molson_golden2002

lol, an "American Idol" fan. I'm not surprised.

Ali, Bush and Cheney! Ali actually took a stand though, instead of just weasling his way out

Wow, that's quit a question! I guess my answer would involve the circumstances the democracy was to survive in. If say, tomorrow, there is a major energy crisis that lasts for years or requires major changes in the way we live very quickly, that could cause major problems and threaten democratic government. Masses of formerly middle class people unemployed, losing their homes and with nothing to do would be an unhealthy situation. So would several major terrorist attacks. I could easily see a fascist movement develop in this country with a combination of economic uncertanty and terrorist attacks. I don't know what you mean about protecting the gene pool, but fiscal responsibility is a big issue. The baby boomers are retiring and we are already running deficits, wasting money in Iraq and cutting taxes. I read the other day we spend something like $55 billion a year on nursing homes already. Think what that number will be in 10 or 15 years! That could be trouble with that, SS, other medicare and evertything else. That's going to be a mess.

1) First off, we have been moving away from the federated system since we dumped the Articles of Confederation, with the Marshall court, the Civil War, Reconstruction and the Civil Rights movement and the world is still turning, and turning rather well. The states have continued to lose power all along. 2) Wrong, it would mean every person's vote counts equally. So instead of a person from say, Idaho, having more voting power than a person from New York, it would all be equal. Seems to square with the Declaration of Independence to me. 3) And this point is the strangest. I would think that moving the power back to the more populated states would redress a grievence the larger states have. My mother lived in WV, owned hundreds of acres and paid no property taxes at all. Why? Federal funding allowed WV to not have to bother with property taxes. Here is a nice site for you to look at and think on. http://bigpicture.typepad.com/writing/2004...tates_feed.html Here is another one if you can stomach the argument and just look at the facts: http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com..._Welfare_Queens

One thing that is really different is demographics. WNY had a huge role in the Civil War, in many ways. Yet we won so its easier to let bygones be bygones. More importantly, immigrants poured into WNY AFTER the war who had no stake in it at all. Buffalo only had about 100,000 by the time the war was over, and many people moved on. But in the South many more people today are direct decendants of Civil War soldiers. The units are still remembered, as are the battles that in many cases were fought locally. And then there is the race issue which caused the war--yes, slavery caused the civil war--and they are still dealing with that.

