Political Just For A Moment II

[Ross]

I really need to request that everyone watch this. America as we knew it died yesterday...and it doesn't seem like the majority of the country either knows or cares.

Windows:

Quicktime:

[zanAspera]

* laughs * This is assine. Besides, I thought we already lost all our Freedoms under the Patriot Act.... Oh wait, we didn't did we? Totally consider the source when you post things like this. It's hardly an objective, fair source and they don't even bother attempting to appear objective. Even the URL smacks with the propaganda of the readical left.

No, the president can't just call you an "enemy combatant" and lock you up ant through away the key. This professor who is talking about this only watched half of the TV news report. It's petrifying to think that an ivy legue professor thinks he can go on what appears to be a talking head show for the radical left without bothering to do his homework.

Bush doesn't make the call, it's military tribunals, who while appointed by Bush aren't under his direct control. They are a seperate court system that enforce the UCMJ, the Unified Code of Military Justice. Citizens (of any country) are not subject to the UCMJ unless they do something like become a member of the US armed services, get captured while actively fighting against the armed forces in a foreign country or a foreign power, or other similar acts.

This law infact happened because the left chose to apply the geneva convention to terrorists. The Geneval convention applies to soldiers fighting for a country. A member of Palastine's miliraty is elegible for rigths under the geneva convention, but an alqaida terrorist isn't. There is a big difference between a soldier who enlists in his coutry's armed forces to defend his homeland and is forced to fight a war they may or may not believe in against another organized military , verses an islamic militant who joins a terror cell who focuses their attacks on civilian targets ususally completely unrelated to any sort of attack.

Nothing about this law undermines the Geneva convention as it was signed. As a political move the John McCain drove for a ruling to apply the Geneva Convention to Terrorists. He backed down and reversed hiself whan he found out how badly that would cripple any hope we have of getting known captured terrorists to spill the beans. My instincts tell me this law is a result of McCain's and the left's attempt to play political games with national security.

The reason why no one cares, is that it's not true. You are only seeing this reported in radical left-wing media centers like the above. CNN would be all over this in a heartbeat if they thought they could get away with it.

Please. This isn't a political game. At the very least make sure your accusations and scaremongering are at least somewhat credible? Is that too much to ask?

[Ross]

aspera said:

Totally consider the source when you post things like this. It's hardly an objective, fair source and they don't even bother attempting to appear objective.

Have you actually read the Act itself? Consider that source. It's the one that is now law, barring a Supreme Court overruling.

Bush doesn't make the call, it's military tribunals, who while appointed by Bush aren't under his direct control. They are a seperate court system that enforce the UCMJ, the Unified Code of Military Justice.

Are they? Are you sure the UCMJ is being adhered to in places like Gitmo? Have you read the Act?

Citizens (of any country) are not subject to the UCMJ unless they do something like become a member of the US armed services, get captured while actively fighting against the armed forces in a foreign country or a foreign power, or other similar acts.

I suggest you examine

"SEC. 4. AMENDMENTS TO UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE."

Have you read the Act?

This law infact happened because the left chose to apply the geneva convention to terrorists.

Yes, because it has been the "left," as you call it, who has been primarily in charge of prosecuting the "War on Terror" these last five years. Have you read the Act?

The Geneval convention applies to soldiers fighting for a country. A member of Palastine's miliraty is elegible for rigths under the geneva convention, but an alqaida terrorist isn't. There is a big difference between a soldier who enlists in his coutry's armed forces to defend his homeland and is forced to fight a war they may or may not believe in against another organized military , verses an islamic militant who joins a terror cell who focuses their attacks on civilian targets ususally completely unrelated to any sort of attack.

Exactly. Because, as of yesterday, all men are not created equal.


"Section 948a of S.3930.ENR [the version passed by both the House and Senate] defines an "unlawful enemy combatant" as:

`(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or

`(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense."

This definition does not exclude American citizens.

Have you read the Act?

Nothing about this law undermines the Geneva convention as it was signed.

"SEC. 6. IMPLEMENTATION OF TREATY OBLIGATIONS.

. . .

(3) INTERPRETATION BY THE PRESIDENT-

(A) As provided by the Constitution and by this section, the President has the authority for the United States to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and to promulgate higher standards and administrative regulations for violations of treaty obligations which are not grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions.

(B) The President shall issue interpretations described by subparagraph (A) by Executive Order published in the Federal Register.

(C) Any Executive Order published under this paragraph shall be authoritative (except as to grave breaches of common Article 3) as a matter of United States law, in the same manner as other administrative regulations.

(D) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the constitutional functions and responsibilities of Congress and the judicial branch of the United States."

Permitting the President to interpret the length and breadth of what he will and will not adhere to from the Geneva Conventions is not undermining them?

Have you read the Act?

My instincts tell me this law is a result of McCain's and the left's attempt to play political games with national security.

Yes. Only the "left" has used 9/11 and the threat of terrorism to play political games with our laws and our freedoms.

Please. This isn't a political game. At the very least make sure your accusations and scaremongering are at least somewhat credible?

You're right. This isn't a game. Habeas Corpus has, in reality, really BEEN eliminated as our shield against governmental abuse of power.

Credible?

Have you read the Act?

[zanAspera]

Are they? Are you sure the UCMJ is being adhered to in places like Gitmo? Have you read the Act?

I'm sure there is ample scrutiny about how people are treated at Gitmo, both legislative and media centered. No, I haven't read the act yet, I only just heard of this, but the exact same claims were made by the Patriot Act and the renewal there of. "Wolf" has been cried and you have a much higher burden to actually get people to believe you, since it has already twice been claimed that America is over our freedoms dashed, that Bush can jail anyone he pleases... And yet it doesn't seen to be true as no one has been arrested for this completely irresponsible and deceptive distortion.

Yes, because it has been the "left," as you call it, who has been primarily in charge of prosecuting the "War on Terror" these last five years. Have you read the Act?

Not as I call it.. You know as well as I do it's a standard political term referring to a range of political beliefs. No, the left hasn't been prosecuting the war on Terror and they realize it is costing them the election, so they are doing everything they can to impede the administration in it's prosecution of the war, so they can make a case to replace him without actually presenting an alternative plan. Short of declaring defeat and pulling out our troops before the region can re-stabilize itself, there has been no plan that I have heard from any congressional Democrat.

