There is nothing truthful in any comparison between Barry Golwater and the foulness of Contemporary Conservatism. The Senator had very little in common with the GOP at the time of his death, and readily admitted it. To compare Goldwater to Bush in this thread is evil. There is no question which side of personal liberty Goldwater stood upon. After his retirement, he became an outspoken advocate for gay rights, and clearly stated that it was oppositional to the tenants of his brand of conservatism to work against their natural rights as human beings.
"You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight." - - Barry Goldwater
Goldwater was outspoken in his criticisms towards GOP presidents he felt had abused their office:
"Nixon was the most dishonest individual I have ever met in my life. He lied to his wife, his family, his friends, his colleagues in the Congress, lifetime members of his own political party, the American people and the world." - - Barry Goldwater
"I believe Reagan did know of the diversion of Iranian funds to the Contras. He had to know. The White House explanation makes him out to be either a liar or incompetent." - - Barry Goldwater
Goldwater had little patience for the 'religious right', especially when they attempted to get him to pull his support for Reagan's nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court. O'Connor turned out to be both honest in testimony given regarding her judicial philosophy, and a real conservative on the bench, instead of the right-sided activists which are defined as conservatives presently.
"However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.'"
Barry Goldwater; Congressional Record, September 16, 1981
Goldwater clearly foresaw the threat of religious fervency to the GOP. He had no love for America's TelevangelTubby fatwads:
"When you say 'radical right' today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye."
Goldwater didn't mince his words, yet was capable of placing a tremendous amount of hard hitting message into a small package:
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue."
[. ..]
"Now those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enfo
Jefferson was a deist, and not a true Christian. He believed that there was a Jesus Christ, but he was not divine, only a man, who was also a great philosopher with a fine message of peace. The claim that America should return to its religious roots is a sham. It is also laughable when proposed by Baptists (1 and 2). Many of America's founders also had a deep distrust of Catholicism because of its historical support for 'divine right', and its quid pro quo relationship with European monarchs. The only contribution in Revolutionary Era America that poseur preachermen like Falwell and Robertson provided was the invention of reversible outerwear, one side blue, the other red, depending on which way the winds of war were blowing.
Instead of 'god given' rights, I prefer the term 'Natural Rights', yet at the same time refuse to argue whether they truly exist or not, because under what Conservatives often claim is the proper methodology for auguring the Constitution's meaning, 'original intent', the argument is moot. Instead, what matters is that America's Founders believed their was a class of rights which existed in a condition both pre-existent to a state's formation, and pre-eminent to its legitimate acts. Another axiom inherent within the concept of Natural Rights is that they must be possessed by all humans, because if they are instead only a privilege of citizenship, then they are only rights which a magnanimous state has conferred upon its subjects, and are therefore insecure.
Our government can only rightfully act where is has been granted the ability to act. This is a major flaw in Gonzales' reprehensible claim that there is no natural right of all humans to habeas corpus. The state cannot not lawfully act in the absence of a express grant. To advance this argument is to advance a theory of tyranny.
Mr. Bush has now twice honourably sworn an oath to defend on uphold the Constitution. The Constitution is the only sceptre of power for government officials. Mr. Bush now claims that Constitutional War Powers give him the authority to act without the very same document which confers legitimacy upon his office. This is absurd. The President is not above the supreme law of the land.
Marbury v Madison was also the first case of Judicial Activism from the Supreme Court. It was a case that even the Chief Justice and Opinion writer agreed had no standing in their court. Many of Marshall's contemporaries disagreed with his analysis:
"You seem...to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is 'boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem,' and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments coequal and co-sovereign within themselves."
Thomas Jefferson letter to William Charles Jarvis, September 28, 1820; "The Writings of Thomas Jefferson: Definitive Edition", Volume XV, p 277, Albert Ellery Bergh; Editor, Copyright, 1905
In the final analysis though, it is the citizenry who decides constitutionality, not nine old pontificates who publicly display their fetish for black satin moo moos. Everyone must decide for themselves how far their knees bend in acquiescence when facing this tyranny.
There is no justice to be found in a people which allows its government multiplicity in its application of power over individuals. There is no freedom in a people who believe that their liberty is a grant from the government. There will be no peace in a country which does not carefully guard the rights of even their worst enemies. The Dreamtime America becomes naught but a brutal memory if we do not leash and muzzle our leviathan which was loosed upon the world as a wolf among the sheep in the throes of our vengefulness after September 11, 2001.
It is always to be taken for granted, that those who oppose an equality of rights never mean the exclusion should take place on themselves; and in this view of the case, pardoning the vanity of the thing, aristocracy is a subject of laughter. This self-soothing vanity is encouraged by another idea not less selfish, which is that the opposers conceive they are playing a safe game, in which there is a chance to gain and none to lose; that at any rate the doctrine of equality includes them, and that if they cannot get more rights than those whom they oppose and would exclude they shall not have less.
This opinion has already been fatal to thousands, who, not contented with equal rights, have sought more till they lost all, and experienced in themselves the degrading inequality they endeavored to fix upon others.
[. ..]
Whether the rights of men shall be equal is not a matter of opinion but of right, and consequently of principle; for men do not hold their rights as grants from each other, but each one in right of himself. Society is the guardian but not the giver.
[. ..]
An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
Thomas Paine, "Dissertations on First Principles of Government", July, 1795.
Maybe a bit of understanding can be gained drinking from the headwaters in The Dreamtime America.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
Note that Natural Rights are NOT gifts from THE Creator, but THEIR Creator. This applies to every human who has been, is, and will be, and ALL are endowed with this Natural Liberty by their personal conceptualisation of the Creative Force. This is not an abstraction of Thomas Jefferson's written work:
"The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason and right. It still met with opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word 'Jesus Christ,' so that it should read, 'a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;' the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination."
Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, as reprinted in "The Writings of Thomas Jefferson: Definitive Edition", Volume I, pp 66,67, Albert Ellery Bergh; Editor, Copyright, 1905, by The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association
Congressman Keith Ellison recently used Jefferson's copy of the Quran for his symbolic photo-op after being sworn in as the first muslim Congressman in American History. Jefferson also respected atheists:
"Some have made the love of God the foundation of morality. This, too, is but a branch of our moral duties, which are generally divided into duties to God and duties to man. If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist?"
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, Esq., June 13, 1814; ibid, Volume XIV, pg 139
Jefferson often showed more respect to atheists and pagans than he did to traditional Christians:
"The truth is, that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those; calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in His genuine words. And the day will come, when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His Father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason, and freedom of thought in these United States, will do away all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated Reformer of human errors."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823, ibid Volume XV, p 430
And there is no doubt whether Jefferson believed that habeas corpus was a Natural Right, possessed by all humans:
"In this State, however, the delusion has not prevailed. They are sufficiently on their guard to have justified the assurance, that should you choose it for your asylum, the laws of the land, administered by upright judges, would protect you from any exercise of power unauthorized by the Constitution of the United States. The Habeas Corpus secures every man here, alien or citizen, against everything which is not law, whatever shape it may assume."
Thomas Jefferson letter to A. H. Rowan, September 26, 1798, ibid, Volume X, pp 60,61
We traveled entirely different paths. As I mentioned, I was drawn low in the '69 lottery, but because of my family's religion, went in CO, and became a chopper doc. Towards the end of my tour, an encounter with a USMC LtCol in a hot LZ with everyone bugging out, who figured he owed me, because I'd humped one of his out under fire, got me repositioned in a Saigon hospital. Then I volunteered for duty at a hospital in Okinawa, so when I returned home, it was time to get out. Yeah, I'm antiwar, if that makes me a lefty, so be it, but what does that imply of the right?
