No, my sense of outrage about large corporations stems from the fact that they have no souls, and no accountability. If Enron was a sole proprietorship, we would know who was responsible, civilly and legally, for any wrongdoing and/or poor business practises. In a case like this, though there will be some wrist-slapping and some whistle-blowing, ulitimately the people most responsible for losing billions of dollars of people's money will go away scot free. (That and they don't pay taxes.)
They sold their $1.9 million property for $10 million. It really hurt their feelings because their children were baptized there and they have family pets buried in the backyard. But they had to do it because they are financially devastated by the collapse of Enron.
Now there's an Enron house selling scandal? Oh man, I can't keep up with all these scandals anymore. Shoot them all, God will allow the survivors to answer to congress.
What's the central lesson of the Enron and Global Crossing scandals, and the money-for-favors corruption they're  just the iceberg tip in showing exists in Big Business-dominated politics?
That we have a ruling class, but you and I aren't a part of it.
Last night's important campaign finance reform victory in the House could be the beginning of getting our democracy back from the Capitalist Thieves.
But there could still be Republican wrecking-crew sabotage in the Senate.
And Bush, who is arrogantly willing to buck worldwide opinion in announcing he'll overthrow the Iraqi government, could still veto what most Americans clearly want, and need.
It ain't over till skinny, homeless Eddy whistles Happy Days Are Here Again.
That bill, however honorable, has a fatal flaw. It revokes the first amendment rights of individuals. Regardless of truth, you cannot say negative comments about a candidate 30 days prior to an election (Primary and General). This is even worse than the new terrorism policy.
That bill, however honorable, has a fatal flaw. It revokes the first amendment rights of individuals.
It's so interesting how a side supports the First Amendment only when it suits their particular cause. For example, the right of gay people to march in parades was based on First Amendment grounds, and flag-burners base their position on the First Amendment.
And I am telling you it is utter nonsense. It comes from people like the late Justices Brennan, Thurgood Marshall and the current likes of Ginsburg, Stevens and Breyer. In other words idiots.
so we have person who agrees with jethro=not idiot, person who doesn't=idiot. and then there's that grey area in there who "aren't quite idiots.
ok. i'm done laughing now.
the fact remains, texas v. johnson still stands, and will likely stand for some time. you are right though. wanna nail 'em for something, burning without a permit is a start.
The burnning of the flag is destruction of a National Standard and is against the Flag Protection Act, but the supreme court sees this as a "freedom of expression". So it is legal, but if you are going to burn the flag I would request that you wrap yourself up in it first.
Burning flags isn't speech. Local authorities should get them for illegal burning.
Actually, there is a code (that I don't have at my fingertips, but I will find it if anyone doubts me,) that is a Federal statute, that mandates how you can and can't treat a US flag...things like, in a parade, if there are two or more flags abreast, the US flag has to be on the right, and if there are two or more in file, it has to be first, etc. In that code, it states that, if a flag is damaged or soiled and is unusable, it should be burned.
It has a bunch of stuff about the flag, and also, down the page, has the Flag Code. It's an Executive Order, evidently. Obviously, if you read the whole thing, there are LOTS of things that people do that are contrary to this code. Like when I was a kid, it was customary to take down the flag when it rained (and at night,) but lots of businesses leave it up 24/365 now. My point is, that burning the flag is not only NOT illegal, in some cases, it's illegal NOT to burn it, technically at least.
Voters, correctly, blame the campaign-finance system for Congress's perennial failure to get the people's business done. They know it is why there is no bill of rights for HMO patients. They know it is why there is no Medicare prescription drug benefit and no relief, still, for the millions with no health insurance at all. They know it is why there has not even been an extension of unemployment benefits in the midst of recession.
They know money talks. But the only way to silence it is to get the corporate interests completely out - and the public interest in. There is only one way to do that: Public financing of campaigns.
If you want a government by the people and for the people, then the people have to pay the bill. Otherwise, the favors will flow right back to those who've actually picked up the tab.
Better to burn our own flag, in protest, than an Iraqi flag, in a Baghdad schoolroom, with our bombs, under the kind of "mistaken" circumstances that would certainly result in great and grave numbers of civilian deaths in the event of any U.S. attack on Iraq.
Bush doesn't like Saddam and wants to depose him.
And get rid of his system.
What an outrageously arrogant and illegal stance!
