Democrat party ideas...

[bill-pix-trade]

You miss the point - it's all about pushing people around to suit one's taste. Liberals don't care what anyone does, Bill, so long as it's compulsory.

Controlling minds and what is taught is the key to lasting change. There are many things that liberals have done for this country that we all benefit from. My concerns are the lack of acceptance of differing ideas. Hell some of the best people I know are extremely liberal in their politics, but do not stifle the ideas of others. Some of the people I stood with when the Kansas Crazies came to our town come to mind. Although they were surprised to see a Republican with them, they have been since much more understanding of my views now that they know I am not the enemy.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Eeek, politics!

I think Democrats are going to have to speak up much louder or can't keep quiet any longer if there's to be an image improvement. This is the party that cares more about the needs of the ordinary people. The compassionate party.

They haven't been supporting the "ordinary people" though. They put the kabosh on social security changes that would have enriched the "ordinary people" and saved the entire system. They know that the system is badly broken and needs radical improvements and take a stand against any change for political points.

They oppose school vouchers because they're so beholden to the teacher's unions even though practically everyone recognizes the benefits of school choice.

They say they're for ordinary people, but they increase taxes which inevitably leads to lower standards of living and "ordinary people" fall a lot farther than rich people when the economy turns sour (and current dem economic policies will cause it to sour).

This is the great irony of the democratic party, they proclaim that they're the party of the "ordinary people" and yet almost every policy they advocate hurts the "ordinary people". What's even more fun is that dems believe people are stupid and can't see through their electioneering (Fiengold and censure for example) and they keep advocating these policies whereas the Republicans want government further decentralized and to unshackle many of us from the deadly grasp of overregulation and the PC police (shrink government). The Republicans want more power in local hands where our well-educated electorate can formulate policies in the local communities that are best for that particular community and not some edict from up on high (Teddy Kennedy). (like my pun?).

 

[FairyOMother]

But amendments have been added

to the Constitution to keep it timely. It can be done under the right circumstances. Term limits for the presidency only came into existence a couple generations ago, so it's not unheard of.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and I see that all too often w/ our politicians, as the checks & balance system has sort of fallen apart. When all the stars align, so to speak, it seems like carte blanche for whatever party is in power.

I agree with this.

However, term limits are a constitutional issue. Congress does not vote on thing like this.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Any ideas this morning?

 

[Ishmael]

Any ideas this morning?

They want to raise taxes.

Ishmael

 

[Le Jacquelope]

This is where neo cons shut up and a thread gets KILLED

They want to raise taxes.

Well said, Assmeal.

Look how America has defeated tax increases in the past:

The 16th Amendment - defeated!
Social security - defeated!
Bush's repeal social security plan - defeated! (huh?!)
Countless local school bonds and ciggy taxes - defeated!

Stone cold defeated, peeps. Tax increases have no chance in America, nosiree!


Bye bye, Republicans. See ya next thread.

 

[Tungwagger]

They want to raise taxes.

Ishmael

Is that an actual idea?

Or an ingrained reaction to tax cuts?

Unfortunately, they're trying to steer the motorcycle from the back seat...

 

[zipman]

Fiengold is trying to make a name for himself by appealing to the revisionists who are a bit deluded (lets censure the president for daring to try to intercept our enemy's communications to the US). If I were one of the more shrill pundits, I'd say he is representing the aluminum hat crowd well.

Actually, what he is saying is let's censure the president because he is going around the law instead of following it.

Of course the standard tactic for a republican is to try and equate that to being against the faux republican battlecry of homeland security.

Years after 9/11, our port security sucks, airport security sucks and our borders are wide open for just about anyone to cross. But hey, we centralized security and created an enormous inefficient beaurocracy which has accomplished very little at tremendous cost. Let's rejoice.

 

[Gringao]

Actually, what he is saying is let's censure the president because he is going around the law instead of following it.

That's lovely, but Bush didn't go around the law.

 

[zipman]

That's lovely, but Bush didn't go around the law.

A lot of people think he did. Members from both parties have said that they did not view the authorization for the use of force to mean warantless phone taps.

If he didn't, then he has nothing to worry about, does he? In any event, the objection isn't to "providing security" but to the method used.

 

[Gringao]

A lot of people think he did. Members from both parties have said that they did not view the authorization for the use of force to mean warantless phone taps.

If he didn't, then he has nothing to worry about, does he? In any event, the objection isn't to "providing security" but to the method used.

A lot of people are wrong, including those that don't think the AUOF included authorization to tap suspected AQ communications from foreign sources into the US. From the AUOF:

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

The AUOF even mentions the authority already Constititonally conferred on the Executive to do this:

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States

Please note: that's a "whereas" not a "therefore."

Make no mistake: Feingold is throwing big slabs of red meat to the MoveOn pack.