Maybe it's not quite as applicable to console gamers though, but what worked for me playing racquetball after 50, was to quit always looking for the roll-out kill low off of the base board, and instead run the dumb bastard's legs out with cheap weird-assed spinning floaters into corners, or just high enough lobs over their heads aiming for a ball burying back wall two-corner shot, if they insist on hogging center-front of the court.
It's called finesse, and ya'll are going to need it if you will to live long and prosper, because that path is a one way trip to getting older, and no matter how hard you try, you're bound to lose half a step every now and again traversing it.
and effin hell fuego...62? That put you in country, what...'65 or'66? Were you back home in time for the summer of love? I was handed a winning draw in the 1st lottery.
Also, apologies for not getting the aforementioned Gates page up yet. I ran up against a CSS problem new to me, and have spent time looking around for a solution. How is your command of CSS? It is about overflow and fixed divisions. I can do it with tables easily, as with frames. A simple JS DOM routine covers it also, but I was desiring to use a pure CSS Div implementation in XHTML, without script, frames or tables, and it bugs me that I can't figure it out.
Finally, off thread, but may be germane another time: if a future proffered link challenges, rubyacht is the responsive solution, and the link should be considered extremely temporal. I do not like to mix and match pseudos publicly, but may desire to show info which could enable it, and as you do not provide an email contact, i cannot reach extraneously. BTW, logs indicated a probable peek from Brooklyn recently...
But then again, No Real libertarian is a Objectivist, they are instead Objectionists.
"For the record, I shall repeat what I have said many times before: I do not join or endorse any political group or movement. More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called 'hippies of the right,' who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultaneously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism. Anyone offering such a combination confesses his inability to understand either. Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs."
"Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to 'do something.' By 'ideological' (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, which subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the 'libertarian' hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and the victory of your enemies."
Ayn Rand, "What Can One Do?" - Philosophy: Who Needs It
Aynnie used to be a darling of libertarian leaning conservatives, until the great bookburning of the reagancomdedy, when someone explained to the hammerheads that she was really a godless slut, and they burned her books along with The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn.
You may have noticed that i use a small l for libertarian. This is intentional, because what passes for the Libertarian Party has very little to do with true libertarianism. All those clowns seem to want to do is eliminate the minimum wage, and end eminent domain, they could care less about other things, like due process of law and habeas corpus, you know, REAL LIBERTY.
Your anti-global warming quip was off mark also. Most anti-global warming tripe is passed by the corporate funded faux libertarian tanks with Cato at its helm. Something closer to True libertarian thought can be found at Raimondo's antiwar dot com. Those faux-libertarian think tanks are doing a great disservice to libertarianism with their anti global warming garbage. They should instead be focusing upon effective market solutions to greenhouse emissions, instead of letting lame-brained leftyist anti-market solutions muck it up even worse. One quick and easy method would be to apply the accounting principle of future value for remediation of greenhouse gases done today, as well as factoring future valuations into present-day increased greenhouse gas emissions. That would greatly reduce the balance sheet liability for the cost of remediation, and place the burden where it belonged. See how easy that is?
I haven't given much thought to who is a likely in the as the GOP candidate in '08.
I firmly believe that one of the biggest weaknesses in any democracy-styled electoral society is that the persons who actually desire to hold political office are unsuitable, simply because they desire it. At the same time, if your choice in a political election was predicated upon a lesser of two evils decision, you have by your own admission chosen evil.
My solution actually started out as a joke, but seems more appropriate as i grow older. It is to end all elections immediately, and instead begin to choose our politicains they way the draft lottery worked or juror pool selection works; purely randomised picking out of the entire population base of eligible citizens, and all adult citizens are in the pool, excepting of course, people who actually desire to hold political office, because they have psychological ailments which make them unfit.
A possible strong GOP candidate is still Chuck Hagel, but he cannot have my vote irregardless of the other candidates. He weaseled during the heat of the BuShilling Anal Navigators lies in '04; went MIA in Africa on a 'factfinding' trip. He damn well knows that Kerry would still stand up for him if the tables were reversed too. There's a real wannabe in Brownback. He's got the fever, and has been keeping pretty quiet of late. He's the choice of Pat Robertson, although it's hard to believe that he would receive staunch backing from a vast majority of the religious right. He's Catholic, and many evangelicals are still very anti-papist.
It is also extremely difficult to launch a winning presidential run from the Senate or the House. To much easily obtainable ammo that can be used nationally against them.
That would seem to indicate another governor. Who is able? Tough for any Atlantic Seaboard Yankee to carry the essential by GOP South, so the Mass frat boy from hell is a probable no go. Maybe Perry from Texecution, but I have a feeling that after the Delay mess is finished down there, he's going to be carrying one hell of a foot locker himself. The only two Western States that have a big enough population base, and enough credence with the GOP would be Arizona (Dem Gov and a Woman), and California, and we both know that The Kindergarten Konan hasn't a prayer. Someone must have an old copy or two of pumping iron around to scare the bejeezus out of the repressed right. Arnold was quite fond of the ladies when he was young, and it's pretty easy to understand why this runs counter to the instincts of many rightards.
Taft is screwed, Ohio is one mess of political mud for the GOP presently. Your Gov isn't much of a darling these days with the conservative pundits, and being a New Yorker, he'd have to have them on his side.
My take on the GOP for '08 is that it's wide open for a midwestern or semi-southern GOP governor. Didn't I read something about Iowa's Gov the other day?
That's about it for a rambling muse from me presently on the GOP. I have been working a bit on marking up the Gates Chapter in the Walsh Iran/Contra report, but started playing with a different idea for displaying footnotes, so it isn't finished yet. All that is left is the CSS though, so it should be up either early morn your time, or late afternoon mine today, depending on what I get accomplished before crashing. Look for a reference to the file at: History at Liberated Text
Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser to former President Jimmy Carter, brought Dr. Gates to the White House from the CIA as a Soviet specialist.
'I think the Gates appointment is the best appointment that President Bush has made in the course of his six years in office,' Mr. Brzezinski said.
'I co-chaired with him [Dr. Gates] two years ago a study on American policy towards Iran.
'He is a remarkably intelligent, responsible and balanced individual whose judgment can be trusted and whose common sense is reassuring. This appointment may be marking the beginning of a major corrective in American policy towards the Middle East.'
Mr. Bush said Dr. Gates will bring a 'fresh perspective' to the Defense Department
Of course we should not forget that Dr. Gates had a full chapter in the Walsh Iran/Contra report.
As for McCain's chances; if i was making the line, it would start at about 15:1, and i'd gladly take all of the sucker money coming down on him. His play for the right-side hasn't endeared him to the hard-right Republicans, and has alienated him from the independents. As for my take: He's no Bary Goldwater...
Your ex-mayor has even less chance than McCain. Did you see the NatRev cover of him about two months ago?
Why do you just copy and paste a small excerpt of what Kerry said during the comment and debate regarding the Authorisation of the Use of Force against Iraq. Tell me, Mr. A. Coward, are you just slothfully lazy or a GOP shill?
