Scratch two Dem candidates off the list - Page 4

Undertoad · 08-01-2003, 04:09 PM

They really hate it when we stop them from killing us, so we should just let them, and afterwards we can argue about it in court. I see.

warch · 08-01-2003, 07:44 PM

No no. Even bad men deserve proof. If not then, all is lost.

elSicomoro · 08-02-2003, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Undertoad
Personally I think right now my vote would go Lieberman first, then Bush

No disrespect intended at all Sheppsie, but I have to ask this: why are the two people that seem hell-bent on curtailing our civil liberties at the top of your list?

Tobiasly · 08-02-2003, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Undertoad
But in a 60-40 world, he has less fear of political repercussions and nominates someone Pat Robertson approves of.

He can nominate whoever he wants, but it still has to be approved. And if the Senate stays as narrowly divided as it is, Bush won't have any choice but to nominate a more moderate candidate.

Undertoad · 08-02-2003, 07:57 AM

Syc, I think it's a more complicated matter than it looks. I think incompetent presidencies result in much greater loss of civil rights just due to uncertainty. I think civil rights are what you lose when the people aren't watching, and I think they're watching right now, although they always have blind spots. And I think there are times in civilizations when people desperately want to give up their civil rights, and I think a poorly-run War on Terror would lead to such times.

Also, there's a strange factor at work with the presidency. Sometimes you have to vote for the exact opposite of what you want. Only a president from the south, LBJ, could enact the civil rights acts of his day. Only Nixon could go to China. Only Bush Sr could sign the Clean Air Act. Only Clinton could enact welfare reform and NAFTA.

Undertoad · 08-02-2003, 07:59 AM

Tob, good point... IIRC the Senate has only recently decided that it's politically acceptable to strongly object to such appointees. Can't tell whether it's a good thing to make the whole thing more political...

elSicomoro · 08-02-2003, 08:00 AM

Does Bush really care about that though?

Look at the problem he is having getting Federal judges approved. He hasn't yanked any of the nominations yet that I've seen...and he just nominated another (from what I've read) conservative.

This president comes across as very uncompromising, which is not a good thing in situations like this.

tw · 08-02-2003, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sycamore
Look at the problem he is having getting Federal judges approved. He hasn't yanked any of the nominations yet that I've seen...and he just nominated another (from what I've read) conservative.

Actually it is only a few judges he is having problems with. Something like tens of nominations are going through with little or no problem. But Bush nominated at least three so extreme that he is having a problem rarely seen with judge nominatons in a Congress even dominated by his own party.

It is not just the Democrats that are having a problem with these few nominations. Many Republicans are also finding these nominations that repugnant.

elSicomoro · 08-02-2003, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Undertoad
Syc, I think it's a more complicated matter than it looks.

Agreed.

Quote:

I think civil rights are what you lose when the people aren't watching, and I think they're watching right now, although they always have blind spots.

I see many people walking around blind right now, oblivious to the loss of civil rights in recent times. Sure, there are people like us who bring it up...but what do we and our kind represent? Like 1% of the population, if that? (I'm sure it's more, but nowhere near as high as it probably should be.)

Quote:

And I think there are times in civilizations when people desperately want to give up their civil rights, and I think a poorly-run War on Terror would lead to such times.

As I mentioned above, there seem to be a lot of oblivious folks out there right now. As I see it, the aftermath of 9/11 showed what a bunch of yes men Americans can be. This certainly isn't the first time it's happened, but one of the few times I've seen it during my short lifetime.

Would you say the War on Terror is well-run?

Quote:

Also, there's a strange factor at work with the presidency. Sometimes you have to vote for the exact opposite of what you want. Only a president from the south, LBJ, could enact the civil rights acts of his day. Only Nixon could go to China. Only Bush Sr could sign the Clean Air Act. Only Clinton could enact welfare reform and NAFTA.

I don't think those are really examples of opposites. LBJ had to respond to social concern...not to mention he became president by accident (or conspiracy, depending on how you view the JFK assassination). Nixon apparently had his eyes on China before he even became president. Bush had to work with a Democratic Congress, and Clinton with a Republican one.

