Folly]

What I found interesting as reported by Olbermann tonight on Countdown, is that the NYTimes has been sitting on this story for over a year which means that people high up in Shrub's administration knew of the article and leaned on the Times to hold off on publishing it. And when I say high up, I'm talking on the level of Rove/Cheney.

[Mike Smith]

If I see this thing cross-referenced on higher-tier sources, I will be beyond words...

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

I’ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper.”


http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

[Shem the Penman]

In fairness to Bush (which he does not deserve), Capitol Hill Blue is about two steps above the Weekly World News when it comes to reliability. Yeah, I can totally believe it. But like you said, I'm not buying it until there's confirmation from a better source.

[xgeek52]

*sigh* i lived through cointel pro and i had friends whose lives were destroyed by it...didn't like it then, don't like it now...

yes we need a degree of protection...but i've had problems with the patriot act and i have a problem with this...if this is true --even on the face of it...i know how stories get twisted, being a retired journalist...

[Corrina]

The NY Times has a statement on their website on why they held off for a year before publishing this.

The most important element of this, however, is that the editors at the NY Times surely kept good records of their conversations with administration officials about why this info, that the NSA was participating in domestic spying, shouldn't be published.

Which means that the administration has already admitted the truth of the NY Times story and the NY Times has a lot of nice records documenting this, including who in the administration they spoke to.

I'm sure those administration officials said they wanted to speak 'off the record' but the handwriting is on the wall for anyone to see.

Not only is this story true but the attempt to bury it came from the President.

[Sam]

What I found interesting as reported by Olbermann tonight on Countdown, is that the NYTimes has been sitting on this story for over a year which means that people high up in Shrub's administration knew of the article and leaned on the Times to hold off on publishing it. And when I say high up, I'm talking on the level of Rove/Cheney.

Even more horrifying, high level members of the government have the ability to force the New York Times to sit on a story like this for a year.

You remember when news agencies weren't just stenographers for the government?

[Noah Johnson]

All this talk about how the Government imposes on all civil liberties I wanna ask how have your rights been violated? You personally. Have you in the last 4 years had any of your rights violated. I'm not asking for generalizations I want to know you personally.
There's a sarcastic, bitter joke one sees on bumper stickers and T-shirts, "Oh well, I wasn't using my civil liberties anyhow."

What's a bitter joke to some people is the actual argument being put forth by other people. What an odd place to wind up.

We've been told for years that if we don't use our rights, we're going to lose them, and now that we've lost them, we actually have people saying it's okay because we weren't using them.

I wonder what percentage of those still supporting this administration even know what a right is.

[Wesley Dodds]

Yep, no need for Capitol Hill Blue when what the New York Times reported and CNN independently confirmed was so damning.

The real angle here, for me, is the effect this is having on the Patriot Act.

Notice those 4 Republicans who broke away from their party in letting the filibuster go on? 2 years ago, that would not have been possible -- but now, Tom DeLay faces jail and George Bush's numbers give him no coat tails -- the Republican majority has cracked, and hooray for that. We saw it over the budget -- now we see it over the freedom issues that are so damn important but somehow beneath the pampered class that runs the government and the mass media.

The constitution -- good for times of peace and times of war.

It says so right there.

[SilverSpider]

All this talk about how the Government imposes on all civil liberties I wanna ask how have your rights been violated? You personally. Have you in the last 4 years had any of your rights violated. I'm not asking for generalizations I want to know you personally.

With the power and closed door everything the government has going on now there is absolutely no way of telling if your rights have been violated, what did you think they (the powers that be) are just going to come to you and say 'oh by the way we have been spying on you from across the street and listening in on all your phone conversations and monitoring every key stroke you make on your computer, just thought you would like to know.

Signed,
Uncle Sam. '

The only way to find that out is if you get charged with a crime, and at that point it seems like any more people are thinking 'better him than me', so your screwed any way you go.


I'm just glad I'm old enough now to say 'screw it, kill them all and let the Gods' sort it out.'

[Pinball]

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

Okay, i've made up my mind. Dubya is the new Powdered Toast Man.
http://www.jrj-socrates.com/Cartoon%20Pics/Misc/Ren%20and%20Stimpy/Powdered_Toast_Man_300.gif

[phoenixrising]

Did anyone hear Bush's speech today? I can't believe he actually confirmed everything in the NY Times story. And...of course, he made the same argument every conservative wonk has been making the past two days:

We can't possibly trust judges and law enforcement to make the decisions that they are trained and told by the Constitution to make. And the President is all-knowing, all-powerful and has a right to do whatever he damn well pleases, because his sheep will let him.

[BlairH]

every conservative wonk has been making the past two days:
What's a "wonk"?

I assume it's "generic negative term for Conservative people", but I guess it could be slang for "academic".

We can but hope!

[Iangould]

What's a "wonk"?

I assume it's "generic negative term for Conservative people", but I guess it could be slang for "academic".

We can but hope!

"Wonk" or "policy wonk" was a term popularised during the Clinton years for peopel obsessed with public policy - Clinton and Gore described themselves as "policy wonks".

To put it in British vernacular their political trainspotters, anoraks if you will.

[BlairH]

"Wonk" or "policy wonk" was a term popularised during the Clinton years for peopel obsessed with public policy - Clinton and Gore described themselves as "policy wonks".

To put it in British vernacular their political trainspotters, anoraks if you will.

Ah right thanks. Never heard that one before. Wonk. Sounds like a keeper (adds to vernacular)

[Justin D.]

What's a "wonk"?

I assume it's "generic negative term for Conservative people", but I guess it could be slang for "academic".

We can but hope!

Well, you have the definition now, but if it was a "generic negative term for Conservative people," then why would she describe a wonk as being a conservative? By the way, conservative doesn't get capitalized. Yes, it matters.

[Dan Apodaca]

Hey, now. Haven't you guys been paying attention?

The damned New York Times is the one who's really at fault, here! They're putting Americans in danger by letting them know that their government has been spying on them illegally! Now the terrorists now how we work! Goddamned journalists keep screwing it up for everybody!





It's hard to keep laughing with all the rage I feel inside.

[BlairH]

Well, you have the definition now, but if it was a "generic negative term for Conservative people," then why would she describe a wonk as being a conservative?
I don't know, I sort of thought it might be like "you clever, intelligent person" or "you dumb stupid person"

By the way, conservative doesn't get capitalized. Yes, it matters.

Sorry, I'm just used to it. In this country it gets capitalised all the time, because it's the "Conservative Party" (whereas in America, "conservative" is a mere description.)

[Sabrinaset]

Does "Liberal"?

BTW, anyone else find it odd that the the writer of the story is James Risen, who has a book coming out soon about this very topic? The New York Times in this story says they held off for a year on not printing the story, but I kinda think they've been holding out so they can do promos on his book, and their writer can appear on 60 minutes and do all the usual book-signing stuff.

[Mabels Folly]

Even more horrifying, high level members of the government have the ability to force the New York Times to sit on a story like this for a year.

You remember when news agencies weren't just stenographers for the government?


Don't be an ass.

Whoops, too late.

The administration didn't force the NYTimes to sit on this for a year.

There is no way they could do so, except by claiming that by publishing the story the Times would be compromising national security or Shrub could possibly claim executive privilege, but that latter one is on quite shaky grounds.

And this isn't at all unusual. The NYTimes held off on publishing the Pentagon Papers until they could confirm that they were in fact legitimate.

The exact same reasoning applies in this case.

[Mabels Folly]

Does "Liberal"?

BTW, anyone else find it odd that the the writer of the story is James Risen, who has a book coming out soon about this very topic? The New York Times in this story says they held off for a year on not printing the story, but I kinda think they've been holding out so they can do promos on his book, and their writer can appear on 60 minutes and do all the usual book-signing stuff.

Please. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Like that's any different from the various bullshit tie-ins via fast food restaurants and movie releases. I don't see or hear anyone bitching about those.

[Sabrinaset]

Like that's any different from the various bullshit tie-ins via fast food restaurants and movie releases.

The NYT: The Burger King of the Old Media :)

[BlairH]

Does "Liberal"?

We have a "Liberal Democrat" Party. But they're generally crap, hardly get any votes and are -as a whole- an insignificant part of the UK political landscape.

The main voices in Westminster are:

The ruling Labour Party: Traditionally left wing nanny state people. Now turned centre-right nanny state people. Traditionally known as "the working man's party".

The opposition Conservative Party: These guys are now the good guys in my book. Maybe they were slightly evil back in the '70s and '80s, but the current platform appears to be more right wing conservative with a strong libertarian streak. Think Dick Cheney. We've recently elected a charismatic, young party leader. That should help us out quite a bit.

The Liberal Democrats: These guys are very much like the liberal parties we see in countries like Germany, and other parts of the European mainland. They do get quite a few votes (I was being somewhat harsh before), but their votes don't exist in sufficient concentration (spread throught the constituencies) to push through and win some seats. Currently they hold a position to the left of Labour

[bert]

Don't be an ass.

Whoops, too late.



looks like you're a fairly new poster. . . please read Brian's "rules for political threads" at the top of the Comm board.

would hate to see you banned before we really get to know you , Mables Folly.


bert

[bert]

The administration didn't force the NYTimes to sit on this for a year.

There is no way they could do so, except by claiming that by publishing the story the Times would be compromising national security or Shrub could possibly claim executive privilege, but that latter one is on quite shaky grounds.



Well, since the paper has gone on record claiming that the admisitration did EXACTLY that (claiming that it was compromising National Security) . . .

I belive that would count as "pressuring" the paper to sit on the story. No, they didn't "force" them to hold the story. . but they certainly did pressure them not to publish it.

the paper is saying they investigated what threats to National Security, and then decided to publish . . .and that the "investigation" took approx. a year.

[PatrickG]

Who's in favor of little to no market restrictions, unrestricted civil liberties and generally keeping the government out of people's lives in both economic and moral matters?

Who's closest to that?

I have to say that from what I've seen, Ireland looks like the best nation on the British isles. People generally mind their own business. The government seems pretty neutral in most international matters. There's some welfare/charity/assistance but people hate to take it and prefer private charity.

Or maybe people have sold me a bill of goods about Ireland...

[Mike Smith]

I can't believe Bush just outright admitted to spying today. On top of that he bluntly stated he will keep doing it.

WASHINGTON — President Bush said Saturday he has no intention of stopping his personal authorizations of a post-Sept. 11 secret eavesdropping program in the U.S., lashing out at those involved in revealing it while defending it as crucial to preventing future attacks.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179026,00.html

[west3man]

I can't believe Bush just outright admitted to spying today. On top of that he bluntly stated he will keep doing it.



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179026,00.html
I'm wondering why he admitted it - especially after saying such an admission would threaten national security.

Catch that? He wasn't just saying the spying was BECAUSE of a threat to national security. He said admitting to it or denying it would pose a threat.

The next day, he did just that.


Honestly, I'm less surprised that he authorized these things than some appear to be. He's shown that he'll do what he wants to do and doesn't want to be questioned about it. That seems to be a popular mantra amongst many of those with authority, unfortunately.

[Sabrinaset]

I'm wondering why he admitted it - especially after saying such an admission would threaten national security.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that he wants everyone to know that the gov't is spying on perceived threats because W wants everyone who might actually BE a threat to wonder if they're being watched.


Then again, if I were the Prez, I'd handle it differently, just fling my hair back, say "Is Jayson Blair working for the Times again?", smile, and move on. :)

[Fabian]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that he wants everyone to know that the gov't is spying on perceived threats because W wants everyone who might actually BE a threat to wonder if they're being watched.
You want the people who you want to spy on know you're spying on them? Wouldn't that be counter-productive?

[Mike Smith]

Yeah, Bush was caught with his hand in the cookie jar, now he's acting like it belongs there. I loved Senator Feingold response, it was "absurd" that Bush said he relied on his inherent power as president to authorize the wiretaps.

"If that's true, he doesn't need the Patriot Act because he can just make it up as he goes along. I tell you, he's President George Bush, not King George Bush. This is not the system of government we have and that we fought for," Feingold told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.

[Samurai]

Does "Liberal"?

BTW, anyone else find it odd that the the writer of the story is James Risen, who has a book coming out soon about this very topic? The New York Times in this story says they held off for a year on not printing the story, but I kinda think they've been holding out so they can do promos on his book, and their writer can appear on 60 minutes and do all the usual book-signing stuff.
Plus they can time it to coincidentally come out the day after a rousingly successful vote took place in Iraq, something the left did their best to downplay and shift the topic away from. After an entire year of holding the story, I wonder why they chose that specific day to release it, hmmmmm?

[Fabian]

Plus they can time it to coincidentally come out the day after a rousingly successful vote took place in Iraq, something the left did their best to downplay and shift the topic away from. After an entire year of holding the story, I wonder why they chose that specific day to release it, hmmmmm?
What downplay? All I kept hearing on the news was how Iraq voted and how voter turnout (especially for Sunni voters) achieved or exceeded expectations. That and how some cute little piggy was running around a baseball field.

I'm sure the newspapers will wait for a slow news day to break a story

"Don't use that story Joe, we just had a big news event yesterday and don't want to overshadow it. Use some filler, here, Bendis pissed off some fanboys again"

[west3man]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that he wants everyone to know that the gov't is spying on perceived threats because W wants everyone who might actually BE a threat to wonder if they're being watched. Careful. That's a dry, brittle limb.

He said "the bad guys" having that information would threaten national security. The implication is that he doesn't want them to know they're being spied upon.


But really, if he wanted them to know because this give him some advantage, wouldn't he have told them/us himself... three years, ago, when he first authorized this type of domestic spying? Then, and the 30 or so times, since then, that he renewed that authorization?

[Mabels Folly]

Who's in favor of little to no market restrictions, unrestricted civil liberties and generally keeping the government out of people's lives in both economic and moral matters?

Who's closest to that?

I have to say that from what I've seen, Ireland looks like the best nation on the British isles. People generally mind their own business. The government seems pretty neutral in most international matters. There's some welfare/charity/assistance but people hate to take it and prefer private charity.

Or maybe people have sold me a bill of goods about Ireland...

Convienient of you not to mention that little fact about abortion being completely outlawed/ a taboo subject in Ireland.

Not to mention all of those terrorists in the IRA running around scot free blowing up pubs and such.

[Puma]

Not to mention all of those terrorists in the IRA running around scot free blowing up pubs and such.

really? haven't heard of mass pub explosions for quite some time

[Mabels Folly]

If I see this thing cross-referenced on higher-tier sources, I will be beyond words...




http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml


Heh, this isn't anything new. Shrub has long been described as the stereotypical "spoiled brat' of the Bush family, who throws screaming bitchfests if he doesn't get what he wants. That's why he surrounded himself with yes men and sycophants.

[Sabrinaset]

Heh, this isn't anything new. Shrub has long been described as the stereotypical "spoiled brat' of the Bush family, who throws screaming bitchfests if he doesn't get what he wants. That's why he surrounded himself with yes men and sycophants.

Links and quotes from reputable sources, please?

[Mabels Folly]

Plus they can time it to coincidentally come out the day after a rousingly successful vote took place in Iraq, something the left did their best to downplay and shift the topic away from. After an entire year of holding the story, I wonder why they chose that specific day to release it, hmmmmm?

Please. :rolleyes:

This implies that the Times devoted all of their news coverage to the spy story and none to the Iraqi election which is utterly untrue.

And quit acting like it's some huge mysterious conspiracy. The White House routinely does the exact same thing, except that they, the White House tend to dump stories on Friday afternoons 'cause they know, or hope that people will give less of a shit about the news on the weekend.

[Sabrinaset]

Careful. That's a dry, brittle limb.

I'm lucky I don't weigh much then :)

[Sabrinaset]

Please. :rolleyes:

This implies that the Times devoted all of their news coverage to the spy story and none to the Iraqi election which is utterly untrue.

And quit acting like it's some huge mysterious conspiracy. The White House routinely does the exact same thing, except that they, the White House tend to dump stories on Friday afternoons 'cause they know, or hope that people will give less of a shit about the news on the weekend.

That's been happenning since the Reagan Administration, and probably before then (as stated in The Power Game, by Hedrick Smith). That is nothin' new, Mabels.

Don't read the NYT, because , uhm...I live on the West Coast and all, but I think they probably devoted a lot more coverage to something that their writer is gonna have a book on than something like an election in Iraq that makes W look good. Maybe I'll go to the Library Monday and see how much space the NYT devoted to each subject. Might be interesting.

[Corrina]

Putting aside the horrific civil liberties problem here--which the Russ Feingold quote summed up nicely---has no one noticed that lack of wiretaps were NOT the problem in preventing 9/11?

Intelligence services had *all* the information needed to be on alert for planes to be hijacked and crashed into buildings. They even knew some of these hijackers were here illegally.

The problem was coordinating the information. This part of the Patriot Act I agree with--intelligence services should coordinate info and stop protecting turf.

The solution is not to have a President authorize illegal wiretaps in the hope that something important is stumbled on. The solution is to be far more efficient with the information the intelligence discovers.

But I'm not surprised that Mr. I Went to War on Bad Information and Mr. Brownie You're Doing a Helluva Job thought violating essential civil liberties was a better solution that something like competence.

[spoon_jenkins]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that he wants everyone to know that the gov't is spying on perceived threats because W wants everyone who might actually BE a threat to wonder if they're being watched.
But there are specific laws in existence for how the government can monitor private communications, and apparently the President violated those. Alarmists will try to make it seem that unless we let Bush do whatever the heck he wants we're setting ourselves up to be attacked. That's not true.

There's a procedure for obtaining warrants, and I heard there is also emergency power to monitor communications for a limited time before obtaining a warrant. Our democratic process have determined that this is the appropriate balance of power and safeguards. If Bush believes that's wrong, he has to work to change the law instead of subverting it.

What happened to the conservative love for rule of law? A leader doesn't have a blank check just because some of people think he's a swell guy. So for instance, the Constitution's provision against suspending the writ of habeas corpus (except in certain circumstances) is meant to be relaxed if we like the President. It's the product of a determination that it shouldn't be within the power of the government no matter who runs it.


Then again, if I were the Prez, I'd handle it differently, just fling my hair back, say "Is Jayson Blair working for the Times again?", smile, and move on. :)
It would be pretty scary if we let the most powerful person on earth off the hook for exceeding his powers because some guy reporter did stuff like ripping off passages from others and making up a fake description of what it looked like outside of Jessica Lynch's home.

[Paul McEnery]

Convienient of you not to mention that little fact about abortion being completely outlawed/ a taboo subject in Ireland.

Not to mention all of those terrorists in the IRA running around scot free blowing up pubs and such.
The IRA are Scots?

No wonder we could never catch them.

[Paul McEnery]

Links and quotes from reputable sources, please?
Nah. Editorial comments aside, that's what everyone says about the White House.

[Sabrinaset]

What happened to the conservative love for rule of law? A leader doesn't have a blank check just because some of people think he's a swell guy. So for instance, the Constitution's provision against suspending the writ of habeas corpus (except in certain circumstances) is meant to be relaxed if we like the President. It's the product of a determination that it shouldn't be within the power of the government no matter who runs it.

I feel I have to remind you that, as was noted previously, Senator Rockefeller knew about it. That means a lot of members of Congress did, and that officials said the administration had briefed congressional leaders about the program. What about that would be considered secret, if W was meeting with other congressional leaders, the FISA court, and the judge there. Isn't it odd that the NYT is focusing on W and appears to be glossing over all the others who knew and must have approved?

It would be pretty scary if we let the most powerful person on earth off the hook for exceeding his powers because some guy reporter did stuff like ripping off passages from others and making up a fake description of what it looked like outside of Jessica Lynch's home.

You did see the smiley face at the end of that sentence, right? That was how I would handle it, which is but one reason I'm going to be a surgeon and not a politician! :p It's not like other Presidents have done similar things. Reagan was known for being the Teflon President because of it, and I mean, geez, Clinton wagging his finger and saying "Ah did not have sex with that woman" was enough for his cabinet to believe him (for all that was worth).

[Sabrinaset]

Nah. Editorial comments aside, that's what everyone says about the White House.

Not buying it. Everyone calls him a chimp, retarded, stupid, and/or a liar, but I haven't heard everyone...or indeed, anyone...accuse W of that yet. I want to know where he got that information about W from, and I want it from some place other than an editorial rant from someone who hates W.

The IRA are Scots?

No wonder we could never catch them.

BLAIR!!!!!! is THAT where all my guns went??? :)

[Harry Angel]

That's been happenning since the Reagan Administration, and probably before then (as stated in The Power Game, by Hedrick Smith). That is nothin' new, Mabels.

Don't read the NYT, because , uhm...I live on the West Coast and all, but I think they probably devoted a lot more coverage to something that their writer is gonna have a book on than something like an election in Iraq that makes W look good. Maybe I'll go to the Library Monday and see how much space the NYT devoted to each subject. Might be interesting.


"probably"????

So you base your judgements about things involving news and politics by making guesses?

[Harry Angel]

I feel I have to remind you that, as was noted previously, Senator Rockefeller knew about it. That means a lot of members of Congress did, and that officials said the administration had briefed congressional leaders about the program.


Actually as the lead Democrat on the Intelligence Commitee, Rockefeller was one of the few Democrats in Congress to hear a word about this, and on top of that, although Rockefeller was against the action he was unable under US law to reveal this information without commting a felony.