On October 9, 2002, Senator John Kerry spoke for 45 minutes on the Authorisation of Force, and yet little of it is actually cited. This is another of the many examples of distortions and outright dishonesty that the immoral GOP has shown itself capable of, yet still its Rank and Defiled refuse to look at the truth. Here are some excerpts from Senator Kerry's speech that day which GOP shills fail to cite:
When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.
[. ..]
In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.
If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent"--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.
[. ..]
Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.
In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize ``yet.'' Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.
The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that he disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption. Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new strategic doctrine of preemption. Just the opposite. This resolution clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq, and Iraq only, and for the specific purpose of defending the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and enforcing relevant Security Council resolutions.
That the GOP lies is well evidenced in the record. That GOP partisans refuse to see the truth is a grave danger to my country, and must be resisted.
Bush's untimely yanking of the US military from Afghanistan was wrong from at least two angles. First and foremost, it was wrong because our true enemy was there, and Saddam had nothing to do with 911. We should have taken al Qaeda to ground at Tora Bora then and there, withoput prejudice, for the dogs that they are, but instead, Bush decided to fix the data and evidence around his desire to assuage his oedipal urges in Iraq, the truth notwithstanding.
Secondly, Afghanistan's long descent into hell was in large measure caused by US reaction to the Soviet installation of a puppet regime in Kabul. Cater's NSA Zbigniew Brzezinski has in the past admitted that the arming of the Afghan Mujahadin occurred before the Soviet invasion, and was intended as a trap, and the Soviet's taking of the bait gave the U.S. an "opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war". Well over one million Afghanis died in that war, as well as 15,000 Soviet soldiers, mostly conscripts of poor peasants from USSR's outerlying regions. A fucking deadly pissing contest by two third parties.
This is the evil which began at the end of Carter's admin, but was taken up zealously by the ReaganCons. It was our responsibility to do what we can to bring Afghanistan back from their hell. Another miserable failure by the Son of Bush.
I also am looking forward to the PostDigital. Not just within the political realm, but in all of reality. Still, the structural flaws inherent within the concept of Politics as nothing more than a BiPolarity are easy to identify presently.
The voting machine changes are inevitable, no matter how ill-advised. The best that you, i or anyone can do at this point is to force as much redundancy into anti-tampering and quality assurance systems as is possible. One of the best ways to guard against tampering is to insure that a State's Election Department is staffed with tech aware individuals, whose employment was not the result of nepotism, partisanship or cronyism, and whose primary functions are allowed to operate independent from the state's political actors.
This is why i pointed towards the Nevada Gaming Control Authority. The top level of bureaucracy in Nevada's gaming control are political operatives, appointed by the governor. At the same time, one of Nevada's ugly truths about politics is a plus in this instance. Nevada's State wide and Federal Politicians are first and foremost beholden to the Gaming Corporations. These corporations understand full well that a gaming permit is a state authorised license to steal, and that a tremendous amount of goodwill value in these permits is the perception that the gambling which occurs in Nevada's casinos strictly adheres to the rules. There may be a great deal of tolerance from the gaming corporations on who else is admitted into their exclusive club, but their is no tolerance for cheaters amongst their midst, so the Gaming Control Authority is expected to run as intended, without favoritism being played. This is what needs to be fostered in Election Oversight Processes throughout America. Presently, it is necessary to beat upon the Republicans to help enable this. I believe you understand that in the future, it may become necessary to beat upon the Democrats instead.
Aside from that, i also believe you understand that this present administration is tyrannical, and has caused great damage to The Dreamtime America. That the Dreamtime is largely a myth is sad indeed, but is not the most important thing about it. What is the primary concern, is that the Dreamtime continues on as an Ideal, and this is at risk. Yeah, i am altruist walkabout who truly believes that ALL humans are equal, and endowed by that which they perceive as the force of creation which inalienable rights. At or very near the top of the list of inalienable rights are the rights to habeas corpus, due process of law, and a proscription upon the government's taking of life liberty and/or property from ANY human without first securing a proper conviction against in a tribunal process that is completely open, and strictly adheres to due process. This is true whether the defendant is an American citizen or not, for it these rights are only conferred upon US citizens, then they are not preexistent and preeminent rights, but are instead rights extended by a magnanimous state to its citizens. They would then be insecurely held, not in the people's possession, but by a state, unrestrained in its exercise of power.
I am well aware that i am preaching to a true believer here Doc, i have lurked; i am aware of the green capsules in others' profiles. I have bumped into many of your prior remarks on this board. Still i am compelled to rise and resist at any opportunity that presents itself and shout, i am free, the state does not rightfully possess my natural rights, as i have ceded none to it. This i do as an American, for my country's future.
You just don't get it do you? It's statements like this that burden our court system with frivolous lawsuits, because someone got their feelings hurt, and decided to sue the other party out of existence.
Frivolous, as in a sexual harassment case so lame, it was tossed summary judgement, since it was fatally flawed, as the plaintiff was unable to identify one instance of harassment? ?
Let's weigh instances of frivolity in the balance, ok?
On the left side of the scale, place a president's lies about acts of consensual sex given in sworn deposition in a civil case that had no merit. Onto that, place a stained blue dress.
On the right-side of the balance, place a president's lies and distortions about the causes for an immoral war. Onto that, place blood-stained Iraqi sands.
The problem most states have is that they do not have a large pre-existing and non-partisan based bureaucracy in place with a tech background, that possesses an understanding of the potential pitfalls with electronic voting machines, along with vast experience in enforcement. These States should look for help from one that has a long history of dealing with honest and transparent auditing from electronic devices.
In Nevada, Dean Heller, the Scretary of State, decided to tap the knowledge of the Nevada Gaming Control Authority when deciding upon a system to choose. They rejected Diebold machines, judging them to be easily tampered with, and instead went with Sequoia Voting Systems, but only after a paper trail model, which was satisfactory to the state had been implemented. Sequoia's name for this version seems to be, AVC Edge® with VeriVote Printer.
Nevada was the only state in 2004 to require a paper trail in their electronic voting machines, and the election was smooth. Here's the current URL for The Clark County, Nevada(Las Vegas)Election Department's voting machine guide.
Today was my second use of the machine (I didn't vote in the primary-it tends to be pointless for non-partisan voters like me), and I have a fairly high degree of faith in its veracity. This faith is contingent on believing that any tampering from the government side would require too large of a group of individuals to keep it quiet, and that Nevada Gaming Control Authority values its integrity higher than short term partisan interests. The vote begins with signing a registered voter print-out next to my name, then a card with a programmable magnetic strip is given to me whereupon I go to a machine and insert it. Then I make my election choices using a touch screen screen. After finishing those, I am given an onscreen recap of my intended vote, and if acceptable, the vote is then printed on a continuous register tape that can be viewed behind a glass barrier, and if it is the same as my vote, I finalise my vote.
Perfect? Hardly, but it fewer problems than the punch card balloting, and the old lever voting machines that were in use before those.
There is at least one dissenter in Nevada though: Martin Griffith, "Citizen activist sues provider of electronic voting machines", Tahoe Daily Tribune, October 30, 2006. Maybe a grain of salt would be a proper prescription with this link though, as 'activist' does seem to be used properly in this headline, and it is the only complaint of this nature I am aware of.
Also of note is the CGFI Science Fellow: Spongiform Bob.
In Januray 2004, Alex Avery announced in a media release that the CGFI was launching a Mad Cow Facts Web site, - 'to end the confusion and help consumers find credible information and commentary about Mad Cow Disease'...
