LowerCaseRepublican

From the Boston Globe... A search of public records -- government documents posted on the Internet, congressional testimony, guidelines for bank examiners, and even an executive order President Bush signed in September 2001 -- describe how US authorities have openly sought new tools to track terrorist financing since 2001. That includes getting access to information about terrorist-linked wire transfers and other transactions, including those that travel through SWIFT. "There have been public references to SWIFT before," said Roger Cressey, a senior White House counterterrorism official until 2003. ``The White House is overreaching when they say [The New York Times committed] a crime against the war on terror. It has been in the public domain before." Victor D. Comras , a former US diplomat who oversaw efforts at the United Nations to improve international measures to combat terror financing, said it was common knowledge that worldwide financial transactions were being closely monitored for links to terrorists. ``A lot of people were aware that this was going on," said Comras, one of a half-dozen financial experts UN Secretary General Kofi Annan recruited for the task. "Unless they were pretty dumb, they had to assume" their transactions were being monitored, Comras said of terrorist groups. ``We have spent the last four years bragging how effective we have been in tracking terrorist financing." Indeed, a report that Comras co-authored in 2002 for the UN Security Council specifically mentioned SWIFT as a source of financial information that the United States had tapped into. The system, which handles trillions of dollars in worldwide transactions each day, serves as a main hub for banks and other financial institutions that move money around the world. According to The New York Times, SWIFT executives agreed to give the Treasury Department and the CIA broad access to its database. SWIFT and other worldwide financial clearinghouses "are critical to processing international banking transactions and are rich with payment information," according to the 33-page report by the terrorist monitoring group established by the UN Security Council in late 2001. "The United States has begun to apply new monitoring techniques to spot and verify suspicious transactions. The group recommends the adoption of similar mechanisms by other countries." -- SWIFT and the efforts were mostly in the public record. The NYT article didn't publish anything amazing or stuff that we didn't already know except for the grumblings of a couple people involved. a clear case of treason. Why does the public record hate America so much?! And hey Nuke, there is a newspaper that won't publish anything the government doesn't want it to. So fear no more that the press might leak something about the government. Let's all get subscriptions to...

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 29, 2006 -> 08:51 AM) You forgot the flowers and candy! We can't have a good hippie love fest without the flowers and candy dammit!!!! Bring some ganja while you're at it. Gotta get high.....er i mean use it for medicinal purposes. They'd probably invite some terrorist.....er........i mean oppressed Muslim victim of the evil United States and its aggression.....to speak to them too. Yeah Nuke, you sure nailed me. When you get owned by the facts, slander the person who said them with lame insults. It's not an effective modus operandi. /chalks up my debate win

Cardinals beat the Brew Crew in 7 games.

Ay, ze goggles! Zey do nothing! Seriously, where's the eye bleach?

QUOTE(minors @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 11:27 PM) These murderers got sentence that Liberals think is the best in LWOP yet they somehow got out. In these cases they either get LWOP or Death the juries choose life and the blood of all innocent people who later died is on there hands. The war on drugs should have nothing to do with it the real issue is the weak juries and parole boards. I personally don't think there should be any parole on any Part 1 crime serve the max is fine with me. I really don't think the poor victims who get there heads bashed in or raped repeatedly and then stabbed 100 times and have there bodies burned compared with killers get a lethal injection which when they die are already knocked out is the same do you think so? If not then that whole statement is garbage Homonym (n.) A word that has the same pronunciation as another. i.e. ...is on their hands -- not ...is on there hands The War on Drugs has everything to do with it because it is the primary reason violent drug offenders are getting out of jail -- to make room for non-violent possession offenders with mandatory minimum sentences. Judge James Gray's text Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It: A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/156639860...glance&n=283155 The book details the idea of mandatory minimums making it difficult for actual violent offenders to be kept in prison -- most times forcing paroles for violent offenders. Increased law enforcement abilities to monitor prisoners in less crowded prisons (via ending the war on drugs with mandatory minimums for simple possession offenders) delivers an effective alternative to whacking violent criminals. And oh yes, clearly you missed the point of the Darrow quote -- how can a state say that they value the sanctity of human life yet are willing to kill? He is saying that the state must be more reasonable, compassionate and intelligent than to repay violence with more violence. It's quite a simple concept.

