|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
 Posted - 10/28/2006 : 16:54:18
|
quote:
I'm not really all that much of a states' rights guy. I fall more on the "strong federal government" side of the spectrum. So when someone like me starts screaming about a massive sneak attack on federalism, you might want to pay attention.
If I told you that Congress was considering passing a law that gives the President -- this President -- the power, in the event of any "disaster, accident, or catastrophe" that he deems to require it, to:
- involuntarily take National Guard troops from State A and
- require them to work in State B for up to a year,
- in law enforcement rather than just traditional areas like disaster relief,
- over the objection of both state's governors
would you believe it? Probably not. And you'd be right. Congress is not considering such a bill.
IT ALREADY PASSED SUCH A BILL THREE WEEKS AGO!
Follow me over the jump. Read it, weep, and prepare to pass on the word - and to act.
Link
|
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
 Posted - 11/02/2006 : 13:09:38 [Permalink]
|
| So that if another Katrina-like disaster happened, the Feds wouldn't need to aske each specific governor for permission to call upon the national guards of those states? |
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2006 : 14:12:21 [Permalink]
|
Getting a stricken state to use its National Guard in a natural disaster isn't a problem. I'd like to see an example of a state failing to use these forces for its own benefit in such a situation.
But having a state's National Guard mobilized by the President and then sent away to do police work in another state for up to a year is way beyond troubling. It's frightening. It's tool for the hands of despots.
Most of my life, the Republican Party has stood for States Rights. They also screamed about the huge Federal deficit. Yet instead of the Republicans being the ones to actually tackle the deficit, it was President Clinton who did.
The NeoCons are a different animal from the "PaleoCons" of old. They want to use Federal power to enforce their aggressive agenda. They don't mind huge Federal spending and debt, so long as they put it all on a credit card for our children to pay off, and keep taxes low for corporations and the wealthy. And if you give them some troops, pretty soon they figure how to get them to shoot people.
Bush has been acting like a tin-pot dictator since 9/11. We have no reason to trust that he will use any of his new super-powers with responsibility. He could learn a lesson from Spider-Man.
This new law is very dangeroous. Be afraid, be very afraid.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2006 : 23:24:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Getting a stricken state to use its National Guard in a natural disaster isn't a problem. I'd like to see an example of a state failing to use these forces for its own benefit in such a situation.
Didn't we see exactly that with Katrina? The failure to act was across the board, city state and federal.
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
But having a state's National Guard mobilized by the President and then sent away to do police work in another state for up to a year is way beyond troubling. It's frightening. It's tool for the hands of despots.
Oh please…if “police work” is patrolling the streets and preventing looting during an emergency, I'm all for it.
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Most of my life, the Republican Party has stood for States Rights. They also screamed about the huge Federal deficit. Yet instead of the Republicans being the ones to actually tackle the deficit, it was President Clinton who did.
Yes, I agree. During the Reagan years Democrats were portrayed as being “tax and spend” liberals, but Reagan ran record deficits. Now clearly it's the Democrats that are the party of fiscal responsibility and it's the Republicans who make no attempt to balance a budget.
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
The NeoCons are a different animal from the "PaleoCons" of old. They want to use Federal power to enforce their aggressive agenda. They don't mind huge Federal spending and debt, so long as they put it all on a credit card for our children to pay off, and keep taxes low for corporations and the wealthy. And if you give them some troops, pretty soon they figure how to get them to shoot people.
What specifically is your source of information on neo-con ideology?
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Bush has been acting like a tin-pot dictator since 9/11. We have no reason to trust that he will use any of his new super-powers with responsibility. He could learn a lesson from Spider-Man.
This new law is very dangeroous. Be afraid, be very afraid.
No, I reject this senseless fear-mongering. This is what's wrong with the Democratic party today. We can't come up with a coherent message based upon core Democratic values, and instead we waste our energy squawking about how evil the other guy is. It's not a message that builds anything, it doesn't win support, and frankly it's just wrong. Bush is a terrible president and I will be glad to see him go, but conservatism, Republicans and even Neo-cons are not inherently evil, there is no secret conspiracy working to subvert Democracy and remake us into some totalitarian state.
