I Am Shocked, Shocked that U.S. Gov Abused Blank Check Powers

[Lemur]

Who would have thought that our government would abuse (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5987804&page=1) limitless powers of surveillance?


Despite pledges by President George W. Bush and American intelligence officials to the contrary, hundreds of US citizens overseas have been eavesdropped on as they called friends and family back home, according to two former military intercept operators who worked at the giant National Security Agency (NSA) center in Fort Gordon, Georgia. [...]

"These were just really everyday, average, ordinary Americans who happened to be in the Middle East, in our area of intercept and happened to be making these phone calls on satellite phones," said Adrienne Kinne, a 31-year old US Army Reserves Arab linguist assigned to a special military program at the NSA's Back Hall at Fort Gordon from November 2001 to 2003.

Kinne described the contents of the calls as "personal, private things with Americans who are not in any way, shape or form associated with anything to do with terrorism."

She said US military officers, American journalists and American aid workers were routinely intercepted and "collected on" as they called their offices or homes in the United States. [...]

The accounts of the two former intercept operators, who have never met and did not know of the other's allegations, provide the first inside look at the day to day operations of the huge and controversial US terrorist surveillance program.

"There is a constant check to make sure that our civil liberties of our citizens are treated with respect," said President Bush at a news conference this past February.

But the accounts of the two whistleblowers, which could not be independently corroborated, raise serious questions about how much respect is accorded those Americans whose conversations are intercepted in the name of fighting terrorism.

-edit-

This is just lovely (http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/10/in_other_news_the_nsa_has_been.html):


One whistleblower said that NSA employees would entertain themselves listening to "phone sex" and "pillow talk." But I am sure this was all done to protect us from the terrorists.

But remember kids, if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about, and just to prove this we're going to install a Federal monitor in everybody's bathroom.

[Oleander Ardens]

Well it is sick. Or wait this is the Bush way of doing things. Well sick or Bush is all the same.

BTW Palin loves it too to abuse power (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/us/10trooper.html?hp). Guess that's why she loves the great leader Bush soo much.

I wonder that any Republican with intact ethics and some intellectual capacities can support either. But nowaday Republican, ethics and intellect are Oxymorons.

P.S: After posting this I read this (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/opinion/10brooks.html?em) piece about how the Rep. managed to alienate the educated class.

[Banquo's Ghost]

But nowaday Republican, ethics and intellect are Oxymorons.


I would prefer it that patrons do not use insulting generalisations that amount to personal attacks on other members. This tends to result in tit-for-tat flame wars.

There are some very ethical and intelligent members of this forum that happen to have Republican sympathies.

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

[drone]

Too late for this now, since the Democratic Congress caved and passed the new FISA law. Gutless cowards.

At some point, these powers are going to be used politically. Watergate II, electronic bug-aloo!

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

The better to monitor President Obama's political enemies.

[Kadagar_AV]

Swedish government wanted a new law to for our version of NSA to be able to intercept calls.

However, the people kind of were against it, and they couldn't pass the law (huge demontrations and stuff).

The swedes behind the law had the same arguments as Bush, that this in no way would have anything to do with normal calls...

I dontt hink the swedish government can handle it better than the US, so I am glad they didnt get to pass it.

Think the US will react to this?

[Strike For The South]

Swedish government wanted a new law to for our version of NSA to be able to intercept calls.

However, the people kind of were against it, and they couldn't pass the law (huge demontrations and stuff).

The swedes behind the law had the same arguments as Bush, that this in no way would have anything to do with normal calls...

I dontt hink the swedish government can handle it better than the US, so I am glad they didnt get to pass it.

Think the US will react to this?

Unfortunately the US government doesn't listen to its people. You can do that when 10 guys provide 99% of your funding

[Oleander Ardens]

I would prefer it that patrons do not use insulting generalisations that amount to personal attacks on other members. This tends to result in tit-for-tat flame wars.

There are some very ethical and intelligent members of this forum that happen to have Republican sympathies.

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

Thanks for the correction. I intended to say "governing" Republicans and ethics and "governing" Republicans and intellect are Oxymorons.

:bow:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well it is sick. Or wait this is the Bush way of doing things. Well sick or Bush is all the same.

BTW Palin loves it too to abuse power (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/us/10trooper.html?hp). Guess that's why she loves the great leader Bush soo much.

I wonder that any Republican with intact ethics and some intellectual capacities can support either. But nowaday Republican, ethics and intellect are Oxymorons.

P.S: After posting this I read this (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/opinion/10brooks.html?em) piece about how the Rep. managed to alienate the educated class.

No, its the Democratic Congress's way of doing things as well. Those cowards passed the law.

This is why we should vote Libertarian or Constitutional party.

Sorry, but I don't completely trust the NYT. Nor do I trust Police Department internal investigations.

CR

[Kadagar_AV]

Unfortunately the US government doesn't listen to its people. You can do that when 10 guys provide 99% of your funding

I think a better system is that the state allocates funds for political parties, and that they are thereafter forbidden to use more than this amount.

It should be about the issues, not funding, imho.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Thanks for the correction. I intended to say "governing" Republicans and ethics and "governing" Republicans and intellect are Oxymorons.

:bow:

Still insulting.

Not really oxymoronic either, since neither word pairing is a typical phrase or title. People have jibed about the oxymoronic quality of "Military Intelligence" or "Jumbo Shrimp" for a long time now, but you are trying to force the word pairings.

"Republican Ethicist" and "Republican Intellectual" would be more in line with the viscious point you are trying to make.


Then again, maybe I am incorrect. Since I've voted GOP most of my life, I'm probably too :daisy: dumb to understand your point -- or maybe too busy with my "who do we subjugate next" committee work.

:rolleyes3:

[Lemur]

Since I've voted GOP most of my life, I'm probably too :daisy: dumb to understand your point -- or maybe too busy with my "who do we subjugate next" committee work.
See, if you weren't such a dummy you'd know that it's "whom do we subjugate next."

[PanzerJaeger]

Another issue the democrats promised to address but capitulated on. What have they done with their two years besides give Barney Frank lots of power.

[Gregoshi]

See, if you weren't such a dummy you'd know that it's "whom do we subjugate next."

Which vaults grammar-nazis to the top of the list... ~D

[Lemur]

Another issue the democrats promised to address but capitulated on. What have they done with their two years besides give Barney Frank lots of power.
You first sentence ends in a preposition, and your second one erroneously concludes with a period instead of a question mark, even though you're clearly posing an interrogative.

I can't work under these conditions, with these barbarians ...

[PanzerJaeger]

You first sentence ends in a preposition, and your second one erroneously concludes with a period instead of a question mark, even though you're clearly posing an interrogative.

I can't work under these conditions, with these barbarians ...

I do apologize, posting while taking notes can end up pretty sloppy.

[Gregoshi]

You'd think these surveillance folks would spell/grammar check for you whilest reading your posts. What the heck are we paying them for?

[Kadagar_AV]

You'd think these surveillance folks would spell/grammar check for you whilest reading your posts. What the heck are we paying them for?

This, my friend, was the best post I've seen in years.

Cheers!

[Koga No Goshi]

Another issue the democrats promised to address but capitulated on. What have they done with their two years besides give Barney Frank lots of power.

Hehe, 2 years of Dems in Congress didn't undue roughly 30 years of Reaganomic trickle down and deregulation. The shock! The horror! :help: :furious3: ::ANGERMAN::

[Redleg]

Hehe, 2 years of Dems in Congress didn't undue roughly 30 years of Reaganomic trickle down and deregulation. The shock! The horror! :help: :furious3: ::ANGERMAN::

However this was one area of the law that the Democratic controlled congress could of easily done.

So are you attempting to justify this failure of the Democratic controlled congress with the 30 years of Reaganomic trickle down and deregulation that you feel is a big failure?

[PanzerJaeger]

Hehe, 2 years of Dems in Congress didn't undue roughly 30 years of Reaganomic trickle down and deregulation. The shock! The horror! :help: :furious3: ::ANGERMAN::

I wasn't aware that the republicans had control of congress for the last 30 years.

[seireikhaan]

More :daisy: blame game. What a shocker.

We have a civil rights crisis, and each side is so busy pointing fingers we don't even have time to even lament the problem, let alone discuss what should be done about it. Congratz all.

Besides Greg, of course, who manages to make me smile even whilst being furious.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I love how a thread titled "U.S Gov Abused Blank check powers" turned partisan instantly. It's us vs the politicians on this one, everyone in this thread is on the same side...

[Crazed Rabbit]

Hehe, 2 years of Dems in Congress didn't undue roughly 30 years of Reaganomic trickle down and deregulation. The shock! The horror! :help: :furious3: ::ANGERMAN::

Curse those unregulated truck shipping firms!


I love how a thread titled "U.S Gov Abused Blank check powers" turned partisan instantly. It's us vs the politicians on this one, everyone in this thread is on the same side...

So true. Politicians of both parties almost always love to have more power. They just go through it via different means.

CR

[Xiahou]

So wait, Americans who were in the Middle East talking on satellite phones are surprised/shocked to learn that they were being listened in on? Being DOD sat phones makes it even better.

Here's another newsflash- cell phones are also easily eavesdropped on and trackable! Shock! :dizzy2:

Should the government be wasting it's time listening in on personal conversations of it's own personnel? No. But we're talking about government- wasting resources and invading your privacy is what it does best.

[seireikhaan]

So wait, Americans who were in the Middle East talking on satellite phones are surprised/shocked to learn that they were being listened in on? Being DOD sat phones makes it even better.

