Mickey

Contraception including natural family planning instruction and fertility treatments are now banned at public health clinics in Missouri. It just promotes promiscuity among the unwashed. Can't have that. "The House voted 96-59 to delete the funding for contraception and infertility treatments after Rep. Susan Phillips told lawmakers that anti-abortion groups such as Missouri Right to Life were opposed to the spending. "If you hand out contraception to single women, we're saying promiscuity is OK as a state, and I am not in support of that," Phillips, R-Kansas City, said in an interview." Missouri The vote wasn't even close.

Doesn't the President "pass" it too when he signs it into law and refrains from using his veto power? It's easy to send over a budget leaving out what you know they will put back in. Thus you pay no political price for withholding pork from your pork addicted constituency nor shoulder blame for the irresponsible spending it represents. It is smart politics to be sure but shouldn't be mistaken for anything but that.

Fair enough but the Republican Party controls congress, both Houses and the President has been able, with few notable exceptions, to control them. The executive has been able to play a pretty major role in terms of the budget. I note that he hasn't vetoed anything. I don't think congress, either party, can escape responsibility for the budget mess but neither should the President. If there are budget hawks in either party, they are MIA.

Brilliant strategy.

Well, remember, when they are talking about the Patriot Act and surveillance, they are talking about getting a warrant.

Not to quibble but I don't think their execution is so good either.

Funny, I thought I was agreeing with your main point that the proper discussion isn't being had when I said: . I also pointed out that in terms of what kind of society we want, I think people know what they want, the same one they always have had. I then went on to state my own opinion as to why that is and gave an explanation as to why I presented the question I did about kneecaps, freedom and nabbing terrorists. I don't know what everyone in America's position is when it comes to trading freedom for security so you got me there. I never claimed to "know" any such thing. What I did say is that I haven't heard anyone overtly making the argument that we should give up freedom for security. Let me state clearly though, to forestall any accusations from you, that in making that observation I do not claim to have surveyed personally every politician in the United States to determine if my opinion is factually correct. In short, I have done what "I think" everyone else here does, offer my opinion. I am not sure what in the world you mean by screaming "freedom". I have posted pretty extensively for example on NSA wiretapping, FISA and related issues. I don't know why you would reduce my opinions and analysis of such issues to "idiotic process" or "screaming freedom". You may have reached the conclusion that it is not worth trading constitutional freedoms in this context for an enhanced ability to defeat the type of terrorism you identified. I was trying to explain why I thought there were those who have the absolute opposite position, that we should trade them. For the sake of brevity I am not going into details about what freedoms so please don't reduce this to "screaming freedom". For those people anyway, the only argument that might get through to them is that it doesn't even work. I never said for certain that such tactics don't work: I am not willing to accept at face value that they do which is why I asked the poster to explain why we couldn't nab terrorists without such trade-offs. He clearly believed that so I asked him to justify that belief. It is just another way to persuade people to the end result of your viewpoint.

I like this part: How We Will Advance Freedom: Principled in Goals and Pragmatic in Means Speaking out against abuses of human rights I think they really meant: "Speaking out against [those who are critical of us for our own] abuses of human rights"

I think we want the same society we have always had. I don't know anyone who is arguing for a fundamentally less free yet more secure society. I have to beleive that the reason that argument is not being made, overtly at least, is because it would be dead on arrival. I am not sure that the premise that less freedom results in better security is even valid. It always seems to be presented that way almost as if it were a truism that needs no proof. It may be true, but I don't accept that it is at face value hence my question about whether sacrificing freedom is necessary in order to nab terrorists. Breaching one freedom in one instance might prevent one particular attack but these people are not drooling morons, they will simply change tactics. Russia hasn't been shy about how they are dealing with Chechnya and have they really bought any more security than we have? It works the same with torture hence the "24" reference. It is assumed, another truism apparently, that torture will extract meaningul information. Every one here who has posted in support of the use of torture/humiliation tactics has done so primarily based on their belief that it works and will ultimately save lives. I don't accept that on face value. Back in the day, they tortured women accused of witchcraft and eventually they confessed even though it meant death. Either they were really witches or people being tortured will tell you whatever they think you want to hear regardless of whehter it is true or not. I know that is a simplification but the basic point I think holds. I know torture works great for Jack Bauer but in real life I am not so convinced. If less freedom and more torture does not make you any safer, only an apparatchik with a repressed tendency towards sadism would support that approach to anti-terrorism. There are those who would willingly leave us more open to terrorist attacks for the sake of preserving constitutional liberties but there are plenty on the other end who don't care a fig for such liberties if it means being any less safe. I'd be wasting my time talking to them about the important balance between freedom and security, ie, the type of debate you correctly identify as being so often avoided. To engage them you have to get them thinking about the premise that less freedom really does make them safer. Maybe it does but maybe it doesn't. Whether or not that fundamental premise is true is a critical point. After that, its adherents are not really approachable on the issue. There is almost no loss of liberty that can't be justified, minimized, sacrificed or enthusiastically relinquished.

