Seems that Kerry/Edwards might bring us MORE spying domesticly:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5388509/site/newsweek

WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
Newsweek
Updated: 6:55 p.m. ET July 07, 2004

July 7 - The selection of Sen. John Edwards as John Kerry’s running mate has raised concerns inside the FBI and among civil-liberties groups that the North Carolina senator will use the campaign to promote his controversial proposal to create a new domestic spy agency.

For the past 18 months, Edwards has been perhaps the Senate’s foremost champion of a much-debated proposal to strip the bureau of its intelligence-gathering functions and turn them over to a new domestic spy agency patterned after Britain’s M.I.5.

Edwards’s promotion of the idea has created friction between him and FBI Director Robert Mueller who, along with other bureau officials, has warned that such a move would spark renewed turmoil within the U.S. intelligence community that would hinder the war on terrorism. It also has stirred the fears of civil-liberties groups, who believe such an agency would inevitably end up spying on political dissidents and religious groups.

But Edwards has refused to back down—and there are signs that Kerry himself may be warm to the idea. “He thinks it’s still the way to go,” said Mike Briggs, Edwards’s Senate press secretary on Wednesday when asked about the M.I.5 proposal.

Indeed, in an op-ed article for a North Carolina newspaper as recently as two months ago, Edwards wrote “that the FBI has failed as an intelligence agency.” He also dismissed Mueller’s own efforts to reform the FBI to make it more attentive to intelligence gathering, as opposed to strict law enforcement.

Despite receiving numerous briefings from the FBI director on the subject, which Edwards would have received as a member of both the Senate Judiciary Committee and Senate Intelligence Committee, “I have heard nothing that gives me confidence that the proposed changes will enable the FBI to more effectively collect intelligence on the plans and intentions of terrorists,” Edwards wrote in a May 2, 2004, op-ed in the Raleigh News and Observer.

Although Kerry himself has talked more vaguely about reforming intelligence in his major campaign speeches, a little noticed “Defending the American Homeland” plan on his campaign Web site seems to reach a similar conclusion as Edwards on the subject.

“Many of the examinations of 9/11 have raised serious questions about whether the FBI is the right agency to conduct domestic intelligence collection and analysis,” the Kerry plan states in a section entitled “Reforming Domestic Intelligence.” “America needs an independent intelligence capability that focuses explicitly on domestic intelligence.” A senior Kerry campaign official said that language—taken from a fact sheet handed out after a Kerry speech to a firefighters' group in March 2003—was not intended to specifically endorse an M.I.5 over a beefed up intelligence function within the FBI. "We've been back and forth on this issue—and it's still not determined," the campaign official said.

The idea of creating a new domestic spy agency first received wide currency in the wake of the September 11 attacks and has been debated intensely by the 9/11 commission. The panel is due to make its recommendations for intelligence reform later this month. But sources inside the commission say the prospect of such a major overhaul—along with its profound implications for civil liberties—has caused many panel members to shrink from such a step and favor less sweeping recommendations to improve intelligence gathering inside the country.

Indeed, top FBI officials had until this week concluded that Mueller’s own reform efforts—including a recent proposal to create a new “intelligence directorate” within the FBI—had pretty much put the matter to rest. “We’re not too worried about that,” said one senior bureau official about the M.I.5 proposal.

Now, however, the prospect that the Kerry-Edwards ticket might push the M.I.5 idea could swiftly change the political dynamic. Since late 2002, in speeches and on the Senate floor, Edwards has argued that the failures of the FBI to pick up the trail of the 9/11 hijackers graphically shows the bureau’s fundamental deficiencies in intelligence gathering. As a law-enforcement agency, the FBI is by culture and practice focused on arresting, prosecuting and convicting criminals—not collecting fragmentary bits of intelligence about potential terrorists and then analyzing the information to make sense of it, he has said.

“Asking a law-enforcement agency to manage intelligence is like trying to jam a square peg into a round hole,” Edwards said in a December 2002 speech to the Brookings Institution. “The FBI … builds cases rather than connecting dots, and it keeps information secret rather than getting it to those who can use it stop the terrorists.”

Edwards’s repeated pounding away on the subject early last year annoyed top FBI officials. Some privately expressed irritation, suggesting that the politically ambitious first-term senator had seized on the idea as a vehicle for his presidential campaign. At one point, Mueller appealed to Edwards to hold off introducing legislation on the subject until the FBI director could brief him about what he was doing to correct the problem. Edwards went ahead and introduced his bill anyway in February 2003—and then took Mueller up on his offer, a sequence that did not go down well among some of Mueller’s deputies.

Mueller’s own reform efforts have revolved around making terrorism the FBI’s top priority, beefing up the bureau’s own intelligence and analytic functions and bringing in fresh managers with backgrounds in the intelligence community. But bureau officials argue that creating an entirely new agency dedicated solely to spying inside the United States would only create new bureaucratic rivalries—especially because the bureau law-enforcement agents would still be needed to develop evidence for criminal prosecutions. “You can’t separate criminal prosecutions, terrorism and foreign intelligence,” said one top FBI manager.

Civil-liberties groups have other concerns about the Edwards plan. For decades, FBI agents who seek to develop evidence about potential domestic threats have operated under tight Justice Department guidelines; those guidelines require there be grounds to believe targets are engaged in criminal acts. A new domestic spy agency would not be so encumbered, the critics say. In an effort to insulate himself from such criticism, Edwards had proposed steps to curb potential excesses by a domestic spying agency, such as requiring approval from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for infiltrating domestic political or religious groups. But some civil-liberties advocates say such steps would be insufficient—the FISA court has historically acted as a rubber stamp, critics say—and that a domestic-intelligence agency such as Edwards has advocated would inevitably be tempted to spy on legitimate dissenters.

“Senator Edwards’s proposal ignored the serious civil-liberties problems it would have caused,” said Kate Martin of the Center for National Security Studies. She said she hopes the Democratic candidates will await the full report of the 9/11 commission before pushing the idea any further and “not make this a political issue.”

Ironically, others say Edwards’s selection could be the political kiss of death for the M.I.5 plan—at least within the Bush administration. Until recently, there had been strong indications that some White House officials, especially national-security adviser Condoleezza Rice, were leaning toward adopting the idea once the 9/11 commission comes out with their report. But now, with Edwards so strongly identified with it, it would be highly unlikely the Bush administration would be tempted to pursue such a course—if only because administration officials would then be accused of stealing from one of their rivals, said Jim Dempsey, the executive director of the Center for Democracy and Technology. “They’ll never support it now,” said Dempsey.

Just one more reason NOT to vote for these two morons!

Sorry guys. Come up with someone better than Kerry (and Edwards). I'm voting for Bush again

Yes me too, I ll go with the devil I know rather than the devil I dont know. When the dems get some good candidates to represent our party, then I will vote for my party again again.

Seems of late, ever president has tried to make a new arm of government. These new government agencies do not come for free and the cost to get them up and running are astromonical. Government is already to big and topheavy. It makes a constant drain on the ecomony and adding new branches doesn't make it such a good thing. Only thing goverment does well is foster its self into getting bigger and protecting its turf so that it has a reason to continue to exist. For the average citizen, it is an unneccessary maze where if you need the co-operation of two branches almost always there will be delays and problems to no end.

Simply at present, our political system is broke and there doesn't seem to be any hope of fixing it without throwing every thing out and starting over. Trouble is that isn't an easy task nor a really desirable one when looking at what that would mean for the country.

Having to vote for the devil you know as opposed to the devil you don't is just a symptom that reflects that. This isn't the only election of late that hasn't had a choice when it comes to the candidates. There seems to be this chain of one after another. Our policital system is showing just how out of touch it is with its citizens and their needs.

How can you possibly vote for George Bush. He's an idiot. Cheney and Ashcroft are pure evil.

What's wrong with you?? How can a vote FOR George Bush be preferable to JUST NOT VOTING AT ALL (or voting for one of the stray 3rd party candidates).

Don't help this dope get reelected. Our country has suffered enough.

Who cares what the agency is called.

So carla60626, you would rather elect someone who is gonna do MORE SPYING on all of us?

jeez America, don't you have a 3rd party?