Here's another newsflash- cell phones are also easily eavesdropped on and trackable! Shock! :dizzy2:

Should the government be wasting it's time listening in on personal conversations of it's own personnel? No. But we're talking about government- wasting resources and invading your privacy is what it does best.
Right- so its better to just pass an invasion of privacy as "something it does best" and move on, rather than proposing any change to it? Hey, taxing is what the government does best too, should we let them tax however much they want? :dizzy2:

[drone]

Hehe, 2 years of Dems in Congress didn't undue roughly 30 years of Reaganomic trickle down and deregulation. The shock! The horror! :help: :furious3: ::ANGERMAN::

What the :daisy: is this supposed to mean?!? You are aware of the 2008 amendment to FISA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FISA_Amendments_Act_of_2008), right?

On this bill, the Democrat-controlled Congress (check the date, the Democrats actually had majorities in both houses, plus a vast public disgust regarding the Bushies, shock/horror!) caved into the wishes of the administration, violating their duties under the Constitution and granting the executive power it does not legally have. As I said in my previous post, gutless cowards. What was the problem with (in practice, rubber-stamp) FISA court oversight? With this amendment, there is no accountability for the crimes committed by both the telco companies and the federal government. We have no true knowledge of what this surveillance covers, for all we know they tapped Democratic campaigns and congressional staff. Probably not, but nobody knows, and that is where oversight is critical. Pelosi is worthless as House Speaker, they originally rejected the bill but she caved like I knew she would. As soon as she said impeachment was off the table, Bush/Cheney knew they owned her.

And for some reason people wonder why Congress' approval ratings are lower than Bush's. Even with a mandate from the 2006 election, they do nothing. :no: Don't even try to pass this one off on the GOP, the Democrats failed big time here.

[Lemur]

I love how a thread titled "U.S Gov Abused Blank check powers" turned partisan instantly.
It's less than 30 days from a Presidential election, so everybody's got their fisticuffs ready. I wouldn't worry about it overmuch, same thing happened in here four years ago. Everybody calms down once the thing is decided.

[Koga No Goshi]

And for some reason people wonder why Congress' approval ratings are lower than Bush's. Even with a mandate from the 2006 election, they do nothing. :no: Don't even try to pass this one off on the GOP, the Democrats failed big time here.

You guys keep lobbing this stat around. Congress is pretty much always unpopular. The rating is not so low just or only because Dems took over two years ago. It's a cumulative disgust after 8 years of policies and laws they don't like. Most of which we have your party to thank for.

[Redleg]

You guys keep lobbing this stat around. Congress is pretty much always unpopular. The rating is not so low just or only because Dems took over two years ago. It's a cumulative disgust after 8 years of policies and laws they don't like. Most of which we have your party both parties to thank for.

Correct for actually factual accuracy on who is to blame

[drone]

You guys keep lobbing this stat around. Congress is pretty much always unpopular. The rating is not so low just or only because Dems took over two years ago. It's a cumulative disgust after 8 years of policies and laws they don't like. Most of which we have your party to thank for.

My party? Again, I must state that I am an independent, registered to no party. Stop with the stereotyping and blind grouping of people who disagree with you, and actually think about the issue at hand.

How does this excuse the Democrat controlled Congress from enabling the administration on this matter?

[PanzerJaeger]

You guys keep lobbing this stat around. Congress is pretty much always unpopular. The rating is not so low just or only because Dems took over two years ago. It's a cumulative disgust after 8 years of policies and laws they don't like. Most of which we have your party to thank for.

Not really. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance/congressional_performance)

[Gregoshi]

Why are we blathering on tossing blame at Congress and the President here on this topic? Heck, we know they don't listen to We the People. :shrug:

[drone]

Not really. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance/congressional_performance)

Ouch, I didn't know it was that bad. ~D Hopefully a intra-party revolt is brewing...

Pelosi made for a good minority leader. Annoying and partisan, just what you want in Congress, a speed bump. She just doesn't have a clue outside that role, she needs to lead and stand up for the people, this is what the House is for.

It's Friday night, I'm mostly drunk, and I can't stay up to debate those in the Pacific time-zone. Good night all. :medievalcheers:

[Koga No Goshi]

My party? Again, I must state that I am an independent, registered to no party. Stop with the stereotyping and blind grouping of people who disagree with you, and actually think about the issue at hand.

How does this excuse the Democrat controlled Congress from enabling the administration on this matter?

If you are independent, stop demanding rationales for Republican legislation that a lot of Dem lemmings got shepherded or scared or cajoled into supporting for national security purposes. I'm not happy about it, nor have I ever made a claim that Every Dem votes in lockstep with my beliefs and how I would like them to vote. But if you think looking down your nose at Congressional approval ratings and unpopular Republican pieces of legislation which haven't been retired by the Democratic Congress, and blaming it all on the Democrats, doesn't come off as markedly one-sided and partisan, you need to work on those Independent credibility ratings.

I don't like the Patriot Act, the warrantless wiretapping, etc. But neither do I like this mass export of George W. Bush's administration's most unpopular policies wholesale onto the shoulders of the Democrats. Then again I might be called left-wing even by the standards of the Democratic party, so, contrary to what many people say about me here, don't expect me to usher out some talking points to defend the Patriot Act. It's disgusting and just a return of McCarthyism, wartime hysteria and grabs of power to invade privacy and overrule civil rights and protections. But from the perspective of ending this legislation... are you suggesting I'm better off voting Rep all down the line in November? :) Don't have a lot of other choices, do I?

One of the parties is going to control the majority in January. And I don't believe in a toilet flush independent vote. When independent parties get their act together and pull their collective heads from their buttocks and stop focusing on single issues or trivial distinctions from the major parties, or refusing to compromise on one or two hard core nitpicks that prevent them from having any mainstream appeal, or actually try to work their way up the powerbase from the grassroots and local and state levels instead of just trying to decapitate the major parties with a Presidential lame duck power grab, I'll consider giving one my vote. But unless you have a compelling argument that the Republicans are more likely to overturn their own legislation, then your accusations that I'm a partisan because I'm going to continue to vote Dem despite them failing to give a hard no to Bush on several votes is worthless.

[Oleander Ardens]

First it is clear that the thread was derailed by me, for that I apologize to Lemur. It was a sign of bad taste and poor wit to add something insulting to some members here while I intended to insult the governing party. It is also correct that "Republican" and "ethics" are not strictly speaking oxymorons, as it is not paired as usual and is not such a plain and visible contradiction as black milk. Seamus showed here - for a Republican - surprising education and intellect. :yes:

[Gregoshi]

...and blaming it all on the Democrats...
Where did you get the "all" from? I didn't read that in drone's post. He's suggesting there is shared blame. It may be a Republican turd, but the Democrats gift wrapped it.

[Koga No Goshi]

I read it
And for some reason people wonder why Congress' approval ratings are lower than Bush's. Even with a mandate from the 2006 election, they do nothing. Don't even try to pass this one off on the GOP, the Democrats failed big time here. here. I'm not passing anything off on the GOP; it is indeed, their legislation, and a handmedown from the W administration. (Funny how we talk about it in past tense while it's still alive.)

Yes, the Democrats have failed to revolutionize and gutterdump all the legislation of the Bush Administration. Admitted. So let's get over the accusations of talking points and partisanship and discuss the issue at hand.

I think of it as the old, incredibly irresponsible owners of a house letting the paint chip and selling the house to a younger couple. Younger couple hasn't repainted the walls 3 months after moving in yet. "WHAT, WHAT??!?!?!!? YOU RUINED THIS PAINT AND HAVEN'T FIXED IT?" That's what Drone's quote sounded like. Haven't fixed it yet, yeah I'll own that. But I love how Reps and "Independents" act like the Republicans are victims of their own actions and completely without the ability to control what they do, and we have to leave that up to the Democrats to clean up all the messes and horrible legislation they pass while in the majority. And if they fail to do so in snapfinger fashion then the entire history and total existence of the legislation is their fault.

Getting back to the point, I need someone... Redleg, whoever thinks I'm just a ridiculous partisan, to give me their compelling argument as to why I should believe out of the two parties that stand any chance whatsoever of controlling the government in January, that the Republicans are the ones who are going to overturn all their own power-abusive legislation.

[Gregoshi]

I need someone... Redleg, whoever thinks I'm just a ridiculous partisan, to give me their compelling argument as to why I should believe out of the two parties that stand any chance whatsoever of controlling the government in January, that the Republicans are the ones who are going to overturn all their own power-abusive legislation.
You'll get no compelling argument from me Koga. ~:pat:

[Koga No Goshi]

You'll get no compelling argument from me Koga. ~:pat:

Wise fellow. :D :2thumbsup:

[HoreTore]

However this was one area of the law that the Democratic controlled congress could of easily done.

So are you attempting to justify this failure of the Democratic controlled congress with the 30 years of Reaganomic trickle down and deregulation that you feel is a big failure?

Right.....

So, if I spill coffee at work, and the stain is still there the next day, the blame is on the maintenance guy who didn't clean it up, and not myself who actually made the stain....?

:juggle2:

[Koga No Goshi]

Right.....

So, if I spill coffee at work, and the stain is still there the next day, the blame is on the maintenance guy who didn't clean it up, and not myself who actually made the stain....?

:juggle2:

That's always the way it worked. There is no end to the litany of things "Clinton did" when Bush stopped being a lame duck and started to actively screw up the country.

[Redleg]

Getting back to the point, I need someone... Redleg, whoever thinks I'm just a ridiculous partisan, to give me their compelling argument as to why I should believe out of the two parties that stand any chance whatsoever of controlling the government in January, that the Republicans are the ones who are going to overturn all their own power-abusive legislation.

Sure I think that your a one sided partisan because that is what you chose to present yourself as.

As for which party is better to fix our government - neither of the current major parties have a chance to fix the government since both of them pander to special interests. My issue on this topic is yes the Republican president put into congress and had approved by a Republican Controlled Congress a piece of legislation that is frankly goofy and an invasion of privacy, and when the Democratic controlled congress had a chance to refuse to renew this law - they chose to let it continue with some additions. (no substractions of the regulations to lessen the severity of the invasion of privacy.)

