USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[billybob2002 0]

Apart from looking at the calendar there's one sure way to tell it's an election year in the US..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5044428.stm

Quote[/b] ]

Bush calls for gay marriage ban

Mr Bush criticised rulings on the issue by "activist courts"

US President George W Bush has called for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages.

Mr Bush used his weekly radio address to deliver a plea for the US Senate to formally define marriage as the union of man and woman.

He said the measure was needed because "activist courts" left no alternative.

An amendment stands little chance of being passed but analysts say Republicans see the issue as a vote winner in November's mid-term polls.

They say the president is seeking to switch the spotlight onto positive issues for his party in the wake of his slumping popularity - particularly over Iraq.

Wonder if they truly want it passed, no more pandering to the wackos and the log cabin types would find lying to themselves even harder.

It is called trying to win back his base that he lost over the couple of months through his various actions and positions (i.e., immigration reform). The gay marriage ban amendment isn't a new thing. I guess you haven't heard of the "Defense of Marriage Act" from the 1990s that was passed under President Clinton.

There might be a repeat of 1992 but it will be Congress and not the President changing.

[EiZei 0]

It is called trying to win back his base that he lost over the couple of months through his various actions and positions (i.e., immigration reform). The gay marriage ban amendment isn't a new thing.

I think that is excatly my point, the gay marriage thingie comes out of the closet (shitty pun intended) every time approval ratings take a nose dive and/or it's election time.

Quote[/b] ]

I guess you haven't heard of the "Defense of Marriage Act" from the 1990s that was passed under President Clinton.

Yes I have.

[billybob2002 0]

It is called trying to win back his base that he lost over the couple of months through his various actions and positions (i.e., immigration reform). The gay marriage ban amendment isn't a new thing.

I think that is excatly my point, the gay marriage thingie comes out of the closet (shitty pun intended) every time approval ratings take a nose dive and/or it's election time.

The gay marriage ban is one of the goals of the more conservative element of society. The amendment has been introduced on non-election years. It might be attempt by President Bush to get support but the ban issue will continue on after he is gone.

[EiZei 0]

Quote[/b] ]

The gay marriage ban is one of the goals of the more conservative element of society.

No argument there.

Quote[/b] ]

The amendment has been introduced on non-election years.

Correct me if I am wrong but was'nt it introduced in 2002?

Quote[/b] ]

It might be attempt by President Bush to get support but the ban issue will continue on after he is gone.

I am sure that the issue will be brought up again again and again before elections as long as the public opinion makes it profitable.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]

The gay marriage ban is one of the goals of the more conservative element of society.

No argument there.

Quote[/b] ]

The amendment has been introduced on non-election years.

Correct me if I am wrong but was'nt it introduced in 2002?

Quote[/b] ]

It might be attempt by President Bush to get support but the ban issue will continue on after he is gone.

I am sure that the issue will be brought up again again and again before elections as long as the public opinion makes it profitable.

I believe it was reintroduced in 2003 when it stalled.

[walker 0]

Hi all

With increasing signs of an economic slowdown in the US economy, US stocks took a second major knock in just a month.

The cost of the record US Tax Deficit, which is now rising month on month, is coming home to roost. The massive NeoConMan Tax Hike Debt can no longer be funded. Any one could tell the NeoConMen there ain't no such thing as Free Lunch; yet the NeoConMen have continued to fund Tax Grants for their buddies in Big Oil by getting the USA increasingly into debt with China and the Arabs.

That Tax Debt has triggered the threat of inflation rises so many economists have predicted. Now the US must raise interest rates. So every US citizen will be feeling the pinch on their mortgage and credit cards. However the real problem is now the interest rates on those loans from the Arabs and Chinese will have to rise too; triggering even more big government loans just to pay that extra interest. America is likely to spiral down into a debt cycle the likes of which we have only seen on the African continent. Any Bank Manager will tell you paying your interest with more loans only makes the bank more money. No wonder the Chinese economy is doing so well.

