Politics, Everyday, All day... morning, noon and night....

[Simply Joel]

I say we glass the place, poke a few holes in the ground, suck the goodies out and declare mission accomplished.

mmMMMmm, soft chewy center.

you know it is scarey that there are actual people, as opposed to the cheap imitation ones they sell in the dairy section, that think in those terms, minus the witty and hurmorous Homer Simpson monolgue...

[stuart]

it's my new 'can't beat 'em join 'em' attitude.


fun and easy

[DVD Burner]

GOODBYE JOHN ASSCROFT!



no he's not dead but it's just ass well. He resigned.



WOO HOO!

[DVD Burner]

Right, and I am saying that I see no evidence that the CIA.

Meant to answer this the other day this way but was too drunk......Notice I stopped the quote right there? After all..... we are talking about the CIA. you wont see any proof....at least not for awhile anyway.

The whole quote went like this and is on page 111:

Right, and I am saying that I see no evidence that the CIA helped put Saddam in power. The only thing I see is that they tried (and failed) to use him as an assasin (since he SEEMED like he might be pretty good in that role and later proved to be) in the 1950's but he was forced to flee. I see nothing that shows he had any further support of the CIA after that. In fact it was his own family that helped put him in power after he got out of prison in 1966.

now for what I said 2 weeks ago:

Even though Rian is trying so hard to get theses guys to understand........more power to her.

Anyhoo, Looks like in the next 2 weeks the British are getting ready to get their asses kicked while on their way to Falusha. The British feel they will take over that area and get things under control. Only one thing, who they are fighting will most likely do one of 2 things if not both. Either not be there and will have relocated to 3 other places and 2. ambush the British army along the way and in Falusha.

The British nor Americans get it. I think it is a genetic thing.

On american TV you get that the Americans are the only ones that are doing all the work but looks like what I said was gonna happen is happenning. Wonder how long it will be before these guys get ambushed?

[DVD Burner]

Sorry

[Apollonaris Zeus]

GOODBYE JOHN ASSCROFT!

We'll I told you all so!

Let's hope for Marc Rocicot!

He's been fucked by the Republican's push for deregulation then had to work for the Devil= Enron because of internal Repub pressure. I think he's ready for defending our constitition and women's rights.

Here in Montana we really defend our private lifes even when our law enforcement have violated that right.

Guiliani! He wants the bigger pie. watch for him to run for president.

I'm voting for him and will change my primary democrated registration to do so.

Why? other then fixing up NY, I'll vote for any guy that can dress up in a women's clothing! Besides, he's not part of this evangelical republican right movement which to me is opening a door back to the dark ages! Science is out! Evolution is just a hypothethecal thought! yeah right!

We need to protect women's rights and Bush is pushing us back to when the Gallileo's of our age will be burnt along with many of us pagans and Hellenics.

Watch for a McCain & Guiliani ticket in 2008 and a return to Progressive Republicanism after a 89 year curse!

A II Z

[DVD Burner]

Thomas Frank was on c-span this morning.

Kinda suprised Joel did'nt say anything about Thomas Frank. Guess he does'nt know who he is.

Humm,

also kinda suprised no one said anything about this:

Oh by the way.....the Pres of Afganistan is an employee of unocal oil.


Suckers.

I mean I figure at least Geekster would have at least questioned that.
Maybe even Joel would have questioned it after all he did talk about fair elections in Afghanistan.

Not even a "DVD dont know what he talkin about"?

[DVD Burner]

Watch for a McCain & Guiliani ticket in 2008 and a return to Progressive Republicanism after a 89 year curse!

A II Z

Nah, I say it's gonna be Asscroft and Jeb in 2008.

[buckethead alien]

Watch for a McCain & Guiliani ticket in 2008 and a return to Progressive Republicanism after a 89 year curse!

A II Z

Nah, I say it's gonna be Asscroft and Jeb in 2008.

Go back to bed, DVD. It's freakin' early and you're having nightmares.

