NationStates Jolt Archive

Frist and Hastert include a law protecting pharmacutical companies from vaccine lawsuits in a defense bill.

Another scandal. How many does that make in just the last 24 hours?? To the apologists. EAT IT!

Hastert, Frist said to rig bill for drug firms (http://www.gallatinnewsexaminer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060209/NEWS02/602090405/1309/MTCN04)

Frist denies protection was added in secret

By BILL THEOBALD
Gannett News Service

WASHINGTON — Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert engineered a backroom legislative maneuver to protect pharmaceutical companies from lawsuits, say witnesses to the pre-Christmas power play.

The language was tucked into a Defense Department appropriations bill at the last minute without the approval of members of a House-Senate conference committee, say several witnesses, including a top Republican staff member.

In an interview, Frist, a doctor and Tennessee Republican, denied that the wording was added that way.

Trial lawyers and other groups condemn the law, saying it could make it nearly impossible for people harmed by a vaccine to force the drug maker to pay for their injuries.

Many in health care counter that the protection is needed to help build up the vaccine industry in the United States, especially in light of a possible avian flu pandemic.

The legislation, called the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, allows the secretary of Health and Human Services to declare a public health emergency, which then provides immunity for companies that develop vaccines and other "countermeasures."

Beyond the issue of vaccine liability protection, some say going around the longstanding practice of bipartisan House-Senate conference committees' working out compromises on legislation is a dangerous power grab by Republican congressional leaders that subverts democracy.

"It is a travesty of the legislative process," said Thomas Mann, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.

"It vests enormous power in the hands of congressional leaders and private interests, minimizes transparency and denies legitimate opportunities for all interested parties, in Congress and outside, to weigh in on important policy questions."

At issue is what happened Dec. 18 as Congress scrambled to finish its business and head home for the Christmas holiday.

That day, a conference committee made up of 38 senators and House members met several times to work out differences on the 2006 Defense Department appropriations bill.

Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., the ranking minority House member on the conference committee, said he asked Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, the conference chairman, whether the vaccine liability language was in the massive bill or would be placed in it.

Obey and four others at the meeting said Stevens told him no. Committee members signed off on the bill and the conference broke up.

A spokeswoman for Stevens, Courtney Boone, said last week that the vaccine liability language was in the bill when conferees approved it. Stevens was not made available for comment.

During a January interview, Frist agreed. Asked about the claim that the vaccine language was inserted after the conference members signed off on the bill, he replied: "To my knowledge, that is incorrect. It was my understanding, you'd have to sort of confirm, that the vaccine liability which had been signed off by leaders of the conference, signed off by the leadership in the United States Senate, signed off by the leadership of the House, it was my understanding throughout that that was part of that conference report."

But Keith Kennedy, who works for Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., as staff director for the Senate Appropriations Committee, said at a seminar for reporters last month that the language was inserted by Frist and Hastert, R-Ill., after the conference committee ended its work.

"There should be no dispute. That was an absolute travesty," Kennedy said at a videotaped Washington, D.C., forum sponsored by the Center on Congress at Indiana University.

"It was added after the conference had concluded. It was added at the specific direction of the speaker of the House and the majority leader of the Senate. The conferees did not vote on it. It's a true travesty of the process."

After the conference committee broke up, a meeting was called in Hastert's office, Kennedy said. Also at the meeting, according to a congressional staffer, were Frist, Stevens and House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo.

"They (committee staff members) were given the language and then it was put in the document," Kennedy said.

About 10 or 10:30 p.m., Democratic staff members were handed the language and told it was now in the bill, Obey said.

He took to the House floor in a rage. He called Frist and Hastert "a couple of musclemen in Congress who think they have a right to tell everybody else that they have to do their bidding."

Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., also was critical of inserting the vaccine language after the conference committee had adjourned.

"It sucks," he told Congress Daily that night.

Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., another member of the conference committee, was upset, too, a staff member said, because he didn't have enough time to read the language. The final bill was filed in the House at 11:54 p.m. and passed 308-102 at 5:02 the next morning.

The Senate unanimously approved the legislation Dec. 21, but not before Senate Democrats, including several members of the conference committee, bashed the way the vaccine language was inserted.

