ParanoiA

Yes, it's a war. Maybe it's confusing because we can't get an opposing army to line up and fight it out in a field?? But yes, it's quite a war.

Well the reply you made was in the context of Edwards not recognizing a global terror threat. So what exactly was your point? Not that I particularly love the propagandic tone of "terrorism" or the "war on terrorism" and all that we destroy in it's name. Sounds like a scapegoat phrase so we don't have to acknowledge the innocent we kill. But that aside, there is quite the global terror thing going on, probably due to how well it works on the west, and how stupid we respond to it and fight it.

Both parties are about as silly, shallow, plastic and predictable as can be. Neither of them have a candidate I'd trust a dime of my personal money with - so why would I vote to trust billions of our money and our children's lives with them? I take that back, the republicans have Ron Paul - they don't want him, but they got him. Neither party wants any Ron Pauls in their primaries because honesty and integrity are the enemies of a successful politician.

What is the advantage to the system without regard to economics? I choose people over money. If we simplify the funding process with a nifty universal healthcare plan, how does that serve people? Why does that simplified funding technique magically equal better care for people? Why do the best doctors flee from countries with universal healthcare? Why on earth would you ask americans how they rate their own healthcare? How is that response worth an ounce of chicken fodder? Might as well ask americans how they rate their quality of life. They'll cry and bitch and moan about how aweful we all have it while we enjoy the best quality of living on the planet - even our poor live rich compared to half the freaking planet, but they'll still whine about how terrible their life is... That's about as insultingly subjective as an answer you'll get with a worthless application. Maybe we're the largest spender in healthcare and maybe that's a good thing. Yeah, maybe we could save some money, but perhaps, just maybe, people are more important than money. Hey, maybe that's we provide healthcare to everyone regardless of insurance?? Just some thoughts. I like universal healthcare too - in concept. It sounds nice and neat. Simplifies a complex subject - or seems to. Perhaps Einstein had a point when he said everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. I have yet to hear of a universal healthcare system that solves more problems than created. Why overhaul a system just so we can swap out one set of problems for another? Let's keep thinking instead, and come up with something better.

No, he'd risk breaking the system if we were talking about actual criminal charges, like ordering the breaking and entering of the DNC. Here we're talking about a presidential right to candid counsel. Even if he was advised to do something for corrupt reasons, it doesn't mean he made the decision based on those reasons. At the end of the day you can't prove why he made the decision he made. And to submit to the subpoena surrenders that candid cousel for exposure, which will cost us as a country dearly in the long run with that door open, and proves nothing anyway. Although they'll certainly try to...

And it would be better for NO balance of power? That way the country could be dictated by ONE entity, rather than the careful balance preserved by 3 equal powers? The pursuit of one man, criminal or not, does not justify jeopardizing the foundation of our system.

Very well then, let's look closer into US v Nixon... Now the supreme court did not agree with absolute power of the presidency, but they clearly acknowledged that for a president to truly utilize his staff, they needed to be able to advise without fear. These are the documents they are trying to subpoena. It's wrong, and even the supreme court thinks so. You're also being disingenuous to the issue of the balance of powers. Much of this could also have to do with posturing and refusal to bow to an equal power - the congress. Washington did it. Jefferson did it - but lost.

Interesting that you don't find it ridiculous to issue a subpoena on the basis of your home color. I don't think GWB invoking a legal executive privilege over the firing of 8 US attorneys that don't have any rights to their job in the first place is going to cause riots or civil wars. And I think Pangloss already cleared up the power hierarchy to the point that I should update my house paint example to receiving the subpoena from my neighbor. I'll definately be ignoring it... However, politicians are exellent at wasting our money - and of course, time.

