And Now for Something Completely Political

Scott Horowitz | January 27, 2006
It's been a while since we've had a good political discussion on here. With the (dis)State of the Union next week, thought we can start something.

Here's my beginning.


(link)


Why, oh why, couldn't people realize this about 14 months ago????

Please keep this respectable, no personal attacks :)

Mike Eberhart | January 27, 2006
Well, first of all, this is a CNN article. No bias there. Also, I never trust any poll numbers. Anyone can make a poll look exactly like they want. If they ask 100 people and 60% of them were Democrats to begin with, well, you know what the poll is going to look like even before you begin. I for one don't think that this administration has failed during this term. Have they messed a couple of things up, sure, I believe that, but nothing drastic. Now it's coming out that high ranking officials from Saddam's military are saying that they did move all of their WMD's to Syria. So, if that's true, then the intelligence that everyone has been bashing wasn't completely off-base. My big issue with the administration is with their stance on border control. They haven't done anything about it. This better change and in a hurry.

Scott Horowitz | January 27, 2006
Well, Bush has really pushed for non-partisan decisions, and then goes and nominates Alito. This guy has an agenda, and should not be a member of the Supreme Court. Roberts was a good choice, I think he'll make good decisions. But, Alito scares me. I'm still not happy the Patriot Act is out there, and the wire taps violate the constitution. CNN tends to be a bit more conservative, but on the moderate side. It's not as biased as Fox, but it's still not the best.

Mike Eberhart | January 27, 2006
I really don't think he has an agenda. He record is pretty solid and several Democrats came out and supported him. I think he will do a very good job on the Supreme Court. You know who scares me, Ted Kennedy. That guy is a freaking wacko. How in the hell does he keep getting re-elected.

The Patriot Act is fine. Unless you're a terrorist, you have nothing to worry about. I don't give the Patriot Act one second of thought. Are you out there doing something that you're not supposed too? As for the wire taps, how does it violate the constitution? I still haven't ever heard an actual explanation for this. Just saying that it violates it doesn't make it so. Once again, if you believe that President Bush is the first President to authorize wire taps, then you are just naive. This is something that has been going on for sometime, and you know what, great!!! I hope it catchs the bad guys, and stops future attacks. This is another example of as long as you're not doing anything wrong, what do you have to worry about.

Kris Weberg | January 28, 2006
Wiretaps without warrants violate the fourth amendment provision against illegal search and siezure, which is generally held to apply as right of privacy by the courts. It's outside any Constitutional definition of due process. It's why the government isn't allows to tap your phone for kicks.

And Bush isn't the first President to authorize wiretaps, you're right. He does appear to be the first President since Richard Nixon to routinely authorize them without even a secret warrant from a FISA court, a warrant that you don't have to get until three days after you've started the wiretapping. Bush apparently can't be bothered to do things legally even with a three-day head start on gathering evidence to present to a court whose members grant over 90% of all warrant requests as it stands.

Which means, frankly, that he's using pretty fucking flimsy reasons to wiretap people, reasons he knows won't stand up in even a secret, highly favorable court.

Why get bothered about it? Even if you trust Bush, there exists relatively recen historical evidence that some Presidents, given the opportunity, will abuse things like the wiretap, say, by bugging a rival political party's headquarters to fuel some sort of, oh, "enemies list."

In fact, Nixon's abuses of power were why FISA was passed in the first place.

Four years from now, or eight, let's say the other guys win the Presidency. You're fine witht heir being able to authorize a wiretap with no court supervision required? In short, without submitting it to that wacky "checks and balances" thing?

Scott Horowitz | January 30, 2006
Geeze, Kris I was going to write the same thing, thanks for saving me the 10 minutes of typing.

Amy Austin | January 30, 2006
Heheh... I was going to thank him for saving me half an hour... ;-D

Jackie Mason | February 1, 2006
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | February 1, 2006
CNN is conservative? They seem to partake in a lot of Bush-bashing for a conservative network. Weren't they caught saving a photo of Dick Cheney as asshole.jpg? Then again, I once called Chris Matthews a liberal (my foot is still in my mouth, Kris), so what do I know? Wikipedia says it goes both ways. (link) Personally, I prefer Tom Brokaw's criticism of CNN. (link)

...Honest, I'm not trying to disagree with you in every discussion tonight, Scott. :-)

Scott Horowitz | February 1, 2006
CNN tends to be more conservative than say NBC, I mean FoxNews should change their name to GOPNews. I think CNN has gotten more liberal since becoming Time Warner, but when they were just part of Turner, they definitely had a conservative bias.

Scott Horowitz | February 1, 2006
What'd everyone think of the State of the Union?

Michael Paul Cote | February 1, 2006
Why would I waste my time watching a professional liar, lie to other professional liars, all of whom are lying to themselves when they believe that they are fooling the American public?

Scott Horowitz | February 1, 2006
I came up with a drinking game, any time he mispronounces a word, do a shot!

Michael Paul Cote | February 1, 2006
Now that would have made it worthwhile. Or how about every time he lied (or his lips moved) take a shot.

Jackie Mason | February 2, 2006
[hidden by request]