On 30 Dec 2005 13:36:50 -0500, Mike Given <asph...@gipco.org> wrote:
>Mikey (..look up "oligarchy" and get back to "us".)
Nah ....
When you are living under a regime that sets aside the Constitution and seeks to secretly spy on those with who it (the regime) disagrees, and further seeks to control, then I'm happy to stick with *Totalitarian*.
You might not like it, you might not agree. It doesn't alter the situation one iota.
The current regime here (in the USA) has abandoned rule of law, and instited a new law:
9/11 + X (where X = anything we say) = Shut the fuck up
On 30 Dec 2005 16:59:31 -0500, a...@pobox.com (Mean Green Dancing
Machine) wrote: >In article <075br19gj9pb9l17du6v7ps99ibfics...@4ax.com>, >kmd <k...@lifeofaction.org> wrote: >>On 30 Dec 2005 10:45:00 -0500, a...@pobox.com (Mean Green Dancing >>Machine) wrote:
<snip>
>But my >essential worldview has changed not at all, only how I think about it. >For example, I once swore I'd never get involved with a smoker, yet I >celebrated my tenth anniversary with one last October. (No, not the >ProblemOlderWoman for those of you having trouble with dates.) OTOH, >I've never ever seen zir smoking, and zie doesn't have the icky smoker >smell I usually encounter. My basic policy still stands; I've just made >an exception for an unusual circumstance.
Kinda like low GPAs from genuises. PRotFU had the same vow, never get involved with a smoker. And yet he was astonishingly gracious and supportive during the first four years of our relationship as I continued to smoke. I smoked outside or next to an open door, so our house wasn't stinky. But I still always felt like my breath was like an ashtray. One failed attempt the first year, then three years later I quit. That was over three years ago. Phew. And always support, always encouragement, never a single angry complaint from the man who swore he'd never get involved with a smoker.
>>>and I'm less likely to get sucked into >>>interminable point/counterpoint discussions where it's apparent that the >>>other party isn't paying any attention to what I'm saying.
>>Is that a comment on the exchange between you and me that you snipped >>to get to this last bit?
>Nope. I'm not much of one for hidden messages. I did respond to the >rest of the stuff in another post, did you miss it?
Got to my newsfeed several hours after this one did.
>>>I doubt >>>anyone could find style changes that identify when I was writing.
>>Not even you?
>Not really. Many's the time I've come across an old post from the early >90s and had to double-check that it really was old because it sounded >exactly like something I'd say now.
Wow. Well, I see all kinds of glaring immaturities and chasms of barely-masked loneliness in my old stuff. OTOH, sometimes I read something from 7 or 8 years ago and it tickles me pink. Feisty and funny.
On 31 Dec 2005 09:17:38 -0500, kmd <k...@lifeofaction.org> wrote:
> One failed attempt the first year, then three years later >I quit. That was over three years ago
You rock girl!
steveb
--- My quit is mine, and mine alone. Should I slip or fail, the responsibility will be entirely mine. But I take this opportunity to thank all those kind people who have taken the time to support my quit, and wish me well. After 27 years slowly killing myself, I quit smoking 3 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days ago. Since that time, 30,154 cigarettes have not been smoked, $6,407.73 has been saved, and an extra 3 month 1 weeks 6 days is available to spend with Jodie :)
>PRotFU had the same vow, never get involved with a smoker. And yet he >was astonishingly gracious and supportive during the first four years >of our relationship as I continued to smoke. I smoked outside or next >to an open door, so our house wasn't stinky. But I still always felt >like my breath was like an ashtray. One failed attempt the first year, >then three years later I quit. That was over three years ago. Phew. And >always support, always encouragement, never a single angry complaint >from the man who swore he'd never get involved with a smoker.
Congrats! -- --- Aahz <*> (Copyright 2005 by a...@pobox.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/ Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het Pythonista
On 30 Dec 2005 20:55:09 -0500, steveb <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>The current regime here (in the USA) has abandoned rule of law, and >instited a new law:
>9/11 + X (where X = anything we say) = Shut the fuck up
Yes!!
About 2 years ago, right after the U.S. invaded Iraq, the comic strip "Non Sequitur" by Wiley Miller had its main character, nine-year-old Danae, decide that she had found a "critical defense shield." She wrapped herself in an American flag and made pronouncements, saying that with this shield everything she said was right and true and good and anyone who contradicted her was a terrorist-loving anarchist.
