NSA wiretap followup: Why computer-automated mass surveillance is a bad idea

My previous post on the NSA wiretap story was dedicated to looking at the possible technology involved. Now, I'll tell you what's wrong with it.<BR><BR>Story

 

[Shapeshifter]

Now this is genius. Let's say we're tracking all phone calls and looking for "trigger" words--bombing, jihad, whatever. I don't know the list, but i'm sure one could be created.<BR><BR>This is great, right?<BR><BR>Except, don't the terrorists speak Arabic or something and not English? Wouldn't that make the entire, probably multi-billion dollar, enterprise useless unless it ALSO did Arabic voice recognition?<BR><BR>Except: don't they speak Greek or something because Arabic is "too suspicious"?

 

[Enron]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheShark:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Enron:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheShark:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Enron:<BR><BR>"A republican talking points memo?" I love how the other side assumes that republicans are non-thinking spin control robots that adhere to the talking points memo commands of their Great Dark Overlords GWB and Karl Rove with help from Darth Cheney. <BR><BR>Welcome to the world of Politics, your boys work in the exact same manner. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>These two paragraphs confuse me. In the first, you seem to make light of the assumption that Republicans use talking point memos. And then in the second you seem confirm that that is in fact the case. But don't make the assumption that just because you are a non-thinking spin control robot that the rest of us are. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Insults, insults, and more insults. Is that all your side has? From reading this thread, it appears that is the case. There's maybe 3 or 4 of us that think this is NOT the end of the Republic and none of us have resorted to the above. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Resorted to what? The second paragraph of yours basically says the first is true. Besides, they are your own words.<BR><BR>WRT "none of us have resorted to the above", have you read this thread? How about "takes12no1" in his first post: "Again and again you foreign wackos, GB haters, and Northeast pseudo-intellectuals underestimate the intelligence of the administration." Looks like a bunch of insults to me. But whatever, I'm pretty sure you're just trolling. 15 posts? And a nick of one of the biggest frauds in recent memory? Hell, most of your posts are just complaining about "the other side". </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Of course its true. But you seem to think the Democrats don't use Talking Points either; which is completely false. They do it just as much as the other side does. And its ok for them to do it, but not okay for the other. Hmmm.<BR><BR>I must have been tuning out this takes12no1 troll, because ive not read any of his posts skimming through this thread. <BR><BR>And most of your posts in this thread are complaining about Republicans. Your point? Does that make YOU a troll? I wouldn't think so.

 

[Enron]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Enron:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Enron:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dr JonboyG:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Enron:<BR><BR>I worked for a government agency for over a year; and I can say this much. The overwhelming majority of people that actually RUN the day to day business of the gov't lean democratic. Why? Because Democratic administrations typically spend more on running the govt than republican ones do, so that means more money for your budget. I get the feeling that most people here assume that the entire big bad evil govt is run by republican partisans. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>'<BR>That's a nice talking point, but it doesn't actually bear any relationship to actual reality. The size of the US government always grows when there's an R in the White House, and has grown larger and faster under GWB than at any time since Nixon.<BR><BR>Edit - since I'm bound to be asked for figures:<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Since 2001, even with record low inflation, U.S. federal spending has increased by a massive 28.8% (19.7% in real dollars)'”with non-defense discretionary growth of 35.7% (25.3% in real dollars)'”the highest rate of federal government growth since the presidencies of Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson. This increase has resulted in the largest budget deficits in U.S. history, an estimated $520 billion in fiscal year 2004 alone. Furthermore, the projected spending for 2005 is a conservative estimate, since it doesn't include at least $50 billion for the 2005 cost of the Iraq occupation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>View image: http://homepage.mac.com/jonboyg/spending.gif <BR><BR>http://www.independent.org/newsroom/news_detail.asp?newsID=31 </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Those figures are quite interesting, but i'm talking about the money allocated to federal agencies to run their day to day operations, not total spending. Much of the total budget goes to fund various programs that are administred to the public, not for the agencies to actually buy equipment, hire new employees, etc. Democrats tend to give the agencies more for that sort of thing. Its no coincidence that nearly everyone in my office (except for the Regional Director, who is appointed by the DoT Secretary who is appointed by the President) is a democrat, everyone i knew working at the EPA on the same floor was a Democrat, everyone i knew at OIG was a democrat, everyone i knew at Highways Administration was a democrat....but I guess I'm just lying.<BR><BR>I was an IT monkey for an agency in the DoT, and all of my bosses bemoaned having to spend the entire budget we had alloted or else have it cut the following year by the Republican Administration.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

[Dr Gitlin]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Those figures are quite interesting, but i'm talking about the money allocated to federal agencies to run their day to day operations, not total spending. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Sorry, you claimed that Republicans were the party of small government and less spending. I've shown you that's a lie, and you now claim that it's not "total spending" but some undefined "day to day" spending? How does that day to day spending get appropriated then? Is there some magic day to day spending account for the federal government that doesn't show up on the books?<BR><BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Much of the total budget goes to fund various programs that are administred to the public, not for the agencies to actually buy equipment, hire new employees, etc. Democrats tend to give the agencies more for that sort of thing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I'd like to see a shred of evidence to back up that claim, sparky. The graph above says you're mistaken.<BR><BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Its no coincidence that nearly everyone in my office (except for the Regional Director, who is appointed by the DoT Secretary who is appointed by the President) is a democrat, everyone i knew working at the EPA on the same floor was a Democrat, everyone i knew at OIG was a democrat, everyone i knew at Highways Administration was a democrat....but I guess I'm just lying.<BR><BR>I was an IT monkey for an agency in the DoT, and all of my bosses bemoaned having to spend the entire budget we had alloted or else have it cut the following year by the Republican Administration </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>So you're countering actual data with an anecdote? You admit you only worked for the .gov for a year, so you have no experience of working there under a Democrat administration, and the practice of having to spend the entire year's budget or face a cut the following year is hardly a Republican-only practice. <BR><BR>Nice try though.

