Random Political Thoughts

[FightTheFuture]

In the words of Rahm Emanuel, Obama`s former right-hand man, "Never let a 'good' crisis go to waste"




The left specializes in exploitation! Nessuno no fa meglio di  Cesare Obama:




http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/12/sandy-hook-victims-mother-to-deliver-obamas-weekly-address/

[PB the Deplorable]

Like I said, you are confusing registration with a ban. 

Maybe the term registration doesn't mean the same thing over there.  Here it means you can still keep the guns, they just have to be kept on a list under your name and address with some government agency.

[Yorkshire pud]

Is it ok that Obama and the Media have latched onto the others?  I think when the anti-gun crusaders - including high profile Obama events - decided to exploit the Sandy Hook victims parents, this parents voice needed to be heard.

This is a great example of Fox News being the only network to show a different side of things - a side that doesn't follow the narrative the regular Media wants to lay out for us, a side the lockstep Media won't show - and then being critized for it.

Jeeeze.. Murdoch owns Fox..Murdoch has no affection for 'the common man'..demonstrated by his newspapers over here having senior staff prosecuted for phone hacking, e mail interception, bribery and corruption and one of his newspapers being closed down due to the shit storm. Obama (like any national leader oddly enough) has to take the overview and find out what,why,how,when and where whatever investigations are conducted. I know you erroneously believe the media are liberal left wing, Ruskie commie bastards, but I think you'll find the majority fall into popular press and simply channel out the agenda the proprietor/editor has decided this week. In other words, if it sells copy, it's news.

[Yorkshire pud]

In the words of Rahm Emanuel, Obama`s former right-hand man, "Never let a 'good' crisis go to waste"




The left specializes in exploitation! Nessuno no fa meglio di  Cesare Obama:




http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/12/sandy-hook-victims-mother-to-deliver-obamas-weekly-address/

And Bush never did that! Brilliant... Exhibit one..The 'Patriot' act...Exhibit two...Iraq War 2....... Exhibit three....Allowing the myth that Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were bossem buddies to garner support...Exhibit four, None existent WMD (Technically it's called a lie,and the WH was warned by the CIA the 'intelligence' was crap at best, later proven to be a lie)...Exhibit five, None existent Yellow cake imported to Iraq from Africa (Again, technically a lie--this was YOUR president) ...Do say if you want me to go on?

[PB the Deplorable]

... Here we go, the tyrant thing again. If you're so convinced that the population armed to the teeth (the good guys) would stop a tyrant, you believe that Santa Clause falls down the chimney each Christmas eve. As a matter of curiosity, I'd be interested how much in revenue the armaments manufacturers generate by one of their supporters trotting out the tyrant bogeyman and paranoid buy into it.

I don't follow your ideas of how the world works a lot of the time.  In this case, you go against history, you go against current events in any number of countries, and your comments do not reflect the underlying reasons for the periodic attempts at gun grabbing by the Left in this country. 

No military and/or police force can take and hold every city, town and village in the US, or any other country if they aren't wanted and the population isn't with them.  They would end up taking major causalties and many would quit.  You don't even need very many rebels as a percentage to make that happen - there are some places the cops don't venture into much now.  Those military weapons are nearly useless against a civilian population - what are they going to do, blow everything up and kill everyone?

Now let's say the rebels are popular, and it's more than just a small percentage of the population  in each town.  At some point at least some of the police and military switch sides.  Alliances from outside the country can be formed. 

This is how England lost in 1776, the Redcoats wanted to fight the war European style - the 2 opposing armies facing off against each other in a line out in some field.  The Americans didn't fight that way - they hit and ran, they shot from behind rocks, buildings, and trees, they attacked when it wasn't expected, and in some future rebellion it wouldn't be fought with 2 opposing armies squaring off either.