But instead of pointing out that both parties are to blame for this piece of garbage legislation - your focused on attempting to point out the Republicans are worse.

Sorry there - I cant agree when the other side had the opporunity and the ability to strike it down.

So once again if you want to be a partisan debater in this forum, you have to except that some of us will point out that both parties are at fault, differing in degrees at times, but the corruption and failures of both parites over the last 20 years sort of run together into one big overwhelming mass of corruption, dishonesty, and incompentance.

You should have noticed by now that I also hold the republican party responsible for their failure, but that doesnt mean the democratic party is going to be let off of the same hook that they bite into.

[Redleg]

Right.....

So, if I spill coffee at work, and the stain is still there the next day, the blame is on the maintenance guy who didn't clean it up, and not myself who actually made the stain....?

:juggle2:

Actually that is not what I said

You are responsible for not cleaning up your own mess

The maintenance guy is responsible for not cleaning up the mess that he knew was there.

Different types of blame, but shared nevertheless.

[Lemur]

First it is clear that the thread was derailed by me, for that I apologize to Lemur.
No biggie. I should have realized that you can't talk about this sort of thing so close to an election without it becoming a partisan scrum. We can discuss the eavesdropping and surveillance powers of our government another time.

[KarlXII]

I would prefer it that patrons do not use insulting generalisations that amount to personal attacks on other members. This tends to result in tit-for-tat flame wars.


Seems a lot of people already do it.

Just saying....

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Oh wow, this is the first time I've posted in the wrong thread. Sorry.

[Koga No Goshi]

Sure I think that your a one sided partisan because that is what you chose to present yourself as.

As for which party is better to fix our government - neither of the current major parties have a chance to fix the government since both of them pander to special interests. My issue on this topic is yes the Republican president put into congress and had approved by a Republican Controlled Congress a piece of legislation that is frankly goofy and an invasion of privacy, and when the Democratic controlled congress had a chance to refuse to renew this law - they chose to let it continue with some additions. (no substractions of the regulations to lessen the severity of the invasion of privacy.)

But instead of pointing out that both parties are to blame for this piece of garbage legislation - your focused on attempting to point out the Republicans are worse.

Sorry there - I cant agree when the other side had the opporunity and the ability to strike it down.

So once again if you want to be a partisan debater in this forum, you have to except that some of us will point out that both parties are at fault, differing in degrees at times, but the corruption and failures of both parites over the last 20 years sort of run together into one big overwhelming mass of corruption, dishonesty, and incompentance.

You should have noticed by now that I also hold the republican party responsible for their failure, but that doesnt mean the democratic party is going to be let off of the same hook that they bite into.

As usual, your post missed my question and went off topic, littered with some personal jibes.

I'll ask it again. What reason is there to believe that the Dems are less likely than the Reps to overturn Rep legislation in the next four years?

Yup, they haven't done it yet. Yup, more of them than I would have liked signed off on it. (I half-way forgive most of them the first time around because it was shoved through like the bailout NOW NOW NOW NOW we need this NOW for national security, before it was established this would be the M.O. for everything bad Bush's admin wanted to pass.) But I still believe them far more likely to curtail or overturn it in the next four years than the Reps.

And if you have no compelling argument to the contrary, then calling me a partisan is just an empty ad hominem.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Oh wow, this is the first time I've posted in the wrong thread. Sorry.


Welcome to the Backroom!

:wizard:


We're always glad to have new folks join in the fun...

:hmg::boxing::viking:

[Redleg]

As usual, your post missed my question and went off topic, littered with some personal jibes.

As usual you asked for it, and you failed to read what was actually written. Here is the statement once again that you failed to read because you are indeed a partisan hack on this subject. In bold to make it easier for your ability to actually read something.

As for which party is better to fix our government - neither of the current major parties have a chance to fix the government since both of them pander to special interests




I'll ask it again. What reason is there to believe that the Dems are less likely than the Reps to overturn Rep legislation in the next four years?

Like alreadly stated on this topic - because you are demostrating an inablity to actually read what is written I will bold it for you again. the Democratics had the opporunity to overturn a piece of legislation and they did not, in fact I believe they approved measures to make it even easier.

Both parties have demonstrated that they are unlikely to do what is in the best interest of the nation. So once again the democratic party has demonstrated by their own actions that they are just as unlikely to overturn legislation once its been inacted.




Yup, they haven't done it yet. Yup, more of them than I would have liked signed off on it. (I half-way forgive most of them the first time around because it was shoved through like the bailout NOW NOW NOW NOW we need this NOW for national security, before it was established this would be the M.O. for everything bad Bush's admin wanted to pass.) But I still believe them far more likely to curtail or overturn it in the next four years than the Reps.

They might, however they have demonstrated on this issue that they won't as of right now. So saying that they are more likely when they have demonstrated that they won't is an extremely weak arguement. What's even funnier is that this was stated the first time and you failed to actually read.




And if you have no compelling argument to the contrary, then calling me a partisan is just an empty ad hominem.


Actaully it is not since you failed to actually read what I stated. I clearly stated that neither party is likely to do the right thing at this time. Your comments are extremely one sided - which makes you a partisan hack. If you think that is a personal jabe then fine but dont ask the question if you dont want to hear the answer, and then claim it wasn't answered. I find that extremely funny given your attempt here.

[Koga No Goshi]

As usual you asked for it, and you failed to read what was actually written.

Like alreadly stated on this topic - the Democratics had the opporunity to overturn a piece of legislation and they did not, in fact I believe they approved measures to make it even easier.

Both parties have demonstrated that they are unlikely to do what is in the best interest of the nation. So once again the democratic party has demonstrated by their own actions that they are just as unlikely to overturn legislation once its been inacted.

Actaully it is not since you failed to actually read what I stated. I clearly stated that neither party is likely to do the right thing at this time. Your comments are extremely one sided - which makes you a partisan hack. If you think that is a personal jabe then fine but dont ask the question if you dont want to hear the answer, often the answer is not what you wanted to hear

My pained eyes can attest to the fact that I do, indeed, read what you say. And for future reference, responding to every sentence with "You did not read what I say, you fail at comprehension" does not further your argument. Especially when it's not true. :) You're just being trollish.

Since your answer was basically "we can't trust either party to do anything", and since the legislation is Republican in origin, and since there is zero chance that a third party will control the government in January, you have no call to label me a partisan for not changing my vote over the Patriot Act and wiretapping. I have more faith in what will probably end up being an even stronger Dem majority to overturn these laws or retire them, than I do in the Republican party to admit their ideas were bad an unlawful, perhaps even requiring investigations and subpoenas, and working to rectify and overturn these laws.


As for which party is better to fix our government - neither of the current major parties have a chance to fix the government since both of them pander to special interests

Since you propose no realistic alternatives as viable avenues to get these laws removed, you are just ranting and raving, and calling me a partisan and foaming at the mouth and insulting me. But you've got nothing to sell, so it's time to move on. :)

[Redleg]

My pained eyes can attest to the fact that I do, indeed, read what you say. And for future reference, responding to every sentence with "You did not read what I say, you fail at comprehension" does not further your argument. Especially when it's not true. :) You're just being trollish.

Tsk tsk - you stated I didnt answer the question - so you clearly did not read what was written. So the attempt here is false.



Since your answer was basically "we can't trust either party to do anything", and since the legislation is Republican in origin, and since there is zero chance that a third party will control the government in January, you have no call to label me a partisan for not changing my vote over the Patriot Act and wiretapping. I have more faith in what will probably end up being an even stronger Dem majority to overturn these laws or retire them, than I do in the Republican party to admit their ideas were bad an unlawful, perhaps even requiring investigations and subpoenas, and working to rectify and overturn these laws.

LOL - did I ask you to change your vote? I find that very amusing. Unfortunately for you the democtratic party has demonstrated by action that they are just as unlikely to overturn legislation once its inacted.



Since you propose no realistic alternatives as viable avenues to get these laws removed, you are just ranting and raving, and calling me a partisan and foaming at the mouth and insulting me. But you've got nothing to sell, so it's time to move on. :)

LOL - you might want to check on what you asked, your question is which of the two parties is most likely to do the right thing, you got your answer, However you failed to ask the question that you are attempting to ask now, so once again to address your initial question, both parties have demonstrated that they are unable to actually overturn a piece of legislation that they have enacted.

So you now to answer you new question is for some brave constitutional lawyer to actually challenge the law and take it through the legal system so that the third branch of our government can have the chance to demonstrate if they are capable of protecting our basic rights.

[Koga No Goshi]

Tsk tsk - you stated I didnt answer the question - so you clearly did not read what was written. So the attempt here is false.


Not at all, this all came out of you and others calling me a partisan for saying I still felt the best chance was with the Dems, and you all smugly pulled out their recent votes and such... and I failed, and continue to fail, to see why that is an argument that any other viable path in November will likely produce the desired result of overturning these bad laws.

[Redleg]

Not at all, this all came out of you and others calling me a partisan for saying I still felt the best chance was with the Dems, and you all smugly pulled out their recent votes and such... and I failed, and continue to fail, to see why that is an argument that any other viable path in November will likely produce the desired result of overturning these bad laws.



Like I have told you before extremely one sided arguements are partisan arguements. Now where it came from was not from your attempt of claiming that the democratics were the best chance its the actually arguement that you did present. It comes from your very first position.

Your very first post was an attempt at partisan humor, and when asked about the statement you replied with a basic partisan arguement, instead of addressing the failure of the current congress in passing the renewal of this legislation.

And to compound your error you decided to ask a question which you were not prepared for how it was going to be answered. You wanted me to claim that the Republicans were a better party, which demonstrates that you have not been paying attention to any of the statements I have written.