Exactly. Because, as of yesterday, all men are not created equal.

Again, wolf has been called. The exact thing was said of both Patriot Acts. Either we are already have been living in a police state since the Patriot Act, or Bush is such a master manipulator that he only made you us think that our rights are gone, and now that the finally are, no one notices, (edit)or maybe, just maybe this is yet another false alarm.(/edit) Maybe the little boy should be more careful when crying Wolf when there is none.

All men are still created equal. It is nothing new that you lose freedoms as you commit crimes against society. Police don't hold back from killing someone who is about to kill others... Technically they are abridging the gunman's right to a public trial by a jury of his peers. By analogy, a terrorist who organizes as a military but targets civilian instead of military targets is not granted the luxury of civilian law, they are bound by military law.

This definition does not exclude American citizens.

You are right, it doesn't. But their claims that Bush or Cheney or Rumsfeld can decide who is an enemy combatant is wholey a lie. Have you read what you posted? It says in all cases a military tribunal is held to determine if the terrorism suspect is undoubtably a enemy combatant. A tribunal, not Bush or Cheney or any other member of the civilian administration. So if anything Bush isn't a despot, if this power was as unlimited as you would have us believe, then it is the Military that now runs this country, not President Bush. Sheesh, you aren't even crying Wolf anymore, you are crying Leopard or Tiger. Get it straight will you?

Permitting the President to interpret the length and breadth of what he will and will not adhere to from the Geneva Conventions is not undermining them?

No more than every other signatory, as they all reserve their right to reasonably interpret the Geneva Convention in places where it is vague. The only reason this is an issue at all is that the Supreme Court (quite probably unlawfully as it is Congress's role to ratify Treaties) interpreted the treaty so that that the Geneva Convention is to be applied to Terrorists, when that was never the intention of the Geneva Convention. This ruling threatened to change the rules from how they have been since Geneva as signed, to treat terrorists as if they were part of an overt armed forces wearing military uniforms attacking military targets under legitimate rules of engagement and had a clear overt chain of command that lead to a Head of State, instead of a mass of hidden terror cells who wear whatever they need to in order to blend it and attack undefended civilian targets, blowing themselves up or hiding in a mosque or disappearing into the streets or into safe houses. This corrects the loophole in the laws that was raised to the Supreme Court The Supreme Court says "Hey there is no law that says you can treat terrorists different from soldiers... there is no law against it... So we'll just decide that you can't do it until you pass a law that says you can." So now we have the law that says that. Now we are back to were we were before the left pushed that lawsuit. Again, had you read the law, you would know applies only to enemy combatants as declared by military tribunals, not Bush or any one person.

If you think the military tribunals can take any american citizen and declare them an enemy combatant, you don't have much faith in your fellow citizens who have volunteered their lives in defense of this country. I don't know if that is true or not, but I will tell you this, there are plenty of people watching waiting for the day they can say that an innocent bloke was found to be a enemy combatant and is being denied rights. That would be a such scandal than it could destroy the political right.

(edit) I mean Watergate was merely a third rate burglary before Nixon tried to cover it up. Intern-gate was an consensual affair until Clinton covered it up. Foley-gate was a just an attempted affair with someone about the same age... Only... No... So far e have no evidence that was covered up. (/edit)

As opposed to this silly attempt to try to make more of the Foley issue than there was. Republicans found out, and pressured Foley to resign immediately, which he did. Never mind than Democrats faced similar scandals one had an actual affair rather than mere solicitations and never resigned.

Yes. Only the "left" has used 9/11 and the threat of terrorism to play political games with our laws and our freedoms.

Unless you are a military combatant none of the laws have any effect on you, and nothing changes how we determine who the enemy combatants are. So I'll be waiting to hear anyone claim abuse of this law and I'll be right beside you then. Until you actually see a wolf or leopard or tiger, don't call wolf because you see the shadow of your own fear. You keep crying wolf, but never produce any paw prints or any bits of fur.

You're right. This isn't a game. Habeas Corpus has, in reality, really BEEN eliminated as our shield against governmental abuse of power.

Again if "our" means people judged by a military tribunal as an enemy combatant, then yes it has. If "our" means regular old american citizens who haven't betrayed our country and shed innocent blood in the name of militant Islam, plain ol' hatred of America and all things we stand for or whatever deranged motive you require to deliberately target innocent civilians then no, our rights haven't been violated.


(edited for spelling- added parts marked with (edit))

[Big Kyle]

Withers...dude...

I'm floored...seriously man.

First I link you to this...I dont expect you to read all of it but hey...let's be informed and put that tombstone of haebus corpus 1789-2006 to rest. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeus_corpus

During the civil war and post civil war this right was suspended for prisoners of war. Theory subsides that Lincoln allowed this because his answer was he didn't care why you were being held when the war was over you were to go free and begin the process of healing...due to his death alot of things went differently in american history...but anyway.

This...this butchery better get overturned in the courts but since Bush has put two into seat in his terms I don't think it will.

Disturbingly I just went to a lecture by the poli sci teacher of the U of Washington about amerian propoganda and how it is used in modern america. Let us consider for a moment the famous picture of a semi truck with the underlined image of "WMD's found in Iraq" from a satelite photo that revealed nothing. We have not found any proof of WMD's in Iraq, we have denied UN inspectors, we continue to claim that we have found them (though the 48 canisters spread over 40 bunkers of inert gas agents should "technically" count as WMD's...but it's like hitting a 4 point shot in basketball...it can "technically" happen...but it's split up into a three pointer in which you get fouled on and make the freethrow...).

I...I gotta stop here...I can't get further into this topic with you Withers. I've never seen a such a willing blind criticism without any support of the facts beyond sources based on other propoganda. In todays media war you have to use your perception+investigation dice pool to go and read the articles for yourself......I.....come on Withers...

Ya...this is a sad day for America, who has proclaimed themselves police of the world through a seris of doctorines and military actions motivated by self preservation.

[zanAspera]

I will be reading more fof this when I have more time. I shouldn't have spent as much time on those posts as i did with all I have going on right now I do realize I'm the only out-of-thecloset Conservative on these Forums, but that doesn't mean I'm not trying to help you guys out.