[DVD Burner]

[Simply Joel]

well everyone, George Bush just gifted you a sacrificial lamb for the post-election slaughter/feast.

now, while you are celebrating, may i suggest you begin to think of who you would support as a bi-partisan selection and who you wouldn't support if they were the last person on earth.

once you have made that selection, find the address of your congressman and the white house and begin writing a simple by hand letter to each... stating in simple sentences 3 reasons for such and such candidate, 3 reasons against such and such candidate... limit your letter to one page... have a return address...

wait for a response. no response... begin another letter, first sentence says... i sent a letter (copy enclosed) a (insert number) days ago and did not recieve a response...

then proceed to restate your original points and add in new ones...

repeat process.


congratulations everyone, the wicked witch of Missourri is no more... just remember, you have to be involved in the nimination/confirmation process or you could get someone much worse.

who would you suggest as a bi-partisan selection to replace John Ashcroft?

[samtzu]

What Joel wrote is absolutely correct. It is the basis for responsible participation in government. If everyone on these threads did this, believe me, your voice would be heard. Maybe not enough to make big changes, but enough to make little ones. Plus, there are enough people on these threads that know how to make concise, literal, as well as literary, arguments, to help make a difference.

The McCain/Giuliani ticket is one that I would consider, but I would have to see what their platform is first.

[DVD Burner]

What Joel wrote is absolutely correct. It is the basis for responsible participation in government. If everyone on these threads did this, believe me, your voice would be heard. Maybe not enough to make big changes, but enough to make little ones. Plus, there are enough people on these threads that know how to make concise, literal, as well as literary, arguments, to help make a difference.

The McCain/Giuliani ticket is one that I would consider, but I would have to see what their platform is first.

Ok if for a second I want to belive that your government is not suckering everyone.....you think that ( Like what the public does makes any diffrence.) the 08 platform really may be a McCain/Giuliani ticket?

I'll be serious for a second and say Cheney and McCain or Jeb will be the ticket. or Cheney and Schwarzenegger.

Speaking of Schwarzenegger:

Governor Schwarzenegger vetoes email privacy bill

Tuesday, November 09, 2004 commentary:

Overview:
 A California bill protecting the privacy of internet and e-mail usage at work met the red veto pen of Gov.
 The would-be law, SB 1841, would have required the state's employers to provide "clear and conspicuous" notice before electronically monitoring the e-mail or internet usage of employees.
 Not doing so would have become a misdemeanor in the California penal code.
 Schwarzenegger shot the bill down because businesses need to retain the perogative to monitor employee activities, his office said.
 "For business purposes, employers should have the ability to monitor employee activity in order to ensure (internet and e-mail) access is not being abused," Schwarzenegger said in a statement late Wednesday.
 Schwarzenegger also said the legislation was too broad and did not define clearly enough the notification employers would have to give to their employees before electronically monitoring them.
 "It's not that complicated," said the bill's sponsor, Rep. Debra Bowen (D-Redondo Beach), after the veto Wednesday.
 "The bill simply required companies that want to monitor their employees' e-mail or internet use to give them a one-time notice saying, 'Your computer use may be monitored at any time.'
 The bill's major opponent, The California Chamber of Commerce, sent a letter to members of the Senate in August arguing that SB 1841's "clear and conspicuous notice" language might be interpreted differently by employees and employers, thus "encouraging litigation."
 While the bill was supported by the American Civil Liberties Union, the AFL-CIO union organization and other privacy advocates in the state, Bowen said the governor was reluctant to defy the opposition of the Chamber of Commerce.
 A 2004 survey of 840 businesses conducted by the American Marketing Association found that 60 percent use some type of employee e-mail monitoring software.
Source: http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,184 ... _tophead_9

[Simply Joel]

although i don't live in California, i can understand why the Governator vetoed the bill.

and you know something..... veto and vote have the same letters of the alphabet

[cowboyangel]

re: above check out this
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/13/techn ... r=USERLAND
Ken's a friend....google his problems with Intel for more on employees and privacy...our gov's an idiot...I hope they run Alec Baldwin againt him in the next election...shit we might as well conduct our next election entirely on the Tonight Show......

[Simply Joel]

re: above check out this
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/13/techn ... r=USERLAND
Ken's a friend....google his problems with Intel for more on employees and privacy...our gov's an idiot...I hope they run Alec Baldwin againt him in the next election...shit we might as well conduct our next election entirely on the Tonight Show......

so, the little guy prevailed, right, CA?