Then again it seems you are wanting a repeat of the discussion, and i will try to be a bit more civil, but then again maybe not given your initial attempts at misrepresentation of what I actually stated. So the ball is in your court, trying to misrepresent what is stated will definitily raise my interest in responding in a more basic manner.


Neither of the two men running for office will do anything concerning this particlur law. The Democratic party controls Congress right now and failed to do anything concerning this law, care to guess how both men voted on the renewal of this law? One did not vote and one voted for it, and it wasn't McCain that voted on the law. http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2008_cr/index.html So claiming that democratic party will overturn a law that they both supported given the way both parties voted for it, demonstrates a naivity that is basically a partisan arguement given that part of the party and it's presidential candidate in alreadly disproved your claim with their votes for the legislation. Now to cut the democratic party a break they at least had about half vote against the law, but as a party they failed to protect the american people's rights.

So the only viable path to overturn bad law in the United States happens to fall on the third branch of government - the Judicial Branch, and they can not doing anything until some brave constitutional lawyer decides to actually attempt the arguement. Claiming that the democratic party is better then the republican party falls flat on its face when one begins to look at the actions of congress

[drone]

If you are independent, stop demanding rationales for Republican legislation that a lot of Dem lemmings got shepherded or scared or cajoled into supporting for national security purposes. I'm not happy about it, nor have I ever made a claim that Every Dem votes in lockstep with my beliefs and how I would like them to vote. But if you think looking down your nose at Congressional approval ratings and unpopular Republican pieces of legislation which haven't been retired by the Democratic Congress, and blaming it all on the Democrats, doesn't come off as markedly one-sided and partisan, you need to work on those Independent credibility ratings.

Republican legislation? The 2008 FISA amendment (HR6304) (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR06304:@@@L&summ2=m&) was introduced 6/19/2008 by this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvestre_Reyes) (D-TX), to address the illegal action taken by the Bush administration and the telcos. How can you call a bill introduced in 2008 by a Democrat a Republican bill? :inquisitive:

As to my independent standing and the uselessness of our votes, I don't believe you understand what "independent" actually means. It does not mean that I vote Constitution party, or Green party, or Libertarian party, or Socialist party. I vote for the person I think will do the best job, regardless of party affiliation. I will vote Dem or GOP if I think it's appropriate. In 2006, my "useless" vote was one of about 2000 that got Jim Webb (D-VA) elected to the Senate over Allen (R-VA). And, yes, Webb then voted for the 2008 FISA amendment, and I'm pretty ticked off about it.

[Koga No Goshi]

Republican legislation? The 2008 FISA amendment (HR6304) (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR06304:@@@L&summ2=m&) was introduced 6/19/2008 by this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvestre_Reyes) (D-TX), to address the illegal action taken by the Bush administration and the telcos. How can you call a bill introduced in 2008 by a Democrat a Republican bill? :inquisitive:

As to my independent standing and the uselessness of our votes, I don't believe you understand what "independent" actually means. It does not mean that I vote Constitution party, or Green party, or Libertarian party, or Socialist party. I vote for the person I think will do the best job, regardless of party affiliation. I will vote Dem or GOP if I think it's appropriate. In 2006, my "useless" vote was one of about 2000 that got Jim Webb (D-VA) elected to the Senate over Allen (R-VA). And, yes, Webb then voted for the 2008 FISA amendment, and I'm pretty ticked off about it.

Telco wasn't brought up before, weren't we talking about the Patriot Act? Yes, agreed, bad law.

RE: Independent, what do you do when you spend all your time arguing both parties are crap and just as bad at everything? Not vote? I don't feel that will help this time around, but of course it's your vote and perogative.

Not voting, unfortunately, never helps.

[KukriKhan]

Telco wasn't brought up before, weren't we talking about the Patriot Act? Yes, agreed, bad law.

RE: Independent, what do you do when you spend all your time arguing both parties are crap and just as bad at everything? Not vote? I don't feel that will help this time around, but of course it's your vote and perogative.

That is the perennial dilemma for the "decline to state" crowd. a) Hold your nose and pick the lesser of 2 evils, b)throw your franchise away on a non-winning 3rd-ee, or c)just stay home.

You didn't ask me directly, but the question was posed in a public forum, so: sometimes I've done a, more often I've done b, and though tempted to choose c, my upbringing won't let me avoid my duty to vote. This year, I haven't decided yet.

But you make a pursuasive case for the Senator from Ill, I grant. Given the times, and the current configuration of the legis bodies, maybe we gotta give the Dems what the Repubs had, a Royal Flush, as it were, to get us through this next bit, though I flinch naturally, granting that. That said ,it looks like it's gonna be that way anyway. I hear rumbles from the right that my Repub friends are gonna wash their hair Election Day, and start planning for '12.

So he might only have 4 years to do his thing vs eight. You think he can do it?

[Koga No Goshi]

That is the perennial dilemma for the "decline to state" crowd. a) Hold your nose and pick the lesser of 2 evils, b)throw your franchise away on a non-winning 3rd-ee, or c)just stay home.

You didn't ask me directly, but the question was posed in a public forum, so: sometimes I've done a, more often I've done b, and though tempted to choose c, my upbringing won't let me avoid my duty to vote. This year, I haven't decided yet.

But you make a pursuasive case for the Senator from Ill, I grant. Given the times, and the current configuration of the legis bodies, maybe we gotta give the Dems what the Repubs had, a Royal Flush, as it were, to get us through this next bit, though I flinch naturally, granting that. That said ,it looks like it's gonna be that way anyway. I hear rumbles from the right that my Repub friends are gonna wash their hair Election Day, and start planning for '12.

So he might only have 4 years to do his thing vs eight. You think he can do it?

Frankly I think the minds of most reps will be made up by Jan 1st that he can't, and hasn't. And that will be the theme of '12. So it seems to matter little how much or how little good he'll be able to get done. Balancing what was at that time an enormous deficit didn't earn Clinton much +++ from Republicans. I don't think Obama can do "everything" in one term nor is he claiming so. But I think even at the most cynical level possible, he's going to engage in as much damage control as possible. McCain wants to keep the ship veered full sail in the course that already made us hit three icebergs. His indefinite promise to keep the good wars going till 'victory alone will ensure that the problem is going to get much worse under McCain than it absolutely has to.

[drone]

Telco wasn't brought up before, weren't we talking about the Patriot Act? Yes, agreed, bad law.

RE: Independent, what do you do when you spend all your time arguing both parties are crap and just as bad at everything? Not vote? I don't feel that will help this time around, but of course it's your vote and perogative.

Not voting, unfortunately, never helps.

No, I never brought up the PATRIOT Act. The telco immunity added to the 2008 FISA amendment basically means that we will never find out what happened with the warrantless wiretapping, since it will not go to court. From my original post:

With this amendment, there is no accountability for the crimes committed by both the telco companies and the federal government. We have no true knowledge of what this surveillance covers, for all we know they tapped Democratic campaigns and congressional staff.
The House originally rejected telco immunity, but they caved eventually and put it in anyway.

Independence: For presidential elections, most time my vote doesn't really count anyway, the GOP candidate has won Virginia every time since LBJ. This year, who knows. I can try to affect change in the House and Senate, and I can try to "game" the system. I can vote against poor incumbents, I can vote for guys I respect, I can vote to achieve gridlock. If I can't stomach either guy, I'll vote third party. Voting for a guy just because of the letter after his name is the worst reason to vote.

[Koga No Goshi]

Voting for a guy just because of the letter after his name is the worst reason to vote.

Agreed, but no one here has given that as a reason.

[KukriKhan]

Frankly I think the minds of most reps will be made up by Jan 1st that he can't, and hasn't. And that will be the theme of '12. So it seems to matter little how much or how little good he'll be able to get done. Balancing what was at that time an enormous deficit didn't earn Clinton much +++ from Republicans. I don't think Obama can do "everything" in one term nor is he claiming so. But I think even at the most cynical level possible, he's going to engage in as much damage control as possible. McCain wants to keep the ship veered full sail in the course that already made us hit three icebergs. His indefinite promise to keep the good wars going till 'victory alone will ensure that the problem is going to get much worse under McCain than it absolutely has to.

So: "No. But mostly - and he'll try hard." Even with a stacked House and Senate? Does he not hold sway with Dems? Maybe he made a few enemies on the way to the top.

Or, will you not be satisfied until he's won in 2012 as well? Will it take that long for him to fix America?

[Koga No Goshi]

So: "No. But mostly - and he'll try hard." Even with a stacked House and Senate? Does he not hold sway with Dems? Maybe he made a few enemies on the way to the top.

Or, will you not be satisfied until he's won in 2012 as well? Will it take that long for him to fix America?

I'm saying these problems are so big that if you believe even with a rubber stamp congress and 100% pure intentions any single person could fix them all in four years then you are setting an impossibly high standard. Do you believe ANYONE could fix a 10 trillion dollar debt and enormous off the budget deficit in four years? Besides internet computer chair experts? :) Perhaps you are underestimating how much the SCALE of these problems is in many ways unprecedented. I mean, we thought Clinton was inheriting a huge deficit. That was peanuts. And people THEN said there was absolutely no way he could get anything done, or balance the deficit.

The difference between the parties right now? You can go youtube Obama speaking at public rallies yesterday. He says, flat out, and this is nothing new, that rough times are coming and America is going to have to sacrifice. He admits that. That's not campaign rhetoric, I believe he means it literally. The difference is, Republicans are going to spend the next four years acting as if we could have continued with our lifestyle choices and foreign and domestic policy as normal with no one being so much as distracted from their American Idol, if we didn't have such a left wing whacko radical in office. And they'll be lying, because there's no way the next four years are going to be a smooth hayride no matter who is leading.

[KukriKhan]

So, if he fails to make progress it'll be the Repub's fault?