Just above you asked for links and evidence to back up a anti-Bush statement from another poster. About some actual evidence and links backing up the assertion that this internal spying was common knowlodge among the Congress?

[Dan Apodaca]

Not buying it. Everyone calls him a chimp, retarded, stupid, and/or a liar, but I haven't heard everyone...or indeed, anyone...accuse W of that yet. I want to know where he got that information about W from, and I want it from some place other than an editorial rant from someone who hates W.

Wait, let me get this straight. First you ask for sources to back up a statement of how she's heard that Bush behaves. Now you're saying you want the "proof" to come from someone who's not speaking from their personal viewpoint AND who likes the guy?

You expect a factual account of Bush's spoiled behavior from a supporter?

Or is this some attempt to spring a trap on her, like "See, you're making it up! You're discredited forever!"


Look, people don't need to cite sources and make bibliographies when they're saying what they've heard about someone. It's like when your friend says, "I heard they have free ice cream at Ben and Jerry's tonight!" You check it out, and either get some free ice cream or not. You don't make a big deal about whether or not your friend is making it up or not. Who gives a shit? This isn't about foreign policy or economics. This is about ice cream. This is about Bush's personality.

It's a statement of opinion, passed through multiple mouths.


And, by the way, my dad works with a woman who was part of John McCain's last campaign. She said that the word among political workers is that Bush has a short temper and often flies off the handle at employees. I don't remember the woman's name. But I don't really have to. This anecdote needs no legitimizing.

[Calybos]

So can we finally impeach this bastard yet? Has he broken enough laws, with enough blatancy, for someone to finally grow a spine and file formal charges against him?

[Dan Apodaca]

So can we finally impeach this bastard yet? Has he broken enough laws, with enough blatancy, for someone to finally grow a spine and file formal charges against him?

The real question is, does anyone really think that President Dick Cheney would be any better?

[Harry Angel]

One other bit of amazing chutzpah from all of this is the fact that Bush is kicking and screaming about this information being leaked and demanding that the leaker be found, but who has at the same time very publicly defended the character of known leakers such as Scooter Libby and Karl Rove.

I guess that the adminstrations views on leaks and leakers is very flexable.

[Mabels Folly]

"probably"????

So you base your judgements about things involving news and politics by making guesses?

Why the hell not?

They'd just be following the lead of Shrub's administration, and we can all see how fabulously that's played out over the past 5 years.

[Harry Angel]

Why the hell not?

They'd just be following the lead of Shrub's administration, and we can all see how fabulously that's played out over the past 5 years.



Actually, the administraiton just guessing would explain alot.

[Sabrinaset]

"probably"????

So you base your judgements about things involving news and politics by making guesses?

Which "Probably" are you referring to?

If it's the one about bad news being delivered on a Friday, I'll say it again: Hedrick Smith in The Power Game said the Reagan Administration deliberately did that, and I added that it probably was done before then. If you think Carter wasn't smart enough to figure that out, then possibly it wasn't done before then. I know it's been done afterwards.

If it's the "probably" about the NYT and how much space it devoted to each news item, I said my speculation was based on the fact that the one news story, as it would make W look good, would not have as much space as the other which is written by a staffer who has a book coming out. I also stated that I did not get the NYT, and it might be interesting to go to the library to see for sure if I was correct. Honestly, I don't see how what I wrote could be misconstrued unless someone is TRYING to misconstrue it.

Wait, let me get this straight. First you ask for sources to back up a statement of how she's heard that Bush behaves. Now you're saying you want the "proof" to come from someone who's not speaking from their personal viewpoint AND who likes the guy?You expect a factual account of Bush's spoiled behavior from a supporter?

I did NOT say "from someone who likes the guy." I said I want something like...oh...

President George W. Bush, tired of the increasingly pointed questions asked of him, picked up a vase behind him at the last press briefing and threw it at Clark Kent from the Daily Planet, screaming between obscenities that he knew who he really was...video and quotes to follow...

as opposed to...

Bush SUX! Today I heard he like totally pulled a gun and was firing it at a staff meeting lolllo!!!111one!!!

Is this really too much to ask for? I mean, I can find a streaming video (or at least an audio of it) of Al Gore not recognizing busts of the founding fathers in a museum, so if I say he couldn't recognize them, I can back it up. I don't think this is an unreasonable request.

[Harry Angel]

Which "Probably" are you referring to?

If it's the one about bad news being delivered on a Friday, I'll say it again: Hedrick Smith in The Power Game said the Reagan Administration deliberately did that, and I added that it probably was done before then. If you think Carter wasn't smart enough to figure that out, then possibly it wasn't done before then. I know it's been done afterwards.

If it's the "probably" about the NYT and how much space it devoted to each news item, I said my speculation was based on the fact that the one news story, as it would make W look good, would not have as much space as the other which is written by a staffer who has a book coming out. I also stated that I did not get the NYT, and it might be interesting to go to the library to see for sure if I was correct. Honestly, I don't see how what I wrote could be misconstrued unless someone is TRYING to misconstrue it.


Actually it's both of those plus the several others that you have thrown out.

I understand that you have a political ideology that you want to defend, but I can't help but wonder why you want to constantly make guesses about things that you don't know about to do it.

There are several people that I politically disagree with here on this site, but even the most extreme ones at least attempt to back up their beliefs with something other then guesses.

I would politely suggest that you attempt the same thing.

[Mabels Folly]

I would politely suggest that you attempt the same thing.

I think the current administration and the Republican party have made it quite clear that politeness has no place in today's politics.

[west3man]

So can we finally impeach this bastard yet? Has he broken enough laws, with enough blatancy, for someone to finally grow a spine and file formal charges against him?
NPR hinted at some political, legal, and executive "magic tricks" that'll make this and damn-near any other "cookie" he gets caught with... perfectly within his power and authority.

[Harry Angel]

I think the current administration and the Republican party have made it quite clear that politeness has no place in today's politics.


No argument about that, but still we should certainly try to rise above the manners and morals of those thugs shouldn't we?

[Sabrinaset]

I understand that you have a political ideology that you want to defend, but I can't help but wonder why you want to constantly make guesses about things that you don't know about to do it.

I think when anyone says "probably", they are hedging their bets that they may not DEFINITELY be right. I flat-out said that I wasn't sure about the amount of space in the NYT, and that it would be worth looking into. I flat-out said that the Reagan Administration had done this is the past. I said probably (not definitely...in which case you would have a better argument) it had been done before that. Somehow, these concepts seem to keep getting missed.

[Harry Angel]

NPR hinted at some political, legal, and executive "magic tricks" that'll make this and damn-near any other "cookie" he gets caught with... perfectly within his power and authority.


The magic trick is that his political party controls the Congress and there is no way that they are ever going to bring articles of impeachment against the man no matter how badly he ignores the law.

[Mike Smith]

Let's be honest here. Bush overstepped his recommended bounds, perhaps going over or at most pushing the extreme limit of the law. At any rate, it is not noble, trustworthy, or prudent to spy on Americans without proper warrant. It represents a great potential catastrophe in term of precedent. If these actions by Bush are actually deemed within bound of presidential authority, perhaps it is time for Congress to hold a session titled "New Limits on Exectuive Powers", and "Fitting Procedural Charges for Executive Deviance".

[Harry Angel]

I think that when I say it's a guess, when I state that it's my opinion, that would sort of obviate the fact that I don't know all the facts (or am too busy to look them all up) and am basing my feelings on whatever I know up to that point, which is usually, but not always, based on past behavior. I flat-out said that I wasn't sure about the amount of space in the NYT, and that it would be worth looking into. I flat-out said that the Reagan Administration had done this is the past. I said probably (not definitely...in which case you would have a better argument) it had been done before that. Somehow, these concepts seem to keep getting missed.


Actually despite the fervent hopes of my fellow liberals, there is no real evidence that either the Reagan or original Bush administration ever did anything of the kind. There is also no evidence that the Carter or Clinton administration spied on American citizens either.

That’s what makes this such a big deal in the first place.

You certainly are welcome to have an opinion on the legality or morality of these actions, but having an opinion over if earlier administrations did the same thing or not is completely worthless without having any facts to support or refute the hypothesis.

Wouldn’t you agree?

[Sabrinaset]

One. More. Time.

The Reagan Administration was reported to have done it's press conferences which would have bad news in them on Fridays because it would be harder to refute on the evening news in The Power Game by Hedrick Smith. He also wrote The Russians, BTW. Came out in the middle 80's. You can find it on Amazon, or eBay. What is this, the second or third time I've given this as a source? Even when I give you one, it doesn't seem to be enough.

The Clinton Administration sure looked like it was doing something like spying when Filegate came around though. You remember the discovery of over 900 Republican FBI files in the White House. Files of former Secretary of State James Baker, former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, and Newt Gingrich's spokesman Tony Blankley were found to be on this list. Upon the discovery of these files, the White House issued an excuse claiming that the files were mistakenly requested by a White House employee working with an outdated list. They were called a simple "snafu." Investigations into Filegate revealed that not a common White House worker but the President's friend and close advisor, Anthony Marceca, had requested the files.

[Harry Angel]

One. More. Time.

The Reagan Administration was reported to have done it's press conferences which would have bad news in them on Fridays because it would be harder to refute on the evening news in The Power Game by Hedrick Smith. He also wrote The Russians, BTW. Came out in the middle 80's. You can find it on Amazon, or eBay. What is this, the second or third time I've given this as a source? Even when I give you one, it doesn't seem to be enough.

The Clinton Administration sure looked like it was doing something like spying when Filegate came around though. You remember the discovery of over 900 Republican FBI files in the White House. Files of former Secretary of State James Baker, former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, and Newt Gingrich's spokesman Tony Blankley were found to be on this list. Upon the discovery of these files, the White House issued an excuse claiming that the files were mistakenly requested by a White House employee working with an outdated list. They were called a simple "snafu." Investigations into Filegate revealed that not a common White House worker but the President's friend and close advisor, Anthony Marceca, had requested the files.



Bringing up yet another discredited Clinton "scandal" doesn’t do much to make your case of earlier administrations spying.

After a serious investigation by the Justice Department they concluded that what the Clinton Administration had told the truth, so it really doesn’t fly as an example no matter how much you folks on the Right try to spin it otherwise.

Besides, even playing the conservative game of pretending that Clinton is guilty of everything from drug smuggling to shooting Vince Foster in the head, do you really think that claiming Clinton did the same thing is some kind of excuse for Bush?

[Mike Smith]

Why are we talking about ex-presidents when the issue is Bush and spying? Diversion tactic?

[Justin D.]

Besides, even playing the conservative game of pretending that Clinton is guilty of everything from drug smuggling to shooting Vince Foster in the head, do you really think that claiming Clinton did the same thing is some kind of excuse for Bush?

Can I answer? Well, I will anyway.

"Well, Clinton did that stuff."

"So?"

"See, Clinton got away with all kinds of crimes."

"Actually, he didn't. Besides, we're not talking about him. We're talking about Bush. Besides the crimes not being comparable, it doesn't make Bush's behavior any less heinous. Haven't you ever heard the bit about two wrongs not making a right?"

"Yeah, well, . . . at least Bush didn't sleep with a dumpy intern! Hahahaha!"

".... Yes. Quite well put."

As for proof of Bush's temper tantrums and antagonistic behavior, I'd say look it up yourself, but that's clearly not going to happen or it would have already. So, here. (http://news.google.com/news?q=bush%20temper&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=N&tab=wn) By the way, that's a link to Google's news search engine using the words "Bush" and "temper". If you look about 14 links down, you'll see a piece by the Washington Times which references Newsweek's cover story on Bush's behaviors, both politically and personally, that came out this week. I think those should qualify as the beginnings of reputable sources. It's not a highly guarded secret.

[Iangould]

Who's in favor of little to no market restrictions, unrestricted civil liberties and generally keeping the government out of people's lives in both economic and moral matters?

Who's closest to that?

I have to say that from what I've seen, Ireland looks like the best nation on the British isles. People generally mind their own business. The government seems pretty neutral in most international matters. There's some welfare/charity/assistance but people hate to take it and prefer private charity.

Or maybe people have sold me a bill of goods about Ireland...

Assuming you're referring to the Irish Republic:

1. The Catholic Church still has a large (although diminished) role in politics which is reflected in restrictive divorce and abortion laws;

2. They're EU members and therefore subject to all the EU laws and treaties;

3. They receive MASSIVE (absurd even) "regional" funding from the EU which amount to something ludicrous like 10% of GDP. This is what allows them to keep taxes low while pumping huge amounts into industry development and education.

[Wesley Dodds]

The truly bizarre aspect of this story is that under FICA they could have easily gotten warrants for wiretaps -- there's even a provision in the act that allows the Attorney-General to authorise a wiretap without a warrant provided they see a court within 72 hours.

So, what the Hell is going on here? Why would the Administration step outside the law to do something they could just as easily done within the law?

My first thought was that this was part of Bush's attempts to expand the power of the presidency -- he wants to leave the office a little more powerful than when he took it up, and diminishing oversight of executive actions is the best way of doing that.

But I'm starting to wonder if there's something more to this -- perhaps they've been using wiretaps for something completely unacceptable, like spying on political opponents?

[cactusmaac]

Under the provisions of FISA, spying on foreign communications between US nationals and foreign nationals is permissible and doesn't require a warrant :

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL30465.pdf (p.13)

A warrant is only needed if the subject communications are wholly contained in the United States and involve a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.

Unless the text of the Executive Order is to hand and more is known about what was actually monitored, then it's difficult to comment on if there was any illegality or not.

That seems doubtful given the number of lawyers involved. From Bush' speech:

The NSA's activities under this authorization are thoroughly reviewed by the Justice Department and NSA's top legal officials, including NSA's general counsel and inspector general. Leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it. Intelligence officials involved in this activity also receive extensive training to ensure they perform their duties consistent with the letter and intent of the authorization.

Doesn't look like a scandal.

[Rabid Trekkie]

Or we should abandon or severely restrict most of the Patriot Act provisions, and kick the people who do this sort of shit - and those who support them - out of office.

You know until I heard this yesterday I still had the slightest glimmer of hope for Bush. Now I'm in agreement with you. Time for his ass to go.

[Harry Angel]

Under the provisions of FISA, spying on foreign communications between US nationals and foreign nationals is permissible and doesn't require a warrant :

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL30465.pdf (p.13)

A warrant is only needed if the subject communications are wholly contained in the United States and involve a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.

Unless the text of the Executive Order is to hand and more is known about what was actually monitored, then it's difficult to comment on if there was any illegality or not.

That seems doubtful given the number of lawyers involved. From Bush' speech:



Doesn't look like a scandal.




If I could ask just one serious question.

Over and over again this administration has been discovered doing things that if not out right illegal are at the very least unethical and at least partially out of sync with the Constitution.

I won’t give the whole laundry list, but you know the basics, spying on citizens, holding citizens without the right to trial or council, rendering prisoners for torture, etc, etc..

So I have got to ask, and I really hope that you and several other of the more conservative posters will answer, what exactly does this man have to do before you guys stop defending his actions?

Hell, he isn’t even a fiscal conservative, let alone a social one, so what is it that makes you folks just keep right on supporting him?

I would really like to know.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Doesn't look like a scandal.

So in your eyes, the president is allowed to break the law?

[PatrickG]

I just saw McCain on "This Week".

MOCK EXECUTIONS? I never caught that this was among the torture measures. (Not that I support torture.)

Don't mock executions rely on people believing that we would perform REAL executions?

And why the HELL would we even want our worst enemies to mistake us for sadistic bastards like that?

I think we need to stand on principle even if it impacts our ability to play rough in order to potentially save lives. Life is not as important as liberty and principle. We need leaders who understand and believe in preserving principles and ethics ahead of some quest against evil in the world. We shouldn't stoop to other people's level nor should we give the impression that we would.

Soldiers in Iraq are supposedly dying for our way of life and their sacrifice is voided every time we even offer the hint that we would violate liberty and principle in the name of supposed pragmatism.

You know what? We lost 2,000 people in a terrorist attack. It's a terrible tragedy that most of us as Americans will remember until our graves.

But terrorism happens. It happens all over the world. We were lucky it took as long as it did to hit us. And we weren't attacked because we weren't playing dirty enough.

The dirtier we fight, the worse danger we are in.

Gotta go... George Will is on TV and making a LOT of sense...

[Sabrinaset]

Why are we talking about ex-presidents when the issue is Bush and spying? Diversion tactic?

Nope. I brought it up only after Harry Angel said "There is also no evidence that the Carter or Clinton administration spied on American citizens either." To which I would say, well, if the Bush Administration had YOUR FBI file, would you call it spying? Would you call it a violation on your civil rights? Of course you would.
Geez, Angel, I was talking about Administrations using Fridays to dump bad news on the general population. I was not talking about any administrations spying, at least, in this thread, until YOU brought it up.

And regarding..."even playing the conservative game of pretending that Clinton is guilty of everything from drug smuggling to shooting Vince Foster in the head, do you really think that claiming Clinton did the same thing is some kind of excuse for Bush?" Well...I remember during MonicaGate, that a number of people started talking about the affair Jefferson had with one of his slaves. I remember articles coming out about other Presidents having affairs. I even remember a cartoon by Conrad in the LA Times with Clinton, his arm around Jefferson's shoulder, saying "Go ahead, impeach him too!" So I would say it is not so much a conservative game as a political one.

Bottom line: Seems to be okay for liberals to defend Clinton by pointing to the behavior of other Presidents, can't see why conservatives can't do the same. Really, if Hillary is elected, you know the same thing will occur.


Justin: I would accept that as a reasonable account of W being in a bubble/losing his temper. THAT was all I was asking for.

[Alex Scott]

Under the provisions of FISA, spying on foreign communications between US nationals and foreign nationals is permissible and doesn't require a warrant :

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL30465.pdf (p.13)

A warrant is only needed if the subject communications are wholly contained in the United States and involve a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.

Unless the text of the Executive Order is to hand and more is known about what was actually monitored, then it's difficult to comment on if there was any illegality or not.

That seems doubtful given the number of lawyers involved. From Bush' speech:

Doesn't look like a scandal.
Hang on, though.

I clicked the link, and found the relevant page. I assume you're talking about this part:

Under 50 U.S.C. § 1802, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information for up to one year without a court order if two criteria are satisfied. First, to utilize this authority, the Attorney General must certify in writing under oath that:
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at —
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by
means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign
powers, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken
communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open
and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801(a)(1),
(2) or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the
contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party. . .
So, unless I'm misreading this, according to the link you posted, the law expressly forbids electronic surveillance that involves US citizens without a warrant. Where can I find the part that supports your assertion?

(*edit*: corrected a bit)

[PatrickG]

Even if it is legal...

Do we really want a government that will do whatever is technically legal to protect us?

[Mike Smash!]

Even if it is legal...

Do we really want a government that will do whatever is technically legal to protect us?Big word being "technically".

The government is spying on peace groups and admitting it. They're spying on the Quakers!??

I mean, even if you love Bush, doesn't this seem weird to you?

And to brush it off not by defending the ethics of the actions, but it's legality seems like spin to me.

Government shouldn't be watching its people like a hawk. People should be watching their government like a hawk.

This news should send a chill down our collective spines.

[Sabrinaset]

So, unless I'm misreading this, according to the link you posted, the law expressly forbids electronic surveillance that involves US citizens. Where can I find the part that supports your assertion?

At 90 pages, at least on my computer, I am not reading all of that! How much of that did you trudge through? I made it through 20+ pages...

On the other hand, that "There is no substantial likelihood", from where this non-lawyer sits, looks like a loophole that half a dozen trained lawyers will drive an SUV through.

Mike Smash, the way YOU put it, THAT I can agree with. Dunno what the Quakers have done, unless W just isn't an oatmeal fan. Unless al-Quada has infiltrated the Quakers. Hmm...!

[Mike Smash!]

At 90 pages, at least on my computer, I am not reading all of that! How much of that did you trudge through? I made it through 20+ pages...

On the other hand, that "There is no substantial likelihood", from where this non-lawyer sits, looks like a loophole that half a dozen trained lawyers will drive an SUV through.

Mike Smash, the way YOU put it, THAT I can agree with. Dunno what the Quakers have done, unless W just isn't an oatmeal fan. Unless al-Quada has infiltrated the Quakers. Hmm...!These are Americans that are being spied on and the Quakers and other peace, counter recruitment and anti-war groups have been spied on and even inflitrated in the name of "homeland" security since 9/11.

Alot of these files have been released so far and groups like the Quakers are listed as "threat".

This was done in the 1960s as well and what I fear in the reinstatement of activities by the government where government agents undercover in antiwar groups would attempt to incite the groups into violence from within to discredit or bust them.

There are people out there that do want to kill us and they aren't peaceful demonstrators. Dissent is healthy and patriotic and this administration is treating it as if it's criminal activity.

[BlairH]

These are Americans that are being spied on
I heard somewhere that it was American communications with internationals. Apparently that was the whole premise of the programme, trying to detect and counter these communications (it was brought about by the notion that the 9/11 terror cell had been in contact with cells abroad).