If we went by your examples, Lieberman would then curb attempts at censorship if elected. Now, if Congress stays Republican in 2004, and then he's voted in, do you really think that he's going to curb his censorship campaign? The GOP would probably love him for the concept.

I think this has come up here before, but I think the perfect president for 2004 would be a social liberal, fiscal conservative.

Quote:

Originally posted by tw
Actually it is only a few judges he is having problems with. Something like tens of nominations are going through with little or no problem. But Bush nominated at least three so extreme that he is having a problem rarely seen with judge nominatons in a Congress even dominated by his own party.

With the two nominees named last week, that now makes 7 that are looked upon as "dangerous." And there should be some concern, especially over those nominated to the DC Appeals Court. All 7 seem to be staunch conservatives, and there has been talk of changing the rules of the filibuster in the Senate to "speed up" the nomination process.

Wait until the budget talks start heating up...

Undertoad · 08-02-2003, 08:40 PM

Oblivious to today's loss of civil rights: feh, I'd say they have a sense of proportion. What we have happening now is damn near nothing compared to what it could be. Roving wiretaps? Visa overstays treated harshly? T'is but a scratch; there are millions in jail just for using plants, too many corrupt cops, etc. which are worse problems that have been with us before, and still...

I dunno if Lieberman would not take up censorship. You never know because the R opposition might find it a bad tactic to have Lieberman get the credit for their issues. In 1995 the Rs gave Clinton welfare reform because it was just too big of an issue for them to claim disinterest and possibly too much in the country's interest to pass up. My guess is that a lot of them like to use censorship as an issue to stir up their fundraising base, but really would like to pass stuff that looks like something big but turns out to be totally meaningless.

Remember the "V-chip"? It had both sides screaming bloody murder, but here we are about 10 years later and absolutely nothing has actually changed. As long as the people do not want censorship in their lives, they will not have it. My worry is for when they WANT it, because then they WILL GET it... in droves.

Is the War on Terror well run: that answer has to be "incomplete", because we won't know for a long time whether what has happened so far will be effective in the long run. And there's a lot we can't see, because half the war is fought in intelligence work.

But by accounts, and with my own bias, I feel the Offense gets an A- so far and the Defense gets a D. But I guess the only relevant question is, was there another major attack on our shores or interests? and so far the answer is no. Ridge alleged in one press conference that Homeland Security has actually prevented further attacks, but without the details we can't have yet, we just don't know.

xoxoxoBruce · 08-02-2003, 09:07 PM

I keep hearing hints of *possible* plots uncovered. But these guys are so secretive and slippery, I have the feeling that the powers that be pounce and interrogate, rather than relying on surveillance to see what's going to happen. Nobody wants to be the one that even suspected and failed to prevent an attack.

wolf · 08-02-2003, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dave
Heh. You're finding out what I've known for many years now: most Democrat politicians are pathetic sacks of shit.

That's why Dean is interesting; he looks less sack o' shit-like.

Really?

Dude refers to the Bill of Rights as "legal technicalities"? Not what I'm wanting to hear.

elSicomoro · 08-02-2003, 10:01 PM

Hmmm...subverting the legal process to achieve a desired result...man, that sounds awfully familiar.

tw · 08-03-2003, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
I keep hearing hints of *possible* plots uncovered. But these guys are so secretive and slippery, I have the feeling that the powers that be pounce and interrogate, rather than relying on surveillance to see what's going to happen. Nobody wants to be the one that even suspected and failed to prevent an attack.

I would have though by now we all would have seen where the anti-terrorism campaign had a problem. Investigators in AZ, MN, and IL all were on the trail of 11 Sept terrorists - and all were taken off the trail by FBI management. FBI that ran a crime laboratory so pathetic that data was even being invented rather than analyzed. FBI so pathetic that even their own spy master was a spy. FBI so anti-American as to tell - no ... yell at - agents in IL that they would not open a criminal investigation.

We never needed all these liberties restricted. We, even here in the Cellar, participate in the problem. News reporters would routinely demonstrate how pathetic airport security was. How did Congress respond? They passed a law making it illegal for reporters to do such stories. Where in the Cellar is outrage over this incompentant Congressional action?

