I came across this...
http://www.care2.com/news/member/544256115/461413
It's a great message! I was all set to say "I made a mistake" when I called him a "crackpot" but then the fantasy wore off and common sense came into play.
See. Ron speaks a great line... "Let's make it all real simple..." (like it was in 1850). There was no "big gobment". There were no foreign wars. There were few constitutional questions. There was a gold standard and we only printed as much money as we had in gold. There was no federal income tax and no IRS. There was no "welfare" (even to corporations)! The states generally did what they wanted and the federal government just stood around looking pissed.
Here's the problem, Ron. This is 2007 and slavery is no longer legal. The globe is so small that an astronaut circled it in a matter of minute. Commerce is world-wide and global now. We chat via the internet with people who don't even live in the same hemisphere with us! The Civil War decided that it was not a question of "State's Rights" anymore. We have been the United States of America --- a Federal Republic --- for over 150 years! There are Constitutional issues that are still being debated as times move forward (aka "Progress") and there will always be issues that must be decided by the Supreme Court. It's hardly time to shut it down.
Ron would like us to remain stuck in the past but, trust me, the past ain't all it's cracked up to be! I'm just over a half century old and even I recall separate drinking fountains, bathrooms, and waiting rooms for white and "colored". I recall white sheriffs who ruled entire counties like fifedoms. I recall state governors who barred the door of black students trying to attend schools and state govenments blocking free elections (worse than Florida and Ohio!). I recall the Federal Government having to post National Guardsmen to protect the rights of citizens against state despotism. I recall people being denied jobs and education because of race and sex!
Sure, I'd like to go back to some point in the past. I'd be younger, healthier and a lot smarter. Perhaps I'd meet Ron Paul and convince him that America is not such a bad place that we have to put out the chonological anchor to some other century.
He's well meaning. He's a doctor and surely would like to cure all our ills. But putting our head in the proverbial sand won't accomplish much. After all, Ron, like many other Repugnicans is running on the platform that we should get rid of the Federal Government. I question the sense of electing someone to lead the Federal Republic who wants to destroy the Federal Republic!
So, as much as Ron almost seems sensible, he's hardly that. He's contrarian and anachronistic. As President, he'd be almost as bad as Bush! Naive and demented! I guess I was right then after all in my initial assessment. He's a "crackpot".
Friday, August 24, 2007
Repugicans Find a Way Out for 2008!
From MSNBC.com and Associated Press:
ORLANDO, Fla. - A Republican political consultant and two other men were found dead in a home in an apparent double-murder and suicide, authorities and relatives said.
Authorities have not determined a motive for the deaths of Ralph Gonzalez, 39, his roommate, David Abrami, 36, and a friend, Robert Drake, 30.
-------
Maybe more Repugnican "consultants" will take this way out to avoid the 2008 debacle!?
Perhaps a "lover's triangle"? It's imaginable. After all, the most notorious "closet queens" in history are Repugnicans!
Next it'll be Rudy and Mitt having a tiff and bitch slapping each other to death?
-Devon
ORLANDO, Fla. - A Republican political consultant and two other men were found dead in a home in an apparent double-murder and suicide, authorities and relatives said.
Authorities have not determined a motive for the deaths of Ralph Gonzalez, 39, his roommate, David Abrami, 36, and a friend, Robert Drake, 30.
-------
Maybe more Repugnican "consultants" will take this way out to avoid the 2008 debacle!?
Perhaps a "lover's triangle"? It's imaginable. After all, the most notorious "closet queens" in history are Repugnicans!
Next it'll be Rudy and Mitt having a tiff and bitch slapping each other to death?
-Devon
Monday, August 6, 2007
Fox "News" and Giuliani
Remember the good ole days when the news programs had integrity? Remember when they would carefully step over the tricky issues of personal preference when it came to candidates? When there was a "fairness doctrine" that forced them to carefully walk a tightrope when it came to giving one candidate more exposure over another? Well, the Repugicans did away with most of that and the result is that we're blessed with their idea of "fair trade" versus "fairness".
For example, Fox "news", in a study by MediaMatters.com has given Giuliani more airtime than any other candidate, Repug or Democrat. And when you look behind the curtain, here's a interesting tidbit from MSNBC.com that might explain it...
“Roger [Alies] explained that every time a candidate is given a microphone, he’s getting $100,000 worth of publicity,” Mr. Giuliani wrote in his book. After he became mayor, Mr. Giuliani spoke at a reception in 1994 when Mr. Ailes was introduced as the new president of the new CNBC business news network. The mayor listed for the crowd gathered in the Rainbow Room Mr. Ailes’s many accomplishments as a producer of television comedy specials and documentaries, including the Emmy Award-winning “Television and the Presidency.”
“I am personally gratified to see that Roger has reached a new pinnacle in a remarkable career, because Roger has played an important role in my own career,” Mr. Giuliani said, according to a draft of his speech.
