Let's talk some politics here #3

[Mike]

mike said:

However...if you're just plain sick and tired of the political thugs business as usual then here you go.
On Wednesday, November 9th, Country Music Television will run a sneak
preview of "Go Kinky," the reality show they've been producing about the
Kinkster's campaign. The show provides a glimpse of life on the
campaign trail with Kinky, following him and his “circus with a purpose” from
fundraisers and speeches to trips to the barber.

CMT will decide whether to turn the show into a full-blow reality TV
series based on the success of the pilots.
Happy viewing!

[/b][/quote]
Last night I finally got to watch my TiVo'd "Go Kinky" episodes.
Starring the Kinkster, Willie Nelson of course, Billy Joe Shaver (Kinky's spritual adviser), Delbert McClinton, Dwight Yoakam, Asleep at the Wheel, Ray Price, Bill Clinton, Goerge W...(well never mind that one), Imus, and several others.
If you get CMT on your cable or whatever you should watch for a repeat of these couple of shows. It is even more hilarious than I thought it would be.

It is hard to imagine a funny and fun politician that sez "he's campaigning hard for now cause he can sleep when he's Governor."

If you've read any of his books, you can get an idea of how this docu-comedy is.
He's actually starting to show some numbers in state polls. He has people like Gov. Jesse Ventura campaigning for him, along with several other high profile types. What if....

"Why the hell not? How hard can it be?" Kinky Friedman

[Mike]

From the AP Cheney sez:
"It is a dangerous illusion to suppose that another retreat by the civilized world would satisfy the appetite of the terrorist and get them to leave us alone."

If anyone is an expert on illusions it would be "super CEO" Mr.Cheney with his hired gun, Rove.

I submit that one illusion not bought was by the Islamic jihaddist after proving with 9-11, London, ect., just how dangerous and ruthless they are hell bent on being.
So, when in response Bush jumps on the most westernized Islamic country (not a good thing in Islam), and no friend of Bin Laden etal, and abandons sustaining the well placed offensive in Afganistan/Pakistan, to "secure any opportunities" in Irag...doh...I mean to "liberate the good people of Iraq", these dangerous dogs that like to blow shit up, in New York, weren't fooled a bit. Somehow we were...but they weren't. They understand that our leaders are more interested in record setting profits for wallstreet and a few friends, than they are about protecting and maintaining our fun country.

Sad thing is, done a certain way you can have both. Done the current way, we can't afford both.

Cheney and his dangerous illusions.

[Mike]

Another one from the AP and Cheney: "They don't back down from a fight..."

Vice President Cheney is scheduled to appear at a December 5, Houston fundraiser on DeLay's behalf. Donors are being asked to contribute at least $500, according to an e-mail sent by the Fort Bend (Texas) Republican Party. Shannon Flaherty, DeLay's spokeswoman, confirmed details of the fundraiser.

"For five years, Congressman DeLay has served as a key ally to pass the White House's agenda through Congress, and Ronnie Earle's political sideshow isn't going to get in the way of the real business at hand," said Flaherty. "This event shows the Democrat strategy of avenging their ballot box losses with smear tactics and lawsuits is not going to work -- Republicans stick by their friends and don't back down from a fight."

Makes me wonder if Cheney will be helping raise defense funds for "The Jack Abramoff Gangs" murder trial in Florida too, since "they don't back down from a fight".

[jashley]

Jeez I have been exiled for so long that I didn't see the Politics #3 thread and just posted on Politics #2 (long and pissed my usual style) great to be back and if I get time I'll move the post here or the web master can if he has a mind to.

I've missed discussing things with you guys and hope I don't get locked out for another six months. Was it a right wing conspiracy to silence me. No of course I'm not paranoid, of course not.

I love spell check, it keeps me from looking even more ignorant than I already appear.

Peace
j

[Mike]

jashley said:

Peace
j

Jashley, welcome back friend!
You've been missed.

[Mike]

A quick update on Cindy Sheehan's Thanksgiving.

Her intention was to once again meet with W at "El Rancho Grande ;D" in Crawford, but he decided to be a bad host...again.
In fact, since the summer the county has passed a "county ordinance" of no stopping or gathering on or around a county road within 7 miles of "El Rancho Grande".
So a few dozen people, including Daniel Ellsberg and Cindy's sister got arrested from down the road of "El Rancho...." Nice.
300 people joined her at the Crawford Peace House in town, and on some private property they still have the "Bigtop Tent" by the ranch, but between T-Day and high school football play-offs (which is where I was) it was just a low turnout.

Her book signing out at the tent was pretty much a no show.
This woman is "payin the cost of bein the boss" Too bad there are so many insubordinates.

[jashley]

Hoy Hoy All My Fine People of Good Taste,

Let's talk about that sexy, interesting topic that everyone is always so jazzed to talk about. The supreme court!!!! Did I just hear the sound of everyone scrolling down?

