One ringy dingy too many

[archenemy]

your true colors are shinning through

[archenemy]

your true colors are shining through

[selkirk]

your true colors are shining ......

 

oh hell, it's been said before

[StevenSeagal]

Just because I'm an action hero, a badass, and a fine looking fellow, doesn't mean I can't have a great worldview also.

 

These creeps think they're Above the Law. I'm going to show them the light.

[archenemy]

Watch out, it might be a train.

[JayB]

All of which explains the Democrat's otherwordly reticence vis-a-vis the staggering scandals that their entrepid volunteer intel analysts have unearthed via collective electronic seance. "Psssst. SssssssssHHHHHH!!! Keep that shit quiet until AFTER the elections...."

 

Perhaps the democrats believe it will be easier to expose scandals when the current government propaganda machine has been neutered and a balance in power in the government has been restored. At the moment, anything critical of government policy is immediately and aggressively dismissed as "liberal hysteria", "sour grapes", and "anti-American rhetoric".

 

It would also be political suicide to pursue scandals just before elections, wouldn't it? If the dems did that, you don't suppose the Republican reaction would be to accuse them of playing politics in an election year? At the moment, the democrats best move will be to simply be quiet and allow the Republicans to hang themselves with their own threadbare accusations of anti-Americanism, et.al, coupled with the shortcomings of their policies.

 

Yes - Rinpoche - your analytical powers are as mighty as your fists.

 

It's clear that the overwhelming power of the government to silence dissent and suppress the flow of information is evinced by the fact that top secret programs like the NSA surveilance program, and the CIA secret prisons never made it before the public, and staggering embarassments with major strategic consequences like the Abu Ghraib scandal and the massacre at Haditha were never mentioned in the press, and the details of the surveilance techniques used to monitor suspicious financial transactions never saw the light of day in the New York times. If the adminsistration ever lost their ability to throttle the media and impose its message on the public through them, Duke Cunningham and Tom Delay might have found their careers in Jeoparday, and the Plame/Wilson thing might have even resulted in the appointment of a special prosecutor. Thankfully the ever circumspect head of the DNC has been able to keep his minions in line, because they know full well how revaling substantive evidence of corruption and wrongdoing in office can work on behalf of the incumbents who have engaged in such activities. They remember well the electoral triumph that the Republicans enjoyed after Nixon's downfall. "Whoa - keep that under wraps Billy. Remember how much Watergate hurt the Democrats!"

 

FWIW I think that this business about the administration suppressing dissent, etc, has got to be the most laughable bunch of hokum I've ever heard in my life. If you are a prominent left-of-center politician or intellectual, the only thing that is likely to damage your standing or prospects is a LACK of vitreol directed at the administration. All of this business about suppression of dissent is just petulant whining on the part of people who have failed in their efforts to develop cogent arguments and substantive policy alternatives that resonate with enough of the electorate to gain widespread popular support and win consistently at the polls.

[catbirdseat]

There is a very good reason why the media don't reveal these abuses. Outside of whistleblowers, they don't have access to the information. Investigations depend on access to secret documents. The only way to get access to secret documents is for Congress to give an investigative body priviledges to view these documents.

[cj001f]

There is a very good reason why the media don't reveal these abuses. Outside of whistleblowers, they don't have access to the information. Investigations depend on access to secret documents. The only way to get access to secret documents is for Congress to give an investigative body priviledges to view these documents.

 

 

I forsee JayB countering with talk of the current liberal cabals bent on destroying democracy, capitalism and the American way, gangraping Minnie Mouse, learing lustily at Lex Luthor, then raising the Hammer & Sickle over DC, instituting mandatory gay marriage, and then lighting their newly legalized Cuban cigars with his $100 bills while drinking newly legalized Havana Club cuba libres with organic cola and fresh glacier ice cubes.

