I don't think shes a soothsayer, but the video sounded surprisingly modern, didn't it? I mean here we are faced with two candidates who have the same ideas, there is a huge debate about the government taking over the private sector, and we have a president who is taking full advantage of his executive powers.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
I predict that within 50 years there will be another earth-shaking financial crisis. Who wants to post the video?

I don't know if it is a strong enough reason for you on its own, but consider the Supreme Court, swampgirl. In the next four years, there will almost certainly be 2 resignations, both on the liberal side. In the next eight years, there could be as many as 5 resignations. If McCain is elected, you can expect to have one of the most conservative Supreme Courts in history. If Obama is elected, you can expect a more balanced court (since he will primarily be replacing liberal Justices). An ultra conservative court will invite litigation on all of the most radical proposals from the right wing. It won't just be a matter of the Court overturning Roe, and upholding the kinds of abuses that have been going on for nearly eight years (illegal surveillance, suspending habeus corpus, etc.). Imagine school prayer being compulsory. Imagine creationism being required teaching. Imagine not just gay marriage being outlawed, but homosexuality itself being outlawed. Imagine a permanent ban on all stem cell research, not just preventing federal funding of it. Imagine an expansion of executive power that would make Cheney drool. Imagine the removal of even more of the checks and balances in our government.

Some of those may be a stretch, but just imagine a Court in which Alito is considered the moderate.

It's hard to take fault with their line of thinking. After all the flak that Bush got for in-activity during major disasters, it seems Mccain's trying to project the opposite image as somone who's right there where action's needed. Of course, the difference is that Bush has the Executive power to take action, and Mccain's some senator from Arizona.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
This is the first presidential nominee I've ever seen who is willing to talk so frankly about class, race, healthcare, corporate influence, etc.,

I thought you were old enough to remember Carter.

Other than that, I agree with you on just about everything else you wrote. (Is that a hole in reality I see out of the corner of my eye??)

I think Obama is sometimes a little too willing to make compromises with the corporates. But I've come to view most elections in a similar light as the Louisiana gubernatorial election of 1991 - Edwards vs. Duke. Just pick the lesser of two evils. On the one hand, you've got a typical politician, and on the other hand, a neo-Nazi.

No, I don't think McCain is a neo-Nazi, but given his support for Bush's unprecedented assumption of executive power over the rights of individuals, he might as well be a fascist. (Wow, is that two invocations of Godwin's Law? naw - Duke really was/is a neo-Nazi, so that doesn't count.)

>> ^NordlichReiter:
I know some people who think this guy is a Idiot...
If he was an idiot .. would he have really made it into congress.
I don't call your senators representatives idiots so you keep your peanut gallery comments to yourself.


"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-- Evelyn Beatrice Hall, regarding Voltaire

Election to public office is determined by one criteria only: Popularity. Many politicians have been less than sharp about various things -- Our current Congress seems to exemplify this fact. I fully support calling them out on it when it occurs, regardless of whether or not the person doing the calling had any impact on their election.

That being said, I support Kucinich and his motion to impeach. All I'm saying it that if someone has a reasoned argument as to why he's an idiot, I'd like to hear it.

The limits of executive power are simple: Whatever the Decider wants, the Decider gets. I don't need no fancy degree from Regent University to know that.

>> ^Irishman:
How do you think this event will be percieved around the world?
Moving the venue to a football ground and filling it with 75,000 'adoring fans' does have the whiff of fanatacism about it.
I'm sure many Europeans will see this event echoing 1930s Germany.
I think it's right that this be raised and discussed. Obama's speech in Israel followed by this event is sending out a very particular type of message.
It's not about what I personally think, it's about the alarm bells that this kind of stunt rings around the rest of the world. It's about perception.


So to my original point, normally nomination acceptance speeches are given before a crowd of 20,000...why is adding 55,000 more people nefarious?

Don't things like torture, ignoring habeas corpus, domestic spying, propaganda, consolidating power, and open flirtation with starting a war with Iran send a bigger message?