'Fears about Mad Cow Disease are currently being exploited by special interests and the media,' the website warns.
Yes, those greenie terrorists, along with their co-conspirators, the liberal press, inflame public opinions with the specious allegation that forcing cannibalism upon herds of domesticated grass-eating cud-chewers by adding rendered cow carcasses to their feed is an obscene act.
There's no need to seek the facts. The evidence leaves no doubt...you are absolutely wrong. Bush wasn't given authorisation to fix the evidence and facts around his plan for war, nor did many legisaltors back war not authorised by the Security Council.
Here's just a few of the many remarks by Senators, which seem to contradict your assertion:
"Was it clear to the Senator that the President showed the American people that every option is being explored before a military option is exercised? I ask this question because I hear time and again from many Americans, who either are opposed to any military intervention or have not made up their minds, that they seem not to have confidence that the President is exercising every option. He is coming to Congress to get approval from both Houses of Congress. We have had significant debate, and we will have significant debate.
We are working at the Security Council level. We are making it absolutely clear that tomorrow Saddam Hussein, if he did away with his weapons of mass destruction, destroyed the laboratory and allowed complete and comprehensive inspections, would probably remove the threat he now faces. It is Saddam Hussein who has continued for the last 11 years.
My question to the Senator is, Do you think the President's speech last night went some distance in convincing the American people that neither the President nor the Senator from Connecticut, nor I, nor the Senator from Virginia, nor the Senator from Indiana, choose the military option? We are sending young Americans into harm's way. As successful as this operation may be, we will still lose some brave young Americans' lives. That is the reality. That is why we avoid it at all costs. "
"This is the last option. What we are doing in the Senate today, tomorrow, and when that vote comes is to vote our conscience, 100 individuals, to do our very best to deter the use of force but to make it clear that our Constitution has given this President and every President who has preceded him, and every President who will come after, the authority to utilize all the assets of our Nation, principally the men and women of the Armed Forces, to secure our interests and protect our people.
[. ..]
Last night, we listened carefully to our President as he addressed the Nation to provide the leadership necessary with regard to this very serious issue of Saddam Hussein and eliminating his weapons of mass destruction. Speaking just for myself, but I think it is shared by other Senators, this President has shown remarkable courage. We would not be here today in this debate, we would not be watching the debate in the United Nations on a possible 17th resolution, we would not be seeing our country focusing on this issue, had it not been for George Bush, our President, having the foresight to see the essential need for the United States to lead at this time. Not tomorrow, not the next day, not the next month, not the next year, but now in the effort of the free world to rid Saddam Hussein of the weapons of mass destruction.
We owe a debt of gratitude to that President, who, in clear, forthright, and often soft tones of voice, last night addressed the Nation with the need for action now.:
"I support this resolution not because I favor a resort to war but because I believe this resolution gives our country the best chance to maintain peace.
I support this resolution not because I favor America acting unilaterally, unless we must, but because I believe this resolution gives us the best opportunity to rally our allies and convince the United Nations to act with us, and in so doing give that international institution meaning for the resolutions that it adop
The President should not be able to call out the guard of a state; that is a governor's job.
One of the biggest problems encountered by Louisiana's National Guard in the aftermath of Katrina was that their specialised equipment, designed to operate in flooded urban areas was being torn up in an unecessary war's desert environment, instead of being close to home to do what it was designed to do.
Bush should be criticised for getting a guitar lesson in Crawford after the levees had been breeched, for trying to put blame on anything other than his own self, and for promising to rebuild Trent Lott's Gulf vacation home before he'd even seen the devastation on the ground.
"We've got a lot of rebuilding to do. First, we're going to save lives and stabilize the situation. And then we're going to help these communities rebuild. The good news is -- and it's hard for some to see it now -- that out of this chaos is going to come a fantastic Gulf Coast, like it was before. Out of the rubbles of Trent Lott's house -- he's lost his entire house -- there's going to be a fantastic house. And I'm looking forward to sitting on the porch. (Laughter.)"
How times have changed. What the Republicans refused to give the Clinton administration has been extended exponentially to bhe Bush Administration. The Republicans are not better at protecting America, they are just partisan hacks. On April 16, 1996 Sen. Hatch (R-Utah) explained why posse comitatus would not be excepted even in the event of a terrorist biological or chemical attack upon the USA in the 1995 terror Prevention bill:
--------Begin Congressional Record excerpt---------
From this country's earliest days, the American people have sought to limit military involvement in civilian affairs. In the wake of the terrible tragedy in Oklahoma, with the heightened sensitivity to the threat of terrorism this country faces, some feel like giving the military a more prominent role in combating terrorism both here and abroad. This is not a policy we should rush into.
I must add, I support the provision, which is known as the Nunn- Thurmond provision, in the Senate bill. Americans have always been suspicious of using the military in domestic law enforcement, and rightly so. Civilian control of the military and separation of the military from domestic law enforcement feature prominently in the early history of this country, from the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Indeed, the Declaration of Independence listed among our grievances against the King of England that he had "kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislature," and had "affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power."
It was abuse of military authority in domestic affairs, especially in the South after the Civil War, that motivated Congress to impose the first so-called posse comitatus statute. The term "posse comitatus" means power of the country and has as its origin the power of the sheriff through common law to call upon people to help him execute the law.
The statute, in 18 U.S.C. 1385, prevents the Federal Government from using the Army or Air Force to execute the law, except where Congress expressly creates an exception. Domestic law enforcement thus remains as is, in the hands of local communities.
Currently, as I understand it, Congress has created only limited exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act. The President can call out the military if terrorists threaten the use of nuclear weapons or if the rights of any group of people are denied and the State in which they reside is unable or unwilling to secure their lawful rights.
The military is also authorized to share intelligence information with Federal law enforcement in attempts to combat drug trafficking. These are limited exceptions to the act, however, and do not generally empower the military to be actively involved in the enforcement of domestic laws. We have done well with a separation between military authority and domestic law enforcement. Although this proposal seems sensible and appears simply to expand upon the military's preexisting authority, to become involved if the use of nuclear weapons or biological or chemical weapons is threatened, it may, in fact, be unnecessary.
The premise underlying this amendment is that there does not exist among civilian law enforcement the expertise to deal effectively with chemical or biological agents. However, I believe that such expertise is available outside of the military. Particularly in the area of chemical agents, civil authorities and even the private sector have considerable experience in containing these substances.
Moreover, the military can already assist civil authorities in all aspects of responding to the type of crisis contemplated by this amendment but one: The actual use of military personnel to disable or contain the device. The military can lend equipment, it can provide instructions and technical advice on how to disable or contain a chemical or biologi
President's Statement on H.R. 5122, the "John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007"
Today, I have signed into law H.R. 5122, the "John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007" (the "Act"). The Act authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, for military construction, for national security-related energy programs, and for maritime security-related transportation programs.
President George W. Bush signs into law H.R. 5122, the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, Tuesday, Oct. 17, 2006, in the Oval Office. Joining him are from left: Vice President Dick Cheney, Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Sen. John Warner of Virginia, and General Peter Pace, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff. White House photo by Eric Draper Several provisions of the Act call for executive branch officials to submit to the Congress recommendations for legislation, or purport to regulate the manner in which the President formulates recommendations to the Congress for legislation. These provisions include sections 516(h), 575(g), 603(b), 705(d), 719(b), 721(e), 741(e), 813, 1008, 1016(d), 1035(b)(3), 1047(b), and 1102 of the Act, section 118(b)(4) of title 10, United States Code, as amended by section 1031 of the Act, section 2773b of title 10 as amended by section 1053 of the Act, and section 403 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375) as amended by section 403 of the Act. The executive branch shall construe these provisions in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to recommend for the consideration of the Congress such measures as the President deems necessary and expedient.