[Crux]

All of which explains the Democrat's otherwordly reticence vis-a-vis the staggering scandals that their entrepid volunteer intel analysts have unearthed via collective electronic seance. "Psssst. SssssssssHHHHHH!!! Keep that shit quiet until AFTER the elections...."

 

Maybe you can keep busy drafting a list of TV execs that you'd like to see fined and imprisoned for airing docu-dramas that you disagree with until the said hearings get underway.

You appear to be equivocating the numerous reports of criminal activity by our government with some kind of supermarket tabloid gossip – your apparent selection of reading material might explain that confusing “otherworldly” dementia you seem to be complaining about.

 

Let me assure you that here in America several ongoing criminal practices by the Republican government have already been recently identified in federal courts and anybody who has been paying attention knows this. It’s no secret, and the only silence is that of the Republican-controlled Congress and the right-wing media moguls for whom you advised imprisonment and fines.

 

All that aside, the silence from the Republican Congress over the past six years has enabled the unlawful activities of the Republican government to continue while the Democrats in Congress have consistently been expressly prohibited by the majority rule from conducting hearings on the alleged unlawful activities.

 

As surely as the preponderance of evidence is not only NOT secret but often available in best selling published accounts, the courts have ruled, and anybody who has been paying attention has heard what the courts said. What you hear next, if anything, will be the sound of the other shoe falling with the midterm elections.

 

That is all.

 

 

[JayB]

There is a very good reason why the media don't reveal these abuses. Outside of whistleblowers, they don't have access to the information. Investigations depend on access to secret documents. The only way to get access to secret documents is for Congress to give an investigative body priviledges to view these documents.

 

You mean like classified documents that outline the details of things like the NSA surveilance program, the monitoring of the SWIFT network transactions that the media didn't reveal because the Democrats were not in control of Congress and couldn't convene a subcommittee to formally request the documents? If Fitzgerald requested a document and the people under indictment say no, then all he can do is say "Okay - thanks for your time."?

 

This is like arguing with people from Bizzaro world, where no one in DC leaks documents to the press, the press abhors getting a scoop, and politicians won't capitalize on the oppositions misconduct in office because doing so would hurt them at the polls. Sage voices from the masses that the Democrats must have been heeding en route to their recent chain of electoral triumphs.

[Crux]

I'll vote when a woman runs for President.

Rationale?

One ding a lingy too many

[cj001f]

This is like arguing with people from Bizzaro world

 

I believe you mean This Modern World JayB

 

[Fairweather]

Given the Republican's lack of fiscal restraint, even I could be talked into supporting Dem's for House races just to restore some balance. But, unfortunately for the D's, their agenda is transparent - two years of non-stop hearings and investigations. I think mainstream America sees the Dem's as too focused on things the average Joe/Jane aren't really concerned about - or wholly support...like wiretapping of overseas calls and monitoring of secret banking transactions.

[catbirdseat]

You mean like classified documents that outline the details of things like the NSA surveilance program, the monitoring of the SWIFT network transactions that the media didn't reveal because the Democrats were not in control of Congress and couldn't convene a subcommittee to formally request the documents? If Fitzgerald requested a document and the people under indictment say no, then all he can do is say "Okay - thanks for your time."?

 

The documents themselves were not leaked, only an outline of the existence of the illegal programs. The people who did the leaking were taking big risks with their lives and their future freedom.

[Fairweather]

I'll vote when a woman runs for President.

 

I've said it before:

For president.

 

As for Hillary, I would not vote for a woman with a hyphenated last name. What can I say?

[JayB]

All of which explains the Democrat's otherwordly reticence vis-a-vis the staggering scandals that their entrepid volunteer intel analysts have unearthed via collective electronic seance. "Psssst. SssssssssHHHHHH!!! Keep that shit quiet until AFTER the elections...."

 

Maybe you can keep busy drafting a list of TV execs that you'd like to see fined and imprisoned for airing docu-dramas that you disagree with until the said hearings get underway.