QUOTE(minors @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 11:08 PM) What I should have said is seeing people posting around here thinking Liberals can do nothing wrong and while all Republicans are a bunch of fools that is what pisses me off. Bill Frist is a fine American if you agree with him on this issue or not he is still a great American. Is a flag and a napkin, boxers the same damn thing? Are you kidding me that has to be the worst analogy I have seen yet. The Flag was first created by Ross in Philly during the rev war and it was meant to be a calling something to be proud of. Some people just don't understand what kind of role history has. The argument is that the flag is a symbol. So taking the next logical step -- the symbol should permeate to any manifestation that it takes (t-shirt, napkins, boxers, shirts et al.) And trust me, there's a lot of people in government that I think are morons. It's just difficult for the liberals to get a lot of face time in a GOP controlled Senate, GOP controlled House and a GOP Presidency. But they're there and we do rip on them.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 09:02 PM) Can, It still is most associated with Voltaire. No one is sure whether or not he actually said it and then she later repeated it, or whether she just was summing up his attitudes toward free speech. Thats why I said she "most likely" got it from Voltaire. Anyways off topic lol Jim, Protecting symbols are important. I mean what if god forbid some one put an american flag on a shirt, and that shirt was then sullied. What would we do as a society, when such an affront happened. Do I hear a "No Back Sweat and Mustard Stains" on flag shirt amendment?!

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 06:55 PM) Everything seems to make you "really pissed" and provoke a tirade about how you can't be told what to do and liberals are hippie sons of b****es. Watch yourself and your patchouli stink there, pal.

QUOTE(minors @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 06:07 PM) But with 54 republican senators and a Republican president this bill will become law. Gotta love the conservative idea of small government!

QUOTE(minors @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 05:53 PM) Here is what my great senator Frist had to say: June 27th, 2006 - WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, M.D., (R–Tenn.) today made the following statement after the Senate defeated the Flag Protection Amendment by a vote of 66–34, an increase of 3 supporters since the Senate last considered the issue in 2000. The amendment would give Congress the authority to establish laws prohibiting the physical desecration of the American flag: “Old Glory lost today. At a time when our armed services are defending America’s freedom in the War on Terror, it’s unfortunate that a minority of my colleagues blocked this amendment. The amendment simply returns to Congress the right to protect the American flag, an authority that existed for 200 years prior to an activist Supreme Court decision in 1989. It’s supported by all 50 state legislatures and countless veterans across the nation. Protecting the symbol of our nation’s freedom is important, and I hope the amendment’s support in the Senate will continue to grow. In the meantime, I hope America rededicates itself to respecting the flag, our symbol of national unity, especially when our troops are wearing that flag as they risk their lives for this great country every day.” Why is it that Bill Hicks statements are becoming more and more in vogue? "My daddy died for that flag! Really? I got mine in K-Mart. No bloodshed involved -- hey, it says 'Made in Korea'!"..."No one – and I repeat, no one – has ever died for a flag. See, a flag ... is just a piece of cloth. They may have died for freedom, which includes the freedom to burn the f***in' flag, see. That's freedom." Talk about pandering to the base with some more non-issues, Mr. Frist. In Johnson vs Texas -- Brennan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Marshall, Blackmun, Scalia, and Kennedy joined. Blackmun being appointed by Nixon as a strong privacy rights conservative, Scalia being an arch-conservative...I'll give you Marshall, Kennedy and Brennan as being left-leaning but it is going to take more than a cliche phrase of "activist judges" to prove that Blackmun and Scalia are liberal activist judges. Does Frist even do any fact checking or does he just copy/paste his talking points from on high? The goal of the Constitution and the First Amendment is to protect unpopular speech there, Fristy. From Johnson vs Texas: "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." Every United States flag ever made could be torched but it would not mean a thing because the flag is just a symbol. The ideas in the Constitution can never be incinerated because they are in all of our minds and hearts as something we cherish and revere...well, except for the 66 asshats who voted for the amendment.

QUOTE(minors @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 05:59 PM) Also John Wayne Gacy which the Stupid State of Iowa let go in the 60's. Fact is murderers get out and they will kill again no one can deny it. I'd love to have a look in the crystal ball of you knowing that for every criminal in the future. You're creating a false dichotomy -- that the people would be alive if only the offenders were executed. There's more choices to be made than either "Release or execute." There's the adequate funding and ending the psychotic drug war statutes that allow violent offenders to be released early because there is no room in the over-crowded prisons. And I'm also interested in your take on the Darrow statement I put in this thread from a capital case he was a lawyer for (two older boys kidnapped and killed a 14 year old): "What is [the State's Attorney's] idea of justice? He says to this court...'Give them the same mercy that they gave to Bobby Franks.' Is that the law? Is that justice? Is this what a court should do? Is this what a State's Attorney should do? If the state in which I live is not kinder, more human, more considerate, more intelligent than the mad act of these two boys, I am sorry that I have lived so long."

