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

[Kundalini]

Hi Folks!
Here's a link into the future:

http://www.aclu.org/pizza/

see ya on "the system".

[Sensei]

If I can interrupt the moron known as VHS for a moment I'd just like to say 'nice post' to Lurker.

Hey Lurker! Nice post.

[DVD Burner]

If I can interrupt the moron known as VHS for a moment I'd just like to say 'nice post' to Lurker.

Hey Lurker! Nice post.

I dont remember calling you names.....not more than or less than very recently in this thread.


Make your point.

Cite!

[DVD Burner]

Have you acquired the name/playa "Sensei" for a reason?

[lurker]

The country kept it's citizenry in the dark with propoganda fed by the government to their "free" press

We have a free press in this country. We have so many free presses that there are neighborhoods, buildings with their own newspapers. From the outset of this conflict, almost from day one, the press--the 'corporate' press has been, virtually unilaterally, against the actions of this president. Even when they agree with something someone else would have handled it better.

And when this administration HAS actually tried to insert 'propaganda' articles into the news they've been found out and ridiculed.

and slowly emasculated their rights and freedoms from said citizenry while telling them to "live as we did before"

What rights have you lost? Freedom of speech? Hardly. Of association? No. I keep hearing this, and, in my life, I think I'd be one of the first to know, and I've yet to lose a single right. Please tell me, specifically, what rights or freedoms you've personally lost.

Oh, and use terms directly contradictory to describe actions or laws?

I don't understand this, could you explain?

Why was one former president impeached about lying about sex, another forced to resign over lying about something his staffers did, and yet a non-former president not impeached for failing his sworn duty to defend (not emasculate) the constitution and deliberately deceiving the entire american people, the congress, and most other foreign countries???

Because no one who could bring imperachment proceedings about believes that he's done the things you claim. Some Democrats want to start impeachment proceedings, but when called to a vote, their fellows don't support them. Why? Perhaps because they don't really have a case?

Based on what we know, I don't think there's a solid enough case, either. But hey, this is America, give it a shot--just get Cheney too, or else the shit'll REALLY hit the fan

And... how, pray tell, is it honoring someone by keeping them in a combat situation until they are permanently maimed or disfigured or killed? (You're prolly too young to remember the viet vets were in 365 and out, unless they re-upped voluntarily - VOLUNTARILY being the other operative word here...)

Vietnam isn't Iraq. The soldiers in Iraq aren't draftees--they're employees. There's a difference in the whole system because of that. Friend did two tours--lost a bit of his calf to shrapnel, came back and went hippie for a while--then went into peddling surplus. Did his second 'voluntarily', too--though he says he had a lot of 'encouragement'. Soldiers today go in with open eyes, they sign up for a basic tour. Not one of them is there because the government forced them to join. They volunteered. You honor them because there was no draft making them go, the call went up, they went. You don't believe in the war? Fine--they don't get that luxury, they get to go and do what they're told.

What about all the other (worse) nutcase evil fuck dictators we didn't go after?

The perfect is the enemy of the good. Should we wait until we can take them all out at once before starting the task? America is not without fault, the US has made deals and hatched plans and worked with foul people. Expediency.

There is a goal. Democracies tend to settle things quietly, without war. Free populations tend to seek individual prosperity before nationalistic goals. Individual liberty is preferable to nationalistic or socialistic liberty, it breeds a sense of personal attachment and responsibility.

Spreading these things will result in a world much freer, and less likely to war than the present one.

Why are we now laughed at by not just our enemies, but our allies as well??

Japan? Australia? Poland? I don't see anyone laughing. And again, why should that matter? It is the job of the US to insure the security, liberty, and prosperity of Americans, not our allies or enemies. Do our allies benefit from association? Of course. Are they seeking to dissolve their alliances? No? Then their laughter is a mask to hide their hypocracy.

I really wish this had answered more of my points. It seems to me that you think the country is a short step from hoisting a swastika, and I simply can't see it.