Look, I'm not trying to argue with you here - your input is actually helping me shape my decision come Election Day.

Rather than raising or lowering 'the bar' of expectations, I just wanna know what you, a trained numbers-guy, and enthusiastic supporter our the Senator, think - how long is it gonna take to "undo" the nastier parts of GW's legacy, and get our finances more manageable? I don't expect a surplus after 4 years, I hope for control, with a visible way through the minefields.

[Koga No Goshi]

So, if he fails to make progress it'll be the Repub's fault?

Look, I'm not trying to argue with you here - your input is actually helping me shape my decision come Election Day.

Rather than raising or lowering 'the bar' of expectations, I just wanna know what you, a trained numbers-guy, and enthusiastic supporter our the Senator, think - how long is it gonna take to "undo" the nastier parts of GW's legacy, and get our finances more manageable? I don't expect a surplus after 4 years, I hope for control, with a visible way through the minefields.

No of course not. While plenty of people are happy to call me a blind partisan, I find the people who throw that accusation out the easiest are most often the most guilty of it themselves. People still defending the last 8 years, while simultaneously saying that we need change and such, would be a prime example. We went through that same thing in '04, people sort of...admitting that things weren't going smoothly, but then insisting no change was necessary or desirable. Strange.

As far as time... I don't know what it is you're expecting to see undone, Kukri. If you're talking about "when is the U.S. going to look just like it did before Dubya touched it", who knows. He's entrenched a lot into the justice department and set a lot of bad precedents that may have lasting implications for years. That's just the way judicial stuff works, change is never snapfinger overnight. And why stuffing the courts is always such a priority for both partisanships. (Although of course I would argue that our picks are more moderate.... we don't have a universal litmus of basically goading a judicial pick into admitting he disagrees with standing law and would love to see it overturned, whereas that is a litmus for Republican judicial appointments.) Many are picked just for having a good judicial and civil rights record without particular crusadership on any one particular issue. (I'm sure there are exceptions.)

But, if you want me to go stump and say oh yeah yeah, don't worry, most of the bad stuff will be over with in 4 years... I have no way of knowing that, no matter how kind conditions are. I know only that the plans proposed greatly favor more recovery in the domestic sector and in international affairs under Obama, that economists endorse his plans more, that he seems far more in touch with regular concerns of regular people (he doesn't define middle class as 250k...) and his priorities focus on long-term investments in America (education, college, jobs, industries, infrastructure) as opposed to costly short-term ego points (making sure no one can say we didn't get "victory" before we admit our military role in a political conflict is over) and tax cuts for the rich in a period of huge deficit. Many on these very boards still argue the wisdom of cut taxes, cut taxes. If any of the promises they make about how tax cuts for the upper classes should directly go through a revolving door to benefit the American economy domestically, we should be halfway through a steady growth period, not in virtually our 8th year of economic decline. Even my dad, an almost lifelong conservative, has hopped for Obama because he says if you have 8 years to try your plan, and it doesn't work, change your plan. And it's both vindicating and a little sad to see his eyes opening up as he is in these constant arguments with all his coworkers (mostly Republican) who are ideological and still just argue the same policies, even after 8 years and where we are today with the debt and deficit and tax cuts and the wars.

Obama says he can't know what parts of his plan have to be shelved or implemented only piecemeal until he sees the budget come in, because until then you're just working off imaginary numbers. And McCain in not so many words has expressed the same idea by avoiding going into any details of his plans or proposed budgeting to make them possible. (Although he does rather cavalierly insist that he sees no reason anything would have to be cut or greatly modified from his original plan.... he dodged that question while Obama answered it just like Palin dodged the question about weaknesses while Biden answered it.) It's more or less given that Obama can't implement everything in one term; but this is true of anyone campaigning for the Presidency no? The economic crisis has just cast even more doubt over how exactly the two candidates' plans would manifest, certainly they will have to be modified. But I Think Obama has displayed more flexibility, willingness to look at the situations as they arise and incorporate them, rather than insist on sticking to the talking point right up until the moemnt you are forced to do an abrupt about-face. ("The fundamentals of the economy are strong...")

[drone]

Agreed, but no one here has given that as a reason.

I never said anybody did. You asked how I would vote and why, and I told you. An independent is not a member of a third party, he/she is not affiliated with any party and votes with his/her brain. I don't see how this is any worse than just voting straight party ticket. And that "toilet flush" vote usually determines the winner. ~;)

:focus:

So I will pull a Redleg, and ask again: How does this excuse the Democratic controlled Congress from enabling the administration in this matter? You accuse me of just ranting on this board about how crap both parties are, this is one example of why I do it.

[KukriKhan]

As far as time... I don't know what it is you're expecting to see undone, Kukri. If you're talking about "when is the U.S. going to look just like it did before Dubya touched it", who knows.

Please, give a tiny bit more credit than that. September 11th happened, and it changed everything. Even if we don't understand the depth or all the nuances of that change, yet.

To see 'undone': Guantanamo, extraordinary renditions, torture, pre-emptive military strikes to potential threats... for a start. He could undo all that with a single stroke of his Executive Order pen on his first day in office. Will he? If so, then I'd feel like we stood some chance of also fixing the measures that will require Congressional cooperation. FISA, Patriot Act, etc.

[Koga No Goshi]

I never said anybody did. You asked how I would vote and why, and I told you. An independent is not a member of a third party, he/she is not affiliated with any party and votes with his/her brain. I don't see how this is any worse than just voting straight party ticket. And that "toilet flush" vote usually determines the winner. ~;)

:focus:

So I will pull a Redleg, and ask again: How does this excuse the Democratic controlled Congress from enabling the administration in this matter? You accuse me of just ranting on this board about how crap both parties are, this is one example of why I do it.

That's demanding I take up the case for something I've never pretended to defend. I 'm not here to "excuse" the Democrats or be put on the defensive for their 2 year voting record. All I have maintained is that I believe it is far more likely to see change to these laws under Obama and a Dem majority than under McCain and a rep majority.

[Koga No Goshi]

Please, give a tiny bit more credit than that. September 11th happened, and it changed everything.

You're one of the people who believe this? It was just a convenient pretext to flood through a bunch of private and ideological wish list items that were already on people's formal or informal agendas. Nothing seriously changed, we have some token and expensive airport security now, and a lot more curtailments on the civil rights of people who bear no relation whatsoever to what hit us on 9/11.


To see 'undone': Guantanamo, extraordinary renditions, torture, pre-emptive military strikes to potential threats... for a start. He could undo all that with a single stroke of his Executive Order pen on his first day in office. Will he? If so, then I'd feel like we stood some chance of also fixing the measures that will require Congressional cooperation. FISA, Patriot Act, etc.

I believe those will all be over in the first term. Yes.

[drone]

That's demanding I take up the case for something I've never pretended to defend. I 'm not here to "excuse" the Democrats or be put on the defensive for their 2 year voting record. All I have maintained is that I believe it is far more likely to see change to these laws under Obama and a Dem majority than under McCain and a rep majority.

Then why did you spend the whole weekend arguing with Redleg about the law and defending the Democrats? :inquisitive:

[KukriKhan]

I believe those will all be over in the first term. Yes

*Whew* Thank you.

[Koga No Goshi]

Then why did you spend the whole weekend arguing with Redleg about the law and defending the Democrats? :inquisitive:

Read over it again. Never once did I say I was happy about how the Dems voted or that it was good votes.

[Koga No Goshi]

*Whew* Thank you.

Well I had to undersatnd the exact parameters of your question. :) Some people might frame an impossible one, like "oh, so you believe Obama will have the economy totally fixed in one term?" To which the answer would be no, but that we will be less in the hole and spending more on investments which will help us long-term, and less on things that are total and complete wastes than the alternative. :)

[drone]

Hehe, 2 years of Dems in Congress didn't undue roughly 30 years of Reaganomic trickle down and deregulation. The shock! The horror! :help: :furious3: ::ANGERMAN::

Then refresh my memory. What was the point of this post?

And after I detailed how the Dems screwed up (with the year and links to the law), I get this:


You guys keep lobbing this stat around. Congress is pretty much always unpopular. The rating is not so low just or only because Dems took over two years ago. It's a cumulative disgust after 8 years of policies and laws they don't like. Most of which we have your party to thank for.

And then you blame the GOP for the bill:

If you are independent, stop demanding rationales for Republican legislation that a lot of Dem lemmings got shepherded or scared or cajoled into supporting for national security purposes. I'm not happy about it, nor have I ever made a claim that Every Dem votes in lockstep with my beliefs and how I would like them to vote. But if you think looking down your nose at Congressional approval ratings and unpopular Republican pieces of legislation which haven't been retired by the Democratic Congress, and blaming it all on the Democrats, doesn't come off as markedly one-sided and partisan, you need to work on those Independent credibility ratings.
and this:

I'm not passing anything off on the GOP; it is indeed, their legislation, and a handmedown from the W administration. (Funny how we talk about it in past tense while it's still alive.)

Yes, the Democrats have failed to revolutionize and gutterdump all the legislation of the Bush Administration. Admitted. So let's get over the accusations of talking points and partisanship and discuss the issue at hand.

So finally, you admit that the Dems didn't get things done. But you are still blaming the GOP for the bill. I'm not sure where talking points and partisanship have even come into this discussion. Pretty much everyone at this point thinks both parties screwed up. Except you, who continuously try to pin in on the evil GOP. So when Redleg tries to explain that the Dems are no better, he gets:

My pained eyes can attest to the fact that I do, indeed, read what you say. And for future reference, responding to every sentence with "You did not read what I say, you fail at comprehension" does not further your argument. Especially when it's not true. :) You're just being trollish.