The executive branch shall construe sections 914 and 1512 of the Act, which purport to make consultation with specified Members of Congress a precondition to the execution of the law, as calling for but not mandating such consultation, as is consistent with the Constitution's provisions concerning the separate powers of the Congress to legislate and the President to execute the laws.
A number of provisions in the Act call for the executive branch to furnish information to the Congress or other entities on various subjects. These provisions include sections 219, 313, 360, 1211, 1212, 1213, 1227, 1402, and 3116 of the Act, section 427 of title 10, United States Code, as amended by section 932 of the Act, and section 1093 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375) as amended by section 1061 of the Act. The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, the national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties.
The executive branch shall construe as advisory section 1011(b)(2) of the Act, which purports to prohibit the Secretary of the Navy from retiring a specified warship from operational status unless, among other things, a treaty organization established by the U.S. and foreign nations gives formal notice that it does not desire t
"But it's not exactly TGIF for the 21 million Americans who fear the day. Some may not travel or even get out of bed, said Donald Dossey, a North Carolina psychologist who coined the term "paraskevidekatriaphobia" 20 years ago. He estimates that the nation is out $900 million in lost productivity because of Friday the 13th sick-outs."
How do they come up lost productivity statistics anyway?
The Big Corporate Casinos would jump at the chance to open their own internet sites, even under heavy government regulation, and fair taxation.
They have the trademark names that people associate with gambling, and they could reap their profits without the heavy outlay in employee costs that are associated with physical Hotel/Casinos.
If you are looking for opposition to online gambling, maybe the tribal casinos would be a better start. They have much more to lose.
I wouldn't worry about your Russian stamp. Vlad P. is a totalitarian analog to Gw, and the only Euro leader suitable to be considered proper as a Bush ManDate (sorry UK, Poodles don't count, so no good ol TonyBoy). Even Angela M., who may upon furhter analysis actually qualify generally as a ManDate, seemed repulsed at the idea of becoming GW's.
Slashdot Mirror
There is nothing truthful in any comparison between Barry Golwater and the foulness of Contemporary Conservatism. The Senator had very little in common with the GOP at the time of his death, and readily admitted it. To compare Goldwater to Bush in this thread is evil. There is no question which side of personal liberty Goldwater stood upon. After his retirement, he became an outspoken advocate for gay rights, and clearly stated that it was oppositional to the tenants of his brand of conservatism to work against their natural rights as human beings.
Goldwater was outspoken in his criticisms towards GOP presidents he felt had abused their office:
Goldwater had little patience for the 'religious right', especially when they attempted to get him to pull his support for Reagan's nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court. O'Connor turned out to be both honest in testimony given regarding her judicial philosophy, and a real conservative on the bench, instead of the right-sided activists which are defined as conservatives presently.
Goldwater clearly foresaw the threat of religious fervency to the GOP. He had no love for America's TelevangelTubby fatwads:
Goldwater didn't mince his words, yet was capable of placing a tremendous amount of hard hitting message into a small package:
Jefferson was a deist, and not a true Christian. He believed that there was a Jesus Christ, but he was not divine, only a man, who was also a great philosopher with a fine message of peace. The claim that America should return to its religious roots is a sham. It is also laughable when proposed by Baptists (1 and 2). Many of America's founders also had a deep distrust of Catholicism because of its historical support for 'divine right', and its quid pro quo relationship with European monarchs. The only contribution in Revolutionary Era America that poseur preachermen like Falwell and Robertson provided was the invention of reversible outerwear, one side blue, the other red, depending on which way the winds of war were blowing.
Instead of 'god given' rights, I prefer the term 'Natural Rights' , yet at the same time refuse to argue whether they truly exist or not, because under what Conservatives often claim is the proper methodology for auguring the Constitution's meaning, 'original intent' , the argument is moot. Instead, what matters is that America's Founders believed their was a class of rights which existed in a condition both pre-existent to a state's formation, and pre-eminent to its legitimate acts. Another axiom inherent within the concept of Natural Rights is that they must be possessed by all humans, because if they are instead only a privilege of citizenship, then they are only rights which a magnanimous state has conferred upon its subjects, and are therefore insecure.
Our government can only rightfully act where is has been granted the ability to act. This is a major flaw in Gonzales' reprehensible claim that there is no natural right of all humans to habeas corpus. The state cannot not lawfully act in the absence of a express grant. To advance this argument is to advance a theory of tyranny.
Mr. Bush has now twice honourably sworn an oath to defend on uphold the Constitution. The Constitution is the only sceptre of power for government officials. Mr. Bush now claims that Constitutional War Powers give him the authority to act without the very same document which confers legitimacy upon his office. This is absurd. The President is not above the supreme law of the land.
Marbury v Madison was also the first case of Judicial Activism from the Supreme Court. It was a case that even the Chief Justice and Opinion writer agreed had no standing in their court. Many of Marshall's contemporaries disagreed with his analysis:
In the final analysis though, it is the citizenry who decides constitutionality, not nine old pontificates who publicly display their fetish for black satin moo moos. Everyone must decide for themselves how far their knees bend in acquiescence when facing this tyranny.
There is no justice to be found in a people which allows its government multiplicity in its application of power over individuals. There is no freedom in a people who believe that their liberty is a grant from the government. There will be no peace in a country which does not carefully guard the rights of even their worst enemies. The Dreamtime America becomes naught but a brutal memory if we do not leash and muzzle our leviathan which was loosed upon the world as a wolf among the sheep in the throes of our vengefulness after September 11, 2001.
Maybe a bit of understanding can be gained drinking from the headwaters in The Dreamtime America.
Note that Natural Rights are NOT gifts from THE Creator, but THEIR Creator. This applies to every human who has been, is, and will be, and ALL are endowed with this Natural Liberty by their personal conceptualisation of the Creative Force. This is not an abstraction of Thomas Jefferson's written work:
Congressman Keith Ellison recently used Jefferson's copy of the Quran for his symbolic photo-op after being sworn in as the first muslim Congressman in American History. Jefferson also respected atheists:
Jefferson often showed more respect to atheists and pagans than he did to traditional Christians:
And there is no doubt whether Jefferson believed that habeas corpus was a Natural Right, possessed by all humans:
We traveled entirely different paths. As I mentioned, I was drawn low in the '69 lottery, but because of my family's religion, went in CO, and became a chopper doc. Towards the end of my tour, an encounter with a USMC LtCol in a hot LZ with everyone bugging out, who figured he owed me, because I'd humped one of his out under fire, got me repositioned in a Saigon hospital. Then I volunteered for duty at a hospital in Okinawa, so when I returned home, it was time to get out. Yeah, I'm antiwar, if that makes me a lefty, so be it, but what does that imply of the right?
Maybe it's not quite as applicable to console gamers though, but what worked for me playing racquetball after 50, was to quit always looking for the roll-out kill low off of the base board, and instead run the dumb bastard's legs out with cheap weird-assed spinning floaters into corners, or just high enough lobs over their heads aiming for a ball burying back wall two-corner shot, if they insist on hogging center-front of the court.