We've got an election where McCain is endorsing all of those things either overtly in his rhetoric, or tacitly by refusing to vote against them, and Obama speaks out about ending all of the above, and votes against it when he has the opportunity.

Given that, shouldn't Europeans be more concerned that there's still a pretty significant chance McCain could win, not because Obama plans to give a speech before a crowd less than half the size of the one he attracted in Germany?

Seems eerily similar to: http://www.videosift.com/video/Vincent-Bugliosi-Hearing-on-Limits-of-Executive-Power-WMD

Your video on "Vincent Bugliosi: Hearing on Limits of Executive Power" is an excellent sift, although the video is less than 10 minutes long. You may want to remove the long tag as that may serve as an impediment to potential viewers, and frankly I think the message is important enough to reach the widest possible audience.

Scalia is a brilliant cold-hearted bastard. Amend the constitution to abolish torture -- Scalia's interpretation that interrogation is not "punishment" is correct. However, there are statutes against torture. Still, he and the other conservatives in SCOTUS might someday overturn an anti-torture statute on the basis of some "executive power" bullshit... So the constitution must be amended to outlaw torture to prevent that from happening (unless, miraculously, obama wins the election and two of the conservatives on the court die and Obama replaces them with judges as good as Stevens) Stephens is smart enough to know Scalia's literal interpretation of the clause is right but also smart enough to dissent anyway and circumlocute a constitutional justification for it by going back to the private writings of Thomas Jefferson et al to determine the intent of the framers.

I love how QM always states that Obama or Hillary or whatever Democrat coming into power would impose large government control.

What do you think Bush has been doing with his no bid contracts from Katrina to Iraq, financial bailouts and encroachments of executive power?

All of a sudden a hardened extremist Sunni terrorist organization called Al Qaedea is allied with the Shi'a government of Iran. Get your facts straight McFail.

Furthermore when is American foreign policy being dictated through the words of some terrorist? Since 2001 Osama Bin Laden has been built up as some phantom boogey man.

The facts are clear on this, if the US wants to capture and nullify Bin Laden the resources are there, they were there during the Tora Bora campaign in Afghanistan. If you disagree, think about military deployment between Afghanistan and Iraq and tell me if it makes any sense that there were more resources dedicated to capturing a failed state of Iraq then going after Public Enemy Number 1 post 9/11? The number of troops needed to capture Bin Laden were not supplied. Why?

Because if Bin Laden is eliminated what fear mongering scapegoat can the government use to push the sheeple of America into accepting whatever stupid foreign policy escapade it deems fit?

This was never about war, its about hijacking a country through encroachments on executive power.

meh, when I tried to post it, it failed
http://www.videosift.com/video/FISA-Protecting-America-or-executive-power-grab

anyway, good insightful clip!

Only because the young white males don't realize the degradation of personal civil liberties over the last 8 years.

Authoritarian rule is not imposed by revolution but by small increments in executive power, all in the name of protecting freedom, liberty and democracy against terrorism.

In reply to this comment by smibbo:
only if you're not a young white male.

In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:
The US is already a police state.

I agree with BicycleRepairMan, looking at political stances and such he is no different then Hillary. Sure his character might be better, and its wonderful to see someone being able to speak coherently again after so many years of NUCULAR. I wonder how the GOP is reloading it's slime guns, am waiting to hear all about him being a terrorist, a muslim, with middle name of Hussein. Fox News will be going beserk if he gets the nomination.

Though I think its all a facade, I don't think he will change so much. He pulls alot of string with his hope and change rehetoric, but doesn't really say all that much of substance, its classic JFK in that sense, that why he can't be caught not acutally doing anything, unlike Bush who promised the world democracy and a trip to Mars.

Will Obama unravel all those years of consolidating executive power? Reform DOJ? Reform OLC? Come out against US torture programs? increase taxes? rebuild the import based economy? End the war with dignity? Wane off oil?

Though one bright side is that speeches by him internationally would be something to really witness, I can totally see him pulling a "Ich bin Berliner" somewhere... "Ana Arabia" would be awesome to ease Middle East tensions.

But then again part of me thinks there is a white neo-Nazi loading a sniper rifle right now somewhere out there.