[Apollonaris Zeus]

Well is seems that the Bush Admin and the powers that control is may over look Marc for another insider, a man close to Bush. Alberto Tomba Ooops I meant Alberto Gonzales.

Its seems once again the Big Sky State is to remain a thirth world nation to this administration.

I guess that's what happens to those that are the "Lap Dancers of Industry" and Politics.

The Gonzales appointment, if it does happen is a political move to shore up and increase the republican hispanic vote for 2006.

On the Presidential ticket for 2006, forget about Cheney, He's been more of a liability with the Haliburton investigation and his ticker is more like a compact computer then a heart.

The Religious Right will not want Jeb because of their Southern Babtist (we're against abortion, because we need soldiers to die for our christian crusades) followings and he is a Catholic.

Schwarzenegger! Way too liberal as far as the Religious Right is concerned and he's out of the picture until the foreigners change our Contistution to allow him to be President.

McCain and Guiliani will not be controlled by the Religious Republican Right (RRR) therefore they will have a battle to get the nominee. But until the RRR is defeated as a major voice. The Republican's will lose some of that middle pro-rights base in the next election. RRR is nothing but a Fascist Christian movement.

A II Z

[Apollonaris Zeus]

so, the little guy prevailed, right, CA?

Yeah, by those Activist Judicial Appointees!

(that comment was made by the RRR in me!

Good thing that most Conservative Supreme Court Justices become more attuned to the Constitution then the views of the Conservatives, but how long will this last I wonder?

A II Z

[Simply Joel]

This is bad legislation and should not be revived.
This is another example of entirely too much authority given to the executive branch.
This initiative should be fought.

is that enough of my opinion?

joel


Bush Wants Line-Item Veto to Be Revived

Wed Nov 10,10:18 AM ET White House - AP
By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Six years after the Supreme Court took away the president's ability to veto specific parts of legislation, President Bush is asking Congress to bring back the line-item veto to let him make precision strikes against projects and tax provisions he doesn't like.

At a news conference after his re-election, Bush said he wanted a line-item veto that "passed constitutional muster," explaining it would help him work with lawmakers "to make sure that we're able to maintain budget discipline."

Presidents have been saying similar words since the first line-item veto proposal was introduced in the 1870s. It wasn't until 1996, when the new Republican majority in the House made the tool part of its "Contract With America," that Congress responded.

President Clinton happily signed the legislation, and in 1997 he used his new power 82 times to negate specific projects in larger spending bills. Congress overrode his veto 38 times, although it still resulted in savings of almost $2 billion.

Clinton singled out for elimination programs that, detractors said, benefited a single tour boat operator in Alaska, or dredged a Mississippi lake that primarily served yachts and pleasure boats.

Two of the losers, New York City and Idaho potato growers, went to court, however, and in 1997 the Supreme Court ruled on a 6-3 vote that the law gave the president unconstitutional unilateral power to change laws enacted by Congress.

The nation returned to what is now current law: The president signs or vetoes spending or tax bills in their entirety; he cannot eliminate items within the bills.

The line-item veto helps restrain excessive spending, said Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, but "failure of political will does not justify unconstitutional remedies."

Opponents said the law seriously eroded Congress' power over the purse and tilted the Constitution's system of checks and balances dangerously in favor of the executive branch.

"It is a malformed monstrosity, born out of wedlock," thundered Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, the senior Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee and a staunch defender of the rights of the legislative branch.

With the court ruling and the return of budget surpluses during Clinton's presidency, the line-item issue faded away. As deficits reappeared and mounted to record levels under Bush, the issue also reappeared.

The administration has put language in its annual budget proposals that encourage another look at the line-item veto. White House Budget Director Josh Bolten told the Senate Budget Committee this year that the administration hopes to work with Congress to draft legislation that would stand up to constitutional scrutiny.

"We hope the president has the political courage to follow through on this," said David Williams, spokesman for Citizens Against Government Waste, a leading advocate of the line-item veto as a means to rein in government spending. "This could be one of his legacies."