Many are the people, worldwide, who'd like BUSH dead and OUR society destroyed.
They're called "terrorists".
Incredible, unmatched hypocrisy!
(By the way, somebody posted recently, in a fit of twisted, reactionary "logic", that NOW and the NAACP are "sexist" and "racist" respectively -- and therefore supposedly hypocrites. There are male members of NOW, and folks from several races in the NAACP, including whites. How many female, black nightriders in the Klan?)
And why are drug prices so high Dennis? It's because of things like this...
"The medical-research community was astonished the U.S. Department of Agriculture — weary and browbeat into submission by numerous lawsuits and petitions by the so-called 'animal rights' crowd — gave notice of its intent to        add rats, mice and birds under the regulatory umbrella," Mr. Helms says.  Â
Which means, among other burdens, additional reporting requirements and paperwork that could cost medical researchers up to $280 million annually. Instead of searching for cures for breast cancer, cystic fibrosis, heart disease and diabetes, the USDA would force researchers out of the laboratory to fill out myriad forms, even though researchers   already treat animals in a professional and humane manner. - Inside the Beltway
Because he is a threat to the U.S. , Isrealis and both of their countries people. He aids and abets terrorist and he is building weapons of mass destruction. This man will not hesitate to use them either. Hell, he has used them on his own people. Alot of people in the middle east will be glad to be rid of him. My only concern is, who would replace him?
What do I mean? Well, one of the main provisions in the bill prohibits groups from running advertisements that merely refer to a clearly identified candidate within 60 days of a general election and 30 days of a primary (and that reach an audience that includes voters in that election).
Why is this provision so important to reformers? You would assume that its purpose would be to prevent corruption in politics caused by campaign contributions, since that is the main impetus for campaign-finance reform. But, no, the ostensible aim of the provision is to prevent the use of last-minute negative ads against political candidates. And what are negative ads?
Here's where the distortion of the English language comes into play. You would think negative ads would be those that trash a candidate personally, such as the Gore campaign's deliberate release of the DWI allegation against George Bush the last weekend before the presidential election. So surely Shays-Meehan would outlaw such chicanery. Sorry, that's not what they mean by negative.
What they mean is that you can't inform voters about a candidate's position on any issues within the last 30 or 60 days of a campaign if you refer to that candidate by name. So, for example, if a group of concerned citizens wants to inform voters that a candidate is flagrantly nonchalant about the Second Amendment, it will only be allowed to do so prior to the final 60 days of the general election. It should be underscored that these 60 days are probably the only time during which most voters are really tuned in to election issues.
Can someone please tell me how it is negative to inform voters about a candidate's stand on the issues? Excuse this optimist's momentary lapse into cynicism, but the upshot of this provision will be to proliferate rather than limit corruption. Why? Because it will permit candidates and the media to lie about their record without fear of contradiction by issue ads. When you outlaw one of the main vehicles for informing the voters, you gravely undermine the democratic process.
It also bears repeating that this do-gooder bill will not pass constitutional muster absent a radical change in existing Supreme Court precedent. In Buckley vs. Valeo, the Court ruled that only express advocacy for the election or defeat of a particular candidate could be regulated, but that mere references to a candidate could not. Congress may think that it has closed a soft-money legislative loophole with this bill, but it has done nothing to bridge this cosmic constitutional fissure. Congress has just abrogated its independent duty to ensure that the legislation it passes is constitutional.
Let's say you are concerned about a proposed highway project that                    is to be funded with federal money. You organize a group of                    neighbors to fight the project. You solicit donations from interested                    parties to assist you in your fight. You do everything right in creating                    your special interest group. Dot every "i" and cross every "t."
Then you go to the candidates for Congress. The Democrat                    supports the project, the Republican opposes it. You decide to                    place an ad on local television urging your neighbors and other                    interested parties to vote for the Republican because the                    Democrat wants to bulldoze about 150 houses to make way for a                    new highway.
Uh oh. You have a problem. The election is only four weeks away. Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â The television station tells you that you can't place your ad.
Why not? Because the election is less than 30 days away and you                    can't place any "issue ads" on television that name a particular                    candidate. So much for your right to political free speech.- Neil Boortz
Because it is unconstitutional. That's why. Plus it does nothing to stop unions from using their money. Plus the media always gives more time to the incumbent and liberal and conservative newspapers can run what ever editorial they want. The challenger will not be able to respond to all of this with his own money. This "campaign finance reform" is a sham.