[DVD Burner]

Official version of events a conspiracy theory, says drills were cover for attacks


Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones/Prison Planet.com | April 4 2006
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/ap ... uspect.htm


The former head of the Star Wars missile defense program under Presidents Ford and Carter has gone public to say that the official version of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory and his main suspect for the architect of the attack is Vice President Dick Cheney.

Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret. flew 101 combat missions in Vietnam. He is the recipient of the Eisenhower Medal, the George F. Kennan Peace Prize, the President’s Medal of Veterans for Peace, the Society of Military Engineers Gold Medal (twice), six Air Medals, and dozens of other awards and honors. His Ph.D. is in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering from Caltech. He chaired 8 major international conferences, and is one of the country’s foremost experts on National Security.

Bowman worked secretly for the US government on the Star Wars project and was the first to coin the very term in a 1977 secret memo. After Bowman realized that the program was only ever intended to be used as an aggressive and not defensive tool, as part of a plan to initiate a nuclear war with the Soviets, he left the program and campaigned against it.

In an interview with The Alex Jones Show aired nationally on the GCN Radio Network, Bowman (pictured below) stated that at the bare minimum if Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were involved in 9/11 then the government stood down and allowed the attacks to happen. He said it is plausible that the entire chain of military command were unaware of what was taking place and were used as tools by the people pulling the strings behind the attack.

Bowman outlined how the drills on the morning of 9/11 that simulated planes crashing into buildings on the east coast were used as a cover to dupe unwitting air defense personnel into not responding quickly enough to stop the attack.

"The exercises that went on that morning simulating the exact kind of thing that was happening so confused the people in the FAA and NORAD....that they didn't they didn't know what was real and what was part of the exercise," said Bowman

"I think the people who planned and carried out those exercises, they're the ones that should be the object of investigation."

Asked if he could name a prime suspect who was the likely architect behind the attacks, Bowman stated, "If I had to narrow it down to one person....I think my prime suspect would be Dick Cheney."

Bowman said that privately his military fighter pilot peers and colleagues did not disagree with his sentiments about the real story behind 9/11.

Bowman agreed that the US was in danger of slipping into a dictatorship and stated, "I think there's been nothing closer to fascism than what we've seen lately from this government."

Bowman slammed the Patriot Act as having, "Done more to destroy the rights of Americans than all of our enemies combined."

Bowman trashed the 9/11 Commission as a politically motivated cover-up with abounding conflicts of interest, charging, "The 9/11 Commission omitted anything that might be the least bit suspicious or embarrassing or in any way detract from the official conspiracy so it was a total whitewash."

"There needs to be a true investigation, not the kind of sham investigations we have had with the 9/11 omission and all the rest of that junk," said Bowman.

Asked if the perpetrators of 9/11 were preparing to stage another false-flag attack to reinvigorate their agenda Bowman agreed that, "I can see that and I hope they can't pull it off, I hope they are prevented from pulling it off but I know darn good and well they'd like to have another one."

A mainstay of the attack pieces against Charlie Sheen have been that he is not credible enough to speak on the topic of 9/11. These charges are ridiculed by the fact that Sheen is an expert on 9/11 who spends hours a day meticulously researching the topic, something that the attack dogs have failed to do, aiming their comments solely at Sheen's personal life and ignoring his invitation to challenge him on the facts.

In addition, from the very start we have put forth eminently credible individuals only for them to be ignored by the establishment media. Physics Professors, former White House advisors and CIA analysts, the father of Reaganomics, German Defense Ministers and Bush's former Secretary of the Treasury, have all gone public on 9/11 but have been uniformly ignored by the majority of the establishment press.

Will Robert Bowman also be blackballed as the mainstream continue to misrepresent the 9/11 truth movement as an occupation of the fringe minority?

Bowman is currently running for Congress in Florida's 15th District."
-------
Listen to the interview:
www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/03...owman.mp3

[Bin Noddin]

The Hammer wimps out.