It's called finesse, and ya'll are going to need it if you will to live long and prosper, because that path is a one way trip to getting older, and no matter how hard you try, you're bound to lose half a step every now and again traversing it.
and effin hell fuego...62? That put you in country, what...'65 or'66? Were you back home in time for the summer of love? I was handed a winning draw in the 1st lottery.
will peace bro, but keep your cartridges dry.
And so it has begun...
Also, apologies for not getting the aforementioned Gates page up yet. I ran up against a CSS problem new to me, and have spent time looking around for a solution. How is your command of CSS? It is about overflow and fixed divisions. I can do it with tables easily, as with frames. A simple JS DOM routine covers it also, but I was desiring to use a pure CSS Div implementation in XHTML, without script, frames or tables, and it bugs me that I can't figure it out.
Finally, off thread, but may be germane another time: if a future proffered link challenges, rubyacht is the responsive solution, and the link should be considered extremely temporal. I do not like to mix and match pseudos publicly, but may desire to show info which could enable it, and as you do not provide an email contact, i cannot reach extraneously. BTW, logs indicated a probable peek from Brooklyn recently...
But then again, No Real libertarian is a Objectivist, they are instead Objectionists.
Aynnie used to be a darling of libertarian leaning conservatives, until the great bookburning of the reagancomdedy, when someone explained to the hammerheads that she was really a godless slut, and they burned her books along with The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn.
You may have noticed that i use a small l for libertarian. This is intentional, because what passes for the Libertarian Party has very little to do with true libertarianism. All those clowns seem to want to do is eliminate the minimum wage, and end eminent domain, they could care less about other things, like due process of law and habeas corpus, you know, REAL LIBERTY.
Your anti-global warming quip was off mark also. Most anti-global warming tripe is passed by the corporate funded faux libertarian tanks with Cato at its helm. Something closer to True libertarian thought can be found at Raimondo's antiwar dot com. Those faux-libertarian think tanks are doing a great disservice to libertarianism with their anti global warming garbage. They should instead be focusing upon effective market solutions to greenhouse emissions, instead of letting lame-brained leftyist anti-market solutions muck it up even worse. One quick and easy method would be to apply the accounting principle of future value for remediation of greenhouse gases done today, as well as factoring future valuations into present-day increased greenhouse gas emissions. That would greatly reduce the balance sheet liability for the cost of remediation, and place the burden where it belonged. See how easy that is?
I haven't given much thought to who is a likely in the as the GOP candidate in '08.
I firmly believe that one of the biggest weaknesses in any democracy-styled electoral society is that the persons who actually desire to hold political office are unsuitable, simply because they desire it. At the same time, if your choice in a political election was predicated upon a lesser of two evils decision, you have by your own admission chosen evil.
My solution actually started out as a joke, but seems more appropriate as i grow older. It is to end all elections immediately, and instead begin to choose our politicains they way the draft lottery worked or juror pool selection works; purely randomised picking out of the entire population base of eligible citizens, and all adult citizens are in the pool, excepting of course, people who actually desire to hold political office, because they have psychological ailments which make them unfit.
A possible strong GOP candidate is still Chuck Hagel, but he cannot have my vote irregardless of the other candidates. He weaseled during the heat of the BuShilling Anal Navigators lies in '04; went MIA in Africa on a 'factfinding' trip. He damn well knows that Kerry would still stand up for him if the tables were reversed too. There's a real wannabe in Brownback. He's got the fever, and has been keeping pretty quiet of late. He's the choice of Pat Robertson, although it's hard to believe that he would receive staunch backing from a vast majority of the religious right. He's Catholic, and many evangelicals are still very anti-papist.
It is also extremely difficult to launch a winning presidential run from the Senate or the House. To much easily obtainable ammo that can be used nationally against them.
That would seem to indicate another governor. Who is able? Tough for any Atlantic Seaboard Yankee to carry the essential by GOP South, so the Mass frat boy from hell is a probable no go. Maybe Perry from Texecution, but I have a feeling that after the Delay mess is finished down there, he's going to be carrying one hell of a foot locker himself. The only two Western States that have a big enough population base, and enough credence with the GOP would be Arizona (Dem Gov and a Woman), and California, and we both know that The Kindergarten Konan hasn't a prayer. Someone must have an old copy or two of pumping iron around to scare the bejeezus out of the repressed right. Arnold was quite fond of the ladies when he was young, and it's pretty easy to understand why this runs counter to the instincts of many rightards.
Taft is screwed, Ohio is one mess of political mud for the GOP presently. Your Gov isn't much of a darling these days with the conservative pundits, and being a New Yorker, he'd have to have them on his side.
My take on the GOP for '08 is that it's wide open for a midwestern or semi-southern GOP governor. Didn't I read something about Iowa's Gov the other day?
That's about it for a rambling muse from me presently on the GOP. I have been working a bit on marking up the Gates Chapter in the Walsh Iran/Contra report, but started playing with a different idea for displaying footnotes, so it isn't finished yet. All that is left is the CSS though, so it should be up either early morn your time, or late afternoon mine today, depending on what I get accomplished before crashing. Look for a reference to the file at: History at Liberated Text
Oh yeah, almost forgot; two more Brzezinski refs:
Of course we should not forget that Dr. Gates had a full chapter in the Walsh Iran/Contra report.
As for McCain's chances; if i was making the line, it would start at about 15:1, and i'd gladly take all of the sucker money coming down on him. His play for the right-side hasn't endeared him to the hard-right Republicans, and has alienated him from the independents. As for my take: He's no Bary Goldwater...
Your ex-mayor has even less chance than McCain. Did you see the NatRev cover of him about two months ago?
Why do you just copy and paste a small excerpt of what Kerry said during the comment and debate regarding the Authorisation of the Use of Force against Iraq. Tell me, Mr. A. Coward, are you just slothfully lazy or a GOP shill?
On October 9, 2002, Senator John Kerry spoke for 45 minutes on the Authorisation of Force, and yet little of it is actually cited. This is another of the many examples of distortions and outright dishonesty that the immoral GOP has shown itself capable of, yet still its Rank and Defiled refuse to look at the truth. Here are some excerpts from Senator Kerry's speech that day which GOP shills fail to cite:
That the GOP lies is well evidenced in the record. That GOP partisans refuse to see the truth is a grave danger to my country, and must be resisted.
Bush's untimely yanking of the US military from Afghanistan was wrong from at least two angles. First and foremost, it was wrong because our true enemy was there, and Saddam had nothing to do with 911. We should have taken al Qaeda to ground at Tora Bora then and there, withoput prejudice, for the dogs that they are, but instead, Bush decided to fix the data and evidence around his desire to assuage his oedipal urges in Iraq, the truth notwithstanding.
Secondly, Afghanistan's long descent into hell was in large measure caused by US reaction to the Soviet installation of a puppet regime in Kabul. Cater's NSA Zbigniew Brzezinski has in the past admitted that the arming of the Afghan Mujahadin occurred before the Soviet invasion, and was intended as a trap, and the Soviet's taking of the bait gave the U.S. an "opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war". Well over one million Afghanis died in that war, as well as 15,000 Soviet soldiers, mostly conscripts of poor peasants from USSR's outerlying regions. A fucking deadly pissing contest by two third parties.
This is the evil which began at the end of Carter's admin, but was taken up zealously by the ReaganCons. It was our responsibility to do what we can to bring Afghanistan back from their hell. Another miserable failure by the Son of Bush.