They need more power such as the Patriot Act and they need more bureaucracy such as Fatherland security only because they have a classic top management problem. Rather than fix the problem, they spend more money and make more bureaucracy - like a good MBA is taught to do.

We have a NASA who has the same, exact management problem that murdered seven Challenger accidents. The Columbia investigation board is so depressed about the effectiveness of their report that, as quoted now in today's CNN.com, one Noble Prize winner, a student of Feynman, now says they don't believe the murder of seven Columbia astronauts will change things. That is why they keep leaking details of their report, a little bit at a time, so that even Daily News readers and Action News viewers will hear why those astronauts werel killed.

85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. That is the problem in NASA. That was long clearly the problem in the FBI and other national security organizations. And the same incompetant management, instead, wants more power to even monitor what books you buy from Amazon and take out of your library? Where has anyone been addressing the real threat to homeland security - our government leaders who don't first blame themselves.

But then those same government leaders can outrightly lie about WMD, they can advocate the invasion of another sovereign nation without any smoking gun. Yet so many even in the Cellar support such incompetant and dangerous leaders.

tw · 08-03-2003, 08:00 AM

Lets take the source of the problem one more step. The Catholic Church has recently ordered all Catholic politicians to vote according to Church doctrine. Hoo-hum say the Cellar dwellars. Not one word posted here about this radical departure in Church doctrine and their newly strengthen policy of promoting hate.

This same Church would refused to provide the NY Times with any information to cover up their own corrupt management. NY Times then discovered sexual child molestation in every dioceses. And that was just what the NY Times could find in less than one week. Recently one church was identified with over 1000 cases of sexual molestation - further crimes against children covered up.

This is the same Church that would tell you how to vote. The same church that outrightly advocates hate against gays as was the norm in 1950s deep south against blacks! Where is the outright protestation against an institution so widely corrupted, that molests children, protect those molesters, outright lie about it, promote hate and violence against those whose sexual life they don't approve of (an institution that forces their own employees to masterbate and demeans them for same).

Who here has the balls to stand up for the Catholic Church that is that corrupt, demented, and and enemy of its own followers. But even harher, who will stand up and call the Church the corrupt organization that it really is.

I fear we all still spend too much time reading the Daily News, watching the bimbo on Action News, or simply make decisions only upon our personal emotions - facts be damned.

Cited were blunt examples how many Cellar dwellers seem to be so sure that Saddam was ready to launch weapons of mass destruction against mainland US in 45 minutes, that don't even protest when reporters are banned from exposing no airport security, that don't outrightly blame top domestic security management (ie FBI) as the real threat to fatherland security, that even condone, by silence, the outright murder of astronauts, and even endorse tax cuts that are denied to the poor- that are only to enrich the wealthy at the expense of a healthy economy.

We have the government we deserve. Look at the silence in the Cellar as proof. Silence that even approves of the Church telling American political leaders how to vote and that advocated hate against homosexuals and other patriotic Americans.

08-02-2003, 09:07 PM	#56
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	I keep hearing hints of possible plots uncovered. But these guys are so secretive and slippery, I have the feeling that the powers that be pounce and interrogate, rather than relying on surveillance to see what's going to happen. Nobody wants to be the one that even suspected and failed to prevent an attack. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

08-01-2003, 04:09 PM	#46
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	They really hate it when we stop them from killing us, so we should just let them, and afterwards we can argue about it in court. I see.

08-01-2003, 07:44 PM	#47
warch lurkin old school Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Minnesota Posts: 2,796	No no. Even bad men deserve proof. If not then, all is lost.

08-02-2003, 07:57 AM	#50
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Syc, I think it's a more complicated matter than it looks. I think incompetent presidencies result in much greater loss of civil rights just due to uncertainty. I think civil rights are what you lose when the people aren't watching, and I think they're watching right now, although they always have blind spots. And I think there are times in civilizations when people desperately want to give up their civil rights, and I think a poorly-run War on Terror would lead to such times. Also, there's a strange factor at work with the presidency. Sometimes you have to vote for the exact opposite of what you want. Only a president from the south, LBJ, could enact the civil rights acts of his day. Only Nixon could go to China. Only Bush Sr could sign the Clean Air Act. Only Clinton could enact welfare reform and NAFTA.