----
Should Roger and Fox "news" account for a political donation of $100,000 for each appearance by Rudy on their "network"? It would seem that they've already placed that value on the act. They should have to "own up" to you, dontcha think?
But alas, the Justice Department and Election Commission are under the political control of the Bush Regime and they are too busy prosecuting Liberal churches for political organizing and Democrat candidates for election law violations to look at real crimes! It's a shame and, yet another fact, that history will record in this decade of shameless, political plundering masterminded by Rove and Cheney and recorded as the "Bush Presidency".
For example, Fox "news", in a study by MediaMatters.com has given Giuliani more airtime than any other candidate, Repug or Democrat. And when you look behind the curtain, here's a interesting tidbit from MSNBC.com that might explain it...
“Roger [Alies] explained that every time a candidate is given a microphone, he’s getting $100,000 worth of publicity,” Mr. Giuliani wrote in his book. After he became mayor, Mr. Giuliani spoke at a reception in 1994 when Mr. Ailes was introduced as the new president of the new CNBC business news network. The mayor listed for the crowd gathered in the Rainbow Room Mr. Ailes’s many accomplishments as a producer of television comedy specials and documentaries, including the Emmy Award-winning “Television and the Presidency.”
“I am personally gratified to see that Roger has reached a new pinnacle in a remarkable career, because Roger has played an important role in my own career,” Mr. Giuliani said, according to a draft of his speech.
----
Should Roger and Fox "news" account for a political donation of $100,000 for each appearance by Rudy on their "network"? It would seem that they've already placed that value on the act. They should have to "own up" to you, dontcha think?
But alas, the Justice Department and Election Commission are under the political control of the Bush Regime and they are too busy prosecuting Liberal churches for political organizing and Democrat candidates for election law violations to look at real crimes! It's a shame and, yet another fact, that history will record in this decade of shameless, political plundering masterminded by Rove and Cheney and recorded as the "Bush Presidency".
If Congress is in session, our rights are in danger!
This weekend as we all slept in and relaxed, our Congress was "hard at work" undermining our Constitutional Rights and Civil Liberties.
------- From DailyKOS.com
The 227 to 183 House vote capped a high-pressure campaign by the White House to change the nation's wiretap law, in which the administration capitalized on Democrats' fears of being branded as weak on terrorism and on a general congressional desire to proceed with an August recess. ...
Privacy and civil liberties advocates, and many Democratic lawmakers, complained that the Bush administration's revisions to the law could breach constitutional protections against government intrusion. But the administration, aided by Republican congressional leaders, suggested that a failure to approve what intelligence officials sought could expose the country to a greater risk of terrorist attack. ...
"There are a lot of people who felt we had to pass something," said one angry Democratic lawmaker who requested anonymity, citing the sensitivity of caucus discussions. "It was tantamount to being railroaded."
In a sole substantial concession to Democrats, the administration agreed to a provision allowing the legislation to be reconsidered in six months. ...
Tonight, several Democrats said the bill would "eviscerate" the Fourth Amendment. Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) said that lawmakers were being "stampeded by fearmongering and deception" into voting for the bill. Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) warned the bill would lead to "potential unprecedented abuse of innocent Americans' privacy."
------
Tragically, even when the Demcratic Party is in control, they can be bullied and railroaded into doing something they know is NOT in the best interests of the American People. THAT'S how dangerous this White House Regime can be! Perhaps we need a law that prohibits Congress from voting on the weekends when we're not paying attention. Or perhaps we need a law that the American people have to pay attention? Or perhaps we need a party with the courage to say, "NO!" to the White House!
- Devon
------- From DailyKOS.com
The 227 to 183 House vote capped a high-pressure campaign by the White House to change the nation's wiretap law, in which the administration capitalized on Democrats' fears of being branded as weak on terrorism and on a general congressional desire to proceed with an August recess. ...
Privacy and civil liberties advocates, and many Democratic lawmakers, complained that the Bush administration's revisions to the law could breach constitutional protections against government intrusion. But the administration, aided by Republican congressional leaders, suggested that a failure to approve what intelligence officials sought could expose the country to a greater risk of terrorist attack. ...
"There are a lot of people who felt we had to pass something," said one angry Democratic lawmaker who requested anonymity, citing the sensitivity of caucus discussions. "It was tantamount to being railroaded."
In a sole substantial concession to Democrats, the administration agreed to a provision allowing the legislation to be reconsidered in six months. ...
Tonight, several Democrats said the bill would "eviscerate" the Fourth Amendment. Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) said that lawmakers were being "stampeded by fearmongering and deception" into voting for the bill. Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) warned the bill would lead to "potential unprecedented abuse of innocent Americans' privacy."
------
Tragically, even when the Demcratic Party is in control, they can be bullied and railroaded into doing something they know is NOT in the best interests of the American People. THAT'S how dangerous this White House Regime can be! Perhaps we need a law that prohibits Congress from voting on the weekends when we're not paying attention. Or perhaps we need a law that the American people have to pay attention? Or perhaps we need a party with the courage to say, "NO!" to the White House!
