mobileCategory: political
08/09/07 01:02 - 75ºF - ID#40451
Lots of News
Ok, there's a lot of news to comment about. I gotta start somewhere..
I want to talk about the Warrantless Wiretapping program. but first I want to mention the democratic primary and the debate last night on MSNBC.
I was fired up watching the debate. Speaking in front of a union audience in a football stadium. Many of the candidates were straight forward and passionate. Healthcare, campaign contributions, NAFTA, Iraq. The democrats talk about serious issues, and their solutions go the the root causes of the problem. Not all the candidates would make a great president, but some are outstanding, and I'm glad to have them all in public office working to protect me, and all the citizens of this country. Democrats have a great field of candidates to choose from.
I can't find a direct link to the full video on MSNBC, but if you go to this link you can see some of the highlights, and once the video player opens look for a video called "democrats face off in soldier field" that's the full video.
After watching the candidates debate here and on the Youtube debate, and hearing some interviews, I've narrowed it down to three.
Dennis Kucinich - Barak Obamma - and Chris Dodd
Why not the others? Bill Richardson can't handle foreign policy, he's a governor, and hasn't given foreign policy enough thought. John Edwards, I'm not convinced he will work hard enough to change things, though his ideas are good, he's just not convincing, I'm not sure people can rally behind him. Joe Biden is a bit too headstrong and I'm afraid his impulses might lead to some bad decisions. Hilary Clinton, though I'd love to have a woman president, she is too close to the power establishment, and has made a lot of terrible votes, she's soft on universal single-payer healthcare, workers rights, She is trying not to rock the boat, but guess what, the boat is Way the hell off course, and it needs to be rocked. However, after saying all that, she's probably my 4th choice.
Denis Kucinich is my favorite, I'm not convinced he would be the absolute best president yet, but he has the best track record, the best ideas, the most honest passion, and the greatest desire to turn this country around. He was the only one on stage repeatedly answering the tough questions by saying "Yes I support Universal, Single Payer, non-Profit Healthcare for all Americans. In Fact, I introduced legislation a few months ago..." Just paraphrasing his response there, but over and over, he answered questions by talking about a bill he wrote and exactly what it would do. How many jobs would be created, how many people this would help, etc. He's done the work, and crafted legislation on every important issue. Kucinich rocks, our rights and our safety would be best taken care of by him. he is careful deliberative, and driven to do public service for the sake of the public. I'd say he's the most selfless candidate. I'm not sure how other countries and the American people would accept him, but he would make the best decisions on the issues, and he would push hard for the serious change that this country desperately needs.
Kucinich does not parse his words, he's not digging for happy terminology and 8 second sound bites, he knows he is right and speaks straight from his heart. Obamma is a close second here he would make great decisions and be an excellent leader, he's just a little too political. He chooses his words, and tries to tailor his ideas so that people can accept them at face value. The difference is that Kucinnich is always looking out for our best interests, and he doesn't care if you don't agree at first, because it's the right decision. and in a Democracy when you have a free flow of ideas the right decision comes out on top. Open up a thoughtful discussion of any issue and you will see why his ideas make the most sense. He's not affraid to be drastic, this country needs drastic change. That would be the difference between Obamma and Kucinich.
Chris Dodd is third, he stands up for issues that are important to working families. I can't find anything to criticise, though I think the other two would take more risks to do what's right for the country.
I wish out voting system made more sense, so we could continue this robust discussion past the primary season. I'm worried about what will happen when our "2" parties get back to bickering instead of thoughtful debate.
Here's a video from the debate.
I guess that's my synopsis. There's more to talk about but I ran out of time. Wiretapping, Voting, and funding infrastructure, will have to wait for another day.
i should mention one thing though. about the Warantless Wiretapping stuff that congress passed last Friday. It's unconstitutional, 4th amendment. It's illegal search and seizure without a warrant. It's called checks and balances. You know the reason our powerful country has survived over 200 years without tyranny. The executive branch needs to tell someone when it's going to go through your stuff, or else they will abuse that power, no matter who the president is.