Quote[/b] ]Fed Chief Raises Inflation Concern

Stocks Fall on Prospect of Higher Rates

By Nell Henderson and Brooke A. Masters

Washington Post Staff Writers

Tuesday, June 6, 2006; Page A01

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke expressed more concern about rising inflation than the cooling U.S. economy yesterday, sending his strongest signal yet that interest rates are probably headed higher.

Stocks plunged after Bernanke vowed to combat the recent "unwelcome" pickup in inflation, even as he told an international bankers' conference that an economic slowdown "seems now to be underway."

The combination of high inflation and sluggish growth causes pain throughout an economy: Rising prices reduce the purchasing power of workers' wages, erode savings and diminish the returns on investment. Slow growth pushes up unemployment, squeezes corporate profit and discourages businesses from expanding.

Like many economists, Bernanke argues that keeping inflation low is vital to promoting a strong economy because it allows people to make purchases, borrow money, plan for retirement, invest and make other financial decisions without worrying about rising prices. But beating inflation means raising interest rates, which crimps consumer spending by raising borrowing costs...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....13.html

And what is George Bush Junior and the NeoConMens answer to a US economy on the verge of economic melt down?

Answer: Waste three weeks of valuable congress time with another stop gay marriages jihad they know will never be passed.

I guess the NeoConMen think you should never give a sucker an even break.

When will the christian right stop being conned by the NeoConMen?

Mean while Iraq is going to hell in hen basket and the crying wolf on Iraq has left the coalitions political capitol next to impotent on the far more important Iran nukes issue.

It all just points out why so many US voters are asking this question:

"With an untrustworthy NeoConMan entryist group in control of the US Republican, fiddling while Rome burns, how can any one feel safe to vote republican?"

Kind Regards Walker

[shinRaiden 0]

About that Traditional Marriage amendment...

There's a big glaring problem with the language of the wording, in that it only uses the terms man and woman and does not determine what is a man and what is a woman. Given the increasingly ambivilent attitudes towards gender identification, preferences, and medical modifications, it leaves a very large loophole open for liberal interpretation. The effective result of this ommission in language is such that instead of creating a narrowly defined restriction, instead creates a nebulous mess that leaves the final determination to the arbitrary whims of the courts, or the incessant meddling of the legislative to define the terms. The wide open avenues for the redefinition of what gender is legally termed to be ultimately renders this amendment futile and counter-productive.

Justice Blackmun's comment in the opinion from Roe v. Wade paraphrased is equally applicable in this case as well - "When the scientists, scholars, and religious persons are unable to come to any sort of consensus opinion on [the definition, purpose, and role of gender] then it likewise is impossible for the courts to make a determination in that matter". The Roe v. Wade methodology then proposes that as gender is then thus inherently indeterminant, it is at once unprotectable and arbitrary, and individual determination then becomes the perogrative of the citizen.

If the populace sincerely wants laws with the purpose of this intended amendment, and wants to see them enforced as opposed to ignored existing immigration controls laws, they then need to deal with the root problem of creating and securing a legal structure for legislating and enforcing a code of moral standards. Attempting to implement band-aid patches for individual issues such as this one is wholely inadequate and counter-productive.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Well I guess this just proves that George Bush Juniors attitude of never give a sucker an even break holds true.

Quote[/b] ]Gay Marriage Amendment Fails in U.S. Senate

By Fred Barbash

Washington Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, June 7, 2006; 12:18 PM

The Senate, as expected, defeated a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage today in a procedural vote that fell far short of the number required to amend the Constitution.

The 49-48 vote on a motion to end debate on the proposal advanced by Republicans and President Bush was 11 short of the number required under Senate rules. It also was 18 votes short of the two-thirds majority in both houses required for proposed amendments to the Constitution...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....30.html

Still it did the job that George Bush Junior intended: The suckers came out and narrowly saved a supposedly safe Californian Republican seat that could have lost the NeoConMen control of the house.