[EvilDustBooger]

heh heh...


http://i.euniverse.com/funpages/cms_con ... xtapes.swf

[Kundalini]

We have lost the Right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. This Right has been violated by the laws recently enacted. Warrants now issue upon reasonable suspicion, or less, and not upon probable cause, supported by Oath, and as to Specific Places, Persons or Things to be seized.
We have lost the Right, in Criminal Cases, not to be compelled to be a Witness Against Ourselves.
We have lost the Right to lawful money. Our right to have our United States Congress "coin money, and regulate the value thereof" has been replaced with a debt scam known as the Federal Reserve System. By creating money from printing, then loaning it out with interest, it creates a debt scam that can never be repaid.
We have lost the Right not to be directly taxed by our United States Government. We have lost the Right to the Powers not deligated to the United States Government in the Constitution.
Beware of rashness, but with energy and sleepless vigilance go forward and give us victories. Abraham Lincoln

[DVD Burner]

Illuminati is 250-300 years old. Peasants not having control is not new.

I'd like to hear some ideas on how to get rid of them.

I have a few but that takes a team.

[Kundalini]

I would like to see a whole new Congress.

[Burndango]

You want to get rid of the peasants? I'm confused.

[DVD Burner]

I gotta tell ya, I really love this shit.



DHS spokesman arrested in child sex sting



Today, 9:06 PM
. . .WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A deputy press secretary for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security was arrested Tuesday at his Maryland home on charges he used his computer in an attempt to seduce a child and transmitted harmful materials to a minor, according to the Polk County, Florida, Sheriff's Office.
. . .

[DVD Burner]

You want to get rid of the peasants? I'm confused.

You know something, I figured somebody was gonna say something about that.

[DVD Burner]

What cracks me up, it seems the warrant less wiretaps worked really well against the spokesperson for Homeland security.

Bwwwwaaaa ha ha ha ha ha!

Oh wait a minute, I've been told it's:

MWWWWaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha!

[Kinetic IV]

I hope they hang that DHS scumbag. Oh wait, scum is being nice.

[DVD Burner]

Hey, I thought that Badger was going to follow up on his claim from last week? You know, this one:

Either way SED's post makes no sense as usual.

As if any of the THOUSANDS of posts you've shit out here over the last 2-3 years do?

Puh-lease.

You have an entire thread here to point out what I have posted in THIS THREAD that has not to have been true. Nice to see you involved in the politics thread Badger.

Uuummmmm, you can read this entire thread and see I have been saying the same thing for years.

As in nothing.

Anything beyond the painfully banal five word post you've banged out here has, for the most part, been nothing more than a cut-and-paste lifted from some other author that's grabbed your attention.

Hell, one need only check this thread for what 'you' have to say to get the point.

I'll say it again Badger: You have an entire thread here to point out what I have posted in THIS THREAD that has not to have been true.

Be my guest!

I guess it was just toooo difficult a task.

[Kinetic IV]

Last I heard Badger was in the process of moving so it may take him a bit longer to respond.

[DVD Burner]

My Note To Joel:



I take back what I ever said about William F. Buckley.

yours truley,

Tony-




Buckley Calls Clinton a Contender

By BLOOMBERG NEWS
Published: April 5, 2006
William F. Buckley Jr., the prominent conservative writer and leader, says that while a strong Republican candidate for the 2008 presidential race has yet to emerge, the Democrats have in Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton a true contender to win the White House.

Mrs. Clinton is "a very consequential woman with an extraordinary background," he said in an interview with Bloomberg Television that was broadcast on Monday. "Her thought is kind of woozy left, not in my judgment threatening."

She is "a phenomenon, a woman candidate who might easily be president," he added.

Mr. Buckley suggested that he was less than impressed with the current group of potential candidates for 2008, saying, "I don't find a commanding presence sort of knocking on the door" for the next presidential campaign.

Senator John McCain of Arizona, a potential Republican candidate, is "a remarkable human being," Mr. Buckley said. "I don't think that his name comes to mind automatically as somebody who over a period of years has addressed problems with fruitful thinking, let alone with consistent thinking."

Neither senator has announced plans to seek a party nomination, though both have been raising money, making campaign appearances on behalf of other candidates and taking other steps to build a network of national support.