Yes they are Americans, but no, they're not exactly going 1984 on you guys yet.

and the Quakers and other peace, counter recruitment and anti-war groups have been spied on and even inflitrated in the name of "homeland" security since 9/11.
Can't say I support this. I know what it's like: There was an undercover police officer in my gun club for a period of time.

This was done in the 1960s as well and what I fear in the reinstatement of activities by the government where government agents undercover in antiwar groups would attempt to incite the groups into violence from within to discredit or bust them.
The Government can not be blamed for all violent acts carried out by some individuals in the peace groups. There are violent individuals present in all walks of life, some of them found their way into the anti-war groups.

Dissent is healthy and patriotic
True

and this administration is treating it as if it's criminal activity.
Dissent is not dissent unless it is treated with distain by those in power.

[Mike Smash!]

The Government can not be blamed for all violent acts carried out by some individuals in the peace groups. There are violent individuals present in all walks of life, some of them found their way into the anti-war groups.No, they can't but undercover agents and cops DID join peace activist groups in the 60s and DID get orders to incite violence from within the group.

More of that, here (http://www.monitor.net/monitor/9905a/jbcointelpro.html). Read this and tell me how you would feel if the UK were doing this to your gun club.

[BlairH]

No, they can't but undercover agents and cops DID join peace activist groups in the 60s and DID get orders to incite violence from within the group.

More of that, here (http://www.monitor.net/monitor/9905a/jbcointelpro.html).

I guess I'll have to read Glick's well-documented and heavily footnoted "War At Home."

[Mike Smash!]

I guess I'll have to read Glick's well-documented and heavily footnoted "War At Home."http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0896083497/qid%3D1134936795/026-9116350-0143624

[BlairH]

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0896083497/qid%3D1134936795/026-9116350-0143624

I'm sure the Library at my University will have a copy.

(checks) yes it has.

[Samurai]

These are Americans that are being spied on and the Quakers and other peace, counter recruitment and anti-war groups have been spied on and even inflitrated in the name of "homeland" security since 9/11.

Alot of these files have been released so far and groups like the Quakers are listed as "threat".

This was done in the 1960s as well and what I fear in the reinstatement of activities by the government where government agents undercover in antiwar groups would attempt to incite the groups into violence from within to discredit or bust them.

There are people out there that do want to kill us and they aren't peaceful demonstrators. Dissent is healthy and patriotic and this administration is treating it as if it's criminal activity.
Got any proof that the Quakers were labelled a "threat"? Because that just sounds silly to me... ANSWER and Black Bloc groups I can totally see, but not the Quakers...

[PatrickG]

WASHINGTON - A year ago, at a Quaker Meeting House in Lake Worth, Fla., a small group of activists met to plan a protest of military recruiting at local high schools. What they didn't know was that their meeting had come to the attention of the U.S. military.

A secret 400-page Defense Department document obtained by NBC News lists the Lake Worth meeting as a “threat” and one of more than 1,500 “suspicious incidents” across the country over a recent 10-month period.

“This peaceful, educationally oriented group being a threat is incredible,” says Evy Grachow, a member of the Florida group called The Truth Project.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/

The group was later found not to be a credible threat but the Department of Defense maintained a file on them... And there is outrage that the group was investigated in the first place.

“It means that they’re actually collecting information about who’s at those protests, the descriptions of vehicles at those protests,” says Arkin. “On the domestic level, this is unprecedented,” he says. “I think it's the beginning of enormous problems and enormous mischief for the military.”

Some former senior DOD intelligence officials share his concern. George Lotz, a 30-year career DOD official and former U.S. Air Force colonel, held the post of Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Oversight from 1998 until his retirement last May. Lotz, who recently began a consulting business to help train and educate intelligence agencies and improve oversight of their collection process, believes some of the information the DOD has been collecting is not justified.

...

Pyle, now a professor at Mt. Holyoke College in Massachusetts, says some of the information in the database suggests the military may be dangerously close to repeating its past mistakes.

“The documents tell me that military intelligence is back conducting investigations and maintaining records on civilian political activity. The military made promises that it would not do this again,” he says.

[Samurai]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/

The group was later found not to be a credible threat but the Department of Defense maintained a file on them... And there is outrage that the group was investigated in the first place.
As I thought... it isn't the Quakers at all. It was an activist group called the Truth Project that held a meeting at a Quaker Lodge. The same way many different groups have meetings in our town's Masonic Lodge and Elk's Lodge.

[BlairH]

As I thought... it isn't the Quakers at all. It was an activist group called the Truth Project that held a meeting at a Quaker Lodge. The same way many different groups have meetings in our town's Masonic Lodge and Elk's Lodge.

Other.....Other groups can use your Masonic Lodge?

Not in Scotland they can't!

[Alex Scott]

At 90 pages, at least on my computer, I am not reading all of that! How much of that did you trudge through? I made it through 20+ pages...
I didn't. Page 13 was cited specifically, and I figured that was the relevant part of that page; since it didn't appear to make cactusmaac's point, I'd like to know what in that document does before I try to trudge through it.

On the other hand, the law itself (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36_20_I.html) isn't as much of a chore to deal with. And it does look like it gives US citizens quite a few protections against spying--though I still need to read it in full, myself.

[Sabrinaset]

Other.....Other groups can use your Masonic Lodge?

Not in Scotland they can't!

Many groups use the Masonic Lodges here in America. Besides the Masonic-affiliated groups such as DeMolay, the Job's Daughters and Rainbow for Girls, some church groups meet in them on Sundays. The Masonic groups are hard-up for money,and apparently recruits, nowadays from what I hear from a friend who is in Eastern Star. Well, maybe it's just the local lodges.

I imagine that Masonry must be doing better in Europe, although there's no real way to tell as regards a secret society, I suppose.

[Samurai]

Other.....Other groups can use your Masonic Lodge?

Not in Scotland they can't!
Heck, one of my friends rented the Masonic Lodge for his wedding reception, and he's not a mason at all. Such lodges here are simply meeting halls open for public rental to anyone who wants it except when the group that owns it has their meeting there. Saying a group had a meeting at the Quaker Lodge no more makes them Quakers than if they'd held the meeting in a Best Western Motel makes them Best Westerm employees...

[BlairH]

Many groups use the Masonic Lodges here in America. Besides the Masonic-affiliated groups such as DeMolay, the Job's Daughters and Rainbow for Girls, some church groups meet in them on Sundays. The Masonic groups are hard-up for money,and apparently recruits, nowadays from what I hear from a friend who is in Eastern Star. Well, maybe it's just the local lodges.

I imagine that Masonry must be doing better in Europe, although there's no real way to tell as regards a secret society, I suppose.

I have a funny feeling* that Scotland is the country in which Freemasonry flourishes the most....


*hehehe!

[PatrickG]

Although in this case, the Truth Project included a few Quakers.

But Masonic groups generally are a bit more mercantile over here.

[Michael P]

As I thought... it isn't the Quakers at all. It was an activist group called the Truth Project that held a meeting at a Quaker Lodge. The same way many different groups have meetings in our town's Masonic Lodge and Elk's Lodge.
Oh, gee, then that makes it OK.

Oh, wait. No it doesn't.

[Justin D.]

Justin: I would accept that as a reasonable account of W being in a bubble/losing his temper. THAT was all I was asking for.

Glad to hear it. However, I'm not trying to be a dick here, but couldn't you have found that yourself? All I did was type in the words Bush and temper into Google's search engine. Obviously, the wonders of the internet is at your fingertips. It just seems that people often say, "Find me proof" when they could just as easily find that proof, or show how difficult it is to do so, themselves in a few seconds, maybe minutes. Now, from time to time, I'm admittedly too lazy myself to look something up. My problem is when people believe what others say just because it's someone well-known. This mostly applies to pundits who spout off some bit of damning or amazing information and the people who respond with shock/amazement/thanks without much independent thought or reseach of their own.

I do have the same question that Harry Angel does. What makes people keep supporting this man and his administration? If he was not in the Republican party, but was still involved with all that Bush has been involved in during the last year, wouldn't Republicans demand his impeachment? If nothing else, Bush is making it so the next president can do little wrong.

[Samurai]

Oh, gee, then that makes it OK.

Oh, wait. No it doesn't.
That's debatable. But it certainly puts the lie to the "OMFG, they're even investigating the QUAKERS now!" that Mike has been spreading on every thread about this...

[Justin D.]

That's debatable. But it certainly puts the lie to the "OMFG, they're even investigating the QUAKERS now!" that Mike has been spreading on every thread about this...

Don't see how it's debatable.

[Calybos]

Samurai, you seem to be suggesting that there are vague, nebulous "anti-American" groups in this country whose civil rights it's OK to violate in the name of national security. And as long as they're groups whose agenda you disagree with, you think the Constitution doesn't (or shouldn't) apply to them.

How do you figure that? And how do you identify them--or should we just trust the government not to abuse its power?

[Samurai]

Samurai, you seem to be suggesting that there are vague, nebulous "anti-American" groups in this country whose civil rights it's OK to violate in the name of national security. And as long as they're groups whose agenda you disagree with, you think the Constitution doesn't (or shouldn't) apply to them.

How do you figure that? And how do you identify them--or should we just trust the government not to abuse its power?
Again, I don't believe that it violates "civil rights" to listen in on international calls between high level Al Queda operatives and their agents in this country. And when such people have been identified, investigating them is the only sane and rational thing to do. If several of them belong to a radical political organization, investigating that organization is then the prudent thing to do, to see if other cell members are part of the group as well.

There was review of these actions numerous times by numerous people, including leaders of Congress on at least 12 occassions. That sounds to me like this was not some rogue operation but a legitimate espionage effort. Spying works best when you don't publically blab to everyone what you're doing, how you're doing it, and whom you are looking into, so how is the govt supposed to do that openly and publically? It can't. We can only trust that the protections in place have been followed, unless we see a lot of evidence to the contrary. Have large numbers of peace activists been rounded up by the govt? No. So, at the moment, I believe that the program was limited to the necessary targets and not some massive conspiracy against the left...

[Calybos]

And the decision to bypass warrants? Was that okay, too?

But more to the point: who do you trust to identify "enemies of the state" in the first place? You're okay with wiretapping agents of enemy powers... but who do the feds have to satisfy that the target truly IS an agent, as opposed to a standard private citizen?

It's no good to say "They'll only use this police snooping power against bad guys," but freedom requires the government to be accountable and checked at every turn... because every government has an itch for more police power that can only be constrained by accountability and transparency.

The feds have tried to skip around those requirements this time, and they'd bloody well better be punished for it.

[Sabrinaset]

Glad to hear it. However...

I do have the same question that Harry Angel does. What makes people keep supporting this man and his administration?

I typed in "Bush Screaming" into my search engine, and Bush..." something else as well and found nothing. Well, nothing of use, anyway. By the way, when I'm on-line, I'm usually typing while reading/studying for a med exam, or typing a term paper on the other 'puter...so detailed research is usually too much to ask of my blonde lil head. I just got to be second in my class, and I'm trying for number one! :)
In fact, there was one thread in which I must have done a number of links to support one argument or another...I think it was the one on the Muslim Rioting in France...and the next day I got a 92 on my exam. I usually get 100's. Curse you, CBR! :) (Okay...it was really my fault, but still...)

Why do *I* support him? This reminds me of another political cartoon I saw during the Clinton Administration. A woman labeled "NOW", I think, was responding to a reporter holding papers labeled "Monica","Kathleen","fill-in-the-woman-Clinton-dated-name" with the answer "Why do I support him? Because of the children!" and, next to her was Bill with a child under one arm and some childrens bill he'd just signed in the other.
I support him because I believe his beliefs come closest to what mine are, at least insofar as any politician has beliefs. Certainly, to me, no Democrat comes close. If there is a politician out there who comes closer, I'll support him. Is W perfect? Nope. Especially when it comes to illegal immigration. But I'm not seeing someone out there...at least since Reagan...who's better.

My beliefs?

I believe there is a God.
I believe that abortion is murder.
I believe that if it weren't for profit-seeking businesses, none of us would have jobs.
I believe there's nothing wrong with seeking and acquiring wealth.
I believe if you get lung cancer from smoking, it's your own fault, and no one else should be held liable.
I believe every child needs a mother and father. The best parents for a child are his own parents.
I believe the nuclear family -- one man, one woman, and their children -- is the fundamental building block of any society.
I believe in helping individuals with their own money. I believe the other side believes in helping others with other peoples' money.
I believe the government is not capable of growing the U.S. economy. That's the role of the private sector.
I believe Presidents do not create jobs. The free-market economy takes care of that.
I believe there are only two things government can do to help end a recession: cut taxes and get out of the way of the private sector.
I believe there is no separation of church and state to be found anywhere in the U.S. Constitution or its Amendments.
I believe guns don't kill people. People kill people.
I believe the Second Amendment makes all the others possible.
I believe no nation has ever taxed itself into prosperity.
I believe Conservatism works whenever it's applied. Socialism, on the other hand, has failed every time it has been attempted.
I believe ordinary Americans are and always have been capable of doing extraordinary things.
I believe political correctness is the product of busybodies who actively seek ways to be offended.
I believe Welfare has created more poverty than any other factor in this nation's history.
I believe the terrorist strikes of September 11, 2001 were caused by Islamic militants, and were the fault of no one else.
I believe Liberals vehemently oppose placing conservatives on the judiciary, because the only way the left can advance its agenda is the willingness of activist judges to rewrite laws in their favor.
I believe the desire of environmentalists is not to protect the environment. It's to destroy capitalism.
I believe diplomacy and negotiation do not produce peace. Military victory and deterrence produce peace.
I believe feminists ostracize masculinity in men while at the same time trying to make themselves appear more masculine.
I believe the key word in the phrase "illegal alien" is "illegal."
I believe tax cuts do not cause deficits. Overspending causes deficits.
I believe that as long as liberals pay homage to affirmative action, diversity, and multi-culturalism, Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream will never be realized.
I believe that every action has a consequence.

[BlairH]

My beliefs?

I believe there is a God.
I believe that abortion is murder.
I believe that if it weren't for profit-seeking businesses, none of us would have jobs.
I believe there's nothing wrong with seeking and acquiring wealth.
I believe if you get lung cancer from smoking, it's your own fault, and no one else should be held liable.
I believe every child needs a mother and father. The best parents for a child are his own parents.
I believe the nuclear family -- one man, one woman, and their children -- is the fundamental building block of any society.
I believe in helping individuals with their own money. I believe the other side believes in helping others with other peoples' money.
I believe the government is not capable of growing the U.S. economy. That's the role of the private sector.
I believe Presidents do not create jobs. The free-market economy takes care of that.
I believe there are only two things government can do to help end a recession: cut taxes and get out of the way of the private sector.
I believe there is no separation of church and state to be found anywhere in the U.S. Constitution or its Amendments.
I believe guns don't kill people. People kill people.
I believe the Second Amendment makes all the others possible.
I believe no nation has ever taxed itself into prosperity.
I believe Conservatism works whenever it's applied. Socialism, on the other hand, has failed every time it has been attempted.
I believe ordinary Americans are and always have been capable of doing extraordinary things.
I believe political correctness is the product of busybodies who actively seek ways to be offended.
I believe Welfare has created more poverty than any other factor in this nation's history.
I believe the terrorist strikes of September 11, 2001 were caused by Islamic militants, and were the fault of no one else.
I believe Liberals vehemently oppose placing conservatives on the judiciary, because the only way the left can advance its agenda is the willingness of activist judges to rewrite laws in their favor.
I believe the desire of environmentalists is not to protect the environment. It's to destroy capitalism.
I believe diplomacy and negotiation do not produce peace. Military victory and deterrence produce peace.
I believe feminists ostracize masculinity in men while at the same time trying to make themselves appear more masculine.
I believe the key word in the phrase "illegal alien" is "illegal."
I believe tax cuts do not cause deficits. Overspending causes deficits.
I believe that as long as liberals pay homage to affirmative action, diversity, and multi-culturalism, Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream will never be realized.
I believe that every action has a consequence.
You must be my long lost twin sister or something because I agree with every single one of your points. Every single one.

Run for political office now!

[Paul McEnery]

Sabrina --

Not to be a dick about it, but your list of beliefs doesn't make too much sense. I mean, I do suppose that's the point of beliefs, that they fill in the gaps between facts. But they ought to at least have meaning, and not be counterfactual, or what's the point.


I believe there is a God.

Define your terms.


I believe that abortion is murder.

That's not a belief, that's a value judgement.


I believe that if it weren't for profit-seeking businesses, none of us would have jobs.

That's axiomatic. Only employers hire employees. You're assuming the consequent.


I believe there's nothing wrong with seeking and acquiring wealth.

So you're pro-theft.


I believe every child needs a mother and father. The best parents for a child are his own parents.

That's untrue, and all the studies prove it.


I believe the nuclear family -- one man, one woman, and their children -- is the fundamental building block of any society.

And that's a lie. Many societies operate on a different principle. So, for that matter, does ours.


I believe in helping individuals with their own money. I believe the other side believes in helping others with other peoples' money.

Which is not borne out by the facts.


I believe the government is not capable of growing the U.S. economy. That's the role of the private sector.

Then you have no understanding of international trade, or of how all western economies depend upon the governmentally supported arms trade.


I believe Presidents do not create jobs. The free-market economy takes care of that.

Then you have no understanding of how governmental involvement in the economy, a la Greenspan, alters the employment situation.


I believe there are only two things government can do to help end a recession: cut taxes and get out of the way of the private sector.

Neither of which end recessions in themselves, and FDR's approach seemed to do the trick.


I believe there is no separation of church and state to be found anywhere in the U.S. Constitution or its Amendments.

Then you are unable to understand the meaning of "establishment".


I believe no nation has ever taxed itself into prosperity.

England.


I believe Conservatism works whenever it's applied. Socialism, on the other hand, has failed every time it has been attempted.

What does "work" mean here? And has there ever been a socialist government that wasn't either at war with or subverted by America?


I believe Welfare has created more poverty than any other factor in this nation's history.

Then you know nothing about the history of the trades union movement, nor of racism in this country.


I believe the terrorist strikes of September 11, 2001 were caused by Islamic militants, and were the fault of no one else.

Then you don't understand international politics.


I believe Liberals vehemently oppose placing conservatives on the judiciary, because the only way the left can advance its agenda is the willingness of activist judges to rewrite laws in their favor.

This one's the most hypocritical and dippy. Four legs good, two legs bad.


I believe the desire of environmentalists is not to protect the environment. It's to destroy capitalism.

Capitalism doesn't exist. Unchecked corporations destroy the environment.


I believe diplomacy and negotiation do not produce peace. Military victory and deterrence produce peace.

Thank God you have nothing to do with Palestine or Northern Ireland, then.


I believe feminists ostracize masculinity in men while at the same time trying to make themselves appear more masculine.

Get back in the kitchen, wench. And take those shoes off. :evilsmile


I believe tax cuts do not cause deficits. Overspending causes deficits.

Inane. Spending more than you earn causes deficits. So you'd better tax appropriately.


I believe that as long as liberals pay homage to affirmative action, diversity, and multi-culturalism, Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream will never be realized.

Well now that's not only stupid, it's offensive. It's only because of liberal commitment to ending not only discrimination but the consequences of discrimination that any discrimination has been ended.

And besides: who's going to be the culture nazi who tells us how we can behave, which religion we can practice, what language we're allowed to use, and all those other things that the second amendment, which you so supposedly revere, guarantee?


I believe that every action has a consequence.
Return to your comment about 9/11.

[Alex]

Ijust have one question.
Why is this a story?
Really, didn't we already know this was going on, and wasn't it one of the basis for attack of the patriot act?
Because i'm 100% postive i heard people on tv and on these boards screaming about this going on.
So...why does this story seem so important if we knew it was happening?
and why is Bush admitting it happened when...i thought we already knew it was happening.

[Mike Smash!]

Sabrina --

Not to be a dick about it, but your list of beliefs doesn't make too much sense. I mean, I do suppose that's the point of beliefs, that they fill in the gaps between facts. But they ought to at least have meaning, and not be counterfactual, or what's the point.


Define your terms.


That's not a belief, that's a value judgement.


That's axiomatic. Only employers hire employees. You're assuming the consequent.


So you're pro-theft.


That's untrue, and all the studies prove it.


And that's a lie. Many societies operate on a different principle. So, for that matter, does ours.


Which is not borne out by the facts.


Then you have no understanding of international trade, or of how all western economies depend upon the governmentally supported arms trade.


Then you have no understanding of how governmental involvement in the economy, a la Greenspan, alters the employment situation.


Neither of which end recessions in themselves, and FDR's approach seemed to do the trick.


Then you are unable to understand the meaning of "establishment".


England.


What does "work" mean here? And has there ever been a socialist government that wasn't either at war with or subverted by America?


Then you know nothing about the history of the trades union movement, nor of racism in this country.


Then you don't understand international politics.


This one's the most hypocritical and dippy. Four legs good, two legs bad.


Capitalism doesn't exist. Unchecked corporations destroy the environment.


Thank God you have nothing to do with Palestine or Northern Ireland, then.


Get back in the kitchen, wench. And take those shoes off. :evilsmile


Inane. Spending more than you earn causes deficits. So you'd better tax appropriately.


Well now that's not only stupid, it's offensive. It's only because of liberal commitment to ending not only discrimination but the consequences of discrimination that any discrimination has been ended.

