Thank you.Stravo wrote:I apologize I did not realize that what we were talking about were the remarks. While I don't approve of what they said or did, particualrly where it was done, but they have the absolute right to say it. It was stupid in the sense of what they said considering their fanbase but not the content of it. I was under the impression that the reaction of the fans was what was stupid. My bad.
An equal-airtime bill would not have silenced Limbaugh - only codified into law the FCC's now-repealed "Fairness Doctrine" that opposing viewpoints should have equal opportunity to be heard.Stravo wrote:It's a vicsious cycle on both sides, such as Clinton's attempt to silence Limbaugh with an equal air time bill for public radio which thankkully did not pass.
Why? Many people check out books on a variety of subjects, and if a particular subject fascinates somebody, they will naturally take out more books on that subject (in high school, I borrowed a lot of books from the library on nuclear physics, rocketry and space flight - topics which were completely innocent but could have been considered an attempt by a terrorist to make a nuclear missile).Stravo wrote:It IS the government's business to be aware of any threats to the public's well being and if someone is taking out a slew of books on nuclear physics and the like then I think the FBI should have a clue.Iceberg wrote:What reason is there for registering library patron records, if not to keep tabs on what people are reading? That in and of itself is chilling - the government has no right to know what I'm reading, regardless of whether I'm reading The Silmarillion or The Anarchist's Cookbook.
Hell, I have a copy of The Anarchist's Cookbook on my computer - it's interesting and often entertaining reading, and some of the stuff in there is of genuine interest to law-abiding citizens.
I should hope not.Stravo wrote:Besides, this is something that I'm sure is already done under the table anyway,
Why should ANYBODY be comfortable with people wanting to make invasions of privacy legal?Stravo wrote:they just want to make it legal now.
"If you are not guilty, comrade, then why have you been charged?"
The librarian will forget what you checked out about six seconds after you leave the library, if not sooner (one's short-term memory is seven give or take three characters). Why waste brainspace on shit that you're never going to need to know again?Stravo wrote:As to what I read, I could give a shit less what the government knows that I'm reading from a public library. The Librarian knows what you're reading so what's the bog deal.
Stravo wrote:The government has neither the ability nor the will to carry out some form of sweep campaign based on what people are reading and teh public would not stand for such an act. This is more liberal hand wringing and spinning out some Orwellian nightmare from a government that cannot purchase hammers that cost less than $250.
What, you think they spend all that money on one hammer? All in the name of padding the budget.Objectively there is no reason for the government to know what you're reading. None whatsoever. If I want to read the fucking Communist Manifesto, I should be perfectly free to do so, without the government keeping tabs on my library card.
I never said that.Oh, and the liberals I assume are angelic and victims of the mighty right wing consipracy.
No VRWC necessary. All you need is a small group of individuals with a vested interest to start flinging mud around. Some of it is bound to stick to the desired targets if you fling enough of it. People are likely to start believing it under the theory that "if enough people are saying it, it must be true." Repeat ad nauseam.When is the left going to wake up and see that there is NO vast right wing conspiracy or do they need to be slapped in the face as Hillary Clinton was after she spent weeks on TV and Radio attacking the right for concocting these "lies" abiout her man.
And the RW political pundits who have spent a great deal of time and effort painting the views of people like Sharpton as the mainstream platform of the Democratic Party, going so far as to describe Sharpton as a "frontrunner" for the Democratic nomination when in fact he is the longest longshot in the history of presidential politics. Sharpton is unelectable and everybody (possibly excepting him) realizes this. But he's entertaining.If anyone is to be blamed for the demonization of the left's views they should look to their own like the Al Sharpton's of the democratic party.
The media circus was created before he was even ELECTED - Limbaugh and friends were taking their shots at Clinton from the moment it appeared that he had a decent shot at unseating Pappy Bush (and I predict the same will happen to the Democratic nominee next year). There were demands for his impeachment before he even took the oath of office. Objectively, the eight years of the Clinton investigation were a massive waste of time and money - no convictions ever came of it, and in fact no indictments ever passed the grand jury phase.Oh, that's rich. He had EIGHT FUCKING YEARS to do something. Maybe if he wasn't doing some of the things he did there would be NO RUMORS to create the media circus you're complaining about.
The old adage that "where there's smoke, there's fire" does not take into account the possibility that somebody chucked a smoke bomb in the target's direction.
The Bush Administration was even MORE pathetic against terrorism until 9/11/01 FORCED them to do something (Condoleezza Rice hadn't even looked at the antiterrorism briefings left her by Sandy Berger until after 9/11). If 9/11 had happened on Clinton's watch, we'd have seen the exact same sequence of events following, there would have been no other acceptable course of action for an American president to take given the provocation of 9/11.Will can also look at his pathetic handling of Al-Qaeda. A few cruise missiles lobbed at a training camp in revenge for deaths of American soldiers is a pathetic response and invited sharks to start circling.
Pulling out of Somalia was not one of Clinton's greater moments, true. On the other hand, the effect was not something that one could have reasonably predicted, given that ObL was not a visible threat pre-Somalia.Pulling out of Somlaia after suffering a few casualties, an action that has been DIRECTLY LINKED to Al-Qaeda stepping up activities against the US. Ossamma stated that when he saw that the US pulled out after suffering marginal casualties he knew that they were a paper tiger. Thank you Bubba.
Yes there is. There is a goddamn boatload of proof. The Administration said before the war that they knew where the Iraqi WMDs were, and in what quantity. Four months after the war, no WMDs - not even a single gram of the anthrax that Secretary Powell claimed that Iraq possessed - and the Administration is now saying that they don't know where they are, that they never knew where they were, and that they might be in another country if they exist at all. That's all the proof I need that Bush was lying, is lying, and will continue to lie.Stravo wrote:I notice Bush seems to be unique then in your world view of his own shortcomings.Hold on. There is NO PROOF of that yet.Iceberg wrote:Starting a war on false premises is rather serious, yes. More serious still if your own intelligence analysts TELL YOU that they believe that the intelligence you're basing your case on is faulty and you go ahead with it anyway...
Where were you when the news reports were playing that the CIA knew before SOTU and TOLD BUSH before SOTU that the Africa intelligence was probably faulty? Furthermore, why did Bush not come out immediately as soon as he knew that the intelligence was faulty and admit that he goofed? I wouldn't be as critical given a little more honesty on the part of the Bush administration.The CIA chief has come forward and claimed full responsibility for the forged report being included in the State of teh Union address so where are you coming from with intentionally falsified reports???
Our guys are doing a bangup job over there under very trying circumstances.Let's get one thing striaght, I too believed him and still do. If there are no WMD then this whole thing has been a sham and those poor souls policing the streest of Baghdad, being shot and killed everyday should never have been there and I would hold him ultimately repsonsible for that horrendous act.
Bush claimed that he knew where they were, so the fact that he hasn't found any yet is pretty problematic.But I find it interesting to note that the Give peace a chance crowd's mantra about the inspections was "However long it takes." With Bush it's "Find them NOW."