What friends in Iraq have we sh-- on?

You have to understand Joespeak where "waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" roughly translates to "you are right but I can't admit it". Does that help?

Wouldn't that be around 3 first round picks spent in about 4 years to try and get a decent QB? Enough already, lets build a dominant offensive line and I'll bet that suddenly whatever idiot we have back there ends up all pro. How else do you think Del Homme, Gannon, Dilfer, Collins, etc, ever ended up in a Super Bowl?

First question: Mr. Bauer, do you really think that effective law enforcement and terrorist nabbing can only be done in the absence of a meaningful constitution? Second question: Why did you just shoot me in the knee caps?

Come to Syracuse Bib. You'd be close enough to see the Bills and could get seasons to SU basketball. We are known hereabouts as the "Paris of Central New York". As a bonus, you could continue to re-educate me in the ways of the Force.

I don't know if it has been talked about before but the ABA has what I think is a good report with lots of links to other sources analyzing the whole illegal wiretapping issue. It formed the basis for their letter to the President on the issue. It names all the members of the task force which produced the report and includes their bios. It includes William Sessions, FBI director under Bush I and currently on the Board for developing dubya's Prez. Library. As an example, they had this to say about the argument that the Authorization to Use Military Force ("AUMF") gave the Prez. the authority to bypass FISA: "[The AUMF states that] When Congress declares war, the President may permit the Attorney General to authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under FISA for 15 days. Thus, Congress limited the Executive power to engage in electronic surveillance without judicial supervision to 15 days following a formal declaration of war. It is inconceivable that the AUMF, which is not a formal declaration of war, could be fairly read to give the President more power, basically unlimited, than he would have in a declared war." Pretty compelling logic if you ask me. In any event, regardless of where you stand on the issue, the report is an excellent resource to supplement whatever research you are inclined to undergo on the subject. ABA Task Force Report

Is that how you see the balance of powers, each branch having totally separate, never overlapping powers? From the CRS report on the issue: "Foreign intelligence collection is not among Congress’s powers enumerated in Article I of the Constitution, nor is it expressly mentioned in Article II as a responsibility of the President. Yet it is difficult to imagine that the Framers intended to reserve foreign intelligence collection to the states or to deny the authority to the federal government altogether. It is more likely that the power to collect intelligence resides somewhere within the domain of foreign affairs and war powers, both of which areas are inhabited to some degree by the President together with the Congress. The SCOTUS specifically invited congress to legislate with regard to domestic security taps, ie, taps on US soil as opposed to outside the US or inside having to do with crime, not security. The quote: "Given these potential distinctions between Title III criminal surveillances and those involving domestic security, Congress may wish to consider protective standards for the latter which differ from those already prescribed for specified crimes in Title III." And legislate they did. Hence FISA. Which, by the way, has been held to be constitutional several times. The essential analysis for the Courts in analyzing Presidential actions is whether he acts with congress, against it or in its absence. When he acts with the authority of congress, his power is at its utmost for he has all of his own constitutional authority, plus the powers of the congress. His power is weaker when it is in an area where congress is silent and at its weakest where congress has acted for then he can rely on his powers alone. If this were to go to court, the analysis would be based on his power being at its weakest.

What is up with this "piss in your cereal" metaphor? I am hearing it all over lately. My secretary used it the other day about another co-worker: "Someone must have pissed in her Froot-Loops". Yeeeech. Where was I when this one snuck in to the zeitgeist?

It is the same argument over and over. They confuse "inherent authority" with "plenary power" or "absolute power" or "unrestrainable power", etc. No one seriously doubts that the President has inherent authority to conduct foreign surveillance. By the same token, that authority can be regulated, clarified and it is, by FISA. CSR reports are pretty good at setting out the arguments.

Nothing wrong with that, too bad they didn't ask for that before they went out and broke the law. I don't get that "I'd prefer to blah,blah,blah" stuff. As if we can't do both, fix any problems in the law and censure Bush for breaking it. Besides, just why they broke the law, whether there were technical problems or what, we do not know. There has been no investigation to determine that and the administration has offered up excuses du jour for months now. I am not taking anything, anything the Schiavo-WMD troop say on faith. Lieberman pretty much says he thinks they broke the law when he says he doesn't agree with the administration's "legal judgement" but at the same time, he doesn't want censure, he just wants to fix the law. That is classic politician double talk, taking both sides at once to please all of his constituents. He is against breaking the law and against disciplining the law breaker. He is thinks the law was broken but he doesn't want to declare, through censure, that it was broken. It is amusing to watch a man tap-dance with his tongue.