And besides: who's going to be the culture nazi who tells us how we can behave, which religion we can practice, what language we're allowed to use, and all those other things that the second amendment, which you so supposedly revere, guarantee?


Return to your comment about 9/11....Marry me.

[Noah Johnson]

My beliefs?

And really, that is the problem with the modern right wing. You have principles, and you're committed to them, in the form of these beliefs. And when observable fact runs counter to these beliefs, you do not modify said beliefs. Instead, the facts must be wrong.

This basic strain of intellectual dishonesty and failure runs through just about every aspect of the modern conservative movement, and it causes nothing but trouble. Indeed, it makes its adherents, Bush foremost among them, functionally stupid regardless of their actual intelligence.

Your beliefs, clearly held in the face of observable fact, constitute the greatest failing of, and danger to, this great nation. Yes, there are external threats. But those can be dealt with through clear-headed intelligence and application. An ideology that is so firmly opposed to clear-headed intelligence, however, will doom us.

[Paul McEnery]

Ijust have one question.
Why is this a story?
Really, didn't we already know this was going on, and wasn't it one of the basis for attack of the patriot act?
Because i'm 100% postive i heard people on tv and on these boards screaming about this going on.
So...why does this story seem so important if we knew it was happening?
and why is Bush admitting it happened when...i thought we already knew it was happening.
Mostly because Bush went behind the country's back on this, and someone at the NSA decided it was time the country knew about it.

Once again, we're at the point where Bush was cheating on the country, and now he's up in front of God and everyone swearing blind that it's not cheating if, er, look, it's important that the President gets a little illicit information now and again. And it wouldn't have hurt you if you'd never found it.

[BlairH]

Not to be a dick about it, but your list of beliefs doesn't make too much sense. I mean, I do suppose that's the point of beliefs, that they fill in the gaps between facts. But they ought to at least have meaning, and not be counterfactual, or what's the point.

Paul, seriously I don't want to come off as an arse here, but your "debunk" of Sabrina's beliefs came across as a bit...well...we'll see.


Define your terms.
How? Why? A belief in God requires no justification.


That's not a belief, that's a value judgement.
It's a belief. "I believe abortion is just not cricket!"


So you're pro-theft.
No, because we believe in private property laws.


That's untrue, and all the studies prove it.
Is the opposite true? How many factors do these studies take into account? What about generally hard to trace variables? Are the kids involved given psych evals?

England.
Have you seen England lately? When I say "England", I'm talking about the UK as a whole, but the place really is going down the tubes man.

What does "work" mean here? And has there ever been a socialist government that wasn't either at war with or subverted by America?
England :p

Then you know nothing about the history of the trades union movement, nor of racism in this country.
Harsh. You assume she knows little just because she came to a different conclusion than you.

Then you don't understand international politics.
See above

This one's the most hypocritical and dippy. Four legs good, two legs bad.
See above. Assuming motive (unconscious or not) "hypocritical" nature based on differing opinion.

Capitalism doesn't exist. Unchecked corporations destroy the environment.
Socialism doesn't exist. Regulatory Goverments crush the soul, and stifle producticity and creativity.

Thank God you have nothing to do with Palestine or Northern Ireland, then.
God? Define your terms :p


Inane. Spending more than you earn causes deficits. So you'd better tax appropriately.
Or decrease spending. Heck, you can actually get more tax income by cutting taxes, and hence creating more wealth and hence encouraging more purchases (sales tax), leading to an overall boost in Governmental income. Reaganomics at work!


Well now that's not only stupid, it's offensive. It's only because of liberal commitment to ending not only discrimination but the consequences of discrimination that any discrimination has been ended.
I'd be reasonably offended if somebody called one of my beliefs "stupid and offensive". Indeed, I consider affermative action to be offensive to minorities and other protected groups.

[BlairH]

that is the problem with the modern right wing. You have principles

"You and your pathetic human principles are at an end! mwahahahahaha!"

[Sabrinaset]

Blair did a good job defending me, so I won't spend too much time on this. Here goes...

Clarify my terms in my belief is God? I'm sorry but...whaaaa...?
I believe abortion is wrong. So, like, if you believe abortion is right, is that a value judgement as well? Again...whaaaa...?
It appears to me that Conservatives believe that private enterprise creates jobs, and Liberals believe that the government does.
Believing that I'm for the acquisition of wealth also means I'm for theft is so ridiculous an acusation as to be ludicrous.
When it comes to the family, can you NOT say that two parents are not better than one, even just from a financial standpoint? That both a mother AND father are better than, say, just one OR the other?
Does the other side believe in helping people with others people money? Uhm...Welfare? That's taking my money and giving it to someone else, creating an incentive to not work...
I think WWII did more to end the depression than FDR's programs did...not to say that he didn't handle the wartime economy brillianty.

...and you know what? I've just found out another belief of mine, as borne out by several posters.

I believe that conservatives will map out their beliefs. I believe that the other side has no beliefs save in mocking or denying what conservatives say or do. Sort of like what the current Democratic Party does. Apparently, it's only core value is "Bush is Wrong!"

Okay, maybe that's a bit harsh, but still, based on the responses to my post...

Is there any belief that cannot be deconstructed with an exception? Don't think so, and yes, that's your right to do so. My ideas are stupid and offensive? That doesn't bode well for the party of tolerance, does it? MLK said he dreams of a day when it's the content of ones character, and not the color of ones skin, that matter. Affirmitive Action, Diversity, and Multi-Culturalism, fly in the face of this because we HAVE to notice the color of ones skin. I don't see how this can be misconstrued as racism.

But you know...it's the saying I like to use: "Republicans are the party of Bad Ideas. Democrats are the party of NO ideas."

Unless you feel like listing your top 20 or so beliefs and then allowing Blair and I to deconstruct them point by point...

[Paul McEnery]

Paul, seriously I don't want to come off as an arse here, but your "debunk" of Sabrina's beliefs came across as a bit...well...we'll see.

Hey, I had to be brief. But you're a fair and reasonable man. And so is Sabrina. Er, except for that man bit. So let's take it to the bank.


How? Why? A belief in God requires no justification.

See the "Is God real" thread for details. In itself, "I believe in God" has no distinct denotative meaning.


It's a belief. "I believe abortion is just not cricket!"

Er, that's a value judgement, isn't it. Basically, the term "murder" is well-defined, and excludes abortions, and for well-defined reasons which are accepted by the majority of people in our society, and if other people had the issues explained clearly to them, a large number would change to my team.


No, because we believe in private property laws.

Not clear from Sabrina's point. All private property is the result of prior theft somewhere in the past. As to whether present wealth has been fairly obtained is another matter, and one in contention with all shareholders and union members; not to mention the issue of relying on an infrastructure which is paid for by taxation.


Is the opposite true? How many factors do these studies take into account? What about generally hard to trace variables? Are the kids involved given psych evals?

Since you ask, there have been a lot of studies on single-parent, gay parent, foster parent and adoptive parent families; not to mention extended families and what have you. There is no indication that a man-woman, natural parent family produces a more developmentally secure child, all other things being equal.


Have you seen England lately? When I say "England", I'm talking about the UK as a whole, but the place really is going down the tubes man.

Helluva better state than the States, m'man. And when the deficit chickens come home to roost...


Harsh. You assume she knows little just because she came to a different conclusion than you.

No. I haven't come to a different conclusion. The facts are such there is no other conclusion to come to. The facts on the arms trade are freely available, and can be inspected in Voltaire's Bastards by John Ralston Saul who, as a former oil executive and husband of Canada's Governor General is scarcely the most radical of sources.

The facts on international trade are somewhat arcane, but it's the field I work in currently. Government intervention through tariffs, taxes, and all the rest of it are the way in which local business is either encouraged or defeated. That's what the WTO is all about.

The facts on poverty are very little to do with the generation of wealth. America is the world's richest nation, and yet is also the most poverty-stricken of all developed nations. The relative wealth of the developed world over the third world is entirely down to maintaining the third world as producers of raw resources and cheap labour, deliberately preventing the development of industry


England

Shows how much you know. Harold Wilson's government ran aground when it tried to get out of the arms business, and the international business community reamed England. This was far more true of the Callaghan government, which was reamed by the IMF and the World Bank, both of whom demanded -- for no real economic reason -- that Callaghan had to dismantle a large amount of socialized services or watch England get economically screwed. The IMF and the World Bank are both organs of the US Government, created as an economic weapon to keep the US top dog, and to enforce cheap labour by destroying all socialist initiatives. The developed world gets lucky on this; the underdeveloped world gets coups and invasions.


See above. Assuming motive (unconscious or not) "hypocritical" nature based on differing opinion.

Not at all. It's not an issue of motive, or of differing opinion. Sabrina flatly implied that "liberal" judges are activist, and "conservative" judges aren't. Well, that's obvious crap.


Socialism doesn't exist. Regulatory Goverments crush the soul, and stifle producticity and creativity.

Once again, I refer you to the real world. "Capitalist" nations use plenty of regulation. You should see how much rigamarole you have to go through to do international trade, and it's all absolutely necessary, and it's gone on for hundreds and hundreds of years.

And let's look at regulation. It's regulation prevents cheap and crooked construction firms putting up buildings, freeways, etc., that fall down. It's regulation prevents Microsoft from being even more crap, and holds firms accountable for appliances that fail -- not to mention keeps them safe. It's regulations that got asbestos out of buildings, thalidomide out of pregnant women, booze and fags out of eight-year old mouths, chemicals out of Love Canal (now) (ish), disease out of commercial kitchens, etc.

What we need is the right mixture of individual freedom and collective responsibility. Err either side and things get screwed. When conservatives say they hate regulation, they are ignorant of how much gets done through regulation, or they simply don't want to be held accountable for the impact they have on other people.


Or decrease spending. Heck, you can actually get more tax income by cutting taxes, and hence creating more wealth and hence encouraging more purchases (sales tax), leading to an overall boost in Governmental income. Reaganomics at work!

It doesn't work, and everyone knows it. It's simply a smokescreen for pushing power/wealth upstairs. Sabrina implied only tax cuts deals with a deficit. In America's case, it's a disaster. We can't cut spending any more, we've racked up spending in a war, and we've cut taxes. It's crazy. Meanwhile, the tax cutting has generated no more industry and no more jobs; on the ground, people's real wages are getting smaller, property is booming so housing is more expensive, corporations are cutting on health benefits where they can -- and where there actually are any (again shifting the burden to the worker who has less real money), and gas prices have forced the price of everything up hugely.


I'd be reasonably offended if somebody called one of my beliefs "stupid and offensive". Indeed, I consider affermative action to be offensive to minorities and other protected groups.
So you do. But you're wrong. In America, only affirmative action could break the institutional hold of racism -- and hasn't done with that job yet. True, in England that was less the case. But then again, in France, we see that institutional racism still condemns certain people to a life without a future unless government creates incentives. To prove exactly what affirmative action has done (and is doing) takes a lot of proving; stating your principle against it takes a second. That, of course, is one reason "conservatism" sticks around -- it takes too much time and effort to prove that it's wrong.

But Sabrina's point didn't solely concern affirmative action, it spoke to multiculturalism and diversity. As far as I'm concerned, these three statements are in fact synonymous:

Multiculturalism and diversity are bad.

Get back in your place, you uppity [insert derogatory term of choice here].

White Christians are superior to all other people.

I don't believe Sabrina (or you) would go along with either of the latter statements, but I can't for the life of me see the difference myself.

[Charles RB]

I believe diplomacy and negotiation do not produce peace.

The current ceasefire in Northern Ireland debunks that belief quite a bit. We tried using force, and it helped make the situation worse. (It did so back in the 1920s with Ireland proper too, so doing such tactics again just makes us English a bunch of plonkers)

[K'Nort]

And the problem with saying "two-parent male-father/female-mother nuclear families are the only thing that works for kids" is not that it's sometimes good (do you ever look at murder-by-abuse stats? we have at least one a week in this city alone. all biological.) but because it's only ever raised in the context of saying "no other versions should be allowed." And anytime you're saying other sorts of people don't deserve to have families, of course folks are going to take offense. Even some conservatives.


Anyway, the part of all this that is confusing me is that Bush is making a big deal out of how delaying the Patriot Act renewal by even a minute puts this nation at all sorts of risk from a terrorist attack. If he's unapologetically doing whatever surveillance sounds good without a warrant, what the heck difference does it make whether the Patriot Act passes again and when?

[Sabrinaset]

The current ceasefire in Northern Ireland debunks that belief quite a bit. We tried using force, and it helped make the situation worse. (It did so back in the 1920s with Ireland proper too, so doing such tactics again just makes us English a bunch of plonkers)

To which I say, are there exceptions to the rules? Sure. My beliefs are my beliefs, but does that mean I can't alter them from time to time to suit the occasion? Sure I can.
Honstly, I'm amazed at what some of you wrote. Like...

"And when observable fact runs counter to these beliefs, you do not modify said beliefs. Instead, the facts must be wrong."
Facts can be interpreted in different ways. Are you assuming that there are but two ways to interpret ways, the Liberal Way, and the Wrong Way? And, how do you know I would NOT modify said beliefs to come up with a conclusion that still remains true to my feelings? Unless someone online is Professor X, no one here is reading MY mind...

'This basic strain of intellectual dishonesty and failure runs through just about every aspect of the modern conservative movement, and it causes nothing but trouble. Indeed, it makes its adherents, Bush foremost among them, functionally stupid regardless of their actual intelligence."
I'm not sure if I should classify that idea as elitism, intellectual chauvanism, or something off the charts. Conservatism makes people stupid? The converse of this is what, Liberalism makes people smart? You've gotta be kidding me...Are you really that sure of your beliefs that you can make a value judgement like that?

[Paul McEnery]

Blair did a good job defending me, so I won't spend too much time on this. Here goes...

I hope it's not a matter of defence, but of clarifying meaning so that you can stay true to your temperament without falling prey to either meaningless or untrue statements.


Clarify my terms in my belief is God? I'm sorry but...whaaaa...?

Define God.


I believe abortion is wrong. So, like, if you believe abortion is right, is that a value judgement as well? Again...whaaaa...?

That's different from calling it murder. If you don't like abortion, don't have one. The reality of the situation is that, before the third trimester, a foetus doesn't possess full humanity. A chimpanzee has more sentience at that point. Your religious beliefs may cause you to think a foetus is somehow imbued with something special (like, say, a soul). But nobody else should be constrained by your beliefs, nor have to put up with a word like murder being used so casually.


It appears to me that Conservatives believe that private enterprise creates jobs, and Liberals believe that the government does.


Well, no. It is the case that Conservatives say that a lot, but it's a caricature. Private enterprise in fact depends on government work to do its job. Nobody -- nobody at all -- believes that governments are responsible for everything. We all want to do what we want to do, and make a living at it.


Believing that I'm for the acquisition of wealth also means I'm for theft is so ridiculous an acusation as to be ludicrous.

Wakey-wakey. Your assertion was very unguarded, and defined in such a way that theft was not excluded. Considering that the likes of Enron -- and indeed 175 people extradited from the UK, for goodness' sake -- were corrupt and thieving businessmen, I think that's a big exclusion.

In any case, the obscene amount of money that top CEO's make can in no way be justified, and amounts to theft from customers, shareholders, and employees.


When it comes to the family, can you NOT say that two parents are not better than one, even just from a financial standpoint? That both a mother AND father are better than, say, just one OR the other?

And if two parents both earn 10K apiece, but the single parent earns 100K? Or what about an extended family? If a family has come to a single parent through trauma, obviously there is psychological hardship. But there is no evidence that being raised by reasonable alternatives to the nuclear family (as opposed to crazy Mormon molesting polygamists) makes any difference at all.


Does the other side believe in helping people with others people money? Uhm...Welfare? That's taking my money and giving it to someone else, creating an incentive to not work...

You probably don't know this, but every time Greenspan changed the interest rate, it had a direct effect on employment. When corporations outsource to Korea, it has a direct effect on employment. Etc., etc. Corporations are subject to taxation as a price of doing business in the country. That's only reasonable, since they depend upon the infrastructure, and since we need to regulate them to make sure, say, they're not giving their employees cancer by keeping asbestos in the building. How much taxation is arguable, but the value a company receives for being located in, say, San Francisco is very high, and so they ought to pay for the privelege. They should pay for the schooling of the people they will employ -- because those employees won't be much use otherwise. They should pay for the health of those employees: ditto. They should pay for the transport infrastructure, because otherwise their employees will have to stay home. And the government that keeps things ticking over. All of these are hidden costs that business would prefer nobody thinks about while they take their profits.

And profits, by definition, mean taking my money and giving it to someone else.


I believe that conservatives will map out their beliefs. I believe that the other side has no beliefs save in mocking or denying what conservatives say or do. Sort of like what the current Democratic Party does. Apparently, it's only core value is "Bush is Wrong!"

Er, well, no. Being able to strip your thoughts about the world down to bumpersticker level may be an electoral strength, but it's a policy disaster.


Affirmitive Action, Diversity, and Multi-Culturalism, fly in the face of this because we HAVE to notice the color of ones skin. I don't see how this can be misconstrued as racism.

I explained this above. Diversity and multiculturalism means people get to define their own culture. The opposite is: someone gets to tell them what they have to do. It's pretty clear what that's got to do with racism.


But you know...it's the saying I like to use: "Republicans are the party of Bad Ideas. Democrats are the party of NO ideas."

That's the bumper sticker. But it's wrong. Principles are not ideas. Policies are not ideas. Most conservative policy has been simply to dismantle the ideas put in place by liberals. Ideas like regulating business, because business can't be trusted. Ideas like putting a social infrastructure into place to compensate for the innate unfairness of a working industrial economy. Ideas like progressive taxation to pay for education, health and the environoment. Ideas like creating a safe working environment. Ideas like limiting the number of hours an employer can demand of an employee. Ideas like ending discrimination in work, housing and, well, life in general. Ideas like allowing women to vote. Ideas like allowing interracial marriage.


Unless you feel like listing your top 20 or so beliefs and then allowing Blair and I to deconstruct them point by point...

I don't have beliefs. I have critical appraisals of the facts, such as they are, and a willingness to investigate to discover what we don't know yet. I try to test everything I was raised to believe against reality; and then retest what I've figured out instead to make sure that's not wrong too; and so on. I'm doing nothing to your beliefs I haven't done to my own.

I think I've shared those interim findings a whole heap on this board. But maybe I'll give it a shot in a bit.

[Charles RB]

To which I say, are there exceptions to the rules? Sure.

Are they exceptions though? If you're talking paramilitary groups, it certainly doesn't seem to be. Northern Ireland, military force didn't work and in fact made the situation worse because it made people hate us & support the paramilitaries. Israel & Palestine, force certainly isn't working and, from what I hear off Morts, diplomacy was working until Sharon deliberately arsed it up.

How can use of military force work well on paramilitaries when those paramilitaries rely on the support and membership of the wider populace, and force being used pisses the wider populace off (being as it's their houses being blown to bits and them being shot at) which makes them support the paramilitaries? And given the way this organisation works, how can you use force without negatively impacting on civilians and pissing them off?

Seriously, if you've got an answer to that one, the world at large would love to hear it. Being able to obliterate Hamas without doing any collatoral damage? That's likely to be the IDF's wet dream.

[Charles RB]

MLK said he dreams of a day when it's the content of ones character, and not the color of ones skin, that matter. Affirmitive Action, Diversity, and Multi-Culturalism, fly in the face of this

Wait, people being different and there being more than one culture flies in the face of people's characters mattering over their skin colour? Ehwha? :confused:

[Paul McEnery]

Facts can be interpreted in different ways. Are you assuming that there are but two ways to interpret ways, the Liberal Way, and the Wrong Way? And, how do you know I would NOT modify said beliefs to come up with a conclusion that still remains true to my feelings? Unless someone online is Professor X, no one here is reading MY mind...

Again with the mind-reading thing. A critical reading of what someone writes isn't mind-reading; it's unpacking the hidden assumptions.

The dichotomous thinking of My Way or the Highway is a purely Conservative point of view. By which I mean the argument to authority. It doesn't matter if it's Robert Mugabe, Joseph Stalin, or George Bush: because I say so, or because God says so, or because the doctrine says so, or because the principle says -- all of these are conservative ways of looking at the world.

The only right way to deal with the world is to figure out what's really going on, and then act on it. Putting loyalty before truth is the route to disaster.


I'm not sure if I should classify that idea as elitism, intellectual chauvanism, or something off the charts. Conservatism makes people stupid? The converse of this is what, Liberalism makes people smart? You've gotta be kidding me...Are you really that sure of your beliefs that you can make a value judgement like that?

Nope. Intelligence makes people liberal. Or rather, the application of your own intelligence to as much information as you can get hold of makes you liberal. Conservatism (as opposed to conservative liberalism) is a deliberate choice to remain uninformed and to stick to your guns no matter how wrong you are.

[Dennis K]

Intelligence makes people liberal. Conservatism (as opposed to conservative liberalism) is a deliberate choice to remain uninformed and to stick to your guns no matter how wrong you are.

That's a little broad isn't it? I mean, I'm not a fan of guys like John Roberts or Antonin Scalia, but I'm not going to say that they're not highly intelligent conservatives. Have I missed your point?

[Ian Boothby]

When it comes to the family, can you NOT say that two parents are not better than one, even just from a financial standpoint? That both a mother AND father are better than, say, just one OR the other?
.