The one thing we all seem to agree on is that no one cares. I'm just trying to explain to you why the vast majority of Americans might see this as a nonissue. Those that believe the Radical Left believe we lost our Freedoms with the Patriot Act, those that believe the Radical Right think it's all just Democrat propaganda, and everyone else isn't sure one way or the other they are wary of anything wither party says.

For the record I've never even heard of that "famous" picture of the truck. The interesting theing about propaganda is that most people use the word to mean "Political speech that I don't agree with", where as I appreciate propagana on both sides. I admit I'm a bit whimsical with my definition of "Any political message that promotes a single political viewpoint". When it comes to politics there are so few facts that everyone agrees on that talk of an objective truth seems almost as alien as if we were both speaking Romulan or someting. Propaganda is free political speech, even though it does little but had heat and noise. Yes, propaganda is on both sides, and it takes many forms. Some more obvious and organized than others. A Truck that claims WMD found in Iraq is commonly held to be true in it's most literal interpretation and also rather deceptive, every bit as much as the countless bumperstickers that proclaim "Bush lied", when to my knowledge it has not been established that Bush wasn't acting under the information available to him. Although there was a quiet mention of evidence that casts doubt on the refutation of the British Intelligence, so the latter might be not as true as it is believed to be.

Since you dredged up the WMD issue... I can't help but think that during the 90's Clinton, the UN and the great bulk of the international political community knew that there were in fact Weapons of mass distruction in Iraq and the UN resolved that Iraq needed to dispose of them and prove to the UN that they had. Iraq did not do this. The WMD did exist, we know he used it to attack a kurdish city in his own country, he used chemical warfare on his own people! We have not recover the weapons we knew he had when we invaded Iraq... Where is it? Do you really think he destroyed the WMD out of the goodness of his heart, but somehow decided he'd rather pertend to the UN that he stiil had them?

The WMD did exist, and it's no longer in Iraq. Is it in the hands of terrorists? Some intelligence officials believe that the chemical warfare attack that killed hunderds of thousands in Pakistan(and could have killed over a million) came from Iraq, but last I heard they were only able to trace it back to Iraq's neighbour Syria.

Is the above propaganda? Probably, just as much propaganda as the hundres of voices who scream that there never was WMD in Iraq, forgetting that Clinton knew there were.

Maybe we have just opened the door to the potential of a military coop in America. If as you are trying to imply Habeas Corbus is gone, then it is always possible the Military Tribunals to up and decide the president is an enemy combatant and remove him from office and interrogate him until he tells us who he's working for. That's every bit as likely an abuse as any. If things are as you say, the Military must really hate Bush for forcing them to attack Iraq despite his foreknowledge that they had no WMDs. Maybe this is a good day for you? Maybe the wolf at the door is just a wild dog who really just wants to come inside and sleep by the fire. But Wolf has been already called so if you want to rouse all the people who don't care, the burden of proof is on your side not mine. Until then, most of America will continue to shrug the more you holler.

[Ben]

The rest of us may be wearing rose-tinted glasses, but Jon's are green, as much as he refuses to admit it.

[Kyle]

www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3361

Surveillance photos show people removing items from buildings minutes before weapons inspectors arrived, Powell said.

• At a munitions dump, satellite photos show bunkers flanked by what Powell said were "signatures" for a chemical weapons store: a decontamination truck and a guard outpost. Two of these bunkers were subsequently photographed without trucks and guards - just as UN inspectors' vehicles were arriving.

• Satellite photos show items being removed by truck from a number of sites on 25 November 2002, the day before UN inspectors arrived. The sites include a ballistic missile site, the Amiriyah Serum and Vaccine Institute, which was previously used for bioweapons, and the Ibn Al-Haytham missile development centre.

• Satellite photos of a former weapons facility at Al Mussayyib showed what defectors reportedly confirmed were trucks being loaded with chemical agents. Later photos show all the soil at the site being bulldozed away.

• In December, Iraq declared that it possesses unmanned aerial vehicles with an 80 kilometre range. But in July 2002 aerial photos revealed a UAV that went for 500 km around a race track "on autopilot", said Powell. Iraq has also fitted such craft with spray tanks for chemical or biological weapons, he added.

Defectors' evidence was also revealing, Powell said.

• In November, warheads and launchers armed with biological weapons were being moved from near Baghdad to be dispersed in the western desert.

• Four separate defectors, engineers and army officers, described mobile biological weapons laboratories and production facilities mounted on semi-articulated trucks and railway cars. Ominously, these were said to carry spray driers of the sort used to produce inhalable aerosols of biological agents, such as the anthrax powder used in the US in 2001.


Here is the power of langauge demonstrated.

CHEMICAL WEAPONS = WMD. NUCLEAR BOMB = WMD.
CHEMICAL WEAPONS =/= NUCLEAR BOMB
AMERICAN EAR HEARS WMD = ...do you think they associate WMD with chemical weapons or nuclear bomb more?

There's a sad truth in the voting polls...and that is people who are part of an organized religion of any sort are more likely to vote. We had just about 110 million americans vote, out of 270 million. Of those 110 million 81% involved in organized religion voted for bush...god I wish this thing had numbers to show you but scroll 1/6th of the way down to where it organizes stuff by religion for voing.

www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Withers dude...your the majority? You watching fox news and CNN again for your stay informed perspective? Or just reading their mounted albatross sized left wing on the wall blogs?

Come on man...bust out of your shell and investigate what they say further then how they present it. The problem with the conservative perspective is you do old man syndrome "I'm right...and here's why!" instead of "I'm right, and your wrong...and here is why you are wrong, and here is why I am right". Sadly the liberals stick to "Your Wrong...and here is why"...but hey, so is the dichotomy of a two party government...

[Pete Jones]

sasha said:

The rest of us may be wearing rose-tinted glasses, but Jon's are green, as much as he refuses to admit it.

Are they the same tint as the paint on his car?

[Bridget MacClelland]

I have but this to say:

I don't believe what anyone says, ever, unless I know them or unless their facts have been checked, double-checked, and peer-reviewed. I would not be surprised to find out Newton was wrong and gravity doesn't work the way we thought it does.

I don't trust anyone with power, not even myself or my friends or Mother freakin' Teresa. No one. Ever. If I were in charge of anything, I'd want checks and balances to ensure that I didn't misuse that power pursuing what I thought was right.

That's what habeus corpus was. A check on power. The idea is to keep innocent people from being unjustly punished. You think innocent people don't get put in jail, look at how many former prisoners have been freed by DNA evidence.

