Bush at 29%

[Larry Gude]

Yeah...

We are taxed far more than King George was taxing us before the Revolution. Any bets on what George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, John Adams. Nathan Hale, John Hancock and the rest of the founders would be planning if they were alive today?

...they'd be planning on what all politicians in this country's history plan on; pushing their views.

They'd grouse about existing policy and how horrible and ignorant their opponents are. They'd be working for office. They'd be fighting, within the Constitutional system, their fight as they see it and wish it to be because now, just as the beginning they made, you can do that here.

Unlike under a King.

Our world is incredibly larger and much more complex than their day yet they had the same arguments and victories and disappointments we have today. I will not argue that they'd think we've achieved the perfect union but I would argue that they'd, along with things they think poorly done, recognize many things we've done well.

It's interesting to note that you left Hamilton off your list as both he and Jefferson thought the end of the world was at hand whenever the other got his way about something.

Would they be plotting revolution? I don't think so.

 

[SamSpade]

Or it could be that the media had time to tell everyone what to think over the past week.

The same thing happened with the wiretapping story.

But like the conspiracy theories that popped up over the Cheney hunting accident - it all melted away over time when people realized there was no "there" there. (One story I heard was that Cheney intended to KILL him and claim it was an accident and when he survived, his family was coerced to sympathize with Cheney on TV. You can believe anything when you make up your mind before it gets muddied up with actual information.)

I know there are some still hopping mad over it. I know even more who really just don't give a crap, partly because they assume the government is always going to be doing that. And as many as are mad about also become disenchanted with a party that seems to cry "Wolf" every single week over allegations that once examined are absolutely worthless - the fact that they pounce on every single story without checking the facts first adds more fuel to the existing situation where people have doubts about a party that seems more interested in making political gain than actually doing anything.

I feel like someone who was a Clinton supporter during the 90's, wondering when the Republicans were going to give up nailing Clinton over something, because nothing ever stuck. Every damned week they bark over the latest noise, and it turns out to be the wind.

I kind of thought that part of the reason the last wiretapping story vanished was because people were aware of Echelon - they realized that the breach of information leaked by the NY Times only helped the terrorists on the chance of making political gain - they realized they were only talking about listening in on conversation overseas with suspected terrorists and those in the United States - and that Uncle Sam really doesn't give a crap about your personal life, nor will it ever have the resources to do so.

I was listening to a radio show this morning that mentioned that it's possible that the Brits had advanced info on the subway bombing - but because of the same kind of ridiculous red tape we had in Washington (prior to the Patriot Act) they were unable to respond to the threat fast enough.

You know, it's clear to me that SOMEONE has to yield on this subject. SOMEONE is going to feel their civil liberties encroached upon - and I sure as hell hope it's the terrorists feeling it. Perhaps the solution is to make sure a third party is watching the Executive Branch to keep them honest - but you can't catch the terrorists using conventional Washington bureaucracy, and you can't turn the US into a police state.

Unfortunately, the status quo appears to *ASSURE* another 9/11.

 

[FromTexas]

FT, why do these businesses do business in the U.S. if they're being taxed to hell? I wouldn't.

That may be yet another reason to do business overseas. Move the whole show and pay no mo'.

Because in many countries where they could pay less in taxes they might be threatened by other things... like the government taking control of their business. Oh wait...

 

[SamSpade]

Because in many countries where they could pay less in taxes they might be threatened by other things... like the government taking control of their business. Oh wait...

You mean like in some South American countries during the 70s - where American companies lost millions because their companies were "acquired" by members of a coup?

 

[Larry Gude]

Sam...

You know, it's clear to me that SOMEONE has to yield on this subject. SOMEONE is going to feel their civil liberties encroached upon - and I sure as hell hope it's the terrorists feeling it. Perhaps the solution is to make sure a third party is watching the Executive Branch to keep them honest - but you can't catch the terrorists using conventional Washington bureaucracy, and you can't turn the US into a police state.

