Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Donkey's Inn -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skywatcher who wrote (6775)	5/5/2003 7:23:18 AM
From: Mephisto	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 15516

Patriot Raid Jason Halperin t r u t h o u t \| Report EXCERPTS: "Three days later I phoned the restaurant to discover what happened. The owner was nervous and embarrassed and obviously did not want to talk about it. But I managed to ascertain that the whole thing had been one giant mistake. A mistake. Loaded guns pointed in faces, people made to crawl on their hands and knees, police officers clearly exacerbating a tense situation by kicking in doors, taunting, keeping their fingers on the trigger even after the situation was under control. A mistake. And, according to the ACLU a perfectly legal one, thanks to the Patriot Act." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would Bush and Aschroft harass immigrants and people who are not colored white? One explanation might be that it gives them an excuse to make a distinction between them (the good guys) and the non-white guys (the evil doers.). When they harass "them", Bush and Co make Americans believe that there is a good chance these people are here illegally and may have committed a crime so the police focus on them so that WE do not focus on Ashcroft and Bush's prejudices and behaviour. (As an aside, I believe American airlines has been fined for harassing non-white people. I am not sure of their ethnic background but they are not white from what I read. Perhaps, you are familiar with the case.) When you look at Ashcroft's past: his unwillingness to rebuild black schools that were literally falling downtown in the inner city of St. Louis and his refusal to let to let the League of Women Voters go into these areas to sign up people to vote, you should not be surprised that Bush and Ashcroft attack other ethnic groups. It gives them a sense of power and it casts doubt on the character of those that they target. It appears the people they target have very little money or power so these people, much like former slaves in the south, have no legal way to seek help. I wouldn't be surprised if Bush and Ashcroft supported the infamous Dread Scott decision. Of course, they would never say so. JMOP The Dred Scott Decision library.wustl.edu In 1846, Dred Scott and his wife Harriet filed suit for their freedom in the St. Louis Circuit Court. This suit began an eleven-year legal fight that ended in the U.S. Supreme Court, which issued a landmark decision declaring that Scott remain a slave. This decision contributed to rising tensions between the free and slave states just before the American Civil War. The records displayed in this exhibit document the Scotts' early struggle to gain their freedom through litigation and are the only extant records of this significant case as it was heard in the St. Louis Circuit Court. The original Dred Scott case file is located in the Office of the St. Louis Circuit Clerk. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In short, the Patriot Act turns us into Bush and Ashcroft's potential slaves.--Mephisto >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The Patriot Act is just the first phase of the erosion of the Fourth Amendment. From the Justice Department has emerged a draft of the Domestic Securities Enhancement Act, also known as Patriot II. Among other things, this act would allow the Justice Department to detain anyone, anytime, secretly and indefinitely. It would also make it a crime to reveal the identity or even existence of such a detainee. " >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of fighting with each other you'd think the nine Democratic candidates who want to beat bush in 04 would concentrate on how Bush and Ashcroft strangle our civil rights. Mephisto

To: Skywatcher who wrote (6775)	5/5/2003 7:27:41 AM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 15516

Can Bush Restore Order In GOP? By David S. Broder Sunday, May 4, 2003; Page B07 It may be sheer coincidence, but the discipline that has marked the Republican Party under the command of George W. Bush has broken down repeatedly in the past three weeks -- and the president seems unable to restore order. House and Senate GOP leaders were sniping at each other over their disagreement on the size of the new Bush tax cuts. Newt Gingrich took a hard shot at the State Department record under Colin Powell and, in turn, was rebuked by many other conservatives. Sen. Rick Santorum stirred up a bit of controversy with his comments on homosexuality, and there was grumbling from the right flank about the president's push for a global anti-AIDS campaign. None of the incidents was that serious in itself, but the disarray on both the fiscal and diplomatic fronts was striking for a party whose leader has shown little tolerance for argument or dissent -- let alone outright opposition. The White House line is that Bush is still focused on the final stages of the campaign in Iraq and cannot be expected to referee all these secondary squabbles. But coming at a time when he might otherwise have been enjoying the full public acclaim for the military victory in Baghdad, the infighting reflected a breakdown in the iron discipline that has characterized this administration -- and that Bush so clearly expects. The most consequential dust-up was over the budget and tax bill, a central part of the White House agenda. The House wanted to give Bush the full $726 billion reduction (over 10 years) he requested; the Senate, more concerned about multiplying deficits, wanted to hold it to less than half that amount. House leaders thought they had gained Senate acquiescence to a $550 billion figure, only to discover that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley had been backed into accepting a $350 billion limit as the price for swaying two reluctant Republicans into voting for the budget. The House leadership's frustration was heightened by a delay in information from the Senate reaching the other side of the Capitol -- a slip-up for which Frist has repeatedly apologized. But feelings are still bruised among top House Republicans, and columnists close to them have been warning Frist that one more gaffe and his job might be in danger. Meanwhile, the Club for Growth, a part of the web of anti-tax organizations that try to enforce economic orthodoxy on Republicans, launched a television ad campaign against the two recalcitrant senators -- Olympia Snowe of Maine and George Voinovich of Ohio. The ads drew a crude parallel to French officials who opposed Bush on Iraq, and Ohio and Maine newspapers ridiculed the outsiders' efforts at political intimidation. To compound the backlash, Bush himself went to Ohio to speak out against those, such as Voinovich, who were supporting what the president derided as a "little bitty" tax cut -- only to have everyone note that the president's prestige could not budge loyal Republican Voinovich to abandon his belief in fiscal prudence. While this saga was unfolding, Gingrich, the resigned House speaker and commander of the 1994 Republican capture of the House, took it upon himself to deliver a full-fledged and notably unrestrained attack on the State Department -- i.e., on Colin Powell, the only well-known public figure with higher approval ratings than the president's. According to Gingrich, the State Department has been conducting a "deliberate and systematic effort to undermine the president's policies." This remarkable charge drew an equally sharp rebuttal from Jack Kemp, the former congressman, Cabinet member and presidential candidate, who said Gingrich's attack "plays right into the hands of America's adversaries" and provides ammunition for "the Daschle Democrats who would love nothing better than to create dissension over foreign policy within the ranks of the Bush administration." The White House defended Powell, but because Gingrich is both an adviser and personal pal of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the incident heightened the belief that Bush is confronting a deep and persistent divide between his two best-known Cabinet members. With divisions evident on both fiscal and national security policy, the commander in chief may have to exercise firmer command of his own ship.