Quote[/b] ]Former GOP congressman wins California race

Updated 6/7/2006 11:42 AM ET

CARLSBAD, Calif. (AP) — A former Republican congressman narrowly beat his Democratic rival early Wednesday to fill the House seat once held by jailed Randy "Duke" Cunningham, one of several contests in eight states closely watched as a possible early barometer of next fall's vote.

ON DEADLINE: On the day after, assessing election results

Republican Brian Bilbray emerged victorious after a costly and contentious special election race against Democrat Francine Busby, a local school board member.

"I think that we're going back to Washington," Bilbray told cheering supporters. He will serve out the remaining seven months of Cunningham's term and get a boost for the November election.

With 90% of precincts reporting, Bilbray had 56,130 votes, or 50%. Busby trailed with 51,292 votes, or 45%.

The race was viewed by Democrats as an opportunity to capture a solidly Republican district and build momentum on their hopes to capture control of the House...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-06-06-primaries_x.htm

But the big surprise for the religious right was that they did not even win their expected majority in the gay marriage vote.

It is not surprising really Christianity as with most other religions is on the decline in the US. The only exception being Catholicism and the increase there are mainly attributed to immigration from south of the border both legal and illegal.

http://www.cathworld.org/search....f9a8d5f

This has been a big strategic worry for the the NeoConMen they need the illegals to bolster the religious vote to insure the long term future of a GOP religious base to use as sucker votes but traditional religious right wants stronger border controls and the illegals sent back.

But hey what does it matter never give a sucker an even break, do what George Bush Junior does fake up border controls then quietly remove them then fake a gay marriage ban before an election.

I usually finish off with something like:

Quote[/b] ]It all just points out why so many US voters are asking this question:

"With an untrustworthy NeoConMan entryist group in control of the US Republican, coning the religious right, how can any one feel safe to vote republican?"

But on this occasion why should I give a sucker an even break?

Walker

[miles teg 1]

As David Chapelle said about why gay marriage should be made illegal:

"It's just Nasty! Naaaaaaaaaaasty!!!'

That about sums it up why so many Americans approve of banning gay marriage.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[EiZei 0]

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/TCR-Westmoreland.wmv

Stephen Colbert interviews apparently a less-than-brilliant congressman.. well, see it for yourselves.

[MrZig 0]

First, look at the lyrics from the real U2 song here:

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/u/u2/sunday+bloody+sunday_20141428.html

Now, watch this:

http://www.break.com/index/sundaybush.html

And tell me how in the hell that fits so well together?! it's freakin a-mazing.

And it may be too offtopic, I know, but it is politics (sort of) and it's hilarious, so it still adds something to these forums, don't you think?

[Tovarish 0]

lol.

Must have taken forever.

[blackdog~ 0]

That's amazing. Someone with a lot of talent in video editing and music editing put a lot of time into that.

[Placebo 28]

Merged into here.

[miles teg 1]

I wasn't sure what thread to put it in... but on a different subject matter, here's some interesting information on those "so-called Muslim terrorists" arrested in Miami.

Below is a transcript of an interview done by CNN that sheds light on these "Muslims".

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/22/acd.02.html

Quote[/b] ]

(BEGIN BREAKING NEWS)

COOPER: And we continue to cover this developing story, breaking story out of Chicago and Miami as well as Atlanta. We're going to hear more out of Washington tomorrow. Seven people in custody in an alleged terror cell in the United States. That's what we are being told. The devil of course is in the details. We are learning more and more about this group.

In fact, CNN's John Zarrella, who is at scene of the warehouse that was raided earlier today has actually someone from the neighborhood who seems to know a fair amount about this group.

John, what do you know?

ZARRELLA: Anderson, he's not from the -- just from the neighborhood. This gentleman standing next to me, he goes by the name Brother Corey. And Brother Corey is a member of this organization, this group. They call themselves the "Seas of David." Am I correct? I'm correct, right, Brother Corey?

