I think that depends really on your point of view. The facts aren't really in dispute. Clinton committed perjury on a Federal Grand Jury investigation and committed witness tampering (coaching Monica Lewinsky on what to say) with respect to a Special Prosecutor investigation. The witness tampering was over a blowjob, but the perjury was over a sexual harrassment lawsuit. Now, where the point of view comes in is, do you think the crimes warranted removal of a sitting President...and I as a partisan conservative would have to say no. But, I wasn't running the show back in 1998, so my vote didn't count.
Now, with respect to this current President, I think most of the Iraq arguments that the anti-war left are putting out are bogus. The idea that Bush knew there wasn't WMD and lied anyway I think is laughable. Even Saddam's generals thought Iraq had chemical weapons and were imploring him to use them when the US invaded in 2003.
If you want to impeach Bush, impeach him for failing to protect the border. Oh yeah, but that's right, the Democrats are right there with him when it comes to amnesty for illegal aliens. After all, they are the next generation's voters for the Democratic party.
Republican support turned against Bush a while back. Calling your base racist and pushing through an amnesty for 20 million illegals when the base overwhelmingly opposes it tends to do that. What Republicans aren't in favor of is a purely political witch hunt. I mean, if there are more Duke Cunninghams out there either in the administration or Congress, by all means, throw them in the pokey. But while we're at it, how about we apply the same standards across the board? Pelosi seemed to back off pretty quick from her "drain the swamp" pledge considering that both Murtha and Jefferson are sitting on committees.
I'm very concerned about my civil liberties, but I'm even more concerned that the the next time I take the 'plane, the bus, the subway - or I'm just sitting at my desk, or on holiday with my family - I might get wiped out by some terrorist. I'm more concerned about my civil liberties. In the end, government can do very little to protect us but can certainly make our lives miserable while trying. The problem with all these terrorism laws is, despite ostensibly to fight a temporary battle, they stick around and get used for every day mundane law enforcement. Sort of like the telecom tax used to pay for the Spanish American war...these things tend to stick around long after their original purpose has lapsed.
And I say these things as a big time conservative. It's like torture. I can honestly see situations where it would be acceptable (ticking nuclear bomb scenario, for example), but legalizing it is a really bad idea because it encourages too much potential abuse.
All this means is they've either found another way to intercept the data, or the people they are trying to track are no longer using phone calls for communication, so it's ok to release the info. Otherwise, it was exceedingly stupid to give out the information, because once it's out you can pretty much count on that the folks you are trying to track will change their methods, same way Bin Laden started using personal envoys instead of Sat phones after it was leaked that we can track the sat phone calls.
Dude, you are off your rocker.
You are such an extremist that you think that just because you happen to be totally wrong, and I'm around to point it out You haven't point out anything about me being wrong because the only thing I have taken a position on is your extremism. You are so deluded that you think your insults and ad hominem attacks constitute proof. And on matters of the Constitution, you are just plain wrong. Example:
Bush who treats Congress, the superior in power of the two elected branches The Legislative branch is NOT "superior" to the Executive branch you idiot. Which brings me to my underlying point. You don't respect or value the Republic, and so it's rather disgusting for you to wrap yourself in it. If you actually valued it, you'd know a little bit more about what you speak instead of spewing sewage from your keyboard. You can't actually address points or ideas, so it's name calling this, ad hominem that. Your only "point" is that Republicans are evil, and what's the logical thing to do with evil people? Kill them, of course. Which I'm sure you would do, if your infantile fantasies were able to take the shape of reality.
Why is it in their best interest to send money through the USA when we don't make much of what they want to buy, and we can't afford to buy what they sell? Because we DO make what they want to buy. It's called the US dollar. Artificial as it may be, just about every oil importing nation needs them. It's the de facto currency of reserve. Now, there's a historic reason for this that no longer holds true today, but the inertia in the system is immense. To switch, you have to have something to switch to. The Euro seems to be the heir apparent, but we'll see how they handle the liquidity crunch from the sub-prime fiasco (which, for some unknown reason, was shouldered by Asian and European banks more than US banks).