No I didn't ignore it, I responded to it by saying that I think Bush is trying to prove a point by ignoring the subpoena that you and the congress thinks he should listen to. Read carefully, I am answering your argument... If you were subpoenaed because the court wanted to know why you painted your house yellow, you might feel like complying. I wouldn't. It's just two different approaches to the same unjustified subpoena. You think the point is to submit to the subpoena, irregardless of their right to issue it. I think the point is to challenge their right to issue it, by ignoring it. Of course, in my example I would probably then go to jail while you enjoyed cold beer on the patio... And that may very well be what happens to Bush, but I agree with his approach in not complying with it - legally anyway. A constitutional showdown is not a bad thing by the way.

I think he's trying to make the point that you can't subpoena his decision because it's protected by law as well. His right to hire and fire certain positions at will. They have no right to demand any explanation. In fact, it's not uncommon to lose all 93 in one sweep of forced unemployment. I do have to admit some hesitance due to the timing of this firing. Usually it's at the beginning of the term, not in the middle. However, it's so subjective, it's about as much of a waste of the country's time and money as the immigration bill that just got killed. These are salaried employees of ours and they're wasting our money. And in this case, it's a political tactic to keep the idea of corruption associated with republicans and this administration as long as possible. Otherwise, they wouldn't bother and instead visit the legal grounds that allow this kind of hiring and firing of federal prosecutors and etc. Yes, and the republicans should be ashamed of that...very ashamed. Particularly when they have Guiliani as a presidential front runner for their party. ------------------------ Edit: I have a question...why is there such a thing as executive privilege? What would be a legitimate purpose for it? It seems so...dirty.

And what you don't do. That's why it's a precarious ideology to dictate behavior based on measuring how much our behavior or lack thereof indirectly effects others. Direct harm is the only objective measurement, and thus the only sane one.

Exactly. Which is why it has nothing in common with this. For instance, you can try taking me to court because I wouldn't let a minority kid in my house. But I have a right to pick and choose who I want in my house and there is no law to stop me from that. So yeah, I'm not above the law...and uh..neither are you. You don't get to pretend like I violated one when one wasn't there to be violated. Apples and oranges, really, but the heart of the point is the same. The president has a right to pick and choose who he wants as federal prosecutors and he doesn't have to have a good reason for any of it. As I said before, these jobs aren't protected by the same laws that protect the rest of us. It's designed that way on purpose. It's supposed to be a politically driven decision. If you don't like what Bush did, then change the law. I don't understand why we would just pick him out the 43 presidents we've had and start sounding an alarm. It's quite common to fire far more than just 8 prosecutors - and it doesn't get explained because it doesn't have to. Actually I do understand, it's about politics and pretending like half the country didn't put him in office to do exactly what he did.

This doesn't seem taboo at all. In fact, it's far less taboo today than in the past. We have no issues telling each other what to eat and where to eat it, what to smoke and where to smoke it. It's taboo to not force our will upon each other for no better reason than the subjective belief that they know what's best for you. Real freedom scares the hell out of people. Not that you advocate freedom at all, I realize that.

I could be wrong, but I think it's in reference to my post #6. We may be on to something here... A moonnut could be a liberaltarian, since the prefix "moon" was associated with the left wing, whereas a wingbat would be a libertarian since the prefix "wing" was associated with the right. That would make bascule a moonnut and I would be a wingbat.

I think they made the right ruling. I would never advocate racism, no matter how nicely it's worded or intended. But in reference to the poverty district problem, I'm kind of torn. On the one hand, I like the idea of successful districts, good neighborhoods fostering strong business and growth, being able to reap the benefits of their success and put more money into their own schools. On the other hand, we all know how it takes money to make money and once you get momentum going for you it's much easier to stay afloat. This puts poor communities and districts in the red, because they don't have any money to make money with. It's much harder to compete with the richer side of town as they've already got so much going. I don't know if this qualifies everywhere as I'm not sure how most states set up their tax structure for their schools, but in Missouri and Oklahoma, I know they use property taxes to fund the schools. Nicer areas = higher taxes.