Try looking at this another way CTM. There isn't going to be an investigation or detailed explanation. However, if the censure resolution comes to a vote, there will be those who will argue that they can't reach a conclusion without an investigation so they can't possibly vote. Of course, those same people will be the ones who prevented an investigation in the first place. This puts them on the hot spot. If you think that based on what you know, it is illegal, then vote for censure. If you think that based on what you know, you can't make up your mind, then abstain after a speech about how you can't make up your mind due to the lack of an investigation you blocked. If you think that based on what you know, it is legal, then vote against censure. There, everyone goes on the record, one they can't avoid in November. No more of this "I am deeply troubled..." or "I am gravely concerned..." bullshite. Their constituents will know where they stand and vote accordingly. Really, we talk a lot around here about politicians talking out both sides, never saying what they mean or mean what they are saying. Why not support a tactic to try and force them to drop the bs and say where they stand?

I see, so 9-11 is Clinton's fault. What do you base your comment on that the administration didn't seem to care? Was their attempt to assasinate bin laden with a cruise missile what you mean by not caring? Would the ten people arrested, convicted and sentenced to 240 years or so inconnection with the 1993 bombing another example of their not seeming to care? Was ordering the Navy to maintain two Los Angeles-class attack submarines on permanent station in the nearest available waters, enabling the U.S. military to place Tomahawk cruise missiles on any target in Afghanistan within about six hours of receiving the order also an example of how they just didn't care? How about authorizing the killing of bin Laden as well as his henchmen, even to the point of shooting down aircraft in which they travelled? How about the cells and attacks disrupted during the millenium celebrations? Actually, "this" started long before 1993. Yousef started planning the attack in 1991. Recall that Clinton became President on January 20, 1993. The bombing was on February 26, 1993 just a month later. Far be it from me to blame the administration of George H. Bush for that attack or to insinuate that it resulted from him seeming not to care. That would be unseemly. Bin Laden started AQ in 1988. The Clinton administration made it clear when they left office that Bin Laden was the biggest threat the US faced. Unfortunately, the Bushies were obsessed with Saddam. If you want to argue that neither Clinton nor any other branch of the government did enough, fine. Implying that they did nothing though betrays more than just a touch of partisanship. What Clinton did might not have been enough but feel free to compare it to what the Bushies did in the months between taking the oath of office and 9-11.

Is that your news flash, that Gore, who talked alot about voter fraud 6 years ago says he'll let others talk now? I guess if you want to try that hard to find some reason to say something nasty about him it doesn't really matter what he says now does it?

What is sad is that kind of shite actually works pretty well.

I'd like to see that list as well. I have searched and so far I found that the number of Clinton administration officials convicted of anything appears to be one. There are a bunch of conserv-o-nut web sites claiming that the Clinton's had more convictions than any other but what they do is limit Reagan, Bush and Nixon convictions to governemnt officials but when it comes to Clinton, they include any business or individual "associated with" the "Clinton machine". Of course, they define what "associated with" means and just what the heck the "Clinton machine" is supposed to include. For us mere mortals, unable to leap the tallest truth in a single bound, we must use the more mundane stat, ie, actual members of the administration convicted of a crime. The one conviction I could find was Henry Cisneros who was HUD Secretary. You may remember him better by his well earned title of "Public Enemy No. 1". Time was, mothers scared their children with stories about Cisneros to get them to eat their vegetables. If your stomache can stand it, here are the appallingly gory details of his heinous crimes: He lied in his FBI background check about money he paid to a mistress. He told them about the mistress and that he was paying her. What was the great and terrible lie he told? He said he paid her "about" 120k when he paid her, according to prosecutors anyway, 250k. I know, shocking isn't it? Oh, the unmitigated horror of it all. Some might say it was his money and if he wanted to pay a mistress with it, that was his business. He "lied" about it on the background check though so his career went in the crapper. He was originally indicted on all sorts of things but the mistress herself ended up pleading guilty to falsifying audio taped evidence against Cisneros. In fact, she pled guilty to 28 counts of fraud. Cisneros had long since admitted to the affair and reconciled with his wife before all of this came down. Even so, I think it was worth it in the end. All it cost us was $9 Million to catch him redhanded underestimating money he gave to his mistress. He got no time, just a 10k fine. Thank God he didn't get away with that crap. Anyway, I wouldn't mind seeing a list of actual administration officials that were paraded in handcuffs as alleged.

What am I missing as far as the line is concerned? Runyan has 10 years on him and plays RT, not LT. This unit was arguably the worst in the entire NFL last year. I don't see it taking much of a step forward by adding Runyan and a second or third round rookie guard. We had Lee Evans, Eric Moulds and Willis last year. That is plenty of talent at the skill positions but it did not matter because of the offensive line. What I picture here is watching Losman/Holcomb getting nailed while all these wonderful TE's run around wide open long after the play is over. We have fallen for the giltz and glam of skill players before. I want some hogs. Big, fat, ugly, smelly, dirty, blocking mo-fo hogs.