I hear what you are saying. They've certainly made it a lot more difficult and expensive (routing through offshore 3rd parties that take a 10% cut, for example)...but not impossible, as this new fish can attest to.
UIGEA might be law, but it's important to see what the law says:
Title VIII of the Act is also known as the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. This title (found at 31 U.S.C. 5361-5367) prohibits the transfer of funds from a financial institution to an Internet gambling site, with the notable exceptions of "fantasy" sports, online lotteries, and horse/harness racing.
Very simply, internet or online gambling is NOT illegal (provided, you aren't wagering on sports, which would be covered under existing law). This applies to financial institutions, not the individual. Yes it makes it more difficult, but certainly not impossible, and definitely not illegal for the individual, at least at the Federal level.
I don't see any limits when you move it online. How do you know if you are being cheated? You wouldn't. You get to hear from people praising their big wins. And believe me, there is plenty of money going around so people can win big. The difference between a 98% payout and a 95% payout is incredible. Bring that down to 50% and you have something that wouldn't be legit in the US but would bring in billions. Because the reward doesn't justify the risk. Online casinos are already making billions, and the poker houses make their money from the rake and tournament fees, not by "cheating" their customers. There's plenty of competition for players out there, and any legitimate accusation of cheating or collusion would devastate these companies. And with something like poker and hand history, over time this would become apparent and would be exploited by competitors...and there is lots of competition in the online space.
The most recent anti-online-gambling law, the Unlawful Online Gambling Enforcement Act, was railroaded through the Senate (as a last-minute amendment to a must-pass bill) by Bill Frist. Bill Frist, at the time, was a hopeful for the Republican presidential nomination, and as such needed to shore up support among the moral conservative types. From http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109 -4411:
This bill never became law. This bill was proposed in a previous session of Congress. Sessions of Congress last two years, and at the end of each session all proposed bills and resolutions that haven't passed are cleared from the books.
Which matters how if it still takes up 1 m2 of roof space? Because solar cells are expensive and concentrators are cheap. The problem with solar cells is primary cost, not space.
That I don't support and defend the power of the people to make our own government? Yeah, pretty much. Or at least, you don't support and defending people making decisions that you don't agree with. And how do I know that? Because you think tens of millions of Americans are ideologically bound to destroying the Republic by virtue of their political affiliation. The idea that that many people would have such a sinister group think is idiotic. But your idiocy isn't what concerns me, it's the next logical step that comes into play once you reduce a group of people to being evil...and that is their elimination. Your little playbook is as old as history. First you demonize a group, then once that gest you a little power, you start killing them.
take that "W 04" sticker off your leased SUV, then hurry up and die in a fire. Wow, I guess you took that Kos admonition that "liberals are too nice" to heart, didn't you?
BTW, I drive a Jetta TDI.
And it doesn't have a W04 sticker...and never has. Truth be told, I'm not a big fan of El Jefe. But thanks for playing.
No, you're just a typical Republican apologist To be an apologist, I would actually have to make a defense of Republicans. Now, where it's appropriate I might, but...and this is key, you'll notice that I didn't do that here.
See, in the real world, there are lots of problems. Some problems have solutions, some problems do not. In your fantasy world, Republicans hate the Republic (emphasis in the original). Indeed, they constitute a mortal threat to the Republic. How do we fix that problem? What do you propose.
even though I'm not a Democrat Based on the tenor and tone of your post, I'd say that not only are you not a big-D Democrat, you're not a democrat either. Fundamentally, it doesn't sound like that whole democracy thing fits with your temperment. I'm sure it would be better, for you at least, if you were giving orders, and everyone else was following them.
What I'm doing is easily exposing your insanity. And after you've exposed this insanity and convinced enough people that the Republicans are really set on replacing the Republic with corporate anarchy, a critical mass of followers if you will, how do you go about opposing those Republicans so you can protect the cherished* republic? I mean, simply pointing it out doesn't solve the problem any more than if I pointed out that you're dumb or ugly. We simply have to fix the problem. Who is the role model you'll pattern your direct action after?
* dripping sarcasm here, I get a kick out of the nutroots crowd when they talk about State's rights and the Republic as if they haven't working relentlessly to erode both over the last 50 years.