"What an insult to the legislative process," said Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., a member of the conference committee. Byrd is considered the authority on legislative rules and tradition.

President Bush signed the legislation into law Dec. 30.

When asked about Frist's earlier denial, spokeswoman Amy Call said: "Bill Frist has fought hard to protect the people of Tennessee and the people of the United States from a bioterror emergency and that's what he did throughout this process."

Hastert's office did not provide a response.

Not against the rules

The practice of adding to a compromise bill worked out by bipartisan House-Senate conference committees, while highly unusual, is not thought to violate congressional rules.

Some Senate and House Democrats have proposed banning the practice as part of broader attempts at ethics reform in Congress.

They, consumer groups and others with concerns about possible harm caused by vaccines charge that the move was a gift by Frist to the pharmaceutical industry, which they point out has given a lot of campaign cash to the Nashville doctor through the years.

"The senator should be working to ensure there are safe vaccines to protect American families rather than protecting the drug industry's pocketbooks," Pamela Gilbert, president of Protect American Families, said in a statement. The group is an alliance of consumer, labor and advocacy organizations.

Frist has received $271,523 in campaign donations from the pharmaceutical and health products industry since 1989, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a watchdog group.

He is also a possible candidate for president in 2008.

In the interview, Frist reiterated how important he thinks the vaccine protections are.

"The United States of America, if a pandemic occurs, is totally unprepared," he said. "And the only way we are going to be prepared is rebuilding our manufacturing base to build a vaccine infrastructure that can be timely and responsive. We don't have it today."

Frist has long advocated liability protection for vaccine makers, and it was widely reported that he would attempt to attach the legislation to the Defense Appropriations bill because it is considered must-pass legislation.

Ken Johnson, senior vice president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said that, while the group favors liability protection, it did not take a position nor did it lobby on behalf of the law that passed.

Another scandal. How many does that make in just the last 24 hours??

it's the new strategy - keep 'em coming at a breakneck pace and nobody will be able to keep up. and then everyone will get confused and lose interest in any particular scandal, which means that nothing will come from any of them. which will be spun to mean that they were meaningless to begin with.

lol

i'm sure this is all true, because a republican/Bush-hater said it was true!

I wonder how Bill Theobald votes. Wait, no I don't. This has BIAS written all over it.

I wonder how Bill Theobald votes. Wait, no I don't. This has BIAS written all over it.
And I wonder why you had to make two posts for practically the same point.... :rolleyes:

hehe

gotta do my part to counteract the scandal-mongers.

hehe

gotta do my part to counteract the scandal-mongers.

Scandal-mongers?? No one has to do any terrible amount of digging to find this stuff, it's practically falling from the sky anymore. No one has to look very far at all to find a republican scandal, because they are literally that bad as leaders, liars, and human beings.

I wonder how Bill Theobald votes. Wait, no I don't. This has BIAS written all over it.
Yep. The facts are biased. :rolleyes:

Whatever helps get you through the day, I guess.

Yep. The facts are biased. :rolleyes:

i demand balance! for every biased fact, i demand an oppositely biased lie!

i demand balance! for every biased fact, i demand an oppositely biased lie!
Isn't that where the "biased facts" spring from?

i demand balance! for every biased fact, i demand an oppositely biased lie!
We don't want truth, we want truthiness. We don't want fact, we want factesque.

Colbert may actually be funnier than Stewart in the long run.

i demand balance! for every biased fact, i demand an oppositely biased lie!
The talking points aren't completely circulated just yet, but be sure they're working on it. As mentioned before, the administration is running a little too fast for itself - usually they prepare the righties for the scandal upon release. Now they don't even bother.
Surprisingly enough, Frangland got here before DK did. :eek:
DK's slipping ... to what depths i can't imagine :D

We don't want truth, we want truthiness. We don't want fact, we want factesque.

Colbert may actually be funnier than Stewart in the long run.
Gotta give props to Colbert. He knows product. As much as i love Jon, it's 'cuz Jon is as he as always been to me. Colbert is much more industrious and insidious.