Yet, I support the right of anyone to burn a flag, stomp on it, spit on it or whatever, as long as they support MY right to stomp on them, spit on them...etc., etc.
The problem with any campaign finance reform bill is that by the time Congress passes it, they'll have filled it with so many loopholes that it won't work anyway. Most Congresspeople don't want any campaign finance reform, but they don't want to come out and say it.
I favor limiting contributions to individuals only, and posting who and how much immediately.
The problem with any campaign finance reform bill is that by the time Congress passes it, they'll have filled it with so many loopholes that it won't work anyway.
That, and the fact that if our government is going to be seizing and doling out 2 trillion dollars each year, then people with money are going to try and influence that seizing and doling if it's possible to do so. And where there's a will, there's a way.
Buying favors from politicians, via huge soft money campaign contributions, is "free speech"?!
That's what ever-opportunistic Washington rightwingers are piously contending, as their sleazy funding -- the basis of a longstanding, people-shafting, corporate-stroking symbiosis -- is finally threatened with some semblance of reform. (Imperfect, but a beginning to be built upon.)
It ain't "free" if the little guy can't buy it, in his behalf, for either love or money.
It takes an intense degree of reality warping to maintain that a thick wad of large denomination bills, given with a wink and a nod, in expectation of quid pro quo, is something desirable, and guaranteed by the First Amendment!
If one wad is free speech, are two, three, many wads even greater evidences of free speech?
Conservatives are totally loopy.
---
Need further proof?
Questioned in an MTV forum, Colin Powell was asked what he thought of condoms.
He said they were appropriate for "sexually active" partners, something only a cretin or a caveman would disagree with.
Or a conservative.
Check today's news:
Powell is under withering fire from the swamp-dweller Right for his perfectly sane, sensible remark.
Weigh the actual impact animal rights activism has on drug prices, against the cost exorbitancy that results from leading pharmaceutical companies being in a monopoly position and simply having the outrageous moxie and greed to charge whatever the market will bear...and the former will be flipped out of the scales, by the latter, like a ball of fire from a catapult laying siege to a medieval castle.
Buying favors from politicians, via huge soft money campaign contributions, is "free speech"?!
That was not my point, being able to put out an issue ad or commercial is free speech. This campaign finance reform violates free speech 60 days prior to an election or 30 days prior to a primary.
Weigh the actual impact animal rights activism has on drug prices, against the cost exorbitancy that results from leading pharmaceutical companies being in a monopoly position and simply having the outrageous moxie and greed to charge whatever the market will bear...and the former will be flipped out of the scales, by the latter, like a ball of fire from a catapult laying siege to a medieval castle.
I said that was part of the problem, most of the problem comes from government rules and regulations and paperwork. Also, research is expensive and cost is always shifted to the consumer.
It should be understood that an American incursion against Iraq would be a purely imperial mission. The American empire might not be a traditional empire as these institutions have been constitute in the past. We have very few outright dependencies or colonies overseas. But we seem to believe firmly that we have the unquestioned right to intervene in any country anywhere in the world -- to effect what the war-whoopers call a "regime change" -- whenever any American leaders believe that U.S. interests, even loosely-defined, are affected, even peripherally.
Our interests as viewed by our leaders bear little resemblance to the kind of "core" national interests most traditional writers on international relations would define. Core interests would include a decent defense of the homeland against imminent and some potential threats; these might even include the occasional aggressive action against a possible enemy who, according to intelligence, is getting dangerously close to having the capacity to pose a threat in the near future.
These days, however, it is enough for a significant percentage of policymakers simply to dislike a regime, whether because it is too undemocratic or too democratic, too repressive or too lenient, to trigger an attack. As Gary Dempsey and Roger Fontaine show through extensive quotes in the recent Cato Institute book, "Fool's Errands," America's policymakers don't even bother to try to hide their contempt for the outmoded notion of national sovereignty as a bar to "humanitarian" intervention. As Clinton-era Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott put it in January 2000, summing up a decade of evolution in the way interventionists justify themselves, the United States had "accepted the principle that the way a government treats its own people is not just an 'internal matter.' It's the business of the international community."
This may be a new kind of imperialism, but it's imperialism nonetheless.
FYI, Dennis, while I and some others here are libertarian, I for one don't buy all of the LP line, nor do I feel the need to agree with any individual libertarian writer.