 

[zipman]

A lot of people are wrong, including those that don't think the AUOF included authorization to tap suspected AQ communications from foreign sources into the US. From the AUOF:

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

The AUOF even mentions the authority already Constititonally conferred on the Executive to do this:

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States

Please note: that's a "whereas" not a "therefore."

Make no mistake: Feingold is throwing big slabs of red meat to the MoveOn pack.

That is certainly an accurate representation of the President's viewpoint.

However, the opposing argument is that FISA provides the means for that surveillance and in fact legally limits the precedent of surveillance during war time and clarifies Article II of the Constitution.

As for the Authorization to use force, it is not clear that surveillance constitutes a "use of force."

In addition, the administration sought to include "in the united states" in the draft minutes for the vote for the purpose of justifying exactly this issue and congress did not approve it.

 

[Gringao]

That is certainly an accurate representation of the President's viewpoint.

However, the opposing argument is that FISA provides the means for that surveillance and in fact legally limits the precedent of surveillance during war time and clarifies Article II of the Constitution.

As for the Authorization to use force, it is not clear that surveillance constitutes a "use of force."

In addition, the administration sought to include "in the united states" in the draft minutes for the vote for the purpose of justifying exactly this issue and congress did not approve it.

FISA provides a means, not the only one. It even anticipates other avenues of authorization, like an AUOF.

If this were about communications completely within the US, there might be some grounds for objection. As it involves communications from known or suspected AQ entities from outside the US into the US, there's no doubt it was not only legal, but the right thing to do.

 

[zipman]

FISA provides a means, not the only one. It even anticipates other avenues of authorization, like an AUOF.

If this were about communications completely within the US, there might be some grounds for objection. As it involves communications from known or suspected AQ entities from outside the US into the US, there's no doubt it was not only legal, but the right thing to do.

Where does FISA state this?

 

[Hamletmaschine]

The last Republican to have an idea was Richard Nixon. His brilliant idea was to say that he had a brilliant idea and the other guys didn't. He knew that if he simply repeated that often enough, people would begin to believe it and forget to inquire about the details of his brilliant idea and its workability.

Pure genious. People are still falling for that one.

 

[Gringao]

The last Republican to have an idea was Richard Nixon. His brilliant idea was to say that he had a brilliant idea and the other guys didn't. He knew that if he simply repeated that often enough, people would begin to believe it and forget to inquire about the details of his brilliant idea and its workability.

Pure genious. People are still falling for that one.

I thought it was Reagan when he said he had a different idea on the Cold War: "We win. They lose." You port-siders still haven't gotten over that, have you?

 

[Gringao]

Where does FISA state this?

Give me a little time to dig it up. It's a clause that says that other statutory authorization may be provided, thus nullifying the requirements of FISA.

 

[zipman]

Give me a little time to dig it up. It's a clause that says that other statutory authorization may be provided, thus nullifying the requirements of FISA.

No problem. I'm not challenging you to "win" an argument, I'm seriously interested because I didn't see it when I read through FISA. I did find the following quoted below but I don't see that as authorizing it.

TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1811

§ 1811. Authorization during time of war

Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.

 

[Plasmaball]

You are missing the point. It is not a matter of what is more important. Rowe will not be over turned, and if it is it will be political death for the party responsible. So Abortion is a non issue. Taxes are always an issue.

I said private things. Not Having an abortion in your home.

 

[Hamletmaschine]

I thought it was Reagan when he said he had a different idea on the Cold War: "We win. They lose." You port-siders still haven't gotten over that, have you?

Reagan just did what the US and Brits and their allies had been doing since before the end of WWI, with the exception of that little 10-year detente interlude. I'd hardly call that a new idea.

 

[Gringao]

No problem. I'm not challenging you to "win" an argument, I'm seriously interested because I didn't see it when I read through FISA. I did find the following quoted below but I don't see that as authorizing it.

That pertains to wiretaps entirely within the US, not calls that cross international borders.

 

[Plasmaball]

Fiengold is trying to make a name for himself by appealing to the revisionists who are a bit deluded (lets censure the president for daring to try to intercept our enemy's communications to the US). If I were one of the more shrill pundits, I'd say he is representing the aluminum hat crowd well.

No i am sorry. Next thing you are going to tell me he was grandstanding and when they wanted to vote they he ran.


shrill? how about just stupid. Works for me

 

[Gringao]

Reagan just did what the US and Brits and their allies had been doing since before the end of WWI, with the exception of that little 10-year detente interlude. I'd hardly call that a new idea.

Reagan fought the Cold War. From 1964 on, the rest just managed it.

 

[Gringao]

No problem. I'm not challenging you to "win" an argument, I'm seriously interested because I didn't see it when I read through FISA. I did find the following quoted below but I don't see that as authorizing it.

Gahh....I'm not finding it. I might well be wrong, but I would have sworn the provision existed. Conceded.

 

[Sean]

Reagan fought the Cold War. From 1964 on, the rest just managed it.

I keep hearing that Reagan won the cold war. Anyone care to tell me what, exactly, he did to win it?