The American Taliban - would this qualify?

BWhite · 2005-01-06 20:54:41

A Republican (of course!) has introduced this http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504 … egislation in the State of Virginia.

Report of fetal death by mother; penalty. Provides that when a fetal death occurs without medical attendance, it shall be the woman's responsibility to report the death to the proper law-enforcement agency within 12 hours of the delivery. Violation of this section shall be punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor.

Since miscarriages can occur in the first few weeks of pregnancy - - before the women even knows she is pregnant - - one suggestion has been to send this dear Representative the ahem evidence. Once per month.

Of course, fighting wing-nuttery like this undermines the essential "War on Terror" therefore only traitors will object.

= = =

Oklahoma Representative Tom Cole on President Bush's plan for Social Security:

"He cannot afford to fail. It would have repercussions for the rest of his program, including foreign policy. We can't hand the president a defeat on his major domestic initiative at a time of war." (Wall Street Journal, 1/6/04)

Hey, does anyone believe I am giving aid and comfort to bin Laden if I oppose the Bush Social Security plan?

BWhite · 2005-01-06 21:14:24

Obviously, I am unhappy that Alberto Gonzalez seeks the power to investigate anyone without meaningful judicial oversight, but I ask, does Cobra Commander really want some future Janet Reno to have these powers:

[GONZALES:] With respect to access to library records, to take a specific point, obviously you're referring to Section 215 of the Patriot Act. Two-fifteen relates to obtaining business records. It never mentions library records. Two-fifteen allows the government to obtain certain types of business records, hotel records, credit card records, rental records, transportation records, in connection with -- it's got to be related to a foreign terrorist -- a foreign intelligence operation. And the government cannot do that without first going to a judge. The government goes to the FISA court and obtains a warrant to do that.
SEN. SPECTER: But there is no requirement for a showing of probable cause before that judicial order is entered, Judge Gonzales. And the question is, why can't we have that traditional probable cause requirement on the obtaining of those records?
MR. GONZALES: Certainly, Senator, you could do that. But right now, today, a prosecutor could obtain a grand jury subpoena, if it was relevant to a criminal investigation, without meeting that standard, and obtain access to those very same library records and --
SEN. SPECTER: But when the prosecutor obtains those records on a grand jury subpoena -- and I have some familiarity with that -- it's subject to judicial supervision. There can be a motion to quash.

Edited By BWhite on 1105067687

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-06 21:56:47

Obviously, I am unhappy that Alberto Gonzalez seeks the power to investigate anyone without meaningful judicial oversight, but I ask, does Cobra Commander really want some future Janet Reno to have these powers:

Since I've been called out, I don't want any future Janet Renos, period.

But seriously, I've been opposed to the PATRIOT Act since the day it was proposed, I also know that it's usually grossly misrepresented by the Left. I've had a few run-ins with overzealous law enforcement myself. But none of that matters in the Gonzales confirmation, Congress made the law, judges don't. If you want to change the law argue why, get elected and do it; the bench isn't the place for such things.

Recent Leftist practices notwithstanding.

For the record, I argue that the solution is simple: Throw out the PATRIOT Act for American Citizens. For non-Citizens it still goes, maybe even with more teeth. We get the greater efficiency needed to prevent terrorist attacks, Americans don't get Big Brother on their butts and as a side bonus it makes it real easy to deport illegals.

Of course, fighting wing-nuttery like this undermines the essential "War on Terror" therefore only traitors will object.

What is it with you Libs, always playing the victim? You're not being picked on or persecuted for arguing. Most Liberals think abortion should be legal, most Conservatives think it's murder, big deal. It's a bargaining chip issue, both sides take extreme positions in order to "compromise" on them in exchange for something else. Both sides have their zealots but most are too cynical for such fanaticism. Not every piece of proposed legislation is a serious attempt to enact law.

See the Democrat-sponsored bill to reinstate the draft. :;):

Hey, does anyone believe I am giving aid and comfort to bin Laden if I oppose the Bush Social Security plan?

:laugh: Twisting the same senseless rhetoric around in the guise of righteous indignation, I see. No, I don't think you're giving aid and comfort to bin Laden. I also have some issues with the Bush Social Security plan, but then I have some issues with Social Security in general... We all lose elections and put up with years of policy we dislike, it's not the end of the world.

And back to the "American Taliban" reference, there is a indeed a breed of vicious fundamentalism rampant in our nation, a creed that will not rest until all have been converted. Right now they're cracking up out there, and it's a wonderful thing to watch. The frustration you feel is the old ossified normality crumbling under the weight of its own failures. The next few years will not be boring, that I can say with certainty. :up:

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-01-06 20:54:41

Re: The American Taliban - would this qualify?

#2 2005-01-06 21:14:24

Re: The American Taliban - would this qualify?

#3 2005-01-06 21:56:47

Re: The American Taliban - would this qualify?

Board footer