NorthSideSox72

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. Your logic is scary. You think that because we are in a war, we can do surveillance on our own citizens without a warrant? And that the war powers act somehow grants the executive the authority to break the law? That just doesn't make any sense. It would mean the executive branch could do whatever it wanted while at war, and further, since this isn't even a declared war, the executive could usurp all governmental power just by saying "we're at war". It's preposterous.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 02:53 PM) Now, if only we had some mechanism in place by which warrants could be obtained so that such intercepts could occur legally and with judicial oversight. . . No, wait, we had that already. Bingo! Also, agreed.

Mr. FlaSoxxJim- First, I have to say I'm having quite a bit of fun discussing this topic with you. Your posts are very well thought-out, and you make some great points. You're making my job difficult, and I like that! Here is my 2nd and final question for you. You have stated support for federal funding of the arts. You have also hinted at the idea that art fits well within the confines of the term 'welfare', specifically the dictionary definitions providing for happiness and good fortune. So, if the US government is to be in the business of making its citizens 'happy', then why not also fund Major League Baseball? Millions of people get a lot of enjoyment out of that every year - possibly more so than the active appreciation of art. And it is the national passtime. Or what about the NFL, NBA or NHL? How about monster truck rallies (SUNDAY! SUNDAY SUNDAY!), or even spas and massage parlors? Where, exactly, do you draw the line? What falls under the hapy umbrella, and what does not?

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. Agreed.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 02:27 PM) There is a war. If you don't think so, then everything else doesn't matter. Please re-read my post. There is a war in Iraq, and one in Afghanistan. One could also argue there is a "war" on terror globally, though I don't think its a war at all. It has all the hallmarks of a global law enforcement effort, in reality - much less so than a war. But even if it is, there is no war in any legal sense on US soil. That's what I said - no war on US soil.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 01:54 PM) Congress, nor the courts, have say so in the executive branch when it comes to conduct of war. Now I'll get the "war wasn't formally declared" cry. Baloney. By the use of force, if necessary, gives the President rights to conduct battlefield operations, and the intercepts of these communications ON THE BATTLEFIELD ("war on terror".) Congress, nor the courts, have ZERO right to stop this according to any said law. I think that's the heart of the argument that is being made. If these people are talking to people in the US, that's an intercept of cumminications during wartime operations, as provided to the executive branch according to the Constitution. Now, if they don't like it, Congress can stop funding of the military for these actions. I don't hear anything being said about that from the Dems. That is false. War or not, declared or not, all branches must follow all existing laws in their conduct. War does not except from this. And there is no "battlefield" in the US. The President would like to create that mentality in the public, it's just not reality. No force has invaded us. No foreign army is on our soil. 9/11 was a terrorist act. If the President can say anytime a foreigner kills a US resident that we are at war, on our soil, then we are in deep s**t. That would mean that at pretty much ANY given time, the executive branch could apply battlefield rules like martial law and the redaction of due legal process whenever it chooses. That's not a slippery slope - it's a cliff wall. And regarding your last pararaph, if you all remember, Kerry was burned at the stake by the GOP and even some Dems for voting against a funding package to make a point about the poorly-conducted war.

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 01:37 PM) As long as priest do not have the right to marry someone other than God...then this ain't gonna stop. And I hate to say that, but it's true. Well, it will never stop because there are freaks out there in every walk of life, but it should definitely slow down. That argument is wholly illogical. Do you really think Priests are abusing children because they don't have a wife? Child molesters are child molesters. They aren't pacified by being married - they'd do it anyway. Any psychologist will tell you that. The solution is to go after the Church, as was suggested by Kyyyyyle earlier, so that maybe they'll learn not to protect these a**holes. Then the cloth won't look like a good place for freaks to hide out. And, if the church was willing to enter modern society, maybe they could allow women as priests, thus doubling their recruiting pool (and allowing them to be more selective).

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 01:28 PM) You know what, though? This column hits right on the point. If the MAJORITY of Americans believe in something, STAND UP FOR IT. I TOTALLY disagree with Molly on just about every issue, but this column is DEAD ON. Say no to Hillary If this happened, at least the debate would be about issues. And that's what it is about. Excellent read. I also agree with pretty much everything she said. The Dems won't win by pandering, moving right or trying to dig out a state or two in the south. They'll win if they capitalize on the mistakes the current administration is making (which they have sort of started to do), and taking a real stand (instead of just complaining and then wandering aimlessly).

