BLOG PODCAST ARCHIVES LINKS

 

 

 

 

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

American Conservative Web Ring
Members List
Previous - Next
Random - Join
Previous 5 - Next 5

Site Meter

 

 

 

Powered by Blogger

 

Friday, March 24, 2006

Time for Another Port Scandal

--story--

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- One of Americans' favorite beach destinations, the Bahamas, is getting a new U.S. arrival -- sophisticated equipment to detect radioactive materials in shipping cargo."

Oh, how wonderful, right? Hardly. Sure, we've got some machines going to ports in the Bahamas, (that we import things from every day) and it could be a great step toward port security. Too bad the people running the port security in the Bahamas will be going to the Chinese. Boy, I feel a whole lot more safe now.

Well, if it makes you feel any worse I'll try to give some more detail on this right now. Well, first off, the ports getting these machines will be from a Chinese company which already raises eyebrows, but this company in particular has been a known risk for smuggling weapons. I really don't trust these guys. In fact I'd much rather have a bunch of Arabs from a country full of gambling and prostitutes run US ports than the Chinese. Remember, it's the Chinese who are against sanctions in Iran. But this isn't maintnence either remember. They won't be driving forklifts, they'll be in charge of security, and there will be no one else at the ports overseeing any of what they do. This is looking pretty dodgy so far.

The Bush administration of course is trying to make us think we should feel safe with the Chinese in charge of the security of ports that export things to US ports every day. They are trying to make the claim that there is no way the Chinese could get any cargo past the scanner, because they can't disable it. It's a load of crap really. It's true that they can't disable it, but there are plenty of ways to get cargo through. I'll first show you a picture of the thing and then go on with the real risks we could face with this.


If you don't understand what this thing is supposed to do from the picture, don't worry about it. Basically what this thing does is drive by the ship and it detects any nuclear material. They claim they can't disable the machine, but it's not like the thing is an R/C car driven by some CIA guy. No, this thing is drivin by one of the Chinese, so who's to say they won't just, you know, miss a few ship scans, and instead do cookies in the parking lot. It's really that simple, because like I said, the Chinese have full control over security, not one American will be there. And if they want to scan the ship and still get stuff through, just take the crate out until after the scan. It's a pretty simple concept. There is no doubt in my mind that because of this deal, there will now be more nuclear material being smuggled into America, and because we check only 5% of our crates, most of it will make it straight through. I can see a scenario running through my mind right now. Iran pays off China to smuggle bombs into America to be retrieved by sleeper cells and there will be another terrorist attack.

Now I'm not one to say Bush would be behind any terrorist attack, but my God, he sure is making it much easier for them. I don't know what he is thinking! It's stories like this that make me lean towards believing that he really does care more about foreign business than national security. I'll be honest with you, this and other stories are really giving me a major case of Bush fatigue. I've been a huge supporter of the president, but the guy is just making it harder and harder for Conservatives to defend him with things like this. I can't wait until we get someone new in the presidential position, my first choice would be Rudy Giuliani if you were wondering.

50 Comments:

  • At 25/3/06 12:05 AM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    My very conservative boyfriend has got me thinking about the whole Rudy Giuliani thing...there are one or two big issues with it but I'm keeping an open mind--overall I am extremely excited for 2008 preperations to begin, to hear whos who and whos supporting what, who the major candidates will be and all that jazz. Some of us can vote this time!

     
  • At 25/3/06 8:24 AM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    I'm not that worried about China. They're not as crazy as the Mid-East nations and they rely heavily on us for trade. Are they are best friends? No. But I doubt seriously whether they'll smuggle a terrorist into a package.

     
  • At 25/3/06 8:36 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    Robby said...
    "I'm not that worried about China. They're not as crazy as the Mid-East nations and they rely heavily on us for trade. Are they are best friends? No. But I doubt seriously whether they'll smuggle a terrorist into a package."

    Come on Robby, I thought you'd be the first of people to be outraged by something like this! Well, I don't trust China, but this is really more about the Chinese company than the country and the company has been cited as risk for smuggling arms. Plus the fact that it is much more possible in this situation that they could do something dodgy than the Arabs could. I'm more worried about this than I was with Dubai really.

    allisoni balloni said...
    "My very conservative boyfriend has got me thinking about the whole Rudy Giuliani thing...there are one or two big issues with it but I'm keeping an open mind--overall I am extremely excited for 2008 preperations to begin, to hear whos who and whos supporting what, who the major candidates will be and all that jazz. Some of us can vote this time!"

    Yes, I'll also be able to vote in '08 and I'm also excited for that.

     
  • At 25/3/06 8:41 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    Robby said...
    "they rely heavily on us for trade."

    I think you got this part backwards.

     
  • At 25/3/06 9:03 AM, Blogger PlaidBaron said…

    I have to agree with Rob. I think we are getting a little too suspicius of other countries. They DO rely on us for trade. You said it was backwards but it isn't necisarilly. We are the ones that give them the money for the products. I would be a lot more suspicious if it was some guy from Iran.

     
  • At 25/3/06 9:21 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    But China's good friends with Iran, them and Russia stood against sanctions there. I think this is a bad idea, it's a bad idea to put any foreigners in charge of something a vulnerable as our ports in my opinion. Like I've said before, lets keep doing deals and having strong commerce, but cut it out with the ports, those are one of the few things we cannot put up for sale.

     
  • At 25/3/06 12:01 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    But China's good friends with Iran, them and Russia stood against sanctions there.

    Yeah on paper. I wouldn't think they'd want a huge trade partner nuked though. China has no reason to bomb us. They're not Muslims. They rely on us for trade. There is no point or benefit and they know it. Wheras the Arabs would not mind seeing the wrold blow up to kill us. China has never threatend the US. Of course we should keep tabs on them and eventually try to overthrow the communists but the thing is communists are a lot more stable than Jihadists.

     
  • At 25/3/06 1:04 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    CNN Transcripts: Lou Dobbs Tonight. Aired January 12, 2006.

    DOBBS: Our nation's trade deficit with the rest of the world is expected to top an astounding $700 billion for 2005. The trade deficit in November, over $64 billion, the third highest monthly deficit ever. And our deficit with communist China is growing to -- will top more than $200 billion for last year.

    While our trade deficit with China continues to rise, this administration remains in denial and Congress asleep. China poses a new threat to our international trade routes, as well. China has taken control of several strategic waterways and ports in our very own hemisphere.

    Christiane Romans reports.

    (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

    CHRISTIANE ROMANS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Chinese companies control both ends of the Panama Canal and the largest port in the Bahamas.

    LARRY M. WORTZEL, U.S. CHINA COMMISSION: They're really at the key strategic waterways. Now, the United States has the military power, if it had to, to force all these strategic waterways. But certainly we would not want to have to be in that situation.

