host hasn't been on for years.. only months.

I think Elphaba meant 'us' in the wider sense.

While DK and Will are correct in that the majority need to wake up and see what is going on, I firmly disagree with their prognosis that the end of the country is near, at least in the way they describe. Economically, is what I am worried about.

I do think we are due for a social revolution of the '60's type, but nothing any more drastic unless the government reacts in extreme fashion.

I think what we are seeing is that the penduulum and the GOP have gone too far to the right and the correction will start to occur in the elections this year and in full blown fashion in '08.

I firmly believe once everything comes out on what Bush has done there will be an outcry and the illegalities or borderline legal but ethically wrongs Bush committed will be legislatively taken care of. It seems some people expect things to happen overnight, and they can't evidence has to be gotten, people have to be shown exacts and probables and not conspiracies that are impossible to prove.

I believe we should be more concerned about the economics. The national deficit and the trade deficit are killing us and they are only going to be worsened over time unless we find ways to correct them.

That is where the Dems need to focus and the platform that will win. Focussing on the scandals works, but it gives you only a temporary bump and unless you have a platform that can work and hold people and get their votes, the scandals, alone, aren't going to do it.

Focus on getting money into education and social programs that will better the country.

If we are losing our manufacturing industries to others, then find the next big thing to focus on, develop and work on.

We have been so inundated with conspiracies and scandals people are becoming immune to them. And yes, as long as people have enough to live they don't care because in times like these people are worried about just staying economically viable and afloat.

Cyn, Host's join date is 9-2004. That would be a year and "only months," more. I assumed he had been here longer, because I have only been here one year.

His exact start date doesn't change my point that he had been trying for "many months" to awaken us to the machinations of the Bush admin. Agreed?

And some of us are very happy to have gotten to know you in that year, beautiful. :icare:


/end threadjack

Pan: I agree Pan. Late last week, China announced it is going to reevaluate it's foreign investments which primarily consists of the US dollar. Our ever escalating debt has been bought up by China, which gives them a hold over our country. Economics, particularly global economics is something I have little knowledge, but it is worthy of it's own thread. I have found a couple of articles that might be worthy of a separate discussion.

You are such a sweetheart. :icare:

This is a legal tactic that I don't recall seeing before. Rather that waiting for Congress to sort out the legality of the NSA domestic wiretapping, two lawsuits in two different courts are challenging the NSA directly.

Truthout Link Again

President George W. Bush took an oath to do everything to try and get
justice for the persons who attack America and if listening in to those
who may be planning another 9/11 type attack, I say more power to him.
What do the innocent Americans have to fear? The "Loss of Freedoms?" I
have nothing to conceal from the C.I.A. or F.B.I. IF an Atomic or Bio-
bomb is set off in one of our big cities, the people who hate Bush and
say he is bad for the USA will be the first to say:"Why didn't he do
something to prevent this attack?"

Remember 9/11? Remember the speech Bush gave right after the attacks? "They hate our freedom. They hate our democratic system." Bush is the one not respecting the system by breaking checks and balances, and FISA. You cannot simply go around the Judicial system because you feel like it. If there were a threat, then all you need to do is go get a quick FISA warrent, which is really, really easy. You8 don't even need to prove someone has commited a crime, all you need for probable cause is if proof that someone is linked with a known terrorist. If Bush couldn't prove that, if these people who are bugged have NO connections to terrorists, then how, oh how, are these wire taps connected to protecting us?

Al Gore Led Effort to Tap Every Phone in America
Charles R. Smith
Wednesday, Jan. 18, 2006

Big Brother Al

There are times when Al Gore should sit down and shut up. Former Vice
President Al Gore called for an independent investigation into President
Bush's domestic spying program, insisting that the president
"repeatedly and insistently" broke the law by eavesdropping on Americans without
court approval.

What Al Gore forgot to tell his audience was that he not only supported
eavesdropping on Americans without court approval - he also chaired a
project designed to execute just that in total secrecy. In short, Al
Gore wanted to bug every phone, computer and fax in America.