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2006 : 01:38:23 [Permalink]
|
Mycroft wrote: quote:
Didn't we see exactly that with Katrina? The failure to act was across the board, city state and federal.
Okay, then the Federal government wouldn't have made better use of those troops than the states did?
Mycroft wrote: quote:
Oh please…if “police work” is patrolling the streets and preventing looting during an emergency, I'm all for it.
Yes, "if." You'd trust every President to restrain his use of this new weapon to such use? Particularly this President, who has shown no restraint thus far?
Mycroft wrote: quote:
Yes, I agree. During the Reagan years Democrats were portrayed as being “tax and spend” liberals, but Reagan ran record deficits. Now clearly it's the Democrats that are the party of fiscal responsibility and it's the Republicans who make no attempt to balance a budget.
Indeed, we do agree. I think of Reagan as either the first NeoCon in power, or the transitional fossil between the PaleoCons and the NeoCons.
Mycroft wrote: quote:
What specifically is your source of information on neo-con ideology?
Mainly observation over time, from many sources. But if you need a reference, try this one for starters. I think I fairly accurately characterized NeoCons and how they differ from the Goldwater "PaleoCons" (who I would expect to have a resurgence once the NeoCon-led GOP is badly beaten).
Mycroft wrote: quote:
No, I reject this senseless fear-mongering. This is what's wrong with the Democratic party today. We can't come up with a coherent message based upon core Democratic values, and instead we waste our energy squawking about how evil the other guy is. It's not a message that builds anything, it doesn't win support, and frankly it's just wrong. Bush is a terrible president and I will be glad to see him go, but conservatism, Republicans and even Neo-cons are not inherently evil, there is no secret conspiracy working to subvert Democracy and remake us into some totalitarian state.
I think you trivialize how dangerous a situation this country is in. Most of the recent "senseless fear-mongering" has been the political policy of the Bush Administration, under the guidance of Karl Rove. My own second-rate fear-mongering, I feel, has been sensible in comparison.
Let me list a few things, which added up, make a pretty scary picture to my mind:
The Patriot Act. The unconstitutional Military Commissions Act with its suspension of habeas corpus (and all the wholly illegal torturing that went on for years even before it was enacted). Widespread voting fraud and voting intimidation through two presidential elections. Continuing installation of hackable electronic voting machines. Massive spying upon the phone and Internet communications of citizens within the US, the very extent of which is a "state secret." Gigantic lies used to justify the invasion of a foreign country on the basis of information which was known to be false.
If you don't see anything at all to be afraid of in this picture, perhaps we a |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2006 : 05:58:26 [Permalink]
|
Most National Guard are Army National Guard, or Air National Guard. They answer to the CIC. He can do with them what he wants.
Interesting enough:
quote:
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.....
I wish I could have added that to my paper on the second amendment. All I had was intent, not US law.
Peace
Joe |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2006 : 06:19:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
Most National Guard are Army National Guard, or Air National Guard. They answer to the CIC. He can do with them what he wants.
Interesting enough:
quote:
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.....
I wish I could have added that to my paper on the second amendment. All I had was intent, not US law.
Peace
Joe
[Off Topic, but wouldn't the above-referenced law's definition of a "militia" logically mean that no females at all except for members of the National Guard, and no males under 17 or over 44 who are not in the National Guard are covered by the Second Amendment's "right to bear arms"? Or did I miss something?]
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2006 : 12:25:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Okay, then the Federal government wouldn't have made better use of those troops than the states did?
Maybe or maybe not. The point is to show an example of why it might be a good idea to grant the Feds this power.
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Yes, "if." You'd trust every President to restrain his use of this new weapon to such use? Particularly this President, who has shown no restraint thus far?
You could make the same argument with every power of the Presidency, or any other branch of government. You seem to be taking your own fears of what might happen as evidence of what will happen.