Yep. The facts are biased. :rolleyes:

Whatever helps get you through the day, I guess.

facts?

hmmmm

My guess is that they're doing it "relay style" sprinting to catch up with one scandal, then handing the baton to the next guy for the next scandal. The problem, I think, is that the constant catching up is getting pretty tireing, and or there's a baton drop or two in there as well.

Just a theory, "not scientific fact", LOL ;)

if it were a democrat in scandal, they'd fact-check their asses off

now if there's just a sniff of republican scandal, it runs


fact-checking gaffes:
"Koran in the toilet" story at Newsweek
Dan Rather (enough said)

like I said, If a Democrat were at issue, neither of those would have run. But there is no bias. no way.


rofl

this writer is probably gonna jerk off if the allegations are right

it's the new strategy - keep 'em coming at a breakneck pace and nobody will be able to keep up. and then everyone will get confused and lose interest in any particular scandal, which means that nothing will come from any of them. which will be spun to mean that they were meaningless to begin with.

It's tradition up on the Hill to tack irrelevant things onto important bills.

Been done all the time, time after time, for decades. By Democrats and Republicans alike.

So - how does that amount to wrongdoing? I never heard you complain when anyone else did it.

Frist and Hastert include a law protecting pharmacutical companies from vaccine lawsuits in a defense bill.

Another scandal. How many does that make in just the last 24 hours?? To the apologists. EAT IT!

Hastert, Frist said to rig bill for drug firms (http://www.gallatinnewsexaminer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060209/NEWS02/602090405/1309/MTCN04)

Frist denies protection was added in secret
So, ON TOPIC, did Frist ever get that family / HCA issue resolved?
I took note when he opposed Bush on the stem cell research, as well as his lengthy public statement about it.
I'm definitely smelling a pattern with that fella.

This is hardly a "scandal".

Politicians do this all the time: attach measures to bills which are almost 100% certain to pass, especially if the measure isn't likely to go through by itself.
It happens alot.

It's just a stupid political ploy, I don't think they should have done it (there are ways to combat this crap), but to call this a "scandal" is just ridiculous.

facts?

hmmmm
Yeah, facts. I guess you missed this part of the article, the part where that commieliberalbushhatingsonuvabitch staffer for Republican Senator Thad Conchran told the story. I'll repeat it here for you.
But Keith Kennedy, who works for Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., as staff director for the Senate Appropriations Committee, said at a seminar for reporters last month that the language was inserted by Frist and Hastert, R-Ill., after the conference committee ended its work.

"There should be no dispute. That was an absolute travesty," Kennedy said at a videotaped Washington, D.C., forum sponsored by the Center on Congress at Indiana University.

"It was added after the conference had concluded. It was added at the specific direction of the speaker of the House and the majority leader of the Senate. The conferees did not vote on it. It's a true travesty of the process."

It's tradition up on the Hill to tack irrelevant things onto important bills.

Been done all the time, time after time, for decades. By Democrats and Republicans alike.

So - how does that amount to wrongdoing? I never heard you complain when anyone else did it.
Not like this, and you fucking well know it. There's a difference between doing an earmark or a rider (a shitty practice, but one agreed upon by members of a conference committee) and putting language into a bill after it's been voted on by the conference. That's an abuse of power, plain and simple.

It's tradition up on the Hill to tack irrelevant things onto important bills.

Been done all the time, time after time, for decades. By Democrats and Republicans alike.

So - how does that amount to wrongdoing? I never heard you complain when anyone else did it.
Translation: it's about my party so of course there's nothing wrong or newsworthy about it. It's been done (by Clinton! :rolleyes:). It's gonna be done again (by Reid! :rolleyes:). Hell, i just did it, and i wanna do it again!
Rook jump queen! Knight jump queen! ...EVERYBODY jump the queen. GANGBANG!
You never heard anyone complain when anyone else did it because ... when? When did you ever bother listening to anyone that doesn't share your horribly f*cked up rightwing parrot POV?

Not like this, and you fucking well know it. There's a difference between doing an earmark or a rider (a shitty practice, but one agreed upon by members of a conference committee) and putting language into a bill after it's been voted on by the conference. That's an abuse of power, plain and simple.

That's been done before, and has been done for decades.

If you don't like it, change the Rules of the House and Senate.