I perfer the UK system:

Labour (Blair)
Conservative (Howard)
Liberal Democrat (Kennedy)

each get around 1/3 of the votes. Following the war in Iraq labour dropped from 1st to 3rd place in local polls.

When you have 3 parties (and more can apply) people can vote on the policies they want, not on which leader they dislike the least.
In this system going against policy directly affects votes.

UHM.....
they said they would strip the fbi of said intelligence capabilities and create a new organization.

This organization will likely not be covered under the information sharing in the patriot act.

But even if so... its still the same capability which has been there all along.

I dont understand the paranoia.

The article posted is vague and intended to arouse fear. We don't know what such an agency would do, even in the unlikely event that the proposal would be passed and implemented.

But I do know what GB and his cronies have done and are doing and it's far more dangerous to my liberty. Take a look at the group of judges he's trying force through--a nasty bunch of radical conservatives.

the FBI already has "lists" on legitimate dissenters..

I tend to agree with carla

Further.. if its a democrat trying to make major changes to government you can count on the shrill voices of radical republicans to taddle on them continuously.

Remember that talk radio is dominated by people who will air stories just to lambaste a democrat.

"How can you possibly vote for George Bush. He's an idiot. Cheney and Ashcroft are pure evil."

So are Kerry and Edwards. Go figure.

I'm voting a split ticket, with Bush for prez.

"...if its a democrat trying to make major changes to government you can count on the shrill voices of radical republicans to taddle on them continuously."

I don't see how that's any different that dems who cry about everything that reps do. That's all that ever happens.. just different parties do the bitching at different times (so vote a split ticket).

"I perfer the UK system"

For the sake of our freedom.. back to britain!

like i said
these democrats are gonna fuck everything up outlaw recording tech so no citizen can record corruption
and the fuck up the economy so those greedy assholes can rebuild it and take all the credit

What democrats are going to do that? And who is going to be rebuilding the economy? Be more specific.

and theyw ill tax my eyeballs out to pay for it
this is why i m not voting for them
at all
id rather have bush still in then those two liars
the democrats made
pdea
pirate
and induce
and these two preach freedom
when they know nothing of the word
and it sickens me to see mike moore taking the democrats side
its all propaghanda
and all lies just like clinton
just like gray davis
we better not elect kerry or bush
IM VOTING NADER
FUCK THOSE TWO

"the democrats made
pdea
pirate
and induce"

Do you know who Orrin Hatch is and are you aware that he's a republican?

"and theyw ill tax my eyeballs out to pay for it"

Pay for what?

theg overnment has shut down eff
its been hacked
awhat a coincidence
it goes down just before election month

"the overnment has shut down eff
its been hacked
awhat a coincidence
it goes down just before election month"

It isn't just before election month. That's just until November. It hasn't been shut down by the government. You seriously need to sober up or something.

*not until November I mean. Dude, you need to calm down a little.

It's just as well you don't vote for Kerry, anyways. Either he'll get shot a week into office, or Congress won't listen to him.

And, hell... Bush has done so much good for us. We have so such a stronger stranglehold on the rest of the world, there's no defeating capitalism! America is now unstoppable, even mightier than before. With this unbridled power, the world will serve as our milk cows, and the poverty class in our "Homeland" will have no choice but to succumb to the will of the rich and truly powerful.

As usual, the rich always wins, and the poor is put in it's place. We'll teach those dirty consumers for buying from us.

Kerry is just as rich as any other politician, including Bush. Good points though.

How is it that Bush made unprecedented worldwide support turn into unprecedented worldwide hatred?

"The article posted is vague and intended to arouse fear"

I agree. Why was I the only one saying that exact same thing when it was the other way around?

Kerry and Edwards aren't pure evil. At the most, somewhat misguided about a few things. But on the whole, they are acceptable candidates.

Cheney and Ashcroft are evil incarnate. And Bush is as dumb as a box of rocks.

People who vote for Bush are just as dumb.
I'm sick to death of idiots.

I hate it when you get stuck between a rock in a hard place.

I'm voting for Mickey Mouse.

carla, youre wrong about bush.. he's as dumb as a single rock..
a box of rocks would have more bacteria, and those have a slight intelligence which would tip the scale.

LOL

More proof that the Kerry-Edwards ticket are not the saviors for our cause and are not much difference from the current administration. Kerry and Bush, Kerry in the pockets of sneakypigmedia, Bush in the pockets of sneakybigoil. Both candidates are two filthy hands of the same face.

I honestly think kerry is more level haeded on this issue than some on staff here make it out to be.

He wants to have concerted effort put toward a solution.

Bush's cronies just want every evil "digital thief" in jail.

carla, what do you have against rocks, anyway?

"Kerry and Edwards aren't pure evil." (Two really rich bastards, one who married it, one who stole it from his clients, both pretending to be "men of the people") One an admitted war criminal, the other with no international experience. One who flip-flops like a fish on land, one who sounds conservative. Sorry, the list goes on. I'll keep my guns & my SUV, and continue to believe that "global warming" is not caused by man, but by natural variations in solar activity. At the most, somewhat misguided about a few things. EVERYTHING But on the whole, they are acceptable candidates. TO THE FRENCH

Cheney and Ashcroft are evil incarnate. And Bush is as dumb as a box of rocks. You got a Harvard MBA, Carla?

People who vote for Bush are just as dumb.
I'm sick to death of idiots.

Sorry, dear, but if your idea of Bush hurting the country is a booming stock market, low unemployment, rising profits in every industrial sector, and actually doing something about terrorism instead of just whining about it, you are the dumb one, and may God take pity on your poor, misguided Liberal soul. And when you are in trouble, don't expect help from someone armed, they can tell you're anti-gun just by looking at you.

It all sounds damn stupid to me.
How about these three words: stem cell research.
I have a BA, MA and JD. And a bad case of PMS. (So I think I could hold my own against some jerk with a gun!)

Anyway, I'm going to remove myself from this discussion before someone gets hurt.

I know Bush has already screwed up as a straightforward indemnitor to a sovereign nation. All the big words aside, I'll give Kerry a fucking shot. It's only a matter of a majority also wanting to give him a chance, a republican infested congress accepting his role as economic big dick, and Bush failing in rigging another election.

Of course, if Bush were re-elected... how much more damage could he really due? With our control of the oil in Iraq, our defecit could easily and quickly made into a surplus. He would immedietly be considered one of the most successful Presidents in history.

Especially... if he does it before the next election. Finish him! Fatality. Bush-Touzoku Wins.

"People who vote for Bush are just as dumb. I'm sick to death of idiots."

People who vote for Kerry are dumber.

Here's some evidence for you: "...and Bush failing in rigging another election."

Riiiight. Bush rigged the election. Just because it's hard to count millions upon millions of ballots, especially when everybody is bitching about the definition of a "hanging chad" doesn't mean the candidate who won rigged it. Gore won the popular vote.. maybe Al just didn't rig it well enough. Fucking idiots.

The middle class and poor people pay more taxes, under this administration’s policies, than at any other time in American history.

Don't believe the hype. republicans are for higher taxes for the middle class and lower class but for less taxes for the rich. This is a quantifiable and indisputable fact.

If you are rich then you have a rational basis for supporting the conservatives in this country for tax purposes. However, if you are not rich and you support the Republicans because you think thay will lower your taxes you are either, crazy or stupid.

The Federal government lowered income taxes and lowered the amount of funding given to the states for everything from funds for police to funds for education. Then the states raised taxes, and fees to make up for the shortfall, that are primarily paid by the middle and lower classes.

Thing is, it doesn't matter which side you favor as being the better side. When you look at it, there is a whole bunch of stuff you don't like about the side you prefer.

That is exaclty what I mean by no choice. Now one of the most popular ideas that both the Dems and the Reps like going on out there is that a vote for an independant is throwing your vote away. No it isn't. Throwing your vote away is not liking either enough to vote for Mikey Mouse as a protest vote.

If you don't like what you see in the major candidates then by all means vote the independant. Doesn't matter if it is a protest vote because you don't like who is offered or if you like what the indepenant stands for. Reads the same way to the others. You didn't like them enough to vote for them. Get a grass roots ground swell of this, I promise you it will be heard in Washington as well as the major parties if they want to continue to be in politics. A no vote at all or a frivious vote is read the same way, you simply didn't care enough to vote and then whoever does vote are the only ones that will be counted.

