Re: Political Humor


On Apr 14, 10:37 pm, Tim Daneliuk <tun...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
charlie b wrote:

...

Because both parties are bought and paid for.


That pretty much sums it up.

The (they) CAN-SPAM (you) ACT of 2003 (S-877) which was hastily
passed (almost but unanimously) by the Congress in the Fall of 2003,
specifically to pre-empt a California law [1] that actually made spam
illegal in California, is a good example of that.

Count on the Congress to keep the internet safe for spammers!

Yes, some spammer shave been successfully prosecuted,
under state and Federal Laws, but always for other crimes
incidental to spamming per se.


- a war which is bankrupting the country, both financially
and morally, is six years into it - with no end in site,
making things worse AND the guys we WERE after
and who were the excuse for this war - are still sitting
in the mountains of Pakistan

Then Reason prevailed and someone who can do elementary
math figured out that the cost for this is small
compared to aforementioned entitlements.

It is the other costs of the war with Iraq that hurt us
so.


- we still have a president who thinks that health
care matters should be between the individual
and his or her doctor - oblivious to the fact that
pushing 50 million people don't have a doctor because
they can't afford to see one, even in an emergency
room

Because a good many citizens are moochers who don't care
that the Constitution provides no enumerated right for the
Federal government to intervene in healthcare matters.

Excepting, of course, healthcare that is part of of or affects
interstate commerce. After all (as Thomas pointed out)
if the ICC can justify a Federa Law criminalizing the local
production and consumption of a agricultural commodity
that is not (legally) bought or sold at all, let alone accross
state lines, and which does not even compete with anything
bought or sold accross state lines, or for that matter, even
locally, then the ICC can be used to justify Federal jurisdiction
over almost anything.

And, of course, healthcare SHOULDN't be between a doctor
and their patients. It should be between a patient and
their government - much like the DMV or TSA.

On that point both parties agree.


- the Bill of Rights now has so many "exceptions" thanks
to "signing statements" that we're down to just one
or two - and that's iffy.

Presidential signing statements do not exempt anyone
from anything. Their most obvious legal use would be
to demonstrate mens rea in an impeachment or
criminal prosecution.


And we can thank both parties for this insofar as they
supported the War On Drugs which set the standard for
abusing civil liberties.

Uh, yeah. See above.


- we're doing things that in earlier days got people
convicted and executed as war criminals.

Yes, embarassing people in a war zone prison is now the
moral equivalent of sawing people's heads off.

Don't change the subject.

Dilawar and Habibulah were tortured to death over a
period of several days. At his court-marital Brant
stipulated that shortly before his death he struck one
of the victims FORTY times while his hands were
chained to the ceiling and his feet shackled to the floor.

For his role in murdering an innocent civilian Brant was
allowed to plead guilty to lesser included offenses, and
received a ridiculously light sentence that later was
further reduced--to honorable discharge!

I use Brant as an example because he received the
harshest punishment of any of the murderers convicted
at Baghram. When I compare their sentences to
those handed out to Grainer and others implicated in
far less serious crimes I conclude that Brant's actions
were at best, condoned, if not ordered.

How many nations beside the US forbid the ICRC from
visiting any of their prisons holding international prisoners?


- we've had 6 - or is it 7, Joint Chiefs of Staff Heads

Because they serve at the pleasure of the CIC. This
is still a better plan than letting the military have
no accountability to civilian authority. It is, in fact,
an entirely bogus issue.

The point, as you well know, is that the rank and file
of the officer corps of the US military is fed up at the
reckless, capricious and outright illegal acts of the
Bush administration.

Case in point: Five of the six acting Judge Advocates
General signed an open letter opposing passage of the
administrations proposed Military Commissions Act of
2006, all six testified against it during the Congressional
hearings. Not since the revolt of the admirals has there
been such opposition within the military to a CIC, not
even when a bona fide draft-dodger was in the oval office.
These men were not politicians, or pundits and plainly
they were NOT bucking for promotion. They were concientious
men, dedicated to the law, to the military, and to their
country who went right up to the point of insubordination
in their effort to wake this country up. To no avail, however.
If only at least one of them had big tits.



- thanks to some guy they call Rummy our military is
stretched to the snapping point - but their finally
getting some of the stuff they should have had
when they were told to go fight.

Because the previous president was more interested in
chasing tail than maintaining a rational defense posture.
He not only gutted the military, he turned down the
opportunity - multiple times - to take out the bad guy
who precipitated this whole mess.
When he did respond, he bombed aspirin factories.


That is a pack of lies.

The claim that the Clinton administration turned down
an offer to deliver bin Laden is a distortion of a supposed
offer by arms dealer who claims that he offered, for a fee,
to convince Bashir to extradite bin to Saudi Arabia (not the
US). Two reasons why the plan fell through include the
offeror's past history of failure (withou offering a refund) and the
Saudi King's refusal to cooperate. As Clinton pointed out,
at the time, the US had no intelligence implicating bin Laden
in plots against the US so there was no reason to even offer
to extradite him here.

AFTER bin Laden was implicated in the African embassy
bombings then Clinton later rescinded the prohibition on
assassination specifically for bin Laden. He established
a bin Laden task force to get him. There were four publicly
aknowledged attempts to kill or capture bin Laden during the
Clinton administration. Yet people like you criticized him
for trying to kill bin Laden and destroy his assets, calling it
'wagging the dog', and bombing aspirin factories. And
the Republicans held up funding for armed Predators so
that later when bin Laden was spotted by a Predator,
it was not possible to fire on him.