In 1993 Al Gore was charged by then President Bill Clinton to run the
"Clipper" project. Clipper was a special chip designed by the National
Security Agency (NSA) to be built into all phones, computers and fax
machines. Not only would Clipper provide scrambled security, it also
contained a special "exploitable feature" enabling the NSA to monitor all
phone calls without a court order.

In 1993, VP Al Gore went to work with a top secret group of Clinton
advisers, called the IWG or Interagency Working Group, and delivered a
report on the Clipper project.

"Simply stated, the nexus of the long term problem is how can the
government sustain its technical ability to accomplish electronic
surveillance in an advanced telecommunications environment," states the TOP
SECRET report prepared by Gore's Interagency Working Group.

"The solution to the access problem for future telecommunications
requires that the vendor/manufacturing community translate the government's
requirements into a fundamental system design criteria," noted the Gore
report.

"The basic issue for resolution is a choice between accomplishing this
objective by mandatory (i.e., statutory/regulatory) or voluntary
means."

The documented truth is that America was to be given no choice but to
be monitored by Big Brother Al. This awful conclusion is backed by
several other documents. One such document released by the Justice
Department is a March 1993 memo from Stephen Colgate, Assistant Attorney General
for Administration.

According to the Colgate memo, Vice President Al Gore chaired a meeting
with Hillary Clinton crony Webster Hubbell, Janet Reno, Commerce
Secretary Ron Brown and Leon Panetta in March 1993. The topic of the meeting
was the "AT&T Telephone Security Device."

According to Colgate, AT&T had developed secure telephones the U.S.
government could not tap. The Clinton-Gore administration secretly
contracted with AT&T to keep the phones off the market. Colgate's memo noted
that the administration was determined to prevent the American public
from having private phone conversations.


"AT&T has developed a Data Encryption Standard (DES) product for use on
telephones to provide security for sensitive conversations," wrote
Colgate.

"The FBI, NSA and NSC want to purchase the first production run of
these devices to prevent their proliferation. They are difficult to
decipher and are a deterrent to wiretaps."

Buried in the Colgate memo is the first reference to
government-developed monitoring devices that would be required for all Americans.

According to the March 1993 Colgate memo to Hubbell, "FBI, NSA and NSC
want to push legislation which would require all government agencies
and eventually everyone in the U.S. to use a new public-key based
cryptography method."

Gore Lied

Al Gore quickly embraced the Clipper chip and the concept of monitoring
America at all costs. In 1994, Gore wrote a glowing letter supporting
the Clipper chip and the government-approved wiretap design.

"As we have done with the Clipper Chip, future key escrow schemes must
contain safeguards to provide for key disclosures only under legal
authorization and should have audit procedures to ensure the integrity of
the system. We also want to assure users of key escrow encryption
products that they will not be subject to unauthorized electronic
surveillance," wrote Gore in his July 20, 1994 letter to Representative Maria
Cantwell.

However, Gore lied. In 1994, federal officials were keenly aware that
the Clipper chip design did not have safeguards against unauthorized
surveillance. In fact, NASA turned down the Clipper project because the
space agency knew of the flawed design.

In 1993, Benita A. Cooper, NASA Associate Administrator for Management
Systems and Facilities, wrote: "There is no way to prevent the NSA from
routinely monitoring all [Clipper] encrypted traffic. Moreover,
compromise of the NSA keys, such as in the Walker case, could compromise the
entire [Clipper] system."

Ms. Cooper referred to Soviet spy John Walker, who is serving life in
prison for disclosing U.S. Navy secret codes. In 1993 Ms. Cooper did not
know of Clinton Chinagate scandals, the Lippo Group, John Huang or
Webster Hubbell, but her prophetic prediction was not so remarkable in
retrospect.

Yet, Al Gore pressed ahead, continuing to support a flawed design
despite warnings that the design could "compromise" every computer in the
U.S.

A 1996 secret memo on a secret meeting of CIA Directer John Deutch, FBI
Director Louis Freeh and Attorney General Janet Reno states, "Last
summer, the Vice President agreed to explore public acceptance of a key
escrow policy but did not rule out other approaches, although none seem
viable at this point."