    ROMANS: Concerns in the past about China's moves on key seaways were dismissed by many as cold war paranoia. But today it's becoming increasingly clear China has a Latin American plan.

    RICHARD FISHER, INTERNATIONAL ASSESSMENT AND STRATEGY CENTER: China has a strategic agenda that is potentially harmful to the United States. It is working to strengthen Cuba, our enemy, and it is working to strengthen leftist regimes that are declaring their opposition to American values.

    ROMANS: National security experts say there's little doubt China is spying on the United States from former Soviet eavesdropping facilities in Cuba. And according to research from the Heritage Foundation, quite possibly from its port facilities in the hemisphere, where Chinese agents could easily conduct military and industrial espionage.

    At the same time, China is forging military ties with regimes increasingly unfriendly to the United States, giving China huge opportunity to acquire sensitive technology.

    FISHER: Brazil has been a conduit to China for very important satellite technologies that are now being incorporated into Chinese intelligence satellites.

    ROMANS: And he fears a potential source for missile technology and, worst case, nuclear technology.

    (END VIDEOTAPE)

    ROMANS: What was once dismissed as cold war paranoia, national security experts say, is now shaping up to be a real threat. China's methodical and unwavering focus on retaining the resources and the assets of this region -- Lou.

    DOBBS: And to be clear, the Bush administration and this government, which George W. Bush leads, is not focusing at all on any of these threats to this nation's national interests.

    ROMANS: To a person, these national security experts say they'd like to see more of a focus, more of a focus on Latin America and China's influence there.

    DOBBS: Christiane Romans, thank you very much.
    ----------

    The person I'd most like to see as our next president? Either Howard Dean or Russ Feingold.

     
  • At 25/3/06 1:23 PM, Blogger Gayle said…

    Howard Dean as our next president?

    Please excuse me. I must go throw up.

     
  • At 25/3/06 1:24 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Can you summarize? What's your point, where do you stand? Oh and even the Democrats don't really like Fiengold. Dean may be electable for you guys though. I'd have to say Jeb Bush or go with Cody's answer Rudy Giuliani.

     
  • At 25/3/06 1:25 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    (The above was adressed to to dervish. I posted it right after Gayle did so it looks confusing a bit.)

     
  • At 25/3/06 2:32 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    No point, I just thought it was relevant information. I haven't formulated my position yet. I'll wait until Monday so I can hear what Al Franken has to say.

    As for Rudy Giuliani, I don't know a lot about him -- but he did cheat on, and divorce his first wife! You were outraged when Clinton did it, so why no outrage for Rudy?

    Apparently Rudy doesn't support any kind of restrictions on abortion:

    From Republican Voices (blog): Rudy Giuliani refuses to support even extremely modest restrictions on the right to an abortion. Regarding a proposed ban on late term or partial birth abortion, Guiliani said on CNN's Inside Politics in 1999, "No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing". (The Case Against a Giuliani Presidency. 1/29/2006)

    Even I would be against a ban on late term abortions (unless the mother's health was in danger, or unless there was some other extenuating circumstance). But I'd support that position over someone who wanted to take away ALL a woman's reproductive rights.

    In any case, he'd definately be a better choice than Jeb Bush or Bill Frist -- the last thing our country needs is another corrupt a$$hole in the white house!

    DarkSaturos said... Oh and even the Democrats don't really like Fiengold.

    I strongly support Russ Feingold's resolution to censure bush. He took a stand and received little support from fellow democrats. I am pretty disgusted at how pathetic and weak most of the other Democrats are acting.

    Support Feingold - Censure bush - Stop Cowering! On 3/13/06, Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) introduced a resolution to censure George Bush for illegally wiretapping American citizens. Of course we believe Bush deserves far more than censure. Feingold said Bush's illegal wiretapping is "right in the strike zone of the concept of high crimes and misdemeanors" -- so impeachment is "an option that we could look at". You go, Russ!

    Naturally, Republicans went ballistic. Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) called Feingold "crazy" and tried to strangle his resolution in the crib. But Democrats wouldn't let him, so now the bill will go to the Judiciary Committee for further consideration. Feingold's gutsy action has forced a debate on a topic that has been taboo in Washington: how to hold George Bush accountable for his innumerable crimes. Obviously this is a debate Republicans are desperate to avoid at all costs. But why are Democrats (other than Feingold) avoiding it too?

    Feingold himself is baffled. He told Fox News "I'm amazed at Democrats, cowering with this president's numbers so low". The administration just has to raise the specter of the war and the Democrats run and hide... Too many Democrats are going to do the same thing they did in 2000 and 2004. In the face of this, they'll say we'd better just focus on domestic issues... [Democrats shouldn't] cower to the argument, that whatever you do, if you question the administration, you're helping the terrorists".

    The time has come for Senate Democrats to stand up to George Bush and the Republican thugs in Congress and the Media.

    Censure Resolution Cosponsors: Tom Harkin (D-IA); Barbara Boxer (D-CA). (Democrats.com)

     
  • At 25/3/06 3:02 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    w-dervish Said... but he did cheat on, and divorce his first wife!

    Correction: I think the wife he cheated on was #2. The guy has been married three times! Hmm... did he cheat on both of his previous wives, or just one of them? Has he cheated on wife #3 yet?

     
  • At 25/3/06 3:37 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    No point, I just thought it was relevant information. I haven't formulated my position yet. I'll wait until Monday so I can hear what Al Franken has to say.


    Oh ok, fair enough.

    As for Rudy Giuliani, I don't know a lot about him -- but he did cheat on, and divorce his first wife! You were outraged when Clinton did it, so why no outrage for Rudy?


    I was outraged because Clinton lied about it, not because he did it.

    I strongly support Russ Feingold's resolution to censure bush. He took a stand and received little support from fellow democrats.

    The reason he isn't electable is beause he keeps doing dumb things like that. There are no grounds for censure and the Democrats know it.

    The time has come for Senate Democrats to stand up to George Bush and the Republican thugs in Congress and the Media.


    Republican media? Do you watch the news. It's not Republican, except for FOX.

    Correction: I think the wife he cheated on was #2. The guy has been married three times! Hmm... did he cheat on both of his previous wives, or just one of them? Has he cheated on wife #3 yet?

    You can't accuse him of things you don't know. Let's stick to the facts. It was apperently only #2. And yes that does make me reconsider it a little.

     
  • At 25/3/06 3:40 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    "Yeah on paper. I wouldn't think they'd want a huge trade partner nuked though. China has no reason to bomb us. They're not Muslims. They rely on us for trade. There is no point or benefit and they know it. Wheras the Arabs would not mind seeing the wrold blow up to kill us. China has never threatend the US. Of course we should keep tabs on them and eventually try to overthrow the communists but the thing is communists are a lot more stable than Jihadists."

