I disagree with her that retroactive immunity was given because it was a revenue stream for telecom firms, it was given because Bush pushed for it, issuing an executive order post 9/11 that mandated that the NSA, bypass FISC approval under FISA to start wire tapping. If you are a US based telecom firm, how exactly do you say no to the NSA when it comes with orders from Bush, at the time of large terrorism fears and general public support to do pretty much anything?

The blame is thus with the abuse of executive powers as envisioned by Cheney and the rest of the Nixon gang that believed that the President has the ultimate authority to do anything he likes. Also as I recall there was one single telecom firm that refused to abide by this and thus was mired in legal issues. I do however concede that there is alot of American technology helping China impose a surveillance society everyone from Microsoft to Yahoo to Google is involved there.

America needs civics education programs in schools from Elementary level. If you don't know your rights as a citizen, being free is a moot point.

>> ^DavidRaine:
> ...he goes on to list all sorts of abuses of power, and then he turns the majority of his invective at Congress? He's angry at Congress rather than the President, where there isn't even a remotely acceptable Constitutional explanation for Bush's abuses of executive power...

yeah, that was one of the problems i also had with his presentation, and it's one of the reasons i didn't think this was as good a clip as some others that i playlisted, that address some of the same issues.

"Andrew P. Napolitano (b. June 6, 1950, in Newark, New Jersey) is a life-tenured, Superior Court Judge, in New Jersey, and now an analyst for FOX News Channel."

Note to self -- Never get arrested in New Jersey. I understand that he's a strict Constitutionalist, but there's a point at which accepting any document as absolute dogma is lunacy, and this guy is a hop, skip, and a jump beyond that. On top of that, he goes on to list all sorts of abuses of power, and then he turns the majority of his invective at Congress? He's angry at Congress rather than the President, where there isn't even a remotely acceptable Constitutional explanation for Bush's abuses of executive power, whereas the commerce clause has proven to be a broad brush which paints today's Congress with all sorts of power and responsibility. It's no wonder he's on FOX.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
Violates the 1st amendment, all of those things in EDD's comment. Every single one of them discriminate against people who have the freedom to not believe.
EDD here is your case:
No congress, legislature or executive power may legislate a law promoting or degrading the first amendment. Every citizen who wishes to run for office in states that have no atheist provisions need only file civil suit against that state in the venue of the United States Supreme Court. On the premise that all citizens of the United States are guaranteed the bill of rights therefore: guaranteed freedom to believe or to not believe.
Or if you want to run for office, just lie. Like ever other politician. I would just tell them I believe in FSM.
Picard owns.
promote the bald goodness.


Keep trying. The contents of EDD's comment is actually the opposite of what prayer violates.

Violates the 1st amendment, all of those things in EDD's comment. Every single one of them discriminate against people who have the freedom to not believe.

EDD here is your case:
No congress, legislature or executive power may legislate a law promoting or degrading the first amendment. Every citizen who wishes to run for office in states that have no atheist provisions need only file civil suit against that state in the venue of the United States Supreme Court. On the premise that all citizens of the United States are guaranteed the bill of rights therefore: guaranteed freedom to believe or to not believe.

Or if you want to run for office, just lie. Like ever other politician. I would just tell them I believe in FSM.

Picard owns.

*promote the bald goodness.

Here's the full Bugliosi hearing.

Sounds like baseless fear mongering. Maybe this will help decrease civil liberties and increase executive powers even more.

>> ^imstellar28:
when the majority fails to give the "right answer", "oppress" via a different means.
is it really hard to see how much of joke democracy is? its a bullsh t system. if someone can just "undo" the results, whats the point of even taking it to a vote.
why don't you just give some dictator the executive powers and military force to make sure gay marriage is legal. stupid sh ts.


Ahh, so if 51% of an electorate voted to have you bent over and have a dozen pineapples shoved up your ass, you'd be okay with it because "it's a vote"...

Moron...

How about if 51% voted that using the word "nigger" to address African American's was fine, would you be okay with it?

51% said raping women was fine?

Voting on it doesn't make it right, which is why courts exist so peoples rights are not infringed upon. Given that you are such a pulpit junkie, I'm sure you have a copy of the first amendment tatooed yourself. Perhaps you forgot the bit that said "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I think gay couples have quite a grievance at this point. Their relationships have no bearing on the greatest majority of the 50+ %. They have the right to petition for redress. It's good to see that Arnie has taken a strong stand on this.

>> ^imstellar28:
when the majority fails to give the "right answer", "oppress" via a different means.
is it really hard to see how much of joke democracy is? its a bullsh t system. if someone can just "undo" the results, whats the point of even taking it to a vote.
why don't you just give some dictator the executive powers and military force to make sure gay marriage is legal. stupid sh ts.


Your first point... sarcastic.... your second... an assumption based on your opinion which you now conceed... there were at least half a dozen posts directly arguing against the comment, including a couple of excellent posts from chillaxe immediatly following... if you chose to ignore them, so be it... but you cannot then say you were just ignored as though your points were untouchable in their validity and people just... i don't know disagreeing out of spite or something?

Your last another sarcastic comment ending with you referring to to anyone who disagrees with you as "stupid shits"

I'll remind you this is how you BEGAN this discussion... your last posts would suggest that you were always so willing to discuss this... but the reality is not so.