Leaving politics out of it....such a plan would still be dangerous because now we would have a CIA equivalent that would do domestic spying that would basically have the same powers as the CIA and could do pretty much the same things and get away with it. The FBI on the other hand must watch it's P's and Q's and is a law enforcement agency that must play by certain rules.(even though we all know they break the rules if they think they can get away with it) This would be a major assault on our civil rights to have such a thing and would probably become the evidence gathering puppet of the RIAA/MPAA/BSA etc. They would still probaly fall under DOJ, just be separate from the FBI and in theory would do the terrorism job domestically which the FBI is now tasked to do. That would probably be the justification of having such an organization. Beware of wolves in sheeps clothing!

I like that post wet1, and I agree with boogieman too.

I am afraid that no matter who wins, our civil rights will be in danger and will be a target for big corps and the government to gain more power, especially on the net. The way to have your voice heard on the issue of civil rights is not by voting. History tell us this.. if you can even call it history..it wasn't long ago. If we want to protect our civil rights, then we have to do more than write letters and vote.

A few facts to interject:
Bush is against using Federal money to fund stem cell research using fetal/embryonic sources. This is in line with his Christian belief that life begins at conception. No waffling there, kudos for character. Funding is available for non-fetal sources such as placental and umbilical. Besides, private industry should fund this research, NOT the federal government. The firm I work for is investing their own money, and with it the chance of reaping the financial rewards. Federal money is just pissing away the taxpayers' money since there is never a financial return.

raoulduke1: Check out the data at www.irs.gov the "poor" pay NO taxes, and even get some of mine as a "refund" for continuing to breed. The middle class pays very low taxes as well. Why shouldn't the "rich" get the biggest tax breaks? They pay the MOST TAXES! As it is, the top 50% of earners pay an unfairly high percentage of the taxes. Yep, I'm one of them, thanks to my hard work, and I enjoyed every $ of my tax cut.

You know, to me running with bulls in Spain is dumb.

But there are some things that I do get confused about:

Fahrenheit 9/11 is a documentary?

I don't own an SUV but my family does.

I voted for the war in Iraq, but I voted against funding it.

I believe life begins at conception, but I'm for choice.

I'm against the PATROIT act but I believe we need a home spy agency.

Where is my reasoning failing trying to grasp Kerry's position?

Good post there Baldrocker

Kerry can't make up his mind on anything, or he is trying to kiss the asses of all the voters

Politicians all have this bad habit of telling voters "what they want to hear". Telling someone what they want to hear and actually following through on what you told that someone are two different things. The fact is here that no matter what any of the presidential candidates may promise....it still has to be approved by congress before it can become law. So, even the best of intended plans promised in an election, may never come to pass if the congress doesn't agree with the president. Its dog eat dog out there.

raoulduke1: Check out the data at www.irs.gov the "poor" pay NO taxes, and even get some of mine as a "refund"

I can say from experience that this is so. I once was on thewelfare system and I can tell you that if you have kids and you fall within the tax guidelines, then you receive everything back of the taxes taken out of your pay. The some of mine "refund" is called earned income credit, which is money received back in addition to what was taken out of your pay. This too is based on how big the family is. So, basically...if you are poor and you didn't work, then you never had any taxes withheld to begin with, but you can still file and claim earned income credit if you have kids. So how can you give a tax cut to someone that never actually paid any taxes to begin with?

Dems hate Republicans and think they're evil and stupid. Republicans hate democrats and think they're evil and stupid.

Reading this debate has reenforced my lack of respect for the political process when we can't intellegently discuss issues without being personal just because we disagree. I don't think people who vote for Bush or Kerry are stupid. What's stupid is the attitude that if someone doesn't agree with a certin viewpoint, they are stupid. Coming from intellegent well educated people that's suprising where we're taught to respect others ideas.

reguardless who wins, nothing will change.

Just keep talking, carla. I think rhetoric as extreme as yours can only help the very people you declaim as evil and dumb. By the way, how can a dumb rock be evil? Evil implies conscious intent.

Note most recent AP poll showing Bush with slight gain over Kerry. You think this spell of Michael Moore hatred is not causing a backlash? You liberals are really overplaying your hand.

Like I say, keep it up. Please. We don't want "spymaster" Edwards anywhere near the Oval Office. Definitely not one heartbeat away.

Gee...this news post has sure caused quite a stir.....

...just home from my community meeting, trying to prevent the city and developers from ruining our lakefront...

Just one correction: I didn't say Bush was evil -- Cheney and Ashcroft are. Bush is dumb.

Question: If better educated people are generally liberal, does that make them wise or foolish?

"Question: If better educated people are generally liberal, does that make them wise or foolish?"

How about TERRIBLY MISGUIDED

when name calling is involved, I would say foolish.

No wonder Republicans don't want to invest (tax) money in educating the masses.

SuitablyTwisted wrote, in part: "... One who flip-flops like a fish on land..." [referring to Kerry]

Guess what? Check out the following information:

DUBYA'S AMAZING FLIP-FLOPS

By Dan Payne  |  June 5, 2004

BUSH-CHENEY team likes to say president is "steadfast." And John Kerry is "flip-flopper." But Senator Kerry is bolted to the floor compared to Bush. President Bush is no more steadfast than Tony Soprano is faithful.

Never seriously burdened by reality, Bush says departing CIA chief George Tenet did "superb job." That assumes Tenet's job was to fail miserably to anticipate 9/11 and to goad Bush into going to war under false pretenses. Bush doublespeak is matched only by his amazing flip-flops, which are underreported. Armchair Strategist aims to fix this, with help from Center for American Progress think tank. . .

Bush can't get enough of Chalabi. Chalabi cons Bush's neocons into toppling Saddam; sits behind Laura Bush at State of Union speech; always looks marvelous in custom-made $1,000 suits. US paid him $335,000 a month for "intelligence."

US troops raid Chalabi's house. US soldiers raided Chalabi's home and seized documents and computers. (Hope they didn't wrinkle his suits.) While on US payroll, told Iran that US had cracked code for Iran's secret communications. Time magazine says, "The US's abandonment of Chalabi may prove to be the most head-snapping reversal of all."

Bush called Osama number one priority. "There's an old poster out West that says, `Wanted: Dead or Alive.' . . . The most important thing is to find Osama bin Laden. It's our Number One priority. We will not rest until we have found him." (Sept. 13 and 16, 2001.)

Now Bush doesn't care about him. "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important." (March 13, 2002.)

Cheney: We will be greeted as liberators. On "Face the Nation" Cheney predicts war in Iraq will "go relatively quickly." On "Meet the Press," says "things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." (March 16, 2003.)

Bush: That's Cheney's story, and I'm sticking with it.

On Feb. 7, 2004, Tim Russert asks: "It's now nearly a year, and we are in a very difficult situation. Did we miscalculate how we would be treated and received in Iraq?"

Bush: "Well, I think we are welcomed in Iraq." (Pentagon reports 820 US troops killed in Iraq and 4,682 injured, June 3, 2004.)

Bush opposes Department of Homeland Security. Former press secretary Ari Fleischer says Bush told Congress, "There does not need to be a Cabinet-level Office of Homeland Security." (White House press briefing, Oct. 24, 2001.)

Bush supports Department of Homeland Security. "So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America." (June 6, 2002.) 

Bush: Al Qaeda and Saddam same. "You can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." (Sept. 25, 2002.)

Bush: Saddam had no role in 9/11. "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." (Sept. 17, 2003.)

Bush acrobatics on 9/11 commission. Bush was against creating commission, then for it. Against National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice testifying, then for it. Against testifying himself, then for it. Said he'd testify only for one hour. Then said no time limit but had to have Cheney along -- to keep their stories straight.

Bush says president should talk OPEC into lower prices. "The president ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots . . . The president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price." (Jan. 26, 2000.)

But not this president. With gas prices soaring, President Bush refuses to "personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds." (Miami Herald, April 1, 2004.)

Bush then: gay marriage is state issue. "The states can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." ("Larry King Live," Feb. 15, 2000.)