I give you Afganistan and Iraq.  How are we doing over there?  Sure, we can take any place we want any time we want and hold it as long as we want.  Then what - we leave and it ultimately reverts back and we have to take it again.  When we leave those places for good, those governments we installed won't hold.  Those people have wlll, and they have weapons.  It's not about who has the most.

Go to any third world country (where the current wars happen to be) that has rebel forces operating in part or most of the country.  The government and army control the major cities, the important infrustructure like airports and sea ports, some provencial towns.  They control the highways in the daytime.  The rebels often control the rest, as well as the highways at night.  Those rebels are heavily outgunned.  Yet they hold out for decades, and sometimes ultimately seize control

The point is, with an armed citizenry, there won't just be an announcement some day that the Left has taken over.  They will have to continue doing it in slow motion.

Why do you think the first thing Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc do is collect all the guns?  Why do you think the Black Panthers patrolled their neighborhoods with visable guns back in the 60s?  People like Obama's friends and 60s domestic terrorists Bill Ayres and Bernadette Dohrn understood the value of their terror groups carrying weapons in the 60s, and those very same people are now ultimately trying to disarm us.  Why?  They've changed and it's for our benefit?

Instead of following the people that would disarm us - in DC and in the Media - I'm sticking with Madison and Jefferson.  They were much wiser.

[Juan]

Here's something interesting. Clayton Cramer, of the College of Western Idaho,  did a statistical study comparing background checks and murder rates. He says there were nine states that have adopted or repealed mandatory background checks since 1960 (the year high quality murder rate data becomes available.) Of those nine, five had statistically significant changes in murder rates - three had higher murder rates during the background check period, and two had lower.

Of the four states that did not have significant changes, two had higher murder rates during the background check period and two had lower.

Those are not the results I would have expected.

The study is here.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2249317

[onan]

I hate hypothetical arguments. So let me start with a few points. War is not romantic nor heroic. The US citizenry is not about to give up its comfortable ways to fend off gun restriction. Maybe 5 percent would, but the others would turn the "radicals" in as sure as the sun will rise.


But let's suppose for a moment that there was enough support to wage a war. Are you willing to bring about the turning of the US into a third world country? Because that is what would happen. We are a long way from the 1700's. If we decided to return to lack of electricity, clean water, and medical care, what would happen? Do you think our questionable allies (China, Russian Federation) would not step in to sort things out in their favor? The lack of foresight with this ideation is alarming. You think our government wants your guns... attempt to overthrow this one and I guarantee you the next one will be worse. 

[PB the Deplorable]

Jeeeze.. Murdoch owns Fox..Murdoch has no affection for 'the common man'..demonstrated by his newspapers over here having senior staff prosecuted for phone hacking, e mail interception, bribery and corruption and one of his newspapers being closed down due to the shit storm. Obama (like any national leader oddly enough) has to take the overview and find out what,why,how,when and where whatever investigations are conducted. I know you erroneously believe the media are liberal left wing, Ruskie commie bastards, but I think you'll find the majority fall into popular press and simply channel out the agenda the proprietor/editor has decided this week. In other words, if it sells copy, it's news.

Regardless of who owns what, showing only the side that supports one's narraitive is where the bias is.  Not the network that shows that AND the other parents telling a different story.

There is a reason the Libs and Ds don't want anyone watching Fox News - and go out of their way to constantly demonize it - they don't want people to know there is another side, let alone know what it is. 

For decades they had near complete control over the 'news'.  Now having sources they can't control - Fox, talk radio, the internet, angers them.  They need to get over it.  If their ideas are so great, why the need to demonize and convince others not to even hear the other side?

[Yorkshire pud]

I don't follow your ideas of how the world works a lot of the time.

I can only apologise for that.. I base my opinions on evidence of the previous few decades, and not wishing I lived in the late 18 century where men were men and women were grateful. I don't wake up each day thinking up ways to second guess how the 'lefties' will rape my women and steal my 'guuurns' (To quote Alex asshole).