Hey, its a start and ya gotta start somewhere http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/813817.html Last update - 18:34 16/01/2007 Israeli, Syrian representatives reach secret understandings By Akiva Eldar, Haaretz Correspondent In a series of secret meetings in Europe between September 2004 and July 2006, Syrians and Israelis formulated understandings for a peace agreement between Israel and Syria. The main points of the understandings are as follows: An agreement of principles will be signed between the two countries, and following the fulfillment of all commitments, a peace agreement will be signed. Advertisement As part of the agreement on principles, Israel will withdraw from the Golan Heights to the lines of 4 June, 1967. The timetable for the withdrawal remained open: Syria demanded the pullout be carried out over a five-year period, while Israel asked for the withdrawal to be spread out over 15 years. At the buffer zone, along Lake Kinneret, a park will be set up for joint use by Israelis and Syrians. The park will cover a significant portion of the Golan Heights. Israelis will be free to access the park and their presence will not be dependent on Syrian approval. Israel will retain control over the use of the waters of the Jordan River and Lake Kinneret. The border area will be demilitarized along a 1:4 ratio (in terms of territory) in Israel's favor. According to the terms, Syria will also agree to end its support for Hezbollah and Hamas and will distance itself from Iran. Click for map of territorial arrangements The document is described as a "non-paper," a document of understandings that is not signed and lacks legal standing - its nature is political. It was prepared in August 2005 and has been updated during a number of meetings in Europe. The meetings were carried out with the knowledge of senior officials in the government of former prime minister Ariel Sharon. The last meeting took place during last summer's war in Lebanon. Government officials received updates on the meetings via the European mediator and also through Dr. Alon Liel, a former director general at the Foreign Ministry, who took part in all the meetings. The European mediator and the Syrian representative in the discussions held eight separate meetings with senior Syrian officials, including Vice President Farouk Shara, Foreign Minister Walid Muallem, and a Syrian intelligence officer with the rank of "general." The contacts ended after the Syrians demanded an end to meetings on an unofficial level and called for a secret meeting at the level of deputy minister, on the Syrian side, with an Israeli official at the rank of a ministry's director general, including the participation of a senior American official. Israel did not agree to this Syrian request. The Syrian representative in the talks, Ibrahim (Abe) Suleiman, an American citizen, had visited Jerusalem and delivered a message to senior officials at the Foreign Ministry regarding the Syrian wish for an agreement with Israel. The Syrians also asked for help in improving their relations with the United States, and particularly in lifting the American embargo on Syria. For his part, the European mediator stressed that the Syrian leadership is concerned that the loss of petroleum revenues will lead to an economic crash in the country and could consequently undermine the stability of the Assad regime. According to Geoffrey Aronson, an American from the Washington-based Foundation for Middle East Peace, who was involved in the talks, an agreement under American auspices would call for Syria to ensure that Hezbollah would limit itself to being solely a political party. He also told Haaretz that Khaled Meshal, Hamas' political bureau chief, based in Damascus, would have to leave the Syrian capital. Syria would also exercise its influence for a solution to the conflict in Iraq, through an agreement between Shi'a leader Muqtada Sadr and the Sunni leadership, and in addition, it would contribute to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including the refugee problem. Aronson said the idea of a park on the Golan Heights allows for the Syrian demand that Israel pull back to the June 4 border, on the one hand, while on the other hand, the park eliminates Israeli concerns that Syrians will have access to the water sources of Lake Kinneret. "This was a serious and honest effort to find creative solutions to practical problems that prevented an agreement from being reached during Barak's [tenure as prime minister] and to create an atmosphere of building confidence between the two sides," he said. It also emerged that one of the Syrian messages to Israel had to do with the ties between Damascus and Tehran. In the message, the Alawi regime - the Assad family being members of the Alawi minority - asserts that it considers itself to be an integral part of the Sunni world and that it objects to the Shi'a theocratic regime, and is particularly opposed to Iran's policy in Iraq. A senior Syrian official stressed that a peace agreement with Israel will enable Syria to distance itself from Iran. Liel refused to divulge details about the meetings but confirmed that they had taken place. He added that meetings on an unofficial level have been a fairly common phenomenon during the past decade. "We insisted on making the existence of meetings known to the relevant parties," Liel said. "Nonetheless, there was no official Israeli connection to the content of the talks and to the ideas that were raised during the meetings." Prior to these meetings, Liel was involved in an effort to further secret talks between Syria and Israel with the aid of Turkish mediation - following a request for assistance President Assad had made to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. That attempt failed following Israel's refusal to hold talks on an official level - and a Syrian refusal to restrict the talks to an "academic level," similar to the framework of the talks that had preceded the Oslo accords. There was no initial formal response from the Prime Minister's Office after the story broke early on Tuesday. But the Israel Radio quoted unnamed senior Israeli officials as stating that Israel is not holding contacts with Syria.

You are right, there are many Republicans who didn't want this. But, it isn't just the leadership. I think the leadership is really a reflection of their base which is mostly the South. And sure, the Dems are guilty, too, not just of some warmongering but of being cowards in the face of this.

Interesting add on to your post: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011607L.shtml Iraq Edges Closer to Iran, With or Without the US By Louise Roug and Borzou Daragahi The Los Angeles Times Tuesday 16 January 2007 Baghdad - The Iraqi government is moving to solidify relations with Iran, even as the United States turns up the rhetorical heat and bolsters its military forces to confront Tehran's influence in Iraq. Iraq's foreign minister, responding to a U.S. raid on an Iranian office in Irbil in northern Iraq last week, said Monday that the government intended to transform similar Iranian agencies into consulates. The minister, Hoshyar Zebari, also said the government planned to negotiate more border entry points with Iran. The U.S. military is still holding five Iranians detained in Thursday's raid. Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, said records seized in the raid and statements made by the detainees showed that at least some of them worked for Iran's intelligence service. "I don't think there is any disagreement on the fact that these folks that we have captured are foreign intelligence agents in this country, working with Iraqis to destabilize Iraq and target coalition forces that are here at Iraq's request," Casey said Monday. Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, added, "We are going after their networks in Iraq." Iraqis, who have echoed Tehran's calls for the U.S. to release the five men, say the three-way standoff that has ensued reveals more about American meddling in Iraqi affairs than about Iranian influence. "We, as Iraqis, have our own interest," Zebari said in an interview with The Times. "We are bound by geographic destiny to live with" Iran, adding that the Iraqi government wanted "to engage them constructively." Zebari's comments reinforced the growing differences between the Iraqi government's approach and that of the Bush administration, which has rejected calls by the nonpartisan Iraq Study Group to open talks with Iran and Syria. Administration officials accuse Iran of sowing anarchy and violence in the region. Zebari's remarks came two days after Iraq and Iran announced a security agreement. "Terrorism threatens not only Iraq but all the regional countries," Iranian radio reported Sherwan Waili, Iraq's national security minister, as saying. The overtures to Tehran also followed Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's appointment last week of a security commander for Baghdad over the objections of U.S. officials, who favored another candidate. American officials oppose the presence in Iraq of Iranian officials and members of the Revolutionary Guard, which is controlled by religious hard-liners in Iran. Washington and Tehran have been at odds for decades and are in a standoff over Iran's nuclear ambitions. But to Iraq, Iran is its biggest trading partner and a source of tourist revenue, mainly from the thousands of Shiite Muslim pilgrims who travel to the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala every year.

