sfc

What do you suggest would have been more successful? I don't know, I'm not a career diplomat, maybe they should have been more diplomatic instead of imposing sanctions so readily, maybe Bush should not have called them an "axis of evil", it is hard to negotiate with someone when you are insulting them. What I do know is that the current US adminstration failed to prevent NK going nuclear, they should have done better, that is their job, they were elected on a security ticket, this seriously underminds our security, NK supplies weapons to terrorists and now they have nukes .

And after all the rhetoreic we have heard from our wonderful leaders. This is another fine example of this administrations strong armed, heavy handed, bully boy foreign policy failure, Iran will probably go the same way.

Absolutely! Rep. Rodney Alexander (who the page worked for) told Rep. John Shimkus (who runs the page program) about the e-mails about a year ago and they just gave him a reprimand, they obviously care more about the bad image it would give their party than taking this paedophile off the streets. So much for the values they supposedly stand for. These hypocrites are now calling for a criminal investigation, they are so shallow it is sickening.

Gee.. when you dont have a religious holier than thou attitude....in everything you do.. it keeps the levels of hypocrisy down. So, there you have it, the party of lower expectations. Barney Frank admitted a lengthy relationship with a male hooker who ran a bisexual prostitution service out of Frank's apartment. He claimed ignorance of some of the prostitute's activites. No need to consider resigning from congress, he's a democrat. He is a sick pervert trying to seduce young boys, that is way worse than using a hooker. There is no way you can compare the two.

I FULLY support that 21% of the population smoking and dieing a horrible death frum lung cancer and emphesema. \\ What I do object to is having to smell you..... and breath your shit....AND more importantly having to support your fucking medical bills. Yes, Co spent over $1billion in 03 on medicare treating related smoking illnesses. The problem with a "signs on doors" approach is that people don't really understand what the risks are, sure there are some informed people but how many people really know the risk they are taking. How many people know what the risk of developing cancer is after breathing second hand smoke in a bar is? Without proper education the sign may as well be written in Swahili for all the good it will do. CA has seen lung cancer drop by a quarter since 1988 when it started to ban smoking, I'd say the state govt has done its job and protected many of its citizens from certain death.

21% is a significant part of the population. What percentage of the population desires DDT or Asbestos? If the anwser is zero, then yes, your arguments are a joke. In colorado 03 18.5% smoked, why should this 18.5% be allowed to pollute the air that the other 81.5% breath, it doesn't even take that kind of majority to change the constitution, thankfully the personal choice of the majority non-smoker to be free to walk into any public place without the risk of getting polluted has won in this case.

Only 21% of adults smoke and its on the decline, that's way less than half, tell me again why signs are OK for smokers and why you set a higher percentage for other toxins and health hazards. Face it smoking is loosing popularity and the vast majority of people dont' smoke, the best you have come up with in defence of smoking is to call the other arguements a joke.

And you have fallen into the "We are the Govnt and we know whats good for you" BS The govt is weak, it did not go far enough. They also gave in to the big corporations and allowed casinos and cigar bars to continue. Personally I think there should be no exclusions. The age of smoking should be raised to 21. It should also be banned outside where people gather, bus stops, beaches, building entrances etc. I recently left a maternity ward with my new son and had to walk though a cloud of smoke in the outdoor smoking area, a great way to walcome him to the outside world, absolutely disgusting. Don't be fooled into thinking the govt. looks after us, they are more interested in corporate money. Maybe you can answer the other points I raised as well? BTW I used to smoke for 15 years, I know what it is like being a selfish smoker who has to get their fix.

SIGNS on DOORS. Who's dodging what? So a fire inspector for a licensed bar whcih showed signs would be allowed to not go in there and do his job? Maybe bar owners could just post signs like. "This building does not comply with fire regulations, enter at your own risk". Since when is it OK to create a hazardous toxic environment and admit the public, why should smoking be treated any differently than asbestos? The only reason banning smoking bothers the bar owners is revenue, they don't care about peoples health, it is just another example of business putting money ahead of peoples health, you have fallen into the "personal choice BS" spin.

What is really silly is your dodging of the issue here, all you can go on about is personal choice at the expense of everyone else. Why should we have to suffer speed limits, why do we have rules about noise, why do we have rules about indecent exposure. These laws are designed to protect people from the actions of people who don't give a shit about the harm they cause to others thru thoughtless acts, personal choice does not come at the expense of hurting others.