I'm glad you brought up 'third world' countries that have civil wars.. Guess which is one of the major league financiers/armouries of said civil wars,and has been since about 1945? And believe me (although you won't) Any 'left' involved in those tend to be fighting the incumbent right wing despot. You think Pol Pot was a communist? Explain then how his military was trained by American and UK special forces officers if his politics were diametrically opposite to NATO?

[PB the Deplorable]

I hate hypothetical arguments. So let me start with a few points. War is not romantic nor heroic. The US citizenry is not about to give up its comfortable ways to fend off gun restriction. Maybe 5 percent would, but the others would turn the "radicals" in as sure as the sun will rise.


But let's suppose for a moment that there was enough support to wage a war. Are you willing to bring about the turning of the US into a third world country? Because that is what would happen. We are a long way from the 1700's. If we decided to return to lack of electricity, clean water, and medical care, what would happen? Do you think our questionable allies (China, Russian Federation) would not step in to sort things out in their favor? The lack of foresight with this ideation is alarming. You think our government wants your guns... attempt to overthrow this one and I guarantee you the next one will be worse.

I agree with all that.  If thery were to ever ban guns it would come about through legislation and most would ultimately accept it, if grudgingly.  What would happen is the people that didn't accept it would just keep their guns, the way some people kept their gold when FDR outlawed it. 

Things would have to get a whole lot worse for any serious rebellion,  for the reasons you poointed out.  I'm just saying a serious armed citizenry would be a force to be reckoned with, and finally decided to respond to Pud's claims that anything like that - under the right conditions, and if the government truly lost the consent of the people - would be silly and easily dispatched.  It wouldn't.

[FightTheFuture]

If thery were to ever ban guns it would come about through legislation and most would ultimately accept it, if grudgingly. 

Remember, this has absolutely nothing to do with the "saftey of the kids", or "the high murder rate" or "protecting _(fill in blank)___". It has everything to do with a fascist, leftist agenda of "fundamental change".


Additionally, remember, they don`t live by the same laws as you and I. They are above such peasantry. Most, if not all, wealthy elitist, anti-gun democrats are protected by a full staff of heavily armed bodyguards.  However, they would deny you the right to protect yourself and your loved ones. Simply put, you aren`t as enlightened as they are, and they know what`s best for you; The government knows what is best for you!


Fortunately, there are a great many liberty-minded folks slugging it out in the courts and in the halls of congress to ensure the Second Amendment is never, ever overturned.   

[Eddie Coyle]

You think Pol Pot was a communist? Explain then how his military was trained by American and UK special forces officers if his politics were diametrically opposite to NATO?

Saloth Sar/Pol Pot was a Maoist-inspired with some French Communist nihilism thrown in. His Communism wasn't Marxist-Leninist, it was primarily derived from Mao's "leaps" circa 1958, 1966, basically an Asian bastardization that could only occur there. No Soviet bloc country had 30% of it's populace slaughtered. The worst days of Hungary in '56 and Czechoslovakia in '68 didn't approach the disaster that was Kampuchea from 1975-1979.


          The (tacit)NATO support of Pol Pot typifies the general inconsistency/madness of the Cold War. Initially, Pol Pot was Chinese supported, battling the US (see the Mayaguez incident May 1975)...but, when Vietnam invaded Kampuchea in late '78 with Soviet backing, as usual with Cold War thinking, a sworn enemy now became an "ally" and NATO support began to flow to Kampuchea. Which it makes it even worse. It's not like he was a puppet the West supported who went rogue, the motherfucker was fighting them from the start! But the Russkies entered the picture definitively in '78, so all the shit from 69-78 was seemingly under the bridge.

[FightTheFuture]

And Bush never did that! Brilliant... Exhibit one..The 'Patriot' act..

No, actually he didn`t. And believe me, I`m no G.W. Bush fan.  Your "exhibit one" is not the slightest bit relevant.  First of all,  The Patriot Act was passed and passed again, by overwhelming bipartisan support. Further, it has saved numerous lives, and would probably have led to the capture of UBL many years sooner had there not been a critical element of the bill exposed by an internal leak which funneled information to the NY Times regarding the technology in place tracking terrorist cell phone calls.