Yeah, facts. I guess you missed this part of the article, the part where that commieliberalbushhatingsonuvabitch staffer for Republican Senator Thad Conchran told the story. I'll repeat it here for you.
Lather. Wash. Rinse. Repeat if necessary.
Some stains are DEEPER than others. You might be committing to a significant waste of time here ... ;)

That's been done before, and has been done for decades.

If you don't like it, change the Rules of the House and Senate.
Translation AGAIN:Tough tittie said the kitty ... it's my party and wth are you gonna do about it?
Consistent. :(

Lather. Wash. Rinse. Repeat if necessary.
Some stains are DEEPER than others. You might be committing to a significant waste of time here ... ;)
Straughn, quite unlike you, The Nazz actually resorts to logic and facts instead of pure namecalling and flaming in his responses.

The Nazz and I may disagree vehemently, but at least we're not referring to each other the way you like to refer to anyone who disagrees with you.

Lather. Wash. Rinse. Repeat if necessary.
Some stains are DEEPER than others. You might be committing to a significant waste of time here ... ;)
I don't have any hope of actually convincing Frangland, but I do those posts to try to keep him and others like him from contaminating others.

This is hardly a "scandal".

Politicians do this all the time: attach measures to bills which are almost 100% certain to pass, especially if the measure isn't likely to go through by itself.
It happens alot.

It's just a stupid political ploy, I don't think they should have done it (there are ways to combat this crap), but to call this a "scandal" is just ridiculous.


cripes, isn't that how we spend about half our budget... through pork?

I don't have any hope of actually convincing Frangland, but I do those posts to try to keep him and others like him from contaminating others.

Well, Nazz, at least you argue points. The same can never be said of Straughn (well, if he starts now, that will be some improvement).

Yeah, facts. I guess you missed this part of the article, the part where that commieliberalbushhatingsonuvabitch staffer for Republican Senator Thad Conchran told the story. I'll repeat it here for you.

few things it'd be nice to know:

how much is Kennedy being paid to say that?

Was he at the committee hearings?

How can he know if it was voted on or not?

(not being sarcastic here... was Kennedy actually there?)

cripes, isn't that how we spend about half our budget... through pork?
Actually no. Pork doesn't even make up half of the discretionary spending in the budget. No question we could trim some, and I'd love to see it, but unless you consider Medicare to be pork, pork isn't the real problem.

Straughn, quite unlike you, The Nazz actually resorts to logic and facts instead of pure namecalling and flaming in his responses.

The Nazz and I may disagree vehemently, but at least we're not referring to each other the way you like to refer to anyone who disagrees with you.
DK, unlike YOU, i actually post facts and useful articles that qualify the integrity of debate. If i feel like delving into a melee, it may just happen as such. QUITE CLEARLY, as IS OFTEN THE CASE, you aren't offering ANYTHING significant AT ALL to this thread other than your wishy-washy rightwing defense bullsh*t. Also, as logic and facts go, go ahead and punch up the archives. You might consider how many threads YOU'VE ABANDONED due your lack of integrity. That ought to sum a few things up for you.

Well, Nazz, at least you argue points. The same can never be said of Straughn (well, if he starts now, that will be some improvement).
So your post is ... observation, tepid at that. No new facts or anything in it. Okay.
As i said, punch up the archives and get back to me when you have a little breadth.
Seriously, you're attempting to push Nazz at me? Is your side doing THAT poorly?

So your post is ... observation, tepid at that. No new facts or anything in it. Okay.
As i said, punch up the archives and get back to me when you have a little breadth.
Seriously, you're attempting to push Nazz at me? Is your side doing THAT poorly?
No, I'm not trying to push Nazz at you.

I'm making note that some can disagree with me vehemently (and even think I'm full of shit), but can type more than a few sentences without flaming like a Weber grill.

That's been done before, and has been done for decades.

If you don't like it, change the Rules of the House and Senate.
It's like that Simpsons episode where someone tacks a rider onto a bill to save Springfield from immolation by a meteroite to put $30 million to support the perverted arts. "All in favor of the amended Springfield-slash-pervert bill?"