Unfortunately, the status quo appears to *ASSURE* another 9/11.

Do we agree that another 9/11 is inevitable? Maybe a dirty bomb. Maybe an organized assault on the Capital or White house?

I mean, McKinley was murdered by an anarchist over 100 years ago, point being that there will always be those hostile to the US and it's values and ideas for one reason or another and willing to 'prove' that they and their supporters are so right and the US so wrong that their actions are justified.
Even Leon Czolgosz was supported, kinda, by his hero anarchist Emma Goldman.

Your point stands and what we call a civil liberty, some made up right to absolute privacy, is, and should be, long gone because, while we WILL be attacked again, we can't just sit around and wait for it; we stop what we can. Maybe not so much the status quo at fault but varying degrees of willingness to take action? The story will never be told I don't think, but I suspect that an AWFUL lot of would be terrorists, all over the globe, are being killed my us and our friends.

Osama, like Boothe and Czolgosz, made matters much, much worse for their cause and ideas, not better. Maybe that's the lesson we need to count on maniacs to learn?

 

[SamSpade]

I do think another 9/11 is inevitable, but not because "everything" is inevitable if you give it enough time.

I think it's inevitable because we're getting increasing opposition to the current collection of actions to combat terrorism on the grounds that they are dangerously curtailing civil liberties of otherwise innocent citizens - that under the guise of fighting terrorism, OTHER things might pop up on the government's radar and they won't demonstrate the restraint to refrain from using it.

Admittedly, there's some merit in that. We have restrictions in place to keep the government out of people's business. What happens if, while going out on a limb checking someone out for terrorist links, you find that they cheated on their taxes or committed fraud against the government? Can you prosecute them? You're using a tool outside the usual box that someone gave you to fight terrorists - and now you know something you would not have known without going through proper channels. You know, from my TV watching, usually evidence gained illegally is not admissible no matter how damning it is.

Presumably - we gave terrorist fighters "special" powers to fight terror - to ignore the usual rules. What happens if they can USE these tools to do what they couldn't do before? Because if they CAN, all that is necessary to go arond the rules is find SOME trumped up reason to employ these tools - and apologize later when the reasons turn out to be lame. For example, an elusive drug lord escapes justice repeatedly - someone manufactures a terrorist link, probably through some circuitous weapons purchase - they investigate - ooops, no terrorism connection, very very sorry - but hey, look what DID turn up.

And we make this conditions to protect us from a system that could very well TOTALLY MAKE UP stuff. We have the rules to keep them accountable, to make them PROVE their case for guilt.

So there's a rationale for saying, look, I don't want the government checking out this stuff - because I don't trust they'll mind their own business and stay between the lines without someone watching them.

On the other hand - the government has so many checks and balances and red tape, terrorists are smart enough to totally dodge them. They're not crazed lunatics. Many of them are quite brilliant, resourceful and have access to a deadly arsenal that Ernst Stavro Blofeld would envy. And the threat they pose is too high; it's one thing to drag your feet with a drug lord - or even a serial killer - they threated with drugs, or or death on a small scale. You can't drag your feet with someone who holds the power to kill millions. You HAVE to get them first. Normal checks and balances just makes it easy for them.

So what do we do in the meantime?

Argue about it.

Status quo.

Guarantees another 9/11.

 

[FromTexas]

You mean like in some South American countries during the 70s - where American companies lost millions because their companies were "acquired" by members of a coup?

Or like Chavez has been doing recently?

Just remember though... all these issues in other countries are just smokescreens to raise the cost of oil. The world political climate doesn't matter... they are just sticking it to us.

 

[MMDad]

This type of history does NOTHING to enhance my income and is therefore useless to me.

So help a dummy out. Why aren't they regulated? This country CANNOT survive without oil just as it cannot survive without electricity.

I guess I was being too sarcastic and simplistic. The way that utilities evolved vs. how the oil industry evolved is what created the difference. Utilities are a public health and safety issue, with the exception of cable. Fresh water, sewage systems, reliable communications, and heat are too important to rely on industry to provide just because they want to. I don't agree with government regulation of these industries, but I do understand how the government became so involved.