Williams said a new proposal could be written in a manner that would avoid the constitutional challenge that sank the last measure. Others say the Constitution must be amended to make the line-item veto legal.

A constitutional amendment has been proposed by Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., whose husband, former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, R-Kan., was a chief sponsor of the 1996 measure with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

Rep. Bob Andrews, D-N.J., who has a similar constitutional amendment proposal in the House, said he thought Bush's statement could give impetus to legislative action.

It's not a Republican versus Democratic issue, Andrews said. It's "appropriations people against the rest of us. They jealously guard their ability to put projects in bills. Some are justifiable, some aren't."

David Skaggs, a former Democratic congressman from Colorado, led the opposition in the House to the 1996 bill. He said it would be foolhardy now for Congress to pass legislation that would produce a "huge shift in power to the presidency" and open possibilities of abuse. He saw the possibility that lawmakers, to protect a project in their district, could be pressured to support a White House policy they otherwise opposed.

"The answer is self-discipline on the part of Congress, not derogating its central power," said Skaggs, now head of the Center for Democracy and Citizenship at the Council for Excellence in Government.

[diane o'thirst]

There's a discussion going on another BBS I'm on. They're talking about possible likelies for women Presidential candidates. Lots are saying "Hillary," even more are saying "The States aren't ready for a woman President" and unfortunately, I agree with that

I said, just to prove a point, "I could see myself getting behind Elizabeth Dole before Hillary, and she's a Repub." But to make a stronger point, I also said that I thought a lot of people would get behind Madeline Albright. I saw an interview with her where the interviewer said, "How would you feel about a run for the White House?" She laughed and said she wish she could but she was born in Germany and moved here early in her life. It's sad, because a diplomat President would be a fine thing indeed, IMO.

Jeb 'n Ashcroft [scream]

Cheney for Pres? He's already said he's not interested in running. Might as well say Cheney and Powell.

In 2008 — if I saw Kerry on the Dem ticket and Giuliani on the Repub ticket, I'd become one of those Undecided Voters because I couldn't pick one! I'd probably wind up getting the ballot, writing "Kerry" on one piece of paper, writing "Giuliani" on another, covering my eyes and going eenie-meenie-miney-mo...I have nothing but respect for Giuliani. In terms of managing that crisis, he ran rings around Georgie Boy hands-down.

[Alpha]

I really liked Guiliani until last week when I saw him on CNN shamelessly plugging Guiliani and Partners (a security firm) over and over and over again.

[Simply Joel]

just to clarify, my post on picking the next nominees was about those judicial and Cabinet posts being appointed... in my humble opinion, you have to deal with that before you deal with 2008.

[stuart]

I lived under Guiliani in Manhattan.

Draconian he was

[DVD Burner]

Kinda part of politics.....well how corrupt the people that are involved in it are.

This is about one of the owners (James Baker.) of Bechtel's grand way to sucker Boston outta 14 billion dollars doing bullshit work. the same kinda bullshit he has pulled in Iraq and California. Mind you Bechtel is still getting paid for Iraq.

(Suckers are born everyday huh.)