With regard to your 2nd, 3rd, and 4th exhibit; again, all erroneous. The United States was well within her rights and fully compliant with UN resolution 1441 in exercising her right to self-defense and bringing Saddam to account for WND as well as REPEATED breaches of the ceasefire resolution 687.

Further, every last, single Democrat and world leader of substance, lined up to publicly claim they believed Saddam had WND. We all believed he had them, or at the very least, was unwilling to gamble that he didn`t. For the record, i was opposed to the invasion of Iraq, but I understand the reasons behind it. I only wish they would have prosecuted the war as a real war, and not a UN humanitarian effort.

[Pragmier]

The Patriot Act was passed and passed again, by overwhelming bipartisan support. Further, it has saved numerous lives ...

This is a perfect example of a willing erosion of rights in exchange for perceived safety. Does it not fall into the 'slippery slope' argument the right always makes about government intervention? To their credit there are a few libertarians in congress that oppose it.

I too was against the Iraq war, but maybe for different reasons: it effectively removed Iran's bitter enemy in the region. But to your point, please explain how that was a war of self defense? It did make everyone take note that if you don't have nuclear weapons, the odds of a US invasion go up.

[onan]

The United States was well within her rights and fully compliant with UN resolution 1441 in exercising her right to self-defense and bringing Saddam to account for WND as well as REPEATED breaches of the ceasefire resolution 687.

Actually no.
Michael Byers, PhD, Canadian Research Chair in International Law and Politics at the University of British Columbia stated:

"United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, adopted unanimously on 8
November 2002, was initially celebrated as reflecting a newfound sense of unity
and resolve among the Council's fifteen members... But deep differences soon
emerged as to whether the text of the resolution authorized UN member states to
use force to uphold its provisions...


A careful perusal of Resolution 1441 reveals grounds for arguments both for
and against the existence of a Security Council authorization for the use of
force against Iraq in 2003 -- and this in a document that resulted from eight
weeks of negotiations among governments that were working hard either to secure
or deny such authorization. The failure to close off one or the other sets of
arguments suggests that the ambiguities were intentional and that the potential
for deep disagreement over the legal meaning of the document was consciously
accepted at the time."

and,
Peter Goldsmith, QC, PC, Attorney General of England and Wales at the time of the quote, wrote in a Mar. 7, 2003 memo to then Prime Minister Tony Blair:

"...[T]he language of resolution 1441 leaves the position unclear and the
statements made on adoption of the resolution suggest that there were
differences of view within the [UN Security] Council as to the legal effect of
the resolution. Arguments can be made on both sides."

and,
Anne-Marie Slaughter, PhD, JD, Dean of Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, stated:

"I think it is certainly true that eight out of 10 international lawyers
would say that would be a violation of international law. That view would also
be supported by the legal advisers of most other countries in the United
Nations. On the other hand, the United States has said from the beginning that
it did in fact have authorization for the use of force, based on a string of
resolutions going back to the original [Gulf War] ceasefire resolution in 1991.



And certainly it was clear in November under Resolution 1441 that we were
reserving the right to act without a second Security Council resolution. The
other members of the council were insisting that we should come back for a
second vote. So this is an area in which the law is sufficiently undeveloped
that I think you can reasonably agree to disagree. There’s no question, however,
that many, many, many other countries-â€"the majority of other countries and
certainly many of our European alliesâ€"-will not see a unilateral American-led
attack as explicitly authorized by the Security Council."

All of this makes the point that the attack on Iraq wasn't the slam dunk Fox and Beck say it was.
http://usiraq.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000875

[FightTheFuture]

This is a perfect example of a willing erosion of rights in exchange for perceived safety. Does it not fall into the 'slippery slope' argument the right always makes about government intervention? To their credit there are a few libertarians in congress that oppose it.