Bush now: for constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." (Feb. 24, 2004.)

Flip-flops, ad nauseam. Against nation-building, then for it. Found WMD, then lost them. Against McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, then signed it into law. Tariffs? Not gonna have 'em; puts 'em on steel, then lifts 'em. Mocks Al Gore's idea for hybrid fuel car; calls for $1.3 billion to develop one. For extending ban on assault weapons in 2001; now against it.

Fashion idea for DNC conventioneers: Bush flip-flop shoes. If it flips, wear it!

(Dan Payne is a Boston-based media consultant.
His column appears regularly in the Globe.) 

© Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.

Thank you much, LetLightShine!! I love this article. Most politicians change their minds depending on which way the wind blows, don't they?

Yep, politicians remind me of chameleons - their color varies over time and by the nature of circumstances that surround them.

And, sad to say, American voters deserve better choices than the ones which we've beem presented with for quite some time.
I kind of like what someone wrote about the way U.K. politics is configured -- about the three viable parties, I mean. Wouldn't it be great if we had three real choices?
(All three with genuine chances to win! That's what we need here in the U.S.)

well, I'm not a Republican and did attend graduate school.

Carla I know you are very passionate about this and well educated and I respect that, but you're letting your passions get the better of you. name calling and sterotyping are usually signs of an uneducated person which I know you are not.

Name calling is fun! (but sometimes might get ya a poke in the eye!) Use the name-calling tactic wisely!



Not gonna vote for any of em.
CODEWARRIOR for PRESIDENT!

Everyone should vote Libertarian. Seriously, they seem to be the only party that appears to not suck completely.

Where are these quotes in the US media??

Saturday, June 26, 2004 10:24 a.m. EDT
Moore: Americans are 'The Dumbest People on the Planet'

Americans currently flocking to see Michael Moore's movie "Farenheit 9/11" might be surprised to learn how little respect the Democratic Party's leading propaganda-meister has for them.

''They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet," Moore told Britain's Mirror newspaper recently, referring to his fellow citizens as a whole.

And that's not all Moore had to say about his brother Yanks across the pond. ''We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don't know about anything that's happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing.''
Turns out, when the Democratic Party's all-but-official filmmaker is speaking at home, he has nice things to say about at least some of his fellow citizens. But according to New York Times columnist David Brooks, when Moore travels abroad it's not just the Bush administration he trashes - but the American people en-masse.

Here's a few more bon mots from the Kerry campaign's leading celluloid supporter, as cited by Mr. Brooks on Saturday:

''That's why we're smiling all the time,'' Moore told a rapturous throng in Munich. ''You can see us coming down the street. You know, 'Hey! Hi! How's it going?' We've got that big [expletive] grin on our face all the time because our brains aren't loaded down.''

To a crowd in Cambridge, Moore intoned: ''You're stuck with being connected to this country of mine, which is known for bringing sadness and misery to places around the globe.''

Here's Moore's reaction to the 9/11 attacks, offered while the rubble at Ground Zero was still smoldering: ''We, the United States of America, are culpable in committing so many acts of terror and bloodshed that we had better get a clue about the culture of violence in which we have been active participants.''

As for the terrorists currently killing American soldiers in Iraq, Moore compares them to Revolutionary war heroes who fought off British oppression:

''The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' or 'The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win.''



http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/26/103545.shtml



it seems CNN has overlooked these little details. How could anyone (ANY AMERICAN) pay to see this movie??? Apparently he thinks we are stupid enough.

Furthermore, if something is irritating its this sites technology. Had never heard of it until my firewall was inundated with people trying to hack my computer with it. And yeah yeah,, sharing mp3's whatever.

Carla, look up what kerry has said and changed and said and changed over and over. Anyone who trashes an environmental stance of any party or politician and ownes a g-5, a fleet of suv's and no less than 5 mansions running full blast 24-7 is a hypocrite of the worst kind and can in no way be considered an acceptable candidate. As a registered independent I go with no party. Not sure what exactly Bush did that is evil incarnate.

I guess we could vote for Michael Moore, what a joke...

Carla, the liberal idea of education is this.

Send Johnny to school. When he cant read to pass 3rd grade we cant say that, it might hurt his feelings so we pass him, then when he gets out of school and cant do anything, we give him a house, goverment money, and anything else he needs, otherwise we would not be compassionate. Nobody in this country has any excuse for not being successful. The opportunity is there. If you dont take it it is NOT the goverments fault of responsibility to take care of you.

I agree with you 100%. It's that same attitude that has lead to a massive dumbing down of the curriculum, or changing it into lies altogether (i.e. - can't talk about "slavery" in history class because white people speak on behalf of all blacks and say it's offensive to them).

I don't see how having an MA makes you any more qualified to discuss anything here. Is your MA in political science? And if so, how long has it been since you've been in school and how much do you remember? I'm sitting here doing calc homework and it sure isn't helping me argue on here. But then again, I would never make that assertion in the first place.

Anyway - read Anarchysux's last post if you want to know why nobody likes liberals. He couldn't be more right. Just because Johnny's a jerk off with a bitchy middle-class suv-driving soccer mom whose light head is floating around in a dream world doesn't mean Johnny doesn't fail. I think he does a pretty good job summing up a liberal education.

"As for the terrorists currently killing American soldiers in Iraq, Moore compares them to Revolutionary war heroes who fought off British oppression"

A lot of liberals do. Americans get beheaded and they don't even show it on television. They just say it's Bush's fault and proceed to air footage of a "scandal" involving putting a leash on another 'living, breathing human being.' They are completely blind to anything that makes the enemy look bad. It amazes me that so many of them can say they support the troops while still managing to keep straight face. Oh come on.. you all know the troops are a bunch of thugs and criminals.. you said it yourselves. Those terrorists that saw off American heads on the other hand.. they are just reacting angrily to Bush doing bad things and it's not their fault.

It's ironic that one of the dumbest Americans in the country is the one calling everyone else idiots. The fat slob acts like his shit doesn't stink (which is impossible when all you eat is Bigmacs and Whoppers.. and that is obviously all he eats) and that people really care what he thinks. If you saw his movie, you're in the vast minority. If you liked it and thought it was "good" then you're in an even smaller one.

I like the threads that spark political debate. Everybody says the same stuff they already have over and over as if it will change anyone's mind.. like me. =)

Here's Moore's reaction to the 9/11 attacks, offered while the rubble at Ground Zero was still smoldering: ''We, the United States of America, are culpable in committing so many acts of terror and bloodshed that we had better get a clue about the culture of violence in which we have been active participants.''

Actually, that observation is sustainable, sad to say. The timing may have been off base, of course.

"...How could anyone (ANY AMERICAN) pay to see this movie??? Apparently he thinks we are stupid enough."

Uh, don't look now, but he's probably right about that.

I guess Moore is living proof that if you run your mouth often enough, you're bound to hit the target sometimes...

"Not sure what exactly Bush did that is evil incarnate."
(Wow, this kind of ostrich positioning is what Dubya is counting on to help him and his ilk get re-elected. Not that it will matter a lot, though, because it's either Tweedledum or Tweedledee that we'll be facing for the next four years, anyway.)

"...nobody likes liberals..."
(Is this comment in jest? If it isn't, it's at least ludicrous, LOL!)

I gave up reading post after post in response to this claiming that "bush has done his damage" and that "kerry shouldnt get a chance".

also.. bush giving us a "booming stock market?"
youve gotta be kidding me
Even FOX is saying the wrong type of jobs are being created.. namely low skill walmart white trash jobs. so so much for "low unemployment".

You cant defend a vote for bush any more than the RIAA can defend litigating customers into bankruptcy.

I never said kerry was a better man.. i said he would likely be more level headed, and im not going on what he flip-flops about.. im going on what most democratic leaders have done historically. They at least make a slight effort to put their biasies aside long enough to consider everyone rather than a single party.

But.. if you feel like having republicans dictating who chairs these committees, and dictating the operation of the senate.. "the VP does dictate the operation of the senate" then sure.. re-elect bush and theyll push the INDUCE act through right after those elections for you... go right ahead.

The VP and executive leadership have tremendous sway with congress.. the VP is the president of the senate.

