Member Rara Avis
What do you find questionable, Ron?
LOL. Why did you leave out one sentence that was otherwise embedded right in your quotation, Mike?
"Realists at the Pentagon and elsewhere put it slightly differently, saying the President was simply acknowledging that people who know how to run the Pentagon generally have been involved in the process."
And this one, while it wasn't plucked out of supporting quote, is equally pertinent, I think.
"To ease some Senators' concerns, he (Lynn) has promised to sell all his Raytheon stock and have his dealings at the Pentagon for the first year subject to an ethics review."
What I find questionable, Mike, is that this can so easily be construed as "business as usual." Obama's plan to avoid any potential conflicts of interest (which, incidentally, I never supported) has hit some snags. I don't think that means he's abandoned the idea or the ideal. And I certainly don't think it means Lynn is going to be allowed to cheat the American people.
So what is it that you see wrong, Ron? He went from open trials and constitutional rights for all to a new justice system with semi-secret terror-law courts
First, let me say I don't think that's the best way to handle terrorists. Second, let me point out the contention is only "reportedly" made. Third, we should note that closed court rooms, especially in matters of national security, are certainly not without precedent. Fourth . . . what in the world does any of that have to do with stopping all forms of torture and then making exceptions?
In that case you are calling him a complete idiot, not even to see prostitute removal, STD research, honeybee study and the like as pork. Do you really think he is that dumb?
Without more information, Mike, I don't see those issues as pork. Do you really think I'm that dumb?
Personally, there are a LOT of things the Feds fund that I believe lie way outside the mandate of government. I'd certainly be happy to discuss the role of government in scientific research, for example. But that discussion has nothing to do with this particular bill. If it is something that will be funded, this bill is as good as any other and possibly better than most.
That's fine, Ron, but I think you overlooked the word "emergency" in the emergency stimulus package.
And I honestly don't think you understand what the adjective is modifying, Mike. It is NOT modifying the line items being funded, but rather the economic situation the bill is trying to address. I would go so far as to guess there is not one single thing being funded by this bill that qualifies as a true emergency. Not one. Collectively, however, they represent a possible answer to a national emergency. A Hail Mary, if you will.
Were those your thoughts on Bush's wiretapping program?
That's not a bad analogy, Mike, and I certainly understand your point. However, remembering that I said I was opposed to both, we should nonetheless remember that a comparison between computers and wiretapping should reflect that the former is legal while the latter is not? Both, in my opinion, are an abuse of power.
Also, i didn't see you mention whether or not you felt this belonged in an emergency stimulus package.
Again, Mike, anything belongs in an economic stimulus bill so long as it circulates money domestically.
And, please, guys. Can we talk about the topic and not each other? If I have to spend all my time editing these threads, I'm not going to have any left to participate.