I too was against the Iraq war, but maybe for different reasons: it effectively removed Iran's bitter enemy in the region. But to your point, please explain how that was a war of self defense? It did make everyone take note that if you don't have nuclear weapons, the odds of a US invasion go up.

The "slippery slope" analogy is a fair one to make in this case. In most cases, under normal circumstances, I would be fully onboard with it. However, I think it`s critical to understand the context of the PA. The world changed in a very dramatic way on 9/11 and we were compelled to change with it. That, in no way, means we must abandon our hard fought freedoms. But, there must be a reasonable and balanced approach that produces robust measures of security while taking care not to infringe upon a citizen`s expectation of privacy. 


Generally speaking, security and liberty make up opposite ends of a sliding scale, with one end amounting to a total police State. The other end representing unrestrained anarchy. Neither end is particularly appealing to the common man, therefore we tend to slide somewhere in the middle. With that said, I`m not opposed to open debate of the PA and possibly tweeking some (2 or 3, possibly) of it`s more controversial provisions     




Finally, with regard to the self-defense clause pertaining to our invasion of Iraq, I`ll make it brief, but there is a great deal of material that can be brought to bear in support of the coalition`s legal authority to take the action they took.



I mentioned Iraq`s repeated breaches of Resolution 678. That`s not an opinion; that is a fact. You will recall that Resolution 678  authorized member states "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."  We exercised our right to use necessary force in order to bring Iraq into compliance.



[size=78%] [/size]

[Yorkshire pud]

No, actually he didn`t. And believe me, I`m no G.W. Bush fan.  Your "exhibit one" is not the slightest bit relevant.  First of all,  The Patriot Act was passed and passed again, by overwhelming bipartisan support. Further, it has saved numerous lives, and would probably have led to the capture of UBL many years sooner had there not been a critical element of the bill exposed by an internal leak which funneled information to the NY Times regarding the technology in place tracking terrorist cell phone calls.


With regard to your 2nd, 3rd, and 4th exhibit; again, all erroneous. The United States was well within her rights and fully compliant with UN resolution 1441 in exercising her right to self-defense and bringing Saddam to account for WND as well as REPEATED breaches of the ceasefire resolution 687.

Further, every last, single Democrat and world leader of substance, lined up to publicly claim they believed Saddam had WND. We all believed he had them, or at the very least, was unwilling to gamble that he didn`t. For the record, i was opposed to the invasion of Iraq, but I understand the reasons behind it. I only wish they would have prosecuted the war as a real war, and not a UN humanitarian effort.

You're obviously unaware of the evidence that has recently been made public regarding the 'evidence' that shaped the resolutions..In other words using lies and misinformation to garner support too drive through what the WH had already decided to do anyway.


Watch this, I doubt many will know abut it's contents:



The Spies Who Fooled the World

[PB the Deplorable]

It's interesting to read the Declaration of Independence from time to time, it's not very long and consists mostly of a list of grievences against King George.  The people that wrote and signed the thing were pissed.

So many of King George's offenses sound familiar today.  Our various governments as a whole - Federal, states, counties, cities, park/water/fire/school/sanitation districts - are much more oppressive and autocratic than faraway King George ever was.

Here's just one item from the list:

"He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance."

If that isn't an elegant 18th Century description of our current tax and spend crowd, then I don't know what would be.  It doesn't sound like they were getting much for their tax dollars either.

There is a lot more in the document that should be familiar to anyone paying attention.  I would say about the only thing missing is a ruined economy 'He' is refusing to address,and is in fact exacerbating, except there are even references to the King interfering with commerce, refusing to pass needed laws, usurping the law, and ruining peoples lives.  Close enough.

[FightTheFuture]

You're obviously unaware of the evidence that has recently been made public regarding the 'evidence' that shaped the resolutions..In other words using lies and misinformation to garner support too drive through what the WH had already decided to do anyway.


