[B5JMS] Gore's speech re civil liberty

[b5jms at cs.columbia.edu]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: "David Williams" <dwilliams298 at comcast.net>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 14:18:59 +0000 (UTC)
Lines: 69

I've just come down with a NASTY chest cold.  Barely had the  energy to read
the latest round of replies.  So I'm not going to try to back-track in this
thread to clarify my position on all the fine points.

Suffice it to say that I for one feel that the Patiot Act is a bad piece of
legislation.  Doesn't matter to me who did or did not vote for it or why,
regardless of their party affiliation.  My only partisan comment on the
subject is that I do feel that Bush and his administration took advantage of
the moment, and their DOMINANT position, if not TOTAL control of the
legislature (is that better?) to push through things that ordinarily would
have received far more opposition.

But I repeat, that doesn't matter TO ME now.

What does bother me are statements such as the one about how many dems voted
for it.  I hear that and similar statements used time and again as some sort
of vindication.  It's not.  My point is that bad legislation is still bad,
no matter who is responsible for it.  So, OK, while we're at it, shame on
all the Dems who voted for it.
But, as to the comment (whoever made it) about Dems having buyer's remorse -
fine!  Great!  We all make mistakes sometimes.  IMO, a sign of good
leadership is the ability to recognize one's mistakes and try to correct
them.

BTW, re: my previous remark about neither party having a monopoly on
stupidity or wisdom -
Kudos to the 6 Republicans (incl. Sununu and McCain) who crossed the aisle
this week to block the so-called energy bill.  That in spite of pressure
from the White House.

Going to slurp down another hot cup of Jewish penicillin and head to bed.

Regards,
-David W.


"Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman at yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c0Lvb.14933$Rk5.5085 at newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> In article <d0bvb.199443$ao4.707207 at attbi_s51>, "David Williams"
> <dwilliams298 at comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >"Jon Biggar" <jon at floorboard.com> wrote in message
> >news:Pt7vb.33135$pB2.12698 at newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
> >> Uh, no.  The Senate was controlled by Democrats at that point.
> >
> >Yeahhh....   A ONE-vote majority is not exactly what I would call
"control".
>
>     That was more than enuff to bottle things up in committee if they had
the
> desire. Admit the Dems got just as caught up in buck fever on this one as
the
> GOP. Also in the Senate, the vote was 98-1. That meant more than a few
Dems
> had to come over.
>
> >
>
> --
> "Politics should be limited in its scope to war,
> protection of property, and the occasional
> precautionary beheading of a member of the ruling class."
>                              -P.J. O'Rourke
>
>





=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 12:40:01 +0000 (UTC)
Lines: 41

>What does bother me are statements such as the one about how many dems voted
>for it.  I hear that and similar statements used time and again as some sort
>of vindication.  It's not.  

You're correct, it's not.  And here's one big reason why it's not.

It's funny how quickly history gets forgotten.

Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee,
asked for time to go over the document and he began to ask for some changes.  

Then John Ashcroft announced that Congress had *one week* in which to pass the
bill, warning that further terrorist attacks were IMMINENT, and that Congress
would be held to blame for any such attacks if it failed to pass the bill
immediately.

The only way this could be done was to pressure the Senate leaders to push
through the bill WITHOUT allowing for debate or amendment.  And this is what
was done.

Democrats were told that the bill had to be passed IMMEDIATELY because more
attadcks were imminent, and weren't given time or opportunity to debate the
bill.  That part of the process was shut out by the administration's claims
that it was needed Right Now or more people would die.

Further to the point, of the dubious areas of the Patriot Act that were passed,
there are degrees to which they could be used.  They could be used lightly, as
needed...or they could be used as a club.  The former was assumed; the latter
was the fact.

 jms

(jmsatb5 at aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2003 by synthetic worlds, ltd., 
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine 
and don't send me story ideas)