Judge orders Swift to testify in Mihos suit

By Raphael Lewis, Globe Staff | October 14, 2004

A federal judge ruled yesterday that former acting governor Jane Swift must provide sworn testimony in a civil rights case brought against her by a former Massachusetts Turnpike Authority board member she fired for voting to delay a planned toll increase in 2001.
The ruling by Judge Joseph L. Tauro, which also compels several top Swift aides, Turnpike brass, and Big Dig officials to testify, brings more fuel to the case that has dogged the former Republican chief executive for nearly two years.
The plaintiff, Christy P. Mihos, alleges that Swift violated his First Amendment rights to free speech when she fired him on Nov. 16, 2001. He also argues that he was fired as part of a conspiracy between Swift and the Big Dig's private-sector manager, Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff, which was being threatened with losing its $2 billion contract after years of scandalous cost overruns. Mihos was spearheading that effort.
Swift has argued that the firing was the direct result of poor decisions by Mihos that endangered the authority's financial stability and occurred only after she held a closed-door hearing in which Mihos was allowed to present his side.
Mihos, who this year lost his seat on the Turnpike board to state Transportation Secretary Daniel Grabauskas, declined to comment. But his lawyer, Harvey A. Schwartz, said: ''Mr. Mihos has been waiting for two years now for the opportunity to get evidence under oath as to what the real reason was for his removal from office. He's looking forward to finally uncovering the truth."
Swift spokesman Ray Howell issued a statement saying: ''This is a routine order issued by the court. We look forward to the deposition process and are confident that the true facts of the case ultimately will be revealed."
In yesterday's decision, Tauro ruled that Mihos's lawyers have until Feb. 28 to question Swift; former top aides Stephen Crosby and Peter Forman; Matthew J. Amorello, Turnpike chairman; and several top Bechtel/Parsons officials.
Local legal scholars and professionals said it was unclear yesterday when, if ever, a former Massachusetts governor has been compelled to provide testimony in a case stemming from policy decisions while in office. But Joseph L. Kociubes, former president of the Boston Bar Association and a partner at Bingham McCutchen, said Governor Edward J. King was deposed and testified in a defamation case that he filed against The Boston Globe. King served more than 20 years ago. He lost the case.
Swift, who was elected lieutenant governor under Paul Cellucci in 1998, succeeded Cellucci in April 2001, after he was named ambassador to Canada.
Because of the ruling, Swift's lawyers are now entitled to depose Mihos and several former Turnpike officials, including former CEO Richard Capka, former general counsel Peter Pendergast, and former board member David Forsberg.
© Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.

[DVD Burner]

Oh yeah I forgot........




BWAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!


I love watching suckers.

[geekster]

Abu Ammar is gone. What will tomorrow bring? The world wonders.

[DVD Burner]

Well he's in a better place.

Palistine should do alright as long as Isreal does no bombing.

[DVD Burner]

Israeli police detain nuke whistleblower Vanunu


Thu 11 November, 2004 09:12



JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israeli police have detained nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu for questioning, a security source told Reuters without citing reasons.

Vanunu was released in April after an 18-year prison term for discussing his work at Israel's atomic reactor in Dimona with a British newspaper. The interview led experts to conclude the Jewish state had nuclear weapons.

He was barred from leaving Israel after officials accused him of planning to leak more secrets on Israel's nuclear capabilities. He denied the allegations.

Police did not immediately comment on the detention on Thursday.

Security sources had said Vanunu was under surveillance on suspicion of giving unauthorised interviews to foreign media.

Vanunu's detention was overshadowed locally by the death of Palestinian President Yasser Arafat illness in Paris.

[DVD Burner]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [PRESSLIST] Attorney General Lockyer Announces $2.6 Million
Settlement with
Diebold in Electronic Voting Lawsuit
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 15:16:28 -0800
From: NEWSALERTS NEWSALERTS <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]

Attorney General Lockyer Announces $2.6 Million Settlement with Diebold
in Electronic Voting Lawsuit
Settlement Would Resolve False Claims Allegations, Strengthen Security
of Equipment

(OAKLAND) * Attorney General Bill Lockyer today announced a proposed
$2.6 million settlement with
Diebold Election Systems, Inc. (Diebold) to resolve a lawsuit that
alleged the Texas-based firm
provided false information to obtain payments from the state and
counties for its electronic voting
equipment.

“There is no more fundamental right in our democracy than the right to
vote and have your vote
counted,” said Lockyer. “In making false claims about its equipment,
Diebold treated that right,
and the taxpayers who bought its machines, cavalierly. This settlement
holds Diebold accountable
and helps ensure the future quality and security of its voting
systems.”

Lockyer filed the proposed settlement simultaneously with the complaint
in Alameda County Superior
Court. He filed both jointly with Alameda County District Attorney
Thomas J. Orloff and Alameda
County Counsel Richard E. Winnie. Before it becomes final, the
settlement must be approved by the
court.

The complaint is an amended version of a false claims lawsuit
originally filed November 21, 2003 by
James March and Bev Harris. Lockyer and the local prosecutors, after
conducting their own
investigation, intervened on September 7, 2004 and took over the case.
March and Harris are
entitled to claim a portion of the proceeds from the proposed
settlement. The court will determine
how much they receive. Additionally, if the court determines March and
Harris are entitled to
recover attorneys fees and costs, Diebold will be responsible for
reimbursing those expenses.