Ick. The properly formatted version.
The core hypocrisy of "Republicans" is how they hate the republic, preferring a monarchy whose benign neglect amounts to corporate anarchy. Your statement here illustrates the fundamental problem with the nutroots Democrats...their detachment from reality. In this fantasy world, Republicans are evil incarnate hell bent on destroying the country, enslaving blacks, ripping the shoes off women and putting them back in the kitchen (where they belong!). In place of HBO and Showtime and Skinemax, we'd have JesusTV. Instead of Koch's Postulates, Republicans would have the Ten Commandments in biology class. And it's only through the heroic almost superhumyn efforts by our liberal saviors like Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi that this horrible apocalyptic vision is averted.
I mean, lets suppose for an instance that your characterization of Republicans was true (all Republicans mind you, not just the Republican politicians). As Lenin would say "What is to be done?". How would you go about fixing the situation? I mean, fix it in such a way as to keep the Republic which you and your fellow Democrats so obviously cherish so much intact?
[quote]The core hypocrisy of "Republicans" is how they hate the republic, preferring a monarchy whose benign neglect amounts to corporate anarchy.[/quote]
Your statement here illustrates the fundamental problem with the nutroots Democrats...their detachment from reality. In this fantasy world, Republicans are evil incarnate hell bent on destroying the country, enslaving blacks, ripping the shoes off women and putting them back in the kitchen (where they belong!). In place of HBO and Showtime and Skinemax, we'd have JesusTV. Instead of Koch's Postulates, Republicans would have the Ten Commandments in biology class. And it's only through the heroic almost superhumyn efforts by our liberal saviors like Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi that this horrible apocalyptic vision is averted.
I mean, lets suppose for an instance that your characterization of Republicans was true (all Republicans mind you, not just the Republican politicians). As Lenin would say "What is to be done?". How would you go about fixing the situation? I mean, fix it in such a way as to keep the Republic which you and your fellow Democrats so obviously cherish so much intact?
1. I'm not a Nazi. That apparently was your heritage from your posting location, not mine.
2. My sources are a hell of a lot better than yours, since the only source you've provided is your warped opinion.
the ukrainian famine was not intentional (stupidity, not malignity) No, it was a combination of stupidity and malignity. The stupidty, of course, was fundamental to Communism. The collectivisation, to begin with, was stupid. And then escalating collection targets in the face of widespread crop failures put the peasants in a position where it became impossible to comply with the collection targets and retain any crops for personal use (like eating), not to mention the next year's seeding. The malignity, of course, stepped in after the targets were not met. From the Black Book of Communism, p.166:
The "cold" method: the worker is stripped bare and left out in the cold, stark naked in a hangar. Sometimes whole brigades of collective workers are treated in this fashion.
The "hot" method: the feet and the bottom of the skirt of female workers are doused with gasoline and then set alight. The flames are put out and the process is repeated". Under the "ear" law, 5400 people received death sentences for things as innocuous as stealing an ear of corn ("any theft or damage of socialist property" was punishable by death).
The idea that torturing and executing starving people so they get up the last morsel of food isn't malignant is sickening. You fail as a human being. But you probably would've fit in just fine in Soviet Russia. After all, the kulaks deserved it, right comrade?
Some experts believe the evidence released from the Soviet archives is understated, incomplete or unreliable.[12][13][10][14] For example, Robert Conquest suggests that the probable figure for executions during the years of the Great Purge is not 681,692, but some two and a half times as high. He believes that the KGB was covering its tracks by falsifying the dates and causes of death of rehabilitated victims.[15] And keep in mind, these are just two quick examples, and don't include things like the Katyn massacre, the treatment of the Russian POWs who were returned to Soviet custody at the end of WW2 (and promptly executed), various other famines that were state induced.
To steal a phrase from Lenin, only a "useful idiot" believes there were only 1.4 million murders by the state under Stalin's Russia. A useful idiot, or an unrepetentent Maoist or Stalinist. Which are you?
