Why no threads about treasonous New York Times revealing national secrets again?

[Kuciwalker]

The Democrats need to get their act together and actually do something. As this shows, they can't just rely on constant negative media coverage [of the Republicans/the administration] to win... sometimes it backfires. Massively.

[flash9286]

First, as a tangent, IIRC there's no privacy issues because it's banking, which isn't protected [from the government] by privacy rules.

Second, is a revalation that the government is doing what you knew it was doing any use to you at all? If revealing the mechanism doesn't give the terrorists any usable information... how would it give any to you?

Richard Fischer a banking privacy expert said this " Such a program, he [Fischer] said, appears to do an end run around bank-privacy laws that generally require the government to show that the records of a particular person or group are relevant to an investigation.

''There has to be some due process,'' Mr. Fischer said. ''At an absolute minimum, it strikes me as inappropriate.''

Futhermore, Arlen Spector, SWIFT, and some tresasury officals question the legality of the program.

[Kuciwalker]

Richard Fischer a banking privacy expert said this " Such a program, he [Fischer] said, appears to do an end run around bank-privacy laws that generally require the government to show that the records of a particular person or group are relevant to an investigation.

And if you'd read any of the articles about it, you'd know that's exactly what they did.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Should they have decided on the acceptability of the Normandy landings? The atom bomb?

We were actually at war then .

Clearly, the fact that "terrorism" is an abused excuse means that it can't ever justify anything...

Well you know the story of the little boy who cried "wolf." In continually using security reasons to justify stuff, Bush has undermined the credibility of the anti-terrorist fight as a justification. Also, he had his fear-mongering turn against him with the whole Dubai deal.

[Kuciwalker]

Well you know the story of the little boy who cried "wolf." In continually using security reasons to justify stuff, Bush has undermined the credibility of the anti-terrorist fight as a justification.

The argument would be equally valid (or not) in this case regardless of what else Bush has used it for. The "boy who cried wolf" is just a cop-out on the part of those whose position is "oppose Bush" rather than "support good policy" - positions that are often aligned but occasionally aren't.

Also, he had his fear-mongering turn against him with the whole Dubai deal.

"He did it first!" isn't remotely an excuse for the Democrats to espouse incredibly bad policies. I give them no credit for attacking Bush on that, and actually it rather soured me on them (and most of the Republicans).

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Well you know the story of the little boy who cried "wolf." In continually using security reasons to justify stuff, Bush has undermined the credibility of the anti-terrorist fight as a justification.

The argument would be equally valid (or not) in this case regardless of what else Bush has used it for. The "boy who cried wolf" is just a cop-out on the part of those whose position is "oppose Bush" rather than "support good policy" - positions that are often aligned but occasionally aren't.

Sorry, there's just no other way I can respond to that statement. About the only thing Bush might be right on is immigration and that Dubai ports deal.

Also, he had his fear-mongering turn against him with the whole Dubai deal.

"He did it first!" isn't remotely an excuse for the Democrats to espouse incredibly bad policies. I give them no credit for attacking Bush on that, and actually it rather soured me on them (and most of the Republicans).

You don't understand the initial statement. Bush created this paranoia about security, then when he wanted to enact a policy that didn't fit into the paranoid school of thinking the momentum was simply too great for him to stop. Incidentally, I agreed with him on the ports, but largely because I don't believe the Republican propaganda about insecurity and consider the terrorist threat pretty minimal. Free trade > terrorism worries imo.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
Sorry, there's just no other way I can respond to that statement. About the only thing Bush might be right on is immigration and that Dubai ports deal.

Actually, I agree... and that supports my point.

You don't understand the initial statement. Bush created this paranoia about security, then when he wanted to enact a policy that didn't fit into the paranoid school of thinking the momentum was simply too great for him to stop.

What? What does that have to do with this argument?

Incidentally, I agreed with him on the ports, but largely because I don't believe the Republican propaganda about insecurity and consider the terrorist threat pretty minimal. Free trade > terrorism worries imo.

Note that the Democrats were loudest in their cries of "terrorists in our ports!" Bush doesn't quite have a monopoly on that sort of rhetoric.

[Kuciwalker]

Reductio ad Bush is no more valid than reductio ad Hitlerum.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
What? What does that have to do with this argument?

It shows that crying wolf has consequences.

Note that the Democrats were loudest in their cries of "terrorists in our ports!" Bush doesn't quite have a monopoly on that sort of rhetoric.

Well, the GOP was constantly calling them weak on terrorism. You can't expect them to just ignore it then lose the next election when some rednecks from places the terrorists would never bother even considering attacking vote for the Republicans because they're claiming to be tougher on terror. Bush made a big issue of it. He shouldn't be surprised when he can't stop a runaway train whose breaks he himself disabled.

[Kuciwalker]

It shows that crying wolf has consequences.

Obviously it has consequences. So what?

Well, the GOP was constantly calling them weak on terrorism. You can't expect them to just ignore it then lose the next election when some rednecks from places the terrorists would never bother even considering attacking vote for the Republicans because they're claiming to be tougher on terror. Bush made a big issue of it. He shouldn't be surprised when he can't stop a runaway train whose breaks he himself disabled.

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to be gleeful if Bush's comeuppance comes at the election of people with even worse ideas.

[Victor Galis]

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to be gleeful if Bush's comeuppance comes at the election of people with even worse ideas.

It's really hard to imagine such people. Maybe if Bush died in office or was impeached and removed and Cheney took over... I suppose I could see that.

Though, I would really like to see multiparty democracy in the US, or at the very least some sort of realignment of the parties.

Thomas Friedmen suggests the possibility of a reallignment based on pro- or anti-globalization calling the new parties the "Wall" and "Web" parties. I'd prefer to call them the Liberals and the Christian Democrats. That being said, I think the American political system stifles this sort of change Heck, something like 90% of Congressmen get re-elected every time even though Congress has a 20% approval rate. WTF is that? It's like Soviet "democracy." /

[Imran Siddiqui]

Heck, something like 90% of Congressmen get re-elected every time even though Congress has a 20% approval rate. WTF is that?

People think their Congressman is great, it's just the rest of them that are the problem.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
It's really hard to imagine such people.

Every single time the Democrats have actually stood up to Bush, they've picked a really stupid position. It doesn't exactly inspire me to vote for them...

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Heck, something like 90% of Congressmen get re-elected every time even though Congress has a 20% approval rate. WTF is that?

People think their Congressman is great, it's just the rest of them that are the problem.

Yeah... it doesn't hurt that districts tend to be drawn in such a way that they tend to be safe for one party or another.

Frankly, if I were redesigning the system from scratch, I'd make the Senate like the current House of Reps, except with 6 year terms, and make the new House of Reps elected by PR every 2 years. And make redistricting the responsibility of a less partial panel of judges. Well, among other things. Heck, even just having the latter suggestion would have more competitive districts, and that can't be a bad thing.

Every single time the Democrats have actually stood up to Bush, they've picked a really stupid position. It doesn't exactly inspire me to vote for them...

They seem a bit spineless. They never seem to stand up to Bush when they really should, and then pick crap like the ports deal. Though it does seem they're finally speaking up on Iraq, Gitmo, etc.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
.. and make the new House of Reps elected by PR every 2 years.

Uh...well Puerto Rico is a really nice place and the people are great, but I don't think we should turn control of the House over to them.

And make redistricting the responsibility of a less partial panel of judges.

Judges are good at judging but are not administrators. And if they were, they'd be lousy administrators.

How 'bout redistricting drawn up by a mutally agreeable computer program??