Oil, on the other hand, is a commodity. It's no different than food, clothing, building supplies, etc. If we decide the government should regulate oil, what's next? Cap tomatoes at $1.50 / lb.? Milk?

"Hey guys, let's all pool our gas ration so we can get to the bread distribution center for our weekly loaf."

Yep, government regulation sure worked great for the Soviets!

 

[FromTexas]

I guess I was being too sarcastic and simplistic. The way that utilities evolved vs. how the oil industry evolved is what created the difference. Utilities are a public health and safety issue, with the exception of cable. Fresh water, sewage systems, reliable communications, and heat are too important to rely on industry to provide just because they want to. I don't agree with government regulation of these industries, but I do understand how the government became so involved.

Oil, on the other hand, is a commodity. It's no different than food, clothing, building supplies, etc. If we decide the government should regulate oil, what's next? Cap tomatoes at $1.50 / lb.? Milk?

"Hey guys, let's all pool our gas ration so we can get to the bread distribution center for our weekly loaf."

Yep, government regulation sure worked great for the Soviets!

Also, water and sewage is not cost efficient. Sewage is vital to public health and safety along with water... the costs of water and sewage are very rarely covered in the minimal payments we make. The subsidizing of the cost is justified because everyone must have it.

 

[SmallTown]

so after 6 pages of bickering, fussing, supporting, etc, we have only 1 item that everyone seems to agree upon.
Bush's approval rating is lower than big oil's tax rate. :shrug:

 

[FromTexas]

so after 6 pages of bickering, fussing, supporting, etc, we have only 1 item that everyone seems to agree upon.
Bush's approval rating is lower than big oil's tax rate. :shrug:

And it didn't take a Perab to figure it out.

 

[SamSpade]

Oil, on the other hand, is a commodity. It's no different than food, clothing, building supplies, etc. If we decide the government should regulate oil, what's next? Cap tomatoes at $1.50 / lb.? Milk?

"Hey guys, let's all pool our gas ration so we can get to the bread distribution center for our weekly loaf."

Yep, government regulation sure worked great for the Soviets!

On the other hand - there are *alternatives* to bread and tomatoes. People won't pay 20 dollars a loaf for bread, because they can eat something else.

However, when you have an oil furnace in New England - as I did - and it's 17 below outside - like it was for me - and the oil runs out - you'll pay anything. You DO depend on it. When you drive a truck, or send things via delivery service, or drive a cab or do ANYTHING that involves something being transported across land - yes, you depend on it. Suggesting it's just a commodity is like claiming that electricity or natural gas is a commodity - doesn't matter, lives depend on it. There really *aren't* alternatives.

I remember the oil embargo in the early 70's. We DO depend on it. It's like insulin. Our lives depend on that oil, and if OPEC decides we can't have any of their oil at all, we're gonna fight for it.

 

[SmallTown]

And it didn't take a Perab to figure it out.

 

[vraiblonde]

Sam...

I think it's inevitable because we're getting increasing opposition to the current collection of actions to combat terrorism on the grounds that they are dangerously curtailing civil liberties of otherwise innocent citizens

That is hard to understand, in my book; it's like saying we are failing at putting the fire out because we are using too much water. It is perfectly clear, to me that the President has the power to pretty much make his own law in the name of national defense. Lincoln did it. FDR did it. Lord knows Kennedy did and we weren't even at war with Cuba. LBJ made his own law.

Now, your concern may be true, that we, the people, are going to say there is some other mysterious way to do this within the confines of absolute adherence to the letter and intent of the law. We may well ignore that laws on the books were not enforced as regards to 9/11 and we may ignore that other laws, enforced, helped make it easier.

In the mean time, what are we to make of the lack of other attacks on us? I'd say our enemies are wisely biding their time until Americans fall, naturally, back into our false sense of security. Our enemies are counting on it because they are not doing to well right now.