I also am looking forward to the PostDigital. Not just within the political realm, but in all of reality. Still, the structural flaws inherent within the concept of Politics as nothing more than a BiPolarity are easy to identify presently.
The voting machine changes are inevitable, no matter how ill-advised. The best that you, i or anyone can do at this point is to force as much redundancy into anti-tampering and quality assurance systems as is possible. One of the best ways to guard against tampering is to insure that a State's Election Department is staffed with tech aware individuals, whose employment was not the result of nepotism, partisanship or cronyism, and whose primary functions are allowed to operate independent from the state's political actors.
This is why i pointed towards the Nevada Gaming Control Authority. The top level of bureaucracy in Nevada's gaming control are political operatives, appointed by the governor. At the same time, one of Nevada's ugly truths about politics is a plus in this instance. Nevada's State wide and Federal Politicians are first and foremost beholden to the Gaming Corporations. These corporations understand full well that a gaming permit is a state authorised license to steal, and that a tremendous amount of goodwill value in these permits is the perception that the gambling which occurs in Nevada's casinos strictly adheres to the rules. There may be a great deal of tolerance from the gaming corporations on who else is admitted into their exclusive club, but their is no tolerance for cheaters amongst their midst, so the Gaming Control Authority is expected to run as intended, without favoritism being played. This is what needs to be fostered in Election Oversight Processes throughout America. Presently, it is necessary to beat upon the Republicans to help enable this. I believe you understand that in the future, it may become necessary to beat upon the Democrats instead.
Aside from that, i also believe you understand that this present administration is tyrannical, and has caused great damage to The Dreamtime America. That the Dreamtime is largely a myth is sad indeed, but is not the most important thing about it. What is the primary concern, is that the Dreamtime continues on as an Ideal, and this is at risk. Yeah, i am altruist walkabout who truly believes that ALL humans are equal, and endowed by that which they perceive as the force of creation which inalienable rights. At or very near the top of the list of inalienable rights are the rights to habeas corpus, due process of law, and a proscription upon the government's taking of life liberty and/or property from ANY human without first securing a proper conviction against in a tribunal process that is completely open, and strictly adheres to due process. This is true whether the defendant is an American citizen or not, for it these rights are only conferred upon US citizens, then they are not preexistent and preeminent rights, but are instead rights extended by a magnanimous state to its citizens. They would then be insecurely held, not in the people's possession, but by a state, unrestrained in its exercise of power.
I am well aware that i am preaching to a true believer here Doc, i have lurked; i am aware of the green capsules in others' profiles. I have bumped into many of your prior remarks on this board. Still i am compelled to rise and resist at any opportunity that presents itself and shout, i am free, the state does not rightfully possess my natural rights, as i have ceded none to it. This i do as an American, for my country's future.
will peace, but keep your cartridges dry...
Frivolous , as in a sexual harassment case so lame, it was tossed summary judgement, since it was fatally flawed, as the plaintiff was unable to identify one instance of harassment? ?
Let's weigh instances of frivolity in the balance, ok?
On the left side of the scale, place a president's lies about acts of consensual sex given in sworn deposition in a civil case that had no merit. Onto that, place a stained blue dress.
On the right-side of the balance, place a president's lies and distortions about the causes for an immoral war. Onto that, place blood-stained Iraqi sands.
Which is more frivolous?
The problem most states have is that they do not have a large pre-existing and non-partisan based bureaucracy in place with a tech background, that possesses an understanding of the potential pitfalls with electronic voting machines, along with vast experience in enforcement. These States should look for help from one that has a long history of dealing with honest and transparent auditing from electronic devices.
In Nevada, Dean Heller, the Scretary of State, decided to tap the knowledge of the Nevada Gaming Control Authority when deciding upon a system to choose. They rejected Diebold machines, judging them to be easily tampered with, and instead went with Sequoia Voting Systems, but only after a paper trail model, which was satisfactory to the state had been implemented. Sequoia's name for this version seems to be, AVC Edge® with VeriVote Printer.
Nevada was the only state in 2004 to require a paper trail in their electronic voting machines, and the election was smooth. Here's the current URL for The Clark County, Nevada(Las Vegas)Election Department's voting machine guide.
Today was my second use of the machine (I didn't vote in the primary-it tends to be pointless for non-partisan voters like me), and I have a fairly high degree of faith in its veracity. This faith is contingent on believing that any tampering from the government side would require too large of a group of individuals to keep it quiet, and that Nevada Gaming Control Authority values its integrity higher than short term partisan interests. The vote begins with signing a registered voter print-out next to my name, then a card with a programmable magnetic strip is given to me whereupon I go to a machine and insert it. Then I make my election choices using a touch screen screen. After finishing those, I am given an onscreen recap of my intended vote, and if acceptable, the vote is then printed on a continuous register tape that can be viewed behind a glass barrier, and if it is the same as my vote, I finalise my vote.
Perfect? Hardly, but it fewer problems than the punch card balloting, and the old lever voting machines that were in use before those.
Here are a few links:
There is at least one dissenter in Nevada though:
Martin Griffith, "Citizen activist sues provider of electronic voting machines", Tahoe Daily Tribune, October 30, 2006.
Maybe a grain of salt would be a proper prescription with this link though, as 'activist' does seem to be used properly in this headline, and it is the only complaint of this nature I am aware of.
Moo-olent Green
Also of note is the CGFI Science Fellow: Spongiform Bob.
Yes, those greenie terrorists, along with their co-conspirators, the liberal press, inflame public opinions with the specious allegation that forcing cannibalism upon herds of domesticated grass-eating cud-chewers by adding rendered cow carcasses to their feed is an obscene act.
There's no need to seek the facts. The evidence leaves no doubt...you are absolutely wrong. Bush wasn't given authorisation to fix the evidence and facts around his plan for war, nor did many legisaltors back war not authorised by the Security Council.
Here's just a few of the many remarks by Senators, which seem to contradict your assertion:
"Was it clear to the Senator that the President showed the American people that every option is being explored before a military option is exercised? I ask this question because I hear time and again from many Americans, who either are opposed to any military intervention or have not made up their minds, that they seem not to have confidence that the President is exercising every option. He is coming to Congress to get approval from both Houses of Congress. We have had significant debate, and we will have significant debate.
We are working at the Security Council level. We are making it absolutely clear that tomorrow Saddam Hussein, if he did away with his weapons of mass destruction, destroyed the laboratory and allowed complete and comprehensive inspections, would probably remove the threat he now faces. It is Saddam Hussein who has continued for the last 11 years.
My question to the Senator is, Do you think the President's speech last night went some distance in convincing the American people that neither the President nor the Senator from Connecticut, nor I, nor the Senator from Virginia, nor the Senator from Indiana, choose the military option? We are sending young Americans into harm's way. As successful as this operation may be, we will still lose some brave young Americans' lives. That is the reality. That is why we avoid it at all costs. "
Senator McCain
"This is the last option. What we are doing in the Senate today, tomorrow, and when that vote comes is to vote our conscience, 100 individuals, to do our very best to deter the use of force but to make it clear that our Constitution has given this President and every President who has preceded him, and every President who will come after, the authority to utilize all the assets of our Nation, principally the men and women of the Armed Forces, to secure our interests and protect our people.
.]
:
[. .