Not really sure too many liberals were 'up in arms' over Saddam's death. Or do you mean this liberal: http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20070117/1019221.asp Saddam's death took on a life of its own through the internet and has been an international story. And Pearl's death was tragic and well reported. Do you think each individual soldier who gets killed in Iraq deserves more press? Many Conservatives think the medias wastes too much time on that.

Snicker, ah no, they understood that with the 3/5 Compromise provision that the slaves would count in electing the president. Jefferson, for instance, would never have been "elected' in 1800 and the South really dominated the government up to 1860, largely because of the advantage they had with the 3/5 clause and electoral college. True democracy wouldn't work, of course. This thread really sent you guys over the edge. Its really no big deal. The end of the EC wouldn't be a revolutionary act or lead us straight to Nazism.

Another thing I found interesting was that he had been arrested before. I figured that they would have taken DNA from him at the time and put it in their databank, but perhaps that illegal? Just asking

Glad they caught this animal. I was living in 'student ghetto' on Main street when that happened. Pretty sad all around. More news today: http://buffalonews.com/editorial/20070117/1068723.asp

One the first point you are wrong, as to me not living realty....whatever. How come you never post any thoughts of your own? You just shoot off some nonesense and move on. Contribute something thoughtful, like why the Yahoo! question was silly to you. Can you put together more than two sentances as to why you think that?

I think you are way off base and this post borders on the hysterical. I'm sure you know what Churchill said about democracy, right? Majority is suppose to be balanced by the rule of law, where the minority is protected. Not a perfect system at all, but seeing how humans are involved you can't expect perfection. You bring up gays. I agree, an ignorant, hateful population will not allow gays or other minorities to have their full rights, but we have seen progress on all fronts. Has the Electorial college stopped oppression of minorities? No. And really, the EC's strongest supporters were Southers who benefited from the system that allowed them, to have more power in getting the Presidency. That obviously no longer applies, but it was hardley a Progressive system to begin with as you suggested earlier

Was that fast? Not as fast as 'Mission Accomplished,' though Put a fork in Iraq, its finished. No need sending more of our troops to die to prop up a pro-Iranian government in Baghdad

He went into a dangerous area of the world and was killed. He was a brave guy who took a chance. I'm not sure liberals can take up every death in the world and scream bloody murder. Seems rather absurd of you to even suggest they should.

Nice post. I notice you have a Lincoln quote there. He was actually afraid that the college of electors wouldn't certify his election after the South began seceeding from the Union in 1860. As to the city centers dominating the election, I don't know. I just feel that the will of the majority should be deciding factor. Not that that will solve all the world's problems, but whatever

Ya, I figured the opposition to change would be all partisan. There are a lot of good arguments for and against, actually, but no one really cares about all that, its just about who is going to make out best. No surprise really

Yahoo! is a progressive source? And you are welcome

So you are afraid urban poor voters might vote more?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070116/ap_on_..._popular_vote_2 Because its the right thing to do....

I have a great deal of admiration for reporters like Pearl who go to dangerous places to get the truth. Those reporters who have been killed and wounded covering Iraq are deserving of equal admiration, even as they are dismissed by the American right as a major reason we lost Iraq. So goes the world

I guess its all dependent on Iraqis stepping up to take control of their own government there. I'm sure we can supply them better than Iran does, but who can tell what there reliability will be? I wonder if the people of Basra want to be a part of Shiite Iran or not?

Well, some of us love our country, I won't appologize for that

Cheney speaking about Osama Bin Laden: "They're convinced that the United States will, in fact, pack it in and go home if they just kill enough of us," he said. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070114/ts_al...cs_070114185917 Yes Mr. Cheney, we were not suppose to send our boys there to die you fat, treasonous pig. More from Cheney's greatest hits: "My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." --March 16, 2003 "I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." -- on the Iraq insurgency, June 20, 2005 http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/stupidq...heneyquotes.htm And my personal faves: "I had other priorities in the sixties than military service." –on his five draft deferments, April 5, 1989 "Go !@#$ yourself." --to Sen. Patrick Leahy, during an angry exchange on the Senate floor about profiteering by Halliburton, June 25, 2004