I don't care if Bush is right or wrong in what he's doing, or if there really were WMDs (I agree with Kyle's take on this one, personally), or whatever. I don't care who's in power, or how good or bad their intentions are. The best leaders make mistakes. People with the best of intentions, trying to "keep America safe," do stupid things trying to do so. One of my friends nearly got put in jail after Columbine merely because he wore a trenchcoat to school. That's it. No one thought he was violent, or anything else, but by God, we have to protect the schools, right? Only laws and procedures in place to protect the possibly innocent kept him from at least being sent in for mental review.

American citizens have been determined as "enemy combatants" in the past. I'm not saying suddenly you or I will be arrested and deemed terrorists, but who knows? Who knows what someone who comes along after Bush will do? Who knows what the government will deem as terrorist activity? The point is that the law was there to protect possibly innocent people, of any stripe, and these changes will be there long after this blip in history is gone.

I will point you to all the examples in history of power being abused, of all the things, the kangaroo courts, that led to our justice system working as it does today. This is but one step in a larger series of steps that seriously, seriously bugs me.

I'm not a liberal. I'm not a conservative. I think such labels are stupid and misleading, and smack of division that also bothers me. (What happened to United We Stand, anyhow?) I am just bothered by what's been going on, by the things we are willing to do against this enemy, by the road I see us possibly following, by the painful lessons of history that most Americans seem to ignore.

Oh, and John:

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15318240/
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15301023/
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15044215/
www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/27/congress.terrorism.ap/index.html

It's in the news. The mainstream news. Reporters simply do that: report. Anyone can read between the lines, and put any spin on it they like.

Do I honestly think Bush will misuse this power? No. Could I be wrong? Yes. Does it still bug me? Yes. There will be Presidents after Bush, and Congressmen after everyone in the current Congress is dead (God willing), and the laws we put in place now affect those people. I worry at the degredation of a system my family fought for, that people I know have died to protect.

I also worry at the partisan/ideological blinders people love to put on, left-wing and right-wing alike. Everything in our soceity these days worries me, because I am a student of history, and history points to Very Bad Things on the horizon. I hope I am very, very wrong.

In the meantime, please do a little searching before you claim only left-wing bloggers are reporting this, and please realize that life extends beyond America, and beyond the "War on Terror," and will continue long after no one even remembers which President Bush was (quick, name five Presidents from the 19th Century! And what numbers they were!)

I worry about North Korea, too, but that's a different story. Point is, you don't have to be a left-wing nutjob to care about this. It is but one lynchpin in a series of crappy stuff that's gone on.

Fearmongering? Sure. I'll do it. I've heard the stories about what happened when the Germans came into Austria, from someone who was there. I've read my history. I know what people will do with too much power, and I don't want me and my family caught in the middle. That, frankly, scares me far more than some crazy with a bomb strapped to his chest. At least the crazy doesn't run the country I live in.

[Steve]

I would like to know why Clinton is such a big issue. A fair number of us (myself included) weren't old enough to vote for Clinton, nor did we have the political power to support or attack him during the Lewinsky scandal.

Clinton is not President, he's not running the war on terror, and that ABC Special is facing lawsuits for blatant propaganda (lawsuits that haven't been completed, though, so it may be either way on that one). The point is that we don't know what Clinton knew or didn't know, as his claims are contradictory to the claims of those who attack him with any provocation. Clinton is not my President, nor am I responsible for his actions or lack thereof. The man who IS my President is Mr. George W. Bush, and I plan to call him to task if he does something I see as misbehavior.

Secondly, Withers, you're not the only out-of-the-closet Conservative on the forums. You are simply the most vocal one. Many Conservatives even disapprove of Bush's behavior (while a rare Liberal approves), which should show how NOT black-and-white this situation is.

Thirdly, I will state a very important truism about governmental power.

"The power you give to the government you like will be used by the government you hate."

Imagine if Clinton was operating with the powers granted by the Patriot Act. Can you imagine how vicious the Conservative reply would be? Likewise, imagine if Bush had enacted "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (he already has been accused of abusing that policy), imagine how loudly the Liberals would be screaming.

I don't want Habeus Corpus taken away by ANYone. Not Bush, not Clinton, not Hillary, not Powell. I can guarantee you Mr. Ross would be just as irritable if Clinton was President now and he was doing the same thing. Or do you think Conservatives are the only ones capable of being "bipartisan"?

[zanAspera]

Ben: "America as we know it is over" is entirely the opposite of rose-tinted glases. Green means so many things... Environmentally friendly, jealousy and envy... I"ll assume you meant my outlook is environmentally friendly, because I know you well enough that you would never post to add nothing to a discussion other than name calling.

Kyle: Thanks for backing me up on the WMD. We"ve found MIGs buried out in the Iraqi desert for Durgaths sake.

Note I never claimed to be a majority. I joined the anchor, the guest and the original poster with thier assestment that the majority of Americans does not care. Thats not my strawman.

Ive been a bit busy or I would have done more research for my rebittal. But frankly I dont have to. If I see people taking this story seriously I might bother. But this onslaught has been going on for over six years. By now people either already believe Bush is the Devil and is actively trying to destroy the country for Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Halliburton, and Exxon, or they believe Bush is gennerally doing what he thinks is right while his opponents who will stop at nothing to get in his way. Why should we care? Its all been said twice before.

So... Go ahead attack my lack of reasearch, while completely failing to respond to the substance of my rebuttal. I dont have to make a point, I dont need to do a think and people will continue to not care.

Father Michael: Clinton is not an issue, or if he is only as a demonstration of hipocracy. Did Clinton lie when he said Iraq had WMD? Why are people willing to give someone like Clinton the benefit of the doubt, but paint Bush as a great deciever?

If there are other conservatives, I havent heard them identify themselves as such.... Maybe I missed their posts. Well. excellent. I hope that they will prove me wrong and keep me from feeling too proud of myself like I did in PJfaM 1, beause otherwise I"m still just one against the rest of the forum. I dont know how Im supposed to have a life and research rebuttals to every counterattack.

[Steve]

aspera said:

Father Michael: Clinton is not an issue, or if he is only as a demonstration of hipocracy. Did Clinton lie when he said Iraq had WMD? Why are people willing to give someone like Clinton the benefit of the doubt, but paint Bush as a great deciever?