08-02-2003, 07:59 AM	#51
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Tob, good point... IIRC the Senate has only recently decided that it's politically acceptable to strongly object to such appointees. Can't tell whether it's a good thing to make the whole thing more political...

08-02-2003, 08:00 AM	#52
elSicomoro Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 12,486	Does Bush really care about that though? Look at the problem he is having getting Federal judges approved. He hasn't yanked any of the nominations yet that I've seen...and he just nominated another (from what I've read) conservative. This president comes across as very uncompromising, which is not a good thing in situations like this.

08-02-2003, 08:40 PM	#55
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Oblivious to today's loss of civil rights: feh, I'd say they have a sense of proportion. What we have happening now is damn near nothing compared to what it could be. Roving wiretaps? Visa overstays treated harshly? T'is but a scratch; there are millions in jail just for using plants, too many corrupt cops, etc. which are worse problems that have been with us before, and still... I dunno if Lieberman would not take up censorship. You never know because the R opposition might find it a bad tactic to have Lieberman get the credit for their issues. In 1995 the Rs gave Clinton welfare reform because it was just too big of an issue for them to claim disinterest and possibly too much in the country's interest to pass up. My guess is that a lot of them like to use censorship as an issue to stir up their fundraising base, but really would like to pass stuff that looks like something big but turns out to be totally meaningless. Remember the "V-chip"? It had both sides screaming bloody murder, but here we are about 10 years later and absolutely nothing has actually changed. As long as the people do not want censorship in their lives, they will not have it. My worry is for when they WANT it, because then they WILL GET it... in droves. Is the War on Terror well run: that answer has to be "incomplete", because we won't know for a long time whether what has happened so far will be effective in the long run. And there's a lot we can't see, because half the war is fought in intelligence work. But by accounts, and with my own bias, I feel the Offense gets an A- so far and the Defense gets a D. But I guess the only relevant question is, was there another major attack on our shores or interests? and so far the answer is no. Ridge alleged in one press conference that Homeland Security has actually prevented further attacks, but without the details we can't have yet, we just don't know.

08-02-2003, 10:01 PM	#58
elSicomoro Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 12,486	Hmmm...subverting the legal process to achieve a desired result...man, that sounds awfully familiar.

08-03-2003, 08:00 AM	#60
tw Read? I only know how to write. Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 11,933	Lets take the source of the problem one more step. The Catholic Church has recently ordered all Catholic politicians to vote according to Church doctrine. Hoo-hum say the Cellar dwellars. Not one word posted here about this radical departure in Church doctrine and their newly strengthen policy of promoting hate. This same Church would refused to provide the NY Times with any information to cover up their own corrupt management. NY Times then discovered sexual child molestation in every dioceses. And that was just what the NY Times could find in less than one week. Recently one church was identified with over 1000 cases of sexual molestation - further crimes against children covered up. This is the same Church that would tell you how to vote. The same church that outrightly advocates hate against gays as was the norm in 1950s deep south against blacks! Where is the outright protestation against an institution so widely corrupted, that molests children, protect those molesters, outright lie about it, promote hate and violence against those whose sexual life they don't approve of (an institution that forces their own employees to masterbate and demeans them for same). Who here has the balls to stand up for the Catholic Church that is that corrupt, demented, and and enemy of its own followers. But even harher, who will stand up and call the Church the corrupt organization that it really is. I fear we all still spend too much time reading the Daily News, watching the bimbo on Action News, or simply make decisions only upon our personal emotions - facts be damned. Cited were blunt examples how many Cellar dwellers seem to be so sure that Saddam was ready to launch weapons of mass destruction against mainland US in 45 minutes, that don't even protest when reporters are banned from exposing no airport security, that don't outrightly blame top domestic security management (ie FBI) as the real threat to fatherland security, that even condone, by silence, the outright murder of astronauts, and even endorse tax cuts that are denied to the poor- that are only to enrich the wealthy at the expense of a healthy economy. We have the government we deserve. Look at the silence in the Cellar as proof. Silence that even approves of the Church telling American political leaders how to vote and that advocated hate against homosexuals and other patriotic Americans.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)