Watch this, I doubt many will know abut it's contents:



The Spies Who Fooled the World

I mentioned Iraq`s repeated breaches of Resolution 678. That`s not an opinion; that is a fact. You will recall that Resolution 678  authorized member states "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."  We exercised our right to use necessary force in order to bring Iraq into compliance.

[Yorkshire pud]

I mentioned Iraq`s repeated breaches of Resolution 678. That`s not an opinion; that is a fact. You will recall that Resolution 678  authorized member states "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."  We exercised our right to use necessary force in order to bring Iraq into compliance.

So you didn't watch the video? Fair enough; I think you'll revise your thinking when you have. For the record, it isn't a piece put together by 9/11 troothers monged out on Lebanese red: it's been done by a highly respected journalist and was broadcast by the BBC on the anniversary of the raids on Iraq ten years ago. Incidentally, you say 'our right'? Really? Who bestowed the US administration with executive powers to wage war on a foreign country with no mandate in international law? Furthermore a similar executive mandate you'd be against if it was ever used against you by the administration, if they decided that you were a threat; whether or not there was any justification for it. The Iraq war was not anything other than a vehicle for a very few corporations to make a great deal of money.
A 100 000 of Iraqs population died, innocent people. Birth defects are rife because of the uranium tipped ordnance , but you're probably unaware of that because it's censored and has been for years on mainstream news. Over 4000 UK and US military personnel were killed. All based on lies and an agenda to make money. It had nothing to do with 9/11, yet some still believe that SH conspired with Bin laden! They hated each other, but Bush never told you that did he?

[Pragmier]

Here's the pdf of Manchin-Toomey bill so we can stop guessing. Use the left/right arrows to navigate, for some reason the scroll looses pages.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/152165893/Public-Safety-and-Second-Amendment-Rights-Protection-Act


or at Sen.Toomey's site (it's harder to read)

http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=968




edit: Thanks for that video York.

[West of the Rockies]

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice...."  Barry Goldwater, 1964.

It's been nearly 50 years and we're still debating this point.  We see pop-culture fictional figures like Jack Bauer who seem to support such thinking.  (Off the top of my head, I do not have a "left-wing fictional figure" who expresses the opposite perspective.  I don't want to be accused here of seeing only one side; I just can't come up with another figure.  Maybe there is one out there....)

Anyway, I guess the sum of my contribution here is that this issue has been and remains quite a conundrum.  How much are we willing to give up to feel safe?

[Sardondi]

....Anyway, I guess the sum of my contribution here is that this issue has been and remains quite a conundrum.  How much are we willing to give up to feel safe?

We can start by abolishing and repealing the enabling legislation for the ridiculously inept and unnecessary Department of Homeland Security, and restore the longstanding Customs and Immigration and Naturalization agencies to their natural roles. The sale alone of the massive stores of DHS's emergency purchases of eleventy-zillion rounds of just-got-to-have-it-now ammunition would probably fund both for a year without dipping into any of the gargantuan DHS budget.

We wouldn't be an iota less secure, and air travel could return to at least tolerable from the near-death experience it is now. If nothing else this would strip completely uncredentialed and unqualified aircrews from having the unprecedented extrajudicial power, akin to that of martial law, to violate with impunity citizens' due process and habeas corpus rights for mere fits of pique or as a way to "educate" those passengers deemed to be insufficiently deferential to the at-present godlike power of the stews.

[West of the Rockies]

Sardondi, I've always thought even the name of that agency (Homeland Security) was unfortunate:  it sounds pretty damn close to "the fatherland" (as the Nazis had it).  It does smack of xenophobia.  I've not actually flown since pre-9-1-1, so I can't comment on the rough handling of those security figures other than to say that the stories are always pretty shitty. 

Will the war on terror end or will it become like the war on drugs, and endless and endlessly-expensive task.

