← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · toddbrendanfahey
Thread ID: 19249 | Posts: 10 | Started: 2005-07-22
2005-07-22 11:06 | User Profile
whhooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo's the asshole? :thumbsup:
2005-07-22 20:27 | User Profile
Tancredo is not a WN, nor even a traditional conservative/(l)iberal by any stretch of the imagination. He is all for multiculturalism and is pro-Zionist. He is a law an order man and what drives him to close down the borders to illegal immigration also leads him to support the police state provisions of the poorly named Patriotic act. But, the reality of politics is you can't have everything, and Tancredo is still better than 95% of the Republicans out there.
2005-07-23 05:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Brian Hassett]Tancredo is not a WN, nor even a traditional conservative/(l)iberal by any stretch of the imagination. He is all for multiculturalism and is pro-Zionist. He is a law an order man and what drives him to close down the borders to illegal immigration also leads him to support the police state provisions of the poorly named Patriotic act. But, the reality of politics is you can't have everything, and Tancredo is still better than 95% of the Republicans out there.[/QUOTE]Which just goes to show how deeply screwed we truly are.
2005-07-23 06:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=grep14w]Which just goes to show how deeply screwed we truly are.[/QUOTE] Hardly. The Republicans went from a third party to the presidency in a couple of election cycles because the Whigs weren't able to address the important issues of the day. The modern GOP has two choices -- duplicate the Democrats and go extinct or transform into a truly conservative party. If they fail, someone else will come along and take their place, but, as American political history shows, major parties tend to absorb the platforms of successful third parties. Think of it this way -- 30 years ago, no one ever heard of the Christian Coalition. Then they started taking over school boards, state offices, Congress and then the presidency itself. Along with the Zionists, the CC is the most effective and powerful force in Washington today and there is no reason why we can't do the same. The only reason we're screwed is because people like you sit on the sidelines and think we are.
2005-07-23 06:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Brian Hassett]Hardly. Nope. I was speaking of the here and now and I stand by what I said.
Of course things can change, but not as easily as you seem to think.
The Republicans went from a third party to the presidency in a couple of election cycles because the Whigs weren't able to address the important issues of the day. Has it occurred to you that that was the last time a major new party displaced an older party? That's almost a century and a half of stability to our current two party system.
Are you familiar with ballot access laws?
The system is rigged precisely to prevent the sudden emergence of new parties on to the national scene that are not under control of the ruling elites.> The modern GOP has two choices -- duplicate the Democrats and go extinct Won't happen if the system is rigged to prevent the emergence of serious new parties.> or transform into a truly conservative party. "Transform" and "conservative" are antithetical concepts. Besides, it is far too late for any kind of conservative approach to do any good. Far too much water under the bridge; only something more radical could achieve anything meaningful.> If they fail, someone else will come along and take their place, but, as American political history shows, major parties tend to absorb the platforms of successful third parties. Only for appearances sake. The Populist Party pushed the Democrats a little bit to the left - rhetorically - but no real changes happened until a couple of generations later, under FDR, and then only under very different conditions and in the name of a radically different political philosophy.> Think of it this way -- 30 years ago, no one ever heard of the Christian Coalition. Lucky b_stards.> Then they started taking over school boards, state offices, Congress and then the presidency itself. Along with the Zionists, the CC is the most effective and powerful force in Washington today and there is no reason why we can't do the same. Yes, and only the Zionists are actually reaping the benefits of this political transformation. Thirty years from now, gay marriage will be a "traditional family value" and we'll still be at war with the Arab world on behalf of Israel, if these "wonderful" trends continue.> The only reason we're screwed is because people like you sit on the sidelines and think we are.[/QUOTE]Ah, what a cutting remark. You "know" all about me. How sagacious of you.
Being realistic and looking at reality as it is is not defeatism or "bad"; it's the first step towards fixing things. I respectfully suggest that your gameplan is rather naive and does not take into account the realities of Zionist media power and the way the modern political system actually works - a system vastly different from that operating when the Republicans replaced the Whigs.
It's not that you are wrong about possibilities, it is just that you aren't taking into account most of the real problems. You don't think people haven't spent the past 60 years trying to do just exactly as you suggest? Why did they fail? It wasn't for lack of trying. Maybe you should spend less time trying to feel superior to someone you don't know on an anonymous internet forum, and start studying the problem in greater detail.
2005-07-23 13:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=grep14w]Nope. I was speaking of the here and now and I stand by what I said.