You appear to be equivocating the numerous reports of criminal activity by our government with some kind of supermarket tabloid gossip – your apparent selection of reading material might explain that confusing “otherworldly” dementia you seem to be complaining about.

 

Let me assure you that here in America several ongoing criminal practices by the Republican government have already been recently identified in federal courts and anybody who has been paying attention knows this. It’s no secret, and the only silence is that of the Republican-controlled Congress and the right-wing media moguls for whom you advised imprisonment and fines.

 

All that aside, the silence from the Republican Congress over the past six years has enabled the unlawful activities of the Republican government to continue while the Democrats in Congress have consistently been expressly prohibited by the majority rule from conducting hearings on the alleged unlawful activities.

 

As surely as the preponderance of evidence is not only NOT secret but often available in best selling published accounts, the courts have ruled, and anybody who has been paying attention has heard what the courts said. What you hear next, if anything, will be the sound of the other shoe falling with the midterm elections.

 

That is all.

 

 

Thanks Obe Wan. So....in your world, Congressional hearings are the only means available to a political party if they wan't to reveal official misconduct on their opponent's part? That certainly explains why no one ever got around to appointing a special prosecutor to investigate the Plame affair, the various ethics committees never uttered the names Delay or Cunningham?

 

Since you've gotten the intel on the downlow from your fellow analysts (did the secret decoder rings come with 24 sided dice and special masks?), how about indulging us with some specifics. Identify the culprits, the specific violations of the law that they are responsible for, and which member of the administration or Congress is responsible for impeding the indictment.

 

And - if I'm following you here - the Republican Congress have been able to effectively throttle any and all investigations into their misdeeds, yet detailed accounts have somehow appeared in best-sellers, and the disclosure of the said details has resulted in prosecutions in Federal courts, of all places - yet...somehow the absence of a Democratic majority in Congress is keeping the information under wraps and the prosecutions on ice?

[cj001f]

Thanks Obe Wan. So....in your world, Congressional hearings are the only means available to a political party if they wan't to reveal official misconduct on their opponent's part? That certainly explains why no one ever got around to appointing a special prosecutor to investigate the Plame affair, the various ethics committees never uttered the names Delay or Cunningham?

 

Since you've gotten the intel on the downlow from your fellow analysts (did the secret decoder rings come with 24 sided dice and special masks?), how about indulging us with some specifics. Identify the culprits, the specific violations of the law that they are responsible for, and which member of the administration or Congress is responsible for impeding the indictment.

 

And - if I'm following you here - the Republican Congress have been able to effectively throttle any and all investigations into their misdeeds, yet detailed accounts have somehow appeared in best-sellers, and the disclosure of the said details has resulted in prosecutions in Federal courts, of all places - yet...somehow the absence of a Democratic majority in Congress is keeping the information under wraps and the prosecutions on ice?

 

1.21 jigawatts? 1.21 jigawatts? Great Scott!

 

Seriously? Do you believe this bullshit? If so I've got a timetravelling Delorean to sell you.

[JayB]

You mean like classified documents that outline the details of things like the NSA surveilance program, the monitoring of the SWIFT network transactions that the media didn't reveal because the Democrats were not in control of Congress and couldn't convene a subcommittee to formally request the documents? If Fitzgerald requested a document and the people under indictment say no, then all he can do is say "Okay - thanks for your time."?

 

The documents themselves were not leaked, only an outline of the existence of the illegal programs. The people who did the leaking were taking big risks with their lives and their future freedom.

 

The issue is *the disclosure* not the format, and it's entirely unclear how this distinction supports the assertion that "There is a very good reason why the media don't reveal these abuses." when they've received abundant and exhaustive coverage in the press. Pretty much the only time when the media doesn't report on something, is when the media is not aware of it's existence. If you took the sum total of all scandals that lead to investigations over the course of the past century, and looked at the number of them that were unearthed and disclosed as the result of a formal congressional investigation, rather than a leak, a mistake, or some other unofficial means of disclosure, you'd have virtually nil. In pretty much every case, you have disclosure elsewhere followed by a Congressional investigation, so this assertion that somehow a party can keep a hermetically sealed lid on all of its official misdeeds so long as they can keep the dreaded congressional sub-committees at bay is puzzling indeed.

