Rex Kickass

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 03:31 PM) The crux of the matter, imo, is "necessary". The Bush admin claims that it is "necessary" to do something that Congress explicitly forbid in a law that deals explicitly with wartime situations. So apparently Congress, just for fun, decided to outlaw something "necessary" for the protection of the US, and didn't even bother to fix their little national security joke when they passed the Patriot Act. Come f***ing on... Except the law provides for this to be done. They just have to follow a procedure. They've chosen not to.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 20, 2006 -> 12:28 PM) It's all a matter of legal opinions at point. It will be sorted out. Let's let the courts figure this out before we slander the POTUS. Then I think its wholly appropriate if we not banter around conjecture about OJ Simpson, Michael Jackson, Phil Spector or Robert Blake, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy or anyone else who hasn't been convicted of anything just merely had accusations bandied about with a degree of possibly incontrovertable evidence. To say that they've broken the law would clearly be slander. K Thanks.

Bruce Reed, former Al Gore speechwriter, had some delicious snark on slate.com this week about Dick Cheney.

When are you gonna learn, when you're buying heroin - budget for the subway ticket!

My advice: Get a house with a bathroom. I hear when you resell, you can get way more than one without. I rent!

Generally, you are expected to renounce other citizenships when taking your U.S. Citizenship. However, some nationalities do not allow that option. My father for example was unable to renounce his French citizenship, because he was too old at the time. France gives you a short window of time in which to do it. I can also get French or German citizenship myself being a direct descendant of immigrants from each country and can do so without losing my U.S. citizenship.

With all the power the Clintons seem to have, you'd think they'd actually control the government. Oh wait, they don't.

I'd love to hear a legitimate reason why this isn't a violation of the law. So far the only attempts at a defnse that I've heard is the defense of the four year old - you know - "They all did it too!" even though that isn't even true, and it was implicitly authorized by a resolution in Congress advocating necessary military force, even though the language used to justify it wasn't even in the actionable piece of the legislation. Which is like using the preamble of the constitution as your main piece of evidence to back up a specific right. Flimsy. Especially since there seems to be evidence that this program began before the legislation was even introduced.

France has a history of treating people who are different poorly. Take a study of anti-semitism before 1925 and you're kinda surprised that the nonstop and systemic oppression of Jews came from France. Look at the way Algeria was handled, look at the way they handled decolonization in Africa. A lot of former French colonies are still stuck with central banks controlled to a degree by the French government or French interests. There has been a systemic undercurrent of bigotry in the way people of different faiths and ethnicity have been treated in France for decades. As a result, you're starting to see minorities hit a breaking point in France. Threatening to nuke Mecca won't make a tenuous racial situation in France any better.

Lieberman isn't a moderate. He's a sellout. It's one of the way parties encourage discipline. It's why people like Lincoln Chafee has a primary contender, why Arlen Specter had a primary contender. If you stray off the reservation too often and too far, you can't expect the rank and file to stay with you.

QUOTE(southsideirish @ Jan 19, 2006 -> 05:49 PM) Why can't people just look at the facts. Who cares if you are a republican or democrat. The fact is that Bush purposely disobeyed the law. He did not have to. In the event of an emergency, a wiretap can be obtained without a warrant, as long as the Attorney General applies for a FISA warrant within 72 hours of the tap. There is no reason that violating the FISA would be important to our security. As Balta stated: Just forget the fact that you are a Republican or a Democrat and look at that fact. Now please try to debate why he would have to purposely disobey that law. I would love to hear the reasoning behind that. Thank you.

That's fine. If we don't have a right to ask corporations to follow specific guidelines, than maybe we shouldn't give them every tax break and abatement in the world.

Oh, don't get me started Mr Sider, don't get me started.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 19, 2006 -> 08:23 AM) We on the committee have a few questions for Rex, if that is indeed your real name, about his membership 20 years ago in an infamous right wing organization that discriminates again older people. Can you explain the odd head pieces? Are those satanic? Disney is indeed satanic. I have long ago apologized for my involvement in the Mickey Mouse Club and have placed it on the record. I had no idea what Walt Disney had in store for me when he lured me into being a part of this organization with his promise of a lifetime supply of goats blood. I went through that "lifetime" supply in two months too. Cheap bastard.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 19, 2006 -> 07:48 AM) Can we have a confirmation hearing? Mr. Kickass, what do you believe the role of a moderator to be in a modern, post 9/11 world and do you believe that neutrinos are a component of dark energy? I think neutrinos are definitely part of a complete breakfast.

It's also written by Rush Limbaugh's brother.

I see this whole thing as one of those "values" things and how we see the world. I see a corporation that is the largest private employer in the country. They use predatory pricing tactics that (intentionally or not) have devastating effects on small town local businesses. They offer low prices by having low labor costs. This includes health care costs. As a result, a lot of the people that work for Wal-Mart have a difficult time affording the cost of Wal-Mart's health insurance plan - if they even qualify for health care coverage to begin with. Those that do often can't afford the treatment even with the coverage. Many of these workers then have to rely on the state to cover the medical bills. Why should every taxpayer have to help shoulder the healthcare cost of the Wal-Mart worker when the average Costco or Target employee doesn't leave a burden like the average Wal-Mart worker does? Our government does a lot of favors for businesses and corporations - why when they ask for help in return, it's suddenly an affront to our values?

Fine. Then as far as I'm concerned, make the threshhold lower.

Yes. Perhaps because that one company isn't acting as a good corporate neighbor. Laws get passed all the time with one person or one business in mind. My town adopted an ordinance just so the one person who kept his junk cars on the street on blocks couldn't do it anymore. If it serves the public good to have a general law created that will, at least at first, have the immediate effect of changing the behavior of one "problem" neighbor, what's the harm?

Actually, there are four or five companies in that description. The only one who currently does not meet the 8% threshhold is Wal-Mart.

In fact by executive orders issued by Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, and I assume, Bush 43 - you can conduct electronic surveillance of a non-US citizen without a warrant for periods of up to one year. But we aren't talking about foreign nationals. We're talking about US Citizens in this controversy.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Jan 18, 2006 -> 01:05 PM) What is your definition of military force? Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq/Kuwait, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq. Those would be military actions. How many of those were declared wars? 0. In the eyes of the consitution and law there is a huge difference between a military action authorized by the President and a formal declaration of war. People often mix the two things up - but there's a huge difference.

If a federal law was passed specifically outlawing this, then it may be different. But from what the article implies, Ashcroft tried to "bend" another law to fit this action.

You know what? I don't see this as a problem. Wal-Mart can play by the rules or the void they leave can be filled by other companies that are willing to play fair by their employees and offer them decent health care coverage (e.g. Costco) or we might actually start to see the beginning of local stores opening up and keeping the money they make in the local economy rather than have most of it funnel back to Bentonville. I think the U.S. has one of the most business friendly environments around the world today. And I think that this isn't going to bankrupt Wal-Mart. If anything, its going to make them improve their benefits. Especially with a dozen other states considering their own measures. Wal-Mart doesn't allow its employees a seat at the bargaining table. It doesn't give its employees a voice in the kind of health care coverage that it needs and wants. So many Wal-Mart employees go without coverage. Rely on charity care treatment, or state aid to insure themselves or their families. Especially since in many of those cases, they are superior to the care that Wal-Mart offers.

Hmmm... I like the idea of South Shore Line to Red Line.