Ewww. They both look like monkeys to me so it'd be like monkey sex going on.

This would explain the personal ad found in the backpages of the Washington Post 3 years ago: SBNSA seeks MWIDJIT for drinks and possible pre-emptive action. Let me be a rogue state to your cowboy cop.

Have you been hanging around werthy lately?

Damn, not good.... I guess Powell got tired of constantly taking crap from Cheney and Rumsfeld... That means that Rumsfeld will stay for some time...

I'd like to know how will Bush pacify Cheney's increasing influence within the Cabinet, or just let him be the Co-President???

And here I thought it was Cheney who let Bush be the Co-President ;-)

Actually, now when you mentioned it, it makes more sense... :wink:

CNN just said thta it is indeed Condy.

Uh oh, 4 more years of TEH SEX0R. Do you think all the fornication between the two will actually be a good thing?

Yes. Condoleeza Rice it is. Go figure...there wasn't really anyone left with the mass exodus occuring right now.



Well of course the CIA didn't like something as visible as a war. They're the CIA for crying out loud. No doubt they would have preferred weapons feeds, instigating local Panama-esque revolutions, and enjoying a side-war on opium. Yeah, they haven't exactly been all that pleasant in their interrogation proceedures, but no one was really bothering them about it until the high visibilty of direct contact. I have no doubt they are dissatissfied. Did not the head of CIA just step down a few monhs ago?

-Dolce

Maybe it was Laura's suggestion. She probably likes the idea of Condi way over in the State dept building, not working out of the White House. :wink:

New education secretary Margaret Spellings, outlining her plan to get American kids walking like an Egyptian.




Does Condi know??

From CNN.com http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/ ... index.html

Want a Democrat in the Cabinet? Give up a Democrat in the Senate. That's some pretty serious political hardball from Karl Rove.

Is Rove really aiming for those 60 magic Senate seats? I don't see the Dems caving to that.

When you're the party of power, you get to play hard

I don't get it. For a guy who is against the government having to much unchecked power, you seem to be awfully psyched of eliminating the checks and balances. Enough of his advisors are now all good 'ol friends from back in the Ranch days. I hope as socially conservative a judge as he tries to push through, that guy will still be invested in enforcing the power of the courts, otherwise we will just have a streamlines homage to the Big W. Didn't he already kid around that his job would be much easier if he was a dictator?

I'm not sure where you see the disconnect. Yes, I want less government intrusion. However, that doesn't mean that having been granted the control of all the federal government, the Republicans should hesitate about implementing their agenda. If the people do not like what they do, they always have the chance to vote them out of office in 2006 and 2008.

Krem is a big government republican inside who just hasn't admitted it to himself yet. River in Egypt etc. Frankly I haven't found much evidence of libertarianism or conservatism in his political views.

What he will tell you is that he's for less regulation and in order to get that Republicans need more and more power, so they can dismantle the welfare state and bring about Libertarian ideals. But the fact is regulations and spending have grown at a faster rate since the government has become all republican.

Gridlock, like we had for most of the 90s, leads to small government and less regulation.

But power is addictive, when they get a whif of it people shed their ideals like a prom dress

I'm so glad I have you to explain my positions to others.

Well, not to be hostile, but that' kind of what I don't get. I'm thinking in terms of control, that wouldn't you support more checks and balances? More relegation to state and even city and community authority? More decentralization? But it seems to me that the national government is currently trying to negotiate a more centralized and authoitative position. Its suggesting National consititutional amendments, Congress keep doing a lap dance and saying that they'll give the White house unchecked full control (which is different than saying one supports something, but still wants to be part of the discussion), the PATRIOT Act is about enforcing government intelligence agencies power, and the push towards re-organizing and greater communication between them is going to lead to just one big centralized information hotpot for a big single national law enforcement agency to act on.

The judges are getting stacked, but hopefully are invested in establishing their own power (unlike their refusal to review the 2000 election case) because otherwise there is going to be nothing left in the way. You say we can vote him out 4 years from now, and that it true. But I am worried not about the instant mode of it but how it seeps into culture. Well, after 4 years we may have "forgotten" some of these discussions, rephrased them in more wimpy less confrontational ways (hey, no one wants to be on the CIA's hit list), and/or just developed a culture of self-censorship. Populations or very malleable, surely you can already see how much more comfortable this country is with little things that at one time would have led to outrage.