QUOTE(mreye @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 11:41 AM) I used to wear shorts all winter long. I bet mr. eye wasn't too happy about that.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 03:20 PM) I take it your response to my questions about the role of the federal government in education are forthcoming. My response to you is going to hinge on where in the Constitution you see the federal responsibility for guaranteeing access to education as deriving from. It again remains conspicuously absent from your list of items to be considered under the "promotion of general welfare." On that point, I'd like to make sure we do not lose that important modifier. The Constitution is nominally considered with promoting the general welfare of the American citizenry. By definition and by design this allows for interpretation, much to the dismay of the so-called constitutional constructionists and 'originalists.' I'm not sure I've seen the "legally accepted definition" of welfare to which you refer. The Random House dictionary definition I used as my roadmap is that welfare is the 'good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, and general well-being of a person or a group. Webster's online offering is essentially identical ("the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity"). Federal subsidies to the arts and to art education/outreach can be seen as promoting the happiness and general well-being of program targets without any sort of stretch whatsoever. I only gravitated to the "legal node" of constitutionally promoted welfare since it was an avenue explored in your initial statements and thus seems to be an appropriate springboard for this discussion. I cannot further my intended line of reasoning until I know where you stand on the federal role in funding education, however. I discussed how I see education fitting in, in my previous post (my response to your query). It also appears to be a theme in your 2nd, new question. So I believe that the only response/rebuttal I have to make here is to your 3rd paragraph above, regarding welfare. My new, 2nd question will be forthcoming. I think this argument, whether or not the arts falls under the umbrella of the term ‘welfare’, can be addressed from two angles: Constitutional constructionist, and the role of the federal government. From the constructionist point of view, the term welfare cannot be taken out of context. It is used here in the king of governmental charters, the US Constitution, and must be taken in its governmental context. As stated in my earlier posts, the legal definition of welfare is not precisely the same as the definition used in general speech. And those legal definitions, in the sources I cited, make it very clear that welfare pertains to basic needs. I cannot see how that could include art. An additional note from the Constitution that is interesting is that, believe it or not, the word ‘art’ does in fact appear in the Constitution – in Article I, section 8. There is a provision there, for the protection of original property in the arts and sciences, to guarantee their continued generation. This article is the root of copyright laws and intellectual property as we know it in the US today. The framers saw fit to protect those areas specifically in the Constitution – and yet, they are not mentioned anywhere else. From a governmental role perspective, I think that the key word is “need”. Art is not a need. But the US government is there to provide for basic needs, and the protections necessary to allow for our culture to flourish independently and freely. In other words, the federal government should be there to provide the environment for art to occur – but not to fund it or choose its form.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 09:54 AM) BTW, the 9/11 Terrorists came in through Canada, why aren't we discussing a wall across the Canadian border? Excellent question, and I have a personal experience to share on that. First, though, I'l reiterate that I wouldn't suggest a wall there either. But as for the Canadian border... Since I was a kid, I have been going on canoeing trips to Quetico and the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, which straddle the MN/Ontario border. It used to be that you could put in on the American side, paddle up to a border station (there were 3, stretched out over about 100 miles of watery borderland wilderness), check in, and be on your merry way. Same worked in reverse. I always thought, you know, one could paddle across that border any time of day or night with little or no chance of ever being noticed, let alone caught. Well, now the rules have changed. In order to cross that border in the wilderness, you have to file with Canadian customs ahead of time for a "Remote Border Area Crossing Visa". You have to show names and info on all crossers, passport image and data, etc. Then you get a one year permit to cross in the backcountry, if they approve your application. If you get caught on one side or the other without the permit (Rangers patrol the area more aggresively now), you get arrested. Just a little glimpse into things on that border.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 09:53 AM) But so far we have been unwilling to increase those Visas. When Bush suggested a guest worker program, he was slammed by everyone from Rush to the Unions. Whenever there is a general amnesty, again, the President gets slammed. BTW, the highest percentage of aid we give Mexico is for drug enforcement. We are asking Mexico to stop dealers from getting to their customers in the US. If the US didn't have a usage problem, Mexico wouldn't have a dealer problem. How will cutting their aid help? Want my serious suggestion? Legalize marijuana, regulate it (self-funded by stamp tax), and use the funds previously used for enforcement of marijuana laws to aid the US, Mexican and central/south american governments to combat problems with drugs that are actually dangerous (cocaine, heroin, meth, etc.). Also, Mexico should be helped to aid the profound poverty in their border and near-border cities.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 09:43 AM) What first has to be answered is how we will feed ourselves without the use of immigrant labor. Learn about the life of an illegal, migrant farm worker. Figure out who will work in an area for two weeks, them move on, and follow the crops north and south for $5 per hour. What happens next, is farmers will have to pay higher and higher prices to get their crops picked and processed. When US grow food is too costly, consumers have proven they will buy the cheaper produce, then we will import even more food from outside the US. Currently, we cannot feed ourselves with 100% US produced food, our dependency will get even worse. You think dependency on foreign oil sucks, what will we do when we have to import 50% of our food? There have been more terrorist attacks committed in this country by Americans than Mexicans. Cut off aid to Mexico will decrease their standard of living and force more humans north, and the Mexico government will have less money to fight the problem and more reasons not to. People are risking their lives, literally, to bus your tables, pick your tomotoes, cut your beef, and clean your mess. Figure out who is going to do those jobs, then secure the border. You seem to have made an assumed bridge between securing the border and preventing immigration. I am not suggesting that at all (not sure about Nuke). If the economic factors dictate that the country can handle (or needs) X number of unskilled labor in the work force, then allow for more visas. That's the way the system should work. That AND a secure border is a much better solution for many reasons than a porous border and undocumented, inhumanely treated workers, and hundreds of dead bodies along the border.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jan 25, 2006 -> 01:17 AM) http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/01/...p.ap/index.html Yeah, the Mexican government is really doing its part to help secure the border. Frankly Im sick of the Mexican government and groups within the United States helping these people commit the crime of illegally crossing the border. -I think we need a wall along our Southern border similar to the wall Isreal is building and use units of the National Guard of the affected states on a rotating basis to augment the Border Patrol. -Additionally, we need to end any and all foregin aid we give to Mexico until they take serious action to stop this. -Also, the FBI should move in and close down any groups who aid these people. They are aiding and abetting in the commission of a crime. That is illegal for those who didn't already know. Raid their offices, shut down their operations and throw their members in jail. I dont have a problem with Mexicans coming here to do certain jobs that nobody else wants but there has to be control. There has to be a way to know whos coming and going. This is an open and festering hole in our national security and its gotta get fixed......you know...like yesterday. Just wanted to add a thought to this topic of discussion... I agree with Nuke in most of what he says. I do believe the border should be much more actively patrolled, possibly by Guard units. I also agree that we should cut aid to Mexico, to a certain extent, until they are willing to help with the problem. And I wish the FBI or Border Patrol would do more on our side as well, but I think they are probably massively understaffed and unable to do so. What I do not agree with is the physical wall, except in urban areas, and I'll tell you why: not all border crossing is human. I know, not something people often consider here, but the reality is that there are important ecological bridges that straddle the US/Mexico border, particularly in NM and AZ, which would be seriously negatively effected by a large, hardened wall. There are endangered species that will be further endangered, and any hope of continued recovery of some of those ecosystems will be quashed. Rightly, you might ask, then what's your suggestion? My suggestion is (in addition to all the points where I agreed with Nuke) is technology. Deploy sensor arrays and aircraft patrols using FLIR along those remote border areas. That way, patrols can be properly informed and dispatched, with less need for a physical barrier. There can also be motion-sensitive cameras. All these devices also have the secondary benefit of providing biologists with data as well.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 04:10 PM) I'm listening. How did they lose in 2002? A law was proposed to change the test from probable cause to reasonable suspicion (a large leap, by the way) for FISA warrants: http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/s2659.html Bush's administration declines to pursue it further, after Mr. Baker of the DOJ finds legal problems with it: http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_hr/073102baker.html And the NSA continues its wiretaps. They didn't LOSE per se, they took the smart route for their own interests. If they had pursued the law, and it was exposed in Congress for its possible problems or worse, was found Unconstitutional by a court of law, then they'd have to stop the taps. But, since they let it die off, they could continue their work, and hope no one noticed. Or if they did notice, then they would point to something vague (like the ridiculous connection to the 9/11 use of force statement), and say things are grey, and generally try to dodge the issue. They did the thing that was smart for them, but frankly, I find it deceptive and evasive.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 04:03 PM) This s*** ... playing politics with this particular aspect of our government ... is going to bite the Dems in the ass. Given the importance of the decision, I see no reason why delaying a few days is such a big "play". I think its prudent, if people want more time to do research. And the thing is, so far, the mudslinging by Dems has not bitten them in the ass at all. In fact, the numbers say its working. Not that I LIKE it, but that's the reality right now in terms of public opinion - the GOP is going down faster than the Dems.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 04:01 PM) There's that word again. It's in the interpretation of reasonable, or in this case ' unreasonable'. As I said before, that explanation of the 4th amendment I post the link to had 'reasonable' or forms of the word sprinkled liberally throughout. The courts have accepted, time and again, that the the standard for reasonableness is probably cause. That's why its referred to so often. The Bush administration decided not to pursue this in 2002 because if they lost the battle on Constitutional grounds (which someone in their circle suggested), they'd be exposing themselves by continuing the actions. That's why they dropped it - so they could continue doing it based on some other, very vague legal grounds, which are defensible (in a shifty kind of way) should it be made public.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 03:58 PM) Doesn't it stand to follow that if the administration thought it was unnecessary due to the Patriot Act, that they belived the Patriot Act gave them the legal right? Then why did they not bring that up as their defense in recent DOJ statements? Sounds to me like the change from probable cause to reasonable suspicions had unconstitutional written all over it, and so did someone at DOJ.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 03:20 PM) I take it your response to my questions about the role of the federal government in education are forthcoming. My response to you is going to hinge on where in the Constitution you see the federal responsibility for guaranteeing access to education as deriving from. It again remains conspicuously absent from your list of items to be considered under the "promotion of general welfare." On that point, I'd like to make sure we do not lose that important modifier. The Constitution is nominally considered with promoting the general welfare of the American citizenry. By definition and by design this allows for interpretation, much to the dismay of the so-called constitutional constructionists and 'originalists.' I'm not sure I've seen the "legally accepted definition" of welfare to which you refer. The Random House dictionary definition I used as my roadmap is that welfare is the 'good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, and general well-being of a person or a group. Webster's online offering is essentially identical ("the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity"). Federal subsidies to the arts and to art education/outreach can be seen as promoting the happiness and general well-being of program targets without any sort of stretch whatsoever. I only gravitated to the "legal node" of constitutionally promoted welfare since it was an avenue explored in your initial statements and thus seems to be an appropriate springboard for this discussion. I cannot further my intended line of reasoning until I know where you stand on the federal role in funding education, however. OK, Flaxx, just to make sure we are clear on what comes next... I will respond to your response (above) to my first question in a little bit. You also need to respond to my response to your question. After both are done, we can then each ask a new question. Is that right? Or am I off-track somehow?