Since your answer was basically "we can't trust either party to do anything", and since the legislation is Republican in origin, and since there is zero chance that a third party will control the government in January, you have no call to label me a partisan for not changing my vote over the Patriot Act and wiretapping. I have more faith in what will probably end up being an even stronger Dem majority to overturn these laws or retire them, than I do in the Republican party to admit their ideas were bad an unlawful, perhaps even requiring investigations and subpoenas, and working to rectify and overturn these laws.
When the legislation, in fact, was introduced by Democrats, voted on by Democrats, and passed by Democrats. You have faith that a stronger Dem majority will overturn the laws, how much more of a majority do they need? 75%?

Not at all, this all came out of you and others calling me a partisan for saying I still felt the best chance was with the Dems, and you all smugly pulled out their recent votes and such... and I failed, and continue to fail, to see why that is an argument that any other viable path in November will likely produce the desired result of overturning these bad laws.
Redleg's argument is that neither party will overturn them. I concur. If the Dems didn't slap the White House (and the much hated W) when they had the chance, they sure won't do it when Obama moves up the street.

People are going to come out and call you blindly partisan when every post you make consistently tries to turn the argument into a GOP bash. This thread is about the illegal use of wiretaps by the Bush administration and the intelligence service. PJ brought up the fact that the Dems failed to properly address the problem once they came to power, and you jumped all over it. If you weren't happy about the way they handled the FISA amendment, why would you throw in such a rhetoric-filled partisan rant?

[Koga No Goshi]

Then refresh my memory. What was the point of this post?

And after I detailed how the Dems screwed up (with the year and links to the law), I get this:

First off, most of what I believed we were discussing did indeed originate in the Republican dominated Congress. The only exception named thus far being the Telcom bill.

Second off, most of these laws were endorsed or ball rolled from the Administration, which fostered this whole hysteria mindset of "we have to curtail civil liberties to fight terrorism" which was often followed up with "people who have nothing to hide, have nothing to worry about." Not to mention the lies that came out first... that they were only spying on international calls between non-citizens, or weren't doing any warrantless wiretapping, etc. etc. It only became clear in retrospect what all had been going on, the Bush Admin covered its rear end every step of the way and denied it was doing anything illegal or illicit over and over.

Third, yes, what you guys are condemning the Dems for is not undoing every single bit of bad legislation passed from the Republican Congress in two years time. That is precisely what you are doing. And then claiming both parties are just as bad to every extent possible. You don't even have grounds to claim that until you look at a six year track record of the Dems in power, preferrably with a President who doesn't veto everything left and right, or kill bills before even going very far because of the threat of veto. And even the Dem voices that wanted to raise large protest under Rep majority were simply threatened with arbitrary changing of the Rules of Congress, and the nuclear option (basically death to any attempted filibuster.)

So, if you want to complain about these bills, look at the whole history. The Dems also do not have a veto proof majority and that has figured into their strategy in terms of "which battles to fight right now" also. Nothing I claimed was untrue... the majority of this crap is just still in effect b.s. from the previous Congress, and yes, in the last 2 years opposition has not been as forcefully vocal as one would hope. However the pitch of this whole argument is skewed, basically that the Bush admin using the hysteria around 9/11 passed and shoved through all these bad laws with a rubberstamp congress for 6 years, and then the Dems have failed to strip the place down to the floors with a veto-vulnerable majority and opposition President. So the declaration is, they both made this mess in equal parts. That's a screwed assessment.

[drone]

First off, most of what I believed we were discussing did indeed originate in the Republican dominated Congress. The only exception named thus far being the Telcom bill.
This was the only bill we were talking about. The Dems had the chance to stop the abuse, and they failed to take it.


Second off, most of these laws were endorsed or ball rolled from the Administration, which fostered this whole hysteria mindset of "we have to curtail civil liberties to fight terrorism" which was often followed up with "people who have nothing to hide, have nothing to worry about." Not to mention the lies that came out first... that they were only spying on international calls between non-citizens, or weren't doing any warrantless wiretapping, etc. etc. It only became clear in retrospect what all had been going on, the Bush Admin covered its rear end every step of the way and denied it was doing anything illegal or illicit over and over.
There were no laws allowing warrantless wiretapping. The Bush administration just did it with no one's knowledge until the NYTimes (?) exposed it. The Protect America Act of 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_America_Act_of_2007) (I forgot about this one) was the first to address the issue, again passed by Congress with a Democratic majority.


Third, yes, what you guys are condemning the Dems for is not undoing every single bit of bad legislation passed from the Republican Congress in two years time. That is precisely what you are doing. And then claiming both parties are just as bad to every extent possible. You don't even have grounds to claim that until you look at a six year track record of the Dems in power, preferrably with a President who doesn't veto everything left and right, or kill bills before even going very far because of the threat of veto. And even the Dem voices that wanted to raise large protest under Rep majority were simply threatened with arbitrary changing of the Rules of Congress, and the nuclear option (basically death to any attempted filibuster.)
No, we are condemning the Dems for caving into the White House and overlooking the illegality of it's actions with respect to the 4th Amendment. There is no legislation to overturn, the Democratic-controlled Congress passed both of them (Protect America and FISA amendment) after it all came to light. Regarding the veto, it doesn't matter. These bills allowed the president powers he didn't have, if he had vetoed them he would still be engaged in unconstitutional acts.

So, if you want to complain about these bills, look at the whole history. The Dems also do not have a veto proof majority and that has figured into their strategy in terms of "which battles to fight right now" also. Nothing I claimed was untrue... the majority of this crap is just still in effect b.s. from the previous Congress, and yes, in the last 2 years opposition has not been as forcefully vocal as one would hope. However the pitch of this whole argument is skewed, basically that the Bush admin using the hysteria around 9/11 passed and shoved through all these bad laws with a rubberstamp congress for 6 years, and then the Dems have failed to strip the place down to the floors with a veto-vulnerable majority and opposition President. So the declaration is, they both made this mess in equal parts. That's a screwed assessment.
Again, a veto has no effect here. Bush didn't have the power in the first place, without the law he would have had to revert back to the original FISA provisions, which would have be fine. Congress didn't have to do anything. Instead they gave even more power to the executive. They should have just impeached him instead.

[Koga No Goshi]

No, we are condemning the Dems for caving into the White House and overlooking the illegality of it's actions

I agree with this statement. But this statement is not the same t hing as saying the Dems are just as complicit in every inch of every abuse made in the last 8 years in the name of terrorism. They aren't. Saying they caved and gave into the Administration so they are at fault is like saying she didn't leave her husband so don't tell me she's abused. Bad analogy, but you get the point. I just resent the implication being made that both parties have been equally on board about all these bad laws to equal extent-- that is very much revisionism in favor of the Republicans, who held the majority for 6/8 years and played all kinds of sore winner b.s. tactics like nuclear option. I totally agree they've been crap in the last two years and what I hear (this is pure grapevine) is that they are letting the GOP choke itself to death to help out whoever the Dem candidate is. If that's true, it's a political game and I agree it sucks. But I also think with a real majority and/or a President who isn't going to veto anything they want to do in opposition anyhow, or exact retribution by vetoing everything if they refuse to go along with a bill he wants or a funding extension, their balls will descend a bit more.

[Redleg]

I agree with this statement. But this statement is not the same t hing as saying the Dems are just as complicit in every inch of every abuse made in the last 8 years in the name of terrorism. They aren't. Saying they caved and gave into the Administration so they are at fault is like saying she didn't leave her husband so don't tell me she's abused. Bad analogy, but you get the point. I just resent the implication being made that both parties have been equally on board about all these bad laws to equal extent-- that is very much revisionism in favor of the Republicans, who held the majority for 6/8 years and played all kinds of sore winner b.s. tactics like nuclear option. I totally agree they've been crap in the last two years and what I hear (this is pure grapevine) is that they are letting the GOP choke itself to death to help out whoever the Dem candidate is. If that's true, it's a political game and I agree it sucks. But I also think with a real majority and/or a President who isn't going to veto anything they want to do in opposition anyhow, or exact retribution by vetoing everything if they refuse to go along with a bill he wants or a funding extension, their balls will descend a bit more.

Good thing I never said they were complicit in every inch of every abuse made in the last 8 years. I was solely discussing the failure of the Democratic party in doing the right thing and not pass the new law that they did. I will however say that there are some of the bad republican legislation that was passed that both parties are equally complicit in passing. Some of the measures that have been passed could not have been passed in the last 8 years without both parties being complicit in the act.

All one has to do is review the voting record on the bills to sort out the truth from the partisianship,

[drone]

I agree with this statement. But this statement is not the same t hing as saying the Dems are just as complicit in every inch of every abuse made in the last 8 years in the name of terrorism. They aren't. Saying they caved and gave into the Administration so they are at fault is like saying she didn't leave her husband so don't tell me she's abused. Bad analogy, but you get the point. I just resent the implication being made that both parties have been equally on board about all these bad laws to equal extent-- that is very much revisionism in favor of the Republicans, who held the majority for 6/8 years and played all kinds of sore winner b.s. tactics like nuclear option. I totally agree they've been crap in the last two years and what I hear (this is pure grapevine) is that they are letting the GOP choke itself to death to help out whoever the Dem candidate is. If that's true, it's a political game and I agree it sucks. But I also think with a real majority and/or a President who isn't going to veto anything they want to do in opposition anyhow, or exact retribution by vetoing everything if they refuse to go along with a bill he wants or a funding extension, their balls will descend a bit more.

And I never tried to pin the Dems with complicity of 8 years of Bush. Just the past 2, when they had the power and ability to stop him.

Regarding "all these laws". For someone that hates the Bush administration as much as you do, I'm not sure you really understand how they work. The Bush administration doesn't care about laws, if they get passed in their favor, "yeah!", if not, "national security concerns" or signing statements will get them by. Just hand it off to the OLC, some legal hand-waving occurs, and presto!, the administration gets what they want. They will continue to do this until Congress calls them on it. The concept of the unitary executive and all that. This was one of the main reasons the Dems got all the votes in 2006, to stand up to the abuses. In this, they have failed, but they did slow down the process.