IT is very important to change administrations, if nothing else, than to assure anyone else chairs committees like the judiciary and the subcommittee on "courts, the internet, and intellectual property".

If the current RIAA schills remain chaired, there will be tremendous ravaging of the public in the next 4 years.

They have eroded the walls of leniency on the population, and are set to inundate congress with so many bills there wont be enough paper to write opposing them.

Good morning. Much better today
You (and you know who you are) are all wrong, but I won't name call

btw, I only mentioned my degrees because someone said--what are you -- a Harvard MBA. I almost never reference my education. All Catholic schools anyway.

Someone should look up the concept of a liberal education (not a liberal's education).

I think that your vote counts more in (dare I say it) American Idol :

you may very well be right.. what i just saw on cspan will be posted as an article soon i believe.

Four months and counting....

Four more months of endless political diatribes and posturing.

Four more months of you should vote for who I'm telling you and I'm voting for this party because our family have voted for them since the last ice age.

Four more months of promises and intentions everyone here knows are as hollow as the people's heads who believe these promises.

Why not do a Iraq soveignty trick and have the election tomorrow and get it over with?

"They at least make a slight effort to put their biasies aside long enough to consider everyone rather than a single party."

I don't know any politician who has ever done that.

Harvard MBA? who has that? certinly not anyone who works for the RIAA.

After hearing from people like Michael Moore this whole debate is actually pushing me to vote for Bush. I don't want to and probably won't but if anything the whole attack anti bush people have been smearing the airwaves with is actually making me sympathetic to him. that combined with my loathing disgust for Kerry. this is having a reverse effect.

Watching all the celebrities holding fundraisers for Kerry/Edwards made me a bit nervous and leery. Would these artists stand up for my rights as a consumer?

At least Michael Moore has made a statement about being against current copyright laws and that it was ok with him if you downloaded his movie.

"...bush giving us a "booming stock market"..."

Bush did not give us a booming stock market. The stock market hasn't done much of anything since late in Clinton's presidency except go down.

Education doesn't necessarily lead to liberal orientation. (Maybe that only happens for the highly suggestible, who succumb to the liberal "working over" they get.)

George W. Bush received a Bachelors Degree from Yale University and an MBA from Harvard Business School. The liberalism didn't "take" I guess.

Not a bad resumé for someone as dumb as a rock. But I encourage liberals to think of W as dumb, too. It leads them to misunderestimate their opponent, and have faulty strategery. Bill Clinton has warned Democrats not to think of Bush as dumb, yet they rail on.

True, Bush did not give us a booming stock market. It peaked in early 2000, under Clinton. The broad market has gone up and down and basically nowhere for five years. Nasdaq swooned with a loss of about 75% but has recently recovered some of those losses.
Bush inherited an economy that was already contracting. He has done some very smart things and some very bad things in the domestic economic arena. Basically, we have an economic recovery built on a massive amount of debt. Actually, the amount of debt we've taken on dwarfs the size of growth in the economy during the Bush term. Certainly the private and business debt taken on is not Bush's fault.

The question remains whether Gore could have done better on the economy, or whether Kerry could do better. Frankly, I have my doubts that Presidents make much difference in the economy. Mr. Gore would have had to contend with the same Federal Reserve Chairman that Bush has had. Monetary policy would thus have been about the same. As for federal spending and taxes, under Gore we would have had less spending, because a Republican Congress would fight much of what Gore wanted, and vice versa. But we would have had higher taxes, meaning probably slower economic growth. On balance, deficits would probably have been about what they have been under Bush.

Neither party is willing to address the macro-trends leading us to probable economic disaster. It is only a question of which type of handbag you want to go to hell in.

How can you fund a war by cutting taxes?

If GW had just been plain old Joe Blow, he never would have gotten into Yale. I'm at a loss to explain the Harvard MBA.

Where did you get your degrees from carla? Was Notre Dame one of them? Just wondering.

I agree about funding the war, carla, in theory.

Clinton was forced by several factors to keep the growth of government spending in check. He still never really got the budget balanced (despite the claims of phony government accounting to the contrary), but he got pretty close.

Under Bush, discretionary spending exploded.

In principle I agree with the concept of pay as you go. However, given what government will do with the money (it doesn't matter which party -- both parties have bad ideas about gov't spending IMO), it is better to starve the government by cutting taxes, and then eventually deficits will enforce discipline. It is a backward way to go about shrinking government, but I understand the strategy, and sort of agree with it. Our crazy political system almost demands approaching ends through circuitous means.

"I'm at a loss to explain the Harvard MBA"

Easy to explain. He stopped partying for a while and got down to business, no pun intended.

Well, now I can chime in.

Yes, our education system has gone down the drain. Especially in the areas of grammar and history. It used to be, a grammar teacher would correct you if you said something wrong. Now if they stop you from saying "You is" instead of "You are" or tells you not to say "axed" when you mean "asked" then they are considered racist. In history, you can only say so much about the nations first president because he owned slaves. The same hold true for all the Virginia President's (Jefferson, Madison and Monroe) because they all owned slaves and are therefore now evil (despite Washington holding the country together in the first years, Jefferson doubling the size of the country, Madison rallying the country to fight back the British and Monroe telling Europe where to stick it when it comes to who rules the Western hemisphere).

And let's not forget that school's can't get the money they need anymore because of idiots channeling that money into programs to support the people who come out of our schools that can't support themselves.

On this proposed domestic spy agency. While it sounds bad, ever think that if the FBI didn't have to worry about gathering intelligence, then it could actually get around to investigating federal crimes? Maybe it should be a division of CIA instead of a separate agency, though.

On Bush. His supporters here say that he's caused the stock market boom, low unemployment and what not. If he's created such low unemployment, then why don't I have a friggin job? Four years ago, when Clinton, a Democrat, was still president, I had a great job and the stock market was at it's highest ever with no end in site. There were even commercials predicting a 25,000 point Dow. Now, the stock market still isn't where it was at before September 11, 2001. As fast as it goes up, it falls.

Yes, the wrong jobs are being created. Wal-Mart building 10,000 stores, sometimes putting them within 20 miles of each other, doesn't help those who are barred from Wal-Mart. It also doesn't help the scenery of the area. If Bush wanted to do anything, he'd urge the creation of more scholarships or the granting of more financial aid so that more people could go to college and get the degrees necessary to get the best jobs. He could urge that grants be given to those who wish to go to college to gain the skills necessary to start a business. A hundred to 150 years ago, people were able to gain those skills and they started businesses that grew into many of the powerful businesses we know today.

Above all, Dubya could have stopped our jobs from going overseas. Americans may be hard working, but we want to be paid well for our hard work.

Last, let me say this. There might not even be an election this year. Recently, there was talk of suspending the elections if there were a horrific terrorist attack against our country. And yesterday, Ashcroft's clone, Tom Ridge, went before the cameras and told the nation that there was evidence that the terrorists were planning to attack in, you guessed it, November! What a coincidence. I'm not saying it's a conspiracy for Bush to keep the presidency, but it's just damn odd when you think about it. Never in the history of our country has an election been cancelled. No war has ever cancelled an election. New York City elections were only delayed after September 11. But what is being discussed is the cancellation of elections, not the delay. There is a difference.

In closing, regardless of how people feel, I still plan to vote for Kerry.

Nope, Jesuit schools. Jesuits are liberals Radical thinkers even.

I have no facts (do you?) about what Bush did at Harvard. I'll have to do some googling.

Even if Kerry is elected, we will still have to struggle to maintain certain of our liberties. But at least I can worry less about the makeup of the Supreme Court, the federal courts, the Justice Department, the EPA, etc.

Carla:

You want to laugh your ass off? Go here:

http://airamericaplace.com/archive.php?s=mr

Scroll down to April 29th and you can download an interview with Professor Yoshi Tsurumi, who was one of Dubya's professors at Harvard. He talks about what a dumb tool Dubya was. It's hilarious!