According to the 1996 report to V.P. Gore by then CIA Director Deutch,
Reno proposed an all-out federal takeover of the computer security
industry. The Justice Department proposed "legislation that would ... ban
the import and domestic manufacture, sale or distribution of encryption
that does not have key recovery. Janet Reno and Louis Freeh are deeply
concerned about the spread of encryption. Pervasive use of encryption
destroys the effectiveness of wiretapping, which supplies much of the
evidence used by FBI and Justice. They support tight controls, for
domestic use."

Yes the Democrats did bug us...they just had the liberal Press to keep
everything secret. Why is it that all left wing Senators who goof up
get a pass and Republicans who missspeak get drummed out of office?
Senator Kennedy is a good example. He should have been ridden out of
town,tared and feathered after letting that woman drown. Democrats are
without any honesty and do exactly what they preach against.

ronryan: please post a link to the source when you bite an article.

Found the article: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...106.shtml?s=lh

Totally not backed up by facts or evidence
and a mis-repensaition of the Clipper project
Besides the fact that asuming it was completly true
HOW does one persons crime excuse anothers!!!
So some dude killed someone in the past
do I get a free pass to do the same?

Thanks, Will. That was "enlightening."

Addition: Great link, Alpha Phi and I agree that the excuse of "they did it too," is well beyond it's shelf life.

You're preaching to the choir, here. Actually, you're preaching to an archangel. I posted the link to exposed the website that it came from, which is a right wing propoganda machine at best.

I know Will.....I know
I wasn't disagreeing with you
I hope it didn't seem that way :icare:
I have found you to be one of the most intelligent posters here.
On the rare occasion I disagree with your point of view,
It causes me to stop and rethink my view
just to make sure my thinking is straight.

That's one of the nicest thing's that I've ever read. Much thanks, and the feeling is certianly mutual. :D

This is too damn funny. I wish I knew how to do that cool embedded video thing. Oh well

George Washington authorized electronic surveilence too
I'm guessing he was trying to get at how other presidents abused their power too, but apparently it came out wrong.

If our Goverment had electronic surveillance way back in 1776
I want to know WTF else they are hideing from us. :hmm:
If that's the case....We should be traveling on a beam of light by now! :crazy: :lol:

All kidding aside, this is just another example of what those currently in power are doing to try and justify their illegal actions. Assuming the attorney general really meant that Washington had authorized non-electronic surveillance such as mail intercepts, he has two fundamental flaws in his logic.

1) It was not illegal then. FISA had not been estableshed yet. This argument ignores the fact that it is illegal NOW and the president broke the law in the PRESENT.

2) Even if it was illegal then, that is no excuse for the current president to break the law. I cannot murder someone just because someone else once murdered someone. And if I try to tell the judge "well gee Charlie Manson murdered someone so you should let me off because he did it too" he will laugh me out of the court room before throwing me in jail. Or possibly the nuthouse for thinking such an argument is valid.

I am bumping this topic. Those of you that are electronic communication experts certainly knew what I merely suspected. There was no conceivable way that the NSA could cherry pick an international call or email communication. It was obvious to me that they had to be swallowing the entire pipeline. Therefore, no warrant could be asked for or given by FISA under that circumstance. A whistle blower has come forward and I will bet you dollars to donuts...err make that euros, that this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Link

Swell, just fricken swell. Are we feeling safer yet?

Wow, all my talk about guns should have the ATF knocking at my door pretty soon. I'm feeling safe. :thumbsup: :rolleyes:

It probably just seems like years....

Here's some new coverage of this controversy from the <a href="http://www.mcclatchy.com/100/story/179.html">"second-largest newspaper publisher in the United States."</a> You've most likely never heard of them. That will probably change. Mcclatchy purchased Knight Ridder in 2006. Knight Ridder, IMO, offered actual "fair and balanced" news reporting, and there was speculation that this reputation actually decreased profitability. The new owner, Mcclatchy, provides the following coverage from it's Washington bureau.
The original Mcclatchy Co. has owned the "Sac Bee" since it's founding, by James McClatchy, in 1857.