Brian Higgins voted for it. He was the only Democrat in NY to vote for this unconstitutional power grab by the president. Why did all the Republicans in the US vote for it I don't know. Conservatives usually want to keep their rights. Whatever. Brian Higgins is a tool. I'm writing a letter, what on earth is he thinking, this is worse than the Bankruptcy bill he voted for. He probably thinks Guantanamo is alright too. Anyway the president can now monitor your computer and phone communication without a warrant. The constitution is in trouble.
Here's the vote
Here's a good summary of why it's so terrible.
Thanks, take care all, talk to you soon.
I want to talk about the Warrantless Wiretapping program. but first I want to mention the democratic primary and the debate last night on MSNBC.
I was fired up watching the debate. Speaking in front of a union audience in a football stadium. Many of the candidates were straight forward and passionate. Healthcare, campaign contributions, NAFTA, Iraq. The democrats talk about serious issues, and their solutions go the the root causes of the problem. Not all the candidates would make a great president, but some are outstanding, and I'm glad to have them all in public office working to protect me, and all the citizens of this country. Democrats have a great field of candidates to choose from.
I can't find a direct link to the full video on MSNBC, but if you go to this link you can see some of the highlights, and once the video player opens look for a video called "democrats face off in soldier field" that's the full video.
After watching the candidates debate here and on the Youtube debate, and hearing some interviews, I've narrowed it down to three.
Dennis Kucinich - Barak Obamma - and Chris Dodd
Why not the others? Bill Richardson can't handle foreign policy, he's a governor, and hasn't given foreign policy enough thought. John Edwards, I'm not convinced he will work hard enough to change things, though his ideas are good, he's just not convincing, I'm not sure people can rally behind him. Joe Biden is a bit too headstrong and I'm afraid his impulses might lead to some bad decisions. Hilary Clinton, though I'd love to have a woman president, she is too close to the power establishment, and has made a lot of terrible votes, she's soft on universal single-payer healthcare, workers rights, She is trying not to rock the boat, but guess what, the boat is Way the hell off course, and it needs to be rocked. However, after saying all that, she's probably my 4th choice.
Denis Kucinich is my favorite, I'm not convinced he would be the absolute best president yet, but he has the best track record, the best ideas, the most honest passion, and the greatest desire to turn this country around. He was the only one on stage repeatedly answering the tough questions by saying "Yes I support Universal, Single Payer, non-Profit Healthcare for all Americans. In Fact, I introduced legislation a few months ago..." Just paraphrasing his response there, but over and over, he answered questions by talking about a bill he wrote and exactly what it would do. How many jobs would be created, how many people this would help, etc. He's done the work, and crafted legislation on every important issue. Kucinich rocks, our rights and our safety would be best taken care of by him. he is careful deliberative, and driven to do public service for the sake of the public. I'd say he's the most selfless candidate. I'm not sure how other countries and the American people would accept him, but he would make the best decisions on the issues, and he would push hard for the serious change that this country desperately needs.
Kucinich does not parse his words, he's not digging for happy terminology and 8 second sound bites, he knows he is right and speaks straight from his heart. Obamma is a close second here he would make great decisions and be an excellent leader, he's just a little too political. He chooses his words, and tries to tailor his ideas so that people can accept them at face value. The difference is that Kucinnich is always looking out for our best interests, and he doesn't care if you don't agree at first, because it's the right decision. and in a Democracy when you have a free flow of ideas the right decision comes out on top. Open up a thoughtful discussion of any issue and you will see why his ideas make the most sense. He's not affraid to be drastic, this country needs drastic change. That would be the difference between Obamma and Kucinich.
Chris Dodd is third, he stands up for issues that are important to working families. I can't find anything to criticise, though I think the other two would take more risks to do what's right for the country.
I wish out voting system made more sense, so we could continue this robust discussion past the primary season. I'm worried about what will happen when our "2" parties get back to bickering instead of thoughtful debate.
Here's a video from the debate.