Father: NO, you do NOT need a 45" plasma screen HDTV in your room, Danae.
Danae: Daddy, why do you hate America?
-- Kristen God did not choose Bush to lead our country no matter what our "president" says. I'm a friend of God's, and she would never do that. God Bless the World. Not just America. http://www.sorryeverybody.com/gallery/single/se7207.jpeg/
>>>And the day the government starts issuing poo-pooh permits, >>>I'll be among the first to load a weapon and take up arms >>>against it. >>And if the government starts asking people to present "papers, >>please" to travel even with one's home city?
> Same casus belli.
>>Because that is already happening.
> Where do you live? 'Cuz in my home town of brotherly love, any >federal officer asking for travelling papers would probably get the >shit kicked out of him by any number of friendly bystanders on sheer >principle. Plenty of recent immigrants to go around too - it's hardly >uncommon to see a goodly number of kufis, shoras, and burkas wandering >around and no one give 'em a second glance.
You really think a bunch of bystanders would turn on a cop for asking people for ID? Please re-calibrate your connection with reality.
In Denver, a public transit bus was stopped, and a security guard was asking everyone for ID. A woman refused, saying that there was no law that said she had to carry ID or present it when asked, and she was hauled off in handcuffs. Now, this woman is white, a grandmother, and has a son serving in Iraq. The government quickly realized that this was going to be a PR disaster, and dropped the charges. Other folks who were not female, or white, or middle aged, and didn't have the "son serving in Iraq" card to play, have not fared as well. See www.papersplease.org
-- Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice." Autoreply is disabled |
Paul Ciszek wrote: >Mike Given wrote: >>Paul Ciszek wrote: >>>Mike Given wrote: >>>>And the day the government starts issuing poo-pooh permits, >>>>I'll be among the first to load a weapon and take up arms >>>>against it. >>>And if the government starts asking people to present "papers, >>>please" to travel even with one's home city? >>Same casus belli. >>>Because that is already happening. >>Where do you live? 'Cuz in my home town of brotherly love, >>any federal officer asking for travelling papers would probably >>get the shit kicked out of him by any number of friendly >>bystanders on sheer principle. Plenty of recent immigrants to >>go around too - it's hardly uncommon to see a goodly number of >>kufis, shoras, and burkas wandering around and no one give 'em >>a second glance. >You really think a bunch of bystanders would turn on a cop for >asking people for ID?
In Philadelphia? I wouldn't take odds one way or the other.
>Please re-calibrate your connection with reality.
Okay. Calibration. Gotchya. Number of police seen performing random ID checks since 1974: 0 Of course back in '73 we had those pesky gasoline riots out in Levittown so the cops were a bit (understandably) jittery.
>In Denver, a public transit bus was stopped, and a security guard >was asking everyone for ID. A woman refused, saying that there was >no law that said she had to carry ID or present it when asked, and >she was hauled off in handcuffs.
Ohfer Pete's sake. One over-zealous, self-important fucking RENT-A-COP does NOT add up to a government conspiracy. Get some fucking perspective already.
On 4 Jan 2006 07:28:43 -0500, Mike Given <asph...@gipco.org> wrote:
> Ohfer Pete's sake. > One over-zealous, self-important fucking RENT-A-COP does NOT add up >to a government conspiracy. Get some fucking perspective already.
Ok, then we'll add in the British visitor shackled and thrown in jail on arrival for a 14 year old unpaid parking fine, or the five year old *disruptive* child handcuffed and put in a Police Cruiser ....
I'm sure these isolated examples are the *only* ones .....
I'm sure the Government NEVER sets aside the Constitution for either personal or political gain either.
One apologist does not mean the government, or it's agencies should escape criticism or accountability.
In article <s8sar156hkesdd8padisk876m2uavlm...@4ax.com>, Mike Given <asph...@gipco.org> wrote:
>steveb wrote:
>>The check and balance applied to Government intrusion is >>necessary simply because the system is operated by people >>with agendas.
> Spot the actual problem.
>>It doesn't matter what the agenda is,
> Wow. I don't even know where to begin on that. > Other than to say that if "fair and reasonable treatment of the >governed" is an agenda, then I'm okay with it.
I know of no one in governmet, from the local to the national level, who has that agenda.