 

[Enron]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dr JonboyG:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Those figures are quite interesting, but i'm talking about the money allocated to federal agencies to run their day to day operations, not total spending. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Sorry, you claimed that Republicans were the party of small government and less spending. I've shown you that's a lie, and you now claim that it's not "total spending" but some undefined "day to day" spending? How does that day to day spending get appropriated then? Is there some magic day to day spending account for the federal government that doesn't show up on the books?<BR><BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Much of the total budget goes to fund various programs that are administred to the public, not for the agencies to actually buy equipment, hire new employees, etc. Democrats tend to give the agencies more for that sort of thing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I'd like to see a shred of evidence to back up that claim, sparky. The graph above says you're mistaken.<BR><BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Its no coincidence that nearly everyone in my office (except for the Regional Director, who is appointed by the DoT Secretary who is appointed by the President) is a democrat, everyone i knew working at the EPA on the same floor was a Democrat, everyone i knew at OIG was a democrat, everyone i knew at Highways Administration was a democrat....but I guess I'm just lying.<BR><BR>I was an IT monkey for an agency in the DoT, and all of my bosses bemoaned having to spend the entire budget we had alloted or else have it cut the following year by the Republican Administration </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>So you're countering actual data with an anecdote? You admit you only worked for the .gov for a year, so you have no experience of working there under a Democrat administration, and the practice of having to spend the entire year's budget or face a cut the following year is hardly a Republican-only practice. <BR><BR>Nice try though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I said nothing of the sort. I said that Republicans spend less on the day to day operations of the agencies in the govt as a whole. Which I can tell you from experience is true. Ignore it and call me a liar all you want, ive seen it happen in person.<BR><BR>The graph is for total govt spending, which means every single program, every single agency budget, military spending, EVERYTHING. Republican administrations like to spend money sure, but they emphasize other things. Republicans give tax cuts, which costs the govt money and is figured into the budget, and takes it away from other places. <BR><BR>I never claimed to have any figures, just the opinions of many people that I have worked with. For example; President Bush created a whole new agency and moved agencies around under its umbrella: that was a massive spending project and many other agencies got budgets cut to fund it. Tax cuts? Same thing. Social Programs? Same thing. After all is said and done, many agencies faced a shrinking operating budget because all the money was being spent in other places. Is that so hard to understand? I'd wager a big part of that spending increase is the Prescription Drug program and the big tax cuts of the Bush regime.<BR><BR>I can do without all the namecalling. Sparky, liar, and all the other crap thrown at me in this thread. Is it so difficult to discuss without being condescending?

 

[TheShark]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Enron:<br> I'd wager a big part of that spending increase is the Prescription Drug program and the big tax cuts of the Bush regime. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Oh, now <b>that</b> is comedy gold my friend. Pure. Comedy. Gold. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif --

 

[kingcrim99]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by takes12no1:<BR>So mister spell checker, you know the word "Right" only has one "i" in it? Guess I can discount your opinion since you misspelled a word at 1:30 in the morning.(don't be stupid I know you did it on purpose) <BR><BR>Reading this article was like listening to a Jessie Jackson speech. It was emotionally touching, but intellectually vacant. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Awesome. In spite of your idiotic theory about the intentional leaking of the wiretap program, I was feeling a bit guilty about being a spelling Nazi, but this post has convinced me that it was the right thing to do.<BR><BR>Thanks for warning me that you were being facetious, by the way. I might have made an ass of myself, otherwise, and tried to defend myself, not realizing that you were being clever.

 

[hpsgrad]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Enron:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dr JonboyG:<BR>So you're countering actual data with an anecdote? You admit you only worked for the .gov for a year, so you have no experience of working there under a Democrat administration, and the practice of having to spend the entire year's budget or face a cut the following year is hardly a Republican-only practice. <BR><BR>Nice try though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I said nothing of the sort. I said that Republicans spend less on the day to day operations of the agencies in the govt as a whole. Which I can tell you from experience is true. Ignore it and call me a liar all you want, ive seen it happen in person.<BR><BR>The graph is for total govt spending, which means every single program, every single agency budget, military spending, EVERYTHING. Republican administrations like to spend money sure, but they emphasize other things. Republicans give tax cuts, which costs the govt money and is figured into the budget, and takes it away from other places. <BR><BR>I never claimed to have any figures, just the opinions of many people that I have worked with. For example; President Bush created a whole new agency and moved agencies around under its umbrella: that was a massive spending project and many other agencies got budgets cut to fund it. Tax cuts? Same thing. Social Programs? Same thing. After all is said and done, many agencies faced a shrinking operating budget because all the money was being spent in other places. Is that so hard to understand? I'd wager a big part of that spending increase is the Prescription Drug program and the big tax cuts of the Bush regime.<BR><BR>I can do without all the namecalling. Sparky, liar, and all the other crap thrown at me in this thread. Is it so difficult to discuss without being condescending? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>[/QUOTE]<BR>Look again at the labels on the graph. Military spending is clearly excluded from the figures reprsented in black (i.e. "Non-Defense Discretionary Spending Growth"). Your claims are being taken seriously by DrJonboyG, that's why he posted evidence. As you have nothing more than assertions to refute that evidence, I think it fair not to take your claims seriously.<BR><BR>Similar actions have occurred in this thread. You assert that Bush and the executive branch have not broken the law. Backing up such assertions would be nice, particularly given the seriousness of the issues at stake. Namecalling aside, I'd like to see some sort of clear explanation why the actions of the executive branch are not illegal. Simply asserting (as various individuals in this thread have done) that the president has the power to take this action (without some clear reasoning to back it up), that congress was briefed, that this is necessary, etc., is not a clear explanation. Those are a mix of (as yet) unjustified assertions of rights and excuses.<BR><BR>So, can someone provide me with a clearly stated argument in favor of the president's authority to take the actions that we've recently been informed about?

 

[Enron]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheShark:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Enron:<br> I'd wager a big part of that spending increase is the Prescription Drug program and the big tax cuts of the Bush regime. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Oh, now <b>that</b> is comedy gold my friend. Pure. Comedy. Gold. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif -- </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Its comedy gold how? The prescription drug entitlement is supposed to cost an estimated 550 BILLION over the next 10 years. Add to that that 50% of the Federal Budget goes to SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and other grant and entitlement programs and all three are growing by over double-digit increases in spending every year, and its easy to see where the money is coming from. Agencies are getting squeezed; they don't get the budget increases that they did in the previous democratic administration because its being used to pay for the spiraling costs of these programs.

