Re: OT - Re: Bush's wiretaps - legal or illegal? (was Even Oprah now believes in the truth)

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 18:38:35 -0700, Chris J. <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 23:24:09 GMT, Grandpa Chuck <Grandpa
>Chuck@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 14:01:37 -0700, Chris J. <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 19:44:13 GMT, Grandpa Chuck <Grandpa
>>>Chuck@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about the "Patriot" act, and
>>>the Department of Homeland Security? My personal opinion is that the
>>>"patriot" act was mostly a law-enforcement wish-list that 9-11 served
>>>as an excuse to enact. I can prove that they already had an almost
>>>identical proposal researched and drawn up over a year before 9-11. I
>>>hope it expires this month, as it's primary uses have nothing to do
>>>with terrorism, and I also found the name smacks of Orwell's 1984
>>>style antics. 
>>
>>I would say you and I are in complete agreement on this misnamed law.
>
>Chuck, please, this is usenet, so we cannot not allow complete
>agreement to stand in the way of a good argument! :-) :-) :-) 
>
>>There is nothing patriotic about the damned thing. I have written to
>>my senators and representative a number of times urging them to repeal
>>the law in its entirety.
>
>There are a few narrow aspects of it that I approve of, such as
>"portable" wiretaps, that allow tapping, per court order, of every com
>device a target has (for example, their cell phones) HOWEVER, I am
>disgusted by it's being billed as anti-terrorist, when it's main uses
>have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism. That's blatant fraud
>IMHO, so I'd like to see the whole thing scrapped. 

I remember only too well how such things were used against M. L. King
and others. 

A close friend wanted to cross into Canada to have dinner with a
friend who had crossed into North Dakota to see him last year. There
weren't any good restaurants on this side so they decided to go a few
miles north of the border. When they went through the crossing, or
attempted to would be more accurate, they would not allow him to enter
Canada. He has never been charged or convicted of any felony. Nothing
more serious than a DWI over ten years before. They said there was
something in his past the precluded him from being able to cross even
for a couple of hours. They would not say what it was. 

The only thing he can figure out is that he was arrested during a
demonstration against the war in Vietnam when he was eighteen years
old. He never served any time or paid any fine. So far as he knows he
was not convicted of anything more than any of the other
demonstrators. He figures the FBI must have started a file on him at
that time and the record is still there.

>
>>>Department of Homeland Security? ARGH.. I can't hear the name without
>>>thinking Komitet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti (State Security
>>>Committee), known in the west by it's initials, KGB. 
>>
>>Yep. It has proven itself to be a total waste of money and just one
>>more money pit. 
>
>Exactly... And, I blame both Bush and the Democrats for this
>abomination. It was after all a Democratic proposal, but Bush agreed
>to it and signed the law creating it. so I blame both. 

You are right. It was purely a politically correct move during a time
of fear. Right after 9/11 if Bush had asked to be made "Dictator for
Life" they would have given it to him. Pathetic, but true.

>
>>If they had done their job there would not have been
>>any questions about what needed to be done when Katrina hit New
>>Orleans.
>
>I have grave misgivings that any agency should be tasked with both
>security and natural disaster preparedness. I feel it's (pardon the
>pun) a recipe for disaster. 

I agree. However, they should all be able to communicate with each
other and given a mandate to cooperate rather than being so provincial
and paranoid that another department might get one up on them.

>
>As for Katrina, I blame (in no particular order) the City government,
>the Federal government, and the State government. There were manifest
>blunders (to put it charitably) on all levels. I'm not saying this to
>try and shift blame away from anyone, but rather to say we can't let
>any of them get away with this travesty. . 

And just before that the phony transportation bill had been passed and
signed into law. Something like eight million dollars in funds for
maintenance and repair of the New Orleans levee had been cut out of
the bill.
 
>
>>>>Are you going to persuade me that Bush was right? NEVER.
>>>
>>>Darn right it's "never", as I don't happen to believe that myself on
>>>most issues!! Personally, I judge him, like any politician, on an
>>>issue-by-issue basis.  For example, I've had serious qualms about the
>>>way the war on terror has been fought since the beginning of Tora
>>>Bora, and it's gotten progressively worse. I don't agree with Bush on
>>>a host of domestic issues, and I consider him and the vast majority of
>>>the Republicans in Congress to be in violation of their own stated
>>>beliefs regarding spending. Ugh, I'll stop now, but that's not the
>>>limit of my objections. 
>>
>>One thing the Bush administration and his followers have accomplished
>>has been turning me and many other moderates into full fledged
>>liberals who are proud to wear the label. 
>
>I'm not a liberal, as I disagree with too many of their policies (such
>as fiscal ones, though today's Republicans are no better on that).

