Re: We Will Not Be Afraid
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You really think that I think the Democrats are any better? Hypocrites and liars on both sides. You did leave me with that distinct impression.but maybe I'm just used to that being the default position of brin-l JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: We Will Not Be Afraid
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/4/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, that would mean voting against the people who are campaigning on the fear that their opponents will take away a woman's right to choose, end Social Security and Medicare, send all our jobs to India, and put minorities back on plantations? ;-) Isn't there a difference between fear for personal safety and fear about principles? Presuming that you would describe the fear of your grandmother being forced to live in a cardboard box on the street and eat dogfood for lunch if Republicans are elected to be principle rather than personal safety. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: We Will Not Be Afraid
JDG wrote: Isn't there a difference between fear for personal safety and fear about principles? Presuming that you would describe the fear of your grandmother being forced to live in a cardboard box on the street and eat dogfood for lunch if Republicans are elected to be principle rather than personal safety. Would *you* describe it as 'fear for personal safety'? Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: We Will Not Be Afraid
On 10/5/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Presuming that you would describe the fear of your grandmother being forced to live in a cardboard box on the street and eat dogfood for lunch if Republicans are elected to be principle rather than personal safety. The leadership on the left does not routinely justify their policies by telling us to be afraid that our grandmothers will live that way. The adminstration constantly justifies its war on terror by telling us to be afraid. They justified the invasion of Iraq by telling us to be afraid of chemical and nuclear attacks against the United States. They invoke 9/11 constantly. The tell us we have to fight them over there so that we don't have to fight them here. And to the extent that those on the left use any fear-mongering to try to get their way, shame on them. We will not be afraid is not anti-Republican. It is anti-fear-mongering. But I think that not being afraid takes far more power away from the right than from the left. Tell me, do you think we should make our political decisions out of fear? Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Someone Must Tell Them
On Behalf Of Deborah Harrell these hypocrites, such as the Foley case, and even rabid rightists will see them for what they are: power-grabbing immoral elitists. They are politicians...what else would they be? Right, left, they are all hungry for power and all tha goes with it. - jmh CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: We Will Not Be Afraid
On Behalf Of jdiebremse Presuming that you would describe the fear of your grandmother being forced to live in a cardboard box on the street and eat dogfood for lunch if Republicans are elected to be principle rather than personal safety. See, that's the thing. If I'm worried about *my* grandmother being forced to eat dogfood (or *my* mother or even *myself*), that would be personal safety. But if I'm worried about the fact that a given policy will make *anyone's* grandmother more likely to have to eat dogfood, then it's a matter of principle. - jmh CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: We Will Not Be Afraid
At 11:46 AM Wednesday 10/4/2006, Dave Land wrote: I'd be an independent voter if it didn't mean basically giving up my franchise. What do you mean? I'm an independent voter and didn't have to give up my franchise (whatever that means). I have never been a member of any political party (and will not unless I find one which I at least mostly agree with, though I have been invited to join more than once) and I have voted in every election since I turned 18 except for a handful (IOW, could be counted on the fingers of one hand) when something like having had to move too close to the election time to re-register or illness which made it impossible to get to the polling place that day prevented me. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: We Will Not Be Afraid
At 11:18 AM Wednesday 10/4/2006, Nick Arnett wrote: On 10/4/06, Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yep. Which one do you suppose most folks normally base their choice of which party or candidate to vote for on? What do you mean by normally? Routinely, perhaps? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: We Will Not Be Afraid
On 10/5/06, Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 11:18 AM Wednesday 10/4/2006, Nick Arnett wrote: On 10/4/06, Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yep. Which one do you suppose most folks normally base their choice of which party or candidate to vote for on? What do you mean by normally? Routinely, perhaps? I guess I don't think there's any such thing, really, when it comes to elections. Nations' moods change. When people feel threatened, it is normal and routine for them to vote more conservatively. When people feel secure, it is normal for vote more liberally, so to speak. This corresponds to the old saw about a conversative being a liberal who has been mugged. I'm not suggesting that it is wrong to feel afraid or insecure. Without fear and insecurity, I don't think we would be stable. Or perhaps simply not alive. However, I don't think it should ever be allowed to dominate, personally or politically, which is the current situation in the U.S., I believe. Our constant challenge is to find a course that defends what we have while not holding onto it so tightly that we self-destruct. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Someone Must Tell Them
