Comments Posted By Hallfasthero
Displaying 21 To 30 Of 34 Comments
THE MIND BLOGGLING CONSEQUENCES OF BUSH DERANGEMENT SYNDROME
Bah - I can't get that block quote to work right. I may scrap using it.
Comment Posted By Hallfasthero On 24.05.2006 @ 08:45
You think that’s bad? 65% of the population thought Saddam Hussein was involved with 9/11 when we went to war with Iraq! Where did they get that idea? Who funded it?
Comment Posted By Hallfasthero On 24.05.2006 @ 08:44This to me is the main point. When a president breaks trust with his people by being less than forthright about the truth(WMD, prescription drug costs, ), then everything that has happened becomes suspect. So people are now weilding tin foil hats about 9/11? Color me unsurprised.
LOOKING FOR MIDDLE GROUND IN THE IMMIGRATION DEBATE
I have nothing against President Fox...But he seems to think that the border between Mexico and the United States is his own private fiefdom, a Mexican preserve. Any demonstration of US sovereignty such as increasing patrols or moving troops closer to the border to assist in securing it is met with statements that seem to suggest the United States has no right to stop Mexican citizens from entering the US illegally.
I agree with that part. He is extremely presumptuous to start dictating terms of our own border management. As for Bush trying to fix the borders, I think he went kicking and screaming into attempting to handle it. I honestly don't think for a minute he wants any sort of resolution. Pardon my cynicism but it took a major storm of complaints before he went front and center. Frankly I agree with the conservatives on this issue. Shore up the borders first before agreeing to any amnesty. It would be very easy for GWB to agree to one and in exchange for the work visa and then just never get around to securing the borders.
Comment Posted By Hallfasthero On 17.05.2006 @ 13:22
JUST ANOTHER DAY AT THE OFFICE FOR THE LEAKERS
Sorry about the typo in my entry - the 2nd line in the last paragraph should read "...they may face damages in the multi-millions."
Carry on.
Comment Posted By Hallfasthero On 11.05.2006 @ 10:03
Sorry, but I have to part ways here. Personal information is just that - personal. I honestly don't care if they have "external information" only. They don't have any right to it. Where does this stop after all? Nothing like this ever starts without being pushed further than intended. They crossed this line without any court order and without permission. So we am supposed to trust that they won't take this further because they have been so honorable and forthright so far? Who is being naive here? Understand that I am not attacking anyone here on this blog (not that I imagine anyone was terribly worried what I thought), but you can't ignore the sensitivity of this issue. This is starting to enter into peoples personal day-to-day lives.
Here is another thing that you need to look at. If collecting iformation like this IS illegal. Any information obtained becomes fruit of the poisonous vine. The tragedy here is that any information they get, they cannot use to prosecute. And let me take that a step further. Any lawyer defending a major criminal case that could have involved wiretapping et al and which have nothing to do with this data-mining project can pursue the exact same line of defense. Contending they knew to tap their client because of information illegally obtained.
Sounds silly but I will bet you anything that is coming.
I pity ATT, BellSouth, et al. They have legal problems now, the government doesn't. When all is said and done, they mace face damages in the multi-millions. State laws are not kind to this sort of thing and barring a coup by the fed over state rights, they are going to lose big.
Comment Posted By Hallfasthero On 11.05.2006 @ 09:12
HUGH HEWITT: KOOL AID DRINKER OR SAGE OF SAGES?
After all, since most Democrats do not believe we are at war in the first place, (seeing the issue of national security a political weakness) they wish to make it virtually impossible for any future President to use force except as a response to an attack – say a nuke detonated in New York City. What good any kind of response would be at that point, the Democrats refuse to say.
No offense, Rick, but that is a cheap shot.
The issue of Bush's pre-emptive war was extremely dangerous and a change of policy for the U.S. which had brought a lot of hazards with it. The fact that nothing was uncovered in Iraq which proved to be of any danger to us destroyed our credibility. More than once I said this was going to be a problem if and when we dealt with a country who truly WAS a hazard (Iran). That president is a lunatic with the financial resources to bankroll a nuclear program. But look where we are now. We start screaming war and we look like the boy who cried wolf. On top of which the insinuation that it was done just to get at Saddams' oil is ringing loud and clear in Europe and the Middle East.
As things stand now, we really DO have to be careful how we use force now. The soldiers are getting tired, and right now there is no end in sight, so what soldiers will we use to conduct this war? We will need to ultimately replace a lot of military equipment that will be used up by the time the Iraq campaign ends> This is an extremely expensive financial situations that will only feed an already obscene deficit. Then there is the issue that, in the world's eye, we are now no longer trusted like we once were. Bush didn't just spend is own political capital with this war, he spent ours.
I am sorry but right now, we are starting to tread water as a country and a person would have to be blind not to see it.
Comment Posted By Hallfasthero On 8.05.2006 @ 09:18
VENGENCE IS THE LORDS: JUSTICE IS OURS IN MOUSSAOUI CASE
By the way - I tried to block quote the first part of my entry. There was no preview so obviously I screwed it up. Just so you know, I wasn't plagiarizing.
Comment Posted By Hallfasthero On 4.05.2006 @ 12:37
I sympathize with those who believe that it would have been enormously satisfying to put this man to death. But I think we have to have some sympathy for the jurors as well. Talk about executing a human being is cheap. Unless it is actually your responsibility, I daresay one’s outlook on the death penalty then would become very personal. Whether the jurors were looking for an “out†in order to avoid mandating another person’s death is beside the point. They followed the law, their consciences, and in the end, common sense.
I have served on a jury and the perspective there is very different than when you are on the outside looking in. It is all really easy to sit in judgement and play the executioner when you are not the one who has to make the decision. Something strange happens when you become one of 12 people who have the fate of a person's life in your hand. At that moment, you have to stand up and be counted. Whether you choose to convict or to not convict, it is you that makes that decision. There is no abstaining or deferring. All the evidence you have has been given to you and you cannot consider anything else or request an extension of the trial to re-examine. And once you are "guilty" or "not guilty", you go home with the reality that you were one of 12 who had to do it.
Comment Posted By Hallfasthero On 4.05.2006 @ 09:29
ANOTHER MORAN TAKES UP THE PEN
If the students committed crimes during their protest, then they need to go to jail. Gandhi did; King did; hell, even I did. That's the part of the civil disobedience equation that many seem to have forgotten.
You two are brothers? : )
And I agree with him on that point, 100%.
Comment Posted By Hallfasthero On 20.04.2006 @ 16:42
J'ACCUSE: BERNSTEIN MAKES A SERIOUS CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT
I don't see that happening unless the Democrats take power. The problem right now is that everyone is dirty. And if everyone is dirty, then an investigation like this opens up a messy can of worms. So self-preservation is likely going to rule the day over the idea of starting any investigation.
Mutally Assurred Destruction applies here. Unless all the bums are thrown out, nothing is going to get any cleaner. Democrat or Republican.
Comment Posted By Hallfasthero On 19.04.2006 @ 08:21