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Indeed, we do agree. I think of Reagan as either the first NeoCon in power, or the transitional fossil between the PaleoCons and the NeoCons.
I think Reagan looks better in hindsight than he did to me while he was in office.
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Mainly observation over time, from many sources. But if you need a reference, try this one for starters. I think I fairly accurately characterized NeoCons and how they differ from the Goldwater "PaleoCons" (who I would expect to have a resurgence once the NeoCon-led GOP is badly beaten).
I've read that article, assuming it hasn't changed much in the past months. My question really was if you have a specific working definition of “Neo-conservatism” or if you simply ascribe it any policy you disagree with.
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
I think you trivialize how dangerous a situation this country is in. Most of the recent "senseless fear-mongering" has been the political policy of the Bush Administration, under the guidance of Karl Rove. My own second-rate fear-mongering, I feel, has been sensible in comparison.
Examples?
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Let me list a few things, which added up, make a pretty scary picture to my mind:
The Patriot Act. The unconstitutional Military Commissions Act with its suspension of habeas corpus (and all the wholly illegal torturing that went on for years even before it was enacted). Widespread voting fraud and voting intimidation through two presidential elections. Continuing installation of hackable electronic voting machines. Massive spying upon the phone and Internet communications of citizens within the US, the very extent of which is a "state secret." Gigantic lies used to justify the invasion of a foreign country on the basis of information which was known to be false.
Wow, this sounds like list of talking points for the loose-changers. Let's number these for easy reference:
1) For all the rhetoric, the Patriot Act hasn't resulted in the abuses of human rights claimed by |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2006 : 03:34:52 [Permalink]
|
Mycroft this is another example of your willingness to believe everything the media feeds you. Do you never seek out other sources of information?
Here are a few of the thousands of sources documenting what you claim there is no documentation for. I didn't edit it or get to all the issues because your ignorance on these matters is so overwhelming it would take weeks to fill you in. And before you go nit picking this or that source is unreliable, I just posted a few of literally thousands of sources so go find the evidence these are false claims if you can rather than dismissing the overwhelming evidence you seem so unaware of.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/01/diebold_hack/
Diebold voting machine hack exposed
http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/1954/15595.html
Yes:7 ; No:1
This videotaped testing session was witnessed by Black Box Voting investigators Bev Harris and Kathleen Wynne, Florida Fair Elections Coalition Director Susan Pynchon, security expert Dr. Herbert Thompson, and Susan Bernecker, a former candidate for New Orleans city council who videotaped Sequoia-brand touch-screen voting machines in her district recording vote after vote for the wrong candidate.
The Hursti Hack requires a moderate level of inside access. It is, however, accomplished without being given any password and with the same level of access given thousands of poll workers across the USA. It is a particularly dangerous exploit, because it changes votes in a one-step process that will not be detected in any normal canvassing procedure, it requires only a single a credit-card sized memory card, any single individual with access to the memory cards can do it, and it requires only a small piece of equipment which can be purchased off the Internet for a few hundred dollars.
http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/
Security Analysis of the Diebold AccuVote-TS Voting Machine
Ariel J. Feldman, J. Alex Halderman, and Edward W. Felten
Abstract This paper presents a fully independent security study of a Diebold AccuVote-TS voting machine, including its hardware and software. We obtained the machine from a private party. Analysis of the machine, in light of real election procedures, shows that it is vulnerable to extremely serious attacks. For example, an attacker who gets physical access to a machine or its removable memory card for as little as one minute could install malicious code; malicious code on a machine could steal votes undetectably, modifying all records, logs, and counters to be consistent with the fraudulent vote count it creates. An attacker could also create malicious code that spreads automatically and silently from machine to machine during normal election activities — a voting-machine virus. We have constructed working demonstrations of these attacks in our lab. Mitigating these threats will require changes to the voting machine's hardware and software and the adoption of more rigorous election procedures.