If there are other conservatives, I havent heard them identify themselves as such.... Maybe I missed their posts. Well. excellent. I hope that they will prove me wrong and keep me from feeling too proud of myself like I did in PJfaM 1, beause otherwise I"m still just one against the rest of the forum. I dont know how Im supposed to have a life and research rebuttals to every counterattack.

Well, I certainly don't want to make you feel isolated, but I should point out there are many who simply avoid the rant board altogether. Add to it that there are many who simply have no interest in political debate on an RP board, then we have a large number of potential Conservatives who simply aren't involving themselves in this conversation.

Also, to save you researching pains, I'll make most of my points philosophical, built off of uncontested knowledge (as much as I can). For example, my point of how people on different sides of the political structure would view issues if the party that enacted them had switched (i.e. Clinton's Patriot Act, and Bush's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell").

Lastly, I will stress my earlier point that the one who brought up Clinton was YOU. Noone said "Clinton rocks and Bush sucks so much more." The only ones who associate every single Liberal with Clinton has always been the Conservatives. It's a bit silly.

I don't approach every Conservative I argue with by saying, "Well, naturally, since you disapprove of (insert Democrat), you must approve of everything Bush has done, so why don't you justify Bush's behavior before attacking (see previous Dem)."

If Bush's behavior is justifiable, his predecessor should need no mention. Moreso, justification of the War in Iraq or the Patriot Act is not related to justification of the Habeus Corpus act. I would prefer to see you explain why Habeus Corpus is not vital or why Ross misunderstood the act so that this check on governmental power has not been eliminated.

[Kyle]

aspera said:

Kyle: Thanks for backing me up on the WMD. We"ve found MIGs buried out in the Iraqi desert for Durgaths sake.

................................................................your cute......like a lost child in the middle of a farmers market 1400 ft away from an 89 year old elderly man driving a luxury town car with a massive confusing between the brake pedal and the gas pedal...

Where...did...I........agree with you that.....there...were...WMD's.......in........in.......

ya know what...nevermind. Your the best example I could of ever had on perspective. People will see only what they want to see.

[zanAspera]

Where...did...I........agree with you that.....there...were...WMD's.......in........in.......

Then I am very much confoosed why you cited that article that says things were removed minutes before he UN inspectors got there.

ya know what...nevermind. Your the best example I could of ever had on perspective. People will see only what they want to see.

Just so. Some people just want to see Bush do something that will get people so upset they'll want him put the next day. They'll twist things any way they can to make Bush look like the Hitler they so desperately want him to be. Thus we get things like this talk of how Bush killed Habeas Corpus, instead of honest discussions of this law that treats terrorists who are captured in on the battlefield like soldiers who go rogue and massacre uninvolved civilians.

Well, I certainly don't want to make you feel isolated, but I should point out there are many who simply avoid the rant board altogether. Add to it that there are many who simply have no interest in political debate on an RP board, then we have a large number of potential Conservatives who simply aren't involving themselves in this conversation.

*sigh* I pretty well assumed I am not the only conservative, just the only one who is vocally conservative. That is why in the conext of the rant board, I said no other conservatives have come out of the closest. Fun with Semantics.... Yay?

Lastly, I will stress my earlier point that the one who brought up Clinton was YOU. Noone said "Clinton rocks and Bush sucks so much more." The only ones who associate every single Liberal with Clinton has always been the Conservatives. It's a bit silly.

I don't... He was just an obvious example. Do you want names of other promonent Democrats who knew Iraq had a WMD program and still made political hay when mere scraps were found after the invasion? Do you want the names of all the countries that signed the UN resolution after the first Gulf War that said Iraq had WMD then? Point is there is propganda on both sides. In politics perception can become reality even though it's incontravertably wrong, a whole lot of people still believe Iraq never had any WMD and that Bush manufactured the whole idea, either for big Oil, or for to avenge his Father, or some other crackpot reason.

The only difference with this story is that people have heard it all before and are numb after 6 years of constant attacks. When it comes to scandal mongering there is a credibility gap. Normally accusations of repealing the basic freedoms of the rule of law would generate outrage and fear, but the card has already been played out.

If Bush's behavior is justifiable, his predecessor should need no mention. Moreso, justification of the War in Iraq or the Patriot Act is not related to justification of the Habeus Corpus act. I would prefer to see you explain why Habeus Corpus is not vital or why Ross misunderstood the act so that this check on governmental power has not been eliminated.

I'm glad you are carefully reading where I explained that this law empowers military tribunals to declare Enemy Combatants on a case by case basis based on their histry of terrorism or being captured on the battlefield shooting at American troops. You noted that I explained that this does not give the Commander-in-Cheif or any other civilian leadership any power to declare who is an illegal enemy combatant. This law is wholey justifiable in it's own right, in fact it shouldn't need to be justified, the Supreme Court reviewed this Administration's policiy and said that it's all within the bounds of the Constituation as written, but you need Congress to pass a law to authorize it". The only reason it needs justifying is the attempts to spin perception of the law to make it sound like Bush can point at people and make them disappear.

Our legal system is built on precident, that means when you make a change to the law you go back and review every legal decision related to the topic, at least as far back as the Declaration of Independance and the Federalist Papers, though going back to Magne Carta and perhaps further back is not unhead of. I find it very very interesting that you feel Clinton's administration is not a good precident to examine when talking about the law. }}

The thing that irks me is that Bush signed a law. Who put it on his desk, but Congress. Do you want a list of Democats who voted for the Military Commissions Act? You must admit that every legislator who voted for this bill is also responcible. Why is it that the stories place the entire blame on Bush? The Supreme Court's ruling back in June said bush lacked the authority to make the change from treating terrorists captured on the battlefield like common criminals as we had done before, to treating them like soldiers (only soldiers who have no country, or who acted without authorization or orders). The Supreme Court did not say what we were doing violated Habeas Corpus, (I should be more careful using violated and corpus so close together). They said Bush needed congress to pass a law to authorize it. And Congress has passed that law. So is the Supreme Court and at least half of Congress in on this giant conspiracy to take away our freedoms? That is what you are asking everyone to believe.