[JayB]

There is a very good reason why the media don't reveal these abuses. Outside of whistleblowers, they don't have access to the information. Investigations depend on access to secret documents. The only way to get access to secret documents is for Congress to give an investigative body priviledges to view these documents.

 

 

I forsee JayB countering with talk of the current liberal cabals bent on destroying democracy, capitalism and the American way, gangraping Minnie Mouse, learing lustily at Lex Luthor, then raising the Hammer & Sickle over DC, instituting mandatory gay marriage, and then lighting their newly legalized Cuban cigars with his $100 bills while drinking newly legalized Havana Club cuba libres with organic cola and fresh glacier ice cubes.

 

3rd rate Hunter S. Thompson knockoff stuff if I've ever seen it. Surely you can do better.

 

Given the fact that I pretty much universally support free-trade, and think it's clear that political and economic freedom are intimately intertwined, I'd love to see the end of the embargo on Cuba, which, despite their ability to trade with the rest of the world, has enabled Fidel et al to evade responsibility for the wretched condition of the country that they preside over.

 

As far as gay marriage is concerned, I've always supported that for a number of reasons, mostly having to do with the fact that if consenting adults want to enter into whatever sort of legal arrangment they desire it's no business of the government what their motivations for doing so are. I'm also perfectly happy to cede to tradition and limit the extension of the legal privileges and responsibilities associated with marriage to two individuals, but recognize that my principles don't support any such limitation.

 

I actually think on the whole, if the definition of liberal is consistent with maximum personal, political, and economic liberty, that I'm probably way more liberal than you are.

 

Keep shelling the mirage if you want to though.

[cj001f]

Keep shelling the mirage if you want to though.

 

I tilt at windmills like a harmless imbecile.

 

Conservatives insist on shelling, bombing and invading to defend against chimeras

[Stonehead]

This is like arguing with people from Bizzaro world

 

I think this Bizarro World is referenced in this article. Or maybe this one. Or this one.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Hillary will run and probably win.

 

We need to pass a constitutional amendment to prevent spouses, and other immediate family members of past presidents from running for the office. Just think, with such an amendment, we'll avoid Hillary and Jeb Bush. Too late for W. It's worth it - J. Q. Adams notwithstanding.

[Stonehead]

Ok, it's not imaginery. We're actually living in Bizarro World.

 

Nonlethal weapons such as high-power microwave devices should be used on American citizens in crowd-control situations before being used on the battlefield, the Air Force secretary said Tuesday.

 

"If we're not willing to use it here against our fellow citizens, then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation," said Wynne. "(Because) if I hit somebody with a nonlethal weapon and they claim that it injured them in a way that was not intended, I think that I would be vilified in the world press."

[olyclimber]

they should be required to use it on their own moms first

[StevenSeagal]

I think mainstream America sees the Dem's as too focused on things the average Joe/Jane aren't really concerned about - or wholly support...like wiretapping of overseas calls and monitoring of secret banking transactions.

 

The government propaganda line tells supporters of these programs that those who oppose them do so because they are concerned about the rights of terrorists, when in fact the issue I think for those opposed is generally rooted in a concern for the longterm potential for this to morph into an abuse of power- if not by this administration, the next one, or the one after that.

 

I'm actually all in support of wiretapping phone calls from terrorists- who wouldn't be? (and of course I do this stuff all the time in the pursuit of justice )- but when the government is undertaking this from the standpoint of "give us unchecked power and trust us"- especially at a time when the division in the country has become so harsh- can you blame people for feeling uneasy about this? Isn't a general mistrust of government omniscience a stalwart conservative value? I know it is one of mine.

 

No one is Above the Law.