Mr. Buckley, 80, is often called the father of contemporary conservatism in America. He founded the National Review in 1955, and his philosophy, articulated in the magazine, calls for small government, low taxes and a strong defense. In the same interview in which he discussed Mrs. Clinton, he also criticized President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq, which he called a failure.

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

[cowboyangel]

don't take it seriously...it's a plot to insure democrat failure in 08

[DVD Burner]

William F. Buckley: Bush Will Be Judged on "Failed" Iraq War


http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/ ... _iraq_war/


“If he’d invented the Bill of Rights it wouldn’t get him out of his jam,” the father of the American conservative movement says of the president, in a Bloomberg News interview with Judy Woodruff.
Buckley also calls Rumsfeld a “failed executor” of the war, but maintains that Cheney was misled on the WMD issue.

Bloomberg:

INTERVIEW OF WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY, JR.

BY JUDY WOODRUFF

AS BROADCAST Mar. 22, 2006

MR. BUCKLEY: In 1955, it was generally assumed that conservatives, A, didn’t think. To the extent that they did think, it was simply because they needed to emanate in some way their special interests. They were easily depicted as fat and lazy and cigar-smoking and uninteresting.

MS. WOODRUFF: You were famous for this line when you launched the National Review: We will stand athwart history and yell stop. Did you succeed?

MR. BUCKLEY: Well, in a sense we did, because when I wrote that line, which was for an editorial in the first issue, I had primarily in mind the claims of Marxism. Marxism presented itself as an absolute irreversible call of history. The historic claims of communism were going to assert themselves and make everything else sound irrelevant. So in that sense, I said we are athwart history yelling stop. And the answer is that absolutely did happen, most formally with the end of communism, the [inaudible] of communism in 1991.
MS. WOODRUFF: Do you have any major regrets along the way about positions that you espoused or people you championed?
MR. BUCKLEY: I think we made a mistake in 1962 in opposing the Civil Rights Act. There were two or three acts that-- The one that was opposed by Goldwater, who in the matter, by the way, was constitutionally advised by a man who 10 years later was Chief Justice of the United States.

MS. WOODRUFF: William Rehnquist.

MR. BUCKLEY: On the Civil Rights bill. And we were persuaded that was correct. I regret it. I think that the impact of that bill should have been welcomed by us. And that sort of transcended what would have become a constitutional formalism.

I’m also sad that there wasn’t as much of an evolution in libertarian policies as I’d have liked to have seen. It’s simply accepted by everyone, including workaday conservatives, that education and health are substantially statist enterprises. I regret this. I think it was a surrender in principle and an abandonment of ideas that might have profited the republic hugely.

MS. WOODRUFF: Federal spending as a percentage of the gross national product is 20 percent. It was 17 percent when you started the National Review. Conservatism has succeeded and government’s bigger. Is that a contradiction?

MR. BUCKLEY: No, it’s not necessarily a contradiction because you have to ask would it have been bigger yet.

But it would be useful, I think, if one could routinely read an index that communicated to you the extent to which government was absorbing more and more of the gross national product and taking on functions which would have been best handled by the private sector.

MS. WOODRUFF George W. Bush is widely considered to be a domestic conservative, and yet--you talk about spending--he’s the one who oversaw the passage of this big Medicare prescription drug program, the biggest, what, expansion of entitlements in 40 years. Is George W. Bush really a conservative?

MR. BUCKLEY: Well, I think he is really a conservative, but I think that he simply has not exerted himself at that level of traditional conservative concern for federal expansion. And you correctly point out that that medical bill is overwhelming in terms of its claims on federal spending.

So the answer is no, George W. Bush has not assigned particular attention to that. He’s never even vetoed a spending bill. So that his concern has been so completely on the international scope that he can be said to have neglected conservatism at the level you speak of.

SEGMENT II
MS. WOODRUFF: You generated a fair amount of attention recently when you wrote that the Bush policy in Iraq, you know, had failed, and you said they now have to cope with failure. You talked about how hard it’s going to be for the president to step back from what you call his high-flown pronouncements.