At 09:16 AM Thursday 10/5/2006, Horn, John wrote: On Behalf Of Deborah Harrell these hypocrites, such as the Foley case, and even rabid rightists will see them for what they are: power-grabbing immoral elitists. They are politicians...what else would they be? Right, left, they are all hungry for power and all tha goes with it. - jmh Remember the entomology of the word politics: from poli, from the Greek polloi meaning many + tics, from ticks, a type of bloodsucking parasite . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: We Will Not Be Afraid
On Oct 5, 2006, at 4:19 AM, jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You really think that I think the Democrats are any better? Hypocrites and liars on both sides. You did leave me with that distinct impression.but maybe I'm just used to that being the default position of brin-l Thanks for saying this. I've been thinking that this meme may not all that accurately reflect reality... For example, does anyone really think that we'd be exactly where we are today in Iraq, Iran, et cetera if Kerry/Edwards had won in 2004, or Gore/Lieberman's victory in 2000 had actually resulted in their taking office? Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Reagan Shooting (was RE: 9/11 conspiracies)
On Behalf Of Nick Arnett As I think you know, you're writing to the guy who came up with the truth about the Reagan shooting when the rest of the Washington press corps missed the story and accepted the White House version. Actually, I didn't know. What was the truth? What was the non-truth version? - jmh CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: We Will Not Be Afraid
On 05/10/2006, at 9:19 PM, jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You really think that I think the Democrats are any better? Hypocrites and liars on both sides. You did leave me with that distinct impression.but maybe I'm just used to that being the default position of brin-l To clarify - you think the default position is of Brin-L is Democrat (or anti-Republican, even)? You're probably right. And to be honest, my default position is closer to Democrats than Republicans. But that's sort of like saying my default position is closer to Uranus than Neptune... Anyway - in an ideal world, my disagreements with Republicans would be on policy. But at the moment it's not, it's with the ideology of the current administration and the damaging shortsightedness of that. And the Democrats have been complicit, as a party, by not providing a resistance to this, especially to the erosion of checks and balances, and the power-grab by the Executive. Even if they were going to get rolled as a minority, they should have still stood up for their own policies. And didn't. Shame on them. The system only works if there are two parties instead of one. However, I don't think the system is broken just yet. It has saddened me to see the decline of American values and their replacement with authoritarian ideology, but it's not too late for the system to self- correct. There are plenty of Republicans out there that I'd disagree with but still respect. Hopefully they'll have their day. Ask me again in another couple of years. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: We Will Not Be Afraid
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charlie Bell Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 7:07 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: We Will Not Be Afraid On 05/10/2006, at 9:19 PM, jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You really think that I think the Democrats are any better? Hypocrites and liars on both sides. You did leave me with that distinct impression.but maybe I'm just used to that being the default position of brin-l To clarify - you think the default position is of Brin-L is Democrat (or anti-Republican, even)? You're probably right. And to be honest, my default position is closer to Democrats than Republicans. But that's sort of like saying my default position is closer to Uranus than Neptune... Anyway - in an ideal world, my disagreements with Republicans would be on policy. But at the moment it's not, it's with the ideology of the current administration and the damaging shortsightedness of that. And the Democrats have been complicit, as a party, by not providing a resistance to this, especially to the erosion of checks and balances, and the power-grab by the Executive. Even if they were going to get rolled as a minority, they should have still stood up for their own policies. And didn't. Shame on them. The system only works if there are two parties instead of one. But, that's not really what happened. For example, Bush's executive powers are less than those from FDR through Nixoneven after his big push to expand them. Checks and balances are still working. The clearest example of this is Bush's need to negotiate the limits of his power with Senators from his own party. He got reigned in far earlier than FDR got reigned in by his party (for trying to pack the Supreme Court). I think the Democrats have a number of problems they have failed to address, but this is just part of the ebb and flow of politics. The Republicans had to abandon their old stands on many issues just to stay as a minority party for years (from say '40 through '80). Look at Nixon, for goodness sakes. He went to China, and instituted wage and price controls. It took the Reagan revolution to make real conservatism fashionable again. If the Republicans stood on their original principals of isolationism, opposition to governmental interference in the economy, and opposition to all of the New Deal, including Social Security, they wouldn't have lasted until '80. Yet, they were still an effective opposition party during this time. I think it would be useful to this from ~15 years ago. Most Democrats voted against giving Bush the authorization for Desert Storm. IIRC, this was _after_ the UN approved it. It only passed by one or two votes in the Senate. In hindsight, all the objections looked pretty foolish. Even Syria came on board...countering the idea that it would destabilize the Mid-East. Indeed, it's hard to believe that the Oslo accords following on the heels of this was a mere coincidence. Those opposed to Desert