Politics As Usual

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
But on the plus side for the repubs, they still have the unrecountable electronic voting machines in Florida. They're not made by GOP subsidiary Diebold, but maybe that is a good thing after all these other gaffes lately.

Are you guys going to have the ballots made simpler?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Are you guys going to have the ballots made simpler?

Isn't that this guy's job?


You know, the Bush appointee who's floated the idea of postponement of national elections?

[SlaveNoMore]

Sidd Finch
Because the government isn't supressing the latter, just the former.

I'm glad you say "government" and not Bush Administration since it's clear that both sides decided not to make additional photos public.

Because no one bombed the WTC, burned people in Fallujah, or beheaded prisoners in my name.

So I guess you won't be wanting to see the latest head not found in the Tigris then?

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Larry, remember I go for small victories. I wouldn't hope to convince you guys that Bush isn't crooked. On the records disappearing, my point was in happened in 1996*. I know the Bushies were plotting the Iraq war back then, but even you guys can't propose they'd have the foresight to sneak into the Pentagon and destroy records that might come up in the 2004 re-election, can you?

Who is telling you that the records were destroyed on '96? Oh, right, the White House. After saying for months that they had investigated and shown the world everything relevant, which most people would assume includes looking at, you know, all the files. Again, you guys are supposed to be good at this stuff. Why do we only find out about the files being destroyed when somebody files a lawsuit to see them? Why do we only find out about the Florida felon list's omissions when somebody files a lawsuit to allow a copy to be made?

I propose that Bush's records weren't destroyed in '96. I propose that records were destroyed in '96, but Bush's wasn't one of them. I propose that this is a cover story for their more recent disappearance. I propose that I go sit in the park and mumble about the CIA stealing my brainwaves.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Will you please learn to spell "coerced"?

I don't usually timmy like this, but this is the 3d or 4th time you've done that in the past couple of days, so it's not a typo.

There's a timmy board. If you are interested go check it out. You understood what I was conveying. This is a chat board not a brief (or whatever it is you litigators do).

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Who is telling you that the records were destroyed on '96? Oh, right, the White House. After saying for months that they had investigated and shown the world everything relevant, which most people would assume includes looking at, you know, all the files. Again, you guys are supposed to be good at this stuff. Why do we only find out about the files being destroyed when somebody files a lawsuit to see them? Why do we only find out about the Florida felon list's omissions when somebody files a lawsuit to allow a copy to be made?

I propose that Bush's records weren't destroyed in '96. I propose that records were destroyed in '96, but Bush's wasn't one of them. I propose that this is a cover story for their more recent disappearance. I propose that I go sit in the park and mumble about the CIA stealing my brainwaves.

I think they were smuggled out on a Russian submarine.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Since the GOP has been unable to muster the requisite support to amend the Constitution and eradicate the scourge of gay marriage, Smiling Tom DeLay and your Grand Old Party will soon be seeking to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear controversies for which the GOP might not like the result.

Although I don't agree with the substance, I think this is the natural result of years of overly activist judges.

[greatwhitenorthchick]

This may just result in a nice round of Canada-bashing (which is always fun), but I do have a question. Canada has just decided to permit al-jazeera to broadcast there - I found this interesting, and it made me wonder.

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/...tory/National/

My question is: is the reason regulatory or political why al-Jazeera is not broadcasting here in the US yet? I know next to nothing about television regulation here - it's just that there are a gazillion channels - one would think that al-Jazeera might have tried to get access here already. Does Britain permit it to broadcast there? I know Canada will be able to censor al-Jazeera fairly heavily if it wants to, not sure the same would happen here.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
This may just result in a nice round of Canada-bashing (which is always fun), but I do have a question. Canada has just decided to permit al-jazeera to broadcast there - I found this interesting, and it made me wonder.

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/...tory/National/

My question is: is the reason regulatory or political why al-Jazeera is not broadcasting here in the US yet? I know next to nothing about television regulation here - it's just that there are a gazillion channels - one would think that al-Jazeera might have tried to get access here already. Does Britain permit it to broadcast there? I know Canada will be able to censor al-Jazeera fairly heavily if it wants to, not sure the same would happen here.

I don't know why we wouldn't let a-J broadcast, since we let Fox broadcast.

Unless, of course, it's because we let Fox broadcast...

Oh, and Gwinky, I understand Slave & Co. want you to take this one to the Canada board....