    You make a good point Robby, but irrational or not, I can't support something like this. As for their economic dependence on our us, I wonder if a terrorist attack would up the sales of Wal-Mart goods because people would want some extra food in case of an emergency. Just a thought though. But even if you're right, I still don't want foreign governments in charge of ports, borders, or anything of that nature. Especially not during the times we're living in.

     
  • At 25/3/06 5:16 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    As for their economic dependence on our us, I wonder if a terrorist attack would up the sales of Wal-Mart goods because people would want some extra food in case of an emergency.

    That's really not a good long term economic stratagy. Prices would up, but only for a while. The NYSE would be wiped outin a nuke on NY. It just isn't a good move. But I see the point you're making, I just think that as long as we're selective nothing could happen. I could be wrong though.

     
  • At 25/3/06 5:35 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... I was outraged because Clinton lied about it, not because he did it.

    Nonsense. That is a red herring argument and you know it. The Republicans were looking for any excuse they could find to continue their persecution of Clinton. I'm not saying that I approve, but what man wouldn't lie if he were accused of cheating on his wife? My guess is not very many.

    You're outraged when a president lies about cheating on his wife, but not when he lies about who is benefiting from his tax cuts, Global Warming, Iraq's role in 9/11 (none), WMDs, torture, the preparedness of FEMA, and spying on Americans?!

    DarkSaturos said... The reason he isn't electable is beause he keeps doing dumb things like that. There are no grounds for censure and the Democrats know it.

    Not dumb, smart. He took a bold stand and I admire him for it. There most certainly are grounds for censure -- and all the Democrats (and some republicans, I'll wager) know it. Actually, the guy should be impeached, put on trial, convicted, and imprisoned.

    DarkSaturos said... Republican media? Do you watch the news. It's not Republican, except for FOX.

    Nonsense. Anyone in the media who tells the truth is accused of being liberal! News organizations have to present the "republican viewpoint" to avoid the "liberal media" stigma -- when the media isn't actually liberal at all!

    DarkSaturos said... You can't accuse him of things you don't know. Let's stick to the facts. It was apperently only #2. And yes that does make me reconsider it a little.

    That's right, you support anyone doing as many bad things as they want to -- so long as they don't get caught! The Republican Congress is FAILING in it's duty to provide oversight -- and actually INVESTIGATE bush's crimes. Of course that is OK with you -- because as long as there are no investigations bush can continue to do exactly as he pleases.

    A president who is above the law is exactly what we need in a time of war, right?

     
  • At 25/3/06 5:43 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    "That's really not a good long term economic stratagy. Prices would up, but only for a while. The NYSE would be wiped outin a nuke on NY. It just isn't a good move. But I see the point you're making, I just think that as long as we're selective nothing could happen. I could be wrong though."

    I see what you're saying, the country of China would be kicking itself to do this. My biggest problem is that this company isn't part of the Chinese government (at least I don't think so) and they've been cited as a threat for smuggling. If Iran wanted to pay of a company to let some nukes through, they'd be winning even if it did hurt China's economy. But, I don't know, this really is a tough one to call so early.

     
  • At 25/3/06 6:59 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Nonsense. That is a red herring argument and you know it. The Republicans were looking for any excuse they could find to continue their persecution of Clinton.

    Like you guys do to Bush? Calm down. This post is NOT about Clinton or Bush or Gulianni. Those are side topics. Get back to the topic at hand.

    Not dumb, smart. He took a bold stand and I admire him for it.

    Okay then, you're so smart, tell me what grounds there are. In legal terms.

    Nonsense. Anyone in the media who tells the truth is accused of being liberal!

    Not really. Anyone in the media whose liberal is accused of being liberal.

    That's right, you support anyone doing as many bad things as they want to -- so long as they don't get caught!

    What?! You'd convict someone without proof? You can't just make assumtions like that!

    Cody:

    It's not a gov. company? Ah, that might make it more interesting. Hmm. I'll have to look more into that.

     
  • At 25/3/06 8:10 PM, Blogger Rebekah said…

    Oh, brother. W_dervish: YOU are using red herring arguments. Clinton lied under oath. It doesn't matter what he lied about. Hey - remember, oh, Filegate, Whitewater and Vince Foster? Monica wasn't the only thing. (But. It. Doesn't. Matter. What. He. Perjured. Himself. Over.)

    Well, Cody, I don't trust Red China, either. It's not as bad as a Middle Eastern country for several reasons, but they're surely not our friends. I'll withhold judgement on this, but it doesn't look good.

     
  • At 25/3/06 9:40 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... Okay then, you're so smart, tell me what grounds there are. In legal terms.

    Ooooh... you called me out! I guess I'll have to back down now, since I CAN'T tell you what the grounds for censure are -- since there are none. What the president did was 100 percent legal.

    Is that what you were expecting to hear? (Because you're deluded?)

    Here is a link to the press release, if you want to read a description of the censure resolution.

    And here is a link to the censure resolution itself (pdf file)

    Here are some excerpted highlights:

    Senator Feingold's resolution of censure condemns the President for breaking the law by authorizing an illegal wiretapping program, and for misleading Congress and the American people about the existence and legality of that program.

    The President Broke the Law by Wiretapping Outside of FISA.

    It Is Illegal to Wiretap Without the Requisite Warrant or Court Order: The law is clear that the criminal wiretap statute and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) "shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance... and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted".

    FISA Has an Emergency Exception: The Administration has indicated that it ignored FISA because the application process takes too long. In fact, in an emergency, FISA permits the Attorney General to immediately authorize the surveillance as long as the government goes to the court within 72 hours.

    FISA Provides for Wartime Situations: the Attorney General can authorize warrantless electronic surveillance in the United States during the 15 days following a declaration of war, to allow time to consider any amendments to FISA necessitated by a wartime emergency.

    The President Made Misleading Arguments Defending his Wiretapping Program

    Military Force Resolution Did Not Authorize Wiretapping: The President has argued that Congress gave him authority to wiretap Americans on U.S. soil without a warrant when it passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force after September 11, 2001. There is no language in the resolution and no evidence to suggest that it was intended to give the President authority to order these warrantless wiretaps.

    In fact, Congress passed the Patriot Act just six weeks after September 11 to expand the government's powers to conduct surveillance of suspected terrorists and spies. Yet the Administration did not ask for, nor did the Patriot Act include, any change to FISA's requirement of judicial approval for wiretaps of Americans in the United States.

    Prohibition on Wiretapping Limits Executive Power: The President's assertion of inherent executive power is also wrong. The President has extensive authority when it comes to national security and foreign affairs, but given the clear prohibition in FISA, that authority does not include the power to wiretap American citizens on American soil without a warrant.