I am not really any more liberal than I ever was. They have just moved
what used to be consider moderate far to the left with their radical
right wing views. I have always believed myself to be a moderate with
very conservative ideas when it comes to our rights, the Constitution
and Bill of Rights.

I have some liberal views such as a desire for a good national health
care program for everyone from cradle to grave.

>Same with what describe themselves as conservative politicians these
>days; I disagree with them far too much. 
>
>I loosely describe myself as a classical conservative. This is NOT the
>same thing as "conservative" in the political vernacular of today, and
>in fact is diametrically opposed to it on many issues (such as
>anything to do with the religious right and it's pet issues).  

Amen, my brother.
 
>
>Chuck, I actually envy you here, because you seem to have found a
>designation and a political movement that you are happy with, while I
>will probably never be able to find such. 

I would like to see a realignment and renaming of our political
parties. Make one Conservative, one Liberal and hopefully one the
Moderate party. When they start to wander away from their ideals they
should be realigned again every ten years.

>
>>The Republican claimed to be financially conservative and defenders of
>>our rights. Now they have proven they are neither.
>
>This former Republican totally agrees, as the issues of individual
>rights are why I left the Republican party (abortion, amongst others,
>as I personally dislike abortion but feel it's reprehensible to try
>and tell another person what to do with their body). 

Laurie and I are in complete agreement with you here.

BTW, I was a registered Republican until they nominated Reagan. To me
that was when the party was sold out.

> The fiscal
>issues (being big spenders) mainly came after I left the party, but
>are equally repulsive to me. 

I agree with spending to feed the hungry, give medical serviced to
everyone, and a guaranteed minimum income to all Americans for
starters. 

I disagree with obscene spending on weapons, etc.

>
>>>OK, if you prefer to end the conversation, I shan't object. However, I
>>>feel that, although there are things we disagree about, there is a
>>>great deal we agree about too. 
>>>
>>
>>You are right Chris. Far too often in recent years I have found myself
>>voting against the candidates I did not want in office rather than
>>voting for ones that I thought had similar views as I do.
>
>Ugh, I sure know that feeling! In fact, I can't ever recall seeing a
>candidate, anywhere, for any office, where I could say "I agree with
>them on most issues". 
>

My representative to the Iowa State Legislature comes pretty close,
but he is in his first term and as such does not weald much power or
influence there. 

They just convicted a terrible man of raping and killing a nine year
old girl here. He was convicted yesterday. Today a bill was introduced
to reinstate the death penalty here in Iowa. We are completely and
totally against the death penalty under any circumstances. A sentence
of life without possibility of parole is in fact a death sentence. Far
too many bills are passed when emotions are high. This reprehensible
murder was the impetus behind the 2000 foot law that says that all sex
offenders in Iowa must live no closer to any school, child care
center, etc. than 2000 feet. It would make a lot more sense to make
them all wear an electronic ankle bracelet and hire enough parole
officers so each one would have no more than twenty offenders to keep
track of. As the law stands now there is nothing to keep them from
walking past any of those places or even hanging around playgrounds in
public parks. By the way, the man in the above case was a friend of
the child's mother even though this man's brother is in jail awaiting
trial for molesting the same girl earlier.
-- 
Grandpa Chuck
-ô¿ô-
  ~

The following information is given with the utmost respect
for the armed forces and civilians who have died in the 
current war in Iraq. According to http://icasualties.org/oif/
The number of Americans killed in Iraq as of Jan. 31, 2006 is 2,243.
United Kingdom = 100 
Other = 103  
Iraqi deaths in excess of 30,000 
according to President Bush - probably many more.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: Civil War Narrowly Averted in Schiavo Case
    ... >You are saying that the 4 members who were trying to prevent the court ... >from mortgaging its reputation to assure a victory for GW Bush were ... There were republican and democratic observers. ... The right thing to do is to follow the law, ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • NYT/edit: A Dangerous New Order
    ... Once President Bush signed the new law on military tribunals, ... making Mr. Bush the first president since the Civil ... Americans' lives" and create "new rights for terrorists." ... Republican campaign machine. ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • Re: Do Republicans and their radical rightwing ilk
    ... That's why Duke Cunningham, Republican, is off to prison. ... Where is the legal basis for his invasion of Iraq? ... Bush a criminal if you like, but when it comes to law, the Republicans ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • Re: Do Republicans and their radical rightwing ilk
    ... It seems Bush has escaped justice for his war crimes in Iraq up to this point I might add. ... I gave you a perfect example of a Republican who committed a crime and who is serving time for it. ... You can play games by calling Bush a criminal if you like, but when it comes to law, the Republicans are not above it. ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • If youre not outraged...
    ... GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous ... still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White ... "'Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,' Bush screamed back. ... President Bush has signed into law a provision ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)
Loading