Sometimes 2 parents are better, sometimes not. It depends on the parents. Sometimes one dad, one mom, two dads or two moms are better than a mom and a dad. It depends on the people involved.
As for two incomes being better than one, that depends on how mucht that one person makes. One parent making $100,000 a year makes more than two making $40,000 each.
It's generalizing based on what the majority of people in North America grew up with in the last two or so generations (before that a lot of people were raised by families including the grandparents or extended members of the family). Sure you think your Mom is the best Mom in the world and how you grew up is the right way, but don't push that on anyone else.

[Justin D.]

You responded to me so I guess it's only fair I respond to you.

I typed in "Bush Screaming" into my search engine, and Bush..." something else as well and found nothing. Well, nothing of use, anyway. By the way, when I'm on-line, I'm usually typing while reading/studying for a med exam, or typing a term paper on the other 'puter...so detailed research is usually too much to ask of my blonde lil head. I just got to be second in my class, and I'm trying for number one! :)
In fact, there was one thread in which I must have done a number of links to support one argument or another...I think it was the one on the Muslim Rioting in France...and the next day I got a 92 on my exam. I usually get 100's. Curse you, CBR! :) (Okay...it was really my fault, but still...)

For someone who keeps repeating how you're getting some sort of medical degree and all the papers you have to write because of that, your research skills suck. Or don't exist at all. "Bush screaming"? Besides the search functions I gave of Bush and temper without quotes, there's about 10 other searches I could think of that would work. "Bush screaming" is not one of those. It's not even detailed research. Just a few typed words, a quick read, and that's it. Took me about a minute to find those links from before. This is just confusing, and more than a bit worrisome, since you keep talking about how you're getting a medical degree of some kind.

I have no idea what the other paragraph was about. You said something about Democrats not coming close to your belief. How about one of the other parties?

As for the beliefs, I'll only comment on a few. Although, truthfully, I'm not sure what prompted the list. I asked about why you support Bush, not what your personal beliefs are.


I believe every child needs a mother and father. The best parents for a child are his own parents.

I have no idea what this means. Do you not believe in adoption?

I believe the nuclear family -- one man, one woman, and their children -- is the fundamental building block of any society.

Are you condemning single-parent families? I was mostly raised by my grandparents. Is that not right in your belief system? Again, I'm not sure I understand.

I believe in helping individuals with their own money. I believe the other side believes in helping others with other peoples' money.

What if the individual has no money and no opportunity to get that money? What if the individual is a minor or a senior citizen? Who is this other side? Wouldn't those using money in government-funded programs also use their own money?

I believe the government is not capable of growing the U.S. economy. That's the role of the private sector.

Why can it not be a joint effort?

I believe there are only two things government can do to help end a recession: cut taxes and get out of the way of the private sector.

Screw everyone else who isn't part of a profitalbe private sector?

I believe there is no separation of church and state to be found anywhere in the U.S. Constitution or its Amendments.

Really? The actual words "separation of church and state" first appeared in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. Ulysses S. Grant also said that America should "keep the church and state forever separate". That's not good enough? How about this part of the first amendment? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Good enough?

I believe guns don't kill people. People kill people.

I believe people with access to AK-47s, armor-piercing bullets, and other extreme forms of guns can kill more people.

I believe the Second Amendment makes all the others possible.

That's great. I won't even get into the debate of the wording of that amendment when it comes to terms like "well regulated militia", "arms", and "shall not be infringed". Do you at least acknowledge the vast difference between arms during the time the Constitution was written and today's arms?

I believe Conservatism works whenever it's applied. Socialism, on the other hand, has failed every time it has been attempted.

Socialism is not the only other option to conservatism. Also, name me a time in the last 5 years when conservatism has been applied, let alone applied correctly.

I believe ordinary Americans are and always have been capable of doing extraordinary things.

With this, I wholeheartedly agree.

I believe political correctness is the product of busybodies who actively seek ways to be offended.

Many times, yes. Sensitivity and political correctness are not the same thing though.

I believe Welfare has created more poverty than any other factor in this nation's history.

That's a blanket statement that doesn't cover much. What form of welfare are you referring to? There are different types.

I believe the terrorist strikes of September 11, 2001 were caused by Islamic militants, and were the fault of no one else.

They may have been carried out by Islamic fundamentalist militants, but that's not the same thing as caused by. It's an extremely important distinction.

I believe Liberals vehemently oppose placing conservatives on the judiciary, because the only way the left can advance its agenda is the willingness of activist judges to rewrite laws in their favor.

It's easy to simply switch the word liberals with conservatives in that last sentence and replace the word left with the word right. It's something I'd think you and other so-called conservatives would be against.

I believe the desire of environmentalists is not to protect the environment. It's to destroy capitalism.

Ok, that's just blatantly ridiculous.

I believe diplomacy and negotiation do not produce peace. Military victory and deterrence produce peace.

What is with people, mostly those on the right-wing side, assuming most situations and ideas have to fall under a this or that solution? What works best is a combination of all of the above with a concentration on diplomacy and negotian whenever possible.

I believe feminists ostracize masculinity in men while at the same time trying to make themselves appear more masculine.

. . . . What is feminism to you then? What do you think the goal of feminism is? Is it the same thing it began as? Does it have different factions within it or are all feminists the same? Do you know or are you just guessing?

I believe tax cuts do not cause deficits. Overspending causes deficits.

Overspending causes deficits, huh? Taken a look at the current administration's spending habits or financial priorities lately?

I believe that as long as liberals pay homage to affirmative action, diversity, and multi-culturalism, Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream will never be realized.

How is diversity a bad thing? Do you even know what multi-culturalism is? I don't think you do.

I believe that every action has a consequence.

Um... duh.

Again, I'm not sure what prompted the list, but I was foolish enough to respond to it anyway.

[Sabrinaset]

Paul, the My Way or the Highway Belief is not purely a Conservative point of view. If that were the case, Lieberman would not be on the outs with the Democratic Party simply because he agrees with W re: The Iraq situation. And yet he is.

I do not put loyalty to the Republican Party above my beliefs. I strongly disagree with the way they are handling Illegal Immigration. The only problem is, the Democrats are hardly behaving any better. Ultimately, based on my beliefs, which party comes closer to having the same vision of America that I do? Which candidate came closer to believing what I do? To be completely honest with yolu, I'm still not entirely sure what Kerry believes in. And I don't mean that as an insult, I really don't. He's said different things at different times. Bush was more consistent, or perhaps I should say he was less INconsistent.

Conservatism (as opposed to conservative liberalism) is a deliberate choice to remain uninformed and to stick to your guns no matter how wrong you are.
I'm sorry, but I cannot disagree with you more strongly than I can with this statement. DennisK said it better than I, though. Condoleeza Rice, not intelligent? George Will? Even Rush Limbaugh, whatever you think of his bombasity and/or morality, is regarded as intelligent, definitely well-read and informed.

In short, my beliefs are my beliefs, and I condensed them into as short a message as I could muster. I am NOT going to say, "I believe that The Free Market is better than Socialism, save in cases such as..." and start a 100-page dissertation on the execptions to the rule. If that makes it sound like my beliefs are bumper stikers, fine, but would you rather have my beliefs fit on one page of a CBR thread, or 100?

Charles RB: MLK wanted us to judge others based on the content of their character. Not the color of ones skin. He would want us to, say, hire someone based on their merits, on their grades, their SAT scores,their accomplishments. I doubt he would be in favor of quotas. I doubt he would be in favor of adding an extra 20 points to an SAT score to someone just because they were an African-American, because, well, that would be judging someone based on the color of their skin. If I found out that I was let into medical school because I'm a woman in order to fill a quota, and not because I had a 4.00 in high school and took tons of classes in College while still IN HS in order to be the best, I would be insulted. I mean that.


Whew!

[Justin D.]

Intelligence makes people liberal. Conservatism (as opposed to conservative liberalism) is a deliberate choice to remain uninformed and to stick to your guns no matter how wrong you are.

That's a little broad isn't it? I mean, I'm not a fan of guys like John Roberts or Antonin Scalia, but I'm not going to say that they're not highly intelligent conservatives. Have I missed your point?

You're right. It is harsh. If Paul doesn't mind, I'll amend it a bit.

Liberalism is about the search for progressive movement and a constant evolution of ideas, behaviors, and more. Conservatism (as opposed to conservative liberalism) is a deliberate choice to keep things the way they are or bring people and society back to earlier days where a civilization becomes stagnant by trusting itself to focus on what it considers to be core family values among other things.

That's a bit wordy. How about liberals want forward movement, conservatives don't?

[Mike Smash!]

Charles RB: MLK wanted us to judge others based on the content of their character. Not the color of ones skin. He would want us to, say, hire someone based on their merits, on their grades, their SAT scores,their accomplishments. I doubt he would be in favor of quotas. I doubt he would be in favor of adding an extra 20 points to an SAT score to someone just because they were an African-American, because, well, that would be judging someone based on the color of their skin. If I found out that I was let into medical school because I'm a woman in order to fill a quota, and not because I had a 4.00 in high school and took tons of classes in College while still IN HS in order to be the best, I would be insulted. I mean that.


Whew!Actually Martin Luther King made several statements about affirmative action and was very supportive of it. It's amazing how like many activists from Helen Keller to MLK that we hear simple, dumbed down and white washed versions of their lives.

Dr. King, when you really look at his speeches -- not just "I Have a Dream" -- you'd see that the man was practically a socialist politically. He talked very clearly of worker's rights, a redistribution of wealth, against war and against the "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps argument when "some people don't have boots and others have someone standing on them".

Some statements from Dr. King:

"Whenever this issue [compensatory treatment] is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree, but should ask for nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but is not realistic. For it is obvious that if a man enters the starting line of a race three hundred years after another man, the first would have to perform some incredible feat in order to catch up."

"A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis. "

"... for two centuries the Negro was enslaved and robbed of any wages — potential accrued wealth which would have been the legacy of his descendants. All of America's wealth today could not adequately compensate its Negroes for his centuries of exploitation and humiliation. It is an economic fact that a program such as I propose would certainly cost far less than any computation of two centuries of unpaid wages plus accumulated interest. In any case, I do not intend that this program of economic aid should apply only to the Negro: it should benefit the disadvantaged of all races."

"You can’t talk about solving the economic problem of the Negro without talking about billions of dollars. You can’t talk about ending the slums without first saying profit must be taken out of slums. You’re really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then. You are messing with captains of industry… Now this means that we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong…with capitalism… There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a Democratic Socialism."

This is the sort of thing that makes me roll my eyes when I see people who blast Affirmative Action and multiculturalism try to pimp themselves on King's memory. Especially when multiculturalism was his dream.

[Paul McEnery]

Paul, the My Way or the Highway Belief is not purely a Conservative point of view. If that were the case, Lieberman would not be on the outs with the Democratic Party simply because he agrees with W re: The Iraq situation. And yet he is.

We're using the word two different ways. One thing the Republicans have done is change the meaning of the word liberal to suit their political attack. So many people who are naturally conservative liberals are identified as Conservatives to fit in with the current dispensation. Concrete examples follow, but for the time being. Lieberman isn't a liberal. He's a Conservative. (Capital letters are important here.)

The point of Conservative with a big C is that it's doctrinaire and authoritarian and hierarchical and anti-intellectual.


I do not put loyalty to the Republican Party above my beliefs. I strongly disagree with the way they are handling Illegal Immigration. The only problem is, the Democrats are hardly behaving any better. Ultimately, based on my beliefs, which party comes closer to having the same vision of America that I do? Which candidate came closer to believing what I do? To be completely honest with yolu, I'm still not entirely sure what Kerry believes in. And I don't mean that as an insult, I really don't. He's said different things at different times. Bush was more consistent, or perhaps I should say he was less INconsistent.

That's the spin. But it isn't slightly true. Kerry was very clear, but his position was nuanced, whereas Bush was bumper sticker. Nothing Bush said was either consistent or meaningful or truthful.


I'm sorry, but I cannot disagree with you more strongly than I can with this statement. DennisK said it better than I, though. Condoleeza Rice, not intelligent? George Will? Even Rush Limbaugh, whatever you think of his bombasity and/or morality, is regarded as intelligent, definitely well-read and informed.

George Will is a conservative liberal.

Condy may be cunning, and she may be capable of getting a big degree and a fancy job, but she's dumb as a post. She got everything wrong about the Soviet Union -- her specialist subject -- and she's handed out nothing but dumb lies to both the American public and to foreign nations. She was just laughed out of Europe, and Congress let her off easy in the hearings -- I coulda nailed her testimony to the wall, and I don't know what I'm doing. It's all very sad. Ideologically, she's a blank slate. Call her selfish opportunist.

Rush Limbaugh is low cunning, but he's completely stupid. He's never said an insightful, useful, true or interesting thing in his life. I was amazed when I first heard him. I've heard smarter people talking shit in a football bar. He's a neanderthal neofascist.


In short, my beliefs are my beliefs, and I condensed them into as short a message as I could muster. I am NOT going to say, "I believe that The Free Market is better than Socialism, save in cases such as..." and start a 100-page dissertation on the execptions to the rule. If that makes it sound like my beliefs are bumper stikers, fine, but would you rather have my beliefs fit on one page of a CBR thread, or 100?

Point taken. But I don't think I actually could distill my ideas into that kind of shorthand. That's the Kerry vs. Bush problem in a nutshell.


Charles RB: MLK wanted us to judge others based on the content of their character. Not the color of ones skin. He would want us to, say, hire someone based on their merits, on their grades, their SAT scores,their accomplishments. I doubt he would be in favor of quotas. I doubt he would be in favor of adding an extra 20 points to an SAT score to someone just because they were an African-American, because, well, that would be judging someone based on the color of their skin. If I found out that I was let into medical school because I'm a woman in order to fill a quota, and not because I had a 4.00 in high school and took tons of classes in College while still IN HS in order to be the best, I would be insulted. I mean that.

That's a point I take. And there are definitely better ways to overcome the discrimination and the damage still around from discrimination past that we could take, except that they wouldn't fly in the US.

But you still haven't addressed the buzzwords of multiculturalism and diversity. As they are used by Conservatives, they still mean: we don't like your stinky culture, you have to adopt ours.

[Sabrinaset]

Lets try this again....regarding the ones I haven't covered elsewhere...

Cutting Taxes raises Revenue. JFK knew that. Reagan, too. Spending more than what you take in causes deficits. Bush does NOT seem to be following this as of now. I dson't agree with everything he's doing. I think I covered this in regards to immigration.

Go to an environmental demonstration sometime. I've been to one, I dated a, sorry Mike Smash, a Green once. They were pretty anti-capitalist there. Maybe they were extremists? More than one of them spoke admiringly of the ELF.

The goals of feminism USED to be equal rights, the vote, and equal pay for equal work. I have no problem with that. Nowadays...nope. NOW is an adjunct of the Democratic Party. Read Tammy Bruce to find out what happened to the NOW. It's scary.

The 2nd amendment...someone start another thread on this. I could go on all night about this. Okay, reallll short. Every Liberal who thinks that W is coming to get you: Do you want a gun to defend yourself when the conservatives come to get you? :)

There's a BIG difference between "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" and "Seperation of Church and State" as applied by liberals and the ACLU today. Do you really think that "In God We Trust" should be taken off our coinage? The ACLU thinks so based on the Establishment quote, and that's wrong, in my opinion. In any event, being written in a private letter is not the same thing as being in the Constitution.

I think Microsoft makes more money and is more ...ah, what's the word...functional than the DMV. I think that the Government is slow, ponderous, and ...well...unable to adapt to changing conditions of the marketplace. I think that oftentimes, the government gets in the way of business, especially new businesses that are trying to start up, simply with the red tape alone that you have to keep up with. Sure, there needs to be some regulation to regulate the excesses, but on the whole, I think private enterprise is far more efficient than the Government.

I said that a two-parent family where the natural parents are the childs parents are the best. Note that I did NOT say that other families are useless. NOR did I say that two drug-dealing parents are better than nothing. I said there were exceptions in a previous post, but I am NOT going to write a 100-page post detailing my beliefs. If I must expound upon the previous post, sthe minute two people make a child, they had damn well better change their lives and put that child first, or if they can't, don't make a baby at all. Actions have consequences, and all, and a bunch of people don't seem to realize that before they make a baby.

I research medical stuff, and usually (not always) it's all in these books and class notes here (plops 30 pounds of books on the bed next to laptop) The research for my medical stuff, I put a lot more work into, mostly because what I do here is for fun. Also, medical research is a lot easier to do, there's a lot less bias going into it to clutter it up, just trhe facts maam, as opposed to political research, where just about anything is possible. Put another way, 90% of my attention is directed towards the other stuff besides CBR. Sorry about that.

If I had to pick a party besides the Republicans, I'd go Libertarian. Not happy with their stance on legalizing drugs though.

Whew again!

And again, I note that everyone seems to be picking apart my beliefs. Fine. Too bad no one on the other side seems to be listing their own. Goes back to a previous post of mine...we may have bad ideas, but the other side has no ideas.

And now...I humbly ask that you start posting your 20 or so beliefs so that Blair and I can deconstruct them, or else move on to another topic because these posts are getting waaaaay too long! :)

[Paul McEnery]

You're right. It is harsh. If Paul doesn't mind, I'll amend it a bit.

Liberalism is about the search for progressive movement and a constant evolution of ideas, behaviors, and more. Conservatism (as opposed to conservative liberalism) is a deliberate choice to keep things the way they are or bring people and society back to earlier days where a civilization becomes stagnant by trusting itself to focus on what it considers to be core family values among other things.

That's a bit wordy. How about liberals want forward movement, conservatives don't?
Nah, that was me being nice.

Conservatives (as opposed to conservative liberals) are actually fascist thugs (or fascist sheep).

They don't have respect for scientific truth. Hell, they don't even understand it because it doesn't follow the argument to authority, which is the only thing they respect. The key value is the maintenance of a set-in-stone world view which guarantees their social order.

For them, the point of the social order is to thrive in it. You keep the rules as they are as a way of asserting your own raw power. Anyone who questions those rules must be ostracised. Anyone who fails by those rules -- tough shit.

The rules are a natural shame structure that rewards conventionalism -- and almost everyone has shame and convention in their heads. But the way a Conservative organizes the rules is a hierarchy of this person good, this person bad. White > everything else, Male > female, straight > gay, Christian (well, round here) > everything else. The pecking order is set up as if it is from God himself - and how can you go against nature?

Because this exercise in raw power is allied to an assertion of natural hierarchy, democracy is not a Conservative value. This natural order is not up for discussion. Moreover, only a fool thinks we ought to thoughtfully consider issues -- the only point is to win, and damn the consequences.

All of this is simple primate atavism: alpha male behaviour. The only thing that matters is getting to be the alpha male, to get the goodies. The whole point of religion (well, liberal religion) is to transcend those aspects of ourselves using our new tools of reason and language. Regrettably. Conservatives press those tools into the service of alpha male behaviour.

Well, we're not bloody cannibalistic chimps. We're humans, and we can do a helluva lot better.

Conservatism -- the anti-ideology espoused by Bush and Limbaugh -- is xenophobic, sexist, racist, classist, and prettymuchgoddamneverythingist. Cheney's savage leer is all you need to understand it: you motherfuckers get out of my way while I rape your country and establish my power.

There is no moral value there except greed, visciousness, and hanging on to what's his.

That's why I insist on the distinction between Conservatism and conservative liberalism. One is built on main force, the other is a respectful expression of a natural temperament.

It is, of course, ridiculous that the behaviour of these cro-magnons has first vilified the name of Liberals and has now dragged the name of Conservatives into the muck. We ought to accept that we're all (well, mostly all) working in a liberal framework in which we are either more rational or more gut, more regressive or more retentive, more radical and more conservative etc etc, and that this is a whole constellation of possible dimensions and combinations, and may very well differ from issue to issue.

For too long, we've let these authoritarians turn this into a dichotomous divide -- and that divide is exactly what the Conservative pecking order is built from. That is the key value of multiculturalism and diversity -- that the world is too damned interesting and complex for black and white.

[Fenris]

Again with the mind-reading thing. A critical reading of what someone writes isn't mind-reading; it's unpacking the hidden assumptions.

Uh-huh. And what is the practical difference?

After all, "hidden assumptions" are unexpressed mental events. If you can perceive them- especially, if you can perceive them when no one else can- then you are basically reading someone's mind.

I'm still very skeptical of this whole thing, Paul. It might help if there were some kind of objective standard or falsifiability for the whole thing; but as far as I can tell, there isn't. You just tell people what their secret motives are, and the rest of us (including the person you've analyzed!) have to blindly take your word for it.


The dichotomous thinking of My Way or the Highway is a purely Conservative point of view. By which I mean the argument to authority. It doesn't matter if it's Robert Mugabe, Joseph Stalin, or George Bush: because I say so, or because God says so, or because the doctrine says so, or because the principle says -- all of these are conservative ways of looking at the world.

That's an interesting definition. Not least because you'd be hard-pressed to find many self-described conservatives who'd use it.

So: you're defining conservative not by doctrines, but by approach. If someone uses an appeal to authority in their argument, then they are a conservative, regardless of their politics. A conservative in their heart, you might say.

Is that the essence of it?