If this law is a bad unjust law that gives Bush the power to point at a random person and decide they are an illegal enemy combatant and lock them away with no trial and torture them, then I guarrentee you people would be in the streets protesting, letters would be written, people would be defecting to European countries, etc. But it's not the nail in Freedom's coffin that you are making it... Mr Ross would be every bit as wrong to panic if Clinton or Carter or FDR, or any other Democrat president had done the same thing.

It seems people trust Bush far more than they trust the fearmongering of the left. That is something that they'll have to come to terms with if they ever expect to win an election again. A lot of voters have figured out the Democrats have nothing to offer but fear itself. Until they can produce a candidate who can present an actual plan rahter then bringing the troops home before the job is done, or "I have a secret plan" or "It's on my website". It's not enough to be opposed to everything he does, and even when they support it in sufficient numbers to pass a law, still condemn it as the end of liberty in America. You have to stand for something guys, or no matter how hard you scream, what attrocities you claim Republicans have commited, no one will pay attention to you anymore.

[fallstopower]

Alright then here is where I get to be a little annoyed.



Now as to why the suspension of Habeaus Corpus is important. HC is the only legal remedy we as citizens of the united states have to force the government to let you out of jail, for any reason, including being found innocent.

At a trial when someone is found not guilty when the judge says "You are free to go", what she or she is doing is granting an unspoken HC petition.

Therefore if HC is suspended FOR ANY REASON it opens the way for the executive to completely ignore the judiciary's findings and just keep you in jail. And everyone this includes Jury findings.

THis is why we should all be upset by the suspension of HC FOR ANY REASON.

*****************

Next the Clinton Issue. . . WHO CARES!!
I don't care if Clinton was screwing the vienna boys chior and gave osama bin laden the planes to run into the world trade center

It has been 6 years since he has been president, any mention of things he did is disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst. Even if CLinton left the white house in the worst possible shape ever Bush has had 6 years to fix it so any issues are squarely on his shoulders.

******************
No people are not in the streets because the apathy and ignorance of the american public is astounding

Because people do not understand what happens around them, because there are peopeple who actually believe that the GOP cares anything at all about people who make less than 1 million bucks a year.

Because people don't understand what HC is, you can not violate HC, there is no violation, HC is a demand by the judiciary that the executive produce the body of person X and justify why they are being held.

******************************

Oh and on the military tribunals issue as commander and chief BUSH IS A MILITARY TRIBUNAL!! He can order any tribunal he wants to do anything he wants. The JAG Corp which runs those tribunals and gives out justice under the UCMJ is controlled by the executive as is the rest of the military.

Whenever a tribunal or court martial is conveined it is under the command authority of whatever base or location it occurs at and by definition Bush IS THE COMMAND AUTHORITY *_EVERYWHERE_* so yes if the president wants to he can whistle up a tribunal and order them to find you guilty of whatever offence he wants and toss you in jail forever and because HC has been suspended you no longer have any recource to force the executive to let you go.

Furthermore because the president gets to intrepret what is and is not torture you can be tortured while you are there and no it dosen't matter if you are a US citizen or not.

and, wait for it, this law can not be challenged untill such time as it is used on someone who fights it through a lawsuit, however as the executive now has the right to hold you without the benefit of council or contact with the outside world if you were taken, NO ONE WOULD NEED TO KNOW ABOUT IT!

******************************

More about your argument that people would be in the streets, so you are saying that b/c no one is mad it must be ok, however if no understands how bad it is no one is mad, however whenever people like say oh me or other "liberal types" say "Hey this is really bad" so called conservatives say "No its not bad if it were that bad more people would be upset!"

Well guess what "I'M UPSET!!!"

Oh and as for protesting, I am not sure I would to do that because I might be said to be helping the terrorists

*********************************
Oh yes bush signed a law, that was put on his desk by congress, and as for the Democrats that voted for that law, well lets just say the DCCC will not be supporting them all that much in 3 weeks, and as for all the GOP that signed it hopefully they will be out of a job in three weeks too

**********************************
As for fearmongering, wait what was the terror alert today, let me check where we are in the polls GOP down, terror alert level up!! Wait there are definatly people who want to hurt you and if you disagree with the president we'll all DIE DIE I SAY DIE

As for a plan? I have been waiting for six years to see one, haven't yet.130

[Isabella Antimony Crane]

Hi.

I'm a Terrorist.

By the definition of the current administration, I could be, by this law, locked up for the rest of my life. If I ever completely drop off the planet, here's why.

1) I do work for RantRadio and RantMedia. (http://www.rantradio.com and

2) This is a foreign (International--ie, the program manager, my boss, is American, etc) media group who center on awareness and promoting a sense of personal responsibility for the current state of affairs in our world. Not just our country They preach bracing for impact when certain laws get passed that infringe on your rights as a citizen to do the most basic things. These bracings for impact are to vote, co-operate with the police, and rebel from inside. De-construction is the only way to freedom. The system of voting is useless right now, because we're too apathetic as a nation to do anything about it. Oh, we grouse and bitch, but we don't do anything about it.
That's what the ranting's about. Wake the masses up. Get them to vote. Work as a community to fix what's broken.

3) Now, before you go making any other swift judgements, because this group speaks strongly on your rights to vote, boycott the corporate influence in our lawmaking, cry wolf when you see one, share data and information, own a gun, own property, know your legal rights and the means by which to defend yourself in a court of law, it's on the CIA watch list. For potential terrorist activity and support.

Because one of the groups I closely associate myself with is hell-bent on informing everyone and trying to "Spread the Virus" of awareness in our societies, it's considered a group which "might" turn into a terrorist group, or a group that lends support to them.

RantRadio is run by a diverse group politically (Smokehouse, the program manager is a conservative Republican. I'm a centerist Libertarian.) whose main concern is that you know all the facts before you judge anything...

And for saying that, and saying that for the whole world, not just a single nation, they're considered potential terrorists.


Now because of this law, due to my association, I or any of my fellow volunteers could be plucked straight off of the street, hauled off to prison, tortured until we confess to things that aren't true (Like "Yes, sir. We lend financial aid to certain terrorist groups" or some such nonsense.) and remain locked up for the rest of forever. Oh. We'd be given a tribunal. Eventually. We wouldn't be given an opportunity to appeal. Ever. Nor do they have to tell anyone where we are.

Now. This scenerio isn't likely--not by a long shot--but it's legal and that's what worries me.