I think it is sad that they left the cigar option. Some people will work there and get exposed. There are also other workers like cleaners, fire inspectors and other poeple who visit the establishment for "work" purposes who will get exposed. Lung cancer cost a lot of money to treat, and it is usually fatal, and guess who picks up the bill when the insurance runs out, guess who pays disability as the person slowly dies. Smoking is an activity that can kill others, all that CO has done is make it harder to kill someone through selfish negligance, good for them. It is comparable with other laws that prevent behavior that is likely to harm others, speed limits, stop signs etc.

Hahaha, all of you guys are deluding yourselves. You have TWO examples to use... stinger missiles and the contras... forget that those are pretty uncurrent and that we don't see many of those weapons doing much damage. How about bullets are they outdated? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5081360.stm Look at the end of the page, the USA exports more bullets than the next five largest exporters combined. Even though some contries did not factor in this graph it is still evident that the USA is very heavily involved in a large part of the worlds small arms trade. Just like oil it is all about money, we make money from selling guns and bullets, too bad if some of them are used to kill us, well then we just have to sell more to kill the folks we sold them to in the first place. At least it is good for business

I can see it now, Your honor, it can't have been me, I'm too smart to be caught doing anything bad. Great defense, you should be an attorney.

A wonderful light has gone out, I am shaken and sad. My thoughts are with Bob and her family...

Speaks volumes about the poster, but explains a lot as well, in hindsight.

Isn't that what this whole thread is doing? No, go back and read the first and second post, the thread is about the adminstration's plans to trample the 1st. It is not hypothetical. I think someone sidetracked the main issue.

Looks like they COULD conceivably slam the reporter as well, although it seems a bit unclear. This is a law, not part of the constitution. The media is part of the checks and balances that keeps the government honest, they are screwing with the checks and balances, just like they preventing you taking them to court by waving the "national security" flag. Just how far do they have to go before you realise they are trampling the constitution?

The real problem is that the government cannot keep secrets, whether it be troop movements (what do you expect if you invite a reporter to the front line and give him an open channel?) or the record of vets SSN or whatever. Once the reporter has the info then it is too late, if a reporter can get it then so can the bad guys. We need to focus on the root of the problem not the symptoms.

To use a reporters phone records would undoubtedly impact that reporters ability to gather information using the phone, as people would be reluctant to use the phone to contact the reported. This will prevent some information being obtained thus imparing their ability to report freely to us, I think this is directly in conflict with the 1st. The people that crafted this were very clear, we have an administration that is chipping away at it. Reading the text (below) I see no exceptions for national security or helping catch criminals, it is unconditional, period. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. " Exactly. I wonder were there any lessons learned from Watergate? Other than maybe this one...NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. UNITED STATES, 403 US 713 (1971). We are supposed to be a nation of laws not ideologies. We've seen how it starts. How does it end? It appears that the politicians have learnt the most from watergate.

A sad example of the government not being able to securely handle data despite good intentions. I wonder if this could happen with other data they hold like phone call records perhaps. It is better that they never have the information in the first place then they can never loose it.

To use a reporters phone records would undoubtedly impact that reporters ability to gather information using the phone, as people would be reluctant to use the phone to contact the reported. This will prevent some information being obtained thus imparing their ability to report freely to us, I think this is directly in conflict with the 1st. The people that crafted this were very clear, we have an administration that is chipping away at it. Reading the text (below) I see no exceptions for national security or helping catch criminals, it is unconditional, period. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

Republicans don't have a monopoly on corruption, but they did have the opportunity to do something about it this year and did virtually nothing. I suspect if the democrats had been in charge it would have been no different. They are all a bunch of pwer hungry money grabbing selfish individuals. I wonder what it will take to turn things around in this country.:(

I strongly oppose using reporters phone records for anything relating to leaks, the government can and should use the call records of the traitor after obtaining a warrent, but to simply monitor reporters phone lines because someone might call them with a leak is wickedly wrong, 1st and 4th are being ignored. A free press requires freedom to operate. Sure catch the leaker, but don't damage the free press. The governments job is to prevent leaks, not persecute the press who report them. There are cases where the press hold off on stories, and I'm sure that there are cases (we never hear about) where a responsible reporter does quash a story on the request of the administration for security reasons. This administration is really beginning to trample all over the constitution. I do not trust politicians, so we have to have a free press, look at all the politicians from all sides that have been convicted or indicted or implicated in corruption, they cannot be trusted, it is as simple as that, and their politics makes no difference.

So now the administration is going after reporters, you have to wonder with almost complete lack of oversight, arbitrary classification of material to support the administrations political gains where this is leading... Very sad :( http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/21/prosecuting.reporters.ap/index.html

They are acting like other rich nations, let me think, which other rich nations are making demands of others, threatening war and invasion, I wonder.