The biggest threat most Americans face is their own government, which imprisons a greater percentage of its population than even Stalinist Russia While I agree with your general sentiment, I think it's appropriate to point out that Stalinist Russia was one big prison where an almost unimaginable amount of people were executed and/or worked to death in the gulags in a prison system that rivaled the Nazi concentration camps for depravity.
Otherwise known as the War on Terror. The terrorists won; we have lost our freedoms. They have changed our way of life. Uh, you need to go back a lot further than that. The New Deal set the stage for the childlike dependence on the Federal government and the Civil War crushed the idea of a voluntary union composed of sovereign states. Everything since then has been an excercise in incrementalism.
But pulling them out doesn't even necessarily mean they're going to get a better education. This is a non sequitur. Having choices almost always improves ones life, especially when we're talking something fundamental like education. Right now, the only people offered any sort of choice in how or where their kids are educated are those rich enough to afford private school. The rest of American children get the geographic lottery. Some get great public schools, while others get really shitty public schools. I think giving smart kids the option to actually go to schools that stretch their talents rather than crush their talents is a good thing.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that depends really on your point of view. The facts aren't really in dispute. Clinton committed perjury on a Federal Grand Jury investigation and committed witness tampering (coaching Monica Lewinsky on what to say) with respect to a Special Prosecutor investigation. The witness tampering was over a blowjob, but the perjury was over a sexual harrassment lawsuit. Now, where the point of view comes in is, do you think the crimes warranted removal of a sitting President...and I as a partisan conservative would have to say no. But, I wasn't running the show back in 1998, so my vote didn't count.
Now, with respect to this current President, I think most of the Iraq arguments that the anti-war left are putting out are bogus. The idea that Bush knew there wasn't WMD and lied anyway I think is laughable. Even Saddam's generals thought Iraq had chemical weapons and were imploring him to use them when the US invaded in 2003.
If you want to impeach Bush, impeach him for failing to protect the border. Oh yeah, but that's right, the Democrats are right there with him when it comes to amnesty for illegal aliens. After all, they are the next generation's voters for the Democratic party.
Republican support turned against Bush a while back. Calling your base racist and pushing through an amnesty for 20 million illegals when the base overwhelmingly opposes it tends to do that. What Republicans aren't in favor of is a purely political witch hunt. I mean, if there are more Duke Cunninghams out there either in the administration or Congress, by all means, throw them in the pokey. But while we're at it, how about we apply the same standards across the board? Pelosi seemed to back off pretty quick from her "drain the swamp" pledge considering that both Murtha and Jefferson are sitting on committees.
And I say these things as a big time conservative. It's like torture. I can honestly see situations where it would be acceptable (ticking nuclear bomb scenario, for example), but legalizing it is a really bad idea because it encourages too much potential abuse.
All this means is they've either found another way to intercept the data, or the people they are trying to track are no longer using phone calls for communication, so it's ok to release the info. Otherwise, it was exceedingly stupid to give out the information, because once it's out you can pretty much count on that the folks you are trying to track will change their methods, same way Bin Laden started using personal envoys instead of Sat phones after it was leaked that we can track the sat phone calls.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h6/hist/h6h ist1.txt
M1 - 1.37 Trillion USD
M2 - 7.27 Trillion USD
So 38.6 billion USD is a drop in the bucket. But drops add up over time.
I hear what you are saying. They've certainly made it a lot more difficult and expensive (routing through offshore 3rd parties that take a 10% cut, for example)...but not impossible, as this new fish can attest to.
UIGEA might be law, but it's important to see what the law says:
Title VIII of the Act is also known as the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. This title (found at 31 U.S.C. 5361-5367) prohibits the transfer of funds from a financial institution to an Internet gambling site, with the notable exceptions of "fantasy" sports, online lotteries, and horse/harness racing.
Very simply, internet or online gambling is NOT illegal (provided, you aren't wagering on sports, which would be covered under existing law). This applies to financial institutions, not the individual. Yes it makes it more difficult, but certainly not impossible, and definitely not illegal for the individual, at least at the Federal level.
This bill never became law. This bill was proposed in a previous session of Congress. Sessions of Congress last two years, and at the end of each session all proposed bills and resolutions that haven't passed are cleared from the books.