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I don't know why we wouldn't let a-J broadcast, since we let Fox broadcast.

Unless, of course, it's because we let Fox broadcast...

Oh, and Gwinky, I understand Slave & Co. want you to take this one to the Canada board....

40. Smile, You're on Mars Camera
gs: Booth Colman (scientist #1) Larry Thor (scientist #2) Arthur Peterson (scientist #3)

A NASA satellite with a TV camera, accidentally lands on the island instead of the intended target: Mars. The castaways try to communicate their S.O.S. when the camera is operational. However, with the help of a Gilligan goof-up, the castaways are covered with glue and feathers, and the NASA scientists mistakenly believe they are seeing the first proof of life on Mars.


b: 07-Oct-1965 w: Al Schwartz & Bruce Howard d: Jack Arnold


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I don't know why we wouldn't let a-J broadcast, since we let Fox broadcast.

Unless, of course, it's because we let Fox broadcast...

Oh, and Gwinky, I understand Slave & Co. want you to take this one to the Canada board....

This is certainly not my area of expertise, and I think AG and Burger have the answer, but my understanding is that there are certain foreign ownership restrictions on broadcasters in the US.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Although I don't agree with the substance, I think this is the natural result of years of overly activist judges.

Bullshit.

1. If this were so, why didn't we see such tactics occuring, for example, under the Warren Court?*

2. Judicial Activism has become such a cliched term I don't know what the fuck it means anymore, except that politicians of both stripes use it to describe court decisions they just don't like.

Among others, Professor Edelman of GW takes a similar view and expresses it better than I could.

A succession of Warren Court landmark decisions made the judicial activism charge seem the property of one political camp. Signers of the Southern Manifesto condemned Brown v. Board of Education as "a clear abuse of judicial power." Conservatives all over the country decried Miranda and other expansions of the rights of criminal suspects.

Beginning with President Nixon, the rhetoric and the reality diverged. The mantra of "judicial activism" stayed consistent enough from the conservative side. What confused things was the substance. Presidents who campaigned against activist judges appointed 10 justices to the Supreme Court between 1969 and 1992, but it was "their" court that protected abortion and commercial speech, legitimated busing and affirmative action, restricted sex discrimination and aid to parochial schools, and even imposed a moratorium on capital punishment. Liberals, winning more than they expected to, kept quiet about judicial activism.

Over the past 15 years or so, the court has gotten more conservative. Liberals have found ammunition to turn the conservative mantra on its head, and the charges of judicial activism now flow in both directions. It is the liberals who point out that the current Supreme Court has struck down nearly 30 federal laws in the past decade, compared with fewer than 130 during the two centuries after the Constitution was ratified. It is liberals who now ask why the court does not defer to the political majority as expressed through legislative enactments. It is the liberals who now cry "activism" when the court strikes down laws establishing gun-free school zones, set-asides for minority contractors, state damages for discrimination based on age or disability, civil remedies for violence against women, and citizen suits under the Endangered Species Act. To many on the left, judicial activism will forever be defined by the court's decision in Bush v. Gore.

Gattigap

* A: We didn't see such tactics during the Warren Court or other eras because the politicians in control thought it too unseemly. Today's GOP is happy to pursue this route today, to use Gingrich's famous phrase, "because we can." Now that's a party of principle.

eftt

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Bullshit.

1. If this were so, why didn't we see such tactics occuring, for example, under the Warren Court?*

2. Judicial Activism has become such a cliched term I don't know what the fuck it means anymore, except that politicians of both stripes use it to describe court decisions they just don't like.


* A: We didn't see such tactics during the Warren Court or other eras because the politicians in control thought it too unseemly. Today's GOP is happy to pursue this route today, to use Gingrich's famous phrase, "because we can." Now that's a party of principle.

eftt

I submit that we didn't see it in the Warren Court era because conservatives were in the minority during that era. It is only in the last 10 years that conservatives have become the majority.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This is certainly not my area of expertise, and I think AG and Burger have the answer, but my understanding is that there are certain foreign ownership restrictions on broadcasters in the US.

Out of curiousity, how does that Australian nut-case deal with this?

[SlaveNoMore]

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Out of curiousity, how does that Australian nut-case deal with this?

Just a guess, but maybe the fact that he's been a US Citizen for - oh, I dunno - guessing 20-odd years may have something to do with it.