I doubt that they would cancel elections, however, I do think that terrorists would find it an opportune time to hit us because they could easily find quite a number of people gathered in one place. They would be able to easily cause great harm as well as mass confusion and fear, which is what the intent of terrorism is. As for jobs....they are out there. The local paper has plenty of ads for jobs. A lot of these jobs may not be what people really want, but hey....if you're unemployed, it's better than nothing. I hear people complain all the time, but when you mention you know of an opening, they say things like...thats not what I do, the pay isn't what I want etc. I recently found a part time second job with the local post office. Pays $11 an hr. All I did was watch the bulletin boards in the post office! So anyway...thats an idea for anyone out there looking. Try your local post office! Jobs like this are a "foot" in the door that could lead to something better. As far as companies going overseas....well, some of that could be because of things the entertainment industry is doing. The INDUCE act will surely contribute to this greatly if passed. The EFF letter posted here http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/13109 even states this fact. A company like the one I work for may even do the same. Canada is only a 3 hr drive from here. Take 321 studios. They could have just as easily done the same....move out of country....away from the draconian laws. So, really...I don't blame any one certain politician.....I blame them all, for allowing such things to happen. A lot of it depends on the laws they pass to supposedly fix a problem, but then create a whole new set of problems. Really, I think we the people need to thoroughly clean "House" and the Senate too. Get rid of all these old dogs and get fresh new faces there. I don't think then it would really matter about who is president, because the new congress could keep him in check.

Aw darn carla....thought maybe you went to ND or Boston College or something. Are those Jesuit schools in Illinois? Hey...I heard on WLS this morning talk of Mike Ditka running for Senate since Ryan dropped out....any thoughts here.....

Ditka should stick to pushing stiffy pills.
The Dem candidate is a good guy, Barack Oabama.

John Carroll University (Cleveland) (same class as Tim Russert) and Loyola University Chicago.

How the hell does getting an education make you liberal? Liberals are the same people who say "I can't vote republican, I don't have enough money" which implies that liberals on the whole wouldn't even be able to afford as good of an education as republicans. Contradiction after contradiction.. it's the liberal way.

Lack of education makes you liberal.

Exhibit A: Holywood.

So there. Don't forget to check out Condi Rice's resume. She's a republican and she has a better education than you. I'm in the middle of getting an education, and I'm more right than I've ever been. Or are you referring to universities that churn out retard after retard because their staffs are leftists up and down the board and can't keep their fat political mouths shut in the classroom.

You and Condi Rice could be the exceptions to the rule. And throw in Clarence Thomas too.

Bush went to Harvard. He's a republican. I know he's an idiot. Regardless, he's another one of the nearly infite exceptions to your made up rule. Don't forget that almost everyone in Holywood lacks a good education, and almost everyone in Holywood is liberal. Chalk up another few thousand exceptions to your rule. Where'd you come up with that one?

What is your education in? Maybe your rule needs a tuneup. An education sociology may make you liberal, but certainly not an education in anything.

"Don't forget that almost everyone in Holywood lacks a good education"

Dude please. Some of the most educated intelligent people in the world are in Hollywood. You might not like the pap they put out in the theatres, but that's a different story.

I said "almost everyone," and I don't care what they put out in theatres. I never hinted at any kind relationship between political affiliation and what's at the theatre.

or education..

Well Sherm, I've been googling to find some pithy quote about a classical liberal education.
Something like:

Classical liberal education is not only the means necessary to imbue students with the skills to become excellent life-long learners, but also the means to be fully engaged citizens, exercising civic duties from a principled understanding of the issues which confront them daily. These, too, are all qualities shared by free and happy men. A genuine liberal education requires a study of the greatest books in the Western tradition, ordered not only in its method, but also toward realizing human happiness and wisdom.
~Mortimer J. Adler~

What I have also found, is that empirically, you may be correct -- education (at least the way it's carried out in the United States) is no guarantee of broadening someone's mind and liberalizing attitudes.

"The premise of classical education is almost alien to educational institutions today. Our liberal arts universities have been transformed into vo-tech schools, where mastery of means precludes thoughtful discussions of ends. In our universities and colleges, almost all emphasis is on learning a technical skill or expertise, such as those of the accountant, the lawyer, the nurse, the computer programmer."
http://www.claremont.org/writings/031028krannawitter.html?FORMAT=print

I found an interesting article, entitled, The New Democratic Electorate."
http://www.ndol.org/print.cfm?contentid=1633

Gotta keep an open mind. Education usually helps a person do that.

The problem isn't just that Bush is an idiot, it's that a single party controls both Congress and the Executive and perhaps even the Judicial branches of government. The traditional checks and balances are gone since all Republicans seem to march lock step as they are told. Anything Bush wants, Bush gets. That is extremely dangerous.

The chance of Democrats taking either House or Senate in Congress next election is extremely small. With a Republican Congress, I want a Democrat as President and vica versa. Gridlock in Washington is good. The Ken Starr investigation may have saved taxpayers 10x what that investigation cost due to the fact that much of Congress was tied up with Bill Clinton instead of spending more of our money. Currently, there is no chance for any investication of Bush so he acts above the law with impunity.

With the Orrin Hatch bill about to slide through Congress, we need some way of stopping this madness. A President of a different party makes things more difficult for madness and bad ideas to prevail. Kerry may have some dumb ideas but he ain't getting them through a Congress controlled by Republicans. Talk to any financial analyst and the'll tell you that any tax increase proposed by a Kerry administration is dead unless some kind of deficit crisis happens and then the Republicans will be more than happy to pass an increase and blame it on the Democrats.

If you people vote to give Bush a mandate for his past misdeeds, God help us all for nothing will stop him.

I love seeing new names here
Hey Code -- how many people are registered here?

This just in (and making me laugh)

Bush aide resigns to explore Senate run

By CHRISTOPHER WILLS
The Associated Press

July 9, 2004, 4:03 PM CDT

The deputy director of President Bush's drug-control office resigned Friday to explore a run for the U.S. Senate in place of Jack Ryan, the Republican nominee who dropped out over sex club allegations.

Andrea Grubb Barthwell, a Chicago-area physician, had been deputy director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy in Washington since 2002, focusing on reducing demand for drugs.

Federal law barred her from seeking the Republican nomination while she worked for the government.

Barthwell, 50, told The Associated Press that no one had assured her that she would be the GOP candidate or that Ryan would actually remove his name from the ballot, something he has yet to formally do.

"I'm interested, I want to be considered and I will make myself available to those who make that decision, but I am not assuming that I will be the candidate and I am not assuming that once I get all the information that I need, that I would want to run in this particular race,'' Barthwell said.

Financial backing from the party is one big issue, she said. Another is just how much support the candidate would get from the national party.

Drug czar John Walters wished her well and said, "Her passion for protecting the health of all Americans has been inspiring.'' Barthwell, a specialist in addiction medicine, has a home in River Forest and is a past president of the Illinois Society of Addiction Medicine.

If Barthwell were chosen to face off against Democrat Barack Obama, it would be the first time in history that two black candidates battled as the parties' nominees for a U.S. Senate seat.

Ryan, a millionaire investment banker-turned-teacher, dropped out of the race two weeks ago, saying the release of embarrassing sex club allegations in his now-public divorce records would detract from the issues.

Republicans have struggled to come up with a candidate who could take over with just four months to raise money and campaign before the election.

Many of the people who have expressed interest in the nomination have limited support among party leaders who will choose a replacement, and others with the name recognition or money to be strong candidates have turned the party down.

Barthwell is an unknown even to many leaders of the state GOP.

"Who? Don't know her,'' U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert said Friday.

But others say she should be considered for the nomination.

"I've heard nothing but good things about her,'' said state Sen. Kirk Dillard, a member of the Republican State Central Committee.

The public attention to a race between two black candidates would help offset her lack of campaign funds, Dillard said.

Obama, a state senator, raised $4 million in the last three months, an almost unheard of amount for such a short period in Illinois.

Another possible GOP candidate is businessman James Oberweis, who finished second to Ryan in the March primary but alienated many with his attacks on illegal immigrants.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-040709senaterace,1,2688184.story?coll=chi-news-hed

carla, that's a good M. Adler quote. I feel our schools are not doing this very well, public or private. Most schools seem to think that educating people to be responsible in the civic arena means that government should solve problems and we should vote for more money to be extracted from "the rich" to pay for it. Therefore we should constantly whine about our problems to the politicians and always vote for more services and more taxes to pay for them. This attitude has killed the America spirit, I think.