> A powerful organization that's operated by a group (or even an >individual) whose "agenda" is simply to enforce the notion that a >person's right to exist ends where the next person's right to exist >begins has got a damn good start. A bit of a conservative ideal, I >admit, but I do at least try to practice what I preach.
No, that is not a conservative ideal. Maybe it was one of Barry Goldwater's ideals, but Barry Goldwater is dead. Nowadays, "conservative ideals" have more to do with funneling government money to religious organizations, making sure people do not have access to birth control, trashing the science curriculum in public schools, etc.
-- Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice." Autoreply is disabled |
Paul Ciszek wrote: >Mike Given wrote: >>steveb wrote: >>>The check and balance applied to Government intrusion is >>>necessary simply because the system is operated by people >>>with agendas. >>Spot the actual problem. >>>It doesn't matter what the agenda is, >>Wow. I don't even know where to begin on that. >>Other than to say that if "fair and reasonable treatment of >>the governed" is an agenda, then I'm okay with it. >I know of no one in governmet, from the local to the national >level, who has that agenda.
Congratulations, you win a "spot the actual problem" biscuit. But will you trade it for what's under the box?
>>A powerful organization that's operated by a group (or even >>an individual) whose "agenda" is simply to enforce the notion >>that a person's right to exist ends where the next person's >>right to exist begins has got a damn good start. A bit of a >>conservative ideal, I admit, but I do at least try to practice >>what I preach. >No, that is not a conservative ideal.
Really? Why not?
>Maybe it was one of Barry Goldwater's ideals, but Barry >Goldwater is dead.
First I've heard of it; and to think - I didna even get invited to the funeral. Bastards.
>Nowadays, "conservative ideals" have more to do with >funneling government money to religious organizations,
That's "Neo-Conservative". ObXXLTriteBromide: Nothing worse than a "born-again".
>making sure people do not have access to birth control,
That's religious fundamentalism.
>trashing the science curriculum in public schools, etc.
Also religious fundamentalism. Nothing to do with conservatism. Really. Look it up. Stop listening to pop-media and read some...things.
Mikey (..bring a dictionary. I always do.) ps. yah, yah, "pedant", I know. "Bite me", anyway.
steveb wrote: >Mike Given wrote: >>Ohfer Pete's sake. >>One over-zealous, self-important fucking RENT-A-COP does NOT >>add up to a government conspiracy. Get some fucking perspective >>already. >Ok, then we'll add in the British visitor shackled and thrown >in jail on arrival for a 14 year old unpaid parking fine,
A scofflaw. Nothing to do with simply riding a bus. And presumably it is at least *reasonably* acceptable to at least *ask* for a passport from foreign arrivals, seing as damn-near every other country in the world does it.
>or the five year old *disruptive* child handcuffed and put in >a Police Cruiser ....
Aside from the fact that I'm not entirely sure I'm actually opposed to the notion of the police restraining some irresponsible parent's unruly brat, but nothing to do with failure to produce identification, near as I can see.
>I'm sure these isolated examples are the *only* ones .....
Of what - Police restraining/arresting people for petty crimes and/or disturbances? Is there somewhere on the planet that this does not happen to some significant degree less? And if so, do I want to live there?
>I'm sure the Government NEVER sets aside the Constitution >for either personal or political gain either.
I can drive/walk/cycle/rail/bus clean across the country and provided I break no laws or cause major disturbance and never once be asked for identification. I know this because I've done it before. There used to be a time when I could do the same on an airplane as well, but unfortunately, terrorists - NOT the government - fucked that notion up *long* before September 11, 2001. It sucks to have to do so, but really, I *want* the government to perform at least *basic* safety measures before I hop on a plane; asking for ID is probably the least personally intrusive measures I can think of. The alternatives are to either x-ray/strip seach everyone, or simply give all the passengers a sidearm and hope-to-hell no one on board is having a bad day. I do certainly feel that being asked for identification on public transportation simply because that bus stops near a federal institution is an abuse of power. I also don't know the details of the two incidents you're referencing either, but both seem to be utterly non sequitur to the issue.
>One apologist
Which apologist is that? Shirley it can't be one that knows the difference between a bureaucratic oligarchy and totlitarianism.
>does not mean the government, or it's agencies should >escape criticism or accountability.