(emphasis in the original)
BTW, I drive a Jetta TDI.
And it doesn't have a W04 sticker...and never has. Truth be told, I'm not a big fan of El Jefe. But thanks for playing.
See, in the real world, there are lots of problems. Some problems have solutions, some problems do not. In your fantasy world, Republicans hate the Republic (emphasis in the original). Indeed, they constitute a mortal threat to the Republic. How do we fix that problem? What do you propose. even though I'm not a Democrat Based on the tenor and tone of your post, I'd say that not only are you not a big-D Democrat, you're not a democrat either. Fundamentally, it doesn't sound like that whole democracy thing fits with your temperment. I'm sure it would be better, for you at least, if you were giving orders, and everyone else was following them. What I'm doing is easily exposing your insanity. And after you've exposed this insanity and convinced enough people that the Republicans are really set on replacing the Republic with corporate anarchy, a critical mass of followers if you will, how do you go about opposing those Republicans so you can protect the cherished* republic? I mean, simply pointing it out doesn't solve the problem any more than if I pointed out that you're dumb or ugly. We simply have to fix the problem. Who is the role model you'll pattern your direct action after?
* dripping sarcasm here, I get a kick out of the nutroots crowd when they talk about State's rights and the Republic as if they haven't working relentlessly to erode both over the last 50 years.
I mean, lets suppose for an instance that your characterization of Republicans was true (all Republicans mind you, not just the Republican politicians). As Lenin would say "What is to be done?". How would you go about fixing the situation? I mean, fix it in such a way as to keep the Republic which you and your fellow Democrats so obviously cherish so much intact?
[quote]The core hypocrisy of "Republicans" is how they hate the republic, preferring a monarchy whose benign neglect amounts to corporate anarchy.[/quote] Your statement here illustrates the fundamental problem with the nutroots Democrats...their detachment from reality. In this fantasy world, Republicans are evil incarnate hell bent on destroying the country, enslaving blacks, ripping the shoes off women and putting them back in the kitchen (where they belong!). In place of HBO and Showtime and Skinemax, we'd have JesusTV. Instead of Koch's Postulates, Republicans would have the Ten Commandments in biology class. And it's only through the heroic almost superhumyn efforts by our liberal saviors like Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi that this horrible apocalyptic vision is averted.
I mean, lets suppose for an instance that your characterization of Republicans was true (all Republicans mind you, not just the Republican politicians). As Lenin would say "What is to be done?". How would you go about fixing the situation? I mean, fix it in such a way as to keep the Republic which you and your fellow Democrats so obviously cherish so much intact?
A couple of things:
1. I'm not a Nazi. That apparently was your heritage from your posting location, not mine. 2. My sources are a hell of a lot better than yours, since the only source you've provided is your warped opinion.
The "hot" method: the feet and the bottom of the skirt of female workers are doused with gasoline and then set alight. The flames are put out and the process is repeated". Under the "ear" law, 5400 people received death sentences for things as innocuous as stealing an ear of corn ("any theft or damage of socialist property" was punishable by death).
The idea that torturing and executing starving people so they get up the last morsel of food isn't malignant is sickening. You fail as a human being. But you probably would've fit in just fine in Soviet Russia. After all, the kulaks deserved it, right comrade?
In the Ukraine, an estimated 7 to 10 million died to a forced famine in the Ukraine
During the Great Terror At least 724,000 were executed. Additionally:
Some experts believe the evidence released from the Soviet archives is understated, incomplete or unreliable.[12][13][10][14] For example, Robert Conquest suggests that the probable figure for executions during the years of the Great Purge is not 681,692, but some two and a half times as high. He believes that the KGB was covering its tracks by falsifying the dates and causes of death of rehabilitated victims.[15] And keep in mind, these are just two quick examples, and don't include things like the Katyn massacre, the treatment of the Russian POWs who were returned to Soviet custody at the end of WW2 (and promptly executed), various other famines that were state induced.To steal a phrase from Lenin, only a "useful idiot" believes there were only 1.4 million murders by the state under Stalin's Russia. A useful idiot, or an unrepetentent Maoist or Stalinist. Which are you?