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 11:01 PM) I find your opening statements to be thoughtful and well-reasoned also. And in truth, I don't feel we are so very far apart on the issue. Particularly since you allow that there is flexibility in the way in which the 'general Welfare' of We, the People is to be interpreted. Adhering, for this discussion, to the basic definition of welfare as the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, and general well-being of a person or a group, I concur with those you have alluded to that would include health care, public transportation and other public needs as welfare considerations in this country. But, these individuals, and seemingly yourself as well, have not seen fit to include education as one of the demands put on the federal government by the Constitution in its declaration that the general Welfare of the people be protected and promoted. My question to you, then, is do you see the fundamental right to education as being decreed and guaranteed by the federal constitution? If so, then where does this guarantee reside, if not part of the promotion of our general Welfare as alluded to in the Preamble? If not, is it then your position that there is no constitutional mandate that the federal government has a role in funding American public education? I envy you your ability to read bass clef, by the way, as it completely bewilders me. My formative musical years were spent playing trumpet and guitar, and in later years when I moved to baritone horn in concert band I realized I completely lacked the ability to sight read bass clef. My kids are doomed to years of piano lessons I'm sure, if only to ensure that they can read a grand staff. Here is my response to your question number 1, regarding education. Sorry if my last post wasn’t clear, in that it was intended to be my first question to you. I see you have answered that partially, but left open the need to hear about my views on education. I am not sure how to proceed in Tex’s format, in that case. But let me respond to your question in any case… The short answer to your question is: yes. I do believe that general welfare includes education. Education is promoting the welfare in that it is a need for persons to function in society. One can stand, walk and exist without it, but the Constitution is there to provide more than that. It provides for a safe, stable environment where people can flourish. In order to participate in that society, a person requires some basic level of education so that they may communicate and have some sort of practical skills. Therefore, funding such a necessity to at least some extent seems not only prudent, but necessary. Art is not a need. Art is recreation, cultural enrichment and many other things, none of which are necessary to function as a US citizen. As I cited earlier, promotion of the general welfare (when defined specifically as such) in those sources inevitably refers to the needs, not the wants, of a society. The dictionary definition of welfare, taken outside of a legal or governmental context, does not apply here. Oh and by the way, if you think Bass clef is bad... try sight-reading tenor and alto clef. Those silly 18th Century composers kept trying to make trombones into trumpets.