Storm, at that time, included me. I misjudged the situation. I wish I was as wrong about Gulf War II as I was about Gulf War I. But, given the information we have from sources such as Woodward's new book, I think it is clear that the failure is consistent with the incompetence of this administration. We honestly don't know what would have happened if Powell's plan for reconstruction was used instead of Rumsfeld's non-plan. As a result of 'Nam, Democrats became far more dovish. Combining this with Watergate, we found restrictions on the actions of the executive that were unprecedentedat least since Lincoln. At least some of these restrictions, such as the high wall between intelligence monitoring of terror cells abroad and the FBI watching for criminal activity in the US, are now considered a bit too much. When I watched the 9-11 commission, no one argued that the CIA should not share info on suspected terror cells with the FBI. Now, this doesn't mean that I agree with Bush. It's just that his re-election does not represent the decay of long cherished American values. Checks and balances can be seen to working right now. That's not the problem that I see. I see more the arrogance of incompetence as the problem with the Bush White House. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: We Will Not Be Afraid
On 06/10/2006, at 11:15 AM, Dan Minette wrote: Anyway - in an ideal world, my disagreements with Republicans would be on policy. But at the moment it's not, it's with the ideology of the current administration and the damaging shortsightedness of that. And the Democrats have been complicit, as a party, by not providing a resistance to this, especially to the erosion of checks and balances, and the power-grab by the Executive. Even if they were going to get rolled as a minority, they should have still stood up for their own policies. And didn't. Shame on them. The system only works if there are two parties instead of one. But, that's not really what happened. For example, Bush's executive powers are less than those from FDR through Nixoneven after his big push to expand them. Checks and balances are still working. Erosion of, not suspension of. The clearest example of this is Bush's need to negotiate the limits of his power with Senators from his own party. He got reigned in far earlier than FDR got reigned in by his party (for trying to pack the Supreme Court). Still, what is with the attempt to suspend _habeus corpus_? Now, this doesn't mean that I agree with Bush. It's just that his re-election does not represent the decay of long cherished American values. Do you not think that protection of liberty has been eroded under Bush 43? Or, at least, badly disrespected? Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: We Will Not Be Afraid
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charlie Bell Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 8:24 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: We Will Not Be Afraid On 06/10/2006, at 11:15 AM, Dan Minette wrote: Anyway - in an ideal world, my disagreements with Republicans would be on policy. But at the moment it's not, it's with the ideology of the current administration and the damaging shortsightedness of that. And the Democrats have been complicit, as a party, by not providing a resistance to this, especially to the erosion of checks and balances, and the power-grab by the Executive. Even if they were going to get rolled as a minority, they should have still stood up for their own policies. And didn't. Shame on them. The system only works if there are two parties instead of one. But, that's not really what happened. For example, Bush's executive powers are less than those from FDR through Nixoneven after his big push to expand them. Checks and balances are still working. Erosion of, not suspension of. The clearest example of this is Bush's need to negotiate the limits of his power with Senators from his own party. He got reigned in far earlier than FDR got reigned in by his party (for trying to pack the Supreme Court). Still, what is with the attempt to suspend _habeus corpus_? He's not actually doing that. Lincoln did that. Indeed, he's the classic example of presidential power. He has the state legislature of Maryland arrested on the way to a vote. The constitutional justification of this was the suspension of habeus corpus during the time of war. The practical/principled justification was that, if they were allowed to vote, Washington DC would have been inside the Confederate states, and the Union would have been destroyed. So, if Bush were to do something like this, or even do something like the internment camps of WWII for Arab-American citizens, or use the domestic spying agency on his political opponents (as was done by Hooverwho wasn't elected to anything), then I'd be very upset. But, he's pushing the boundariesnot marching right over them. If you are interested, I can walk through the specifics. But, let me look at habeus corpus. Historically, including Supreme Court rulings, the Constitution does not cover the actions of the US government with regards to non-citizens who are not within the United States. So, the Viet Cong who were imprisoned in 'Nam did not have habeus corpus rights. The had no constitutional protection. Non-citizens within the United States do have rights. But, they have some limitations that citizens do not. In particular, those who are here illegally can be detained for deportation. This can be done for a very long time. They can be deported at will. Bush has been very careful to limit the testability of his actions. He claims a great deal of presidential power. Traditionally, the Supreme Court would like the Congress to be the counter-weight to thisso they weigh in slowly. In addition, for someone to bring a court case, they have to show harm. Since no-one has been arrested as a result of the warrentless wiretaps, then it is very hard for anyone to prove potential harm. Finally, the risk an American citizen has of losing his habeus corpus rights are very small. I think there is one case where an American has been declared an enemy