/george carlin start Selling is legal. f***ing is legal. Why is selling f***ing not legal? Why is it illegal to sell something that you can give away for free? /george carlin off :banghead :banghead :banghead Yes, Senator! Let's put more non-violent offenders in prison for long terms so we can all feel safer when we have to parole rapists and murderers due to over-crowded prisons If they haven't paid taxes yet -- why is another law on the books going to suddenly make them pay? :banghead :banghead :banghead Isn't there some more important things they could focus on like I dunno...the rebuilding of New Orleans, the wars, poverty, minimum wage, energy policy, etc.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 03:24 PM) Bah. You have trouble mustering outrage for anything terrorists or those who support them are involved in. Dammit Nuke, you caught me. Now if you'll excuse me I have some muffins to bake for bin Laden. Bush had a press conference in 2001 detailing that we were having the major financial institutions investigating the finances of organizations. He paraded captures using the system in 2001 (see the WH press release I linked to earlier) so that this system was "covert" is a f***ing gut laugh. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20011107-4.html From the Boston Globe (bolded portions my emphasis) A search of public records -- government documents posted on the Internet, congressional testimony, guidelines for bank examiners, and even an executive order President Bush signed in September 2001 -- describe how US authorities have openly sought new tools to track terrorist financing since 2001. That includes getting access to information about terrorist-linked wire transfers and other transactions, including those that travel through SWIFT. "There have been public references to SWIFT before," said Roger Cressey, a senior White House counterterrorism official until 2003. ``The White House is overreaching when they say [The New York Times committed] a crime against the war on terror. It has been in the public domain before." Victor D. Comras , a former US diplomat who oversaw efforts at the United Nations to improve international measures to combat terror financing, said it was common knowledge that worldwide financial transactions were being closely monitored for links to terrorists. ``A lot of people were aware that this was going on," said Comras, one of a half-dozen financial experts UN Secretary General Kofi Annan recruited for the task. "Unless they were pretty dumb, they had to assume" their transactions were being monitored, Comras said of terrorist groups. ``We have spent the last four years bragging how effective we have been in tracking terrorist financing." Indeed, a report that Comras co-authored in 2002 for the UN Security Council specifically mentioned SWIFT as a source of financial information that the United States had tapped into. The system, which handles trillions of dollars in worldwide transactions each day, serves as a main hub for banks and other financial institutions that move money around the world. According to The New York Times, SWIFT executives agreed to give the Treasury Department and the CIA broad access to its database. SWIFT and other worldwide financial clearinghouses "are critical to processing international banking transactions and are rich with payment information," according to the 33-page report by the terrorist monitoring group established by the UN Security Council in late 2001. "The United States has begun to apply new monitoring techniques to spot and verify suspicious transactions. The group recommends the adoption of similar mechanisms by other countries." -- So please spare me the NY SLIME!!!!11!1! SWIFT was in the public record (and also used since 1973) and the President was actively discussing the usage of finance tracking as a means of capturing terrorists. There were numerous public documents and even *gasp* Presidential press conferences and executive orders that detailed what we were doing regarding terrorist finance practices. And WC, if you read the Times article, it was because the gov't actually busted at least 1 person using the records in a fashion that was unrelated to terrorism. That's one of the reasons why they published.