BROTHER COREY, "SEAS OF DAVID" MEMBER: Correct.

ZARRELLA: What happened here? Tell us what happened. Many of your members were arrested today?

BROTHER COREY: Yes, sir.

ZARRELLA: What happened? Do you know?

BROTHER COREY: I know that it was supposed to have been a letter sent off to the Sears Tower, which I don't recommend that -- I don't believe my Brother Prince (ph) were -- had to jeopardize his temple as we worship here.

ZARRELLA: This is a temple where you worship?

BROTHER COREY: Yes.

ZARRELLA: And it's alleged, apparently, that your group here was planning to perhaps bomb the FBI building here in Miami?

BROTHER COREY: We are not no terrorists (UNINTELLIGIBLE). We are prince of Allah, that we study and we believe in a word of God. This is a place where we worship and also have business as a worksite, as a construction company we trying to build up.

And my prince, he told me never to come here and observe nothing that the outside that's trying to observe. We had to keep to ourself because we are general. We are generals and we take care of ourselves.

ZARRELLA: So you're saying that there was never any intention by this group to bomb the Sears Tower in New York (sic) or the FBI building here in Miami?

BROTHER COREY: Correct.

ZARRELLA: And you're not terrorists?

BROTHER COREY: We are not terrorists.

ZARRELLA: Not related in any way to al Qaeda?

BROTHER COREY: Sir, I don't want to release none of that information, but I know we are not terrorists. And I don't have nothing else against the same situation that they had to do here, but I don't feel like that was right for the search warrant to go down. Because we are legal citizens here, which I know they trying to say my brothers, they locked up five of them.

So right now I'm sitting here just observing because I have more authority to come here and distribute the things that they have...

ZARRELLA: Aren't you afraid they're going to come now and arrest you, that know you're here.

BROTHER COREY: I'm not afraid, sir. I'm willing to take a stand for my brothers.

ZARRELLA: And this is just a temple? This is just a religious organization that you believe in, that you are part of here?

BROTHER COREY: Yes.

ZARRELLA: No ties to any terrorist groups?

BROTHER COREY: No ties.

ZARRELLA: Why would they think this then?

BROTHER COREY: The way we worship, we come around, we got things we look out for the kids and everything here. So right now I'm just telling you that there is no way they'll -- right now that I can assume that we have this terrorist in our heart. We are not terrorists. We are members of David, Seas of David.

ZARRELLA: Brother Corey, one thing. Anderson Cooper in New York has a question. I'm going to relay it to you through Anderson.

COOPER: Yes, it's alleged that one member of this group pledged allegiance to al Qaeda. When you mentioned al Qaeda, he didn't really respond to it. I'm just curious to -- go ahead.

ZARRELLA: It's alleged that one member of the group has pledged allegiance to al Qaeda. You didn't really answer when I said to you, is there any affiliation with al Qaeda or anything like that. Do you know anything about that? Is there an affiliation with -- there's no affiliation with that terrorist group from any of your members?

BROTHER COREY: No, sir. Right now, only thing I can tell you is that we worshipers of this temple here. And we allow certain people to come and join our prayers, but we have certain authorities that we run by. ZARRELLA: So you're a peaceful...

BROTHER COREY: We are peaceful. We are Seas of David. That I know my brother has not been treated right in the system. He's been locked up for-- on the sense that he was driving without a license. But this brother of mines, I love him to death. And I tell all of my brother -- I didn't (UNINTELLIGIBLE) get a chance to talk to them. We have codes. We have everything that's, you know, right now that is trying to establish. We're trying to build up a restaurant here. We really take toll in trying to do things the right way. We are not no terrorists.

ZARRELLA: What are the names of some of your brothers who were arrested here? Do you know?

BROTHER COREY: I will not -- I will not say their names.

ZARRELLA: You don't want to say their names.

BROTHER COREY: No.

ZARRELLA: Have you had any contact with any of them, then, not in the -- since they've been arrested today, but what about your Haitian brother from three days ago?