You're assumign that for checks and balances to exist, there HAVE to be different parties in charge of the different branches of the government.

To address the other issues: I do not support the FMA, I could care less about the Patriot Act (which by the way, was unanimously supported), and the other claims you make are not obvious and require proof.


Again, none of these claims are obvious. You're talking hypotheticals, not concrete examples.

So you think a one party system will work? I don't know. I see a range within each party now because their is still a sense of having to appeal to the "other" side. Thats why the Reps have moderates like Arnold and Specter, and the Dems have moderates like, well, everyone right now. But they're doing it because they're not in a postion to streamline national discussion. Admit it, Bush has more power than Clinton ever did, and the Washington is pushing towards greater centralization right now, not a more diffuse governing system.





Yes well guess what, there is this thing called "anticipating" the future, and that kind of always works in theory now doesn't it? I could just as easily accuse you of theorizing when it comes to Republican economic policy and the *potential* positive effects of deregulating business, etc, but as it stands, if we're going to go strictly based on historic precedence the Reps have a far shittier success rate. The only time since 1980 we haven't been in a recession or depression has been the 8 Clinton years. So your arguements about if its worth introducing a more rhetoric element into this disscussion equally hinders your own arguements as it does mine.

Besides, I like hearing what you and other's think *could* be the up and downsides to certain actions. I'm not sitting in 9th Grade history anymore, thank-god.

Krem, quit it with the Patriot Act bull. The Patriot act was passed because of 9/11 fever and only because of 9/11 fever, and you know it. It would not have unanimous -- and possibly not even passed -- if it had been introduced a year later.

The reason I brought this up is something that Archie said earlier -- that it would be politically smart for Bush to put a Democrat or two in the Cabinet in order to at least give the appearance that Bush is trying to "unify" the country. The story at MSNBC that I quoted earlier listed two Democrats that are being bounced around for cabinet positions. The difference is that those two Democrats had just left Congress and are sort of looking for a job.

Now Bush (or Rove) is offering to "unify" the Cabinet with a Democrat to make the Administration look good, just as Archie said. However, this particular Democrat would have to give up a very valuable Senate seat in order to take a cheaper Cabinet seat. How stupid does Rove think the Democrats are? Even the CNN reporter saw the strategy right away.

Bush and Rove could have been much more subtle and quietly diffused the energy that the Kerry campaign had generated by appearing moderate. But no, within days, the Bushies announced themselves with the "political capital" speech, promotion from within -- Bush will be hiring ranch hands next -- and now this blatent stacking of key advisor positions. All they are doing is giving the Democrats reason to keep fighting.

I love it how you get to twist my words.

Where did I say that the best system is one-party system?
Bush has more power than Clinton did by virtue of him and the rest of the Republicans appealing to a larger portion of population now; that's hardly a "one-party system", though.

P.S. Specter is no moderate. He is an opportunist.

Absolutely NOTHING has changed since the introduction of the Patriot Act; FBI had already enjoyed all the powers prescribed in it, they simply were not codified.

And you know how I feel about the president alone influencing the entire economy; it's a laughable concept. Without the congress support, the president can do very little to push his policies.

And another P.S.: the economy went to the toilet in April of 2000, after the Microsoft ruling.

I have yet to be convinced about anything potentially damaging in the Patriot Act. The FBI can do nothing without the judge's approval.

Besides, I have to laugh really hard every time I hear liberals criticizing it; as long as none of you voice any protest to the IRS powers, which REALLY treat regular citizens as criminals, any outcry about the Patriot Act, which specifically targets people who the government has a just cause to believe to be criminals, will reek of bullshit.


Like I said before: when you have control of the presidency and the congress, you get to push your weight around. Why should Bush try to implement the agenda of his opponents? What kind of a message does it send to his voters?

Well, I misinterpreted what you meant by your first staement that in order for check and balances to exist, there need not necessarily be different parties in charge, or seperate branches. My arguement is that perhaps not, but only if there is the threat that another party could take over. As you said, don't like it, vote it out in 2008. But that only works if there's an alternative. Or two. I think we should have three parties. I thought we would have a stronger Independant ticket since Perot, but it never panned out. Maybe Arnold if the law is switched up a bit? Andways, I digress...even if there was only one party currently in control, it would still need different branches of government, and I'll stand by that even more than needing multiple parties. I think there needs to be the three branches, and also that each state and city have alot of their say. I'm trying to conceptualize a different model that doesn't have branches and wouldn't lead to a monarchy or dictatorship and I pretty much can't.