    Executive Branch Review of Wiretapping Is Not Enough: The President has argued that periodic executive branch review provides an adequate check on the program. But Congress when it passed FISA explicitly rejected the idea that the executive branch should be fully entrusted to conduct national security wiretaps on its own -โ€“ a power that the executive had abused in the past. In addition, the Administration has said that NSA employees decide whose communications to tap. Executive branch employees are no substitute for FISA Court judges.

    Congress Did Not Approve This Program: The extremely limited briefings of the President's warrantless surveillance programs to a handful of Congressional leaders did not constitute Congressional oversight, much less approval. In fact, the failure of the President to keep the Congressional Intelligence Committees "fully and currently informed of all intelligence activities" was a violation of the National Security Act. (Russ Feingold, US Senator. Press Release).

    OVERSIGHT. CHECKS AND BALANCES. Both an inherent part of our Constitution. There is a REASON the founding fathers set up our government in this manner. It was so no single branch could ABUSE it's authority -- which is what bush is doing. Why don't you understand this? (It's because you are deluded!)

    DarkSaturos said... What?! You'd convict someone without proof? You can't just make assumtions like that!

    NO!!! If you suspect someone of wrongdoing (a president, for instance) you conduct an investigation. It's called OVERSIGHT. It's what the senate is SUPPOSED to be doing!

    This is also another example of me explaining something to you for the umpteenth time, but you again ignoring what I'm actually saying and lying about what I mean.

    The Senate certainly spent enough time and money investigating Clinton. Now, when the president is accused of committing NUMEROUS and SERIOUS crimes what do they do? NOTHING!!

    I know that Republicans are laughing about this, but this is why the voter's will kick your CORRUPT asses out of Washington.

    Rebekah said... Oh, brother. W_dervish: YOU are using red herring arguments. Clinton lied under oath. It doesn't matter what he lied about. Hey - remember, oh, Filegate, Whitewater and Vince Foster? Monica wasn't the only thing. (But. It. Doesn't. Matter. What. He. Perjured. Himself. Over.)

    What's. The. Reason. For. All. The. Periods? bush lies on a daily basis, but, hey -- it isn't under oath! I guess that is why the senate doesn't do that anymore! (put people who testify under oath.)

    Perjury: Starr, working with Paula Jones lawyers tried to set Clinton up in a deposition and get him to lie so that they could fabricate a perjury charge. They played with definitions of "sexual relations" and tried to trick the President into lying. They failed. The Jones case also lacked a key element of perjury. In order to be perjury, the statements have to be material. The judge ruled it immaterial and dismissed the case.

    Filegate: In March 2000, Independent Counsel Robert Ray determined that there was no credible evidence of any criminal activity. Ray's report further stated "there was no substantial and credible evidence that any senior White House official, or First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, was involved" in seeking the files.

    Whitewater: The Clintons were cleared of any wrongdoing in two reports subsequently prepared by the San Francisco law firm of Pillsbury Madison and Sutro for the Resolution Trust Corporation, which was overseeing the liquidation of Madison Guaranty.

    Vince Foster: Not sure what you are implying. Are you referring to the BS right-wing murder conspiracy theory?

     
  • At 26/3/06 9:26 AM, Blogger Rebekah said…

    No, of course not. Why would I worry about something the Democrats tell me not to worry about?
    You know, it doesn't matter that they were officially cleared of some scandals, and some you claim they were cleared of.
    They were scandals, nonetheless. Monica wasn't the only thing, and the tactics Starr used to apparently force poor Bill to lie under oath don't matter.
    By the way, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." doesn't seem like some coerced technicality, but that's just me.

     
  • At 26/3/06 9:34 AM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    the interception of domestic wire

    Did you miss this part? Domestic it says. The wiretaps were done on incoming calls. Not domestic calls. Also, read the war act part of the Constitution.

    as long as the government goes to the court within 72 hours.

    Bush did that. What's your point?

    the Attorney General can authorize warrantless electronic surveillance in the United States during the 15 days following a declaration of war

    Again this has nothing to do with the current wiretaps.

    Yet the Administration did not ask for, nor did the Patriot Act include, any change to FISA's requirement of judicial approval for wiretaps of Americans in the United States.

    Not in direct terms maybe but there are things in there that say it in a blanket statement.

    that authority does not include the power to wiretap American citizens on American soil without a warrant.

    It does if as the above says, you get a warrent 72 hours after. You said that yourself.

    a power that the executive had abused in the past

    Oh yeah? Like where?

    The extremely limited briefings of the President's warrantless surveillance programs to a handful of Congressional leaders did not constitute Congressional oversight, much less approval.

    You don't NEED Congress for executive power. Do your homework.

    They played with definitions of "sexual relations" and tried to trick the President into lying. etc.

    You're nuts. You think that it was a conspiricy? Come on now. Don't be stupid. I don't believe in conspericy.

     
  • At 26/3/06 3:15 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     
  • At 26/3/06 7:08 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    I guess you know more than a US Senator. How did such a dummy accomplish so much? This guy's so stupid he should be in an assisted living home!

    Russ Feingold's Education: After graduating from Joseph A. Craig High School, Feingold attended the University of Wisconsin (Madison) and graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree with honors in 1975, a member of the Phi Beta Kappa honor society. He went to Magdalen College at the University of Oxford on a Rhodes Scholarship in 1977, where he earned another Bachelor of Arts, and upon returning to the U.S. attended Harvard Law School, graduating with a law degree with honors in 1979. (from Wikipedia)

    hmmm... he doesn't sound like a dummy. He graduated Harvard LAW school -- I think I will trust him over you.

    DarkSaturos said... Did you miss this part? Domestic it says. The wiretaps were done on incoming calls. Not domestic calls. Also, read the war act part of the Constitution.

    And we are supposed to take his word for it that this is the case? Even if you think he's trustworthy (I don't) -- it doesn't matter! The simple fact is that bush is conducting this program WITHOUT oversight. As I pointed out in a previous comment, oversight is an intregal part of the Constitution! You don't like the Constitution? Why don't you move elsewhere?!

    DarkSaturos said... Bush did that. What's your point?

    You think bush DID go to the FISA court within 72 hours and obtain a warrant -- in every case? I think you need to do your homework before debating anyone on this subject -- because you have no idea what you are talking about. He did not. He has admitted this!

    DarkSaturos said... Again this has nothing to do with the current wiretaps.

    It shows what the law does and doesn't allow.

    DarkSaturos said... Not in direct terms maybe but there are things in there that say it in a blanket statement. (in reference to the Patriot Act, and it NOT containing any modification to FISA laws.)

    Proof please? Post the relevant passage and link where your claim can be verified -- or I will assume you are BSing, or don't have any idea what you're talking about (as ususal).

    DarkSaturos said... It does if as the above says, you get a warrent 72 hours after. You said that yourself.