[zanAspera]

Anyone who is till worried that this applies to American Citizens or that Bush or Rumsfeld can just whip up a military tribunal for anyone they please, citizen or no, should start their research with the wikipedia article on the act and the links it references

. The law was written for the purpose of applying only to "alien unlawful enemy combatants", and they have at least three legal analysts that say that is sufficient to constrain the whole law to non-citizens.

Criticism of this bill is harsh, but appears to be unfounded. Even John Yoo, a professor from Berkeley, an institution not known to be kind to Republicans, says the law is a rebuke of the Supreme court decision that made this law necessary, saying the ruling was “an unprecedented attempt by the court to rewrite the law of war and intrude into war policy.” This is a professor from Berkeley saying this!

At a trial when someone is found not guilty when the judge says "You are free to go", what she or she is doing is granting an unspoken HC petition.

Does the former garou lawyer's player not know as much about Habeas Corpus as the Red Talon's player? Habeas Corpus is the right to have your case dismissed due to lack of evidence. What you are talking about is Involuntary commitment. I haven't heard anyone remotely official say that this is a total removal of due process, only the end of Habeas Corpus (for illegal enemy combatants, e.g. terrorists captured after engage in in combat with US or allied troops).

Next the Clinton Issue. . . WHO CARES!!
I don't care if Clinton was screwing the vienna boys chior and gave osama bin laden the planes to run into the world trade center

It has been 6 years since he has been president, any mention of things he did is disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst. Even if CLinton left the white house in the worst possible shape ever Bush has had 6 years to fix it so any issues are squarely on his shoulders.

I'm glad you are honest enough to admit you would absolve Clinton of any wrong doing, even something that might be considered treasonous. I may be on the radically right wing, but I still would care if GHW Bush (W's pa) was involved in treason against this country. How many years after Regan left office did the Iran Contra investigations continue? (At least 4 or 5, if I recall correctly). Funny that he you are complaining about the end of the rule of law while admitting you would not care if Clinton committed Treason.

I'm amused at the reactions I'm getting here... All I said was that if Bus lied about WMD then Clinton and the UN lied to, cause they said the same thing, only they didn't do anything about it. I couldn't exactly go to the president before that. Yes, GHW Bush knew Iraq had WMD, I seem to remember more of it being detected during the first Gulf War. Which is why the UN drafted the security resolution telling Saddam that he needed to get rid of the WMD "or else". France and Russia(The top two countries selling Weapons under the "Oil for Food" program, blocked the UN from following through, so it fell to America to build a coalition of countries who were willing to enforce the UN mandate despite the failure of the UN to act.

I didn't talk about any of his many many scandals until other people brought them up. You guys have a guilty conscious much?

Well, I wasn't going to say anything, but since you brought it up, yes. I would say Bush has done an excellent job after six years of repairing the economy and our military readiness from the shambles Clinton left them in.

No people are not in the streets because the apathy and ignorance of the american public is astounding

This is the exact arrogance that keeps you out of touch and on the losing end of elections. People understand far more than you give them credit for. The may not sound authoritative like the Ivy league professor who couldn't be assed to finish watching the whole TV spot he was commenting on, much less apparently try to actually understand the provisions of the law. But they do have a keen almost instinctual awareness of how the economy is doing, and what affects their Daly lives. They aren't dumb, some may be worried about potential abuses, but they know people are watching and that abuses will be caught and dealt with.

If nothing else, the Foley scandal reminds people that when a Republican is caught doing something he knows he ought not be doing, most of the time he will resign immediately. While Democrats first instincts are to rally and defend the accused until it's clear that there is more than enough evidence to prove the charges and that it's big enough to stick. If not they'll protect each other until the storm blows over. Why else is Ted Kennedy still in office? Foley resigned after he was found to have solicited an affair with a page. Gerry Studds actually had an affair with a page, and refused to resign, he was censured by the House, but continued to serve for another 14 years. Which party do you think people trust more to police itself?

Because people do not understand what happens around them, because there are people who actually believe that the GOP cares anything at all about people who make less than 1 million bucks a year.

So, your position is that Bush, who is widely regarded as a simpleton cam manipulate stupid people to consistently vote for Republicans over Democrats despite not giving a damn about them? You would forget that the top five wealthiest Congressmen are Democrats, and that Bush lowered taxes for everyone, which stimulated the economy and got us out of the economic slump we were in when he took office. Or that Republicans receive vastly more individual private donations(capped at $2000) than Democrats. Why is it that republicans can trick half the country in voting for them, when no where near that much makes a million or more? Why is it that when you look at a county by county map of Bush vs, Gore or Bush vs Kerry, you find democrats win in rich urban counties while Republicans win in less urbanized and rural counties? Sounds like despite all the rhetoric it is really the Democrats who are the party of the rich, but then I'm only going by a pawfull of facts, still trumps your empty platitude.

Oh and on the military tribunals issue as commander and chief BUSH IS A MILITARY TRIBUNAL!! He can order any tribunal he wants to do anything he wants. The JAG Corp which runs those tribunals and gives out justice under the UCMJ is controlled by the executive as is the rest of the military.

I shouldn't even respond to this because you must know how stupid and crazy this sounds. You offer no support for this because you can't, it's just a dystopian fantasy you have. Have you ever been in the military? How is Bush a Military Tribunal? He served his country as a test pilot in the Air Force Reserve, but was never part of the JAG.


Do you know anyone who has ever been in the military? I washed out, but my brother served in Iraq. I'll tell you, one of the first things they teach you, even before you take the oath to defend the Constitution, is that you have every right, in fact you have a duty to disobey any illegal orders. Even if Bush somehow thought he could get away with ordering the results of a Tribunal (which he wouldn't as there are too many layers between him and the JAGs to issue the order without too many other people finding out about it), but even if he could issue the order to make someone a enemy combatant, he still would be duly refused by any soldier who takes their oaths seriously, and you don't get to be a JAG for very long if you don't take your vows seriously.

In order to believe that Bush could order the results of a hearing fixed, you have to believe that the majority of people in the military have no compunctions about violating Honor. Tell me, why would you serve in the military as a JAG and make a fraction of what you could instead of in the private sector where you can make oodles if not for strong personal convictions to serving your country honorably? No amount of TV or movies can substitute for the real thing to understand how different the career military is, especially in the JAG Corp.