It's like that Simpsons episode where someone tacks a rider onto a bill to save Springfield from immolation by a meteroite to put $30 million to support the perverted arts. "All in favor of the amended Springfield-slash-pervert bill?"
Well, that was funny. Some people aren't amused at this one in real life.

Can anyone point to a specific clause in the Senate rules that prohibits Frist from doing this?

Straughn? You first. Show me where it's against the rules.

Straughn? You first. Show me where it's against the rules.
You first, actually.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10393160&postcount=91
Go through that post again and fix the problem you've got, and then perhaps i'll bother indulging you - although i can't really think of a good reason to.

More to the point, here ...
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10393871&postcount=94

I believe it's in the first paragraph and response here, even ...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10397800&postcount=96

As per your request, hey, we got all day, don't we?

Straughn? You first. Show me where it's against the rules.
Also, i don't need to say much here, but i'll give you a hint - Stevens was mentioned.
Stevens, unfortunately, is my state's senator. And he's and asshole (note: i'm not self-censoring that).
I recommend you punch up what even Republicans had to say about his ANWR shenanigan. The rest is up to you (we're all doomed ... :( )

You first, actually.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10393160&postcount=91
Go through that post again and fix the problem you've got, and then perhaps i'll bother indulging you - although i can't really think of a good reason to.

More to the point, here ...
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10393871&postcount=94

I believe it's in the first paragraph and response here, even ...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10397800&postcount=96

As per your request, hey, we got all day, don't we?


Who cares if SAIC didn't finish the software for Trailblazer, or any other government contract?

Are you aware of the failure rate that government contractors have for delivering working software? Or what caliber of people they employ on top secret software projects?

The failure rate for projects scheduled over one year is close to 100 percent - regardless of the government contractor involved.

On government contracts, there's a joke about programmers.

When hiring a programmer, you only get two out of three:

1. Knows the particular skill you need well enough to do the job.

2. Has a current Top Secret Clearance

3. Has a salary demand that will fit within the contract you've bid your company on.

Traditionally, contracts for Top Secret work usually end up with either underpaid, uninspired programmers who could care less if it gets done (and they have clearances), or highly paid idiots with clearances.

The Customs and Border Protection, Homeland Security, and most other government agencies that ALWAYS contract with firms like SAIC, Booz Allen and Hamilton, PRC, CACI, and such - always have this problem.

It's getting harder and harder to get a programmer who actually knows what he's doing to sign up for a two year stint on a top secret government contract - for two primary reasons:

1. You'll be paid 1/2 to 2/3 of what you're worth on the private market.

2. The project will fail, and that will be on your resume.

"Frist Orders Fries, Doesn't Eat Them All"

Craigthorpe Gates-Chestershireton
The Winger


February 10, 2006
Senator Bill Frist (R, TN) recently walked into a Washington-area McDonald's wearing a black ski mask with holes only for eyes and mouth.

But that, says the McDonald's employee who served Frist, wasn't the most alarming occurrence surrounding his appearance.

According to Lacy Lactose, second-shift manager, he calmly walked up to the counter and ordered a McRib sandwich and medium Coke. Frist's inclusion of pork in his diet did not seem to alarm Lactose in the least.

"I was like, 'You want fries with that?'" says Lactose. "He comes back, 'Sure, I'd like some fries. And super-size them.'"

McDonald's offers small, medium, large, and super-sized French fries.

"He didn't even say 'Please' or nothing like that. And he was wearing that black ski mask, which made him seem like an unpleasant dude."

Frist took his tray to a four-seat table near the front of the restaurant and immediately commenced devouring the McRib and gulping the Coke. He didn't finish his fries.

"I was like, 'First he orders a sandwich made of pork, then he doesn't say 'Please,' then he doesn't eat all his fries. And he wore a black ski mask, like I said. He wasn't what we'd call a 'model customer.' People are dying of starvation in Africa, and he wastes three -- THREE -- fries. He didn't even offer them to the birds outside, he just tossed them in the trash."

Moveon.org's Chief of Republican Conspiracies, Jacquelyne Smith Howford, says that Frist's actions during his visit to McDonald's are par for the course for this Republican.