I guess that's my synopsis. There's more to talk about but I ran out of time. Wiretapping, Voting, and funding infrastructure, will have to wait for another day.
i should mention one thing though. about the Warantless Wiretapping stuff that congress passed last Friday. It's unconstitutional, 4th amendment. It's illegal search and seizure without a warrant. It's called checks and balances. You know the reason our powerful country has survived over 200 years without tyranny. The executive branch needs to tell someone when it's going to go through your stuff, or else they will abuse that power, no matter who the president is.
Brian Higgins voted for it. He was the only Democrat in NY to vote for this unconstitutional power grab by the president. Why did all the Republicans in the US vote for it I don't know. Conservatives usually want to keep their rights. Whatever. Brian Higgins is a tool. I'm writing a letter, what on earth is he thinking, this is worse than the Bankruptcy bill he voted for. He probably thinks Guantanamo is alright too. Anyway the president can now monitor your computer and phone communication without a warrant. The constitution is in trouble.
Here's the vote
Here's a good summary of why it's so terrible.
Thanks, take care all, talk to you soon.
Permalink: Lots_of_News.html
Words: 1025
Location: Buffalo, NY
hiking recovery 
Hummus ? 
Nephew's Art 
Spring Feelz 
Hello hello 
moz://a
Although I could be persuaded to change as we head towards elections, I currently stand behind Kucinich. I wish that he had more opportunity to talk during debates that seem to center on Hillary and Obama. At this point I trust Kucinich to do the right thing. I believe what he is saying and I also find his straight answers refreshing. BTW his wife is hot.
Regarding the concentration of power in one branch of the government or another. In this case we're talking about Wiretaps, we could be talking about the power to declare war, propose a budget, change tax policy, manage the market, govern the schools or whatever.
We have separation of powers and checks and balances for a reason. The American system has existed for over 200 years we take government for granted, we are insulated from the abuses of power and the tyranny that caused to founding fathers to flee their home countries and declare independence from england.
We should be skeptical of power. That's the point, that's what makes our democracy work, it's checks and balances. Don't give your government unchecked power, if you do you are forced to trust the PERSON, instead of the SYSTEM to guarantee your rights and safety. Sure some people have a paranoid personality, but none of us should trust any one branch of government to moderate its own power.
Warentless Wiretapping steps over the line, the president doesn't have to tell anybody whose conversations he is monitoring. T
Firstly, bravo for being one of the few who are actually paying attention to the debates... I think the last one charted less than a million viewers nationally. The question about whether or not people are getting tired of the debates has been answered as far as I'm concerned.
By the way. The concept of offering special interests their own debates is going to go off horribly once the general election comes around.
Totally unrelated, but did you hear about the idea of a bloggers labor union? I could be wrong but I think it was brought up at this panderfest known as the Kos convention, but I don't remember exactly... I heard of this on NPR this week while going to work. I heard quotes from bloggers saying stuff like, 'yeah, it would be nice if we get organized... maybe we can get health insurance!' Are these people fucking stupid? Who is going to pay for any of it? I thought the comments were severely bubbleheaded.
I completely forgot to mention Bill Richardson's credentials so thank you for that (e:blotics). He is a professional diplomat, and as far as qualifications go he is the only one that has credible experience with foreign policy.... just not his own! =)
The Republican party is not fractured, but the ambivalence with the current set of candidates is obvious. You simply cannot, as a Republican, ignore the base and gamble by trying to compensate with independent voters! I'm not compelled by any of them at the moment, and I'm one of the few here that are even willing to give them a chance. The *only* candidate that can galvanize the party is Fred Thompson.
(e:dcoffee) - your discussion about FISA and how it works is a symptom of a much larger problem - most Americans do not know how this works and largely do not care anyway. I'm not going to pretend that I know the techical details of how tapping outgoing calls to suspected terrorists singularly could be achieved. Making any assumptions about the technical details would be impractical in my view... even people with the technical knowledge are more than likely not privy to the some of the technology implemented by the government to achieve this, which obviously (some of it, anyway) would be of a classified nature.