"Core interests would include a decent defense of the homeland against imminent and some potential threats; these might even include the occasional aggressive action against a possible enemy who, according to intelligence, is getting dangerously close to having the capacity to pose a threat in the near future."
The attack on Colin Powell is stupid. He was tossed a question in an interview and he answered. He is not Secretary of Health and Human Services and should not be expected to answer as if he were.
We'd all do well to sit down with some ordinary Iraqi people and open-mindedly listen to their perspective on who THEY think the "bad guy" is, and why.
Because, Heaven knows, we're almost totally at the mercy of OUR propaganda about the conflict between their nation and our own.
Prediction:
If we just "up and attack" Iraq on the pretext that we're either finishing the job from the Gulf War or preemptively knocking out a supposed military threat (which I'm certain the Iraqis see as DEFENSIVE, in response to our more than a decade of bellicosity), we will lose what few friends we have in the world...and be justifiably scathed by outraged international opinion.
Just as no man is an island unto himself, no nation can withstand that sort of ostracism and isolation.
Osama's gotta be hoping Bush is really dumb enough to blunder into Iraq.
I'm sure it's a key factor in his overall anti-U.S. strategy.
The attack on Colin Powell is stupid. He was tossed a question in an interview and he answered. He is not Secretary of Health and Human Services and should not be expected to answer as if he were.
Does this mean you agree or disagree with what he said?
Osama's gotta be hoping Bush is really dumb enough to blunder into Iraq. I'm sure it's a key factor in his overall anti-U.S. strategy.
Dennis, you have lurched uncontrollably into the truth, methinks.
Does this mean you agree or disagree with what he said?
He cautioned sexually active people to use condoms. That's good advice. However, apparently he indicated that it would protect them from AIDS, which isn't true. It's better than nothing but it's not sure-fire.
My point is that he's getting flak because he didn't automatically mouth the administration line. I don't think he should have to, especially if it was a question that he had no reason to expect to be asked and so didn't prepare for it. And no matter what he had said, SOMEONE would have been upset. He can't win. And why should anyone care what the Secretary of State thinks about condom use, anyway?
No, my sense of outrage about large corporations stems from the fact that they have no souls, and no accountability. If Enron was a sole proprietorship, we would know who was responsible, civilly and legally, for any wrongdoing and/or poor business practises. In a case like this, though there will be some wrist-slapping and some whistle-blowing, ulitimately the people most responsible for losing billions of dollars of people's money will go away scot free. (That and they don't pay taxes.)
They sold their $1.9 million property for $10 million. It really hurt their feelings because their children were baptized there and they have family pets buried in the backyard. But they had to do it because they are financially devastated by the collapse of Enron.
I sure feel their pain, don't you?
Now there's an Enron house selling scandal? Oh man, I can't keep up with all these scandals anymore. Shoot them all, God will allow the survivors to answer to congress.
Well, what was Whitewater about? Somebody sold real estate and LOST money.
What's the central lesson of the Enron and Global Crossing scandals, and the money-for-favors corruption they're
 just the iceberg tip in showing exists in Big Business-dominated politics?
That we have a ruling class, but you and I aren't a part of it.
Last night's important campaign finance reform victory in the House could be the beginning of getting our democracy back from the Capitalist Thieves.
But there could still be Republican wrecking-crew sabotage in the Senate.
And Bush, who is arrogantly willing to buck worldwide opinion in announcing he'll overthrow the Iraqi government, could still veto what most Americans clearly want, and need.
It ain't over till skinny, homeless Eddy whistles Happy Days Are Here Again.
Dennis:
That bill, however honorable, has a fatal flaw. It revokes the first amendment rights of individuals. Regardless of truth, you cannot say negative comments about a candidate 30 days prior to an election (Primary and General). This is even worse than the new terrorism policy.
I agree. It is a First Amendment issue. I'd be OK with limiting contributions to individuals only, and publicly posting all contributions immediately.
That bill, however honorable, has a fatal flaw. It revokes the first amendment rights of individuals.
It's so interesting how a side supports the First Amendment only when it suits their particular cause. For example, the right of gay people to march in parades was based on First Amendment grounds, and flag-burners base their position on the First Amendment.
Burning flags isn't speech. Local authorities should get them for illegal burning.
Burning flags isn't speech.
Sure it is. As far as the First Amendment goes, actions can be speech. It's "expression."
utter nonsense
Texas v. Johnson, 1989.