Of course things can change, but not as easily as you seem to think. Has it occurred to you that that was the last time a major new party displaced an older party? That's almost a century and a half of stability to our current two party system.
Are you familiar with ballot access laws?
The system is rigged precisely to prevent the sudden emergence of new parties on to the national scene that are not under control of the ruling elites.Won't happen if the system is rigged to prevent the emergence of serious new parties."Transform" and "conservative" are antithetical concepts. Besides, it is far too late for any kind of conservative approach to do any good. Far too much water under the bridge; only something more radical could achieve anything meaningful.Only for appearances sake. The Populist Party pushed the Democrats a little bit to the left - rhetorically - but no real changes happened until a couple of generations later, under FDR, and then only under very different conditions and in the name of a radically different political philosophy.Lucky b_stards.Yes, and only the Zionists are actually reaping the benefits of this political transformation. Thirty years from now, gay marriage will be a "traditional family value" and we'll still be at war with the Arab world on behalf of Israel, if these "wonderful" trends continue.Ah, what a cutting remark. You "know" all about me. How sagacious of you.
Being realistic and looking at reality as it is is not defeatism or "bad"; it's the first step towards fixing things. I respectfully suggest that your gameplan is rather naive and does not take into account the realities of Zionist media power and the way the modern political system actually works - a system vastly different from that operating when the Republicans replaced the Whigs.
It's not that you are wrong about possibilities, it is just that you aren't taking into account most of the real problems. You don't think people haven't spent the past 60 years trying to do just exactly as you suggest? Why did they fail? It wasn't for lack of trying. Maybe you should spend less time trying to feel superior to someone you don't know on an anonymous internet forum, and start studying the problem in greater detail.[/QUOTE]
My remarks weren't intended to be a put down, but a reality check. Every day I talk to people like you who complain about how bad things are and then just throw up their hands and give up. I'm sorry that you took them as offensive.
Yes, the Republican/Democratic dynamic has remained for the past century and a half, but look at the changes within that system: the Democrats went from a states' rights party to a socialists platform and the Republicans went from an abolitionist movement to an establishmentarian party. Not to mention the divergence from the pragmatic Republicans of the 70s like Nixon and Rokefeller to the Neocons -- Reagan, Bush 1 and 2 and Cheney -- of the modern era.
I agree with you in that there are many obstacles; but, the reality is we've tried the organizational approach and we're further behind for that effort. Ross Perot showed how ready America is for a new way; he just backed out prematurely. The BNP is now the fourth largest party in the UK and America doesn't even have anything close to its equivelant. No, nationalism in the past has been stunted by our inability to communicate and organize. Now that practically every home in America has internet access, we have something that our predecessors never dreamt of -- a means to totally bypass the controlled media.
Anyway, I'll stop rambling now. Again, the point I was making ealier wasn't a personal attack against you; but my perception of millions of Americans bitching about how bad things are while collectively surrendering.
2005-07-23 13:56 | User Profile
Also, another point I wanted to bring up is that regardless of his motivations, Tancredo is a good man who does what he believes is right and the neocons hate him for it. While he probably will never agree with us on racial issues, the reality is that he has the ability to do more to stop illegal immigration than every nationalist in America at the moment. So, rather than pick at his flaws, I'd suggest we take the good with the bad and no one here could suggest that halting immigration is the first pragmatic step we must take to securing our country.
2005-07-25 04:11 | User Profile
This moron is from my home state.
[font=Garamond]Idaho Congressman [/font]<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /> [url="http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/id02_simpson/patriot_reauthor.html"]http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/id02_simpson/patriot_reauthor.html[/url] [img]http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/1.3/ceiling/logo.cnn.com.gif[/img] **[url="http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS"][img]http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/1.0/sect/ALLPOLITICS/header.inside_politics.gif[/img][/url] ** [img]http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/POLITICS/07/21/congress.patriotact.ap/story.generic.capitol.dc.jpg[/img] **[size=3]Democrats voice civil liberties concerns[/size] ** Friday, July 22, 2005; Posted: 12:50 a.m. EDT (04:50 GMT)
[size=5]House votes to extend Patriot Act[/size]
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House voted Thursday to extend the USA Patriot Act, the nation's main anti-terrorism tool, just hours after televisions in the Capitol beamed images of a new attack in London. As similar legislation worked its way through the Senate, House Republicans generally cast the law as a valuable asset in the war on terror. Most Democrats echoed that support but said they were concerned the law could allow citizens' civil liberties to be infringed.