What happens if, while going out on a limb checking someone out for terrorist links, you find that they cheated on their taxes or committed fraud against the government? Can you prosecute them? You're using a tool outside the usual box that someone gave you to fight terrorists - and now you know something you would not have known without going through proper channels.

This is what I NEVER understand about people who say they are for individual civil liberties. If you are hunting down someone for running a red light and pull them over and notice what looks like a dead body in the back seat and you prosecute your suspicions based on instinct and the obvious and miss some of the legal realities in the process, a killer goes free. And they probably get off for the red light in the process.

This creates anarchy; the subordination of the common good for letters in a law. This does not establish justice, it violates the domestic tranquility, does not promote the general welfare and destroys the very idea of individual civil liberty to boot.

There can and should be a penalty for searching into someones affairs without grounds. A fine. Maybe a civil penalty, even criminal if egregious enough but it is incomprehensible that if I am under suspicion for aiding and abetting terror and they find I'm the wrong Larry Gude but do find I haven't paid my taxes, it disappears like it never happened. Turn me into the proper authorities!.

Presumably - we gave terrorist fighters "special" powers to fight terror - to ignore the usual rules. What happens if they can USE these tools to do what they couldn't do before? Because if they CAN, all that is necessary to go around the rules is find SOME trumped up reason to employ these tools - and apologize later when the reasons turn out to be lame. For example, an elusive drug lord escapes justice repeatedly - someone manufactures a terrorist link, probably through some circuitous weapons purchase - they investigate - ooops, no terrorism connection, very very sorry - but hey, look what DID turn up.

A drug lord. Prosecuted by using trumped up charges. A drug lord. Why isn't this a good thing? As I said, if someone makes up a false charge, he too has committed a crime of some nature but the greater good has been damn well served by fining him and locking up the drug lord. Isn't this self evident?

So there's a rationale for saying, look, I don't want the government checking out this stuff - because I don't trust they'll mind their own business and stay between the lines without someone watching them.

Again, I do object, in fact I support, many, many limits on government power but I do NOT support the greater good falling into a chasm because we can not even touch a criminal if gone about incorrectly. How many cops are going to risk a 6 month suspension to dig into what they know is an innocent persons business? How many cops would gladly risk it to nail a guy that everyone knows is dirty but uses the law to get away time and again? Especially if the cops suspension can be overturned, HIM shown some justice and understanding, if he gets his man?

On the other hand - the government has so many checks and balances and red tape, terrorists are smart enough to totally dodge them. They're not crazed lunatics. Many of them are quite brilliant, resourceful and have access to a deadly arsenal that Ernst Stavro Blofeld would envy. And the threat they pose is too high; it's one thing to drag your feet with a drug lord - or even a serial killer - they threated with drugs, or or death on a small scale. You can't drag your feet with someone who holds the power to kill millions. You HAVE to get them first. Normal checks and balances just makes it easy for them.

We share common ground.

So what do we do in the meantime?

Argue about it.

Status quo.

Guarantees another 9/11

We FIND common ground, unite behind candidates seeking the greater good and just stay involved.

 

[Larry Gude]

The above brought to you...

...by me.

 

[SamSpade]

A drug lord. Prosecuted by using trumped up charges. A drug lord. Why isn't this a good thing? As I said, if someone makes up a false charge, he too has committed a crime of some nature but the greater good has been damn well served by fining him and locking up the drug lord. Isn't this self evident?

Really?

*You're* a drug lord. Or rather, you just became one, because I don't like you. I'm a cop. I just made up some charges. Wham! Your azz is in jail. I just bypassed a whole SLEW of proper procedure because as we all know ("we all" meaning, me and me alone) you're a drug lord.

I mean, wouldn't the GREATER good be to totally fabricate a case, engage in jury tampering, get a pile of witnesses to lie under oath - just so we could be SURE to put a bad guy behind bars?

That bad guy of course, being YOU, since you're a drug lord, and you are one because I said so. The greater good and all that.