BROTHER COREY: Yes. We work for his bond money.

ZARRELLA: For his bond money.

BROTHER COREY: For his bond money.

ZARRELLA: Anderson Cooper has one more question -- Anderson.

COOPER: Yes, what is the purpose of the group? What is the meaning of this -- I'm sorry Sea of David, is that it's called?

ZARRELLA: Seas of David, right.

Anderson wants to know what is the purpose of your organization? And the meaning of the name Seas of David?

BROTHER COREY: Actually I can tell you we are in a bible. And we studied Allah and also the worship of the regular bible. But it is not no terrorist or threat that you guys say that we are threats to this -- any other community. I grew up in this city. I'm a residential citizen. And all my brothers that I have, on my line right now, we are not no terrorist attackers. And I grew up with my brother that's been in the system now, the Haitian guy. They're saying illegal alien. He grew up here. I know or a fact that we are in general as one. We talk as among each other as young men. And we work out and help each other.

ZARRELLA: Did everyone live in Miami, grow up in Miami, the men that were here, that were arrested or were they from other places?

BROTHER COREY: Yes, we have connections to people in Chicago. We're -- so -- this is like we -- we negotiate to help the peace. We try to bring as many brothers in to help them out.

ZARRELLA: But you do have connections with people in Chicago, but not terrorists?

BROTHER COREY: No -- no terrorists. We are not terrorists.

ZARRELLA: But there were connections to other members of this group in Chicago?

BROTHER COREY: Yes, we have soldiers in Chicago.

ZARRELLA: Why do you call yourselves soldiers? What's the -- you know, if it's a peaceful group, why use the term soldier.

BROTHER COREY: Because we study and we train through the bible, not only physical -- not only physical, but mentally. We study and we worship that we have the sense of direction that got other people in the right direction. We are not no terrorists. We come here every morning and we have the sense to go to work. We are not no homeless -- this is not no homeless shelter for a terrorist attack. You hear me?

ZARRELLA: Yes. Brother Corey, thank you very much for coming out here. We know it must be difficult for you what's happening. And you're putting yourself in jeopardy coming out here, I'm sure.

Again, Brother Corey here, a member of this group coming out, Anderson, and telling us at least point blank that they are not -- they are not, he says, a terrorist organization -- Anderson.

COOPER: John, fascinating. Thank you very much. Appreciate that.

Let's just go -- quickly, we got a roundtable here. Let's quickly get some perspective on what we just heard.

Pat, what do you make of it?

D'AMURO: Well, Anderson, I think it's important to note that it's a conspiracy to talk about committing violent acts. You don't actually have to have the ability to carry out a terrorist attack.

COOPER: So under U.S. law, it's a conspiracy just to talk about it?

D'AMURO: If you conspire to conduct a terrorist attack or a violent act in the United States, that's a crime. You don't have to carry that attack out. You can be charged, tried and convicted of a crime if you conspire to do that attack.

COOPER: Jeanne Meserve, you were listening in. What do you make of what you just heard?

MESERVE: Well, it's obviously in sharp contrast to what we've been hearing from law enforcement all evening, which is that this group apparently conducted surveillance over some alleged targets, including the Sears Tower, the FBI building in Miami and elsewhere. They claim to have had an informant inside who helped with this investigation. Clearly, there's a real disconnect here.

COOPER: Let's see, who else? Clark -- Jim Walsh? I'm sort of still trying to figure out what came out of that interview, but it was sort of fascinating. What do you make of it?

WALSH: Two things. I think while it's true that you can be charged with conspiracy, I will want to see tomorrow what the evidence is beyond their discussing whether they actually took any actions and what the nature of those actions were.

Secondly, what came out of this interview big time, was that he claimed to have a connection to people in Chicago. So, I think we're going to want to hear more about the nature of that institutional relationship. Are they an organization? Or are these a collection of individuals? And what is the relationship between that organization? How do they communicate and what were they collaborating on? I think that's probably one of the biggest things coming out of that interview.