The proposed settlement calls for Diebold to pay a total of $2.6
million. The payment would be
allocated as follows: $1.25 million to the state and $100,000 to
Alameda County to resolve alleged
violations of the state’s False Claims Act (FCA); $375,000 each to
Alameda County and the state to
resolve alleged violations of the state’s Unfair Competition Law; and
$500,000 to the UC Berkeley
Institute of Governmental Studies (IGS). The IGS would use the
$500,000 to fund research aimed at
training poll workers in the use of electronic voting technology.

In addition to the $2.6 million, the settlement would require Diebold
to pay the costs of providing
optional paper ballots to voters in Alameda and Plumas counties in the
November 2, 2004 general
election, if the counties request such reimbursement. Diebold’s
obligation under this provision
would be limited to the cost of providing paper ballots for up to 25
percent of the registered
voters in the two counties.

Under the settlement, Diebold also would: pay for optical scan
equipment and ballots used in the
November 2, 2004 general election in Kern, San Joaquin and San Diego
counties; pay for storage of
electronic representations of each ballot cast on touchscreen voting
units in the November 2, 2004
general election in Alameda, Plumas and Los Angeles counties; upon
Alameda County’s request, pay for
tamper-resistant tape used by the county in the November 2, 2004
general election; install, and pay
the cost of installing, upgraded touchscreen firmware in Alameda,
Plumas and Los Angeles counties,
and upgraded vote tabulation software in all counties using Diebold
voting systems in the November
2, 2004 general election; upon Alameda County’s request, pay for 750
expanded memory cards for the
county’s touchscreen voting units.

Additionally, the settlement includes important provisions that would
require Diebold to strengthen
the security of its touchscreen voting machines and vote tabulation
servers. During the course of
negotiating the proposed settlement, Diebold took steps to implement
some of these “injunctive
relief” requirements.

One provision would require Diebold to replace hard-coded, “supervisor”
passwords with dynamic
passwords, and provide directions and training to enable election
officials to change the dynamic
passwords. Diebold also would have to encipher data transmissions
between touchscreen terminals and
vote tabulation servers, and replace hard-coded data encryption,
standard security keys with
encryption keys programmable by counties.

Additionally, the settlement would require Diebold, upon request of the
counties using its voting
equipment, to reconfigure the vote-tabulation server to better secure
the systems in those counties.
In the alternative, Diebold could instruct the counties on how to
complete such a reconfiguration.
Under the settlement, Diebold would be prohibited from connecting
voting systems to specified
networks, transmitting official election results through use of such
networks, or downloading
software or firmware through use of specified networks. The settlement
also would require Diebold
to offer training materials to the counties on how to use its voting
systems.

Further, Diebold would have to provide the California Secretary of
State, upon demand, documents
from independent federal testing authorities, and information related
to the development, testing,
installation and operation of its voting systems. The information
would allow the Secretary of
State to further analyze the Diebold systems used in California
elections.

The amended complaint filed by Lockyer and the Alameda County officials
alleges Diebold made false
claims about the security, and state and federal certification, of its
touchscreen machines and vote
tabluation system. As a result of those false claims, the complaint
alleges, Alameda and other
counties spent taxpayer money to buy the equipment. The state then
reimbursed six counties for a
portion of their payments with funds provided under the Voting
Modernization Bond Act of 2002
(VMBA), according to the complaint. Those counties included Alameda,
Kern, Lassen, Plumas, Santa
Barbara and Siskiyou.

In the case of Alameda, the county spent about $11.8 million on Diebold
equipment, some of which
failed during the March 2004 primary election. Alameda County recouped
roughly $8.8 million from
the state-provided VMBA funds.

View this press release on the Attorney General's web site at
http://caag.state.ca.us/newsalerts/2004/04-130.htm

[DVD Burner]

Step lightly, DVD, I have family in Texas.

Oh and yeah yeah yeah I forgot.....Diebold is in Texas........