Listen, not to make this so debased, but lets take an unloaded pistol, aim it at someone's head and tell them they need to listen to what you say. They don't know if its unloaded, they just know its pointing at their head, and chances are you won't have to shoot, they'll still do what you say. And roulette style...even if you do shoot a couple times and nothing happens, if you aim at them, they'll do what you say anyways. I don't care if nothing yet yet has been done, (If it did...you wouldn't know anyways now would you) its the potential which molds societal understandings of privacy rights.

And yes, I know the example about the economy was superficial, that's why I used it. To illustrate that its impossible not to theorize about these things because they are rarely so easily traced to easy discernible points in history.

To the first paragraph: I have a very laissez faire attitude towards the parties: if there's enough public support for a three-party system, we WILL have a three-party system.

Also, I am a very strong proponent of self-government, and I do not want a federal government telling us how to live our lives. That is also why I am not at all concerned that Roe v. Wade might get overturned; that ruling took the right of self-determination away from states in regard to abortion. Overturning Roe v. Wade does not make abortion illegal; it simply leaves the decision up to the states.

As for the PATRIOT Act, once again you're avoiding the fact that it added nothing new to the FBI's arsenal; they have all the same powers as they did prior to the Act being codified. And once again, you're completely ignoring the IRS issue ;-)

1. Ok.

2. Its not a direct turnover, it depends on how it's reversed. The federal interpretation at the time was that its illegal to not allow a woman to make the decision. If you want to turn it over to the state, I'm not psyched by the idea, but then again, any state that backwards is just going to end up 90% male when women flee after broken condom #1. So I guess they deserve what they have coming to them. I think your arguement is one way to look at it, and if such a discussion was coached around state's rights I'd have far less fear than how it is being discussed today. You and I, and anyone with 1/2 an ear know its just being discussed in terms of when a couple cells are officially considered life, and playing some ridiculous "morality" card as though the word were clearly defined and not some easily recruited blanket statement.

3. IRS requests all you financial information. Not much else. It does not care to read into if you are "good" or "evil" just because you made 100 k. It is just looking for you to be honest and admit youu made 100k. My problem with PATRIOT Act, and forgive me for returning to library books for there are many other examples, is not that the CIA necessarily wants to know if you did or didn't take out a particular book, it is trying to assign cultural habits for why you would and with what intentions. And those intentions are all based on paranoia and hysteria.

The Act’s wording is very broad, claiming searchable material as information that “might be related to national security.” Librarians are left to chose what information “could” somehow be connected the a greater threat, and federal agents in Ohio even removed local hazardous materials emergency plan documents from at least two libraries’ non-circulating collections, and replaced them with notes informing that anyone interested in the documents should bring I.D. and go to the local Homeland Security Office. - I'll source it if you like. I read an article and don't feel like digging it up right now. What this means is the intense opportunity for surveillance and the assumption that people would look at those hazardous material plans in order to sabatage the nation, and not because the tannery next door is giving their kids luekemia.

Buring the Cold War , the FBI ran the LAP program that tried to identify the reading habits of library patrons that caused for worry to national security. In particular, the FBI targeted libraries that served communities with high populations of foreign, intellectual, or liberal residents. It was based primarily on intimidation and appeals to patriotism, that is, the librarians willingness to proffer up information, since (s)he was under no legal necessity to do so.

The PATRIOT ACT reflects an American historical tendency to respond to threats to national security with an immediate legislative response. From the 50’s to the 70’s, the FBI used previous Cold War legislation to engage in surveillance of members of groups that were not strictly National Security threats, such as civil rights activists and anti-war protestors. In response to the manipulated use of these statutes, Congress passed FISA in order to limit the gathering of information without oversight. The Act has turned FISA on its head and expanded everything FISA tried to control, including the Act’s redefining of intent upon the investigations behalf. Before the Act, intelligence had to be the “primary” purpose of an investigation under FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Now, intelligence only needs to be a “significant” purpose of an investigation.

Sorry Krem, but in my opinion this stuff is going to come back to haunt us in the not-so-distant future and its our responsibiliy to remain vigilant about it.