"By ordering the McRib, he showed his love for pork. By wearing a black ski mask, Frist showed he's hiding something. By wasting those French fries, he provided evidence concerning his heartlessness, the fact that he doesn't care for starving people in Africa, or poor people in general. And he didn't even say 'Please,' which shows that he's a jerk to boot."

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D, NY) plans to press for an investigation into Frists McDonald's visit.

"We can't let this pig get away with that. He -- and the American people -- need to know that his actions there were unacceptable and, quite frankly, impeachable. His actions were unconstitutional."

Frist could not be reached for comment.

Frist could not be reached for comment.

Wasn't Frist one of those cowboys in Brokeback?

No, I'm not trying to push Nazz at you.

I'm making note that some can disagree with me vehemently (and even think I'm full of shit), but can type more than a few sentences without flaming like a Weber grill.
For the record, i'll say i like this particular post of yours. *nods*
Besides, it can't be all bad if it has Nazz in it. :)

Wasn't Frist one of those cowboys in Brokeback?

no, that was Barney Frank.

hehe j/k

Who cares if SAIC didn't finish the software for Trailblazer, or any other government contract?

Are you aware of the failure rate that government contractors have for delivering working software? Or what caliber of people they employ on top secret software projects?

The failure rate for projects scheduled over one year is close to 100 percent - regardless of the government contractor involved.

On government contracts, there's a joke about programmers.

When hiring a programmer, you only get two out of three:

1. Knows the particular skill you need well enough to do the job.

2. Has a current Top Secret Clearance

3. Has a salary demand that will fit within the contract you've bid your company on.

Traditionally, contracts for Top Secret work usually end up with either underpaid, uninspired programmers who could care less if it gets done (and they have clearances), or highly paid idiots with clearances.

The Customs and Border Protection, Homeland Security, and most other government agencies that ALWAYS contract with firms like SAIC, Booz Allen and Hamilton, PRC, CACI, and such - always have this problem.

It's getting harder and harder to get a programmer who actually knows what he's doing to sign up for a two year stint on a top secret government contract - for two primary reasons:

1. You'll be paid 1/2 to 2/3 of what you're worth on the private market.

2. The project will fail, and that will be on your resume.
Okay. I'm not flaming you at all here. You simply don't get what i'm saying. That's why i qualified the problem with the part about it being in the first paragraph and response, and i posted the thread specifically so that, upon review, you'd know what i was referring to. You did insist again on the issue when i'd pointed out quite clearly where your mistake was. I have no qualms whatsoever with this post otherwise, and i, in fact, appreciate it and the work you're going through. I'm saying that my point of contention is/WAS NEVER what you were/are making it out to be.
Also, i like your post above my last response.

Okay. I'm not flaming you at all here. You simply don't get what i'm saying. That's why i qualified the problem with the part about it being in the first paragraph and response, and i posted the thread specifically so that, upon review, you'd know what i was referring to. You did insist again on the issue when i'd pointed out quite clearly where your mistake was. I have no qualms whatsoever with this post otherwise, and i, in fact, appreciate it and the work you're going through. I'm saying that my point of contention is/WAS NEVER what you were/are making it out to be.
Also, i like your post above my last response.

Just wondering if this will help the conversation ...
that, and the side note that AGAIN DK's gonna be walking funny after this thread (not due me ... you KNOW who i'm typin' about).

Hey, if you've read the whole thread, you'll wonder why Senator Durbin said on the air on NPR that Democrats are only upset about Bush and Gonzales asserting Article 2 executive powers - not about the surveillance program itself. They want to pass bipartisan legislation with the Republicans to give Bush the legal way to continue exactly what they are doing with the surveillance (and if you read the whole thread, you'll find that I don't believe it's working in any case).

So, for all those people who thought that the Democrats would impeach Bush, or force him to stop doing surveillance, it's got to be a day of disappointment.

Here, you can use my KY and Preparation H.

Hey, if you've read the whole thread, you'll wonder why Senator Durbin said on the air on NPR that Democrats are only upset about Bush and Gonzales asserting Article 2 executive powers - not about the surveillance program itself. They want to pass bipartisan legislation with the Republicans to give Bush the legal way to continue exactly what they are doing with the surveillance (and if you read the whole thread, you'll find that I don't believe it's working in any case).