They seem to've escaped neither of those things. What I question in the matter is whether or not the federal government has maintained a balance of the responsibilities demanded of them with the proper amount of authority. Did they listen to phone calls completely indiscrimiately? Did they arrest someone for phoning up their Iranian relative to wish "Happy Birthday" or somesuch? Did they arrest someone for planning some dumbass PETA lab animal rescue? Did they arrest someone for planning to bomb a schoolyard (American or otherwise) with their Iranian relative? If they did the last one, then "aces", sez me. If they did either of the first three, then "Off With Their Heads!", I say. Even though I think PETA is, for the most part, retarded.
>*Check* ..... yup, perspective working :)
Hallucinogenics notwithstanding..?
Mikey (..I hear-tell Oakies grow some good stuff.)
> On 9 Jan 2006 21:33:35 -0500, Mike Given <asph...@gipco.org> wrote:
> <rant snipped>
>>Did they listen to phone >>calls completely indiscrimiately?
> Nope ... they just listened to them illegally.
Actually, we don't know how discriminating they were, or whether they've stored conversations electronically in some *cough* secure system, or what. That's the point of, wait for it, judicial review! *Someone* should know what the proposed listening involves and why, beyond those who want to listen. Given that the gov't can actually apply *retroactively* for permission, that doesn't seem unfair to me. It's the part where there is no check or balance that's scary and potentially destroys freedoms I am really rather fond of, having gotten a bit used to them.
On 9 Jan 2006 21:33:35 -0500, Mike Given <asph...@gipco.org> wrote:
> Which apologist is that? Shirley it can't be one that knows the >difference between a bureaucratic oligarchy and totlitarianism.
The following is a quote .... and don't call me Shirley :p
/q
For you a couple reminders are in order. The first by columnist Bob Herbert from yesterday's The New York Times:
For a president---any president---to O.K. eavesdropping on U.S. citizens on American soil without a warrant is an abomination. First, it's illegal---and for very good reasons. Spying on the populace is a giant step toward totalitarianism. In the worst case scenario, it's the nightmare of Soviet-style surveillance.
Related to that is the all-important matter of the separation of powers, which is the absolutely crucial cornerstone of our form of government---our bulwark against tyranny. ... Get rid of the checks and balances and you've gotten rid of the United States as we've known it.
The second comes from Mr. Pitts:
...It's not hard to understand the urge to look the other way. Because with all due respect to the threat terrorists pose, Franklin Roosevelt was right. Fear itself is still the first enemy. When people are scared, they don't think, they don't reason and they want nothing so desperately as to just stop being scared. So often, they'll go along with anything that holds out that promise. Even if it means allowing the rights our forebears won from Britain's King George III to be denuded by America's King George I.
Still, we should be ashamed.
Freedom deserves a better epitaph than fear.
/endq
Quite frankly, Mike, it appears the Limey is more concerned for your hard won freedoms, than you are.
In article <d546s1hn4c0urd1ujacbdsvuog76hhe...@4ax.com>, Mike Given <asph...@gipco.org> wrote:
> I can drive/walk/cycle/rail/bus clean across the country and >provided I break no laws or cause major disturbance and never once be >asked for identification. I know this because I've done it before. >There used to be a time when I could do the same on an airplane as >well, but unfortunately, terrorists - NOT the government - fucked that >notion up *long* before September 11, 2001.
Actually, it was the airlines, using the government as catspaw. They didn't want tickets to be transferable, but without requiring ID, they couldn't do much about it.
steveb wrote: >Mike Given wrote: >>Which apologist is that? Shirley it can't be one that >>knows the difference between a bureaucratic oligarchy >>and totlitarianism. >The following is a quote .... and don't call me Shirley :p >For you a couple reminders are in order. The first by >columnist Bob Herbert from yesterday's The New York Times: >For a president---any president---to O.K. eavesdropping on >U.S. citizens on American soil without a warrant is an >abomination.
That's one opinion, anyway. I say it's merely "naughty". An "abomination" is when we gather up perfectly good American citizens and lock them up in internment camps just 'cuz they gots slanty eyes.
>First, it's illegal---and for very good reasons.
I've seen two differing camps on that debate, both of which are far more intelligent than Bob Herbert and none of whom are concerned with selling newspapers.
>Spying on the populace is a giant step toward >totalitarianism.
It would be - if spying on the general population was what's being done here. It isn't. I suspect that ultimately it's more of a matter of ethnic profiling, which has been done by *far* better POTUS than Dubya and to far and *away* more abominable effect.
>In the worst case scenario, it's the nightmare of Soviet-style >surveillance.