QUOTE(minors @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 12:49 PM) Ok here is a major one which I can't believe you don't remeber: Kenneth McDuff, for instance, was convicted of the 1966 shooting deaths of two boys and the vicious rape-strangulation of their 16-year-old female companion. A Fort Worth jury ruled that McDuff should die in the electric chair, a sentence commuted to life in prison in 1972 after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the death penalty as then imposed. In 1989, with Texas prisons overflowing and state officials under fire from the federal judiciary, McDuff was quietly turned loose on an unsuspecting citizenry. Within days, a naked body of a woman turned up. Prostitute Sarafia Parker, 31, had been beaten, strangled and dumped in a field near Temple. McDuff's freedom in 1989 was interrupted briefly. Jailed after a minor racial incident, he slithered through the system and was out again in 1990. In early 1991, McDuff enrolled at Texas State Technical College in Waco. Soon, Central Texas prostitutes began disappearing. One, Valencia Joshua, 22, was last seen alive Feb. 24, 1991. Her naked, decomposed body later was discovered in a shallow grave in woods behind the college. Another of the missing women, Regenia Moore, was last seen kicking and screaming in the cab of McDuff's pickup truck. During the Christmas holidays of 1991, Colleen Reed disappeared from an Austin car wash. Witnesses reported hearing a woman scream that night and seeing two men speeding away in a yellow or tan Thunderbird. Little more than two months later, on March 1, 1992, Melissa Northrup, pregnant with a third child, vanished from the Waco convenience store where she worked. McDuff's beige Thunderbird, broken down, was discovered a block from the store. Fifty-seven days later, a fisherman found the young woman's nearly nude body floating in a gravel pit in Dallas County, 90 miles north of Waco. By then, McDuff was the target of a nationwide manhunt. Just days after Mrs. Northrup's funeral, McDuff was recognized on television's "America's Most Wanted'' and arrested May 4 in Kansas City. In 1993, a Houston jury ordered him executed for the kidnap-slaying of 22-year-old Melissa Northrup, a Waco mother of two. In 1994, a Seguin jury assessed him the death penalty for the abduction-rape-murder of 28-year-old Colleen Reed, an Austin accountant. Pamplin's son Larry, the current sheriff of Falls County, appeared at McDuff's Houston trial for the 1992 abduction and murder of Melissa Northrup. "Kenneth McDuff is absolutely the most vicious and savage individual I know,'' he told reporters. "He has absolutely no conscience, and I think he enjoys killing.'' If McDuff had been executed as scheduled, he said, "no telling how many lives would have been saved.'' At least nine, probably more, Texas authorities suspect. His riegn of terror finally ended on November 17, 1998 when Kenneth McDuff was put to death by the state of Texas by Lethal Injection. May his victims rest in peace. Then in 1986 in Mass: Thus, a decade later, in June of 1986, there was nothing in the law to deny convicted murderer Horton what was supposed to be a routine 48-hour leave. Predictably, Horton didn't play by the rules. He fled, eventually arriving in Maryland, where, in April of 1987, he had pistol-whipped and knifed Clifford Barnes, then bound and gagged him and twice raped his fiancee, Angela. When the story of the furlough became known, Horton's brutality created a public uproar. The Maryland judge who subsequently sentenced Horton to two consecutive life terms refused to extradite him to Massachusetts. "I'm not prepared to take the chance that Mr. Horton might again be furloughed . . . This man should never draw a breath of free air again," said the judge. The scandal heated to a rolling boil. In April of 1988, embattled Massachusetts legislators finally killed the 16-year-old program -- without further resistance from Dukakis. Thank God! This is why for people who truly value public safety, there is no substitute for the best in its defense which is capital punishment. It not only forever bars the murderer from killing again, it also prevents parole boards and criminal rights activists from giving him the chance to repeat his crime. Recently in Alabama a pair of murderers recieved parole and there first week out they killed and burnt down a guys house, Then murdered 4 in a robbery at a Days Inn on Thanksgiving. Now they face the penalty That just a few that I can think of off my head. Thes people would still be alive had these thugs been executed. They'd also be alive if the feds didn't have a hard-on for putting non-violent possession "criminals" in prison with mandatory minimum sentences. One of the problems with "The War on Drugs" is that non-violent possession offenders get long term sentences which means that actual violent criminals get paroled because we can't have people smoking joints in America You're creating a false dichotomy -- that the people would be alive if only the offenders were executed. There's more choices to be made than either "Release or execute." There's the adequate funding and ending the psychotic drug war statutes that allow violent offenders to be released early because there is no room in the over-crowded prisons. And I'm also interested in your take on the Darrow statement I put in this thread from a capital case he was a lawyer for (two older boys kidnapped and killed a 14 year old): "What is [the State's Attorney's] idea of justice? He says to this court...'Give them the same mercy that they gave to Bobby Franks.' Is that the law? Is that justice? Is this what a court should do? Is this what a State's Attorney should do? If the state in which I live is not kinder, more human, more considerate, more intelligent than the mad act of these two boys, I am sorry that I have lived so long."

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 01:16 PM) Unless you live in America and pay federal taxes, you're in no position to tell me what to worry about. I decide which issues are important to me in my country. I'm just stymied by the fact that Bush, even in 2001, came out and gave press conferences telling everybody we were tracking terrorist finances and actually said to financial institutions that you're either with us or the terrorists. I'm having trouble mustering up the outrage for what the NYT printed, especially since the program was pretty widely known not just through the fact that it had been used for years against drug cartels...but moreso because of the administration press conferences discussing that it was a tool in our arsenal.