And I am telling you it is utter nonsense. It comes from people like the late Justices Brennan, Thurgood Marshall and the current likes of Ginsburg, Stevens and Breyer. In other words idiots.
perhaps jethro, but i haven't seen anyone reverse it recently.
If you get rid of the idiots Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens and Sutter with people that have common sense the law will not be so idiotic.
there are 5 others who sit on the court, are there not?
There are a couple that aren't quite idiots but certainly don't rise to the level that make them an asset to the Court or the country.
so we have person who agrees with jethro=not idiot, person who doesn't=idiot. and then there's that grey area in there who "aren't quite idiots.
ok. i'm done laughing now.
the fact remains, texas v. johnson still stands, and will likely stand for some time. you are right though. wanna nail 'em for something, burning without a permit is a start.
Ginsburg and Breyer are idiots on their own merit without regard to whether I agree with them or not.
then again, so are are current president and the guy that preceded him, along with most other elected people. :)
First amendment
<> Flag burning
The burnning of the flag is destruction of a National Standard and is against the Flag Protection Act, but the supreme court sees this as a "freedom of expression". So it is legal, but if you are going to burn the flag I would request that you wrap yourself up in it first.
Actually, there is a code (that I don't have at my fingertips, but I will find it if anyone doubts me,) that is a Federal statute, that mandates how you can and can't treat a US flag...things like, in a parade, if there are two or more flags abreast, the US flag has to be on the right, and if there are two or more in file, it has to be first, etc. In that code, it states that, if a flag is damaged or soiled and is unusable, it should be burned.
that's actually codified somewhere, naz? i know i've read it and seen it somewhere, but never with any sort of citation alongside it.
Try this link.
It has a bunch of stuff about the flag, and also, down the page, has the Flag Code. It's an Executive Order, evidently. Obviously, if you read the whole thing, there are LOTS of things that people do that are contrary to this code. Like when I was a kid, it was customary to take down the flag when it rained (and at night,) but lots of businesses leave it up 24/365 now. My point is, that burning the flag is not only NOT illegal, in some cases, it's illegal NOT to burn it, technically at least.
incidentally thanks naz.
Voters, correctly, blame the campaign-finance system for Congress's perennial failure to get the people's business done. They know it is why there is no bill of rights for HMO patients. They know it is why there is no Medicare prescription drug benefit and no relief, still, for the millions with no health insurance at all. They know it is why there has not even been an extension of unemployment benefits in the midst of recession.
They know money talks. But the only way to silence it is to get the corporate interests completely out - and the public interest in. There is only one way to do that: Public financing of campaigns.
If you want a government by the people and for the people, then the people have to pay the bill. Otherwise, the favors will flow right back to those who've actually picked up the tab.
--Marie Coco
Better to burn our own flag, in protest, than an Iraqi flag, in a Baghdad schoolroom, with our bombs, under the kind of "mistaken" circumstances that would certainly result in great and grave numbers of civilian deaths in the event of any U.S. attack on Iraq.
Bush doesn't like Saddam and wants to depose him.
And get rid of his system.
What an outrageously arrogant and illegal stance!
Many are the people, worldwide, who'd like BUSH dead and OUR society destroyed.
They're called "terrorists".
Incredible, unmatched hypocrisy!
(By the way, somebody posted recently, in a fit of twisted, reactionary "logic", that NOW and the NAACP are "sexist" and "racist" respectively -- and therefore supposedly hypocrites. There are male members of NOW, and folks from several races in the NAACP, including whites. How many
female, black nightriders in the Klan?)
And why are drug prices so high Dennis? It's because of things like this...
Because he is a threat to the U.S. , Isrealis and both of their countries people. He aids and abets terrorist and he is building weapons of mass destruction. This man will not hesitate to use them either. Hell, he has used them on his own people. Alot of people in the middle east will be glad to be rid of him. My only concern is, who would replace him?
What do I mean? Well, one of the main provisions in the bill prohibits groups from running advertisements that merely refer to a clearly identified candidate within 60 days of a general election and 30 days of a primary (and that reach an audience that includes voters in that election).
Why is this provision so important to reformers? You would assume that its purpose would be to prevent corruption in politics caused by campaign contributions, since that is the main impetus for campaign-finance reform. But, no, the ostensible aim of the provision is to prevent the use of last-minute negative ads against political candidates. And what are
negative ads?