combatant, without such rights, and there is some justification for it (I'm not saying that I necessarily agree, but that I can see some Constitutional justification for the argument.) People can renounce their US citizenship. One way to do it is go to a consulate, and formally declare that. But, if someone joins another army that is fighting the US overseas, then there is some indication that this also can be considered renouncing one's citizenship. But, one cannot arrest a US citizen in the US, and declare them an enemy combatant, without judges being involved very quickly. Bush has been somewhat careful about what he does. In a real sense, this is the result of the effectiveness of the checks and balances. Now, this doesn't mean that I agree with Bush. It's just that his re-election does not represent the decay of long cherished American values. Do you not think that protection of liberty has been eroded under Bush 43? Or, at least, badly disrespected? I think he has a WWF (World Wrestling Federation) viewpoint of the world. There are the good guys and the bad guys. No, he's better than many who hold this because he believes that the average person in Iraq, Africa, etc. are part of the freedom loving people of the world threatened by the enemies of freedom. But, it does mean that he thinks it's OK and often necessary to use harsh measures on the bad guys...and that doing so doesn't hurt liberty at all. I differ with him significantly on this. Yet, given the fact that
Re: We Will Not Be Afraid
- Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 8:57 PM Subject: RE: We Will Not Be Afraid -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charlie Bell Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 8:24 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: We Will Not Be Afraid On 06/10/2006, at 11:15 AM, Dan Minette wrote: Anyway - in an ideal world, my disagreements with Republicans would be on policy. But at the moment it's not, it's with the ideology of the current administration and the damaging shortsightedness of that. And the Democrats have been complicit, as a party, by not providing a resistance to this, especially to the erosion of checks and balances, and the power-grab by the Executive. Even if they were going to get rolled as a minority, they should have still stood up for their own policies. And didn't. Shame on them. The system only works if there are two parties instead of one. But, that's not really what happened. For example, Bush's executive powers are less than those from FDR through Nixoneven after his big push to expand them. Checks and balances are still working. Erosion of, not suspension of. The clearest example of this is Bush's need to negotiate the limits of his power with Senators from his own party. He got reigned in far earlier than FDR got reigned in by his party (for trying to pack the Supreme Court). Still, what is with the attempt to suspend _habeus corpus_? He's not actually doing that. Lincoln did that. Indeed, he's the classic example of presidential power. He has the state legislature of Maryland arrested on the way to a vote. The constitutional justification of this was the suspension of habeus corpus during the time of war. The practical/principled justification was that, if they were allowed to vote, Washington DC would have been inside the Confederate states, and the Union would have been destroyed. So, if Bush were to do something like this, or even do something like the internment camps of WWII for Arab-American citizens, or use the domestic spying agency on his political opponents (as was done by Hooverwho wasn't elected to anything), then I'd be very upset. But, he's pushing the boundariesnot marching right over them. If you are interested, I can walk through the specifics. But, let me look at habeus corpus. Historically, including Supreme Court rulings, the Constitution does not cover the actions of the US government with regards to non-citizens who are not within the United States. So, the Viet Cong who were imprisoned in 'Nam did not have habeus corpus rights. The had no constitutional protection. Non-citizens within the United States do have rights. But, they have some limitations that citizens do not. In particular, those who are here illegally can be detained for deportation. This can be done for a very long time. They can be deported at will. Bush has been very careful to limit the testability of his actions. He claims a great deal of presidential power. Traditionally, the Supreme Court would like the Congress to be the counter-weight to thisso they weigh in slowly. In addition, for someone to bring a court case, they have to show harm. Since no-one has been arrested as a result of the warrentless wiretaps, then it is very hard for anyone to prove potential harm. Finally, the risk an American citizen has of losing his habeus corpus rights are very small. I think there is one case where an American has been declared an enemy combatant, without such rights, and there is some justification for it (I'm not saying that I necessarily agree, but that I can see some Constitutional justification for the argument.) People can renounce their US citizenship. One way to do it is go to a consulate, and formally declare that. But, if someone joins another army that is fighting the US overseas, then there is some indication that this also can be considered renouncing one's citizenship. But, one cannot arrest a US citizen in the US, and declare them an enemy combatant, without judges being involved very quickly. Bush has been somewhat careful about what he does. In a real sense, this is the result of the effectiveness of the checks and balances. Now, this doesn't mean that I agree with Bush. It's just that his re-election does not represent the decay of long cherished American values. Do you not think that protection of liberty has been eroded under Bush 43? Or, at least, badly disrespected? I think he has a WWF (World Wrestling Federation) viewpoint of the world. There are the good guys and the bad guys. No, he's better than many who hold this because he believes that the average person in Iraq,