First, it is taken down, not tooken. Second, the film is not banned in America. If it was banned then why do they have a website (www.loosechange911.com), a blogspot account and availability for Americans to download the film? See, Google searches are your friends. That way, you don't get stuck with bunk materials like "OMG LOOOOOSE CHANG3 WAS BANNED IN TEH USA!!!1!!!1!1!!111!"

Not getting any love for Mysterio, Vulture, Electro, Hobgoblin, Morbius, Rhino or Shocker?! Poor Chameleon and Lizard being on the outskirts.

QUOTE(minors @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 01:28 AM) You seem to defend the thugs a lot. Did you read what this bastard done? I bet not. I never dreamed anyone could support this guy much less the way you are. And what is your problem with America's most wanted maybe because they catch fugitive thugs and it might not be fair for them or violate they rights? Really I don't understand all of this support for these thugs. And no I am not in it for revenge I am in it to make sure these thugs can't kill again. There have been many cases of thugs that murdered got LWOP but yet they got freed or escaped and went on to kill again only this time they learned from there mistakes and were able to kill more. And when does cost come to play in justice when we can do something right and get the proper justice we should not need to pinch pennies. Liberals spend much more money on a lot more foolish stuff than getting the proper justice. From Clarence Darrow during the Leopold and Loeb trial because he put it much more succintly than I. "What is [the State's Attorney's] idea of justice? He says to this court...'Give them the same mercy that they gave to Bobby Franks.' Is that the law? Is that justice? Is this what a court should do? Is this what a State's Attorney should do? If the state in which I live is not kinder, more human, more considerate, more intelligent than the mad act of these two boys, I am sorry that I have lived so long."

All life is sacred...unless you commit a crime that we don't happen to like. And plenty of people stood up for his victims...like let's see. -Police Department -Coroner and the forensics team -Detectives who investigated the case -The squad that took the case -John Walsh and his nationally televised show "America's Most Wanted" -The people who watched the show -The prosecutors -The jury -The judge -The local taxpayers -The public that likes to see murderers put into jail but not necessarily executed -The federal Congressmen who put laws in place so he could be prosecuted -The state government who put laws in place so he could be prosecuted Gee, thats a list just off the top of my head about "Who speaks for the victim." And the reasons for the death penalty seem to get blasted around like a windsock. "It costs less!" -- No it doesn't. "Well then its the damn appeals!" -- Yeah, but those are mandated by law so we don't make mistakes since there has been numerous innocent people freed. "Well then its the they deserve to die!" -- Then that short circuits the idea that life is sacred from conception. You can't be against abortion, against euthanasia and for capital punishment without having some major league cognitive dissonance going on. Then it became "It deters." Sorry, no it doesn't. Now it is the "Well we have to make sure they can't kill again". And this is from Rev. Ricky Hoyt: "By removing the opportunity for rehabilitation, the death penalty becomes a different punishment in kind, not just degree, from fines and prison time and so on. Our prisons have always maintained a tense balance designed in part to simply cause pain and discomfort to the inmates, but also to encourage rehabilitation. The finality of the death penalty removes even the pretense of rehabilitation. That difference makes moral assumptions about the human nature of murderers being irredeemable, or not worthy of redemption. And by implication the existence of the death penalty in the approved spectrum of punishments calls into question whether rehabilitation is ever an actual goal for criminals or if the rehabilitation goal exists only as a high-minded gloss over the true goal, revenge...Because execution does not return life to the victim it satisfies only our desire for revenge not our urge to justice. Because all life is valuable we must uphold the worth of the murderer's life even as we uphold the worth of the victim's life. Because all life has inherent worth we must see that value of life is not destroyed by the murderer's actions. Because we can express our abhorence of murder through taking away freedom there is no need for a death penalty. Because our secular society as well as, increasingly, our religions and our religious leaders teach that capital punishment is wrong. I say no. The death penalty is morally wrong, not because there are questions of how it is applied and to whom and under what circumstances, but because it simply is, always is, morally wrong."