    I didn't say that. This is the press release from Russ Feingold's website -- as I CLEARLY pointed out. In any case, we DON'T KNOW what he's doing, since he's doing it without oversight!

    Oh yeah? Like where [has the executive committed domestic spying abuses in the past]?

    Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act FAQ: The 1975-76 Church Committee hearings documented extraordinary federal government abuse of surveillance powers. Examples included the NSA's Operation Shamrock and Operation Minaret, the CIA's Operation CHAOS, the FBI's COINTELPRO domestic harassment of dissenters and anti-war protesters that included illegal wiretapping, and the illegal burglaries of the Nixon White House "plumbers". (From The Electronic Frontier Foundation & Wikipedia)

    DarkSaturos said... You don't NEED Congress for executive power. Do your homework.

    You DO need Congressional approval. It's call CHECKS AND BALANCES. Do YOUR homework! Both checks and balances and congressional oversight are EXTREMELY important aspects of the Seperation of Powers concept -- The concept on which our nation was founded! If you hate our Constitution so much why don't you move elsewhere?!

    DarkSaturos said... You're nuts. You think that it was a conspiricy? Come on now. Don't be stupid. I don't believe in conspericy.

    There has never been a single conspiracy in the world, ever? Now who's being stupid?

    From Findlaw.com -- Conspiracy: A criminal conspiracy exists when two or more people agree to commit almost any unlawful act, then take some action toward its completion. The action taken need not itself be a crime, but it must indicate that those involved in the conspiracy knew of the plan and intended to break the law. One person may be charged with and convicted of both conspiracy and the underlying crime based on the same circumstances. (From Findlaw.com - Criminal law - Crimes A to Z)

    Why do you REFUSE to spell the word correctly?! Are you doing it on purpose, so that whenever I point it out you can then say that I have no argument? I say you have no argument because all you do is repeat Republican talking points -- and you don't even understand what you're talking about!

    The entire impeachment case against Mr. Clinton was total BS. Ken Starr's case against Clinton hinged on the fact that he had supposedly commited perjury in the Paula Jones deposition. However, that case was dismissed and Mr. Clinton's testimony was ruled immaterial. For perjury to have occured the judge would have had to have ruled the testimony material. Ken Starr's next ploy was to call the president before a grand jury, so he could trick him into lying about the lie. It's called a Perjury Trap, and it is illegal. See the following articles for more information:

    Myth: Ken Starr's investigation was ethical and fair.
    Perjury Trap Defense by Marc Perkel.

     
  • At 26/3/06 7:39 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Rebekah said... to worry about?
    You know, it doesn't matter that they were officially cleared of some scandals, and some you claim they were cleared of.


    I'm claiming that they were cleared? So you're accusing me of lying, yet you offer no evidence to prove me wrong. Typical Republican BS.

    I keep hearing Republicans say that Democrats are bitter losers, but the fact is that Republicans are the most bitter and vindictive people on the face of the planet! All these "scandals" were trumped up by Republicans because of their intense bitterness at having lost the White House to Clinton.

    Rebekah said... They were scandals, nonetheless. Monica wasn't the only thing, and the tactics Starr used to apparently force poor Bill to lie under oath don't matter.

    They were Republican manufactured scandals. There was never anything to them -- which is why they were cleared in all cases.

    Entrapment: defense that claims the defendant would not have broken the law if not tricked into doing it by law enforcement officials. (dictionary.com)

    Ken Starr questioning Mr. Clinton about a case which had been dismissed for the sole purpose of tricking him into lying -- so he could be charged with perjury and impeached -- that sounds like entrapment to me. The legal term for it is "perjury trap".

    Rebekah said... By the way, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." doesn't seem like some coerced technicality, but that's just me.

    Yes, it is just you. His answer was a technically accurate response to a question nobody but his wife had any business asking him to begin with.

     
  • At 26/3/06 8:35 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    I guess you know more than a US Senator

    Oh just because he's smart he's unbiased? Please.

    And we are supposed to take his word for it that this is the case?

    YES! Because you can NOT convict someone without proof. What are you some kind of Hitler?

    Proof please? Post the relevant passage and link where your claim can be verified -- or I will assume you are BSing, or don't have any idea what you're talking about (as ususal).

    Sec. 201. Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to terrorism.

    Duuuuh. Maybe you don't know what you're talking about!

    I didn't say that. This is the press release from Russ Feingold's website

    Russ Feingold is NOT an unbiased source. Is that where you get your info?

    Why do you REFUSE to spell the word correctly?!

    Because it makes you look like a real shit to everyone who sees that you can't win an arguement unless you resort to pointing out spelling mistakes.

    The entire impeachment case against Mr. Clinton was total BS.

    It was? Even though he admitted it?

     
  • At 27/3/06 12:20 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... Oh just because he's smart he's unbiased? Please.

    So you believe that there is no such thing as right and wrong -- it's all opinion? bush's wiretapping is in violation of the Constitution -- opinion and bias have NOTHING to do with it!

    DarkSaturos said... YES! Because you can NOT convict someone without proof. What are you some kind of Hitler?

    Are you some kind of moron? I did NOT say anything about convicting anyone without proof. How many times do I have to say it? Congress is failing in it's obligation to provide oversight. That is part of their job -- to check executive power. It's in the Constitution -- you know, checks and balances? Why do you hate the Constitution so much?

    DarkSaturos said... Sec. 201. Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to terrorism.

    Really? Section 201 includes changes to FISA's requirement of judicial approval for wiretaps of Americans in the United States? Where? Here it is -- why don't you point out to me where it says that.

    ----------
    SEC. 201. AUTHORITY TO INTERCEPT WIRE, ORAL, AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO TERRORISM.

    Section 2516(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

    (1) by redesignating paragraph (p), as so redesignated by section 434(2) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-132; 110 Stat. 1274), as paragraph (r); and

    (2) by inserting after paragraph (p), as so redesignated by section 201(3) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (division C of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-565), the following new paragraph:

    (q) any criminal violation of section 229 (relating to chemical weapons); or sections 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2332d, 2339A, or 2339B of this title (relating to terrorism); or'.
    ----------

    I don't see anything that gives bush the power to bypass the FISA court. I didn't see the passage where the power of the Judicial branch is handed over to the executive. In any case, the Patriot Act is a BAD bill that never should have been passed to begin with.

    DarkSaturos said... Russ Feingold is NOT an unbiased source. Is that where you get your info?

    This "unbiased source" bullshit is really starting to get on my nerves. We were talking about Russ Feingold's censure resolution. Are you saying that Russ Feingold is biased against himself?

    That is why you NEVER provide any links to back up a damn thing you say -- because you know that I could use the same stupid "bias" argument to refute any link you could provide. That is why you refused to provide a link to back up your claims in the last thread!

    DarkSaturos said... Because it makes you look like a real shit to everyone who sees that you can't win an arguement unless you resort to pointing out spelling mistakes.