Following more than nine hours of debate, the House approved the measure 257-171. Forty-three Democrats joined 214 Republicans in voting to renew key provisions of Patriot Act that were set to expire at the end of the year.
The bulk of the back-and-forth centered on language making permanent 14 of 16 provisions that had four-year sunset provisions under the original law, which Congress passed overwhelmingly after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The bill also proposed 10-year extensions to the two other provisions set to expire on December 31, one allowing roving wiretaps and another allowing searches of library and medical records. They were the focus of most of the controversy as members plowed through the main legislation and 18 amendments.
"While the Patriot Act and other anti-terrorism initiatives have helped avert additional attacks on our soil, the threat has not receded," said Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, the top Democrat on the committee, said that while "I support the majority of the 166 provisions of the Patriot Act," the extensions could lessen accountability. "Ten years is not a sunset; 10 years is semi-permanent," he said.
The Bush administration hailed the vote.
"After measured deliberation and a public debate, the House has again provided the brave men and women of law enforcement with critical tools in their efforts to combat terrorism and protect the American people, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said in a statement.
As the House debated the legislation, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved its own extension of the bill, though it included only four-year extensions for the roving wiretap and records search provisions.
A competing bill also has been approved by the Senate Intelligence Committee, which would give the FBI expanded powers to subpoena records without the approval of a judge or grand jury. That ensured further Senate talks on the terrorism-fighting measure. The House legislation will also have to be reconciled with whatever emerges from the Senate.
The House debate included frequent references to the attacks earlier in the day, two weeks after larger London blasts that killed 56, including four suicide bombers.
The roving wiretap provision, Section 206, allows investigators to obtain warrants to intercept a suspect's phone conversations or Internet traffic without limiting it to a specific phone or identifying the suspect. The records provision, Section 215, authorizes federal officials to obtain "tangible items" such as business, library and medical records.
Advocates argued that such powers already exist in criminal investigations so they should be expressly continued for terrorism investigations. They also cited safeguards in the bill, such as a requirement that a judge approve the records search.
One amendment, passed by a 402-26 vote, requires the FBI director to personally approve any request for library or bookstore records.
Another successful amendment sets a 20-year jail term for an attack against a rail or mass-transit vehicle; a 30-year sentence if the vehicle carries nuclear material; and life imprisonment -- with the possibility of the death penalty -- if anyone is killed in such an attack.
Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Michigan, a former FBI agent, recalled using such tools in gang and child molestation investigations.
"All we do in the Patriot Act is say, `Look, if we can go after child molesters sitting in the library and bombers who we need to sneak-and-peek on a warrant, we ought to be able to go after terrorists,"' he said.
Critics heralded the bulk of the existing law, but said the sunsets were wisely inserted amid the inflamed passions following the September 11 attacks, and should be retained to assess the long-term impact of the law.
"Periodically revisiting the Patriot Act is a good thing," said Rep. Martin Meehan, D-Massachusetts. "The Patriot Act was an effort to answer the most difficult question a democracy faces: How much freedom are we willing to give up to feel safe?"
Democrats were incensed after Republican leaders blocked consideration of an amendment that would have blocked the library searches. The House approved identical language last month in a test vote.
"If you don't like it, come up and speak against it," said Rep. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, who sponsored the amendment. "But it has passed once and it would likely pass again."
Copyright 2005 The [url="http://www.cnn.com/interactive_legal.html#AP"][color=#000099]Associated Press[/color][/url]. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
[url="http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/21/congress.patriotact.ap/index.html"]http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/21/congress.patriotact.ap/index.html[/url]
2005-07-25 04:20 | User Profile
| [img]http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/id02_simpson/banner_press.jpg[/img] | ||||||||
| ||||||||
|
| [url="http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/id02_simpson/patriot_reauthor.html"]http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/id02_simpson/patriot_reauthor.html[/url] | [url="http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/id02_simpson/cafta_cbo.html"]**[color=#0000ff]Previous[/color]**[/url] | |
| **[url="http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/id02_simpson/~list.html"][color=#0000ff]Press Release List[/color][/url]** | [url="http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/id02_simpson/cafta_cbo.html"][img]http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/id02_simpson/previous.gif[/img][/url] |
2005-07-25 04:40 | User Profile
[url="http://www.iammea.org/careea/write.html"]http://www.iammea.org/careea/write.html[/url]
[size=4] [/size] [size=4]WRITE YOUR LEGISLATORS TODAY.[/size]
[url="http://www.iammea.org/careea/write.html"]http://www.iammea.org/careea/write.html[/url]