QUOTE(minors @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 12:38 AM) You have it all wrong. You protect the flag at all costs. And that was an eloquent speech but it really is total BS again, because I don't have to deal with flag burning. I also noticed that other than couple Rep-Dem switched lines it was the same ole damn hard line liberals like Kerry, Clinton and so on who opposed it. My question is why do they hate America so much yet still hold the office as US senator? Maybe because they actually don't really care about these issues and it just way to disagree with republicans and President Bush so they can scratch a few more votes in November. These are not patriots just scum suckers Did you just call a recipient of the Medal of Honor and a man who lost his arm in a war a "scum sucker" because he voted against the flag burning amendment? Yes, and this vote wasn't just a bulls*** midterm election issue used to stir up a base so anybody who voted against it could be slandered as "un-patriotic" by Congressional Republicans? Please -- the fact that this vote took place is a waste of everybody's time because there are many more pressing issues to deal with. Again: "Countless men and women have died defending that flag," said Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., closing two days of debate. "It is but a small humble act for us to defend it." "Our country's unique because our dissidents have a voice," said Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii. "While I take offense at disrespect to the flag," he said, "I nonetheless believe it is my continued duty as a veteran, as an American citizen, and as a United States senator to defend the constitutional right of protesters to use the flag in nonviolent speech." Ten-point Toss-up: Which Senator above lost an arm in military service to this country, and received the Medal of Honor? Hint--it's not Frist. Protecting flag burning isn't about hating America. It is about protecting the rights enshrined in the Constitution (which protects political speech such as flag burning). If you don't like to burn the flag then do what I do -- don't burn one. It's really quite simple.

QUOTE(SoxFanForever @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 11:52 PM) Ok, thanks. I thought I was losing it there for a second. So what is the backstory on Venom then if it is not an alien lifeform? That's what the costume for Venom is (the ET symbiote) that Spidey uses but it impacts him negatively. Eddie Brock then bonds with it and, viola, Venom is born. If they just have it be some super substance that was created by OsCorp. or something just for the film, it's going to be a total hack n' slash to the storyline. /comic purist

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,19615409-23109,00.html Senate blocks the amendment by one vote. A bunch of Congressional aides were saying that a lot of the Senators didn't like the bill but knew that it was a cheap campaign ploy for midterm elections and didn't want to get slimed with ads misrepresenting their stance. Yay Nay for each Senator: Durbin: Nay Obama: Nay http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll...on=2&vote=00189 From TFA: "Countless men and women have died defending that flag," said Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., closing two days of debate. "It is but a small humble act for us to defend it." "Our country's unique because our dissidents have a voice," said Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii. "While I take offense at disrespect to the flag," he said, "I nonetheless believe it is my continued duty as a veteran, as an American citizen, and as a United States senator to defend the constitutional right of protesters to use the flag in nonviolent speech." Ten-point Toss-up: Which Senator above lost an arm in military service to this country, and received the Medal of Honor? Hint--it's not Frist.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 10:05 PM) It's pretty thuggish to sit around cheering an execution, Warden. HIPPIE! Exactly. You know, I feel safer already. With the news outlets permeating the news that we killed a criminal, I'll think there won't be any more murders.

Not much I can say about the Ward Churchill stuff that'd be new, so let's go with this for the topic being discussed again.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jun 27, 2006 -> 08:12 PM) I think the perceived hypocrisy in kap's estimation is that the MSM stoked the Fitzmas fire in the wake of the Plame outing, but is now saying they did nothing wrong in outing this program. But nobody is giving the NYT any credit for the restraint they have shown the White House before only to get burned by it. They sat on the NSA story for a whole year - at the request of the White House. They could have broke the story before the 2004 election, quite possibly changing the outcome of the election if they did. But the White House begged them to kill the story and they did. A year later, the story finally broke and there are a whole lot of people who have seriosu reservations about power abuse in the Unitary Executive. Lots of people with Rs after their name as well as Ds. And of course the White House cried foul and blamed the messenger. So now NYT is in a position where they have a story that again has elements of administrative over-reach and disregard for privacy, and is by many ex-official accounts breaking the spirit if not the letter of the law. They know that the people running SWIFT thought their cooperation was a short-term thing and were ready to pull out until Greenspan and other financial bigwigs made some concessions and pulled them back in (somebody read the stiry, Rex). They weighed the pros and cons of running with the story, and they decided that nearly 5 years after Bush told the terrorists and the world that we would use every means available to track and choke off money flow to suspected terror groups it's probbably not divulging much to print a story confirming it. But but but...the damned libruhal media! And the New York Slimes! With their damned uppity latte liberal, puppy drowning, terrorist supporting, blood on their hands reporters...those Al Qaeda towelboys! http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20011107-4.html From 2001: WHY DOES THE PRESIDENT HATE AMERICA SO MUCH BY TELLING TERRORISTS THAT WE'RE TRACKING THEIR MONEY?!