Bin Laden was implicated in the bombing of the Cole in
February, 2000, shortly after Bush took office. Within
six months, the bin Laden task force had been disbanded
and his name taken off of the official list of international
'terrorists'. I would not go so far as to suggest that was
payback to bin Laden for bombing the Cole, thereby embaressing
the Clinton administration (and by implication, the democrats
and Gore) thus helping to swing a close election to Bush.
But I do suspect that he was getting tired of the frequent
attempts on his life and wanted to see the administration
changed.

The military objectives in Bosnia and Kosovo were accomplished
with minimal casualties, and with the support and cooperation of
our NATO Allies. Those nations are now peaceful and prosperous--
at least compared with Iraq.

The rapid and successful Afghanistan Campaign illustrates the
capability of the US military at the end of the Clinton
Administration.

Need I remind you who it was who SENT US troops into
Somalia, when, and why?


- are still trying to see the logic in "You go to war
with the army you have." when YOU pick the war
and when to start it.

Because, as we all know, war is a rational process
that is managed with the genius of the Harvard and
Yale faculty input, and implemented by Sean Penn
talking dirty.

It was the Clinton Administration that began purchasing
the M1117 to replace the Humvee for use in areas where
personnel were at risk of coming under fire. Rumsfeld,
citing 'other priorities', CANCELED the program in 2002,
during the preparations for the invasion of Iraq 2002.
It was later resumed, not after the invasion began, not
after 'mission accomplished', not after the rise of the
insurgency, but only after the Bush administration began
to take heavy criticism for the poor protection afforded
US troops.


- some outfit called Bear Stearns, apparently a
BIGGEE in the financial game had to be rescued
from bankruptcy by the Federal Government
- there's a "Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis" that no
one who was supposed to see it coming saw
coming

Because the greedy citizens decided that they had
a right to own the property they wanted, not the
one they could afford. When they got caught short,
they demanded the Federal government - again with
no enumerated power to do so - keep them in
homes they could not afford.


Don't forget the greedy lenders who decided to
make mortgages with insufficient equity to cover
their risk in lending to marginal customers.

When they got caught short,
they demanded the Federal government
keep them in homes they obviously were not
competent or honest enough to manage.

Oh, and there is that pesky ICC thing again. There
is interstate commerce in the mortgage industry
after all.


- Enron had a significant part in setting our
national "energy policy" - then gouged the
crap out of California, took the money and
ran - then went bankrupt
:
:
:
:

Because the state of California regulated one
side of the energy supply chain while deregulating
the other side. In so doing, they guaranteed
economic failure which - given the profound
economic stupidity of the citizenry - they then
blamed on the oil bidness.

Enron committed fraud because they were
managed by criminals California regulations
had nothing to do with it. An entire slate of
witnesses testifying before the Congress lied
about meeting with Cheney because the Republicans
on the Committee unanimously voted to not
require that they testify under oath. It is still
a crime to lie in Congressional testimony, oath
or affirmation notwithwstanding. Oddly enough
however, the Bush DOJ did not pursue the matter.


- we had a president who can't pronounce the
word nuclear

But who had better grades than the people who
opposed him in the election cycle

Damn near dead even vs Kerry, and at the same school,
and within a few years of being the same time. They also
had virtually identical SAT scores. So it is reasonable
to conclude that they are close to equal in intelligence.
One may therefor also conclude that the appearance of
a difference in intelligence is an artifact of their choice of
how they appeal to those whom they regard as their
base voters.

So it would appear that Bush's handlers thought acting
dumb would make a favorable impression on those from
whom he needed votes.

and who - for
all his many shortcomings - has been completely
consistent and honest in telling the population
what he intended to do.

Bull*** and lies.

He asked for the Authorization for the Use of Military Force
against Iraq as a means to force Saddam Husseing to open
Iraq up to inspections and disarm. The implication was that
he would only invade in Hussein did not comply. Hussein
did comply. the UNMOVIC had 'unprecedented' (Blix's
exact words) access to Iraqi facilities including those that
had been off-limits to UNSCOM. For the first time ever,
inspectors used unescorted helicopters to arrive on site
within hours of receiving the latest intelligence. The IAEA
unambiguously declared Iraq to be in compliance with the
restrictions on nuclear materials. The yellowcake, reactor
fuel and other materials were still secure under IAEA seal at
Tuwaitha. Regarding the Iraqi missile program, Hussein
agreed to destroy missles that were, at worse, marginally
over the allowed limits. On the chemical and biological
weapons side, inspectors found no evidence of renewed
production or repaired facilities and were making progress
on documenting the destruction of earlier materials.

Then Bush declared that Iraq was obstructing the inspections,
when in fact it was the Bush adminstration that was obstructing
the inspections by foisting false information onto the inspectors,
and invaded anyways.

Bush said that anyone involved in leaking Valery Plame's
identity would be prosecuted, or at least fired, or maybe
asked to eventually resign, or no, maybe what he really
was saying all along was that anyone convicted of crimes
that obstructed the investigation would have his sentence
commuted, or maybe what he really said was he'll pardon
him.

You can tell a politician is lying because you can see his
(or her) lips move. If Bush has told us fewer lies than
other presidents that is mainly because he holds fewer
press conferences. Those he has told have been among
the costliest in our history. Only time will tell if they rise
to the level of Tonkin Bay.



The kittens are now independents - leaning
heavily away from the "republican" party.

The kittens are now disgusted with BOTH parties

Give them a little more time and they will be disgusted
with ALL parties.


[1] (CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE DIVISION 7,
PART 3, CHAPTER 1 ARTICLE 1.8. Restrictions On Unsolicited
Commercial E-mail Advertisers-- Would have made it illegal to send
unsolicited commercial email (e.g. spam) to or from California. The
Federal (they) CAN SPAM (you) law merely imposes some trivially
met requirements on spammers in order to say legal.

--

FF
.