Nope. Intelligence makes people liberal. Or rather, the application of your own intelligence to as much information as you can get hold of makes you liberal. Conservatism (as opposed to conservative liberalism) is a deliberate choice to remain uninformed and to stick to your guns no matter how wrong you are.

Well... self-described liberals would presumably like this definition, since it's very flattering to them. "Intelligence makes people liberal," indeed!

But I doubt that they would think of it spontaneously. And I doubt its utility: as a definition, it seems to confuse more than it clarifies.

You're already having to introduce the oxymoron of "conservative liberalism," for example; which, frankly, needs to be called something else, because that phrase makes absolutely no sense by the definitions you've laid out.

What is the point of all this redefining? Is this going to end up telling us something that the conventional categories wouldn't tell us? I'm not seeing that.

õ
Not yet, anyway!

[Charles RB]

Go to an environmental demonstration sometime. I've been to one, I dated a, sorry Mike Smash, a Green once. They were pretty anti-capitalist there.

Not that surprising, considering that large capitalist companies damage the environment. The rainforests aren't cutting themselves down.

The goals of feminism USED to be equal rights, the vote, and equal pay for equal work. I have no problem with that.

The goal of feminism still is equal rights and equal pay for equal work (which, AFAIK, hasn't happened in quite a few professions). A few of the more extreme feminist groups may be doing other stuff entirely, but the more extreme patriots over here virulently hate non-whites.

Every Liberal who thinks that W is coming to get you: Do you want a gun to defend yourself when the conservatives come to get you? :)

Only if it's a double-barrelled auto-shotgun like Bill Savage has. That'd be sweet. I could yell "Funking Volgs!" while shooting people.

Do you really think that "In God We Trust" should be taken off our coinage?

If I remember right, it was only added in the 50s (I might be confusing it with the "under God" line in the pledge). If so, where's the big deal in removing it again?

I think private enterprise is far more efficient than the Government.

Yeah? The PFI contracts that are screwing up British hospitals & schools and the crappy service from some of the privatised rail services over here would disagree with you- and let's remember many private enterprises fail and go bankrupt. And that you get corrupt, money-stealing executives just like you get corrupt, money-stealing politicians.

I said that a two-parent family where the natural parents are the childs parents are the best.

Is there evidence for this though? Studies have been done but last I knew, the results indicated there was no real difference when it came to which families worked. There's an awful lot of crappy two-biological parents out there as well; and where do a two-biological-parents w/ grandparents also living in the house tie in? Are they even better, since there's more elder mentors that the kid is related to?

Too bad no one on the other side seems to be listing their own.

Personally, that's because I can never really be bothered to.

[Paul McEnery]

Cutting Taxes raises Revenue. JFK knew that. Reagan, too. Spending more than what you take in causes deficits. Bush does NOT seem to be following this as of now. I dson't agree with everything he's doing. I think I covered this in regards to immigration.

No, it doesn't. Reagan cut taxes just one year, then raised them again. Bush cutting taxes has increased the deficit. This is actually a deliberate tactic, and one enforced by the IMF and the World Bank. It's aim is to create a deficit, which must then be paid for by cutting socialized infrastructure. That's what Schwarzeneggar tried to do in California, and got spanked for it.


Go to an environmental demonstration sometime. I've been to one, I dated a, sorry Mike Smash, a Green once. They were pretty anti-capitalist there. Maybe they were extremists? More than one of them spoke admiringly of the ELF.

That's not meaningful. What Greens, environmentalists and radicals are opposed to is consumerism and corporate control. These are not synonymous with capitalism -- which, again, is not an ideological position, it's an evolved economic system. The words you are using here are the rhetoric of the extreme right.


The goals of feminism USED to be equal rights, the vote, and equal pay for equal work. I have no problem with that. Nowadays...nope. NOW is an adjunct of the Democratic Party. Read Tammy Bruce to find out what happened to the NOW. It's scary.

NOW has always been an adjunct of the Democratic Party. That's because the Republicans opposed women's rights and equality. Duh! You find the same thing in the UK, where Tory ladies tend to stick to "traditional" roles whereas the liberal/labour people tend to be more promoting of having women actively engaged in public life.


There's a BIG difference between "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" and "Seperation of Church and State" as applied by liberals and the ACLU today. Do you really think that "In God We Trust" should be taken off our coinage? The ACLU thinks so based on the Establishment quote, and that's wrong, in my opinion. In any event, being written in a private letter is not the same thing as being in the Constitution.

IGWT is tantamount to establishment of religion. That's what it's there for. The collaboration between the fundamentalist movement and the Republicans began under Eisenhower. That's when Billy Graham became "America's chaplain" and the payoff was IGWT, among other things. Any privileging of a specific religion, or religion in general, is establishment of religion.


I think Microsoft makes more money and is more ...ah, what's the word...functional than the DMV. I think that the Government is slow, ponderous, and ...well...unable to adapt to changing conditions of the marketplace. I think that oftentimes, the government gets in the way of business, especially new businesses that are trying to start up, simply with the red tape alone that you have to keep up with. Sure, there needs to be some regulation to regulate the excesses, but on the whole, I think private enterprise is far more efficient than the Government.

Any monolithic organization is inefficient. I've worked for some fairly major corporations in my time, and they're rubbish compared to small groups, except for capitalization -- which is all built on debt anyway. Big corporations are hugely wasteful -- as indeed are government departments. What is genuinely more functional is decentralized small autonomous groups operating within a flexible broad structure.


I said that a two-parent family where the natural parents are the childs parents are the best. Note that I did NOT say that other families are useless. NOR did I say that two drug-dealing parents are better than nothing. I said there were exceptions in a previous post, but I am NOT going to write a 100-page post detailing my beliefs. If I must expound upon the previous post, sthe minute two people make a child, they had damn well better change their lives and put that child first, or if they can't, don't make a baby at all. Actions have consequences, and all, and a bunch of people don't seem to realize that before they make a baby.

Agreed to the latter, but really not to the former. Absolutely not. What is best is an extended family because it spreads the responsibility and offers a more enriched environment to the kid. However, children work out equally well -- with adequate funding and no psychos -- in all families.


If I had to pick a party besides the Republicans, I'd go Libertarian. Not happy with their stance on legalizing drugs though.

Not only is the Libertarian stance the sanest in regards to policy, it's been shown to work wherever it's been put into practice. Criminalizing drugs is pragmatically counterproductive. Morally, most drugs (I'd except heroin and meth) are on the whole harmless and should be a matter of personal choice.


And again, I note that everyone seems to be picking apart my beliefs. Fine. Too bad no one on the other side seems to be listing their own. Goes back to a previous post of mine...we may have bad ideas, but the other side has no ideas.

That's what you get for sticking your neck out. Told you liberals were smarter! :D

[Sabrinaset]

Nah, that was me being nice.

Conservatives...are actually fascist thugs (or fascist sheep).

They don't have respect for scientific truth. Hell, they don't even understand it because ...

I can't quite figure out if you're joking or not, because I'm sorry, that assessment of what a conservative is is so far over the top that it's almost the political equivelent of a Jim Carrey improv.

Okay, then....tell us what a Liberal believes. Which is somethging I've been asking for for a couple pages now. I'm really finding it interesting that no liberal yet is willing to state what they stand for beyong "Bush sucks". I'm about at the point where I will write what a Liberals beliefs are just so that the actual liberals will clarify them.

[Paul McEnery]

Uh-huh. And what is the practical difference?

After all, "hidden assumptions" are unexpressed mental events. If you can perceive them- especially, if you can perceive them when no one else can- then you are basically reading someone's mind.

I'm still very skeptical of this whole thing, Paul. It might help if there were some kind of objective standard or falsifiability for the whole thing; but as far as I can tell, there isn't. You just tell people what their secret motives are, and the rest of us (including the person you've analyzed!) have to blindly take your word for it.

Again, I'm not doing ad hominem. The one time I just got called on mind reading was on the conservative/liberal judge thing, and I think I demonstrated what I meant. It's simple rhetoric and logic -- and they are standard and well-attested rules. There are names for rhetorical and logical tools which if you study them, you start to recognize them for what they are. Me, I've forgotten most of the names, but I still remember how to use the tools.


That's an interesting definition. Not least because you'd be hard-pressed to find many self-described conservatives who'd use it.

So: you're defining conservative not by doctrines, but by approach. If someone uses an appeal to authority in their argument, then they are a conservative, regardless of their politics. A conservative in their heart, you might say.

Is that the essence of it?

Small c conservatism is a matter of approach and temperament. There are some things about which I'm conservative -- what's a good beer, bar, whiskey, etc. -- and others where I'm radical. It's mostly, I think, about what you're personally attached to.

As for the big C Conservatives -- damn straight they don't want to be out in the open. Fascist goons prosper by suckering people into their camp. Hitler suckered in socialists, Stalin suckered in communists, Mugabe suckered in nationalists, Hubbard suckered in spiritual searchers, and so on.

The authoritarian mindset is about giving up responsibility for your own thought and either doing or believing what you're told. Everyone does it in some arena -- who has the time to know everything? -- but some people are just natural followers of convention, and some other people take advantage of them.


Well... self-described liberals would presumably like this definition, since it's very flattering to them. "Intelligence makes people liberal," indeed!

But I doubt that they would think of it spontaneously. And I doubt its utility: as a definition, it seems to confuse more than it clarifies.

You're already having to introduce the oxymoron of "conservative liberalism," for example; which, frankly, needs to be called something else, because that phrase makes absolutely no sense by the definitions you've laid out.

What is the point of all this redefining? Is this going to end up telling us something that the conventional categories wouldn't tell us? I'm not seeing that.

õ
Not yet, anyway!

It's about polarizing debate in this country in order to suit two groups: authoritarians and corporate interests. Or to put it another way, people who have achieved raw power alpha male dominance in either the field of business or ideology. (Farrakhan and Sharpton are two others who play this game; and I rather hold it true of Nader, too; there are very few women who want to play this game, but obviously Hilary's one of them as well.)

Again, I refer you to the excellent wiki page on classical liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism) which to a large extent describes the way most people think who describe themselves as conservative, and many who describe themselves as liberal.

We are a liberal democracy, and defining our political differences by the false dichotomy of liberal vs. conservative is a regrettable historical happenstance, left over from 19th Century English politics (as the left/right divide comes from the layout of the French parliament, and is just as meaningless).

But it is also a deliberate ploy of the powerful to keep us divided as a people and as far away from decision making as possible.

It might make sense to keep an army as a rigid hierarchy. It makes no sense to keep a business that way as anyone who's worked for a large corporation knows. Working for them is soul-sucking and demoralizing. Your individuality goes out the window, and you've got no room to express your creativity. What kind of a way to live is that?

The way the hierarchy wants it, is the answer. That's the democracy we've got, where no matter which party you vote for, if you're lactose-intolerant, you'll have difficulty digesting the coagulated result.

What's important to recognize is twofold: authoritarians are bad news for the world and everyone on it. The way authoritarians have coopted natural conservatism and set it up against natural liberalism (when both should be a marriage of complements) is nauseating. But more, submitting to authoritarianism does your soul incredible amounts of harm.

[Paul McEnery]

I can't quite figure out if you're joking or not, because I'm sorry, that assessment of what a conservative is is so far over the top that it's almost the political equivelent of a Jim Carrey improv.

Okay, then....tell us what a Liberal believes. Which is somethging I've been asking for for a couple pages now. I'm really finding it interesting that no liberal yet is willing to state what they stand for beyong "Bush sucks". I'm about at the point where I will write what a Liberals beliefs are just so that the actual liberals will clarify them.
Well that's the thing. Liberals believe all sorts of things about all sorts of things, depending on their experience and their specialization. But the primary goal, I think, is a rejection of authoritarian narratives in favour of dealing with reality itself; and a respect for the liberty of all. I mean, that's it, in a nutshell.

[Mike Smith]

Why does everything seem to go to us vs. them?

[Paradox]

Beats me, Mike. It just adds to my base concept of "political parties = bad". Too polarizing for my tastes, at least under the predominantly "two party system" we're currently under. :(

[Charles RB]

Why does everything seem to go to us vs. them?

Humans are naturally both territorial & social, and have the instinctive urge to gather in groups and then beat the other group over the head with a rock to keep them away from their bananas?

[Paradox]

Well they could ASK! I mean, I'll give them a banana. No need to spy on me to make sure I have some, incarcerate me illegally to find out where they are, and then garnishee all future banana purchases. ;)

[Noah Johnson]

Cutting Taxes raises Revenue.
See, this is the kind of statement that I'm talking about. It's utterly moronic on the face of it, and indefensible on even the most basic logical level, but it's conservative doctrine and must therefore be defended.

Look, I'll explain this as simply as possible. If we accept this fatuous nonsense as stated, then cutting taxes always raises revenue, from which we can deduce the existence of an ideal state where taxes are zero, and revenue is therefore infinite.

I trust I don't have to explain that real life doesn't work that way.

So the actual debate is about at which point on the scale of taxation maximum revenue is achieved, and it's a useful and important debate. But it's not one you can have with someone to whom actual facts and evidence are less important than the kind of ridiculous doctrine quoted above.

[PatrickG]

See, this is the kind of statement that I'm talking about. It's utterly moronic on the face of it, and indefensible on even the most basic logical level, but it's conservative doctrine and must therefore be defended.

Look, I'll explain this as simply as possible. If we accept this fatuous nonsense as stated, then cutting taxes always raises revenue, from which we can deduce the existence of an ideal state where taxes are zero, and revenue is therefore infinite.

I trust I don't have to explain that real life doesn't work that way.

So the actual debate is about at which point on the scale of taxation maximum revenue is achieved, and it's a useful and important debate. But it's not one you can have with someone to whom actual facts and evidence are less important than the kind of ridiculous doctrine quoted above.

Strawman.

An ideal state is where taxes are zero but revenue, while higher, would not be infinite.

[Noah Johnson]

Strawman.

An ideal state is where taxes are zero but revenue, while higher, would not be infinite.
Ah, my apologies. Tax revenue is, in fact, spontaneously generated from nothing, but not infinitely.

That makes way more sense. Can't imagine how I made that mistake.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Why are we talking about ex-presidents when the issue is Bush and spying? Diversion tactic?

Bush supporters are good at those.

[BlairH]

Nope. Intelligence makes people liberal. Or rather, the application of your own intelligence to as much information as you can get hold of makes you liberal. Conservatism (as opposed to conservative liberalism) is a deliberate choice to remain uninformed and to stick to your guns no matter how wrong you are.

Oh dear. That is possibly the most insulting and patronising thing I have ever heard in my life.

I believe people with access to AK-47s, armor-piercing bullets, and other extreme forms of guns can kill more people.
Then you are buying into the media myth. More people are killed with weak .22 caliber rimfire rounds than anything else. When was the last time a civillian killed somebody with a legal automatic weapon in the US? Here's a clue "not once since the 1930s!" yet there are approximately 130,000 legal, transferrable automatic weapons. (Sabrina is lucky enough to own one)

By the way the "Ak47s" to which you are referring are not like the ones you see in third world combat zones. The ones in the US are all built on US manufactured recievers, and are SEMI-AUTOMATIC. (yes, that's right, nothing like what you see in the News or the movies)

And what exactly constitutes an "armour piercing bullet" anyway? Bullets with better ballistic properties are the best at defeating body armour. These are the very same bullets I use in my Remington 700 target rifle (gun-phobic people would call it a "sniper rifle") as using anything else -something that wouldn't defeat armour- is just an unsound descision.

[west3man]

Then you are buying into the media myth. More people are killed with weak .22 caliber rimfire rounds than anything else.
He said "can kill" and you said "are killed."

[macul]

He said "can kill" and you said "are killed."

Paul also thinks conservatives are stupid. And if you don't manage to fit inside his neat little definition of conservative then he claims you are, in reality, a liberal. I'd take anything he says with a grain of salt. But that's just me.

[west3man]

Paul also thinks conservatives are stupid. And if you don't manage to fit inside his neat little definition of conservative then he claims you are, in reality, a liberal. I'd take anything he says with a grain of salt. But that's just me.The first quote in Blair's post WAS from Paul. The second was from Justin.

I think that was Justin that BlairH was responding to there.

[JeffreyWKramer]

So, Dubya's argument is that it's okay for the President to break a law which he finds inconvenient if he does it for (supposedly) the right purpose, and that the people who have *really* done something wrong are the ones who have told others that the President is breaking the law.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

And we're supposed to feel good about AG Gonzalez saying it's okay for the Dubya to do this... this being the guy behind the torture memos and such.

[Harry Angel]

So, Dubya's argument is that it's okay for the President to break a law which he finds inconvenient if he does it for (supposedly) the right purpose, and that the people who have *really* done something wrong are the ones who have told others that the President is breaking the law.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

And we're supposed to feel good about AG Gonzalez saying it's okay for the Dubya to do this... this being the guy behind the torture memos and such.


It is weird to see how many people are trying to make the case that the policy was reviewed on a regular basis when the only ones who ever reviewd it were the AG and Harriet Meyers and not any actual court.

[JeffreyWKramer]

It is weird to see how many people are trying to make the case that the policy was reviewed on a regular basis when the only ones who ever reviewd it were the AG and Harriet Meyers and not any actual court.

But we should believe and trust Dubya and his hand-picked folk. Because he says so, or something like that.

This is simply another example of this Administration's contempt for rule of law, checks and balances and civil liberties.

[west3man]

So, Dubya's argument is that it's okay for the President to break a law which he finds inconvenient if he does it for (supposedly) the right purpose, and that the people who have *really* done something wrong are the ones who have told others that the President is breaking the law.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

And we're supposed to feel good about AG Gonzalez saying it's okay for the Dubya to do this... this being the guy behind the torture memos and such.
How long until they decide that it's in the best interests of national security for us not to switch leaders, during a war, so he becomes Dubya, Dictator-for-Life?



Did he ever explain how admitting to the "spying" thing would be a threat to national security... but then he admitted to it 24-hours later? So, did he threaten our national security by doing that?

*sigh* Is it 2008, yet?

[BlairH]

He said "can kill" and you said "are killed."

The matter of "can" is irrelevant because statistically it doesn't happen. Plus there's no "can" about it either, because one "can" kill many more people with a simple, but accurate, hunting rifle.

Assault rifles are generally more comfortable and ergonomic to use but bolt action rifles commonly used by hunters and target shooters-I'd argue- are more capable of killing. (in skilled hands)

[K'Nort]

I think Paul's definitions are convoluted, but the fact remains that his definition of conservative (vs the liberalism part) applies to one sub-category of what the rest of you consider conservative, so there's no reason to think he's calling all conservatives (by your definition) evil and stupid. You're not as far apart as you think and you're not being insulted. It just takes a PhD mentality to parse it all.

As a side thing, I think it's a good policy across all parties/beliefs/etc to never base your positions or opinions on the reading of a single book. There is always going to be a skew and you're not going to get the full story.

[macul]

How long until they decide that it's in the best interests of national security for us not to switch leaders, during a war, so he becomes Dubya, Dictator-for-Life?



Did he ever explain how admitting to the "spying" thing would be a threat to national security... but then he admitted to it 24-hours later? So, did he threaten our national security by doing that?

*sigh* Is it 2008, yet?

I don't think it will get any better in 2008 no matter who is elected. Once we've rolled over and given them power we won't get it back.

[Harry Angel]

I don't think it will get any better in 2008 no matter who is elected. Once we've rolled over and given them power we won't get it back.


I agree.

Once the Genie's out of the bottle and all that.

I am a hardcore Democrat and plan to vote for that party even if they nominate a goat for President. But I have no illusions that whichever side wins in 2008, the President is going to have all sorts of new powers to get around or straight out ignore the Constitution and is very likely to use them.

Which when you get down to it, really should worry the Republicans far more then it seems to.

[K'Nort]

I have no illusions that whichever side wins in 2008, the President is going to have all sorts of new powers to get around or straight out ignore the Constitution and is very likely to use them.

Which when you get down to it, really should worry the Republicans far more then it seems to.

That's something the neo-con blogosphere seems to be really dense on, yes. It was really not very long ago that it was the Right freaking out about black helicopters and jackbooted stormtroopers and Janet Reno killing pretty much everyone. And the Timothy McVeigh militia types could have been called just as much a threat to security and the same monitoring could have been put in place and they would have gone insane. But the parallels to today are somehow going right over their heads. Control of the White House always goes back to the other side at some point. Any time you're trying to get powers and privileges passed, think about whether you really want a Clinton with those same things. Makes a difference.

[JeffreyWKramer]

That's something the neo-con blogosphere seems to be really dense on, yes. It was really not very long ago that it was the Right freaking out about black helicopters and jackbooted stormtroopers and Janet Reno killing pretty much everyone. And the Timothy McVeigh militia types could have been called just as much a threat to security and the same monitoring could have been put in place and they would have gone insane. But the parallels to today are somehow going right over their heads. Control of the White House always goes back to the other side at some point. Any time you're trying to get powers and privileges passed, think about whether you really want a Clinton with those same things. Makes a difference.


Bush supporters and the Administration back things like Tom DeLay's Texas redistricting plan and erosion of civil liberties in hopes such efforts will keep the other side out of power forever and forever. A nice combination of totalitarianism and head-in-the-sand mentality.