I want to ask why you supported this war in the first place.

MR. BUCKLEY: I resisted endorsing a potential war, as it then was, up until a moment when Mr. Cheney gave a speech in which he spoke absolutely positively about these weapons of mass destruction. We know now that they did not exist, but we also know that they were thought to exist by the most sophisticated intelligence sources--and not, by any means, all American; they were Israeli, German, French, English. So that we went into war assuming that we were stopping him from deploying those weapons.

We found out that they weren’t there. What we then proceeded to do has not worked. That’s simply bad executive action insufficiently thought through and terribly, terribly disadvantageous.

Let me say something that [inaudible]. The notion of failure has to be conjoined to a notion of time. If we had sent some Jesuit missionaries to Iraq, we would have been taught by history that we might wait 100 years before there was genuine reform. But what we did anticipated almost immediate success, and our failure to do that punishes us as days go by. It can’t possibly be conceived of as a defensible mission if it takes 20 years. But we’re pushing the margin of our patience in a point that is not unreasonable.

MS. WOODRUFF: Who is to blame?

MR. BUCKLEY: Well, the president. The president is to blame. And he doesn’t hesitate to accept responsibility. Time after time he says I’m going to send troops, I’m going to do this--he doesn’t even say “we.” He says “I”. And he is supremely responsible.

MS. WOODRUFF: You mentioned the vice president. Give us your assessment of the leading architects of the war--the vice president and defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

MR. BUCKLEY: Well, I think Mr. Rumsfeld is a failed executor. I don’t think he was necessarily involved as an architect of the war.

I think Mr. Cheney was flatly misled. He believed the business about the weapons of mass destruction. Now, whether Mr. Cheney engaged in Wilsonian dreams about how a democracy would ignite in Iraq and spread ineluctably south or east, I don’t know.

MS. WOODRUFF: You mentioned that we’ve seen this neoconservative Wilsonian tendency embracing--wanting to export American values around the world, and this has been adopted by the Bush administration. Is this a conservative--

MR. BUCKLEY: I don’t think so.

MS. WOORUFF: approach?

MR BUCKLEY: No, I don’t think so. The neoconservative hubris, which sort of assigns to America some kind of geostrategic responsibility for maximizing democracy, overstretches the resources of a free country. So it is not conservatism. A conservative always measures capabilities and resources, and these are simply incapable--now, even as they were in the 1919--of bringing on democracy.

MS. WOODRUFF: Do you have a formula for the United States getting out of Iraq? You said it’s failed.

MR. BUCKLEY: No. No, I don’t have a formula. I think it’s important that we acknowledge in the inner counsels of state that it has failed, so that we should look for opportunities to cope with that failure.

But I don’t think there is a formula for withdrawal.

SEGMENT III
MS. WOODRUFF: You were intimately familiar with some of the political giants of the last half century. Let me just name a couple of them.

Richard Nixon. Just cast your take.

MR. BUCKLEY: Well, Mr. Nixon was one of the brightest people who ever occupied the White House. Just an enormous capacity to remember and to organize. But he suffered from basic derangements. He couldn’t govern his own life and did things so stupid as to lead to his ejection from office. And things that weren’t at all necessary. The notion that he was politically threatened in 1972 turned out to be paranoid.

So he--and Henry Kissinger makes such a good point about him. He said that he never knew a man who both wanted to be president as badly as he did and hated being president.

MS. WOODRUFF: Ronald Reagan?

MR. BUCKLEY: Ronald Reagan confounded the intellectual class, which disdained him, thought him not too bright and vulgar in his orientations. He has proved anything but that. And year after year there is more and more evidence of his ingenuity, of his historical intelligence. So that we are, I think, moving in the direction of acclaiming him as a man of singular talents and singular gifts in communicating to the very broad constituency, that there were natural divisions in acceptable activity and acceptable activity.

MS. WOODRUFF: Let me ask you about one Democrat.

MR. BUCKLEY: That’s all we admit, right?