Here's where the distortion of the English language comes into play. You would think negative ads would be those that trash a candidate personally, such as the Gore campaign's deliberate release of the DWI allegation against George Bush the last weekend before the presidential election. So surely Shays-Meehan would outlaw such chicanery. Sorry, that's not what they mean by negative.
What they mean is that you can't inform voters about a candidate's position on any issues within the last 30 or 60 days of a campaign if you refer to that candidate by name. So, for example, if a group of concerned citizens wants to inform voters that a candidate is flagrantly nonchalant about the Second Amendment, it will only be allowed to do so prior to the final 60 days of the general election. It should be underscored that these 60 days are probably the only time during which most voters are really tuned in to election issues.
Can someone please tell me how it is negative to inform voters about a candidate's stand on the issues? Excuse this optimist's momentary lapse into cynicism, but the upshot of this provision will be to proliferate rather than limit corruption. Why? Because it will permit candidates and the media to lie about their record without fear of contradiction by issue ads. When you outlaw one of the main vehicles for informing the voters, you gravely undermine the democratic process.
It also bears repeating that this do-gooder bill will not pass constitutional muster absent a radical change in existing Supreme Court precedent. In Buckley vs. Valeo, the Court ruled that only express advocacy for the election or defeat of a particular candidate could be regulated, but that mere references to a candidate could not. Congress may think that it has closed a soft-money legislative loophole with this bill, but it has done nothing to bridge this cosmic constitutional fissure. Congress has just abrogated its independent duty to ensure that the legislation it passes is constitutional.
Reform My A$$
Bush should veto this if it clears the Senate.
Let's say you are concerned about a proposed highway project that
                   is to be funded with federal money. You organize a group of
                   neighbors to fight the project. You solicit donations from interested
                   parties to assist you in your fight. You do everything right in creating
                   your special interest group. Dot every "i" and cross every "t."
Then you go to the candidates for Congress. The Democrat
                   supports the project, the Republican opposes it. You decide to
                   place an ad on local television urging your neighbors and other
                   interested parties to vote for the Republican because the
                   Democrat wants to bulldoze about 150 houses to make way for a
                   new highway.
Uh oh. You have a problem. The election is only four weeks away.
                   The television station tells you that you can't place your ad.
Why not? Because the election is less than 30 days away and you
                   can't place any "issue ads" on television that name a particular
                   candidate. So much for your right to political free speech.- Neil Boortz
Because it is unconstitutional. That's why. Plus it does nothing to stop unions from using their money. Plus the media always gives more time to the incumbent and liberal and conservative newspapers can run what ever editorial they want. The challenger will not be able to respond to all of this with his own money. This "campaign finance reform" is a sham.
Bill Fold,
I like it ! right on !
You got that right, Wolvie. It's just an incumbent protection bill.
The problem with any campaign finance reform bill is that by the time Congress passes it, they'll have filled it with so many loopholes that it won't work anyway. Most Congresspeople don't want any campaign finance reform, but they don't want to come out and say it.
I favor limiting contributions to individuals only, and posting who and how much immediately.
That, and the fact that if our government is going to be seizing and doling out 2 trillion dollars each year, then people with money are going to try and influence that seizing and doling if it's possible to do so. And where there's a will, there's a way.
Buying favors from politicians, via huge soft money campaign contributions, is "free speech"?!
That's what ever-opportunistic Washington rightwingers are piously contending, as their sleazy funding -- the basis of a longstanding, people-shafting, corporate-stroking symbiosis -- is finally threatened with some semblance of reform. (Imperfect, but a beginning to be built upon.)
It ain't "free" if the little guy can't buy it, in his behalf, for either love or money.
It takes an intense degree of reality warping to maintain that a thick wad of large denomination bills, given with a wink and a nod, in expectation of quid pro quo, is something desirable, and guaranteed by the First Amendment!
If one wad is free speech, are two, three, many wads even greater evidences of free speech?
Conservatives are totally loopy.
---
Need further proof?
Questioned in an MTV forum, Colin Powell was asked what he thought of condoms.
He said they were appropriate for "sexually active" partners, something only a cretin or a caveman would disagree with.
Or a conservative.
Check today's news:
Powell is under withering fire from the swamp-dweller Right for his perfectly sane, sensible remark.
what is sleazy is the unions and their strong arm tactics taking money out of conservative workers pockets.