I agree that things are likely to keep sucking whichever side wins in 2008, though. I can't think of anyone good who is likely to run on either of the big-two parties who is likely to win, and the system is still pretty rigged against other parties. Hopefully it will be a bit less sucky without Dubya.

[Samurai]

I think Paul's definitions are convoluted, but the fact remains that his definition of conservative (vs the liberalism part) applies to one sub-category of what the rest of you consider conservative, so there's no reason to think he's calling all conservatives (by your definition) evil and stupid. You're not as far apart as you think and you're not being insulted. It just takes a PhD mentality to parse it all.

As a side thing, I think it's a good policy across all parties/beliefs/etc to never base your positions or opinions on the reading of a single book. There is always going to be a skew and you're not going to get the full story.
Oh please... we know when we're being insulted, and what Paul said was incredibly insulting. Even if you claim he was only talking about the Conservatives who support Bush and/or the war on terror, that includes many of the conservatives around here and he knows it.

The truly ironic thing is that he is the one with the extremely narrow world-view and the intellectual incuriousity to really understand anything outside of it. His definitions, while long on psuedo-intellectual psychobabble, were far short of the truth and reality.

[JeffreyWKramer]

The truly ironic thing is that he is the one with the extremely narrow world-view <snip>

There's irony for you. Pot and kettle time.

[west3man]

Oh please... we know when we're being insulted, and what Paul said was incredibly insulting. Even if you claim he was only talking about the Conservatives who support Bush and/or the war on terror, that includes many of the conservatives around here and he knows it.

The truly ironic thing is that he is the one with the extremely narrow world-view and the intellectual incuriousity to really understand anything outside of it. His definitions, while long on psuedo-intellectual psychobabble, were far short of the truth and reality.
I don't think Paul meant "some Conservatives," either, for what it's worth.

I'm confident that he said what he meant and meant what he said - warts and all.

[Harry Angel]

I don't think Paul meant "some Conservatives," either, for what it's worth.

I'm confident that he said what he meant and meant what he said - warts and all.


I sort of agree with Paul.

It's not that I think that Conservaties are stupid, because clearly that's not true.

But I do think that the Conservative base tends to ignore their own best interests time and again by electing people who get power and then turn around and completly screw that base over.

So I do tend to think that the average conservative voter is not a wise voter.

And honestly I know that's pretty damm insulting of me, but historical, financial and political history backs me up about what the average person has happen to them when conservatives take control. So I don't know what else to think.

[Justin D.]

How'd I know that out of all the response I had, you'd respond to the one involving guns? Maybe I'm Professor X and can read minds like others have said earlier. Or maybe, it's simply the fact that I recognize a pattern in your thinking by now.


Then you are buying into the media myth. More people are killed with weak .22 caliber rimfire rounds than anything else. When was the last time a civillian killed somebody with a legal automatic weapon in the US? Here's a clue "not once since the 1930s!" yet there are approximately 130,000 legal, transferrable automatic weapons.

I didn't even know there was a media myth. I just don't see a reason to be happy that there are 130,000 automatic weapons out there not in use by sanctioned government officers, legal or not.

[west3man]

I sort of agree with Paul.

It's not that I think that Conservaties are stupid, because clearly that's not true.

But I do think that the Conservative base tends to ignore their own best interests time and again by electing people who get power and then turn around and completly screw that base over.

So I do tend to think that the average conservative voter is not a wise voter.

And honestly I know that's pretty damm insulting of me, but historical, financial and political history backs me up about what the average person has happen to them when conservatives take control. So I don't know what else to think.I think obvious political, religious, and various other leanings
already say something about what we think of "the other side." Some of my feelings mirror some of yours. Others, not so much.

As to how I feel about these broad and public brushstrokes, I think the average CBRian would pass on that sucker bet. :p

[Sabrinaset]

It is weird to see how many people are trying to make the case that the policy was reviewed on a regular basis when the only ones who ever reviewd it were the AG and Harriet Meyers and not any actual court.

Not "the only ones." Bush alerted Congressional leaders. Jay Rockefeller knew about it. That means a number of other congressmen knew it. The special court, the FISA court, the judge there knew. But we're not told who the judge is, and there's no reporting at all on when Rockefeller knew about this or what other members of the Senate knew about it. Actually, there's no curiosity at all about the involvement of others in this program on the part of the New York Times. In fact, they gloss over all of that in order to protect those people, to protect members of Congress, to protect Rockefeller, and focus all attention on Bush, which it looks like they've done admirably. It's in the NYT report BTW. Why did you leave Congress out of it?

[Harry Angel]

Not "the only ones." Bush alerted Congressional leaders. Jay Rockefeller knew about it. That means a number of other congressmen knew it. The special court, the FISA court, the judge there knew. But we're not told who the judge is, and there's no reporting at all on when Rockefeller knew about this or what other members of the Senate knew about it. Actually, there's no curiosity at all about the involvement of others in this program on the part of the New York Times. In fact, they gloss over all of that in order to protect those people, to protect members of Congress, to protect Rockefeller, and focus all attention on Bush, which it looks like they've done admirably.

Dare I say it?

Aw, sure...

"Do your research" :)


You are incorrect.

The President very specifically has stated that the court was not consulted.



"FISA is for long-term monitoring," Bush said. "What is needed in order to protect the American people is the ability to move quickly to detect."

CNN: Bush: Secret Wiretaps Will Continue (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/19/bush/index.html)


As I pointed out before Rockefeller was against the whole situation but was unable to go public about it without releasing classified information and commiting a felony.

Or are you suggesting that a United States Senator should go around leaking classified information?

Next time maybe you should get your information straight before you start telling other people about theirs.

[BlairH]

I didn't even know there was a media myth. I just don't see a reason to be happy that there are 130,000 automatic weapons out there not in use by sanctioned government officers, legal or not.
How can you be unhappy with the fact? They're out there but they aren't doing anything. They are EXTREMELY regulated -contrary to popular belief- (You have to have it transferred and registered as per the NFA. Said registration and transfer takes 6 months, and a $200 tax is levied on applicants, PLUS the fact that there are only 130,000 such weapons drives up the price. An M16A1 usually goes for the same price as a moderately priced used car.). If nobody has ever used one such weapon in a crime, why should it concern you?

"Sanctioned Government officers"? You mean like the Gestapo and the KGB?

[macul]

I just don't get it anymore. How can anyone honestly paint an entire group of people with a broad brush? When did that behavior become acceptable? It's like the so-called progressives are now embracing everything they once fought against.

[Harry Angel]

I just don't get it anymore. How can anyone honestly paint an entire group of people with a broad brush? When did that behavior become acceptable? It's like the so-called progressives are now embracing everything they once fought against.


Probably around the same time that the so-called conservatives embraced everything they were ever against, such as big government, high spending and government intervention in private life.

Seriously.

[BlairH]

I just don't get it anymore. How can anyone honestly paint an entire group of people with a broad brush? When did that behavior become acceptable? It's like the so-called progressives are now embracing everything they once fought against.

Even the most radical advocate of progressive causes becomes entrenched in the culture, once that culture is created.

[BlairH]

Probably around the same time that the so-called conservatives embraced everything they were ever against, such as big government, high spending and government intervention in private life.

Seriously.

I'm against all of that stuff.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I'm against all of that stuff.

Too bad the same can't be said of the Bush Administration, many of the GOP bigwigs and most of the neo-cons.

[macul]

Probably around the same time that the so-called conservatives embraced everything they were ever against, such as big government, high spending and government intervention in private life.

Seriously.

I can see that. I just don't see the point in it, though. Seriously, what kind of productive conversation will result from someone telling me, that as a conversative, I'm stupid?

[macul]

Too bad the same can't be said of the Bush Administration, many of the GOP bigwigs and most of the neo-cons.

Hence the support of automatic weapons. We can get rid of them quicker. I joke, of course. Really.

[Sabrinaset]

See, this is the kind of statement that I'm talking about. It's utterly moronic on the face of it, and indefensible on even the most basic logical level, but it's conservative doctrine and must therefore be defended.

Look, I'll explain this as simply as possible. If we accept this fatuous nonsense as stated, then cutting taxes always raises revenue, from which we can deduce the existence of an ideal state where taxes are zero, and revenue is therefore infinite.

So the actual debate is about at which point on the scale of taxation maximum revenue is achieved, and it's a useful and important debate. But it's not one you can have with someone to whom actual facts and evidence are less important than the kind of ridiculous doctrine quoted above.

JFK cut taxes, and revenue to the government increased. Reagan did the same thing. The only problem with the 80's was that Congress did not cut spending, and the deficit skyrocketed. We also have a problem with spending today, especially when it comes to Medicare and Social Sercurity and the increase in the number of Baby-Boomers retiring and living longer, but that's a topic for another thread...
I did not say that cutting taxes to zero would result in the perfect society. Clearly there comes a point where it becomes enough. However, to put it simply, i.e, in under a 20-page post:

Reduce Taxes and...
More people have more of their money to spend.
More money in the private sector means either/or
a) increase in savings
b) decrease in personal debt (cards paid off, etc) OR (and this is the important one)
c) personal (and corporate) spending increases

Which then means
1) Increase in items bought at the wholesale/retail level
2) More items bought = more employees needed at these levels.
3) The more people working = more people paying taxes.
4) More people paying taxes = increase in taxable revenue.

Raising taxes has a short-term revenue increase for the government, but at a cost of long term...geez, even short-term growth.

Here's a link that explains what a 10% tax cut would do.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/CDA99-02.cfm

But, you know what? Let's use a common sense approach to this. Let's say that you run a business. You want to increase your profit margin and customers. What do you do? Raise your prices or lower them?

What IS "Liberal Doctrine"? Apparently, instead of saying "okay, here is what I believe" Liberal Doctorine seems to be "Whatever a conservative says is wrong" or "moronic", "indefensible", "fatuous" and "ridiculous".

You know, so far I've asked for what Liberals believe, and the closest I've gotten is from Paul, who's explained it as a reaction to authority, if I understood him correctly. Okay, I actually CAN accept Liberalism as a political theory that approximates the intellectual level of a screaming teenager saying "Don't tell me what to do! You're not the boss of me!" . Well, that and people saying that if the Democrats nominated a goat for President, they'd vote for it. Talk about drinking the kool-aide!

[JeffreyWKramer]

Hence the support of automatic weapons. We can get rid of them quicker. I joke, of course. Really.


While you were joking, I think this Administration's repeated disregard of civil liberties and any sense of checks and balances in the government is a perfect illustration of why the Second Amendment is as valid now as it was when the Bill of Rights was drafted.

[Justin D.]

How can you be unhappy with the fact? They're out there but they aren't doing anything. They are EXTREMELY regulated -contrary to popular belief- (You have to have it transferred and registered as per the NFA. Said registration and transfer takes 6 months, and a $200 tax is levied on applicants, PLUS the fact that there are only 130,000 such weapons drives up the price. An M16A1 usually goes for the same price as a moderately priced used car.). If nobody has ever used one such weapon in a crime, why should it concern you?

"Sanctioned Government officers"? You mean like the Gestapo and the KGB?

No, I meant police officers and the United States Armed Forces which is obvious.

This is also one of those things where you can quote whatever you want and cite whatever statistics you think will apply, but it's not going to sway my point of view. I've shot guns before and liked it. However, that doesn't make me think it's a good idea nor can I see any reason for someone to own a weapon that's either automatic or semi-automatic. There's no sporting or safety reason for those guns. As you say yourself, a smaller gun will do the job just as well. I really don't want to get into this topic though. I just brought it up in response to one of the "beliefs" that Sabrina mentions. I gave many other responses.

I'm against all of that stuff.

It's comments exactly like that that make me wonder why you or anyone else who feels the same could support the current administration since nothing they've done corresponds with those beliefs.

[JeffreyWKramer]

It's comments exactly like that that make me wonder why you or anyone else who feels the same could support the current administration since nothing they've done corresponds with those beliefs.
Good question.

[Harry Angel]

I can see that. I just don't see the point in it, though. Seriously, what kind of productive conversation will result from someone telling me, that as a conversative, I'm stupid?


Nothing good will come of it at all.

Just to be very clear here, like I said I do have doubts about the wisdom of conservative votes, but not their intelligence. I don't think that conservatives are stupid, but I don't understand the way they vote.

Paul's on his own with the stupid bit.

[Harry Angel]

Well, that and people saying that if the Democrats nominated a goat for President, they'd vote for it. Talk about drinking the kool-aide!


Okay, I accept your apology for getting your facts wrong before.


Thanks.

As for what Liberals believe, how about......

1. Civil Rights

2. Human Rights

3. Constitutional Rights

4. Equal Rights

5. Enviromental Protections

6. Science not Religon in the schools

7. The sepration of Church and State.

Oh yeah, and we're nice to puppies.

How's that?

(I didn't think that I would need to explain this on a comic site, but the goat bit is a direct reference to the classic Cerebus story, High Society.)

[BlairH]

No, I meant police officers and the United States Armed Forces which is obvious.
The Government should not retain a monopoly on weapons. In practically every disarmed society, those in power have kept their weapons, and abused the citizenry. Look at the Samurai of Japan: They forbid the pesants to keep good quality swords, and it was not untill gunpowder became widespread that they (the Samurai) dissapeared. Look at the UK. Our police officers were traditionally unarmed, and handguns were legal for us peons to buy. Now handguns are banned, and police officers routinely carry MP5s and shoot innocent Brazillian men in Subway stations.

This is also one of those things where you can quote whatever you want and cite whatever statistics you think will apply, but it's not going to sway my point of view.
Your mind is not going to be changed? That's fair enough I suppose.

I've shot guns before and liked it.
There you go. Pursuit of happieness and all that.

However, that doesn't make me think it's a good idea nor can I see any reason for someone to own a weapon that's either automatic or semi-automatic. There's no sporting or safety reason for those guns.
That's plain wrong. There are plenty of sport aplications for semi-auto shooting. 3-gun matches, practical-shooting, NRA-high-power-rifle, CMP matches etc etc. Furthermore, even if there weren't any sporting purposes for the guns, there's still the constitutional purpose!

As you say yourself, a smaller gun will do the job just as well.
So why be afraid of "bigger guns" (which are usually smaller and fire smaller bullets)

It's comments exactly like that that make me wonder why you or anyone else who feels the same could support the current administration since nothing they've done corresponds with those beliefs.
Tax cuts and overturning the unconstitutional "Federal assault weapon ban" spring to mind as reasons to support them.

On the other hand, the administration is weak on the following areas:
-Protection of privacy
-Gay marriage (I'm pro-gay-marriage, so there's a natural conflict there)
-Illegal immigration (close the border dagnammit!)

[Sabrinaset]

You are incorrect.

The President very specifically has stated that the court was not consulted.



From the link on the first page...
http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/feeds/ap/2005/12/16/ap2397026.html
The judge was notified...key passage...
The Bush administration had briefed congressional leaders about the program and notified the judge in charge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret Washington court that handles national security issues.

That would seem to indicate that more than just the AG and Harriet Miers knew.

Okay, I accept your apology for getting your facts wrong before.

I did not and will not apologize to you. But I do accept YOUR apology for being a fake poster.

[macul]

Okay, I accept your apology for getting your facts wrong before.


Thanks.

As for what Liberals believe, how about......

1. Civil Rights

2. Human Rights

3. Constitutional Rights

4. Equal Rights

5. Enviromental Protections

6. Science not Religon in the schools

7. The sepration of Church and State.

Oh yeah, and we're nice to puppies.

How's that?

(I didn't think that I would need to explain this on a comic site, but the goat bit is a direct reference to the classic Cerebus story, High Society.)

I know many conservatives, including myself, who believe in those exact same things.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I know many conservatives, including myself, who believe in those exact same things.

What few of them are in the Senate helped filibuster the Patriot Act renewal last week. Here's hoping they stay the course, in order to force changes in that loathesome piece of legislation.

[Justin D.]

Tax cuts and overturning the unconstitutional "Federal assault weapon ban" spring to mind as reasons to support them.

I'm not going to get into the "federal assault weapon ban" except to say that it served no real purpose as gun manufacturers evaded the bans whenever and however possible. What's the point in overturning something that's not enforced unless it's solely for the PR purposes? As for the tax cuts, what tax cuts in particular and how did they specifically help?

On the other hand, the administration is weak on the following areas:
-Protection of privacy
-Gay marriage (I'm pro-gay-marriage, so there's a natural conflict there)
-Illegal immigration (close the border dagnammit!)

To a lot of people, those are not only good enough reasons to refuse to support this adminstration, but also good enough motivators to actively work against it.

Also, I find it a bit odd that you keep giving reasons you do or do not support things when I can't get the same out of those who do support the Bush administration on this site who are actually US citizens. That's more of a comment on them than about you.

[Alex Scott]

Sabrina: Um, I think the law requires a bit more than just telling the FISA court what you're doing. It requires an actual application for a warrant.

[Justin D.]

I know many conservatives, including myself, who believe in those exact same things.

It's the difference between definitions of those terms that separates people.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Sabrina: Um, I think the law requires a bit more than just telling the FISA court what you're doing. It requires an actual application for a warrant.

But we're supposed to forget that, because its the President, and Presidents shouldn't have to follow the law.

We can only hope Bush ends up the same as did a previous President - Nixon - who held that opinion.

[Sabrinaset]

On the other hand, the administration is weak on the following areas:
-Protection of privacy
-Gay marriage (I'm pro-gay-marriage, so there's a natural conflict there)
-Illegal immigration (close the border dagnammit!)

I'd add spending to the list.

[macul]

It's the difference between definitions of those terms that separates people.

Do you think my definitions differ from yours?

[Sabrinaset]

Sabrina: Um, I think the law requires a bit more than just telling the FISA court what you're doing. It requires an actual application for a warrant.

I wasn't arguing that point, although I'm also not searching through that 100-page document either to figure out what's what. Tried that in another post, got 20 or so pages into it, and couldn't do anymore. Blair, you're the legal student, help us out here! :) Cactusmaac already addressed this.

Under the provisions of FISA, spying on foreign communications between US nationals and foreign nationals is permissible and doesn't require a warrant :
http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL30465.pdf (p.13)

A warrant is only needed if the subject communications are wholly contained in the United States and involve a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.

Unless the text of the Executive Order is to hand and more is known about what was actually monitored, then it's difficult to comment on if there was any illegality or not.

That seems doubtful given the number of lawyers involved.

I WAS saying that Harry Angel said only two people reviewed it, the AH and Miers, and based on the link, many more were.

[Cyke]

To say that they're weak on protection of privacy is an understatement, to say the least :)

[BlairH]

I'd add spending to the list.

Good call. That's probably the most important factor.

[Justin D.]

Do you think my definitions differ from yours?

Probably, yes. If you're a conservative, then I'd say your definition and applications of those words and principles most likely differs from my own. Maybe not, but I'd guess yes.

[macul]

Probably, yes. If you're a conservative, then I'd say your definition and applications of those words and principles most likely differs from my own. Maybe not, but I'd guess yes.

How so? Be specific? No point in being vague. Give me some good detailed examples of how my outlook differs from yours on those points. I completely support the Constutition including the 2nd Amendment. I believe in human, equal, and civil rights, including gay marriage. I believe in separation of church and state and to top that off I'm an athiest. I also believe in taking the appropriate steps to protect the environment. Where do we differ?

[west3man]

A caller was on NPR, just now, saying that the timeframes involved in tapping wires, domestically, the legal way, were just too long.

The host asked if it could be done retroactively and the caller said that it could, but that it still takes a day or two IF you can find the attorney general, etc. to sign the necessary forms. From what I heard before I had to leave, he still felt this was so inconvenient that bypassing this step, altogether, was a good idea and (I *think* he was saying that) justified the President's actions.

*scratches head*

If, in emergencies, the authorities don't have to wait, but can do the paperwork AFTER they've tapped the wires, what is the problem? It just sounds like griping for griping's sake, but maybe I'm missing something.

[JeffreyWKramer]

If, in emergencies, the authorities don't have to wait, but can do the paperwork AFTER they've tapped the wires, what is the problem? It just sounds like griping for griping's sake, but maybe I'm missing something.

What you're missing is the Administration's stance, which is that Presidential action should not be subject to judicial review/oversight. The fact that this stance is contrary to actual law in this case, as well as being contrary to the larger concept of checks and balances, is irrelevant to Bush and his supporters.

[PatrickG]

Ah, my apologies. Tax revenue is, in fact, spontaneously generated from nothing, but not infinitely.

That makes way more sense. Can't imagine how I made that mistake.

Tax revenue, like all wealth, is generated by productivity and other wealth-creating market factors.

The government prints the money but it's worthless without entrepreneurs giving it value. The value of money is determined by the quality and quantity of work, management and innovation in a society.

In general, the more of the economy is circulating in the private sector, the more the money has the potential to be worth as long as businesses are actively courting the consumer and consumers are spending the money. (And in "consumer", I include employers who "consume" labor.)

In general, investing conservatively in quality of life endeavors like national healthcare would lead to only conservative gain for the currency.

Investing in added layers of bureacracy and more management in society does not improve the national economy.

A dollar is worthless paper until workers work and marketers market. The more the government ties up money in public service projects and red tape, the less that dollar is worth.

[macul]

A caller was on NPR, just now, saying that the timeframes involved in tapping wires, domestically, the legal way, were just too long.