The first thing that rankles my *ss is when someone claims to be a strict constructionist. Everyone thinks that they are strictly following the constitution. The real difference in judicial philosophy is if you understand that the judicial branch of the government was founded for two reason: to protect the constitution and to protect the rights of the minority (even if the minority consists of one person). Now when one of these neo con idiots says that the supreme court should vote this way or that because that is the way that a majority (who controls every other branch of government, so they are the government) of Americans wants them to rule that is diametrically opposed to the function that the framers of the constitution intended. Strict constructionist my *ss. They don't even understand the basic premise of a whole branch of our federal government that is clearly laid out where? The constitution. It was also clearly spelled out that the supreme court should be insulated from elections. Again, the supreme court is intended to protect the minority. To say that a person of a particle viewpoint was mandated by an election is contrary to the constitution. Surprise surprise Andy. If the supreme court has no power any nut-case majority can overwhelm any legal minority by pressuring their elected Representatives.

Why does this administration want to emasculate the court? Because they want to have the most power over your life that they can get away with. Don't believe it? An American citizen arrested in America was recently granted a hearing after being held without charges for three years because the administration declared him an enemy combatant with no hearing or charges whatsoever. Why did they grant him a hearing (by the way on none of the original charges)? Because they were afraid that the case would go to the supreme court and the "Patriot Act" would be declared unconstitutional: as it should be.

What they should call themselves is literalist. The more restricted that they can make the language of the constitution the fewer rights you have. If you do not understand that the right to privacy is inherent in the rights spelled out in the constitution and of course intended by the framers of the Constitution the fewer rights you have. Voila!!! Works like a charm huh. Well it's bs and nothing else.

If you want to protect the minority (and we are all a minority in one sense or another) you better stand up for a strong and independent supreme court.

Peace
j

P.S. Webmaster you are the bomb for giving us spell check.
Jr would be King and that is why he hates the court. The court is there to protect us from him. Conservatives know this and it is why conservatives have traditionally been in favor of a strong court system. Don't buy any of the BS that this is administration is trying to sell about the supreme court and so-called strict construtionism. This is a lie and not a very good one.

[Mike]

jashley said:

Jr would be King and that is why he hates the court. The court is there to protect us from him. Conservatives know this and it is why conservatives have traditionally been in favor of a strong court system. Don't buy any of the BS that this is administration is trying to sell about the supreme court and so-called strict construtionism. This is a lie and not a very good one.

When they have the "weight" and gall that this bunch has, they don't have to waste effort on making up good lies. It's never been this bad before, but the last time I remember it even coming close they killed a good President, then tried to sell a goofy story about a "magic bullet"...and did!!!!

[BillL]

Welcome back J, you have been missed.

You said:
The more restricted that they can make the language of the constitution the fewer rights you have. If you do not understand that the right to privacy is inherent in the rights spelled out in the constitution and of course intended by the framers of the Constitution the fewer rights you have. Voila!!! Works like a charm huh. Well it's bs and nothing else.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. You either follow the letter of the Constitution (not reading anything into the words) or you think it's a guide that, due to it being written so long ago that they could never have thought of modern issues, it is a moving line in need of interpretation. From the generally speaking category, most Reps (or constructionists) believe the former and most of the Dems (or progressives) would think the latter (with exceptions on either side and excluding some specific issues). I guess my point is, we do have a right to privacy. And, as our Constitution states, anything that is not specifically allowed for by the Constitution is, and should be, a States rights issue. So, without opening a large can of worms, I submit this small can of opened worms. The Constitution allows for a well armed militia, etc, etc. In my opinion, a state (city, town, community) could draft specific language that could outlaw guns (providing, of course that it doesn't contradict existing Constitutions, Charters, etc.) and that they could argue before the Supreme Court and win. So my problem is, why are any of these people able to read things into the Constitution that aren't there and aren't those people more dangerous than the ones that say "Well, I agree with your agruement but it has no basis under current laws"? I would say that the latter are the ones I want and the former should get into making the laws. It is up to the lawmakers to draft legislation not judges or Justices and certainly not the interpreters that due so from the bench (regardless of their inheirent political bias).

Just as an end note, you said "The more restricted that they can make the language of the constitution"; I may be wrong here but they can't change the language of the Constitution without a Constitutional Convention and subsequent approval of the language change without super majority votes in both houses and then approval of the people of the US. If you're talking about "interpreting" the existing language, well then, you prove my point for me (if in a backwards kind of way).

Welcome back, my friend....welcome back.

Bill L

[Mike]

billl said:

Just as an end note, you said "The more restricted that they can make the language of the constitution"; I may be wrong here but they can't change the language of the Constitution
Bill L

Sure they can Bill. It's called the Patriot Act.

[BillL]

Mike says:
Sure they can Bill. It's called the Patriot Act.