Anyway, I like Adler. I always enjoyed his appearances on Buckley's Firing Line. He's just a bit too much of an Aristotle-worshipper for my taste, but nobody's perfect.

carla,

So much for the "Ditka" rumour.....eh?

Carla,

I like that definition of a liberal education. I think the definition of 'liberal' when talking about a "liberal education" or "being liberal" is different. Before I decided what I wanted to do, I got an A.A. in 'the liberal arts'. After reading the second quote, I must say that I agree with both. A good well-rounded and "liberal" education is a good thing to have. I appreciate my liberal arts degree, even though it's a degree in nothing in particular. If that is the definition of a liberal education, then a liberal education is a valuable thing to have. Not the same as becoming a liberal due to your education though.

boggie: The promo's for tv news shows are still hyping the Ditka rumor.

Sherm, I still think a classic liberal education makes a person think, and thinking usually brings a person to liberal values.
Maybe the sticking point is the definition of liberal values.

And autodidact (I finally looked up that word) I always got a kick out of Buckley.
Schools probably started to go downhill after women were "permitted" to go into other professions.

boggieman, the article I read, I believe it was on CNN, said the talk was of completely cancelling the presidential election if there were a terrorist attack on the country. The article didn't mention anything about rescheduling, just cancelling.

Yes, there are job, in other cities. I don't exactly live near the city. And even then, all the jobs are in another city fifty miles away. And I can't exactly get to those other cities.

Cancel the election? That kind of talk already? Sounds like a conspiracy to me. With the power given to the government by the patriot act, arrest Bush.

Why cancel? Americans will have to find another way to remove one president and put in another.

"Why cancel? Americans will have to find another way to remove one president and put in another."

In the event of another major terrorist attack:
The Bush administration could impose martial law by activating the past executive orders which apply to that.
Then Herr Dubya could reign supreme in fascist fashion.

Have you all thought that possibly claiming there is a heightened threat will allow GW to keep any opposing protesters even farther away from him--like maybe in a nice warm jail cell?

Carla, I cannot believe that anyone would encourage people to vote for someone like Obama that advocates young people to use cocaine. But since it's you, I'm not surprised.