- Devon
Friday, August 3, 2007
Impeachment for Incompetence?
It's become apparent to even the most dull-witted citizen that incompetence seems to prevail in the government. The Attorney General is clearly way in over his head. His latest attempts to lie or claim ignorance before the House and Senate investigating committees is shamefull and embarrassing. The Secretary of State was hardly competent as the National Security Advisor and "overlooked" the warning about BinLaden's plans to attack the US. Then she was "promoted" to another level and is in over her head once again. The only thing that's saved her is that she's not done much to bring dishonor to her office, like the Attorney General. The Vice President has pressed his political agenda into areas of the government where he shouldn't and the result a general breakdown in the credibility of governmental review and reporting. Likewise Carl Rove's hand has been found in governmental and legislative "cookie jars" where no adviser to the President has gone before. Even the President has left his fingerprints on various disasters such as the infamous occupation of Iraq and the generally terrible reputation of the US in international affairs and the continued fall of the once mighty US dollar as the "gold standard" of internation currency to second behind that of the Canadian Dollar!
The question is: Does incompetence stand as reason enough to Impeach? Do we have to find their incompetence was also linked to illegal acts? In the case of the AG, it sure looks like he intentionally ignored the Civil Service Laws even against the best advice of those few underlings who warned him against that. That should be enough to impeach but the dilemna is that the AG is so incompetent that the question becomes blurred. Was he too incompetent to know he was doing something wrong? Or, did he do something wrong because he was incompetent? Or, did he do something illegal and is now hiding behind the defence of "ignorance" and "poor recall"?
Is ignorance an excuse? If you or I were hauled in front of a judge and asked about something we did that was illegal, could we simply respond with, "I don't recall" or "That's a matter of priviledge"? I don't think so. After a few of those responses, we'd be hauled off to jail, I'm sure. But for Presidential Advisors, members of the Cabinet, and members of the Justice Department, these excuses seem to be the perfect defense.
As much as I'd like the President to have "Executive Priviledge", it simply is a courtesy granted by the Congress, a "priviledge", because there is no Constitutional basis for it. It was given to George Washington and others because Congress wanted to give the President some room within his office to side-step their questions. However, since Richard Nixon, "Executive Priviledge" has become a "Get out of Jail Free" card to be played as much as often as the President and his staff deemed necessary. In this administration it's been expanded to include private citizens called to testify under subpeona by Congress, a step beyond any previously taken.
So, must we wait until the evidence falls on us like a Minneapolis highway bridge before we impeach the President, Vice President, Attorney General, Secretary of State, etc., etc.? Or can we dispense with the formalities and impeach for imcompetence? Because, if these people can't seem to provide concrete, believeable answers to even the most simple questions, they should be impeached. And if they use Executive Privledge, to evade answering the simplest questions, they should be impeached. If they are impeached perhaps then their memories will sharpen and we'll get the answers to our questions. It seems to be the only way we'll get answers.
IMPEACH!
The question is: Does incompetence stand as reason enough to Impeach? Do we have to find their incompetence was also linked to illegal acts? In the case of the AG, it sure looks like he intentionally ignored the Civil Service Laws even against the best advice of those few underlings who warned him against that. That should be enough to impeach but the dilemna is that the AG is so incompetent that the question becomes blurred. Was he too incompetent to know he was doing something wrong? Or, did he do something wrong because he was incompetent? Or, did he do something illegal and is now hiding behind the defence of "ignorance" and "poor recall"?
Is ignorance an excuse? If you or I were hauled in front of a judge and asked about something we did that was illegal, could we simply respond with, "I don't recall" or "That's a matter of priviledge"? I don't think so. After a few of those responses, we'd be hauled off to jail, I'm sure. But for Presidential Advisors, members of the Cabinet, and members of the Justice Department, these excuses seem to be the perfect defense.
As much as I'd like the President to have "Executive Priviledge", it simply is a courtesy granted by the Congress, a "priviledge", because there is no Constitutional basis for it. It was given to George Washington and others because Congress wanted to give the President some room within his office to side-step their questions. However, since Richard Nixon, "Executive Priviledge" has become a "Get out of Jail Free" card to be played as much as often as the President and his staff deemed necessary. In this administration it's been expanded to include private citizens called to testify under subpeona by Congress, a step beyond any previously taken.
So, must we wait until the evidence falls on us like a Minneapolis highway bridge before we impeach the President, Vice President, Attorney General, Secretary of State, etc., etc.? Or can we dispense with the formalities and impeach for imcompetence? Because, if these people can't seem to provide concrete, believeable answers to even the most simple questions, they should be impeached. And if they use Executive Privledge, to evade answering the simplest questions, they should be impeached. If they are impeached perhaps then their memories will sharpen and we'll get the answers to our questions. It seems to be the only way we'll get answers.
IMPEACH!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)