 

[Enron]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hpsgrad:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Enron:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dr JonboyG:<BR>So you're countering actual data with an anecdote? You admit you only worked for the .gov for a year, so you have no experience of working there under a Democrat administration, and the practice of having to spend the entire year's budget or face a cut the following year is hardly a Republican-only practice. <BR><BR>Nice try though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I said nothing of the sort. I said that Republicans spend less on the day to day operations of the agencies in the govt as a whole. Which I can tell you from experience is true. Ignore it and call me a liar all you want, ive seen it happen in person.<BR><BR>The graph is for total govt spending, which means every single program, every single agency budget, military spending, EVERYTHING. Republican administrations like to spend money sure, but they emphasize other things. Republicans give tax cuts, which costs the govt money and is figured into the budget, and takes it away from other places. <BR><BR>I never claimed to have any figures, just the opinions of many people that I have worked with. For example; President Bush created a whole new agency and moved agencies around under its umbrella: that was a massive spending project and many other agencies got budgets cut to fund it. Tax cuts? Same thing. Social Programs? Same thing. After all is said and done, many agencies faced a shrinking operating budget because all the money was being spent in other places. Is that so hard to understand? I'd wager a big part of that spending increase is the Prescription Drug program and the big tax cuts of the Bush regime.<BR><BR>I can do without all the namecalling. Sparky, liar, and all the other crap thrown at me in this thread. Is it so difficult to discuss without being condescending? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Look again at the labels on the graph. Military spending is clearly excluded from the figures reprsented in black (i.e. "Non-Defense Discretionary Spending Growth"). Your claims are being taken seriously by DrJonboyG, that's why he posted evidence. As you have nothing more than assertions to refute that evidence, I think it fair not to take your claims seriously.<BR><BR>Similar actions have occurred in this thread. You assert that Bush and the executive branch have not broken the law. Backing up such assertions would be nice, particularly given the seriousness of the issues at stake. Namecalling aside, I'd like to see some sort of clear explanation why the actions of the executive branch are not illegal. Simply asserting (as various individuals in this thread have done) that the president has the power to take this action (without some clear reasoning to back it up), that congress was briefed, that this is necessary, etc., is not a clear explanation. Those are a mix of (as yet) unjustified assertions of rights and excuses.<BR><BR>So, can someone provide me with a clearly stated argument in favor of the president's authority to take the actions that we've recently been informed about?[/QUOTE]<BR><BR>Well, you are right. Ive not looked up any graphs or charts before now to support my "theory", but I can tell you that seeing my chief inspectors in the office for months at a time instead of travelling offsite so they can do their JOBS because there wasn't any more money in the budget for it, I can tell you something is amiss. Especially when we could see it happening across other agencies as well. That money IS being spent somewhere else.

 

[Enron]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Enron:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hpsgrad:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Enron:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dr JonboyG:<BR>So you're countering actual data with an anecdote? You admit you only worked for the .gov for a year, so you have no experience of working there under a Democrat administration, and the practice of having to spend the entire year's budget or face a cut the following year is hardly a Republican-only practice. <BR><BR>Nice try though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I said nothing of the sort. I said that Republicans spend less on the day to day operations of the agencies in the govt as a whole. Which I can tell you from experience is true. Ignore it and call me a liar all you want, ive seen it happen in person.<BR><BR>The graph is for total govt spending, which means every single program, every single agency budget, military spending, EVERYTHING. Republican administrations like to spend money sure, but they emphasize other things. Republicans give tax cuts, which costs the govt money and is figured into the budget, and takes it away from other places. <BR><BR>I never claimed to have any figures, just the opinions of many people that I have worked with. For example; President Bush created a whole new agency and moved agencies around under its umbrella: that was a massive spending project and many other agencies got budgets cut to fund it. Tax cuts? Same thing. Social Programs? Same thing. After all is said and done, many agencies faced a shrinking operating budget because all the money was being spent in other places. Is that so hard to understand? I'd wager a big part of that spending increase is the Prescription Drug program and the big tax cuts of the Bush regime.<BR><BR>I can do without all the namecalling. Sparky, liar, and all the other crap thrown at me in this thread. Is it so difficult to discuss without being condescending? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Look again at the labels on the graph. Military spending is clearly excluded from the figures reprsented in black (i.e. "Non-Defense Discretionary Spending Growth"). Your claims are being taken seriously by DrJonboyG, that's why he posted evidence. As you have nothing more than assertions to refute that evidence, I think it fair not to take your claims seriously.<BR><BR>Similar actions have occurred in this thread. You assert that Bush and the executive branch have not broken the law. Backing up such assertions would be nice, particularly given the seriousness of the issues at stake. Namecalling aside, I'd like to see some sort of clear explanation why the actions of the executive branch are not illegal. Simply asserting (as various individuals in this thread have done) that the president has the power to take this action (without some clear reasoning to back it up), that congress was briefed, that this is necessary, etc., is not a clear explanation. Those are a mix of (as yet) unjustified assertions of rights and excuses.<BR><BR>So, can someone provide me with a clearly stated argument in favor of the president's authority to take the actions that we've recently been informed about? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Well, you are right. Ive not looked up any graphs or charts before now to support my "theory", but I can tell you that seeing my chief inspectors in the office for months at a time instead of travelling offsite so they can do their JOBS because there wasn't any more money in the budget for it, I can tell you something is amiss. Especially when we could see it happening across other agencies as well. That money IS being spent somewhere else; which is why i saw so few republicans at the operations level of many govt agencies.[/QUOTE]

 

[hpsgrad]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Enron:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hpsgrad:<BR>Look again at the labels on the graph. Military spending is clearly excluded from the figures reprsented in black (i.e. "Non-Defense Discretionary Spending Growth"). Your claims are being taken seriously by DrJonboyG, that's why he posted evidence. As you have nothing more than assertions to refute that evidence, I think it fair not to take your claims seriously.<BR><BR>Similar actions have occurred in this thread. You assert that Bush and the executive branch have not broken the law. Backing up such assertions would be nice, particularly given the seriousness of the issues at stake. Namecalling aside, I'd like to see some sort of clear explanation why the actions of the executive branch are not illegal. Simply asserting (as various individuals in this thread have done) that the president has the power to take this action (without some clear reasoning to back it up), that congress was briefed, that this is necessary, etc., is not a clear explanation. Those are a mix of (as yet) unjustified assertions of rights and excuses.<BR><BR><B>So, can someone provide me with a clearly stated argument in favor of the president's authority to take the actions that we've recently been informed about?</B> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Well, you are right. Ive not looked up any graphs or charts before now to support my "theory", but I can tell you that seeing my chief inspectors in the office for months at a time instead of travelling offsite so they can do their JOBS because there wasn't any more money in the budget for it, I can tell you something is amiss. Especially when we could see it happening across other agencies as well. That money IS being spent somewhere else; which is why i saw so few republicans at the operations level of many govt agencies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Look, you make assertions. They might be true, or they might not. I've got no idea. In exactly the same fashion as you are rejecting DrJonboyG's evidence, I'm rejecting your unsupported assertion. That seems fair enough to me.<BR><BR>I'm also trying to understand a position on an executive order here. Would you, or anyone else, care to address that question (in bold above)?