I don't know, but my uneducated guess would be discomfort of the subject matter due to insecurity issues, lack of ability to perform to an expectation, religion and other unhealthy dogmatic belief systems that hinder the advancement and progressive nature of human development. Not all religion, obviously, but many of the prominent ones, particularly in the US, have a disfunctional relationship with human sexuality. I don't know if it comes from the anti-pagan culture of the church or what, but I blame religion the most for the sexual discomfort in the US. Not an expert, but that's my take on it.

This has nothing in common with watergate. Watergate was an actual criminal act. The firing of federal prosecuters is totally subjective, and most administrations fire many of them upon initializing of their term, with no explanation - and none is necessary. They are not protected by the same rights as the common worker - it's understood to be entirely political...in other words, "fair" is irrelevant and not worthy of regard here. Same goes for cabinet members and staff. However, I'm not saying that gives them a right to fire prosecuters solely because they may be investigating friends. The thing is, you can't prove what the president is thinking and if he doesn't really have to explain himself. That would be like putting the president on trial for being republican. He isn't required to NOT to be partisan and NOT make decisions based on that. And since the democrat playbook has already been revealed to include the constant harrassment of the president, none of it can be trusted. Seriously, it's been written and put in motion to constantly accuse and harrass the president until the end of his term. This is not designed to actually go anywhere - just to keep the idea of "corruption" strong in everyone's minds. Remember, in this country you don't have to prove anything - just accuse. The public will do the hanging for you. That in mind, how can I really trust anything they try to accuse him of?

From Wiki: Moonbat (also "barking moonbat" and "moonbat crazy") is a term often used currently in U.S. politics as a political epithet referring to extremists, most often of the political left.[1] "Wingnut" (or "right wing nut") is frequently preferred as the analogous epithet aimed at extremists on the political right.[1] Actually, I thought it was an old fashioned term like my Grandfather would use. I didn't realize how relevant it still is... So, is an extremist libertarian a moonnut or wingbat?

That was...weird. It felt awkward. I can't stand scarborough, personally, but it almost seemed more like him and that other idiot were giving her a hard time more than they were interested in sticking with the Paris story. And I can hear scarborough thinking to himself "I don't care what you think is newsworthy, our job is to anchor and do as we're told". Conservatives aren't exactly the rebellious type, at least not towards their source of income. Nice to see Mika do that, it was really cool. I don't know. Not that big of a deal really... Most of the conservative types on Fox news seem to embody everything I can stand about them.

Why should the free exchange of ideas be locked? Isn't that intolerant? And I would welcome a "cure" for people who like the Philadelphia Eagles...

Yeah, cuz I just sit in the doorway and drool on the floor... Seriously though, that's interesting about how it diminishes the ego. I had always thought of it as slowing down the firing between neurons, causing a "dumbed down" effect. I don't know where I read that, or if I just dreamed it...or if I made it up after getting high once.

I can't speak for others, but I thought you were making objective arguments - or at least logical ones. I wouldn't guess you to be homophobic though, you seem comfortable with the subject matter. Personally, I'm quite curious where this discussion will go. I've never heard a successful logical reasoning opposing homosexuality. My gut tells me something is wrong with this blanket acceptance of alternative lifestyles. I don't mean from a legal perspective, because the government, per our constitution, should have nothing to say on the matter. But from a societal perspective I can't help but wonder if we are, yet again, swinging the proverbial pendulum all the way the other way with the concept of tolerance. I can't point at any particular example, it's just a rumbling in my head at the moment, that we're overcompensating. Not that I want to back down the intolerance road - I'm happy about the progress of social tolerance. Just seems like we always go from one extreme to the other before we settle in the middle. Where's the middle on this one?

We know. This is purely entertainment, I think, at this point. I don't have any. Just gives me better odds with females, and some of us need all the help we can get. I agree with you to a certain extent. But religion is currently on the chopping block here in America, and being different is "in". Then I would reply asking about how the species is to continue if our primary reproduction method is rejected.