[stevesh]

We can start by abolishing and repealing the enabling legislation for the ridiculously inept and unnecessary Department of Homeland Security, and restore the longstanding Customs and Immigration and Naturalization agencies to their natural roles. The sale alone of the massive stores of DHS's emergency purchases of eleventy-zillion rounds of just-got-to-have-it-now ammunition would probably fund both for a year without dipping into any of the gargantuan DHS budget.

We wouldn't be an iota less secure, and air travel could return to at least tolerable from the near-death experience it is now. If nothing else this would strip completely uncredentialed and unqualified aircrews from having the unprecedented extrajudicial power, akin to that of martial law, to violate with impunity citizens' due process and habeas corpus rights for mere fits of pique or as a way to "educate" those passengers deemed to be insufficiently deferential to the at-present godlike power of the stews.

Not sure if I've ever said it here or not, but occasionally someone says (or posts) something that earns them a pass with me in perpetuity despite anything they may say in the furure. Dennis Miller got the lifetime pass with "Barack Obama is the Matt Millen of presidents." and Sardondi earned the slack with this post. Perfect.

[Sardondi]

Sardondi, I've always thought even the name of that agency (Homeland Security) was unfortunate:  it sounds pretty damn close to "the fatherland" (as the Nazis had it).  It does smack of xenophobia.  I've not actually flown since pre-9-1-1, so I can't comment on the rough handling of those security figures other than to say that the stories are always pretty shitty....

I agree - the name makes my skin crawl...as does its mission. There have countless intelligence successes (which we don't know about)) but they don;t have a damn thing to do with DHS. CIA, the military intel arms and the quasi alphabet soup of agencies which have been around a long while, as well as FBI domestically, have done all that - not DHS, which is nothing hut a funding boondoggle and a power play.

[Juan]

DHS - the Obamacare of the Bush administration.

[Sardondi]

DHS - the Obamacare of the Bush administration.

It's true. While I detest the Bush Derangement Syndrome so consistently and thoroughly displayed, even today, by so much of the mainstream media, the usual talking suspects and the glitteratti, Bush has much, much to answer for, for what he did to this country.

[PhantasticSanShiSan]

The "slippery slope" analogy is a fair one to make in this case. In most cases, under normal circumstances, I would be fully onboard with it. However, I think it`s critical to understand the context of the PA. The world changed in a very dramatic way on 9/11 and we were compelled to change with it. That, in no way, means we must abandon our hard fought freedoms. But, there must be a reasonable and balanced approach that produces robust measures of security while taking care not to infringe upon a citizen`s expectation of privacy. 


Generally speaking, security and liberty make up opposite ends of a sliding scale, with one end amounting to a total police State. The other end representing unrestrained anarchy. Neither end is particularly appealing to the common man, therefore we tend to slide somewhere in the middle. With that said, I`m not opposed to open debate of the PA and possibly tweeking some (2 or 3, possibly) of it`s more controversial provisions     




Finally, with regard to the self-defense clause pertaining to our invasion of Iraq, I`ll make it brief, but there is a great deal of material that can be brought to bear in support of the coalition`s legal authority to take the action they took.



I mentioned Iraq`s repeated breaches of Resolution 678. That`s not an opinion; that is a fact. You will recall that Resolution 678  authorized member states "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."  We exercised our right to use necessary force in order to bring Iraq into compliance.

The world didn't change one bit on 9/11, at least not for anyone who didn't have their heads up their ass.  But it did change A LOT post PA.  The PA freedom for "security" was a terrible fucking tradeoff.  And don't use the word "robust" if you want to be taken seriously, unless you are talking about vacuum packed coffee.

[Sardondi]

It's true. While I detest the Bush Derangement Syndrome so consistently and thoroughly displayed, even today, by so much of the mainstream media, the usual talking suspects and the glitteratti, Bush has much, much to answer for, for what he did to this country.

It struck me on second reading that "Bush has much, much to answer for, for what he did to this country", begs for the response, "What you mean 'this country', kemo sabe?".