So, for all those people who thought that the Democrats would impeach Bush, or force him to stop doing surveillance, it's got to be a day of disappointment.

Here, you can use my KY and Preparation H.
You still aren't dealing with what i said. It would appear you're dodging it for sake of supplementation of your opinion. I didn't even need to be mentioned in this post.
All there really is to say is, "Get thee to thine other thread."
Muravyets isn't finished with you. You're gonna want to KEEP that KY. As for the Prep H ... n'mind that, here's some surgical thread and toenail clippers. N'joy.

You still aren't dealing with what i said. It would appear you're dodging it for sake of supplementation of your opinion. I didn't even need to be mentioned in this post.
All there really is to say is, "Get thee to thine other thread."
Muravyets isn't finished with you. You're gonna want to KEEP that KY. As for the Prep H ... n'mind that, here's some surgical thread and toenail clippers. N'joy.
Oh, don't worry, that stuff's not expensive. He can get enough for both threads. (Sorry I'm late, boys.) ;) :D

Oh, don't worry, that stuff's not expensive. He can get enough for both threads. (Sorry I'm late, boys.) ;) :D
'Tis okay - it would appear there's quite a bit of admin malfeasance to deal with today, just a smidge more than usual (thanks Unabashed Greed!)

Is anyone surprised? The Republican Congress has been doing things like this since the beginning of their majority. Reality check: we no longer live in a real democracy. For example, and this happens all the time:

1. Republican majority declares 20 minutes for voting.
2. Republican side of an issue loses and a bill is passed or failed, because a few Senators went over from the party position and managed a slim majority on the other side.
3. Republicans reopen the vote indefinitely, take the aisle-crossers aside, and bribe or browbeat them into changing back.
4. Once this is succesful and the votes are changed, the ballot boxes are immediately closed.

That's just one of the subversions of democracy they undertake.

Another prominent example is their relationship with the President: the President can do whatever the hell he wants (like the wiretapping) and the Republican-controlled Congress won't stand up for the rights of its branch, as long as the President lets the Republican Congress spend as much as they want and make whatever laws they want. As a result, the President has yet to veto a single bill passed by his buddies, and the Republicans haven't stuck up for the legislative branch in years.

Is anyone else seriously disturbed? The President with the help of his party has been acting consistently to consolidate power through cooperation with friends in the legislature, (completely contrary to the intentions of the framers) has just appointed two justices who will let him do that (especially the second), has free reign to spy on us, lied to us over the Iraq War justifications, and is in bed with a corrupt, undemocratic Congressional majority with no respect for the Constitution, democratic ideals, or free, rational, and responsible debate and voting. The biggest shock to me is the lack of outrage.

Does no one care about their freedom or their government any more?

Is anyone surprised? The Republican Congress has been doing things like this since the beginning of their majority. Reality check: we no longer live in a real democracy. For example, and this happens all the time:

1. Republican majority declares 20 minutes for voting.
2. Republican side of an issue loses and a bill is passed or failed, because a few Senators went over from the party position and managed a slim majority on the other side.
3. Republicans reopen the vote indefinitely, take the aisle-crossers aside, and bribe or browbeat them into changing back.
4. Once this is succesful and the votes are changed, the ballot boxes are immediately closed.

That's just one of the subversions of democracy they undertake.

Another prominent example is their relationship with the President: the President can do whatever the hell he wants (like the wiretapping) and the Republican-controlled Congress won't stand up for the rights of its branch, as long as the President lets the Republican Congress spend as much as they want and make whatever laws they want. As a result, the President has yet to veto a single bill passed by his buddies, and the Republicans haven't stuck up for the legislative branch in years.

Is anyone else seriously disturbed? The President with the help of his party has been acting consistently to consolidate power through cooperation with friends in the legislature, (completely contrary to the intentions of the framers) has just appointed two justices who will let him do that (especially the second), has free reign to spy on us, lied to us over the Iraq War justifications, and is in bed with a corrupt, undemocratic Congressional majority with no respect for the Constitution, democratic ideals, or free, rational, and responsible debate and voting. The biggest shock to me is the lack of outrage.
You know, a few of us here ARE outraged.
*laments TheRedArrow/SkaPedroe/QuitBanningMeMods*

...but many others are easily distracted by the Xbox 360 and the up-and-coming PS3. :(

You know, a few of us here ARE outraged.