MS. WOODRUFF: Our most recent two-termer, Bill Clinton. Any thoughts?

MR. BUCKLEY: Well, I think Bill Clinton is the most gifted politician of, certainly of my time. There’s nobody who can match him. He generates a kind of a vibrant goodwill with a capacity for mischief, which is very, very American, and a sense of survivability, which is dismaying. He gives the impression that nothing in the world can ultimately really hurt him. I don’t think anybody could begin to write a textbook that explicates his political philosophy because he doesn’t really have one.

MS. WOODRUFF: George W. Bush?

MR. BUCKLEY: Well, Mr. Bush is in the hands of a fortune that will be unremitting on the point of Iraq. If he discovered the--if he’d invented the Bill of Rights, it wouldn’t get him out of his jam. If the Iraq venture fails, so also will he fail in terms of the ranking of his administration. Because there is nothing conceivable, in my judgment, that could rescue him if we proceed towards disaster in Iraq.

That’s a tragedy in the Greek sense of that one little failing which ends up being critical to the entire canvas. I hope it won’t happen, but it doesn’t look good.

SEGMENT IV
MS. WOODRUFF: Do you ever get tired of being given all this credit for the rise of conservatism in America?

MR. BUCKLEY: Well, when conservatism proceeds in the wrong direction, I do. It’s an amusing paradox. I’m referred to as the father of conservatism, but then when things go badly the question logically arises, is there a paternal responsibility? One simply has to cope.

MS. WOODRUFF: Has being in power been good for conservatives and conservatism?

MR. BUCKLEY: It’s a sly but merited point that you make. Because often giving power to a minority causes an exhaustive appropriation of that power without a commensurate sense of fulfillment

So I would say it’s a good thing to remind oneself, and I’m grateful to you for doing so, that the exercise of freedom does not in and of itself guarantee commendable action.

MS. WOODRUFF: Bill Buckley, longtime host of “Firing Line,” everybody agrees you brought an amazing passion and a civility to political discourse. Is that missing today on both sides of the divide?

MR. BUCKLEY: Oh no, I don’t think so. You find both civility and passion. There’s lots and lots of good discussion going on.

MS. WOODRUFF: You don’t think the civility is —some of it – is, been lost.

MR. BUCKLEY: Well, by your standards and mine that may be true. But not by common standards.

MS. WOODRUFF: What do you watch on television?

MR. BUCKLEY: Well, I almost always watch the seven o’clock Lehrer program. And then the rest is just… see, nothing is sort of scheduled.

MS. WOODRUFF: So I have to ask you about the blogs. Do you read the blogs? What do you think of the blogs?

MR. BUCKLEY: Well, I think it is a very healthy development. National Review has its own blog which is very well patronized, called National Review Online. And, I see it not as regularly as I should. But its halfway between entertainment and duty.

MS. WOODRUFF: But they are a good thing? Blogs, all in all?

MR. BUCKLEY: I think so. They can be abused. Everything can be abused. The press. Television. But the notion that without a lot of capital you can crank up the means by which to communicate your views to whomever wants to look at them is pretty encouraging, I think.

MR. BUCKLEY: I think I’ve struck you dumb…[ laughs]

MS. WOODRUFF: [ Laughs ] Bill Buckley, thank you very much, this has been wonderful.

MR. BUCKLEY: Delighted to talk with you.

MS. WOODRUFF: Thank you, thank you.

[DVD Burner]

don't take it seriously...it's a plot to insure democrat failure in 08

Hey, I'm looking at a bunch of things he has stated this year that I just cannot belive.

I guess that is why we have'nt seen Joel post Buckley lately.

[cowboyangel]

Buckley supports weed too......

[DVD Burner]

I gotta let ya in on a secret,

I always had the hots for JUDY WOODRUFF ever since she was on PBS.

[DVD Burner]

Buckley supports weed too......

so does Joel.


Just doesn’t surprise me as much.

[Kundalini]

Online motel registry helps police catch criminals
Susan Voyles ([email protected])
RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL
April 5, 2006

As soon as people check in at six downtown motels, Reno police

can now check the guest registry online to look for crooks and sex

offenders.