Without due process, we don't have a court system at all. It's frustrating but it does work most of the time.

 

[Larry Gude]

Do we agree...

Really?

*You're* a drug lord. Or rather, you just became one, because I don't like you. I'm a cop. I just made up some charges. Wham! Your azz is in jail. I just bypassed a whole SLEW of proper procedure because as we all know ("we all" meaning, me and me alone) you're a drug lord.

I mean, wouldn't the GREATER good be to totally fabricate a case, engage in jury tampering, get a pile of witnesses to lie under oath - just so we could be SURE to put a bad guy behind bars?

That bad guy of course, being YOU, since you're a drug lord, and you are one because I said so. The greater good and all that.

Without due process, we don't have a court system at all. It's frustrating but it does work most of the time.

...that the goal is to limit what are thought of a civil liberties enough to stay alive long enough to enjoy those civil liberties? Do we agree that there is a way, however difficult, to balance the competing interests of absolute privacy and law enforcement?

Due process: "Your honor, we investigated Larry here under suspicion of selling gerber daisies to Al Queda. During our investigation, we found that 'Al Queda' was actually 'Al k. Dah' a local flower retailer. However, we would like to prosecute Larry for the illegal ethanol factory and Jimmy Hoffa's body we found in the process of our investigation."

Yer Honor: "Mr. Larry, please accept our deepest apologies for offending your civil liberties. Do have a nice day. Case dismissed."

 

[Larry Gude]

That's why we have...

That bad guy of course, being YOU, since you're a drug lord, and you are one because I said so. The greater good and all that.

Without due process, we don't have a court system at all. It's frustrating but it does work most of the time.

...bad laws and bad TV shows because people actually believe that fine, upstanding citizens, known by many as a decent sort of fellow, end up in a gulag.

Better 100 guilty go free than 1 innocent man go to jail?

HORSESHIT.

In the meantime, we have innocent people still going to jail on very, very rare instances and 100,000's of guilty men running free.

 

[SamSpade]

I don't believe it is right to prosecute someone on the basis on what amounts to be a fishing expedition. If that were the case, we could conceivably drag anyone into court even if the case were dismissed.

Larry, SOONER or later, given enough latitude and freedom to act, I could probably get your butt in jail on SOMETHING.

The only difference that I do know of is when the crime discovered is substantially greater than the one initially investigated - e.g. I'm pulling you over for a busted tail light - and I find blood dripping from the trunk - and I find a dead body in there.

 

[Larry Gude]

Sigh...

I don't believe it is right to prosecute someone on the basis on what amounts to be a fishing expedition. If that were the case, we could conceivably drag anyone into court even if the case were dismissed.

Larry, SOONER or later, given enough latitude and freedom to act, I could probably get your butt in jail on SOMETHING.

The only difference that I do know of is when the crime discovered is substantially greater than the one initially investigated - e.g. I'm pulling you over for a busted tail light - and I find blood dripping from the trunk - and I find a dead body in there.

I don't believe it is right to drag someone in on a fishing expedition either but I believe it is a greater harm when known criminals are set free on a technicality.

Is it not possible to balance those competing interests better, much better, than they are today?

Are you not going to have some reservation about lying about me if you expose yourself to prosecution for doing so?

If my neighbor the cop has it in for me, trumps up a possession charge, is our legal system so fragile that it cannot distinguish between personal animus and real crime?

We know damn well far too many well known crooks, including as you pointed out, terrorists, use our own leniency's against us. Is that our legal system, unable to distinguish at a moments glance, the difference between a multi millionaire with no known means of income and a series of acquittals where the evidence was real but his Miranda rights we not read to him properly and a long list of cops willing to testify under oath that they almost had him save for X or Y or Z technical mistake vs. me, a known decent neighbor with no millions floating about and only a speeding ticket in the last 20 years?

How does a system that fragile even have the moral weight to hold ANYONE guilty if it cannot think and act rationally?