 

[kingcrim99]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Enron:<BR>I said nothing of the sort. I said that Republicans spend less on the day to day operations of the agencies in the govt as a whole. Which I can tell you from experience is true. Ignore it and call me a liar all you want, ive seen it happen in person. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I don't think you're being mendacious, but you need to spend a lot more time in government before you speak with the authority of your experience on the differences between Republican and Democratic administrations, management and budget wise.

 

[TheShark]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Enron:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheShark:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Enron:<br> I'd wager a big part of that spending increase is the Prescription Drug program and the big tax cuts of the Bush regime. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Oh, now <b>that</b> is comedy gold my friend. Pure. Comedy. Gold. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif -- </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Its comedy gold how? </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Read it again. Then come back and tell us how tax cuts count as "spending".

 

[Freeman]

Prescription drugs??<br><br>Huh???<br><br>What happened to the thread.... -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif --

 

[Ray Sanders]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unseelie23:<br><i>"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."</i> -- George Bush, April 2004 </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Can I get that as a ring tone ? Tap this Mr President -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif --

 

[Ray Sanders]

From Thursdays Washington Post...<BR>"Judges on Surveillance Court To Be Briefed on Spy Program"<BR>article<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The NSA program, and the technology on which it is based, makes it impossible to meet that criterion because the program is designed to intercept selected conversations in real time from among an enormous number relayed at any moment through satellites. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Other than Iridium, is there much telco traffic still on satellites ?

 

[divisionbyzero]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ray Sanders:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hugo:<BR>"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."<BR><BR>I think the key word GWB has forgotten is "Constitution." </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Actually, I don't think he has forgotten about it at all (if this story is correct).<BR><BR>Link obtained from craigsblog. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>It wouldn't surprise me if he said it, but the evidence is pretty weak. However, if he did say it, he said it to the wrong group of people because it'll eventually get back to real conservatives, like McCain, and they will not be pleased.

 

[divisionbyzero]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by takes12no1:<BR>If I was in Bushes shoes, it might be a strategy of mine to leak out news about programs that freak terrorists out and make them resort to other less efficient ways to communicate, they are after all in general not too bright and a bit paranoid. No one here knows if that's what happended, and it probably wasn't the way it happened. <BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>First, I think my problem mostly has been with your tone and the little digs. Obviously, I don't think what Bush did was wrong because Barbara Streisand said it was wrong and I'm sure liberals don't either. That's just a ridiculous caricature and adds nothing to the discussion. I am basically fed up with the "snobby, rich, effiminate, over-educated" stereotype of NorthEasterners. It's bullshit. It's like when I was living in Europe and every European assumed that because I am an American that I couldn't speak more than one language and that I was stupid except I have to put up with this bullshit in my own country. I suppose, as Nietzsche pointed out, most disagreements are due to how things are said rather than what is being said.<BR><BR>Second, I'm not a liberal or at least not one of the reformed Marxist variety. I could live with being called a liberal if I were in Britain. Here, I'm a conservative.<BR><BR>Finally, as to your main point, I suppose it is possible, but seems highly unlikely as Bush seems genuinely pissed and he is not good at hiding his emotions or acting. There is also an on-going investigation into the leak which could produce awkward results.

 

[Dr Gitlin]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Enron:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheShark:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Enron:<br> I'd wager a big part of that spending increase is the Prescription Drug program and the big tax cuts of the Bush regime. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Oh, now <b>that</b> is comedy gold my friend. Pure. Comedy. Gold. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif -- </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Its comedy gold how? The prescription drug entitlement is supposed to cost an estimated 550 BILLION over the next 10 years. Add to that that 50% of the Federal Budget goes to SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and other grant and entitlement programs and all three are growing by over double-digit increases in spending every year, and its easy to see where the money is coming from. Agencies are getting squeezed; they don't get the budget increases that they did in the previous democratic administration because its being used to pay for the spiraling costs of these programs. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Sorry, tax cuts do not appear as expenditures, they show up as reduced tax revenue. And you can postulate all about increased spending over the *next* 10 years, the fact remains the data I have shown you is historical and predates it. <br><br>You've yet to counter any of these facts or figures with anything harder than an anecdote concerning a year working in the government under a single administration. As I said, the practise of making a department spend all their budget or face cuts the following year is standard practise, hardly unique to this admin.<br><br>Unless you're prepared to bring some facts of your own to the table, other than "when I worked for the DoT for a year they were all democrats" then we're done here. Good day.

 

[ai0tron]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FunkTron:<BR><BR>LMFAO!!! I'm not going to pick a side either way here, because I don't agree with picking sides politically. I agree with picking issues and addressing them for what they are worth..<BR><BR>But I have to say here...<BR>1. It's pseudo (SOO-doh), not psuedo (SWAY-doh)<BR>2. The prefix pseudo-'s definition: http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=def...do&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8<BR><BR>To sum up: You attempted to call pro-Bush folks retarded, but ended up misspelling the prefix and saying they are fake retards.<BR><BR>:-D<BR><BR>Thanks for the laugh. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Actually, the point was to use pseudo, if you will note a previous post used the term: "pseudo -intellectual"... Well some left wingers might be trying a bit to hard to come across as intelligent, but my point was, some right wingers seem to be coming across trying to hard to be... FUCKING RETARDED!<BR><BR>Try reading comprehension for dipshits at your local community college.<BR><BR>By the way, I agree with picking sides, you're a fucking moron, I'm not. <BR><BR>Pointing out a spelling mistake that may or may not have been accidental qualifies you as such. Obviously I can't claim that it was or wasn't, since such a defense is in reality untenable. I can say that I got a great score on the engrish portion of the older, harder engrish portion of the SAT.