Oh and as for protesting, I am not sure I would to do that because I might be said to be helping the terrorists

That's the difference isn't it. If I really believed what you do about this bill, I would either be gathering as of a large group of protesters and trying to get as much Media attention as I could (As the media is friendly in this case). We'd remind the protesters that we are Conservatives, we don't assault people or damage property or block roads or do anything else illegal, as many radical left protest groups do. We would just go to public places, wave signs, say what we needed to say and then disperse forming again another day. If they arrest us, they'll have to arrest all of us, probably on camera. They won't have any footage of us destroying anything or harming anyone, just exercising our free speech.

Even if they just arrest the leaders off camera, they'll still have to arrest enough of us that we will be missed. We have families and friends and neighbors, so if we are arrested in the middle of he night, people will know why and we will take or case to the media and the court of public opinion.


You see, I have gone on protests. I do care enough to get off my ass and make myself heard. I vote in every election, I attend my caucuses and even the State Republican Convention when I can. I am active in my party. We don't just get upset and rant sit helplessly on our thumbs, we have convictions and we live by them and die by them if necessary. So, that is why I'm not upset, because it's not time to get upset. If I were to get upset, I would do something about it.

I must admit I nearly got upset when Gregoire stole the election by registering felons who were in eligible to vote and with Seattle Democrat canvasing boards "enhancing" ballots by whiting out votes for the libertarian candidate where the voter marked both. I should have gotten upset then, but I held on to the belief that justice would be done in the courts.... By then it was too late, Gregoire was sworn in and Rossi said he wouldn't fight it any more....

Did I howl about the end of Democracy or call for UN inspectors? No We are America, if we can't handle it, the UN certainly can't.

Oh yes bush signed a law, that was put on his desk by congress, and as for the Democrats that voted for that law, well lets just say the DCCC will not be supporting them all that much in 3 weeks, and as for all the GOP that signed it hopefully they will be out of a job in three weeks too

Well, time will tell. 34 Democrat Representatives and 12 Senators voted for it. So har the news stories have been completely silent as to their role in this. To my knowledge there hasn't been any news saying the central committee is pulling their support of funding, as you think they might want to make this a very clear vocal statement of how much they disapprove of this bill. Chances are these are all in very safe districts so they felt confident crossing party lines, they probably weren't getting much party support anyway. But maybe we'll see if you are right and not just making that up.

[Kyle]

dude...if you havent realalized you dont even take counter points to your arguements...you read what the others say and thank them for agreeing with you...

and that's hella annoying...

[zanAspera]

*sigh* You are the only one I said agred with me. It's hardly a pattern behaviour as you seem to be implying. I admitted I was confused, and you have made no attempt to clarify. So what am I supposed to do? I'm firmly opposed to mind reading, even if I were capable of it.

It would have helped me if you had actually said something on the subject instead of just quoting an article that generally said to me "Stuff was moved from WMD suspect sites minutes before wepons inspectors arrived". I never alledged that sort of time, but yes the article you quoted seems as far as I can tell to agree with my point that Iraq did have WMD and they did not destroy tem and they did not comply with the UN mandate.

I must admit again, I still have no idea what point you were trying to make. Instead of trying to clarify (I must admit form time to time it might not be entirely clear what some of my points are) you throw your paws up and give up. Communication is a two way street. If that is all the effort you are going to put into communicating your point, it must not be worth making is it? I swear, I'm asked to research and fully document everything I say, but you can't be arsed to clarify where you are disagreeing.


Let's look again, after the article you said:

Here is the power of langauge demonstrated.

CHEMICAL WEAPONS = WMD. NUCLEAR BOMB = WMD.
CHEMICAL WEAPONS =/= NUCLEAR BOMB
AMERICAN EAR HEARS WMD = ...do you think they associate WMD with chemical weapons or nuclear bomb more?

There's a sad truth in the voting polls...and that is people who are part of an organized religion of any sort are more likely to vote. We had just about 110 million americans vote, out of 270 million. Of those 110 million 81% involved in organized religion voted for bush...god I wish this thing had numbers to show you but scroll 1/6th of the way down to where it organizes stuff by religion for voing.

You made new points about language and that Religious people tend to perfer Bush(you statistics say usually around 10-20 points in favour of Bush, though Kerry beat out Bush in at least one organized religion). I didn't see them as refuting anything I had already wrote, so I skipped them as tangents, that way i can focus on main points and dig deeper on them as you tell me I should.

I perfer the military term of NBC weapons, of Nuclear, Chemical and Biological. I guess the major media outlets didn't like that term... }} I think the record is clear with Bush's speaches what he meant by WMD, and there are far worse abuses of language. "Bush lied" is still far less accurate and more inflamatory than WMD.


As far as the 81% of voting americans who are religious, I'm not sure what your point is? Are they not entitled to vote? Their are somehow not as American as you and don't deserve to participate? You'd disenfranchise 81% of voters just because they on some level they share common spiritual beliefs or otherwise associate with a group that does? Kerry got 61% of the Union vote too, it's not fair, we should get rid of unions... I don't know what you are saying. Please clarify.

Okay and the last little section of your post, then i will have responded to all of it.

Come on man...bust out of your shell and investigate what they say further then how they present it. The problem with the conservative perspective is you do old man syndrome "I'm right...and here's why!" instead of "I'm right, and your wrong...and here is why you are wrong, and here is why I am right". Sadly the liberals stick to "Your Wrong...and here is why"...but hey, so is the dichotomy of a two party government...

Yep. I'm supposed to research and fully document my arguments up front, while you can't be arse to clarify your points so I can understand where you aren't agreeing with me and where you aren't.

Please tell me where I haven't told Ross he is wrong. That was my whole first post was all about how Ross was wrong about the bill and why he was wrong. If anything I think I've been most lax in "why I am right", but mostly because most of my assertions are merely tangential to the argument and don't merit that much support unless questioned.

My biggest point on the actaul topic of the thread is that the reason people do not care because these sorts of accusations have been raised multiple times before and have turned out less than credible. It makes a lot more sense and is a lot more of a useful model that the counterview that "Everybody is dumb". I'm trying to help you guys out here. Obviously we Conservatives must understand something about the political system, such as how not to insult voters just because we can't understand why we are out of touch with them. Democrats need to dig deeper to find out why people don't care. What they find there could save their party's credibility.