The host asked if it could be done retroactively and the caller said that it could, but that it still takes a day or two IF you can find the attorney general, etc. to sign the necessary forms. From what I heard before I had to leave, he still felt this was so inconvenient that bypassing this step, altogether, was a good idea and (I *think* he was saying that) justified the President's actions.

*scratches head*

If, in emergencies, the authorities don't have to wait, but can do the paperwork AFTER they've tapped the wires, what is the problem? It just sounds like griping for griping's sake, but maybe I'm missing something.

I think bypassing the review process is the scary part. Sure, the guy might make it sound harmless, "We're just getting rid of a single step. It's no big deal. Besides, we can probably get it done afterwards anyway, so who cares?" but that one step is a pretty big one. It's like skipping the trial by jury and just declaring us guilty of a crime.

[Adam Crocker]

I just don't get it anymore. How can anyone honestly paint an entire group of people with a broad brush? When did that behavior become acceptable? It's like the so-called progressives are now embracing everything they once fought against.

I think Paul pretty clearly explained what he meant in the use of those terms. And no, you don't even need a PhD mentality to understand it. Nor is it that convoluted.

He's hi-lighting the fact that despite the attempts of partisan pundits to define 'liberal' as a swear word, political culture in America is based on certain basic understandings that came from 18th liberal thinkers of the Enlightenment as well as many of their 19th century successors. People generally subscribe to an idea that there are fundamental rights that the government should not impinge upon and should protect. (And while their are certain disagreements on those rights, certain fundamentals come down like freedom speech, etc.) Generally the idea of a representative government that is accountable to the people has become accepted in political culture. Etc. Etc. He's gone over this at least once before, acknowledging the ideological differences on the matter by distinguishing between the 'conservative liberal' (right) and 'social liberal' (left).

And while I can see why one would take issue with his use of terms, I think he made it pretty clear what he had defined those terms to mean, particularly by linking to the Wiki on classical liberalism and stating that is political ideology that describes the ideas which people who call themselves conservative subscribe to. So the only place I could see someone legitimately take issue is with his choice of terms. He's defined principled thinkers as like George Will as 'conservative liberal' as opposed to mouth pieces and apologists for authoritarianism like Ann Coulter as 'Conservative.' Personally I would replace 'Conservative' with 'Authoritarian.'

Mind you it seems that his choice of terms was predicated on breaking down, as much as possible, the liberal vs. conservative dichotomy that has been hoisted up to polarize the political discourse. If anything I'd criticize him for not defining and setting out his terms clearly enough when he introduced them in this topic. I also think that he didn't properly explain why he chose "Conservative" as a by-word for "Authoritarianism." I have an idea of why he might have done so, but I'd rather he explain it himself first.


The truly ironic thing is that he is the one with the extremely narrow world-view and the intellectual incuriousity to really understand anything outside of it. His definitions, while long on psuedo-intellectual psychobabble, were far short of the truth and reality.

He's shown for more intellectual curiosity and broadness in his world view by trying to move outside of the 'conservative vs. liberal' dichotomy and unpack the intellectual history of American political thinking for the express purpose of trying attack the polarization

And none of this is psuedo-intellectual psychobabble. I understood this easily solely because I had the classical 19th century meaning of 'liberalism' quickly laid out for me in a History of Cooperatives course in third year University. It's not that hard to grasp.


Even if you claim he was only talking about the Conservatives who support Bush and/or the war on terror, that includes many of the conservatives around here and he knows it.

And might I note that first time he did this he distinctly referred to some posters that supported Bush, including Blair H, as 'conservative liberal'. So you go nuthin'.

[west3man]

I think bypassing the review process is the scary part. Sure, the guy might make it sound harmless, "We're just getting rid of a single step. It's no big deal. Besides, we can probably get it done afterwards anyway, so who cares?" but that one step is a pretty big one. It's like skipping the trial by jury and just declaring us guilty of a crime.
That's what concerns me, as well.

The way I see it, they actually took into-consideration the fact that there will probably be emergency situations in which timing will be critical and paperwork too much of an impediment. So, they came up with this retroactive clause or whatever.

CONTINUING not to give a damn, even with the laws bending over backwards for you* says, to me, that what you really don't give a damn about are the values that this nation supposedly endorses - the freedom that supposedly makes us the envy of so many others.



* - "You" meaning the Prez.

[Sabrinaset]

A caller was on NPR, just now...

The biggest surprise to me was that NPR takes calls. Did you mean a guest who was calling in? Every time I've listened to it, which granted is once a week, I never hear a phone number to call in and ask the host or the guest a question. Did it become talk radio while I wasn't watching?

[macul]

I think you nailed the problem we have with paul's posts, adam, and that is his careless use of terminology. In his ever-so-eager desire to bash conservatism, paul is taking everything he doesn't like and ascribing them to be beliefs of conservatives instead of realizing that the world isn't as black and white and he likes to pretend.

[Ed Cunard]

The biggest surprise to me was that NPR takes calls. Did you mean a guest who was calling in? Every time I've listened to it, which granted is once a week, I never hear a phone number to call in and ask the host or the guest a question. Did it become talk radio while I wasn't watching?

It depends on the show. Talk of the Nation, Diane Rehm and Forum all take calls, as does PRI's Brian Lehrer show. I think Radio Times might, but it's been a while since I've listened to it, so I could easily be misremembering.

[Alex Scott]

We can only hope Bush ends up the same as did a previous President - Nixon - who held that opinion.
Which is funny, because the Supreme Court decided against Nixon (http://www.ross4congress.org/US%20v%20US%20District%20Court%20407%20US%20297%20 121905.pdf) on exactly this sort of issue (warning: PDF file).

How convenient, then, that Bush is trying to pack the court with right-wing ideologues!
I wasn't arguing that point, although I'm also not searching through that 100-page document either to figure out what's what. Tried that in another post, got 20 or so pages into it, and couldn't do anymore.
And I posted a link (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36_20_I.html) to the FISA statute, minus the 100 pages of commentary, before. It's steeped in legalese, too, but at least it's simpler to navigate.

[west3man]

The biggest surprise to me was that NPR takes calls. Did you mean a guest who was calling in? Every time I've listened to it, which granted is once a week, I never hear a phone number to call in and ask the host or the guest a question. Did it become talk radio while I wasn't watching?
Apparently. They've taken calls for as long as I remember ever listening to the show.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I think bypassing the review process is the scary part. Sure, the guy might make it sound harmless, "We're just getting rid of a single step. It's no big deal. Besides, we can probably get it done afterwards anyway, so who cares?" but that one step is a pretty big one. It's like skipping the trial by jury and just declaring us guilty of a crime.

But we shouldn't be scared. Bush and his supporters tell us so.

[macul]

But we shouldn't be scared. Bush and his supporters tell us so.

Yeah, jeffrey. We get it. You don't like Bush. :D

[Sabrinaset]

Here's our problem. Compare
He's hi-lighting the fact that despite the attempts of partisan pundits to define 'liberal' as a swear word
with
And really, that is the problem with the modern right wing. You have principles, and you're committed to them, in the form of these beliefs. And when observable fact runs counter to these beliefs, you do not modify said beliefs. Instead, the facts must be wrong.
This basic strain of intellectual dishonesty and failure runs through just about every aspect of the modern conservative movement...Indeed, it makes its adherents, Bush foremost among them, functionally stupid...
Your beliefs, clearly held in the face of observable fact, constitute the greatest failing of, and danger to, this great nation.
Conservatism...is a deliberate choice to remain uninformed
Conservatives...are actually fascist thugs (or fascist sheep).
They (Conservatives) don't have respect for scientific truth. Hell, they don't even understand it...
Conservatism -- the anti-ideology espoused by Bush and Limbaugh -- is xenophobic, sexist, racist, classist, and prettymuchgoddamneverythingist. Cheney's savage leer is all you need to understand it: you motherfuckers get out of my way while I rape your country and establish my power.
There is no moral value there except greed, visciousness, and hanging on to what's his.
It's utterly moronic on the face of it, and indefensible on even the most basic logical level, but it's conservative doctrine and must therefore be defended.

...and that's just from *this* thread. DJ, I like you, you and Paul, despite the fact that we disagree politically, and although we disagree, I *like* disagreeing with the both of you, if you know what I mean. You've changed my mind on a few things, we've come to agreements on others..but it seems to me (for once) you're missing the boat here. Put simply, the partisan pundits on CBR sure look like they're defining "Conservatism" as a swear word to me. What's your take on that?

[JeffreyWKramer]

Yeah, jeffrey. We get it. You don't like Bush. :D
There's a lot more to it than that, of course.

What we're seeing, now that this business came to light, is a classic case of GOP misdirection and a very crude argument to authority - which is, I should point out, a logical error.

First, Bush tries to frame this as "it's okay because it protects the country", then he tries to refocus attention on the horrible traitors who dared tell on the President. Meanwhile, Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, Condi, etc. come forward and tell us nothing wrong was done, expecting us to believe them apparently because of their positions. In reality, we have a bunch of folk with poor track records re: credibility and truth and every reason to lie, and we have even some GOP folk, such as Sen. Specter, smelling something seriously fishy about all this.

So, it's not just "I hate Bush." It's more a matter of how anyone with an ounce of respect for democracy and civil liberties should be very concerned about this stuff.

[Sabrinaset]

Apparently. They've taken calls for as long as I remember ever listening to the show.

Ah, wait a second, think I got NPR confused with Pacifica. Sorry 'bout that.

[Sam]

Not "the only ones." Bush alerted Congressional leaders. Jay Rockefeller knew about it. That means a number of other congressmen knew it. The special court, the FISA court, the judge there knew. But we're not told who the judge is, and there's no reporting at all on when Rockefeller knew about this or what other members of the Senate knew about it. Actually, there's no curiosity at all about the involvement of others in this program on the part of the New York Times. In fact, they gloss over all of that in order to protect those people, to protect members of Congress, to protect Rockefeller, and focus all attention on Bush, which it looks like they've done admirably. It's in the NYT report BTW. Why did you leave Congress out of it?

It's worth noting that at least some of the Congressmen that the Bush administration says they notified about this are stating flat-out that it's untrue.

"There was no reference made to the fact that we were going to…begin unwarranted, illegal — and I think unconstitutional — eavesdropping on American citizens."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), who was the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee when the program was initiated.

Which is interesting, since according to Condi, "leaders of the relevant oversight intelligence committees" were notified before they began this.

[Noah Johnson]

...and that's just from *this* thread. DJ, I like you, you and Paul, despite the fact that we disagree politically, and although we disagree, I *like* disagreeing with the both of you, if you know what I mean. You've changed my mind on a few things, we've come to agreements on others..but it seems to me (for once) you're missing the boat here. Put simply, the partisan pundits on CBR sure look like they're defining "Conservatism" as a swear word to me. What's your take on that?
You know, my original point about doctrine-over-fact has yet to be refuted, just misinterpreted and denied.

So, yes, what we have here is an ideology that actively supports policies known to fail, that has killed thousands and thousands of people, and that presently supports torturing innocent people and giving the president effectively dictatorial powers.

None of these points are up for debate. All are the established and avowed policies of this administration.

The question is not why we find this ideology disgusting, the question is why you would choose to be associated with it even remotely.

[BlairH]

So, yes, what we have here is an ideology that actively supports policies known to fail,
There are a whole bunch of policies that liberals tend to support that are doomed to failure. Affermative Action was meant to be a temporary solution to end discrimination. It didn't work, we need to try something new. Perhaps we could remove affermative action altogether? After all, MLK's dream can only be realised when such discriminatory policies do not exist.

There are loads of other disasterous policies that tender to liberal tastes. Things like redistribution of wealth, beaurocracy, the bloat of the civil service (a distinctly UK problem at the minute) etc etc.

that has killed thousands and thousands of people
Ideology doesn't kill people. People kill people. Come on, you know as well as I do that many more people have died under "leftist" regimes as have under "rightist" regimes.

and that presently supports torturing innocent people
Is that what the recent legislation says? Does it say "we support torturing innocent people"? No....what does it say? Does it say "ban torture"? Why, yes it does!

and giving the president effectively dictatorial powers.
Conservatives crave not authoritarianism. I assume Liberals share this view yes?

None of these points are up for debate.
Oh really?

All are the established and avowed policies of this administration.
When was the policy of "torturing innocents" established? It wasn't! There exists no policy of torture.

[Paul McEnery]

I know many conservatives, including myself, who believe in those exact same things.
I swear, Anthony, sometimes you just don't listen.



There has been a huge con in this country run by the neo-fascists proclaiming the merger of religious and corporatist values. They've stolen the word conservative to conceal their true nature. And they've smeared the word liberal to drive people of a conservative nature into their camp.

People who believe in the list above are liberals. You have a conservative temperament, but your political beliefs mark you as a classic liberal.

[Noah Johnson]

There are a whole bunch of policies that liberals tend to support that are doomed to failure. Affermative Action was meant to be a temporary solution to end discrimination. It didn't work, we need to try something new. Perhaps we could remove affermative action altogether? After all, MLK's dream can only be realised when such discriminatory policies do not exist.
Actually, affirmative action was part of MLK's dream, which is well-documented and has been pointed out to you before. Furthermore, do you have any evidence that affirmative action has NOT been a useful corrective against the established racism that still plagues America, or is this just a statement of faith?

In any event, when an administration puts $200 billion into an SDI system that we know, for a fact, has never worked... that's either criminal incompetence, naked profiteering, or both. Likewise, when a public school program like NCLB is demonstrably designed to fail, you have to wonder why these people are allowed to govern. Anyone want to have a go at defending those?


Ideology doesn't kill people. People kill people. Come on, you know as well as I do that many more people have died under "leftist" regimes as have under "rightist" regimes.
I'm talking about the present American regime, whose record on killing thousands of people can fairly be called disastrous. I mean, they're seriously trying to claim they started a hideously-mismanaged war over a simple honest mistake. That's not what you call a defensible position.


Is that what the recent legislation says? Does it say "we support torturing innocent people"? No....what does it say? Does it say "ban torture"? Why, yes it does!
You mean the legislation that the administration fought tooth and nail, preferring to maintain their policy of torturing innocent people? Um, Blair, which side are you arguing?


Conservatives crave not authoritarianism. I assume Liberals share this view yes?
No, actually you do support authoritarianism. I know, I know, you SAY you don't, but unless you are vehemently opposed to this administration's policy of "Anything the President does is legal", then you are not, in fact, opposed to authoritarianism. You don't get to pay lip service to liberty and then turn around and support total executive power. Your claims to the contrary are irrelevant in the face of actual policies in the real world.


When was the policy of "torturing innocents" established? It wasn't! There exists no policy of torture.
Well, yes there does. Just saying something doesn't make it true, Blair. An unofficial policy is still policy, and we know that this administration, and by implication its supporters, took a very strong stance in favor of torturing people. Since they also took a strong stance against any kind of due process involved, it is a mathematical certainty that this policy involved torturing an indeterminate number of innocent people.

Are you going to make the case that torturing innocent people is okay?

This is what you support, people. Don't get huffy with us for pointing it out, take that energy and use it to ask yourself whether you actually support deliberate failure, profiteering, weakened security, slaughter of thousands, economic irresponsibility on an epic scale, and torturing innocent people.

If you don't support those things, why do you support Bush? It's not like we don't know that these policies don't work in real life.

[Adam Crocker]

They've stolen the word conservative to conceal their true nature.

Okay, but how do you jibe this with your redefinition of "Conservative" as meaning "Authoritarian?" More specifically what is your rationale for doing so? (You've explained the liberal/conservative-liberal part fine enough.)

[cactusmaac]

Hang on, though.

I clicked the link, and found the relevant page. I assume you're talking about this part:


So, unless I'm misreading this, according to the link you posted, the law expressly forbids electronic surveillance that involves US citizens without a warrant. Where can I find the part that supports your assertion?

(*edit*: corrected a bit)

My mistake.

Doesn't look like Bush used existing FISA provisions.

From the NYT.

Mr. Bush's executive order allowing some warrantless eavesdropping on those inside the United States - including American citizens, permanent legal residents, tourists and other foreigners - is based on classified legal opinions that assert that the president has broad powers to order such searches, derived in part from the September 2001 Congressional resolution authorizing him to wage war on Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, according to the officials familiar with the N.S.A. operation.

[Ontir]

Given the dissection of the Constitution, and anything even approiximating liberties over the last 5 dark years, is anyone REALLY surprised by the garbage?!?

[Sam]

“The President asserted in his December 17th radio address that “leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it.” This statement gives the American public a very misleading impression that the President fully consulted with Congress.

“First, it is quite likely that 96 Senators of 100 Senators, including 13 of 15 on the Senate Intelligence Committee first learned about this program in the New York Times, not from any Administration briefing.

“I personally received a single very short briefing on this program earlier this year prior to its public disclosure. That briefing occurred more than three years after the President said this program began.

“The Administration briefers did not seek my advice or consent about the program, and based on what I have heard publicly since, key details about the program apparently were not provided to me.

“Under current Administration briefing guidelines, members of Congress are informed after decisions are made, have virtually no ability to either approve or reject a program, and are prohibited from discussing these types of programs with nearly all of their fellow members and all of their staff.

“We need to investigate this program and the President’s legal authority to carry it out. We also need to review this flawed congressional consultation system. I will be asking the President to cooperate in both reviews.”
-- Sen. Reid

[Sam]

U.S. Rep. John Lewis said Monday in a radio interview that President Bush should be impeached if he broke the law in authorizing spying on Americans.

The Democratic senator from Georgia told WAOK-AM he would sign a bill of impeachment if one was drawn up and that the House of Representatives should consider such a move.

Lewis is among several Democrats who have voiced discontent with Sunday night's television speech, where Bush asked Americans to continue to support the Iraq War. Lewis is the first major House figure to suggest impeaching Bush.

"Its a very serious charge, but he violated the law," said Lewis, a former civil rights leader. "The president should abide by the law. He deliberately, systematically violated the law. He is not King, he is president."
http://www.accessnorthga.com/news/ap_newfullstory.asp?ID=69123

[Ontir]

Horrible, but not surprising. Some of the blame, can be leveled against Congress as well. For too long, both sides of the aisle have been overly willing to goose step to the off-tempo beat of this twisted Pied Piper, misleading the country straight to Hell!

[cactusmaac]

If I could ask just one serious question.

Over and over again this administration has been discovered doing things that if not out right illegal are at the very least unethical and at least partially out of sync with the Constitution.

I won’t give the whole laundry list, but you know the basics, spying on citizens, holding citizens without the right to trial or council, rendering prisoners for torture, etc, etc..

So I have got to ask, and I really hope that you and several other of the more conservative posters will answer, what exactly does this man have to do before you guys stop defending his actions?

Hell, he isn’t even a fiscal conservative, let alone a social one, so what is it that makes you folks just keep right on supporting him?

I would really like to know.

I see the actions taken to date as being necessary to combat Al Qaeda.

Previous wartime Presidents suspended habeus corpus, jailed newspaper editors, instituted widescale censorship and threw the Japanese into concentration camps. It's inevitable for civil liberties to be circumscribed when a society faces an enemy that is doing its' best to destroy it. There's an eternal trade-off between freedom and security, and the casualties that Al Qaeda and its' affiliates have inflicted have necessarily caused a swinging of the pendulum.

So far I don't believe the Bush Administration has done anything that I find unacceptable.

As for his lack of fiscal conservatism, it's disappointing, but then the electorate has made it quite clear it prefers pols who bring the bacon home. Still, his demonstrated commitment to tax cuts does mitigate that.

[Mike Smith]

Humans are naturally both territorial & social, and have the instinctive urge to gather in groups and then beat the other group over the head with a rock to keep them away from their bananas?

Haha, I like this one. It certainly explains much of the antiquated brute practices of which our nation partakes.

One thing that upsets me is it seems that every every political argument or debate, no matter the origin, will break into conservative vs. liberal. People will line on respective sides and start alluding to almost random points in agenda, each divergent from the original topic yet not addressing the primary issue in direct terms. It's vexing after a point and diverts from absolute solution.

The issue is should we set precedent to allow the executive branch extended powers of surveillance, secret organizations to go about obtaining information, with diminished checks from the courts or legal statutes from legislature? Is this what we want, a land of federal power that has a "right" to follow citizens? This seems to be a power while perhaps 'noble' in origins, is easily corrupted; see USSR. This type of action tends to set a permanent precedent for future presidents and leaders to follow. However, as usual, things break into a discussion of rhetoric either side has forced the populace, as I see sometimes an international audience, to regurgitate in issues like this. Instead of discussing views on the morality and possible benefits of surveillance, it's like we are instead sidetracked with petty bickering. In our own point of view, removed from anything that Clinton, Reagan, NPR, or Fox News has said...what's the benefit of such actions to us? What are the risks?

Hopefully it's just my perception, but I almost feel that American populace is becoming so complacent that they don't think on issues beyond party lines, that is, they discuss what they are told to argue. It's like a system that is developing without input from pure thoughts/concerns of "typical everyday American". Perhaps this is why administrations/political hoardes can do such things without warrant or concern, just inciting a little fear to present new rhetoric or refresh that of old. At times it does seem Americans are so caught up in their little factions, we miss the big point of the purpose of our government. On this is where I give guys supporting third parties, or "getting down to the issues", much merit.