 

[ZeroZanzibar]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>Two questions. What exactly are those "wartime" powers that give the president a bulk warrant, and given that war hasn't been declared how did he get them? I recall that only Congress has the authority to declare war and they haven't done so in years. Therefore how can the President claim any "wartime" powers?<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I suggest you read up on how Lincoln governed during the Civil War.<BR><BR>He did things that Bush can only dream about, like suspend <I>habeas corpus</I>.<BR><BR>And, he was vilified just as much.<BR><BR>I'm not suggesting Bush is Lincoln II, but there's plenty a wartime president can do and he'll take a lot of heat for doing it, too.<BR><BR>As for formal declarations of war, I've read plenty of scholarship over the years that suggests that, between various emergency laws (most never repealed that I ever heard of) plus the way we go about wars (formal declarations are largely obsolete, politically), that I don't know that you can make a slam dunk case that we aren't in what passes for a modern war. "Declarations of war" as the founders envisioned them, are pretty much dead. The kind of resolution the President got for Iraq II is pretty much the norm.<BR><BR>Part of this is whether you view this as a real war or a metaphorical one. We now face something new, I think. It can be expressed as:<BR><BR>1. The first concerted, nonMilitary NGO (unless you count the IRA, but that was a specific nationalist group, this stuff isn't).<BR><BR>2. An enemy whose assests are predominantly spies and sabateurs, including the hard-to-stop suicide bombers (ask your parents or grandparents about Kamikazes -- they were no joke).<BR><BR>Add to it a public that wants its civil liberties untouched (despite war-like conditions) and yet have no one die anywhere anytime from terrorism, and I think we're in for a lot of turbulence. Even if the dems win the next two elections. Once they get power back, they may suddenly discover some virtues in what's going on right now, especially when they feel the public's yearning for absolute, unconditional safety.<BR><BR>If you oppose these means, then face up that no matter how ineffective you claim they may be, they will make it a bit easier to operate in the US where they can kill unarmed you instead of armed 82nd Airborne troops.<BR><BR>It would be nice if everything could happen outside the US like we're accustomed to, with real armies and stuff. It would be even nicer to pretend that 9/11 is a one-time shot.<BR><BR>It is an arguable proposition either way that Osama bin Laden can be treated like Don Corleone with a beard. Maybe we can.<BR><BR>But, then, the Romans thought they could hold the barbarians beyond the pale forever too. It's just that, the barbarians never really bought the agreement any more than bin Laden buys the current world order. The only reason this isn't more obvious is that he is hiding in a cave somewhere and, relevantly, can't use cell phones or have his cohorts drive to ordinary office buildings to plan stuff.<BR><BR>Meanwhile, the enemy "gets a vote" as the experts say, and they've noticed they get a lot of breaks if they attack us from the inside.<BR><BR>I'm not sure what I really want, here. But, I'm not going to knee-jerk this one until we, as a society, seriously face up to the fact that some of us nonsoldiers are going to die, just like the nearly forgotten 3,000 of 9/11 already did. Or, that we're in serious danger of lurching from panic to "nothing's changed" and, then, at the next attack, back to panic.

 

[Freeman]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Larry Loen:<BR>I suggest you read up on how Lincoln governed during the Civil War.<BR><BR>He did things that Bush can only dream about, like suspend <I>habeas corpus</I>.<BR><BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Wow, I believe the clothing Abraham was buried in is disintegrating about now from centrifugal force and friction burns because he is spinning so fast in his grave.<BR><BR>Junior is a wartime President in pronouncement only. His pronouncement.<BR><BR>You just have to remember 'Mission Accomplished', don't you? That was the end of military operations in Iraq. The end of the war. What we're doing now is just mop up.<BR><BR>It's all part of <STRIKE>his</STRIKE> err I mean Karl's marketing theme. You know, the bulging basket in the flight suit, the arms held out, away from the sides in a cowboy swagger, the hunching over at the podium smirk, the oakie doke, backwoods, country hick demeanor.<BR><BR>Now as far as the reality of the big, mean, nasty, world coming to our shores to make a personal appearance just off Broadway.<BR><BR>If there is an 'American' at this point in history that is unable to bridge and make the association between what takes place (as you so eloquently put it) 'It would be nice if everything could happen outside the US like we're accustomed to' and what occurred in New York City, first in 1993; and then in 2001. Well, I don't think it's going to happen now. IOW, I think those people are terminally myopic.<BR><BR>If people cannot allow themselves the view afforded them by metaphorically looking in the mirror, then you're correct. It is going to get very ugly here in the U.S. before it can ever get better.<BR><BR>Also? This isn't Rome baby, they aren't barbarians, and we have no gates. Hell, if Junior had his way, anybody that gets here, gets to stay.<BR><BR>When the United States no longer sends its good sons and daughters out into the rest of the world to execute proxy security work for multinational corporations. When the U.S. no longer engages in policy like the pre-emptive invasion of sovereign nations for fictitious reasons. When the U.S. assumes, in both word and deed, a posture that would not allow for the aspersions you have cast upon others to fit the behavior of the United States.<BR><BR>Then and only then could there ever be reason to have some logical expectation of greater 'Homeland Security' within our shores.<BR><BR>Until then, Junior and his looting Administration of chaos is not going to accomplish anything but more chaos for the rest of us - while they're emptying the Treasury.<BR><BR>.

 

[ZeroZanzibar]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The end of the war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Sure, the conventional war.<BR><BR>Oh, so the insurgency doesn't count now? I thought it did.<BR><BR>Besides, bin Laden is trying to do what he's doing regardless of whether the official war is running or not.<BR><BR>Legalism will only get you so far. When the next 5,000 people die, and maybe you'll even know some of them, maybe you won't be quite so keen as you are now about this. Historically, we never have been before.<BR><BR>The Civil War is apt because it was an <I>insurrection</I>. It happened to have a formal declaration of war, because that's what happened in those days. <BR><BR>However, if I wanted to argue like you, I could say the declaration of war was legally deficient since the surviving Union (the part Lincoln presided over) never recognized the Confederacy as a government (it hardly could, could it). So, you could argue that it wasn't a constitutionally apt war, either. It certainly wasn't a war between nations, at least not as the Union saw it.<BR><BR>But, besides that, consider what happened to John Brown or the Booth conspirators (events before and after the war).<BR><BR>Or, for that matter, the undeclared civil war in Missouri before the official war broke out.<BR><BR>The boundaries just aren't as clean as you'd like them to be.<BR><BR>Andy Jackson also played fast and loose with the rules as I recall, and not with much help from Congress, either, as I recall.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>they aren't barbarians, and we have no gates<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>They most certainly are barbarians. Didn't you notice the Taliban blowing up the Buddhist statues? Or the religious police beating up unfortunate men who couldn't grow beards? It's the same folks, you know.<BR><BR>And, the fact that we don't have gates makes it even tougher. That means the Vandals are amongst us all the time.<BR><BR>Maybe we shouldn't change the rules one iota. I'm potentially persuadable on that.<BR><BR>But, it is naive and worse to ignore the fact that we have real, honest to goodness enemies, enemies that recently had bought and paid for a whole country (Afghanistan) to an extent not known publically until after we pushed them out.<BR><BR>Enemies that are not Mexican guest workers (your conflating of them was at once funny and sad).<BR><BR>These enemies have some legitimate grievances. But, they have some that are not. Why should bin Laden's desire for religious purity make us retreat from the Middle East? He and his movement is not a government. It's not even clear that he could win a majority on that or any other issue. We start taking our foreign policy cues from these guys and it will be chaos and quickly. They have no check on their demands because they have no real responsibility. <BR><BR>Again, maybe we can just treat them as the Mafia. If it works, I'm all for it. But, when I read arguments like yours, I doubt it.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>When the U.S. no longer engages in policy like the pre-emptive invasion of sovereign nations for fictitious reasons.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>So, you're going to campaign to put Saddam back in power?<BR><BR>Unless you are, this is empty point-scoring.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR> When the U.S. assumes, in both word and deed, a posture that would not allow for the aspersions you have cast upon others to fit the behavior of the United States.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>The only "aspersions" I have cast have been against Islamic Facism. It's a real force and you can deny it if you wish.<BR><BR>Go read up on the Linberg boys in the America First campaign to see where your ideas lead last time we tried them.