    It makes you look like a total idiot to continue spelling a word incorrectly after the correct spelling has been pointed out to you MULTIPLE times. I'm not going to stop doing it either. And, BTW, I never claimed that I won any arguement because I pointed out your spelling mistakes. I win every arguement because you make ridiculous claims, refuse to back them up, and think everyone should take your biased opinions as fact.

    DarkSaturos said... It was? Even though he admitted it?

    Yes, it was. Everything he "admited" to was only because he just wanted it to be over with at that point. The charges were and are still BS.

     
  • At 27/3/06 3:07 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    I did NOT say anything about convicting anyone without proof.

    You said Bush should go to jail, numerous times.

    Really? Section 201 includes changes to FISA's requirement of judicial approval for wiretaps of Americans in the United States? Where? Here it is -- why don't you point out to me where it says that.


    You have to look up the other parts, the ones it's reffering to.

    This "unbiased source" bullshit is really starting to get on my nerves.

    I don't really care whether I'm getting on your nerves or not.

    Are you saying that Russ Feingold is biased against himself?

    For himself dimwit.

    It makes you look like a total idiot to continue spelling a word incorrectly after the correct spelling has been pointed out to you MULTIPLE times. I'm not going to stop doing it either.

    Guess what? I don't care whether you stop. In fact I hope you continue because then people see what an ass you are.

    Yes, it was. Everything he "admited" to was only because he just wanted it to be over with at that point.

    That's conspericy bullshit again. Can't you ever do anything without conspericy?

    The subject at hand is not about Bush or Clinton. It's about ports. Get an opinion on that. Otherwise shut up or don't expect a response from me. One or the other, I don't care.

     
  • At 27/3/06 5:03 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... You said Bush should go to jail, numerous times.

    And he should. If the Republican Congress took their oversight role seriously, which they do not, then some of his crimes would come to light. After impeachment the next step would be a trial. But YES, I think he should end up in jail. But not without a trial. I NEVER said that!

    NOBODY can be sent directly to jail without a trial. But you keep saying that I want him sent to jail without a trial -- over and over. You're making yourself look really dumb.

    You have to look up the other parts, the ones it's reffering to.

    I do? You're the one making the argument -- YOU look them up.

    Here's a link to help you out:
    TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 119 > ยง 2516.

    Seriously, you have to be a lawyer to understand this crap. Which is why I know you are BSing. You have to PROVE the claims you are making! You can NOT win an argument by BSing.

    In any case, I know for a fact that there is nothing in there that hands the power of the Judicial branch over to the executive. If so that law would be unconstitutional.

    DarkSaturos said... I don't really care whether I'm getting on your nerves or not.

    I don't care if you don't care.

    DarkSaturos said... For himself dimwit.

    Where am I supposed to get information regarding Russ Feingold's Censure bill if not from Russ Feingold's website?!! The bill itself isn't biased! It's a legal argument. Regardless of where I copied and pasted it from the bill would be EXACTLY the same. Dimwit.

    DarkSaturos said... Guess what? I don't care whether you stop. In fact I hope you continue because then people see what an ass you are.

    I think you are making it clear to everyone who the ass is.

    DarkSaturos said... That's conspericy bullshit again. Can't you ever do anything without conspericy?

    My saying that he wanted the impeachment BS to be over with is a conspiracy? How so?

    DarkSaturos said... The subject at hand is not about Bush or Clinton. It's about ports. Get an opinion on that. Otherwise shut up or don't expect a response from me. One or the other, I don't care.

    You give yourself the last word and then cut me off by saying you won't respond? Why have you been responding -- for several posts??!

    My opinion on the China/bahama port situation is this: I blame bush. We wouldn't be in this situation if bush hadn't racked up so much debt. Our debtors are awash in US dollars that they want to spend by buying our assets. Foreign ownership of US assets will continue to increase.

    Biased Article Quote: Greater foreign ownership of U.S. assets is an inevitable consequence of the reckless tax-cutting, deficit-ballooning fiscal policies that Congress and the White House have pursued. By encouraging the United States to consume more than it produces, these fiscal policies have sucked in imports so fast that the nation is nearing a trillion-dollar annual trade deficit. Those are IOUs on America's future, issued by a spendthrift Congress.

    New York University professor Nouriel Roubini notes that with the U.S. current account deficit running at about $900 billion in 2006, "in a matter of a few years foreigners may end up owning most of the U.S. capital stocks: ports, factories, corporations, land, real estate and even our national parks". Until recently the US has been financing its trade deficit through debt (selling US Treasury securities to foreign central banks). That's scary enough -- as it has given big T-bill holders such as China and Saudi Arabia the ability to punish the U.S. dollar if they decide to unload their reserves.

    But foreigners may decide they would rather hold their dollars in equity investments than in US Treasury debt. "If we continue with our current patterns of spending above our incomes, by 2013 the U.S. foreign liabilities could be as high as 75 percent of GDP and an increasing fraction of such liabilities will be in the form of equity". he explains. "So, let us stop whining about the dangers of unfriendly foreigners owning our firms and assets and get used to it".

    Here's how bad it is: The worst thing that could happen to the United States, paradoxically, would be for Arab and other foreign investors to take us at our xenophobic word and decide that America doesn't really want foreign investment. If they pulled out their money, U.S. financial markets would plummet in a crash that might make 1929 look like a sleigh ride. (The Washington Post. Taste of the Future. By David Ignatius. 2/24/2006)

    Of course, since this article is biased, it is also all LIES. You can't believe a single word of it. Foreigners aren't buying our assets at an alarming rate. We shouldn't be concerned about the trade deficit or the National debt. The president hasn't put us in a dangerous situation via his reckless and irresponsible fiscal policies.

    If this is what you really believe then why don't you tell me WHY -- Instead of simply saying "biased" and then think you've won the argument.

     
  • At 28/3/06 6:38 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    Robby said...
    "The subject at hand is not about Bush or Clinton. It's about ports. Get an opinion on that. Otherwise shut up or don't expect a response from me. One or the other, I don't care"

    I agree. I seems w-dervish has become nothing more than a spammer. In fact, I bet most of his comments were pre-written then copied and pasted into numerous blogs. I've considered banning him, but then I remember that the way to form a strong argument is to hear from both sides. But then, his side is off-topic information, so really, as soon as another Liberal starts commenting more, dervish will be worthless.

     
  • At 28/3/06 12:17 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Cody O'Connor said... I agree. I seems w-dervish has become nothing more than a spammer. In fact, I bet most of his comments were pre-written then copied and pasted into numerous blogs.

    Why don't you Google anything you think I may have posted elsewhere -- and prove what you're saying?! This is typical Republican BS -- make false accusations, repeat them over and over, but never back them up with any actual proof.