Do you think it could pass a Constitutional challenge? My guess is, depending on the circumstances of course, that it would be thrown out (case by case and not a straight challenge). As another side note, could you please share some of the horror stories associated with the said act? I don't agree with it, mind, but I hear lots of complaining about it and VERY little evidence of abuse of it. And let's face it, this country loves to overreact about most things.

Bill L

[Mike]

Ah Bill...keepin it reel!
Since when do we get the privilege of a Constitutional Challenge with this administration?

I'm not searching for horror stories (other than the couple from Corpus Christie that got arrested for wearing anti Bush T-shirts to a Bush rally in DC) but, some "cracks" that come to mind are:
1) Warrantless searches.

2) "Enhanced" surveillance powers.

3) Sneak and Peak searches (covert searches of a persons home or office that are conducted without notifying the person until after the search has been completed. *Watergate would have been legal!!! ;D)

4) Tracking Internet usage. Uh oh...that's all I'm sayin bout that for now.

Of course these things have always gone on, just like corruption, but these guys have made it legal. Just like they have corruption.

[BillL]

That's a mighty broad brush you're using there, my friend. And while I agree that it can certainly be abused, I guess my question is when/where has it been abused? Don't get me wrong, they need to eliminate The Patriot Act (or at least all the unconstitutional bull shiat). This is a Catch 22, though, because it's usually the same people that complain that we should be doing more and then bitch when more is done. Apparently, it's OK to inconvience people as long as it's not them.

regarding the arrests:
"But McLennan County sheriff's deputies, citing laws passed in September banning camping in any county ditch and parking within a 7-mile radius of the ranch, arrested the demonstrators for criminal trespassing and obstructing a highway passageway. The misdemeanors each carry a maximum penalty of 180 days in jail and a $2,000 fine."

here's the link for the full article: www.kristv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4160747

Then get the laws changed. That's how this country works.

Here's another:
"In addition to promising a return for Easter, many protesters plan to return to the area for the January court date of 12 activists arrested last week. They challenged the new county bans on roadside parking and camping by setting up tents at Sheehan's original site, in ditches off the main road leading to Bush's ranch."

Link: hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CRAWFORD_WAR_PROTEST?SITE=TXCOR&SECTION=HOME

At least this article says they are making a legal challenge instead of just bitching about it. That's how it should work.

And another link specifically about the T-Shirt Incident:
atheism.about.com/b/a/097663.htm

Judging by the domain name, I really don't feel like promoting their spin on it but I did find it interesting. One wonders why they waited until after entering the event before "remov(ing) their clothes" and showing their shirts. And why anyone feels the need to do these things is beyond me. Go to speech, wear your shirt outside, show your disapproval with signs, slogans speeches, etc...all of that is fine. But there is no need to be an ass clown* and be disruptive. And that goes for both sides. I've found over the years that if I give someone enough rope they will hang themselves on their own argument (it happens to me too) and I can just guide the discussion in such a way that hastens the closing of the noose. But then again, what the hell do I know? I'm just some spaz typing on the internet.

Bill L

*that's for you Hank. I know you like it when I throw that one around.

[featphoto]

billl said:

One wonders why they waited until after entering the event before "remov(ing) their clothes" and showing their shirts.

oh, come on Bill ... they waited because they never would have be let in if their shirts had been visible.

And why anyone feels the need to do these things is beyond me. Go to speech, wear your shirt outside, show your disapproval with signs, slogans speeches, etc...all of that is fine. But there is no need to be an ass clown* and be disruptive.

because you have to take your dissatisfaction to the people you're dissatisfied with, and make them look at it ... if you want to let someone know you think he's doing/done a lousy job you don't make your statement 500 yards away on the other side of a wall, you put it in her/his face where they at least have to see it (as do the supporters). Screaming, yelling, interrupting some one when they're speaking ... now that's disruptive, and I agree with you that it's rude behavior that shouldn't be tolerated (on either side), but just wearing a shirt or carrying a sign isn't disruptive, and surely the opposing view has a right to be seen (if not heard)

*that's for you Hank. I know you like it when I throw that one around.

thanks ... I think ...

[BillL]

Hank says:
but just wearing a shirt or carrying a sign isn't disruptive, and surely the opposing view has a right to be seen (if not heard)

Agreed. I just don't see why you would do it unless you were trying to be disruptive by antagonizing people that obviously don't agree with you. I could show up to Feat shows with my "Friends Don't Let Friends Vote Democrat" t-shirt, but don't you think I'd be inviting abuse? I think that would make me an attention whore (hey everyone, look at me!!!).

For the record, I think it's absurd that they were arrested (or even asked to leave) but it's neither my responsibility to protect the life of a President nor the one that has to live with this decision either way. The Secret Service guy had to make a quick decision and he did. It was a wrong decision, the case should be thrown out, he should be reprimanded and this should go away. Of course, it won't. I still say they shouldn't have worn the shirts, but I couldn't care less regardless.

Oh, and here's another link to balance out the athiest link from above.
www.csmonitor.com/2004/0927/p11s02-ussc.html

Bill L