 

[gidi]

First, let me say that I agree with Hannibal about the inefficacy of automated mass-surveillance systems.<BR><BR>However, this is a choice the American people have made, by rejecting profiling. If you want to narrow down the number of potential targets you need to surveil, profiling is one of the most powerful tools at your disposal. If the US if fighting a threat from Islamic terrorism, that's were you have to look in order to find terrorists, despite the risk of apparent discrimination against the large majority of Moslems who are completely innocent.

 

[Freeman]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gidi:<BR>First, let me say that I agree with Hannibal about the inefficacy of automated mass-surveillance systems.<BR><BR>However, this is a choice the American people have made, by rejecting profiling. If you want to narrow down the number of potential targets you need to surveil, profiling is one of the most powerful tools at your disposal. If the US if fighting a threat from Islamic terrorism, that's were you have to look in order to find terrorists, despite the risk of apparent discrimination against the large majority of Moslems who are completely innocent. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>How do you equate a President breaking the law with a rejection of profiling? What is the logical tree / thought process? What sort of a scrambled schematic does that look like?

 

[Freeman]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Larry Loen:<br>Oh, so the insurgency doesn't count now? I thought it did. </div>
</blockquote>Didn't you get the memo? The insurgency is in its last throws. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif -- <br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Besides, bin Laden is trying to do what he's doing regardless of whether the official war is running or not. </div>
</blockquote>Who is this "bin Laden" you keep talking about? I vaguely recollect Junior talking about some cowboy posse roundup where he was gonna go after some guy who was wanted dead or alive - but that was years ago. I haven't heard Junior talk about it lately, and I don't think the hunt went very well.<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> <blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br>they aren't barbarians, and we have no gates<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>They most certainly are barbarians. Didn't you notice the Taliban blowing up the Buddhist statues? Or the religious police beating up unfortunate men who couldn't grow beards? It's the same folks, you know. </div>
</blockquote>Apparently the U.S. military bombing Mosques has escaped your (selective) observational powers. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif -- <br><br>But, as long as we're discussing what may qualify as barbarian status - and remember here, that includes the perception of people outside the U.S. because, well, after all, we're engaged here in an intellectual discussion on world events. So, back to that barbarian thing; shall we discuss the U.S. military using white phosphorous weaponry to bomb civilian populations?<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> And, the fact that we don't have gates makes it even tougher. That means the Vandals are amongst us all the time.<br><br>Maybe we shouldn't change the rules one iota. I'm potentially persuadable on that.<br><br>But, it is naive and worse to ignore the fact that we have real, honest to goodness enemies, enemies that recently had bought and paid for a whole country (Afghanistan) to an extent not known publically until after we pushed them out.<br><br>Enemies that are not Mexican guest workers (your conflating of them was at once funny and sad). </div>
</blockquote>So you are asserting here that there is some magical filter at the U.S. / Mexican border that prevents ALL but Mexican Nationals from making the journey into the U.S.?<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br>When the U.S. no longer engages in policy like the pre-emptive invasion of sovereign nations for fictitious reasons.<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>So, you're going to campaign to put Saddam back in power?<br><br>Unless you are, this is empty point-scoring. </div>
</blockquote>Hey, I have heard worse ideas from Junior and his cabal of idiot frat-boy friends. At least there was peace and order in Iraq when Saddam was running things. Now granted, tens of thousands of children died when Saddam was in power. But in all fairness, many if not all of those deaths could be directly attributed to the U.S. enforced sanctions.<br><br>And when Saddam was still there, no one, get that? NO ONE, not his neighbors, not any other country in the world was afraid of Saddam. He was contained. The only people in the World that were afraid of Saddam were the poor, hapless, moron masses of American people that were being spoon fed propaganda by a corporate media taking dictation from Junior and the Prince of Darkness Dick weed. Hell, a very good case could be made that the NYT is soley responsible for who sits in the Oval office today. <blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br> When the U.S. assumes, in both word and deed, a posture that would not allow for the aspersions you have cast upon others to fit the behavior of the United States.<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>The only "aspersions" I have cast have been against Islamic Facism. It's a real force and you can deny it if you wish. </div>
</blockquote>...and the Islamic Fascists are (of course) very different from the Fundamentalist Christian Fascists of the United States in just what way?<br><br>Hey, it's all good baby. We just need to keep sending Karen Hughes to all these backward, ignorant, knuckle dragging, Islamic fascist, country's and shine the light of Jesus Christ upon the masses, and once they have seen the error(s) of their collective ways, we can get together for a round of Kumbaya and live happily ever after.<br><br><br>.

 

[ZeroZanzibar]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>But in all fairness, many if not all of those deaths could be directly attributed to the U.S. enforced sanctions.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Like what Kusay and Ouday did, right? Entirely the result of sanctions.<BR><BR>Or, like the Iraq/Iran war. Entirely caused by. . whoops, no sanctions yet. But, of course, we caused that war, too, no doubt. Saddam had nothing to do with it.<BR><BR>Appologizing for fascists is a dangerous business, you know.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>Hey, I have heard worse ideas from Junior and his cabal of idiot frat-boy friends<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Dancing away from the hard one, aren't you? Willing to accept the result of the war (no Saddam) and criticize it at the same time. Neat.<BR><BR>If we're as bad as you say (and equally as bad as our enemy) simple logic says <I>you</I> should be advocating Saddam should be given his old job back.<BR><BR>So?....<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...and the Islamic Fascists are (of course) very different from the Fundamentalist Christian Fascists of the United States in just what way? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>They kill more people, at least lately. Last I checked, even Operation Rescue, which I would qualify as the same general sort, were not trying to get a dirty bomb.<BR><BR>They also would cheerfully commit a second Holocaust if they could.<BR><BR>Also, Islamic fascists want to kill *me*. And you, too.