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 12:45 PM) I THINK I posted articles that show that one of the principles of the Koran is that "infidels" (Non-believers) need to be converted or eliminated. Thank G-d that MOST Muslims do not strictly adhere to this tenet. BTW...the war(s) that Jews are currently fighting are because they are under constant attack by radical ISLAMISTS, Christians being attacked in Bethlehem by radical ISLAMISTS, etc. etc. etc. As pointed out, your articles were quotes from people whom Islam doesn't even acknowledge as part of their structure. It's obvious you've already decided that Islam is evil, and all the logic and evidence in the world otherwise won't change your mind about it. Have a nice day.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 12:18 PM) Oh no... you haven't been reading close enough then. (not trying to call you out, Flaxx... but it serves as an example)... Look at his post that I quoted. And it's some guy saying that It's this stuff that's cited and flamed around here all the time. And my question is why does everything have to have some evil ass intent behind it. Look at the Alito thread as well. Bush is trying to nominate (insert flame here). There's always some 'evil' at work when it comes to this man. Read the stuff that gets thrown around a lot. I'll say this again, for your benefit, and maybe a few others here. I really don't care for George W. Bush as president. I think he's done a lot of BS things. But I also get sick of the 'everything Bush does sucks big donkey turds' schtick that some seem to be intent on throwing out there like a fart in the wind, and it stinks, IMO. I only "defend" some of this stuff because I think there's always a little more to the story then is out there for the 'common public consumption'... that most persons opposed to the current administration does not ever want to acknowledge or admit. Well I must admit, that quote certainly does look silly. I have no idea of the context, of course. I guess I just don't see it that often. I am pretty sure, though, that I see people on the right side of the aisle in here complain A LOT about these occurances, though. And honestly, I don't think Bush's intent is evil at all. Even on issues where I disagree strongly with him, such as the domestic spying thing, I think he was doing what he thought was best. I do think his idea of what's best is sometimes warped, and not grounded in what this country (as a whole, parties aside) stands for. He's arrogant, even by Presidential standards, not well-read on the law or subjects he chooses to lecture on (and certainly not well-spoken), and there is a bit of crusader in him (see Iraq) that scares me. But I am convinced that he is trying to what he sees as best the great majority of the time.