COOPER: Yes. I think soldiers was the word he used in Chicago, rightly or wrongly.

Mike Brooks, your take?

BROOKS: I found it very interesting too, Anderson, the use of the word soldiers, especially in Chicago. He talked about his brothers in the system. Now, I'd also be anxious to find out tomorrow whether or not their recruiting base is in the system, if you will, in the prison system, where a lot of radical fundamentalists come from.

And the other thing, too, is, you know, he calls himself a religious organization. And when pressed by John about any affiliation with al Qaeda, he was looking away and I wasn't real comfortable with his answer.

COOPER: Yes, that was a particularly interesting, perhaps telling moment.

Clark Kent Ervin, appreciate it.

Pat D'Amuro, appreciate it.

John Zarrella, of course.

Mike Brooks, as well.

Jim Walsh, Jeanne Meserve, amazing job tonight.

These guys are DEFINITELY NOT Muslims, but rather some wierd ass cult that combines Islam and Christianity.

Yet our media CONTINUES to call these wackos "Muslim".

Also on a related note, I had not even heard of this case in the link below. This case shows what clearly is an incredibly flawed abuse of our justice system against Muslims based on a poor understanding of various Islamic organizations, terrorist organizations, and the religion itself. Keep in mind that these individuals are getting 50 yrs to Life in prison because they didn't plea-bargain in which they might have recieved only 3-5 yrs.

http://www.refuseandresist.org/detentions/art.php?aid=1297

By the rationale used in this case, most Palestinian men in the United States who grew up in Palestinian territories and who had ANY affiliation with a Palestinian terrorist group need to be locked up for the rest of their lives. The same goes for those with past ties with the IRA, Colombian Guerillas, the Mexican Mafia, etc...

For talking to hamas supporters and taking part in the showing of the film Jenin Jenin (possibly construed as material support of Muslim terrorists or as recruiting for terrorist organizations) I could possibly be sent to prison.

Slowly but surely, I see my country's great constitution slipping away into an oppressive tyranny ruled by fear and the manipulation of the public's fears.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[billybob2002 0]

So close but yet so far....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060628/ap_on_go_co/flag_amendment

Quote[/b] ]

Senate rejects flag desecration amendment By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer

42 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - A constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration died in a Senate cliffhanger Tuesday, a single vote short of the support needed to send it to the states for ratification and four months before voters elect a new Congress.

The 66-34 tally in favor of the amendment was one less than the two-thirds required. The House surpassed that threshold last year, 286-130.

President Bush, who supports the amendment, called the failed vote unfortunate and commended Republicans and Democrats who voted to move the ratification process forward. In a statement, Bush said he continued to believe that "the American people deserve the opportunity to express their views on this important issue."

The proposed amendment, sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch (news, bio, voting record), R-Utah, read: "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."

It represented Congress' response to Supreme Court rulings in 1989 and 1990 that burning and other desecrations of the flag are protected as free speech by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Senate supporters said the flag amounts to a national monument in cloth that represents freedom and the sacrifice of American troops.

"Countless men and women have died defending that flag," said Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., closing two days of debate. "It is but a small humble act for us to defend it."

Opponents said the amendment would violate the First Amendment right to free speech. And some Democrats complained that majority Republicans were exploiting people's patriotism for political advantage in the midterm elections.

"Our country's unique because our dissidents have a voice," said Sen. Daniel Inouye (news, bio, voting record), D-Hawaii, a World War II veteran who lost an arm in the war and was decorated with the Medal of Honor.

"While I take offense at disrespect to the flag," he said, "I nonetheless believe it is my continued duty as a veteran, as an American citizen, and as a United States senator to defend the constitutional right of protesters to use the flag in nonviolent speech."

Among possible presidential contenders in 2008, six voted yes: Democrat Evan Bayh of Indiana and Republicans George Allen of Virginia, Sam Brownback of Kansas, Frist, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, and John McCain of Arizona. Five, all Democrats, voted no: Joseph Biden of Delaware,        Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, Russell Feingold of Wisconsin,        John Kerry of Massachusetts.