 

[Unseelie23]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Freeman:<br>Prescription drugs??<br><br>Huh???<br><br>What happened to the thread.... -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif -- </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Politics... -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif --

 

[Freeman]

Oh Larry, you just can't see your way around your hyperbole to get it.<BR><BR>Hmm, I guess you didn't want to talk any more about barbarian stuff like that white phosphorous thing I mentioned.<BR><BR>For the record, Kusay and Ouday only terrorized young women AFAIK.<BR><BR>As for Saddam getting his old job back...I am serious. He is far more capable than Junior and the Prince of Darkness at doing what he did - or even doing what they do now. The current state of civilization in Iraq is all the argument and proof I need for this position.<BR><BR>You and your side have been severely let down by Junior and his bungling band of frat monkeys.<BR><BR>And, like buying sex from a hooker is an honest exchange (straightup money for sex), at least Saddam was honest about torturing people - he didn't feel a need or compunction to lie about it like Junior and Dick weed.<BR><BR>As for the Jihadist fundies, Junior and his policies have made joining up an impossibility. The Al Qeda now has a waiting list to join, one far longer than the wait list Junior went around and to the front of in order to join the T.A.N.G.<BR><BR>You are correct though, the jihadists want to kill both of us. I hold Junior and his lame-brained policies directly responsible for their "justification" for such a potential action.<BR><BR>Ultimately, that makes both you and I responsible. We sit here typing meaningless words into a forum board when we could be participating in a social movement to get this ASSCLOWN impeached and replaced with a far more capable leader for the free world.<BR><BR>.

 

[ZeroZanzibar]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>For the record, Kusay and Ouday only terrorized young women AFAIK.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>You heard wrong. At the least, I know one of them tortured losing Olympic athletes. One or both were personally taken by Saddam to torture sessions. I think the upshot was they learned early how to do this stuff and not just to women.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You are correct, they want to kill both of us. I hold Junior and his lame-brained policies directly responsible for their "justification" for such a potential action. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>You need to get out more. bin Laden is not a reaction to Bush.<BR><BR>He specifically got his start (in Al Quida) when the Saudis picked the US Army over him to eject Saddam from Kuwait. He wanted to form an Islamic army to do it. That's a half decade before anyone knew Dubya was going to be more than another "Son of a President."<BR><BR>Most of his demands are essentially religious and some of them only inicidentally have to do with the US (what he wanted, he more or less had in Afghanistan).<BR><BR>With or without Bush, these guys wanted to kill us. It may make their arguments nominally easier, but they were pushing the same line before we did anything.<BR><BR>You do remember that 3,000 or so died on September 11, back when Bush was for doing damn near nothing overseas? And we still got hit?<BR><BR>The question you aren't thinking about is what happens after Bush is gone, not all that far into the future.<BR><BR>And, if you think they've used Bush's actions for a recruitment tool today, just wait until we actually retreat.<BR><BR>I believe bin Laden is on record about two things related here:<BR><BR>1. The West can't take casualties.<BR>2. Regan's retreat from Beirut proves it.<BR><BR>That was good for, what, a whole decade's worth of nastiness?<BR><BR>In fact, that's more or less the pitch in Iraq now. Come and make a stand here, because the Americans are going to give up, if we kill enough folk.<BR><BR>Meanwhile, more back on topic, exactly how do we find the suicide bombers and Mohammed Atas in our midst and still have some civil liberties left?<BR><BR>The usual law enforcement stuff is a little beside the point if we're talking mass murder/suicide.<BR><BR>And, technology will prove relevant. This society is still wide open and very difficult to patrol.<BR><BR>Anyone who thinks we can retreat into Fortress America should camp in the Boundary Waters Canoe area. The whole idea of physically securing the border (or the ports or the other five things you often hear about) would be quickly revealed for the joke it is. Rich as we are, we don't have that kind of money.

 

[Freeman]

...yeah, whatever Larry.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> "Bin Laden detemined to strike in U.S." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Title of P.D.B. August 6, 2001<BR> Here's a CBC link about the Bush & Bin Laden Family picnics.<BR><BR>As far as whether or not Americans can or can't take casualties. Allow me to direct your attention to World War II. the end.<BR><BR>No one wants to see young people kill and get killed for a scurrilous pack of lies and liars. At least, I don't. Do you?<BR><BR>.

 