Last night, we listened carefully to our President as he addressed the Nation to provide the leadership necessary with regard to this very serious issue of Saddam Hussein and eliminating his weapons of mass destruction. Speaking just for myself, but I think it is shared by other Senators, this President has shown remarkable courage. We would not be here today in this debate, we would not be watching the debate in the United Nations on a possible 17th resolution, we would not be seeing our country focusing on this issue, had it not been for George Bush, our President, having the foresight to see the essential need for the United States to lead at this time. Not tomorrow, not the next day, not the next month, not the next year, but now in the effort of the free world to rid Saddam Hussein of the weapons of mass destruction.
We owe a debt of gratitude to that President, who, in clear, forthright, and often soft tones of voice, last night addressed the Nation with the need for action now.
Senator Warner
"I support this resolution not because I favor a resort to war but because I believe this resolution gives our country the best chance to maintain peace.
I support this resolution not because I favor America acting unilaterally, unless we must, but because I believe this resolution gives us the best opportunity to rally our allies and convince the United Nations to act with us, and in so doing give that international institution meaning for the resolutions that it adop
The President should not be able to call out the guard of a state; that is a governor's job.
One of the biggest problems encountered by Louisiana's National Guard in the aftermath of Katrina was that their specialised equipment, designed to operate in flooded urban areas was being torn up in an unecessary war's desert environment, instead of being close to home to do what it was designed to do.
Bush should be criticised for getting a guitar lesson in Crawford after the levees had been breeched, for trying to put blame on anything other than his own self, and for promising to rebuild Trent Lott's Gulf vacation home before he'd even seen the devastation on the ground.
From The Congressional Record of September 29, 2006:
Senators Kennedy, Sessions and McCain in support; Senator Leahy's Dissent
Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, "The Use of Federal Troops for Disaster Assistance: Legal Issues," by Jennifer K. Elsea, Legislative Attorney, August 14, 2006
How times have changed. What the Republicans refused to give the Clinton administration has been extended exponentially to bhe Bush Administration. The Republicans are not better at protecting America, they are just partisan hacks. On April 16, 1996 Sen. Hatch (R-Utah) explained why posse comitatus would not be excepted even in the event of a terrorist biological or chemical attack upon the USA in the 1995 terror Prevention bill:
--------Begin Congressional Record excerpt---------
From this country's earliest days, the American people have sought to limit military involvement in civilian affairs. In the wake of the terrible tragedy in Oklahoma, with the heightened sensitivity to the threat of terrorism this country faces, some feel like giving the military a more prominent role in combating terrorism both here and abroad. This is not a policy we should rush into.
I must add, I support the provision, which is known as the Nunn- Thurmond provision, in the Senate bill. Americans have always been suspicious of using the military in domestic law enforcement, and rightly so. Civilian control of the military and separation of the military from domestic law enforcement feature prominently in the early history of this country, from the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Indeed, the Declaration of Independence listed among our grievances against the King of England that he had "kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislature," and had "affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power."
It was abuse of military authority in domestic affairs, especially in the South after the Civil War, that motivated Congress to impose the first so-called posse comitatus statute. The term "posse comitatus" means power of the country and has as its origin the power of the sheriff through common law to call upon people to help him execute the law.
The statute, in 18 U.S.C. 1385, prevents the Federal Government from using the Army or Air Force to execute the law, except where Congress expressly creates an exception. Domestic law enforcement thus remains as is, in the hands of local communities.
Currently, as I understand it, Congress has created only limited exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act. The President can call out the military if terrorists threaten the use of nuclear weapons or if the rights of any group of people are denied and the State in which they reside is unable or unwilling to secure their lawful rights.
The military is also authorized to share intelligence information with Federal law enforcement in attempts to combat drug trafficking. These are limited exceptions to the act, however, and do not generally empower the military to be actively involved in the enforcement of domestic laws. We have done well with a separation between military authority and domestic law enforcement. Although this proposal seems sensible and appears simply to expand upon the military's preexisting authority, to become involved if the use of nuclear weapons or biological or chemical weapons is threatened, it may, in fact, be unnecessary.
The premise underlying this amendment is that there does not exist among civilian law enforcement the expertise to deal effectively with chemical or biological agents. However, I believe that such expertise is available outside of the military. Particularly in the area of chemical agents, civil authorities and even the private sector have considerable experience in containing these substances.
Moreover, the military can already assist civil authorities in all aspects of responding to the type of crisis contemplated by this amendment but one: The actual use of military personnel to disable or contain the device. The military can lend equipment, it can provide instructions and technical advice on how to disable or contain a chemical or biologi
Here's the official White House signing statement, which also comes with a nice picture attached, showing Dick Cheney, a California congressional equivocator of torture, Rep. Duncan Hunter, Donald Rumsfeld, Sen. John 'Count Vlad' Warner, and General Peter Pace.
-------------{begin release}-------------
President's Statement on H.R. 5122, the "John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007"
Today, I have signed into law H.R. 5122, the "John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007" (the "Act"). The Act authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, for military construction, for national security-related energy programs, and for maritime security-related transportation programs.
President George W. Bush signs into law H.R. 5122, the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, Tuesday, Oct. 17, 2006, in the Oval Office. Joining him are from left: Vice President Dick Cheney, Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Sen. John Warner of Virginia, and General Peter Pace, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff. White House photo by Eric Draper Several provisions of the Act call for executive branch officials to submit to the Congress recommendations for legislation, or purport to regulate the manner in which the President formulates recommendations to the Congress for legislation. These provisions include sections 516(h), 575(g), 603(b), 705(d), 719(b), 721(e), 741(e), 813, 1008, 1016(d), 1035(b)(3), 1047(b), and 1102 of the Act, section 118(b)(4) of title 10, United States Code, as amended by section 1031 of the Act, section 2773b of title 10 as amended by section 1053 of the Act, and section 403 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375) as amended by section 403 of the Act. The executive branch shall construe these provisions in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to recommend for the consideration of the Congress such measures as the President deems necessary and expedient.
The executive branch shall construe sections 914 and 1512 of the Act, which purport to make consultation with specified Members of Congress a precondition to the execution of the law, as calling for but not mandating such consultation, as is consistent with the Constitution's provisions concerning the separate powers of the Congress to legislate and the President to execute the laws.
A number of provisions in the Act call for the executive branch to furnish information to the Congress or other entities on various subjects. These provisions include sections 219, 313, 360, 1211, 1212, 1213, 1227, 1402, and 3116 of the Act, section 427 of title 10, United States Code, as amended by section 932 of the Act, and section 1093 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375) as amended by section 1061 of the Act. The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, the national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties.
The executive branch shall construe as advisory section 1011(b)(2) of the Act, which purports to prohibit the Secretary of the Navy from retiring a specified warship from operational status unless, among other things, a treaty organization established by the U.S. and foreign nations gives formal notice that it does not desire t
How do they come up lost productivity statistics anyway?
The Big Corporate Casinos would jump at the chance to open their own internet sites, even under heavy government regulation, and fair taxation.
They have the trademark names that people associate with gambling, and they could reap their profits without the heavy outlay in employee costs that are associated with physical Hotel/Casinos.
If you are looking for opposition to online gambling, maybe the tribal casinos would be a better start. They have much more to lose.
I wouldn't worry about your Russian stamp. Vlad P. is a totalitarian analog to Gw, and the only Euro leader suitable to be considered proper as a Bush ManDate (sorry UK, Poodles don't count, so no good ol TonyBoy). Even Angela M., who may upon furhter analysis actually qualify generally as a ManDate, seemed repulsed at the idea of becoming GW's.