Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Opinions here? He keeps claiming to have the power to declassify information, but not a lot of information to suggest that he actually did. I hate to quote my own website because that seems like I'm shilling for visitors, but I don't feel like retyping this.

See, you can’t claim the information was classified on day A if your mouthpiece is saying it was declassified on day B 10 days later. Also, there’s a little wrinkle in Bush’s plan, because according to a number of CIA officials, they had no idea Bush declassified any of this information. Now, Bush signed Executive Order 13292 into effect back in ‘03 which changed the heirarchy of how information is declassified. Here we go.



I’m currently wading through the NSA of 1947, but it doesn’t look like there’s any indication that this information falls under that umbrella. I cut the quote off because after that it’s not that important, just that it’s the President or Veep or anyone under direct control OF the Pres or Veep (which the CIA and the US Intelligence Community certainly aren’t).

_________________

My only opinion is that I am surprised this hasn't become the next watergate.

I mean, everyone was making a deal out of Cheney shooting his friend (which is still freakin' hilarious) yet they don't make a big deal about Bush leaking the idnetity of a undercover CIA agent? What's up with the American public?

_________________

The American public is finally starting to catch on, albeit a year and a half too late. Bush's polls are at their lowest ever.

I predict, this fall, when the Democrats finally take Congress back, you'll see some repercussions against Bush. Maybe they'll approve Sen. Feingold's censure motion. Or even impeach him, if they're feeling courageous. But don't get your hopes up on that.

_________________
beep beep I'm a Jeep

Good luck with that.

Remember the summer of 2004? Yeah, we all heard the exact same things.

The mighty "evangelical right" will rear their ugly heads once again, much to the dismay of the Democratic party.

Surely you mean IF. IF they take back Congress. There are no guarantees in the twisting, murky forest that is politics.

_________________

I hate the idea that people refer to one party gaining seats in congress as "taking back congress". It's like politics in this country have degenerated to the level of a junior high hallway. It absolutely sickens me that the parties view each other as adversaries and choose to fight one another instead doing their jobs and helping the American people.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Unfortunately, the republicans in Congress are America's adversaries. They'll blindly support a dangerous president and let him stomp all over the citizen's rights, so unless we get a legislative branch that won't stand for that crap, we're in trouble.

Thus, we need to take back Congress.

_________________

That's the exact kind of crap I'm talking about.
Calling republicans 'America's adversaries'. That's REALLY intelligent.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Would you care to prove me wrong? The republican side of Washington just seems to rubber-stamp everything the administration wants to do with no hesitation. Hell the only time they deviated from him was because he was going against his own "bomb all the brown people!" mantra with the UAE deal.

Republicans in general aren't dangerous, but the ones we got now are. As long as either side of Congress will refuse to stop marching lockstep with the president, we're in some serious trouble.

And look at the Abramoff scandal, DeLay and his boys of K Street. Are they helping matters? I wouldn't say so. How about Arlen Specter saying Gonzales didn't need to swear in for his testimony? Bill Frist diagnosing Terri Schiavo over a video?

The problem in America is that the line between left and right has turned into the line between agreeing and disagreeing with Bush. Given that we're dealing with a president who has recorded lower approval ratings than any president save for Nixon AFTER he resigned, a president who cherry picks intelligence then tries to hide evidence of reports disagreeing with him, a president who leaks classified information for political purposes, a president that breaks laws to spy on the people, I'd say anyone who'll blindly follow him is pretty damn dangerous.

Currently, that's the republicans.

_________________

I'd like to see political parties just disappear. All too often people vote by party lines at times when it's entirely inappropriate.

Like when you're impeaching a President...

- Kef

How do you propose we know who and why to elect, then? I'd really hate to see my two senators be elected because they promised a lot of tax cuts. (Like that isn't the case today...)

Hey, they managed fine in the first few years after the Constitution went into effect. I don't think that system would suddenly fall apart just because we have a lot more people now.

- Kef

You're right, and that was in the 1700s. 200+ years ago.

And that's relevant because...?

It's not the 1700s. Needs are different now.

I don't think parties are a good idea. If people just vote along party lines, then what's the point of even having a campaign. Not only that, but because of our party system, no third-party person will ever get elected. Democracy can't function correctly if people just vote on party lines instead of on the candidate's personal political stance.

That having been said, if parties were dissolved now, then we'd have total chaos because of all the politically ignorant people who wouldn't know what to do. I think that parties never should've been formed in the first place.

Different how exactly?

Well, kef:

-The territory of the United States now stretches between 2 oceans
-Our population is about 300 million people. This number includes people originating from all over the world, not just northwestern Europe.
-There is an overabundance of technology (and obese people).

_________________

Sure, but do any of these things really preclude a small group of people not belonging to any particular party vying for the presidency? Keep in mind that even back in the late 1700s, America was getting pretty "big" in the sense that lots of people were there... a number large enough that it'd be impossible to gather them all in a room, even a very huge room. Yet we still managed to pick out a few significant people and make sense of it all. And, well, aren't we still able to do that sort of thing? There are millions and millions of Americans, but the number of people in politics who are important to know about is relatively small. I don't think political parties have terribly much to do with that.

- Kef