[ZeroZanzibar]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Allow me to direct your attention to World War II. the end.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Allow me to direct your attention to Vietnam and the current polls. Both a bit more recent.<BR><BR>That's what bin Laden had in mind. These aren't my arguments -- they're his. And, they're starting to look good.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>No one wants to see young people kill and get killed for a scurrilous pack of lies and liars. At least, I don't. Do you? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Which liars? The Republicans or the Democrats (I'm thinking here of the ones that pretend now to have been mislead when they voted based on polling data to start with and now want to wriggle out of it -- everyone paying attention knew metaphysical certainty was not available -- preemption by definition bets on intelligence, not proven facts).<BR><BR>The lying thing is not something I'm prepared to deliver <I>ex cathedra</I> pronouncments on.<BR><BR>However, a lot of these same charges were brought against Blair by his own hostile government and, at least in that case, the lying charge (or even the "sexed up" charge, a step short) seems to have fallen flat.<BR><BR>But, I'm sure you'll have an answer to that one, too, even though you can't claim there that parliment was covering it up for him. His own guys were leading the charge.<BR><BR>Bush was supposed to be too stupid to be president, but I guess that wasn't good enough and now he has to be a liar too. Well, maybe he is, but I haven't seen the smoking gun.<BR><BR>Many of the same people who want Bush to be a liar today are also the ones that said the war (the one against Saddam's actual army) was a quagmire, who confidently expected a humanitarian crisis (meaning, not insurrection, but no food and water), that we knew all about the WMD because "we had the receipts", and a dozen other things that haven't quite proven out. So, I'm not going to join that charge on the first run. Or, the fifth. If it proves out, then fine. But, I'm not going to go day one with that one.<BR><BR>Apparently, you can't simply be mistaken nowadays.<BR><BR>But, since I don't really care to argue it, have it your way; impeach Bush and throw him out. We still have to deal with the history we have.<BR><BR>It's always easier to blame ourselves, at least in the short run. In 1863, you'd have no doubt been all for coming to an agreement with the South, too. Many were, you know. Even after Gettysburg, the war looked endless and hopeless to many. Some even argued we had no constitutional basis for that war (and, actually, it wasn't a bad argument in the abstract -- there was nothing in it that said joining up was irrevocable). <BR><BR>The casualties make today look like a picnic. There was plenty of corruption and prison abuse scandals going on, too. I doubt if it could have withstood today's level of media scrutiny. It barely did then. As late as August of 1863, Lincoln expected to lose the election. His treatment was comparable to Bush's today.<BR><BR>If we go by today's passions, we simply give up in 1863 and pull defeat from the jaws of victory, impeach Lincoln (ample grounds if you wanted to) and go on. Bush may not even be approximately Lincoln (I rather doubt it), but it is <I>always</I> possible to give up during a war, even one that is ultimately winnable.<BR><BR>I don't get to pick my history any more than you do and I want to have a society that works.<BR><BR>This includes one where I don't have to worry quite so much about people exploding heaps of fertilizer against random buildings, crashing planes into same, strapping bombs to their midsection and setting them off, etc.<BR><BR>Pay Bush off any way you like and we're <I>still</I> faced with this problem and these folks. It's tough to stop. The fact we've had nothing since 9/11 is a minor miracle, but one that can't be entirely due to luck. Maybe some of these programs have worked a bit.

 

[ZeroZanzibar]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Here's a CBC link about the Bush & Bin Laden Family picnics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I read it. I don't see it proving your point at all. It confirms that bin Laden founded Al Qaeda along the lines I always thought was true.<BR><BR>I had never heard that the rest of the family was in Al Qaeda.

 

[Freeman]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Larry Loen:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Allow me to direct your attention to World War II. the end.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Allow me to direct your attention to Vietnam and the current polls. Both a bit more recent. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh, that is just too rich that you have brought up Vietnam.<BR><BR>People are going to think Freeman & Larry Loen are the same person debating himself, one just a setup guy for the other.<BR><BR>Oh yeah, Vietnam, that total failure/quagmire for the U.S. and its military, and, just like Iraq, a war entered into and based upon a complete and total LIE.<BR><BR>Recent polls? Now why would you want to bring up recent polls that only suggest the American public is finally beginning to see past the lies and bullshit that they have been spoon fed, that the public is starting to come out of their media induced haze and realize the reasons they were told we needed to invade Iraq are utter fabrications of the Neo-Cons pulling Juniors strings?<BR><BR>Which nicely brings us back to the thread topic, Can I offer you a subscription to the NYT?<BR><BR>Hmm, guess not.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That's what bin Laden had in mind. These aren't my arguments -- they're his. And, they're starting to look good. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Thanks completely to the actions of Junior and his corrupt Administration.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>No one wants to see young people kill and get killed for a scurrilous pack of lies and liars. At least, I don't. Do you? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Which liars? The Republicans or the Democrats...... </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Larry, with all due respect, I just can't be bothered engaging the rest of your post as it really isn't much more than tired blather that could be heard on FOX (the network that defended itself in court by taking the position that there is no law against distorting or falsifying the News).<BR><BR>.

 

[ZeroZanzibar]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Larry, with all due respect, I just can't be bothered engaging the rest of your post as it really isn't much more than tired blather that could be heard on FOX (the network that defended itself in court by taking the position that there is no law against distorting or falsifying the News). </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I could say the same about you.<BR><BR>Have any generals yet resigned over all these lies and gone public with them?<BR><BR>I would expect there would be many by now if what you say is true. Surely, they would know.<BR><BR>Give me their names.

 

[Freeman]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Proponents of mass surveillance tactics will argue that innocent people should have nothing to hide, and that if eavesdropping on millions of innocent peoples' phone calls prevents another 9/11 (or worse, a nuclear attack) then the intrusions were well worth it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The small problem here is that both proponents as well as opponents fail to grasp that the forces behind this are less than genuine.<BR><BR>The very same *people* / forces that continue to support the War on Drugs - a demonstration in abject failure if ever there were - are behind this initiative. There is abundant evidence that the path of solution to the drug problem is through education, and treatment. The same can be said for a large part of the solution to terrorism and its cause(s), although, as this thread evidences, education is a tough row to hoe.<BR><BR>.

 

[Tweeker]

The crime that will earn Sadam a new necktie was threatening to go to the Euro.<BR><BR>Our money's getting kind of funny, I cant name any generals, but heres name of the most recent Federal Reserve President to resign. Anthony Santomero.<BR><BR>Eric Shinseki, Chief of Staff of the United States Army had his replacement named 14 months in advance of his retirement, which is highly unusual.

 

[Rick A. Hyatt]

What do the following have in common?<BR>- "CIA Operative abuse"/Supposed "Leak" case, Rove, Libby, Frist, Delay, VP<BR>- 1979/1995/2001 Executive Orders permitting NSA "Surveillance" of American Citizens<BR>- 1978 Origin of the FISA Court authorizing "Surveillance" of "Foreign espionage"<BR>- Dick Cheney<BR>- Me<BR>Answer is that a trumped-up Security Breach was written about me in 1978 just after I left enlisted service in 1977. I moved to Maui in 1978. I moved to Wyoming in 1995. I was forced into cross-country employment with SWIFT as part of a trumped up "Investigation." Gary Condit was exposed in 2001, connected to Cheney. Cheney has been very powerful, in various offices, the whole time. I knew him as an "Agent" of the "Office Of Economic Opportunity" in the mid-70's.<BR>The above stories are just "Smoke screens," and it's no mistake that Frist wants to keep everything "Highly Classified" It's no mistake that Condit, Abromoff and certain others were on these Intel Committees, and they're part of the current meltdown in Congress. <BR>All of this, and why? I witnessed Gary Condit and his wife dispose of a "Political Sexual Embarrassment" and was sworn to secrecy in 1977 while in US Army MI. My life has been containerized since, though the above means. Simply put, this "Service" that he offers got him into Congress, and then out of it quick in 2001.<BR>More details can be had on http://www.bloglines/blog/public/RickAHyatt and http://www.rickhyatt.freeservers.com - If the NSA will let you through... Or even read this.