If "Soviet-style" surveillance is all I hafta worry about then I very much doubt I'll be losing much sleep over it. Now had he said "Oceania-style" surveillance - whole 'nother story.
>Related to that is the all-important matter of the separation >of powers, which is the absolutely crucial cornerstone of our >form of government---our bulwark against tyranny. ... Get rid >of the checks and balances and you've gotten rid of the United >States as we've known it.
Yah, yah, yah - "death of democracy is nigh". Film at eleven. Wake me for the second reel of hand-wringing, willya?
>The second comes from Mr. Pitts: >...It's not hard to understand the urge to look the other way. >Because with all due respect to the threat terrorists pose, >Franklin Roosevelt was right. Fear itself is still the first >enemy.
And yet, FDR was the POTUS that allowed the locking up thousands of American citizens in internment camps simply because of dark hair and epicantic folds. Mayhaps he should have at least eavesdropped on them a bit first. Though I guess I shouldn't be amazed that an NYTimes "journalist" is stupid enough to miss some of those little historical goodies when he went looking for partisan soundbytes.
>When people are scared, they don't think,
There's oodles of other times that people don't think either. I suspect that time wasted reading the New York Times qualifies.
>they don't reason and they want nothing so desperately as to just >stop being scared. So often, they'll go along with anything that >holds out that promise.
Which raises the question: Should I be more frightened of the current POTUS listening to my phone conversations or of some fundamentalist zealot making a train I'm riding go "BOOM!"?
>Even if it means allowing the rights our forebears won from >Britain's King George III to be denuded by America's King >George I.
As if Dubya was even mildly intelligent enough to've been the first POTUS to abuse war powers.
>Still, we should be ashamed. >Freedom deserves a better epitaph than fear.
It also deserves better journalism, but as I've said 'afore, American freedom is in almost no danger of needing an epitaph, and certainly not over a piddlin' few wiretaps.
>/endq >Quite frankly, Mike, it appears the Limey is more concerned >for your hard won freedoms, than you are.
Appearances can be (and in this case, are) quite deceiving, even without going into your lack of any real perspective. Issues: * Sending detainees to foreign powers that don't have anti-torture legislation in place * Domestic torture of detainees * Election fraud * Corporate (and personal) plundering of literally hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars * Iraqi conflict exit strategy * Supreme Court nominees that want abortion to be illegal * Replacing science with religious fundamentalism in public school classrooms
Non-Issues: * Borderline illegality of domestic wiretaps on less than .008% (approx 200 out of almost 300 million) to prevent domestic terrorism. * White phosphorus military ordinance * What club a SCOTUS nominee belonged to when he was a dumbass teenager in the 1970s
So next time you're feeling a bit presumptuous about *my* concerns, please, really - don't bother.
Mike Given wrote: > steveb wrote: >>Mike Given wrote: >>>Which apologist is that? Shirley it can't be one that >>>knows the difference between a bureaucratic oligarchy >>>and totlitarianism. >>The following is a quote .... and don't call me Shirley :p >>For you a couple reminders are in order. The first by >>columnist Bob Herbert from yesterday's The New York Times: >>For a president---any president---to O.K. eavesdropping on >>U.S. citizens on American soil without a warrant is an >>abomination. > That's one opinion, anyway. I say it's merely "naughty". An > "abomination" is when we gather up perfectly good American citizens > and lock them up in internment camps just 'cuz they gots slanty eyes. >>First, it's illegal---and for very good reasons. > I've seen two differing camps on that debate, both of which are far > more intelligent than Bob Herbert and none of whom are concerned with > selling newspapers.
Which arguments have you heard in support of legality that you believe may be reasonable?
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006, miguel wrote: > Mike Given wrote: >> steveb wrote: >>> Mike Given wrote:
>>>> Which apologist is that? Shirley it can't be one that knows the >>>> difference between a bureaucratic oligarchy and totlitarianism.
>>> The following is a quote .... and don't call me Shirley :p >>> For you a couple reminders are in order. The first by columnist Bob >>> Herbert from yesterday's The New York Times: >>> For a president---any president---to O.K. eavesdropping on U.S. citizens >>> on American soil without a warrant is an abomination.
>> That's one opinion, anyway. I say it's merely "naughty". An >> "abomination" is when we gather up perfectly good American citizens >> and lock them up in internment camps just 'cuz they gots slanty eyes.