    Anyway, how could that be true, since my posts are written to reply specifically to what you have said? This whole thing about Russ Feingold started because YOU mentioned who you would support for president. My defense of Clinton was in response to what Rebecca posted.

    Robby asked questions, and I answered them. I didn't post any nonsolicited information.

    BTW the last section of my post does deal with the current port situation -- which you ignored.

    I suppose this means I'm not going to get an answer to my question concerning WHERE in the Patriot Act the power of the Judicial branch is transfered to the president. Not because it is "off topic", but because Robby can't answer the question. Because it's not in there. Because he was BSing all along.

    BTW these posts do turn up in Google searches. I know, because I've found past comments I have made by using Google.

    You say that I'm posting the same comments on numerous blogs? PROVE IT. Search for "dkfz" in addition to "w-dervish", since I really haven't been posting anywhere else since I changed my user ID.

    I expect your next post to contain examples of things I've posted on other blogs, along with links.

    For example, using a Google search I see you've posted on the following blogs:

    America Under Attack. You said... I hope you aren't referring to the port deal, because I have no problem with a global economy, but why does it have to be ports?

    America's Documents. You said... And I'm sporting the new design for the seal.

    Blog America

    Blog Toxic. You said... It's good writing, but it's not true. Most people that blog, blog for a purpous. You think your talking about the majority, but in fact your talking about a minority.

    Bush is not the Antichrist

    But I can Hear You

    Eye Of The Storm

    In The Pines. You said... When someone says they have a bomb, runs a few yards away, and pretends to pull it out of his carry-on, is it really possible to do anything else?

    It's My Opinion and I'm Stickin' to it!... Anyone who hates Howard Dean on the same level as me I can get along with!

    The Liberal Lie, The Conservative Truth. You said... Rob, after looking at your blog I can see you are a left-wing Democrat. Me, I'm a Republican, but on this issue, I agree with you, Bush is just plain wrong here.

    Republican Ramblings

    I also found this strange comment whilst googling:

    DarkSaturos said... Gameguy22006 is an idiot Cody. But I must point out that your grammer could be better.

    Does this mean that Cody should think that you're a shit? In the same thead I see that Robby admits that he is a hypocrite.

    Of these blogs, I was unaware of 3 (America Under Attack, Blog Toxic, It's My Opinion and I'm Stickin' to it!), and didn't know you posted at 1 (America's Documents). Maybe I should start following you around and posting everywhere you post -- just to be annoying.

     
  • At 28/3/06 3:09 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Hmm still no ports opinion. How remarkable.

     
  • At 28/3/06 3:58 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    How many hours did you spend trying to prove my joke wrong?

     
  • At 28/3/06 5:30 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... Hmm still no ports opinion. How remarkable.

    What's remarkable is how you can continue to lie -- and somehow think that your lies will make me look bad. They only make you look STUPID.

    Here is the "on topic" comment I made earlier:

    (reposted from an earlier comment)

    My opinion on the China/bahama port situation is this: I blame bush. We wouldn't be in this situation if bush hadn't racked up so much debt. Our debtors are awash in US dollars that they want to spend by buying our assets. Foreign ownership of US assets will continue to increase.

    Biased Article Quote (refer back to my previous post)

    Of course, since this article is biased, it is also all LIES. You can't believe a single word of it. Foreigners aren't buying our assets at an alarming rate. We shouldn't be concerned about the trade deficit or the National debt. The president hasn't put us in a dangerous situation via his reckless and irresponsible fiscal policies.

    If this is what you really believe then why don't you tell me WHY -- Instead of simply saying my article quotes are "biased" and then think you've won the argument.

    (end reposted comment)

    Cody O'Connor said... How many hours did you spend trying to prove my joke wrong?

    A Joke? You knew I was right so NOW you call your stupid "spamming" comment a joke. I'll keep that in mind if I'm ever proved categorically wrong -- say my idiot comments were a "joke".

     
  • At 28/3/06 5:40 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Also reposted from an earlier comment:

    I suppose this means I'm not going to get an answer to my question concerning WHERE in the Patriot Act the power of the Judicial branch is transfered to the president. Not because it is "off topic", but because Robby can't answer the question. Because it's not in there. Because he was BSing all along. (end question which won't be answered)

    You're full of sh!t and your failure to answer proves it. How completely unremarkable that you should lie, BS to "prove" your point, and then ignore me when I call you on your BS.

     
  • At 29/3/06 6:26 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    I wasn't serious about the reposting thing, why do you have to make a big deal out of it, because you know you can win this one. Why don't you just F off, I'm tired of it, I'm tired of you.

     
  • At 29/3/06 6:32 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    "You're full of sh!t and your failure to answer proves it. How completely unremarkable that you should lie, BS to "prove" your point, and then ignore me when I call you on your BS."

    I don't think I should have an obligation to respond to off-topic comments. If you wanted an actual debate, then you could have talked about this port thing And if you wanted to talk about the patriot act, that's just too bad now isn't it, you'll have to wait about I talk about it first in a post.

     
  • At 29/3/06 12:33 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Cody Said... I don't think I should have an obligation to respond to off-topic comments. If you wanted an actual debate, then you could have talked about this port thing And if you wanted to talk about the patriot act, that's just too bad now isn't it, you'll have to wait about I talk about it first in a post.

    [1] I did post an opinion on the topic at hand (TWICE). You ignored it.

    [2] You have already posted on this topic (bush's so-called "Terrorist Surveillance Program")

    [3] I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to Robby, who claimed that that the Patriot Act authorizes this program. He is the one who went off-topic.

    [4] If Robby choses stop responding now, it is because he knows he has LOST the argument, not because I am "off topic" -- since he is the one who made the claim to begin with!

    Cody O'Connor said... I wasn't serious about the reposting thing, why do you have to make a big deal out of it, because you know you can win this one. Why don't you just F off, I'm tired of it, I'm tired of you.

    [1] I don't believe you.

    [2] I made a big deal out of it because I'm tired of the lies Conservatives tell to make Liberals look bad. We're traitors. We hate the troops. We are paid to post on/spam Conservative blogs. We want to be the center of attention. And on and on.

    [3] I wish that Conservatives would go away and stop ruining our country.

     
  • At 29/3/06 2:36 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Still no port opinion.

     
  • At 29/3/06 3:19 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Reposted, for the 3rd time, from an earlier comment:

    My opinion on the China/bahama port situation is this: I blame bush. We wouldn't be in this situation if bush hadn't racked up so much debt. Our debtors are awash in US dollars that they want to spend by buying our assets. Foreign ownership of US assets will continue to increase.

    Biased Article Quote (refer back to my previous post)

    Of course, since this article is biased, it is also all LIES. You can't believe a single word of it. Foreigners aren't buying our assets at an alarming rate. We shouldn't be concerned about the trade deficit or the National debt. The president hasn't put us in a dangerous situation via his reckless and irresponsible fiscal policies.