http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2003/02/20/voting_machines/index.html
Hacking Democracy
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oId=16368
The Long Shadow of Jim Crow: Voter Intimidation and Suppression in America Today
A Report by PFAW Foundation and NAACP
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/31/150218
Tuesday, October 31st, 2006
Vote Suppression in 2006: Rule Changes Threaten to Disenfranchise Hundreds of Thousands of Eligible Voters
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2482
Suppressing the Vote, Suppressing the News
Stories on pre-election manipulation took false balance to absurd lengths
http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/1249
Voter Suppression Challenged by Ohioans, Allies
by Ariella Cohen
After two days of public hearings in Columbus, voters' rights activists are compiling information for legal action against election officials and working for electoral reform.
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/docs |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2006 : 04:20:30 [Permalink]
|
Thank you for taking the lateral, B.! I was hoping you'd show up with your usual thorough scholarship. Me, I just wasn't up to doing all the work required for these answers.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2006 : 12:13:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Thank you for taking the lateral, B.! I was hoping you'd show up with your usual thorough scholarship. Me, I just wasn't up to doing all the work required for these answers.
Thorough scholarship?
Scholarship isn't going out and finding a large number of links, some of which are only tangentially related to the topic. Scholarship is a process of learning where one takes information from different points of view, tests them for veracity, challenges the assumptions, looks for alternative explanations, and then even after an opinion is formed, is still open to challenges.
This aint scholarship.
This is the exuberance of youth. This is the naiveté of someone who hasn't yet learned that even the “good guys” will make up lies or tell half-truths if it will advance their agenda. This is wide-eyed innocence, drunk on the idea of being a part of something larger than oneself and changing the world for the better. This is the rush of excitement at being the “persecuted minority” who stand alone being the only ones smart enough to see the “truth”, struggling as the unappreciated prophets of this new age, anticipating either their glorious vindication against their detractors, or ultimate martyrdom as the “system” they struggle against brings them down.
Now, in a moment, we will examine these links…
|
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2006 : 16:59:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Mycroft this is another example of your willingness to believe everything the media feeds you. Do you never seek out other sources of information?
No, this is my challenging the assumptions on which elaborate apocalyptic fantasies are built. Someone has to, this is a skeptics forum, isn't it?
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Here are a few of the thousands of sources documenting what you claim there is no documentation for. I didn't edit it or get to all the issues because your ignorance on these matters is so overwhelming it would take weeks to fill you in. And before you go nit picking this or that source is unreliable, I just posted a few of literally thousands of sources so go find the evidence these are false claims if you can rather than dismissing the overwhelming evidence you seem so unaware of.
If you think your sources can be nit-picked, then you should have chosen better sources. This is what I was speaking of earlier; choose quality over quantity. You seem to think that “thousands of sources” is better than one really well thought out argument. It's not. Google can provide “thousands of sources” on almost any point of view, we all know that. The issue is quality.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/01/diebold_hack/
http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/1954/15595.html
http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/
http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2003/02/20/voting_machines/index.html
This is supposed to be evidence of voter fraud, but it's not. These four articles only say that Diebold voting machines can be hacked, which is certainly a legitimate concern, but saying that something can be done is very different from saying that it has been done.
And don't forget, the context is supposed to be proving the legitimacy of Halfmooner's fear mongering. He/she is afraid of the Bushites or Neo-cons taking over, remember?
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oId=16368
The Long Shadow of Jim Crow: Voter Intimidation and Suppression in America Today
That's an interesting and informative article, but I think this paragraph warrants special attention:
quote:
In every national American election since Reconstruction, every election since the Voting Rights Act passed in 1965, voters – particularly African American voters and other minorities – have faced calculated and determined efforts at intimidation and suppression.
Emphasis mine.