[TevashSzat]

They will continue to do this until Congress calls them on it. The concept of the unitary executive and all that. This was one of the main reasons the Dems got all the votes in 2006, to stand up to the abuses. In this, they have failed, but they did slow down the process.

The thing is, the Democrats' majority within Congress is not that great. They could try to pass laws that will restrict the president's power and such, but the thing is that even if they get a majority to vote for the bill, the president will simply veto it and there would be no way for the democrats to override the veto. Furthermore, politics will make it even harder for even most democrats to vote for many bills of this type since it will get spun and politicized.

For the Democrats to have really done a ton to oppose the Bush administration, they would have had to have a greater majority than they do now. Since they don't and thus, many votes may be close, all we end up having is a lame duck presidency and congress

[Koga No Goshi]

And I never tried to pin the Dems with complicity of 8 years of Bush. Just the past 2, when they had the power and ability to stop him.


Understood, it was not clear to me in the beginning that you were speaking specifically about one law. To me issues like the Telcom, Patriot Act, FISA etc. are all basically one issue.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

In practice, the primary goal of any 1st term administration is....a second term.

It will be interesting to see how much of the powers acreted under the Bush adminstration will be pared back by Obama.

Btw, I have much disdain for ALL of Congress over their failure to declare war etc. They have been far too willing to let the President shoulder the blame -- and consequently handing him carte blanche to do things without review or prompt oversight. If they supported the Iraq invasion then they should have found the stones to declare war and stand by their vote. If you weren't willing to do that, than have the stones to vote no -- like that lass who voted against BOTH WW1 and WW2. Voting to let the President decide where, when etc. without review? Totally milquetoast response.

I'm not as adamantly opposed to the Patriot act or modified FISA provisions as many here (though neither is a perfect piece of law-making) -- but I'm glad they have sunset provisions and must be renewed as opposed to having become fixed. What may be necessary in extremis is intolerable under more normal circumstances and, unfortunately, The Order of Cincinattus is no longer in vogue for our leaders.

[drone]

The thing is, the Democrats' majority within Congress is not that great. They could try to pass laws that will restrict the president's power and such, but the thing is that even if they get a majority to vote for the bill, the president will simply veto it and there would be no way for the democrats to override the veto. Furthermore, politics will make it even harder for even most democrats to vote for many bills of this type since it will get spun and politicized.

For the Democrats to have really done a ton to oppose the Bush administration, they would have had to have a greater majority than they do now. Since they don't and thus, many votes may be close, all we end up having is a lame duck presidency and congress

The president can't veto articles of impeachment. ~;) If the president is breaking the law with his actions and orders to executive branch agencies, the rule of law should apply. If the president tries to introduce a law that is unconstitutional, Congress should reject it. The FISA amendment was not necessary, all Congress had to do was... nothing. The president can't veto nothing. Sometimes, nothing is the best course of action.

I still fail to see what was wrong with the original FISA requirements. A (essentially) rubber-stamp court for national security measures, but where requests to tap politicians and public figures would be frowned upon. At the time of the amendment vote, we already knew about abuses with NSLs and other shenanigans. It was glaringly obvious that the executive could not be entrusted with no-oversight powers. So, of course, we give it more. :no:

[Koga No Goshi]

The president can't veto articles of impeachment. ~;) If the president is breaking the law with his actions and orders to executive branch agencies, the rule of law should apply. If the president tries to introduce a law that is unconstitutional, Congress should reject it. The FISA amendment was not necessary, all Congress had to do was... nothing. The president can't veto nothing. Sometimes, nothing is the best course of action.

I still fail to see what was wrong with the original FISA requirements. A (essentially) rubber-stamp court for national security measures, but where requests to tap politicians and public figures would be frowned upon. At the time of the amendment vote, we already knew about abuses with NSLs and other shenanigans. It was glaringly obvious that the executive could not be entrusted with no-oversight powers. So, of course, we give it more. :no:

I will tell you why I, personally, believe this happened. And this is just a theory from an almost poly sci major, so take it with a grain of salt.

There is this thing, and this is almost never discussed in public discourse, about the "decorum" of high office. The average American who is proud to put his feet up and drink a six pack after work could give a crap about America's "image" or government's image. But Senators, Congressmen and the higher offices do. It's something I think we exist in some state of denial about because of our spoken rejection of the aristocratic overtures of our Eurocentric past and ancestry and our stories we tell ourselves about how we're the country of the little guys.

Awhile back, and I'm operating off memory here, so I may get some of the details wrong. There was a hydro power grid proposed through several states, and it would go right through some Native American land where low income subsidized housing existed. These were people already poor and with little recourse or opportunity to just "move" or make a new start elsewhere. Representatives from this tribe were present at Congressional hearings for the proposal and one of the more outspoken representatives, a woman if I recall, happened to make an offhand remark about how just kicking all these people off their lands and re-removing them elsewhere or giving them "market rate" compensation and telling them to move was just a new chapter in the old genocide.

And the room exploded. Aides and members of Congress were chattering excitedly that they couldn't have "genocide" in the official record, and asked her to retract the statement. She herself was surprised at the reaction. But foreign heads of state read transcripts of what goes on in our Congress. The rich and the rulers and the leaders of the rest of the world pay attention, and it affects our reputation overseas, and makes headlines in places we wouldn't guess or expect. This was explained to her and she was asked to retract her statement. She said that depended on whether or not the proposal was still going to toss all these Indian people off their land, and the plan was modified on the spot, after what looked like a stone wall where no one was going to budge. All over one word and concern for the "decorum" of the official record.

So what's my point here? Bush's administration broke the law, big telecom corporations were complicit it that lawbreaking and probably knew it, even at the time they were doing it. Bush's justice department has been staffed with hacks who arbitrarily changed the definitions of torture and legality when it comes to wiretapping and eavesdropping. Why would Congress want to help them smooth this over? The same reason that such a ridiculous explanation as the "magic bullet theory" was accepted in the Kennedy assasination, and the same reason many people assisted in the coverup for Nixon. Call it what you want.... continuity of government, stability of our democracy, averting riots and revolution, sidestepping years of costly legislation and lawsuits filed by our own citizens against our own government tying up national politics for the next 25 years. Decorum of the official record.

That's why I think Congress went along with it.

[Redleg]

So what's my point here? Bush's administration broke the law, big telecom corporations were complicit it that lawbreaking and probably knew it, even at the time they were doing it. Bush's justice department has been staffed with hacks who arbitrarily changed the definitions of torture and legality when it comes to wiretapping and eavesdropping. Why would Congress want to help them smooth this over? The same reason that such a ridiculous explanation as the "magic bullet theory" was accepted in the Kennedy assasination, and the same reason many people assisted in the coverup for Nixon. Call it what you want.... continuity of government, stability of our democracy, averting riots and revolution, sidestepping years of costly legislation and lawsuits filed by our own citizens against our own government tying up national politics for the next 25 years. Decorum of the official record.

That's why I think Congress went along with it.

You do realize that going along with it makes Congress in total, all democratics and republicans complicit in the action. In essence you argued against a point that you seemly now actually agree with.


Btw, I have much disdain for ALL of Congress over their failure to declare war etc. They have been far too willing to let the President shoulder the blame -- and consequently handing him carte blanche to do things without review or prompt oversight. If they supported the Iraq invasion then they should have found the stones to declare war and stand by their vote. If you weren't willing to do that, than have the stones to vote no -- like that lass who voted against BOTH WW1 and WW2. Voting to let the President decide where, when etc. without review? Totally milquetoast response.

Goes back to the initial errors of Congress back in 1950, when instead of declaring war against North Korea for its invasion of South Korea the President asked for and recieved approval from Congress to support the UN Resolution. And we compounded that error when congress passed the War Powers Act of 1973. Congress has slowly attempted to remove its own responsiblity away from itself and pass it on to the President for many years. Unfortunately for them they have discovered that the old adage still holds true, Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The thing is this slow erosion of responsiblity under the constitution that Congress was to have, is the fault of both parties. Its not a process that just happened over the last 8 years, but one that has been ongoing since the end of WW2. Where politicians have been controlled by the thought of getting more influence through lobbies and special interest groups, then they were in maintaining their constitutional authority.

[KukriKhan]

Term Limits.

Limit Campaign Spending.

^^my new mantra^^

-edit-
I thought War Powers Act of 1973 was fairly decent; it recognized that emergencies may arise where POTUS needs to send force somewhere very quickly - and let's him do it for 60 days (while reporting to Congress), after which, if he needs more time, it's not an emergency anymore, it's war, and he follows constitutional procedure.

[Koga No Goshi]

You do realize that going along with it makes Congress in total, all democratics and republicans complicit in the action. In essence you argued against a point that you seemly now actually agree with.

Here's the difference. I don't think the Dems are really "for wiretapping." But I think when it came to the TelComm immunity, they felt the damage was done. Some have argued it was a big sellout to the telecommunications corporations who abused laws and now want to get out of the liability. This is true but I do not believe it was the reason so many voted for the bill. I think covering up excessive abuses of American civil liberties, and avoiding this chapter in the U.S. History books going down as being as bad as McCarthyism, is in the interests of everyone in government-- even the people who wished a lot of this stuff had never happened in the first place.

The immunity-- the damage was done. You were not going to punish the policymakers by suing Google and Verizon out of orbit with astronomical awards in lawsuits for invasion of privacy. You were just going to wreck the economy.

Mind you, I am speaking in practicality now. I'm not saying "this is what I wish they would have done and am glad they did it this way." I am merely theorizing why things came down the way they did.