You follow this up with posts about how your a victim of others close mindedness and somehow suggest that you've made only positive contributions and wand intelligent discussion...

Here is a thought... try not leading off by saying anyone who doesn't agree is a 'stupid shit'. You talk about being thick headed... try taking your own advice and realize YOU turn yourself into a cartoon figure to be ignored... no one does it to you.

when the majority fails to give the "right answer", "oppress" via a different means.

is it really hard to see how much of joke democracy is? its a bullsh*t system. if someone can just "undo" the results, whats the point of even taking it to a vote.

why don't you just give some dictator the executive powers and military force to make sure gay marriage is legal. stupid sh*ts.

^ Hmm, well, let's see

You said:

Obama is going to increase the size of the US government. While his foreign policy will not be as aggressive as McCain's would have--what do you think will happen when a president down the road takes the helm with an even larger budget, and even more executive powers? The road to the wars and oppression of Bush were paved by the good intentions of his...

Then you said:

More government means a larger budget--and that includes military budgets. More power, more ability to abuse it. Bush could not have done what he has done in the last 8 years if the government was not the size it is today. A large part of that was due to the policies of FDR--enacted some 70 years prior. By electing Obama, you can be rest assured the government will be even larger in the future.

So... you are definitely proposing that a large government is bad, therefore you think a smaller one is good?

You also make the odd assumption that just because you increase government spending that automatically defense spending will increase. Is it not remotely conceivable that you could... oh, I dunno... CHANGE the budget and give LESS to the military and MORE to other things? Dunno... just this wild idea I had that you don't have to keep the percentages the same as they've always been.

And I make the first of the two statements you quote because in almost all cases the people who keep making the arguments against a 'large' government are those that want them to stop spending money on those that are less fortunate. If you are not one of those, then I apologize.

However you haven't answered any of my points that did directly mention your assertion that by making a larger government now, spending more on things to help people now, you seem to be of the opinion that that will only be turned to evil later.

What do you suggest then? Twiddle thumbs, sit and wait for the next dumbass, military mad president to get elected and start this whole mess over again? Or perhaps try and make your country, and the world, a bit better while the reigns are in good hands?

spoco2,

You have a really short-sighted vision of the future. I gather that you live outside the US, and are currently displeased with America's role as a imperial police force, invading other countries as it sees fit? Obama is going to increase the size of the US government. While his foreign policy will not be as aggressive as McCain's would have--what do you think will happen when a president down the road takes the helm with an even larger budget, and even more executive powers? The road to the wars and oppression of Bush were paved by the good intentions of his predecessors. You may have just won the battle, but you most certainly just lost the war--both figuratively and literally.

In exchange for a more timid foreign policy today, you will most certainly experience a larger, more powerful, reckless, and brutal America down the road.

>> ^deedub81:
The Vice President may also be assigned additional duties by the president but, as the Constitution assigns no executive powers to the vice president, in performing such duties he or she acts only as an agent of the president.



Damn straight deedub.

And Tweety was sincerely at his best in this segment. He's pissed, and looking for a senate seat in 2010, and I'm loving every minute of it.

"We'll talk about this after the election." -- ha!!

The Vice President may also be assigned additional duties by the president but, as the Constitution assigns no executive powers to the vice president, in performing such duties he or she acts only as an agent of the president.

>> ^Aemaeth:
Notice he never said who was threatening. Call me a sheep, but it could have been his 12 year-old nephew saying that for all we know. Unless there's more to this story than is indicated by this video, there's nothing suggesting that anyone in power to enact martial law has suggested it. Doesn't mean anything to me at this point.


Sheep. (Sorry, couldn't resist)

Honestly, I think you're missing the point. The first question is "Do I trust those people involved," which you asked. You're right that it could have been anyone saying this, but the Bush Administration has a history of privately scaring members of Congress into complying with the Administration. The assertion cannot be verified, and I doubt both parties involved (Brad Sherman and the Administration), so more information is necessary.

The second question is "Which conclusion is better supported by existing evidence?" You may have asked this one and simply not written about it, but when I ask this question I end up believing Brad Sherman. For me the breaking point was the Republican National Convention. Both conventions had a large police presence and made some erroneous arrests (though many more were made at the RNC), but only the RNC carried out pre-emptive raids and targetted journalists for arrest. The raids were a scare tactic: Only seven arrests were made although over one-hundred homes were broken into. The suppression of journalism speaks for itself.

To me, that act goes beyond the distinctions of Republican or Democrat. Those people in power have shown that they are willing to do whatever it takes to remain in power. Since the doctrine of pre-emptive action worked so well overseas, it should work equally well here in the States, using the municipal police as the shock troops instead of the Marines. Such a thing seems like the mad ravings of a lunatic, except that watching how the police and National Guard conducted themselves in St. Paul seemed like watching a test drive of that strategy.

I honestly don't believe that the United States will reach that point. Even for an Administration that has grabbed power again and again without a second thought, the act of declaring martial law to maintain that power is very far fetched. Even in this country, there's a breaking point beyond which its citizens will not tolerate the rule of those in power. However, I don't doubt for a moment that the Administration would try to use the threat of martial law as a scare tactic aimed at another Executive power grab.