The results for the first three weeks speak for themselves: The

online registry resulted in 14 guests being arrested on felony

warrants and four unregistered sex offenders.

The arrests all came from one motel. "Fourteen out of 30 rooms

had arrests," said Kevin Barnes, one of the three police officers on

the 2-year-old Motel Interdiction Team supported by the downtown

police tax district. "There's no question this is going to change

these motels."

Barnes said he hopes other motels will join the voluntary listing.

Under state law, motel owners must allow police to look at their

registry. But they are not compelled to e-mail their guests' names

to the police department as the six are doing.

"This is long overdue. I'm just ecstatic," said Jackie Ford, a

downtown resident who heard Barnes and Sgt. Greg Ballew speak

Tuesday at a Reno Redevelopment Agency citizens advisory

committee.

Eighty percent of people arrested downtown live in 50 small motels

in the area, police said.

"We are housing the very element we are fighting against," Barnes

said. "Downtown residents live in fear."

Barnes said police also have arrested a number of motel

managers suspected of dealing drugs or trading lodging for drugs

and keeping an assortment of weapons. In these cases, Barnes

said, police located the motel owners, who often live out of state,

and told them how their managers allowed drug networks to

operate on their properties. Now police have good relations with

most of the motels, he said.

Police also want to change the lives of the kids growing up in motel

rooms. Barnes showed the photo of a 15-month-old baby with lips

blistered from gases created in making methamphetamine.

In another case, a 9-year-old girl was photographed sleeping in her

bed. Marijuana and meth were in a nightstand nearby, and a bag of

meth was found under her bed. With her parents in jail, she now

lives with her grandmother in Carson City. "It's part of breaking the

chain," Ballew said.

Police work with charities to get some motel tenants back to work

and into better housing. And Washoe County library and school

officials have teamed up for an after-school tutoring program at the

downtown library.

The cost of motel crime to the city is huge, Barnes said, using one

motel as a case study. Before police began the crackdown, they

responded to 74 calls a month at the motel. "After we got through,

we have had absolutely no calls," Ballew said.

http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic ... 0405/NEWS0

1/604050354/1004&template=printart

[DVD Burner]

Uuuummmmm,



does this mean that BM will be less dangerous?





Bummer Dude.

[joel the ornery]

don't take it seriously...it's a plot to insure democrat failure in 08

the DNC is doing well enough ensuring their failure, they don't need Junior's assistance.

[Kundalini]

Members of the U.S. House of Representatives are elected to
two-year terms in even-numbers years. Members of the U.S.
Senate are elected for six-year terms. In this next election, to be
held on November 7, 2006, we could completely replace the U.S
House of Representatives, and 33 of the 100 U.S. Senators. We
must not re-elect the treasonous theives currently in office. We
must seek out and elect Good, Honest, Sincere, and Capable
Agents of the Public Trust. For too long our government has been
operated from the government down. Now is the time for we the
people to take our country back. We must take control of our
government and run our country from the bottom up and set our
ship of state back on course. With the power of instant
communications it might be possible to blitz the incumbents right
out of office. Do you think this possible? What would it take?

[geekster]

That's what is so funny about politics, we keep electing treasonous theives. Even if we vote out this batch of treasonous theives, the batch voted in would be treasonous theives that will need to be voted out and so on. Sad fact is that few are actually voted out. Politics is local. People tend to vote for the same person election after election because no matter what party the person belongs to, THEIR rep is okay. Every once in a while someone retires from office and it shakes things up and there might be some turnover for an election or two until folks settle down into a comfortable groove again for another decade or two with "their rep".

Been that way since the country was founded and not likely to change. Want to make a big change? Stop paying the fuckers. Jefferson said that any politician worth his salt can make enough on graft alone to get by. Make them be successful in some other endeavor in life besides winning elections. Zero pay, zero retirement benefits. Serving would be just that, serving. Give them a barracks and a meal card if they need it and maybe a clothing allowance and that's it.