Obama advocates young people to use cocaine? News to me.
(keeping my vow of no name calling)
~~~

And this discussion has what to do with music the riaa and their lawyers?

This is the same type of bullshit that lead to the screams of outrage that prevented Echostar (Dish Network) (an American owned company who has every person from billing to tech support as a direct employee) from buying DirecTV, and handed it directly to Rupert Murdoch.

You want to rant about the upcoming election? Great! go to Moveover or any number of the political websites out there where this type of bullshit is welcome. Send Michael Moore's fat ass a Valentine? Fantasic do it at his fucking website, Give Ashcroft a kiss on the lips? Fine just don't do it here.

This isn't boycott-Bush.com or boycott-Kerry.com its BOYCOTT-RIAA.COM

This website was founded with one purpose in mind, and that was to FIGHT THE RIAA. I can hear their snickering in DC now. GET OFF YOUR ASS, FIGHT THE RIAA NOT EACH OTHER. IF YOU"RE NOT PART OF THE SOLUTION YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM!

Bil Evans
founder of boycott-riaa (until like an idiot he sold it to a lawyer)

I agree. It's easy to go way off topic in the discussions when they get political. Point taken.

Hi Bill! =)

But Bill, Congress is part of the problem, (RIAA-sponsored legislation) which necessitates discussion of politics and then degenerates into rants about the election. It's off-topic, but not soooo off-topic.

It gradually reaches being "sooo off-topic" though.

I saw Lars Ulrich on Conan O'Brien tonight. I never knew such good impressions of him were in those old Camp Chaos napster police cartoons until I saw him tonight. The way he talks saying "uhhh" after every 3 words, yet talks with his hands as if viewers need a visual aid to help them understand such deep thoughts as "uhhhh, well.. ahhhhh uhhhh" made my IQ temporarily drop a few points. He's so arrogant too. If you ignore his fake forced, but well-timed, laughs at the end of some of his sentences it's easy to pick up just what an arrogant prick he is. What a phony bitch.

Yeah, and it was sickening to see Conan kiss his ass.

We should blame whoever posted this topic (who is Tony C anyway?). How else could we react/respond?

"We should blame whoever posted this topic (who is Tony C anyway?). How else could we react/respond?"

Agreed. The topic posted is political in nature; expect political viewpoints. There are only two viable remedies for preventing the outcome lamented by Bill.
(A) Include a caveat within the initial posting of the topic, pleading in advance for the discussion to be limited in a narrow sense without diffusing to broader political viewpoints. Or. . .
(B) Censor the comments posted, deleting ones that get too far off the specific subject.

My money is on the odds that neither alternative will fly.

Then write your congressman, let him/her/it know your feelings. Arrange to meet them. Go to a Two hall meeting, and ASK QUESTIONS. Educate your legislators keep their butts too busy to listen to the RIAA lobbyist. EDUCATE THEM! Tom Barger and I did a couple of years ago (met with Rick Boucher) sat down with him for about 30 minutes, and our even handed ideas and thoughts made it into a little bill called MOCA "MUSIC ONLINE COMPETITION ACT". So much intact were they that both Tom and I were stunned beyond belief. The following January, at the Future of Music Coalition Pho dinner when his Legislative Aide came through the door a lot of the Music Industry "Heavyweights" stopped her and said hi, (very telling they knew who she was) and then she came back to sit with me for dinner. You could hear a pin drop in a room with about 100 people in it) as eveyone tried to figure out what the heck?!?!?!

Since I've left boycott-riaa, I've damned near gone bankrupt, moved to Rick Boucher's district where I will be excercising my right and obligation to vote. As someone who tends to lean toward the right, and usually end up voting Republican I can tell you this, when Rick Boucher is up for re-election I will be voting for him, a Democrat. I still send his office material that is relevant to the issues that boycott-riaa was founded on. I don't vote a party I vote the candidate,. Make sure you know your reps position and let them know what you think. If I've said it once I've said it a thousand times on boycott-riaa. " To get the perks of being in Congress, the person has to get elected first. If they aren't doing what you want, kick their sorry ass out" They work for you, not the other way around.

UTAH Are you out there? What do you feel about a songwriter writing legislation that benefits himself directly? I'm talking about Sen. Hatch who last year earned $33,000 in songwriting royalties, but who is writing legislation like the INDUCE ACT. If his name was Cheney and the Judiciary Committee was Halliburton You all would be screaming "We have the proof! Lynch the bastard" Lets see some of that passion turned back to the RIAA folks.

Good points. Thanks, Bill (er, thumbtack).

finally a voice of reason here.

SuitablyTwisted

"raoulduke1: Check out the data at www.irs.gov the "poor" pay NO taxes"

Ha Ha Ha. Address my argument on its merits. My argument is based upon the fact that the greater % of taxes collected does not even pass through the IRS. A point that you don't even address. Furthermore if you are rich its more than likely it is the result of powers beyond your control. Would you be so wealthy if you were born in Somalia.

Go ahead and treat the poor like shit and see what happens. Throughout histroy the rich have a habit of being dragged out of their castles and getting theirs, and their families heads lopped off.

Further, that company you work for is probably banking on using the out of whack patent laws to keep control over ideas it didn't come up with in the first place.

Thoes so called private drug companies live off of government subsidies and research from universities anyway.

Bill,

Glad to here from you. However, it should be noted that this thread with all of its Bush bashing is the most popular thread in months. There are other threads that stay closer to the topic. It's ok for these kinds of frolics, they get the juices pumping.

Now back to the off topic rant.

Bush is an evil stupid man who has stolen our republic from us. Fuck him and everyone who supports him. Bush and his cronies will find themslelves on the ash heap of history, along with the Soviets and the RIAA.

(I wasn't done with Hatch, so I posted this there this morning)
Bill is upset about the political discussions that take place here. He believes that individuals have to contact their representatives and meet with them individually about these ill-conceived bills that are blatantly anti-consumer. Not really practical or possible for most people. And with laws and "Bush policies" that keep unwanted, unfavorable protestors from being seen or heard (because of security issues, of course), it's very difficult to get media attention in order to educate the consumer/voter/taxpayer. Until I found this site last September, I was totally unaware of the political influence that the RIAA and MPAA have in this country.

Bill (thumbtack) said "Sen. Hatch who last year earned $33,000 in songwriting royalties, ... is writing legislation like the INDUCE ACT." Where did you find that information, Bill?
Bills like the Pirate Act and the Induce Act would give more federal taxpayer money to help the poor, corrupt foreign music industry in its struggle against the American consumer.
It's very political. We need to discuss politicians and this upcoming election.

I think Bill is right. I get sucked into these discussions real easy as well. they are very passionate topics. however this site was founded on fighting the recording industry. politics ties into just about everything but threads like this say very little about the industry (unless someone wants to justify bush bashing then the RIAA is thrown into the mix). as important (or unimportant as some like me would think) as politics and the election is, it is off topic and should be discussed in an appropriate forum.

For example I had a problem with one of my daughters teachers. that class had an awards ceremony for the kids. even through it's related it was an inappropriate setting to voice my concerns. yet some (Mike Moore for instance) use these settings to stir dissent. all this does is discredit our main cause in the general public. I know many of you don't see that but it does. Most americans are not as passionate about the RIAA as we are and look at this sort of thing (though it makes sense to many of us) as radical extremeism. we hurt our cause more than we help it.

Comp and all - I'm in favor of this type post on this site.

Most laws are passed on good intention - but there is always the unintended consequences. A good discussion by those affected can ususally expose all the pitfalls.

Then, you have the problem of congressional oversight. Don't know how many of you caught the senators trying to cover ther ass for incompetance by blaming the CIA for being irresponsable.

If congressional oversight has no power over the CIA, then why will this group be any better.

that's cool. we'll just keep preaching to the converted but no impact will be felt where it's needed. that's the direction boycottriaa has gone

for example I submitted a story about an activist contest being run by p2pnet.net and downhill battle with links to them. never got posted. I submitted it a 2nd time incase it was an oversight, still not posted. I was also told that links to my anti riaa videos would not be posted because there was concerns that my use of video clips (even though they were parody and covered under fair use) might pose a legal problem for the boycottriaa site.

yet we're bombarded with nazi slogans using ww2 style signs, political articles not related to the recording industry, Bush bashing, and profanity in the titles of the news stories.

The occasional political article is ok with me. And by occasional, I mean once every couple of weeks. Unfortunately I get sucked into these convos easily too.

On the whole, I think they're stupid, biased, irrelevant, and detract from the purpose of the site.

"On the whole, I think they're stupid, biased, irrelevant, and detract from the purpose of the site."

Agreed that some of them might detract from the specific purpose of this website, but Code used to say that there is a kind of apparent connectedness to issues such as loss of rights, governmental intrusion, etc.; and he had some pretty good information to back up his contention about that. So, when in doubt, go with Code -- he's been on top of things more and longer than any of us concerning these matters. (Including topics such as this very one.)

you can make all kinds of connections if you twist things enough. ask any lawyer on this site

compmore:
According to CodeWarrior it is more than just a positive correlation -- it ranks pretty high on the hypothesis testing scale (statistical probability concept being broached here). So, with the connection being rather persuasive on its own, no "twisting" is necessary to come to a general conclusion based on preponderance of evidence. But, of course, if your standard is going to be as stringent as "beyond a reasonable doubt", then, no, it doesn't quite come to THAT level - yet.
I'll try to research the forums for some of the salient postings that Code made on this topic several months ago.
He was quite detailed and convincing; I can tell you that!

yes he is. but it still expands the focus on what this site was origionally ment to be.

You're correct in how the focus of this site has been expanded, but someone recently posted a justification that merits being considered. Perhaps I can locate it and re-consider the rationale.

I've read all of Codes posts. his arguments are very well thought out. doesn't change things though. We need to focus on the RIAA and the industry. that's what we're here for. in that we're united. when we expand we become divided and ineffective. right now boycottriaa is ineffective to the general public in making our cause known but very effective in preaching to the converted.

This site was origionally a very big worry to the industry who tried to buy off the founder. now it's a laughing stock to the industry who doesn't take us seriously.

REVIEW TIME:
The following are some of the highlights of this current and very popular thread:

Thumbtack (Bill Evans) wrote:
". . . And this discussion [politics] has what to do with music, the riaa and their lawyers?"
"FIGHT THE RIAA!"

Carla60626 retorted:
"But Bill, Congress is part of the problem (RIAA-sponsored legislation) which necessitates discussion of politics."

Awehr wrote:
"It is very important to change administrations, if nothing else, so as to assure that someone else chairs committees like the judiciary and the subcommittee on 'courts, the internet, and intellectual property'.
If the current RIAA schills remain chaired, there will be tremendous ravaging of the public in the next 4 years.
A vote for Bush can't be defended any more than the RIAA can defend litigating customers into bankruptcy."

Wet1 had written:
"Only thing government does [effectively] is foster itself into getting bigger and protecting its turf . . .
Our policital system is showing just how out of touch it is with its citizens and their needs."

Compmore wrote:
"We're bombarded with [the likes of] ww2 style signs, political articles not related to the recording industry, Bush bashing, and profanity in the titles of news stories.
This site was originally a very big worry to the industry who tried to buy off the founder. Now it's a laughing stock to the industry who doesn't take us seriously."

COMMENT: Many of us want people to be enlightened and to focus on the primary purposes of this website. The challenge is to maintain a perspective and an agenda which facilitates that.

Then write your congressman, let him/her/it know your feelings. Arrange to meet them. Go to a Two hall meeting, and ASK QUESTIONS. Educate your legislators keep their butts too busy to listen to the RIAA lobbyist. EDUCATE THEM! Tom Barger and I did a couple of years ago (met with Rick Boucher) sat down with him for about 30 minutes, and our even handed ideas and thoughts made it into a little bill called MOCA "MUSIC ONLINE COMPETITION ACT". So much intact were they that both Tom and I were stunned beyond belief. The following January, at the Future of Music Coalition Pho dinner when his Legislative Aide came through the door a lot of the Music Industry "Heavyweights" stopped her and said hi, (very telling they knew who she was) and then she came back to sit with me for dinner. You could hear a pin drop in a room with about 100 people in it) as eveyone tried to figure out what the heck?!?!?!

Since I've left boycott-riaa, I've damned near gone bankrupt, moved to Rick Boucher's district where I will be excercising my right and obligation to vote. As someone who tends to lean toward the right, and usually end up voting Republican I can tell you this, when Rick Boucher is up for re-election I will be voting for him, a Democrat. I still send his office material that is relevant to the issues that boycott-riaa was founded on. I don't vote a party I vote the candidate,. Make sure you know your reps position and let them know what you think. If I've said it once I've said it a thousand times on boycott-riaa. " To get the perks of being in Congress, the person has to get elected first. If they aren't doing what you want, kick their sorry ass out" They work for you, not the other way around.

I agree with Thumbtack here on this. I recently sent off a letter to my representative, who stated in a previous letter that he wasn't "convinced" about supporting HR 107. I referred also to the PIRATE act and INDUCE act and "educated" him how such acts would drive the company I work for either out of business or running north to Canada or other countries. I made it a point to tell him our company resides in his district and that all ours jobs would be at risk. I also gave URL's of our company website and an example of a project we are doing for Chicago Schools that would be affected by this type of legislation. I am awaiting a reply back before I take the next step, which would probably be in line with something like what Thumbtack has described above.

Someone asked where I got the numbers on Senator HAtch's songwriting royalties. Well it was in his financial disclosures. There was an AP article that included that tidbit they are all over the web from major newspapers.

HEres one: http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/politics/8921573.htm?1c

Thanks, thumbtack. I missed that article. Thanks to this site, I was able to read it: http://www.bugmenot.com/

Boggieman, it sounds like a good letter. I'll be looking for that reply.
I haven't received one response from my legislators.

I've at least had some luck writing to legislators. I usually do get responses back most of the time, and there have been some that were belated responses. Not sure why I've had good luck with it, perhaps depends on what catches their attention.