Tex- I'm a little confused on the Q&A portion. In my debate, after the opening statements were made, Flaxx asked his first question. Then I asked mine. Is that how it goes? We each ask one, each answer, each respond? Then onto question 2? Or was I supposed to answer Flaxx first, then he responds to my answer, then I ask MY first question?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 11:18 AM) I'm not asking this to be a jerk, I seriously want to know why you (and others) think that there *has to be* evil intent by (almost) everything this administration does. And let's not frame the whole "he lied about the war" argument. Why would this administration be *that* evil to be 'up to something' with every single thing they do? Honestly, Kap, I haven't seen anyone on this board showing indications of thinking that way. I really haven't. The screaming, frothing "leftist" who thinks everything Bush does is evil is, as far as I can tell, a caricature created by paranoid Bush supporters.

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 10:49 AM) Does what's CURRENTLY happenning in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Indonesia, Pakistan, Gaza, the Philippines, Bosnia, Russia, etc., provide any evidence to you at all? :banghead Do you realize that you still haven't addressed the holes in your statements that you've been called out on here? Of course there are wars going on that involve Muslims (although some of the countries you cite here have no wars). And there are wars involving Christians, Jews, Buddhists and everyone else. But YOU said two things that are just ridiculous: that Islam is a violent religion that wants to kill all non-Muslims, and then later, that MOST of the wars in the globe involve Islam. These two statements are ludicrous. It just makes me sad to see that there are so many people that would rather take the lazy path and just blame all of Islam for the world's problems. Kind of like lazy Dems want to blame Bush for all the world's problems.