Their reporting is consistent with what Knight Ridder was capable of, and it confirms my worst fears. If it's true, and more is disclosed and confirmed, if that is even possible in the "new order", the implications should scare the shit out of everyone:
This article is a wake up call. These "authorities" have been illegally monitoring domestic political opponents, and they want to use this law to keep confirmation of that, secret, hiding behind the excuse of "national security concerns". I predict that there will be a determined effort to hustle this bill into law, before the november, mid-term elections.

I regard this effort as a Bush "signing statment", dressed up to resemble a legislative initiative. It will become increasingly difficult to <b>confidentially</b> campaign and win against the ruling party. We are witnessing the death of our parents' republic and it's constitution "by a thousand cuts", IMO.

hey, host, lemme axe you a question... or three...

1: why do you always post an entire article when just the gist will suffice along with a link to it?

2: why do always place emphasis on what you like in the quoted article when the article did not?

3: do you really believe we would be better off with john kerry?

i mean, look at the "big dig"... a few years ago while campaigning in massachusetts, he referred to it as a quagmire regarding over-spending by the government on the project. now because of cost over-runs, cut back demands on his part, as well as the part of the contractors forced to do so, has cost the life of a person. i'm just wondering if he will set a withdrawl date.

how do you ask a commuter to be the last to die for a mistake?

I'll field this one: no one seems to want to click on the links. When people, myself included, post links, rarely is the information in the link considered by posters. A lot of people don't care. Also, Host tries to point out the gist by placing emphasis or putting in bold or large letters the gist of the article, but that doesn't meet with your approval because:
You're giving mixed messages.
The "lesser of the two evils" argument has been beaten to death here, so why not let it die. Those who wanted Kerry in office have given the argument over and over and over. Do you really think Kerry would be connected with a domestic spying program?

1.) Answer: What willravel said, and, before a recent "revision" of tfproject forums, the entire forum was searchable, any post was retrievable using search words. That resource disappeared from here in the last ten weeks.

If I had simply posted this link,
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/r...20030714.shtml in this post concerning Bob Novak's columns about "Joe Wilson's CIA wife".... or this link, http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea..._id=1000978837 both in this post, http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...6&postcount=18
they would be meaningless now, because both of those links no longer resolve. It happens with at least half the links, after a short while, and with almost every link to NY Times reports....so....I know of no other way to preserve the docmentation in what I post. Do you have any suggestions to solve this, or should I post with the recognition that documentation and references should vanish after a brief period? Doesn't make much sense, to me.

2.) As willravel said, "You're giving mixed messages." How do you know "when the article did not?" (emphasize a certain point....) In the FISA "reform" legislation article that I posted, I enlarged and bolded the sentence:
"However, such details could include politically explosive disclosures that the government has kept tabs on people it shouldn't have been monitoring."

Why do you think that this sentence is placed as the third paragraph in the article, if it is not intended to "stand out" by it's author? In the original article, none of the sentences are highlighted. I observe "placement" of ideas and facts in news reporting, as one of the ways to determine what details are being emphasized by the reporter. How do you decide what is important, once you get past the headline of an article?

3.)John Soloman is an AP reporter with, if you research his reports, a reputation for less than unbiased reporting, when it comes to his pieces on prominent democrats.

Here is another AP report that counters Soloman's reporting on Kerry and the "Big Dig". I'll just post the link and headline:
http://www.showmenews.com/2004/Feb/20040208News030.asp
Kerry defends ‘Big Dig’ decision
Company gave him money, report says.
Published Sunday, February 8, 2004

As far as your last question, I have plenty of company, as far as my opinion:
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11385.xml?ReleaseID=919
June 1, 2006 - Bush Tops List As U.S. Voters Name Worst President, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Reagan, Clinton Top List As Best In 61 Years

http://mparent7777.livejournal.com/9549319.html
Historians say Bush is sinking fast

Kerry, or just about any native born, American citizen, over aged 35, would have been a better choice in Nov., 2004, than Bush.