The Senate also rejected an alternative put forward by assistant Democratic leader Dick Durbin of Illinois. It would have made it against the law to damage the flag on federal land or with the intent of breaching the peace or intimidation. It also would have prohibited unapproved demonstrations at military funerals.

The last time the Senate considered the amendment, in 2000, it fell four votes short of what was needed. Both sides predicted rightly before Tuesday's vote that it would get more support.

The last proposed constitutional amendment that Congress sent to the states for ratification was the Equal Rights Amendment in 1972. The normal seven-year deadline for state ratification was extended to 1982, but the ERA couldn't muster the approval of more than 35 state legislatures, three short of the three-fourths of states required under the Constitution.

The 26th Amendment, guaranteeing 18-year-olds the right to vote, was approved by Congress in March 1971 and was ratified by the states less than four months later.

The 27th Amendment, ratified in 1992, was first proposed in 1789. It says pay raises that Congress votes for itself can't take effect until after the next election for members of the House.

The House also got into the July Fourth spirit Tuesday by passing on a voice vote a measure that would bar condominium and homeowner associations from restricting how the flag can be displayed.

Sponsored by Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (news, bio, voting record), R-Md., the resolution would prohibit those groups from preventing residents from displaying an American flag on their own property. The Senate is considering whether to bring up the measure this year.

Interesting that the bill almost passed but failed due to one vote. It would had likely became an amendment. I wonder if this vote will be used against Kerry or Clinton if they decide to run in '08. Anyway, I really don't see the bill as a election year booster because Republicans have been trying to get a ban on flag desecration for years.

[EiZei 0]

I really don't see the bill as a election year booster because Republicans have been trying to get a ban on flag desecration for years.

I really dont see what makes those things mutually exclusive.

[herman01 0]

I serve in the military and I do think flag burning is a part of free speech. Free speech is not always comfortable to defend. Funny though its all relative same people who provoke the muslims over showing of Muhammed on the other hand think there should be a special law to protect the flags. I guess craziness is all just perspective. Lifes to short to get upset about so many diffrent things.

[BlackScorpion 0]

I'm not sure if you know this already, or is this the correct place, but NASA is about to launch Space Shuttle Discovery tomorrow, at 3.49 pm Eastern US time (that's pretty much exactly 23 hours from this moment).

Good luck, NASA. Fingers crossed.

[Zorbtek 0]

I'm not sure if this has been posted yet, or if this even dare fit in the iraqi war or afghanistan forum.

But has anybody seen this... pretty convincing video?

http://video.google.com/videopl....+change

[BlackScorpion 0]

Yeah, I noticed it few weeks ago and watched the start of it, bookmark for later. But... Firefox "restarted" itself few times so...

Thanks for bringing that up. It's quite scary actually. Can you trust even your own government? Even if you're serving to defend it?

[Zorbtek 0]

I can honestly say, after looking very closely to how the WTC collapsed, it looks much like each floor was detonated.

Very scary stuff, and this is probably the best video I have seen on the issue.

I also have with me here, that I found on other message boards some more interesting videos.

Again I apologize if these have been posted before.

This video here is during the 9/11 attacks, a Fireman says "There is a bomb in the building, start clearing out"

And just look at the footage of the WTC collapsing. That's a collapse? That's no collapse, that's a demolition.

http://video.google.com/videopl....%20bomb

[red oct 2]

I can honestly say, after looking very closely to how the WTC collapsed, it looks much like each floor was detonated.

Very scary stuff, and this is probably the best video I have seen on the issue.

here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....ttle%20

scroll to the end of the movie and you can see a very clear picture of a airliner, not a cruise missle, or a "controled explosion"

[Zorbtek 0]

I don't believe you have watched the video above I have posted

[red oct 2]

yes, i have seen it. so likewise, did you bother to watch my video?