You and your kind on the left can only hope one day to rise to the level of a swamp dweller, rahkonen.
Wolvie:
Weigh the actual impact animal rights activism has on drug prices, against the cost exorbitancy that results from leading pharmaceutical companies being in a monopoly position and simply having the outrageous moxie and greed to charge whatever the market will bear...and the former will be flipped out of the scales, by the latter, like a ball of fire from a catapult laying siege to a medieval castle.
WHOOSH!
That was not my point, being able to put out an issue ad or commercial is free speech. This campaign finance reform violates free speech 60 days prior to an election or 30 days prior to a primary.
I said that was part of the problem, most of the problem comes from government rules and regulations and paperwork. Also, research is expensive and cost is always shifted to the consumer.
AN ATTACK ON IRAQ: IMPERIALISM
It should be understood that an American incursion against Iraq would be a purely imperial mission. The American empire might not be a traditional empire as these institutions have been constitute in the past. We have very few outright dependencies or colonies overseas. But we seem to believe firmly that we have the unquestioned right to intervene in any country anywhere in the world -- to effect what the war-whoopers call a "regime change" -- whenever any American leaders believe that U.S. interests, even loosely-defined, are affected, even peripherally.
Our interests as viewed by our leaders bear little resemblance to the kind of "core" national interests most traditional writers on international relations would define. Core interests would include a decent defense of the homeland against imminent and some potential threats; these might even include the occasional aggressive action against a possible enemy who, according to intelligence, is getting dangerously close to having the capacity to pose a threat in the near future.
These days, however, it is enough for a significant percentage of policymakers simply to dislike a regime, whether because it is too undemocratic or too democratic, too repressive or too lenient, to trigger an attack. As Gary Dempsey and Roger Fontaine show through extensive quotes in the recent Cato Institute book, "Fool's Errands," America's policymakers don't even bother to try to hide their contempt for the outmoded notion of national sovereignty as a bar to "humanitarian" intervention. As Clinton-era Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott put it in January 2000, summing up a decade of evolution in the way interventionists justify themselves, the United States had "accepted the principle that the way a government treats its own people is not just an 'internal matter.' It's the business of the international community."
This may be a new kind of imperialism, but it's imperialism nonetheless.
--Alan Bock, libertarian writer
The fact remains Iraq is a threat to the US and western civiliazation. It is planning and committing terrorist acts and should be stopped.
FYI, Dennis, while I and some others here are libertarian, I for one don't buy all of the LP line, nor do I feel the need to agree with any individual libertarian writer.
"Core interests would include a decent defense of the homeland against imminent and some potential threats; these might even include the occasional aggressive action against a possible enemy who, according to intelligence, is getting dangerously close to having the capacity to pose a threat in the near future."
Sounds like Iraq to me.
The attack on Colin Powell is stupid. He was tossed a question in an interview and he answered. He is not Secretary of Health and Human Services and should not be expected to answer as if he were.
BTW, joe
We'd all do well to sit down with some ordinary Iraqi people and open-mindedly listen to their perspective on who THEY think the "bad guy" is, and why.
Because, Heaven knows, we're almost totally at the mercy of OUR propaganda about the conflict between their nation and our own.
Prediction:
If we just "up and attack" Iraq on the pretext that we're either finishing the job from the Gulf War or preemptively
knocking out a supposed military threat (which I'm certain the Iraqis see as DEFENSIVE, in response to our more than a decade of bellicosity), we will lose what few friends we have in the world...and be justifiably scathed by outraged international opinion.
Just as no man is an island unto himself, no nation can withstand that sort of ostracism and isolation.
Osama's gotta be hoping Bush is really dumb enough to blunder into Iraq.
I'm sure it's a key factor in his overall anti-U.S. strategy.
Does this mean you agree or disagree with what he said?
Dennis, you have lurched uncontrollably into the truth, methinks.
Does this mean you agree or disagree with what he said?
He cautioned sexually active people to use condoms. That's good advice. However, apparently he indicated that it would protect them from AIDS, which isn't true. It's better than nothing but it's not sure-fire.
My point is that he's getting flak because he didn't automatically mouth the administration line. I don't think he should have to, especially if it was a question that he had no reason to expect to be asked and so didn't prepare for it. And no matter what he had said, SOMEONE would have been upset. He can't win. And why should anyone care what the Secretary of State thinks about condom use, anyway?