The topic of voter fraud is presented as evidence that this particular administration is somehow more dangerous and evil than others; that this administration might seize power, ordering the National Guard to impose martial law (remember the OP of this thread?) and make Bush President for life or something. But the truth is some degree of vote tampering and other forms of fraud has tainted every national election from the beginning. These allegations, while serious and very deserving of investigation, are not at all unique to this election, this administration or to the Republican party. In every election there are allegations of wrong doings from both parties.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/31/150218
http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/1249
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/docs/Spencer/spencerorder1101.pdf
http://fl1.findlaw.co |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2006 : 19:23:21 [Permalink]
|
Mycr:
If you think your sources can be nit-picked, then you should have chosen better sources.
If you were only ignorant in one area, or if you didn't just ignore evidence on the flimsiest of reasons such as a web name, it wouldn't take hours and hours to find and post the material to bring you up to speed. My sources were not easily nit-picked, I was just trying to head off your typical response of denial, claiming the source was unreliable instead of looking at the actual evidence or trying to find supporting or refuting evidence.
You may think you are being skeptical, Mycroft, but in reality you are refusing to actually investigate the issues here. I have and I believe a number of other people here have as well. We aren't fools, we aren't CTers and we know media control of information and evidence for voter fraud when we see the evidence for it.
Mycr: This is supposed to be evidence of voter fraud, but it's not. These four articles only say that Diebold voting machines can be hacked,
Look at all the evidence, myc. Did I say this proved it? No. I suggest you look at the Congressional investigation the Republicans tried to supress but which Congressman Conyers went ahead with in a basement room at the Capitol Building anyway.
quote:
We have found numerous, serious election irregularities in the Ohio presidential election, which resulted in a significant disenfranchisement of voters. Cumulatively, these irregularities, which affected hundreds of thousand of votes and voters in Ohio, raise grave doubts regarding whether it can be said the Ohio electors selected on December 13, 2004, were chosen in a manner that conforms to Ohio law, let alone federal requirements and constitutional standards....
With regards to our factual finding, in brief, we find that there were massive and unprecedented voter irregularities and anomalies in Ohio. In many cases these irregularities were caused by intentional misconduct and illegal behavior, much of it involving Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio.
First, in the run up to election day, the following actions by Mr. Blackwell, the Republican Party and election officials disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of Ohio citizens, predominantly minority and Democratic voters:
* The misallocation of voting machines led to unprecedented long lines that disenfranchised scores, if not hundreds of thousands, of predominantly minority and Democratic voters. This was illustrated by the fact that the Washington Post reported that in Franklin County, "27 of the 30 wards with the most machines per registered voter showed majorities for Bush. At the other end of the spectrum, six of the seven wards with the fewest machines delivered large margins for Kerry." (See Powell and Slevin, supra). Among other things, the conscious failure to provide sufficient voting machinery violates the Ohio Revised Code which requires the Boards of Elections to "provide adequate facilities at each polling place for conducting the election."
* Mr. Blackwell's decision to restrict provisional ballots resulted in the disenfranchisement of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of voters, again predominantly minority and Democratic voters. Mr. Blackwell's decision departed from past Ohio law on provisional ballots, and there is no evidence that a broader construction would have led to any significant disruption at the polling places, and did not do so in other states.
* Mr. Blackwell's widely reviled decision to reject voter registration applications based on paper weight may have resulted in thousands of new voters not being registered in time for the 2004 election.
* The Ohio Republican Party's decision to engage in preelection "c |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 11/04/2006 19:23:53 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2006 : 19:26:58 [Permalink]
|
Mycroft: But the issue raised was that the very fact of spying on these media is evidence of a pending totalitarian state. It was part of the “scary picture” painted by HalfMooner. The undeniable truth is that if this is how terrorist and criminals are transmitting information, then we need our people spying on them as a routine part law enforcement and intelligence gathering.
Impending and trending towards are two different interpretations. I don't read impending in HM's post. I read ominous signs and I agree whole heartedly. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 11/04/2006 19:27:27 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2006 : 19:30:01 [Permalink]
|
| As far as these things happening in every election or in every administration, clearly they do. But at the same time the pendulum swings wide such as in the McCarthy era and it is swinging just as wide today. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