Absolutely, but here is one thing - the citizens of the US at large is another.

...but many others are easily distracted by the Xbox 360 and the up-and-coming PS3. :(

And damn, but is that not pathetically the macrocosm-in-microcosm of America....

Absolutely, but here is one thing - the citizens of the US at large is another.
True. I bitch (in my manner) on my small-town radio show, and with people i meet/know (not yet the pariah stage, but i do live in R state AK) ... and obviously here. More points for Jocabia, btw (current Catholic thread) ... i am personally being more reinforced out of an independent moderate alignment in response/reaction (obviously not what i would choose) to the situation, also in inculcation of the situations/conditions that arise, so the future also will be altered ... i don't see much else about it that i can do.
Maybe it takes someone who's good at making the connections to people who aren't good at paying attention to actions and consequences - then the people who thought they're not involved find out they are. So far it's taken a hurricane and a pretty severe understanding of invasion to really bring the sh*t around to the people who ordinarily weren't paying attention.



And damn, but is that not pathetically the macrocosm-in-microcosm of America....
Damn, indeed - in the truest sense of the word. :(

Damn, indeed - in the truest sense of the word. :(
Bush is still on the rails, deservedly so. *BUMP*

Americans... please do yourselves and the whole world a favour. Tell the neocons to buzz off for good... Vote Democrat. Today, tomorrow and always. That is all.

Americans... please do yourselves and the whole world a favour. Tell the neocons to buzz off for good... Vote Democrat. Today, tomorrow and always. That is all.

Now now, let's be fair. There are 3rd parties too...

Now now, let's be fair. There are 3rd parties too...
Did you see that other thread about Dems trying to pinch 'em out?

Did you see that other thread about Dems trying to pinch 'em out?
I would only just love to break the 2-party system in the US, but the problem is that we're not set up to run coalition governments. A vote for a third party is always a dilution and weakening of the overall popular vote.

When things are on an even keel (like when Clinton was in charge) then I am all for 3rd party votes -- in fact, I often voted Independent, and in local elections I always voted a mixed ticket. In those circumstances, voting 3rd party sends the message that we want more than 2 parties in congress.

But things are not on an even keel now. The neocons are radicals using the republican party to take over and derail our entire system of government. They must -- MUST -- be removed from power, and that means that the infested republican party must be removed from power, and this requires a unified front against them at the polling booths. And that means you have to vote democrat, even if you feel like you're making a faustian deal by doing it. If you dilute the opposition vote by voting 3rd party, you guaranty that the neocons will stay in power. We have already seen this in the last two elections. When will the opposition wise up? This isn't about exercising freedom; it's about preserving freedom.

I blame the fringe parties for not swallowing their pride and endorsing democrat candidates for the sake of consolidating the opposition vote. You can always turn against them later.

I would only just love to break the 2-party system in the US, but the problem is that we're not set up to run coalition governments. A vote for a third party is always a dilution and weakening of the overall popular vote.

When things are on an even keel (like when Clinton was in charge) then I am all for 3rd party votes -- in fact, I often voted Independent, and in local elections I always voted a mixed ticket. In those circumstances, voting 3rd party sends the message that we want more than 2 parties in congress.

But things are not on an even keel now. The neocons are radicals using the republican party to take over and derail our entire system of government. They must -- MUST -- be removed from power, and that means that the infested republican party must be removed from power, and this requires a unified front against them at the polling booths. And that means you have to vote democrat, even if you feel like you're making a faustian deal by doing it. If you dilute the opposition vote by voting 3rd party, you guaranty that the neocons will stay in power. We have already seen this in the last two elections. When will the opposition wise up? This isn't about exercising freedom; it's about preserving freedom.

I blame the fringe parties for not swallowing their pride and endorsing democrat candidates for the sake of consolidating the opposition vote. You can always turn against them later.
I am in pleasant agreement with you 100% about a topic that isn't particularly pleasant at all to me. *bows*