Once again: advocating a small government != denying laws that increase government's power.

On this issue: yes, there is a very big difference between a hate crime and a violent act intended to induce fear in the civilian populace. It's pretty common sense too: a person who commits a hate crimes is not likely to be operating as a part of a cell who are trying to ocmmit more hate crimes; not so with a terrorist.

I agree that the rights of Americans should not be abridged when they do not have to be; that's why it is important that the government has to argue in court to get that subpoena.

My money ARE my civil liberties. They're one and the same.

In any case, the IRS critique is different, and I have mentioned it to you time and and time again: they require every single taxpayer to turn over their financial records every year. Not only that, unlike with the Patriot Act, they do that without any sort of court order.



You have quite a talent of purposefuly taking what I said and twisting it around. But you're not fooling me.

Manslaughter laws apply to me just as much as the Patriot Act does; if I commit a manslaughter, I'm going to be brought up on charges. However, when I don't commit manslaughter, I don't have to be worried about the charges.

Surely, mistakes happen, but they're more or less acceptable. I don't have to go around proving that I didn't commit manslaughter all the time by turning over my driving records.

IRS is different, on the other hand. I have to pay taxes all the time, but on top of that, I have to provide my financial records to them, so that they can make sure I didn't overpay/underpay.

And yet that's precisely what you're defending here with the PATRIOT Act. Not only does this law extend the govt's power, it's also been shown to be used to prosecute cases for which it was never intended.



First, a hate crime is absolutely intended to induce fear in the civilian populace. That's what separates someone spray-painting the word "nigger" on a black person's home from simple grafitti and vandalism, or the Matthew Shepard case from random assault and murder.

Second, hate crime perpetrators are OFTEN parts of groups, like Neo Nazi Skin Heads or the KKK, or random bands of groups like the 4 boys who attacked a black kid here in California yesterday.

Maybe if we reclassified hate crimes as terrorism you'd suddenly be okay with it.



I'm just going by what you said. It doesn't affect you, so why should you be concerned about it. In fact, I've been looking for some consistent principle in your posts on various subjects, and that's the only one I could find that actually holds up. It's certainly not about smaller govt, since there's no real logical way a person SOOO opposed to govt power that he opposes govt recognition of marriage or govt's role in public education could possibly defend the extension of govt power and potential abuse of civil liberties under the PATRIOT ACT.



How are you defining "financial records"? Because the forms I fill out don't require anyting but my W-2s and 1099s. The only time you have to turn over finanicial records is if you get audited. And now thanks to the PATRIOT Act, your financial institution or accountant can't refuse the request for any reason.

But in any case, I'm to understand that if the IRS had to get a court order to get your finanical records, you'd be perfectly fine with the IRS?

It's not that I'm defending the IRS, I'm just wondering why a so-called advocate of small govt would have such deep disdain for the IRS and then turn around and defend the PATRIOT Act, which clearly extends the govt power and which has demonstrably been abused beyond its intended purpose.

Alright. Then how bout this one.

how many did chretien shuffle a couple of years ago? I remember something of around the lines of him having to change like 5 or 6 of em. I was young at the time so it's tough for me to remember but I know it happend.

What was public opinion afterwards? For sure its been done before, so maybe we could actually learn from popularity trends if it helps or not?

Anyways, here's one that is staying.



Keep Snow but lose Powell? Hmmmm. The one guy even congress and the vp want out of office gets the go-ahead to stay. Is Bush trying to halt the breaking of the damn and the outward flow? He probably picked the wrong guy to do it with. A Railroad executive? Cause we all know rails haven't been perpetually bankrupt since the 60's. That and every freaking country is pulling out its support of our ever sinking dollar.

Its lucky he still has Condi, because she's going to serve as a bridge between the old and new cabinet. Snow is still going ot be out of there in the next three-six months.

FYI: != means does not equal.

I don't see anything wrong with extending the government's power per se. As long as such extension can be justified, there's nothing wrong with that. See my example above about making theft illegal.

On the other hand, i already said, that the provisions of the Act that go beyond the scope of fighting terrorism, should be re-examined and possibly codified under a separate law.

Here's how Congress defines hate crimes: "[a crime in which] the defendant's conduct was motivated by hatred, bias, or prejudice, based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or gender identity of another individual or group of individuals." .

Note that there is nothing about "intimidating or coercing civilian population" in the text of that law. If someone steals from me because I'm Jewish that is automatically a hate crime. If someone starts attacking Jewish people en masse, that is an act of terrorism.

There is no doubt in my mind that some crimes that are classified as hate crimes could also be classified as domestic terrorism. However, that does not make the two concepts equal.

I already explained to you, that it doesn't affect me in a way manslaughter laws don't affect me either.

Yet again, you're making baseless assumptions about me. Let me repeat myself: being for smaller government does not automatically mean being against all laws that increase government's power. Is it THAT hard to comprehend?

Besides, you're still yet to prove that the Patriot Act is any more dangerous dangerous to civil liberties than any other legislation. Your pathetic attempt to imply that a court order is no longer needed when the FBI asks for business records of a person does not jive with reality.

You don't consider your salary, the company you work for, your position, etc. as being parts of your financial records?


That is a different issue altogether. I understand that the government needs tax revenue to function, however I do not believe that all of our private informartion has to be turned over to the government in order to pay taxes. For instance, my employer could theoretically withhold and send my tax money to the IRS without disclosing my name or address; and then, if I so desire, I could reveal myself to the IRS in order to get the benefit of the tax deductions, etc.

