Rex Kickass

YAS, What the hell can they do then? Short of lead a popular uprising and attempting a coup, what on earth do they have the rights to do?

Hamas in power is going to be good for the region in the long term. Short term, there might be more strife. Palestinian Authority has been riddled with corruption and many of the basic services that Palestinians have been receiving actually are coming from Hamas. The Palestinian public, has been in my mind, between a rock and a hard place for quite some time. On the one hand, they have an oppressive foreign government ruling over their daily lives and creating a difficult life where their economy is unable to act normally and travel within the small zone they are allowed is hampered constantly by checkpoints, detours and giant concrete walls. On the other hand, they have an "authority" which is supposed to govern everyday life in their zone which has seen itself as primarily more in favor of lining their own pockets than providing basic social services, education or jobs to its population. Where do they have left to turn? Well, Hamas. Although the organization is involved in terror activities, they are also against palestinian corruption - or at least appear to be - and do provide some social services already in the region, and to many levels, in a better manner than the PA ever did. It also has the benefit of being seen as the main reason that Israel finally got out of Lebanon and the Palestinian population might see them as a possible way to finally establish the statehood that they have been asking for since the UN and Israel were founded in the 1940s. Although Hamas does advocate violence, which is admittedly a problem, without moderation of their policies and objectives, they will find it impossible to do the things that they need to maintain the power that they have sought. My guess is that they will be able to acheive a good amount of their aims regarding Palestinian statehood and will be able to settle for them. Once Hamas starts realizing the responsibilities of administrating their territories, they will not be able to keep their full on idealism in focus. They are a democratically elected force, and they realize that their support and power is predicated upon popular support. Without it Hamas would die - because it is, in its essence, a popular uprising. Finally Hamas taking control is a great thing for the region because it shows the democratization of the region taking hold. Unfortunately for the U.S. who honestly never really cared about that. Because the sentiments that win elections in the Middle East currently, aren't the same sentiments that represent American interests.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 01:35 PM) You don't need money to be a republican....that's an old crock of s*** You just need money to benefit from the GOP.

But Harry never sat in the Bleachers during Cubs games with a Falstaff in one hand and a fishing net to catch Home Runs in the other.

Together Everyone Acheives More! (I got that from Gary Busey on Celebrity Fit Club)

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 12:33 PM) Who? Who's doing it? Who's leading the charge and saying let's stop this? http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases...classified.html http://boxer.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=249975 http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article...EWS07/601210321 Hey look! Democrats actually doing things!

I think soldiers ought to be celebrated. They do the country's dirty work and do it for pretty low pay. Even if we disagree with the policy, it makes no sense to denigrate the people charged with carrying the policy out no matter how they feel about it.

I think Hamas in a Palestinian government will be good for the region. I'll explain when I get free time at work.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 08:05 AM) Not much freetime anymore, but I did just finish "Freakanomics" and it was one of the best books I have ever read. Simply incredible. I got that for Christmas and its like one or two books away from me. Looking forward to it.

Knight Ridder is reporting that the Justice Department argued in 2002 that FISA was necessary and working well. http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington...90/13712090.htm

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 11:43 PM) The Jungle Great freaking book.

In the last month... what are you reading? I just got through: "Sex Drugs and Cocoa Puffs" by Chuck Klosterman "Nobody's Fool" by Richard Russo "Bait and Switch" by Barbara Ehrenreich "Continental Drifter" by Elliot Hester Currently reading "Sammy's Hill" by Kristin Gore, which looks really funny.

Direct Action can be a lot of fun and a creative way to get your message across. However, it can also be a way for a lot of idiots to pretend they're accomplishing something.

A big part of that is that other religions aren't quite as centralized as the Catholic Church.

There's the text of the law. Now the question that nobody seems capable of answering. Why is it necessary or appropriate to bypass a FISA court warrant when in the 28 year history of FISA, fewer than .1% of warrant requests have been rejected?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 04:02 PM) You keep going back to that... and IMO it doesn't hold water. How can you 'declare war' on fundalmentalism and not a sovereign (sp.) nation? 'By all use of military' on both the Afghanistan and Iraq laws passed by Congress gives the president authority to act on any information he deems credible gained by the NSA (a military institution). IMO it holds water completely. We have to declare war in order for the President to receive war powers. Period. There is no if, and or but about it. By your explanation, you're arguing that LBJ had the inherent authority to wiretap to fight his war on poverty.

And further to sit there and assume that terrorists would have no idea that they might be being wiretapped would be as silly as to assume that terrorism doesn't exist.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 03:22 PM) And since when does the JUDICIAL branch have to approve how to run a war? Oh wait, they don't. FISA didn't matter. And that's the point. The judicial branch doesn't have to approve how to run a war. But, there are rules that the US creates in order to maintain order during a war. And the President is bound by the constitution to follow those rules. Some people call them laws. He's said in public several times that any kind of domestic surveillance would only be done with a warrant. FISA does matter. Absolutely. Because a US Citizen's rights, suspected of anything but not convicted, matter.

Actually, they published the allegations of a whistle blower which is not against the law.

I didn't read this but its clearly biased and slanted.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 03:15 PM) If Hillary is the Democrats candidate I bet she votes for her. I would be Hillary would vote for her too.... Molly Ivins, who knows?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 03:22 PM) And since when does the JUDICIAL branch have to approve how to run a war? Oh wait, they don't. FISA didn't matter. And that's the point. When did the President ask for the legal authority of war? Oh wait, he didn't. Saying you're in a war and formally declaring a war are two very different things.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 02:32 PM) I edited my post. If there are terror cells in communications with folks here in America, then they (US people) deserve to be intercepted. Nobody debates that. I love how "The President should follow the law" turns into "wiretapping is wrong." If you want to wiretap, fine. Get the damn warrant. They aren't that hard to get.

YAS, I'm saying this with all the love in the world. Get a damn sense of humor. I know it was a bad joke, but just maybe I don't wanna argue with you.

Great, cause I did laundry and now I have lots of irony to do!