    If this is what you really believe then why don't you tell me WHY -- Instead of simply saying my article quotes are "biased" and then think you've won the argument.

     
  • At 29/3/06 3:22 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... Still no port opinion.

    Still no proof to back up your idiotic claims that the Patriot Act gives bush the power to bypass FISA.

     
  • At 29/3/06 7:04 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     
  • At 29/3/06 7:06 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    How exactly is it Bush's fault? Economic proof. We're not reling on China, we're profiting off them. You need to take a crash course on economics. Let me help you.

    Lesson One: Your hatred of a leader does not affect economics.

     
  • At 29/3/06 8:37 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... How exactly is it Bush's fault? Economic proof.

    The biased article I quoted from explains all. The key points are:

    By encouraging the United States to consume more than it produces, [the bush administration's] fiscal policies have sucked in imports so fast that the nation is nearing a trillion-dollar annual trade deficit.

    Until recently the US has been financing its trade deficit through debt (selling US Treasury securities to foreign central banks).

    But foreigners may decide they would rather hold their dollars in equity investments than in US Treasury debt. "If we continue with our current patterns of spending above our incomes, by 2013 the U.S. foreign liabilities could be as high as 75 percent of GDP and an increasing fraction of such liabilities will be in the form of equity".

    DarkSaturos said... We're not relying on China, we're profiting off them.

    Huh? Large US corporations and the wealthy elite may be profiting, but "we" most certainly are not. Instead of using tax incentives to help save American jobs, bush has decided to reward companies that send our jobs overseas! This is just one example of how the bush administration favors the wealthy.

    The US government IS relying on China (and other foreign governments) to finance our national debt.

    DarkSaturos said... You need to take a crash course on economics. Let me help you. Lesson One: Your hatred of a leader does not affect economics.

    I completed an Economics course in college. I think it is YOU who needs to do some studying before you make more a fool of yourself.

    The bush administration's policies DO have a HUGE impact on our economy! The wealthy are doing very well thanks to bush. Those campaign contributions paid off. bush knows who he's working for -- and it isn't the brainwashed idiots in the bottom 79 percent who voted Republican.

     
  • At 29/3/06 8:51 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    by 2013 the U.S. foreign liabilities could be as high as 75 percent of GDP and an increasing fraction of such liabilities will be in the form of equity"

    If it affects the future that much it wasn't done solely by Bush. Probably a succesion of presidents over the years.

    Huh? Large US corporations and the wealthy elite may be profiting, but "we" most certainly are not.

    So what? It's called capitilism. You'd rather give everyone a share and be commies?

    I completed an Economics course in college. I think it is YOU who needs to do some studying before you make more a fool of yourself.


    Made a fool of myself? How have I done that? I haven't blamed every problem on one person.

    The bush administration's policies DO have a HUGE impact on our economy! The wealthy are doing very well thanks to bush.

    Great! What's wrong with that? It's called capitilism. I think that Trotsky would agree with you completly.

     
  • At 29/3/06 10:33 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... If it affects the future that much it wasn't done solely by Bush. Probably a succesion of presidents over the years.

    Yea, the Republican ones. Clinton had us on the right road, after the first bush idiot ran up the national debt. That is, until the second bush idiot came along.

    DarkSaturos said... So what? It's called capitilism. You'd rather give everyone a share and be commies?

    There you go with your unfounded idiotic conclusions again. I didn't say a damn thing about communism. The president is supposed to work for all of us, not just the wealthy.

    DarkSaturos said... Made a fool of myself? How have I done that? I haven't blamed every problem on one person.

    By denying reality. The President CAN affect the course of the economy through his fiscal policies. I'm not blaming just one person. I blame the bush administration and all the Republicans who came before him. They reward the wealthy elite who pay for their campaigns! Which is why we need publicly financed elections. That is the only way to put an end to the corruption!

    DarkSaturos said... Great! What's wrong with that? It's called capitilism. I think that Trotsky would agree with you completly.

    Of course you see nothing wrong with a corrupt system that favors the wealthy! My hatred of corruption does NOT make me a communist, idiot.

    The result of this widespread pervasive corruption is that our government has been paid for, and is run for the benefit of the wealthy:

    Biased Article Quote: How is our democracy doing? The picture isn't pretty. Washington scandals, a broken voting system, a timid media, and a costly, increasingly unpopular war creating as many enemies as it kills. It's no surprise that seven out of ten of us believe our country is headed in the wrong direction or that three-fourths of us believe that our "government is run by a few big interests looking out only for themselves".

    We didn't inherit democracy, it turns out; we have to create it -โ€“ first by recognizing something pretty obvious: Democracy's core premise is the wide dispersion of power so that we all have a voice. But our market economy is driven by another premise. Its driver is one rule โ€“- highest return to existing wealth, those who own corporate stock. With that one rule, economic power concentrates and concentrates... and concentrates until it becomes so powerful that it subverts the political process. (The weakness of our thin democracy. Guerrilla News Network. 12/8/2005)

    The article claims that "Bush Isn't the Problem", which is true. He is a symptom of a broken system. A president bought and paid for by corporations.

     
  • At 30/3/06 6:27 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    "The wealthy are doing very well thanks to bush."

    So what? Why is that bad? The wealthy would be doing worse off under a Democrat. So is that it, you just hate people who make more money than you? You can't respect someone who has lived the American dream. I guess not, you'd rather we lived in a utopia where we have forced money distribution. How wonderful.

    But as for the poor, it seems having the economic freedom that is supported by Bush, the unemployment rate has actually dropped to around 4%. If we had put more people on welfare they would have never gotten a job.

    In the sense of taxes and welfare, I believe Bush is doing a good job. When it comes to the deficit however, he deserves most of the blame. That fact is just undenyable.

     
  • At 30/3/06 6:29 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    Speaking of welfare, I just remembered a nice quote:

    "I you're getting paid not to work. Why work?"
    -Ronald Reagan

     
  • At 8/4/06 2:36 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Cody O'Connor said... Speaking of welfare, I just remembered a nice quote: "I you're getting paid not to work. Why work?" Ronald Reagan

    The problem with our current tax system is NOT that poor people are getting a "free ride". It is the wealthy who are paying off politicians for their free ride. The rich not paying their fair share is a MUCH BIGGER problem that some poor people taking advantage of Welfare. Get a clue Cody!!

    I just finished reading Perfectly Legal by David Cay Johnston... I knew that the wealthy were using tax shelters and loopholes to avoid paying their fair share. I was prepared to be amazed at how much they are getting away with. It is worse than even I thought. The book's subtitle is 100 percent correct: "The covert campaign to rig our tax system to benefit the Super Rich -- and cheat everybody else".

     

Post a Comment

<< Home