I have addressed these time and time again. The fact that you're still keen on making assumptions about me, when I already answered thse questions makes me wonder what your purpose in repeating yourself is.

Well, it looks like its all settled and is staying at 9. I guess that's not as bad as I thought it would be, because it could have been 10 if Mineta stepped down. I was hoping they would drop Snow, but I guess not. Still nine ain't exactly a minute number either.

What is your problem with Snow again?

You mean besides the fact that even Greenspan thinks we're heading in the wrong direction? International faith in the Dollar is comepletely gone. Countries are going to look elsewhere to invest, and even the rest of the cabinet and congress have their doubts about his handling of the role of treasurer.

I just don't think its the number one position were we should be trying someone new out. And thats saying something, since I don't have that much faith in who would be the designated replacement. I still think it might have been better. Cheney is an ass, but he's a competent businessman and was being fairly aggressive about a switch.

Anyone know if Perot is available?

Currency intervention is not a good solution either. It artificially props up the dollar, thereby reducing the outside interest for U.S. goods and services. If anything, I think that old prectionist Perot would be against it too.[/list]

So Kerik is out of consideration for Ridge's job; apparently he had an illegal immigrant nanny.

Will these people ever learn?

Funny you should ask.... :arrow:

Meaning?

...your sister and that wage slave labor.

There's a huge difference: I can't threaten her with deportation

...back to her old dwellng place if she doesn't keep the place spick'n'span. :wink:

Unfortunately, I am too lazy to follow through on those threats. I'm like a library collections department as far as these things go.

why...you...little... :swear:

I knew you'd enjoy it

Meh. The Pratt library sucks, its just like you said.

But I'm going into rare collection, maps and manuscripts. So, not even a loan library. Not even an internal circulation library. I'll be lucky if one person comes into research an an object once a day...Sounds like my kinda place. me and the boooks, maybe a cute little acadmic will come in and it'll be just us amongst Vespucci's maps of his first sailing to the tip or argentina...*sigh*


Oh I'm sorry...where were we?

Uh...not quite wrapped up as anticipated, congress debates over whether Rumsfeld should remain defense secretary.



Well, I don't think, in all fairness its totally Rmmy's fault actually. These congressman gave the past cabinet the support to go in there, they voted yes, and now they're upset cause its not going to well, and making them all look bad for supporting it in the first place. Soory babes, should have thought about the fact that all wars aren't over in a month a tad bit earlier. Now they're freaking out because there is no graceful way out of the situation, and would love to make it a one-man escape goat.

I clearly don't think he's been doing a good job, but then again, I don't think he's the only one doing a bad job, and that switching him up for Bush pick #2 is going to help and/or change much, so I really do kind of see this as senators everywhere freaking out about no end in sight.

Yes, switch him up, but don't expect any miracles just because he's out of there.

Where is the Republican critique of the Arizona Senator John McCain, hmmm?

He irritates me more and more (not because of the Rummy thing, though).

One of his latest statements was that if baseball won't take care of the doping abuse problem, the Congress will be forced to step in! As if this is a matter requiring the government intervention.

Hey, you don't have to tell me. I've never been a McCain fan. :wink:

But, I have a feeling its for different reasons, than others. I think he's wimpy, I think Bush dealt him a dirty little blow back there in the mid-atantic states back in 2000 and he's just been sucking up to him ever since. Why, I don't know, but he's just really picking all the wrong battles, and just genuinely losing respect left and right. Too bad, people really liked him a few years ago.

And yeah, sports is sports, its not the gov't job. If the baseball team want to dope up til they get permanent nose-bleeds, go right ahead. Fans will stop coming, baseball teams will go bankrupt, team owners will clean up their own boys. Or they won't...seems like the whole world is using performance enhancing drugs of late. Maybe we should just embrace them and have the Steroid Olympics like Saturday Night Live hosted once?

Bleh. I tried to delete out part of the article that was about Republican critique of Rummy because its not just them, its the entire senate. I think everyone who signed yes needs to deal. I don't mind pushing for Rummy to go, but I think there needs to be a much more solidified vision of where we want to take this before we fill the position, otherwise its just going to be a repeat.

And to think, he took over Barry Goldwater's seat!

Speaking as a Republican, I think Rumsfeld should have been gone a long time ago.
He is a horrible distraction and has made many blunders as SecDef.
Of all the cabinet members, he should be the one gone.

Yeah, for once this isn't quite as partisan. Hell, the Dems wanted to run a military guy this time around. I think it had more to do with the constant butting heads with Powell. Maybe a bit the diplomatic/public persona too. I think back when we discussed Powell stepping down I posted an article that read how after the first mistake Powell somehow remained in high respect/good standing with world leaders but that Rummy became this huge point of opposition. I didn't read up on every meeting he attended but apparently he was just very iuncinvincing, or didn't work well to recruit support, or perhapos didn't really have a good solid plan/vision to act on. I don't know which, but one way or another he has really become loathed, even among people who agree with the premesis of pre-emp strike on Iraq. It has more to do with how its been handled since then, or I should say, mishandled. That's not something we need in our secretary of defense right now.

I still think its a larger problem than one guy, and not to expect a quick fix if he's replaced. Any way you cut it there are not going to be secure elections in January as anticipated (by delusional people that is). But Bush isn't going to let him go because that leaves him with pretty much just Condi from the old group and a big double digit in the replacement category. This isn't something people like the idea of either, so its kind of a lose/lose situation for him regardless.