>>> First, it's illegal---and for very good reasons.
>> I've seen two differing camps on that debate, both of which are far >> more intelligent than Bob Herbert and none of whom are concerned with >> selling newspapers.
> Which arguments have you heard in support of legality that you believe may be > reasonable?
How about using data mining to look for spies and traitors during a war? Seems well within the powers of the commander-in-chief to order such things. But I'm not a mentally challenged liberal, so looking at it rationally probably seems strange to you.
-- Brock
"You maniacs! You blew it up! Damn you! God damn you all to hell!" -Taylor
Brock Hannibal wrote: > miguel wrote: >> Mike Given wrote: >>> steveb wrote: >>>> Mike Given wrote: >>>>> Which apologist is that? Shirley it can't be one that knows the >>>>> difference between a bureaucratic oligarchy and totlitarianism. >>>> The following is a quote .... and don't call me Shirley :p >>>> For you a couple reminders are in order. The first by columnist Bob >>>> Herbert from yesterday's The New York Times: >>>> For a president---any president---to O.K. eavesdropping on U.S. >>>> citizens on American soil without a warrant is an abomination. >>> That's one opinion, anyway. I say it's merely "naughty". An >>> "abomination" is when we gather up perfectly good American citizens >>> and lock them up in internment camps just 'cuz they gots slanty eyes. >>>> First, it's illegal---and for very good reasons. >>> I've seen two differing camps on that debate, both of which are far >>> more intelligent than Bob Herbert and none of whom are concerned with >>> selling newspapers. >> Which arguments have you heard in support of legality that you believe >> may be reasonable? > How about using data mining to look for spies and traitors during a war?
Because warrantless data mining of US citizens violates FISA and the Fourth Amendment?
> Seems well within the powers of the commander-in-chief to order such > things.
So the commander in chief can ignore the Fourth Amendment and FISA? That's an interesting concept. What else in the Bill of Rights can the commander in chief ignore?
> But I'm not a mentally challenged liberal, so looking at it > rationally probably seems strange to you.
Look, somebody's back and he's stopped crying about the Pacific Life Neuter Bowl!
Mike Given <asph...@gipco.org> wrote: > steveb wrote: > >Mike Given wrote: > >>Which apologist is that? Shirley it can't be one that > >>knows the difference between a bureaucratic oligarchy > >>and totlitarianism. > >The following is a quote .... and don't call me Shirley :p > >For you a couple reminders are in order. The first by > >columnist Bob Herbert from yesterday's The New York Times: > >For a president---any president---to O.K. eavesdropping on > >U.S. citizens on American soil without a warrant is an > >abomination. [...] > >Related to that is the all-important matter of the separation > >of powers, which is the absolutely crucial cornerstone of our > >form of government---our bulwark against tyranny. ... Get rid > >of the checks and balances and you've gotten rid of the United > >States as we've known it. > Yah, yah, yah - "death of democracy is nigh". Film at eleven. > Wake me for the second reel of hand-wringing, willya?
One branch of gov't, the executive, going against Congress (if Bush's guys didn't believe domestic spying was illegal, why did they ask Congress to add permission (this was the Patriot Act or one of its follow-ons)? And Congress said no), and not asking for judicial review even after the fact, which they could have done. Even if one hasn't seen the news about this administration lying their way into the war, lying about intel they had access to (but weren't allowing to anyone else), one could easily imagine a future administration which will lie about their spy information about "immediate danger" amongst the Quakers, ACLU, news media and activists, and political opponents.
The executive branch is the one with the guns. We must not encourage them to think they are above Congress, above the judiciary, above the law.
Are we, or are we not, a nation ruled by law?
> Issues: > * Sending detainees to foreign powers that don't have anti-torture > legislation in place > * Domestic torture of detainees > * Election fraud > * Corporate (and personal) plundering of literally hundreds of > millions of taxpayer dollars > * Iraqi conflict exit strategy > * Supreme Court nominees that want abortion to be illegal > * Replacing science with religious fundamentalism in public school > classrooms
Agreed.
> Non-Issues: > * Borderline illegality of domestic wiretaps on less than .008% > (approx 200 out of almost 300 million) to prevent domestic terrorism.
Disagree on position and scale.
> * White phosphorus military ordinance > * What club a SCOTUS nominee belonged to when he was a dumbass > teenager in the 1970s
|