Goes back to the initial errors of Congress back in 1950, when instead of declaring war against North Korea for its invasion of South Korea the President asked for and recieved approval from Congress to support the UN Resolution. And we compounded that error when congress passed the War Powers Act of 1973. Congress has slowly attempted to remove its own responsiblity away from itself and pass it on to the President for many years. Unfortunately for them they have discovered that the old adage still holds true, Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The thing is this slow erosion of responsiblity under the constitution that Congress was to have, is the fault of both parties. Its not a process that just happened over the last 8 years, but one that has been ongoing since the end of WW2. Where politicians have been controlled by the thought of getting more influence through lobbies and special interest groups, then they were in maintaining their constitutional authority.

You have no argument from me. Although I will qualify what you said very slightly on one item. When the President demands that "his" war powers act, or "his" force resolution, must be passed for the good of the country, and makes the case directly to the American people, he is, if public opinion swings correctly, in effect blackmailing Congress. Yes, Congress "should", in idealism, stand up to that kind of thing. The reality is in the atmosphere after 9/11 very few people did, public sentiment was overWHELMINGLY in favor of passing the resolution to use force. The public wanted to see someone, anyone, blow up for what happened, preferrably sooner rather than later. So while technically I do agree with you.... we can't excuse the shortsighted unthinking nature of the American public, because temporary representatives will always have to respond to some degree to public sentiment to keep their seat. That's the way our system works. And the President for taking advantage of the mood of chaos and anger to push things through to enable himself with all kinds of war powers.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...
You have no argument from me. Although I will qualify what you said very slightly on one item. When the President demands that "his" war powers act, or "his" force resolution, must be passed for the good of the country, and makes the case directly to the American people, he is, if public opinion swings correctly, in effect blackmailing Congress. Yes, Congress "should", in idealism, stand up to that kind of thing. The reality is in the atmosphere after 9/11 very few people did, public sentiment was overWHELMINGLY in favor of passing the resolution to use force. The public wanted to see someone, anyone, blow up for what happened, preferrably sooner rather than later. So while technically I do agree with you.... we can't excuse the shortsighted unthinking nature of the American public, because temporary representatives will always have to respond to some degree to public sentiment to keep their seat. That's the way our system works. And the President for taking advantage of the mood of chaos and anger to push things through to enable himself with all kinds of war powers.

To which they should have responded by Declaring War and charging the President with the effective prosecution thereof.

Presidencies almost always push for more power. Pushing back is what makes the system work. Had Congress done so, there would have been a different tone -- the the Congress could still have placated the national mood.

Btw, I think it's important to remember that our government, ultimately, derives its powers from the governed. On the rare occasions we collectively rear up our normally ostriched heads and take charge via a massively united public opinion, it is the duty of our government to shut up and do as they are told.

[Xiahou]

To which they should have responded by Declaring War and charging the President with the effective prosecution thereof.I've just got to chime in here- the AUMF is a declaration of war. There is no difference- legal or practical.

Edit: Ok, so as not to just leave that statement hanging on its own, I'll provide some support (http://www.truthaboutiraq.org/index.php/Legality_Of_The_Iraq_War#U.S._Constitutional_Law):

Furthermore, the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) provides the statutory equivalent of a Declaration of War:

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

The relevant section of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 reads (emphasis added):

(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, ...

Per the War Powers Resolution of 1973, a "specific statutory authorization" by Congress grants the same powers as a formal Declaration of War.

And a quote from none other than Joe Biden (http://malor.wordpress.com/2007/08/22/law-lesson-declarations-of-war-addendum/) himself (response to a question asked after the AUMF vote):
Question: Senator, thank you for this broad gauged approach to the problems we face. My question is this, do you foresee the need or the expectation of a Congressional declaration of war, which the Constitution calls for, and if so, against whom?

Biden:The answer is yes, and we did it. I happen to be a professor of Constitutional law. I’m the guy that drafted the Use of Force proposal that we passed. It was in conflict between the President and the House. I was the guy who finally drafted what we did pass. Under the Constitution, there is simply no distinction … Louis Fisher(?) and others can tell you, there is no distinction between a formal declaration of war, and an authorization of use of force. There is none for Constitutional purposes. None whatsoever. And we defined in that Use of Force Act that we passed, what … against whom we were moving, and what authority was granted to the President.
Sorry for the tangent :bow:

[Redleg]

-edit-
I thought War Powers Act of 1973 was fairly decent; it recognized that emergencies may arise where POTUS needs to send force somewhere very quickly - and let's him do it for 60 days (while reporting to Congress), after which, if he needs more time, it's not an emergency anymore, it's war, and he follows constitutional procedure.

That was the initial intent of the law, however over the last 20 years it has morphed into the authorization for the use of force, and the failure of congress to call the President on the requirements of the act.

[Redleg]

Here's the difference. I don't think the Dems are really "for wiretapping." But I think when it came to the TelComm immunity, they felt the damage was done. Some have argued it was a big sellout to the telecommunications corporations who abused laws and now want to get out of the liability. This is true but I do not believe it was the reason so many voted for the bill. I think covering up excessive abuses of American civil liberties, and avoiding this chapter in the U.S. History books going down as being as bad as McCarthyism, is in the interests of everyone in government-- even the people who wished a lot of this stuff had never happened in the first place.

The immunity-- the damage was done. You were not going to punish the policymakers by suing Google and Verizon out of orbit with astronomical awards in lawsuits for invasion of privacy. You were just going to wreck the economy.

Mind you, I am speaking in practicality now. I'm not saying "this is what I wish they would have done and am glad they did it this way." I am merely theorizing why things came down the way they did.


I dont necessarily disagree with what you say here, but the end result is that the Democratic Party made themselves complicit in the erosion of a basic right. The path to hell can be paved with good intentions, but it was still the wrong thing to do.



You have no argument from me. Although I will qualify what you said very slightly on one item. When the President demands that "his" war powers act, or "his" force resolution, must be passed for the good of the country, and makes the case directly to the American people, he is, if public opinion swings correctly, in effect blackmailing Congress. Yes, Congress "should", in idealism, stand up to that kind of thing. The reality is in the atmosphere after 9/11 very few people did, public sentiment was overWHELMINGLY in favor of passing the resolution to use force. The public wanted to see someone, anyone, blow up for what happened, preferrably sooner rather than later. So while technically I do agree with you.... we can't excuse the shortsighted unthinking nature of the American public, because temporary representatives will always have to respond to some degree to public sentiment to keep their seat. That's the way our system works. And the President for taking advantage of the mood of chaos and anger to push things through to enable himself with all kinds of war powers.


Yes that explains Afganstan, but they can not use that excuse to support the invasion of Iraq, and then not follow the requirments of the Act themselves. Congress has the ability to review and challenge the use of force after they give the initial approval. Something that my congresswoman refused to do, even though I wrote her concerning the requirements of the Act itself

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I've just got to chime in here- the AUMF is a declaration of war. There is no difference- legal or practical.

Edit: Ok, so as not to just leave that statement hanging on its own, I'll provide some support (http://www.truthaboutiraq.org/index.php/Legality_Of_The_Iraq_War#U.S._Constitutional_Law):


And a quote from none other than Joe Biden (http://malor.wordpress.com/2007/08/22/law-lesson-declarations-of-war-addendum/) himself (response to a question asked after the AUMF vote):
Sorry for the tangent :bow:

I understand the point -- even argued it myself with Tribes a time or two. The AUMF was within the scope of Congress' authority as the Constitution does not specify the means by which Congress shall declare war. They certainly did authorize the use of military force knowing that Taliban forces and resources were going to be hit.

My point was that, by framing that declaration (the AUMF) in so general a manner -- under the ostensible goal of providing flexibility in a non-standard conflict -- Congress made a grave error that allowed for the acretion of Presidential power AND that shows them up as a group of collective woosies who craved the political cover of letting the President assume apparent responsibility.

You will recall that many in the Bush adminstration argued that no Congressional oversight (or authorization vote) was required for the invasion of Iraq as:

The AUMF already had granted the DoW Bush needed to act as he saw fit because of the presence of an Al Queda group in Iraq.

This is the kind of acretion I think wrong. Congress should not only have the :daisy:s to DECLARE a war -- in simple form, no silly antics, but should then actively promote and encourage its successful conclusion.

What we got was more of the professional politico norm = try to set up a situation where you can take credit but push the blame elsewhere.

Nauseating.

[Kralizec]

...Obama, that economists endorse his plans more, that he seems far more in touch with regular concerns of regular people (he doesn't define middle class as 250k...)

One of our members once showed that two economic Nobel laureates endorsed Obama's plans.
Crazed Rabbit then showed that McCain was endorsed by 5 economic Nobel laureates.

I think that was about half a year ago so; I imagine the situation is different. That a majority of economists now prefer Obama though...

About the 250K, isn't that where Obama drew the line in regards to the "What do you consider to be rich?" question?

[Koga No Goshi]

One of our members once showed that two economic Nobel laureates endorsed Obama's plans.
Crazed Rabbit then showed that McCain was endorsed by 5 economic Nobel laureates.

I think that was about half a year ago so; I imagine the situation is different. That a majority of economists now prefer Obama though...

About the 250K, isn't that where Obama drew the line in regards to the "What do you consider to be rich?" question?

Well off, yes, and a big majority of Americans would think of that as a great deal of income. But playing these pass the hot potato games never gets anywhere. If you say 250k is too low to be considered the very bottom marker of upper middle class & above, then we go higher. Then we've got the rich people complaining and moaning that they already pay too much tax so don't increase their tax burden-- DECREASE it.

You have to draw the line somewhere.

Personally I think Obama's mark is far more reflective of reality in terms of how few people make that much or more, than McCain's comment that people around 600k are middle class. Maybe to someone who married a beer heiress, yeah, 600k is just low-class "new money" but...