I've never been comfortable with the objections of people who do not like the idea of wiretaps. The reason is because the objections largely are based on a long list of assumptions, "what ifs," and even worse, what all of this stuff means politically. I am 100% for fully vetting the pros and cons of such a program, but I doubt the wisdom in making a series of conclusions based on speculation and fear. Is there *no* issue that liberals feel is political in nature? Are all of the objections to this law going to disappear once a Republican is not in office... similar to how all objections concerning "stolen elections" disappeared when the Democrats took the Congress last fall and the "right guys" won?
I'm very disappointed with Hillary. Her foreign policy sucks and I think she is way too much of a politician. She lacks courage and tries to mask it by being overly aggressive as if to overcompensate for being a woman. I was turned off by her hostility towards Cuba and Venezuela during the youtube debate when asked if she would be willing to meet with their leaders along with Iran and North Korea. The tone that she was using when she said their names (Castro and Chavez) was hostile and she seemed more concerned with Cuba and Venezuela than North Korea. It just seemed strange and unbalanced that she focused her hostilities on countries that really don't threaten our national security like Iran and N. Korea do. And she thinks she is going to be used as a propaganda tool? She is a propaganda tool.
Also, she admits that she would not rule out using a Nuke in the hopes of killing terrorists! She is clearly out of her mind and should spend some time talking to survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki so she can fully understand the implications of what she is saying. The last person we need running our country is someone with a hostile and threatening attitude when it comes to nuclear arms. I'm truly disgusted and will not vote for her in the primaries. We can only hope that she continues to reveal her true nature before the election. Thanks for IRAQ Hillary!
You can't accuse him of flip flopping to be sure. He answers questions directly, and that sets him apart in the debates and in politics in general.
Bill Richardson, despite being a governor, is quite versed in foreign affairs. He represented New Mexico in Congress for 14 years, and more telling, he was Clinton's Ambassador to the United Nations near the end of his second term. He has also negotiated hostage releases for the US in several countries, including Iraq in the mid-90's.
I haven't agreed with Richardson on a few issues, but I think he would be a fine addition to anyone's ticket as a VP candidate.
The old FISA law was that the president could tap anyone he wanted and he had 72 hours to even Apply for a warrant, from the secret FISA court. Just checking in and making a semi public record of what he was doing. That's it, a measly bit of oversight. Conservatives were pissed about this law when it was enacted because of the creation of a new secret court.
the legitimate problem with FISA is that communication has changed, and now foreign calls are routed through fiber optic telecommunications hubs which are on US soil. The administration could have some leniency here. The way they would monitor the lines is by installing a computer in the fiber optic network to monitor data transfer. I don't see how they could just store data transmitted by foreigners (I'm looking for some communications geeks to help me figure how this stuff would be implemented). It seems like the machine would create a database of everything that went over the lines, and someone would have to call up something specific from this packed database. wouldn't they just store all the data, for at least a few days, before writing over it? why wouldn't some guy kicking back in his office listen to Harry Reid or Hillary Clinton, just for kicks?
Here's another good video discussing the FISA wiretapping revisions.
:::link:::
I don't think Kucinich is electable but I've always respected him. That is definitely one guy that sticks to his guns (unfortunate phrasing there, but whatever).
Barack Obama is too naive to be the POTUS... this is why he's 22 pts. behind Hillary in the polls. Its still early but I can't see anybody but Hillary getting the nomination, which, if in fact happens as it looks it will, essentially means that I'm definitely not voting for a Democrat in '08. I will *never* vote for Hillary Clinton.
I've never been more open to a 3rd party candidate before.
Robert Novak wrote a very interesting column about the eavesdropping situation:
:::link:::
I love politicians. They don't vote against it because of political implications, then go ahead and shift the blame for their failure to someone else (as usual), this time the DNI.
Of course, I think we should be monitoring terrorist communication. That's a no-brainer. The slippery slope theory is in play now, and in my experience people tend to only believe that theory in situations where they oppose the vote. Other situations? Nahhh it's silly, kooky. This program should be heavily, heavily monitored by Congress to prevent abuse. They need to own this now.