>>- Supreme Court getting involved into elections in a state, which is AFAIK, a strictly state matter; feds have no jurisdiction. How was this countered? No way.
>
>Hmmm, I don't seem to recall that case. Link?

I think you're perfectly capable of remembering presidential elections 2000.

>>- Signing statements. What has Congress done to assert its authority as the legislative body? Here we have a President who assumes the right to change the laws and the right to enforce them selectively. How was this checked?
>
>That "right" doesn't exist. Much has been made of this non-issue.

So if the president exercised a nonexistent right, what happens?

>>- The 911 commision had a very limited mandate
>
>Uh, yeah. It's mandate was to investigate 9/11 and how we got there. Were you expecting something else?

Yes, something like a power of subpoena for the commission. And, from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/24/attack/main523156.shtml - "It's carefully crafted to make it look like a general endorsement but it actually says that the commission would look at everything except the intelligence failures." Also, at least half of the commission could have been at least somewhat neutral. Instead, read the list of critics regarding its members at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission

>>- Ethical committee rules were changed: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37521-2004Dec30.html (didn't load here, but you can try)
>
>Ethical committee rules are constantly being changed, by both sides. Is there a problem here? Those are, after all, the rules Congress has imposed on itself.

If you don't have a problem with them patting themselves on their shoulders and relaxing their own rules, then I suppose that's OK.

>>- Other rules being changed to accomodate more corporate influence:
>>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/12/19/federal_judges_new_ethics_guidelines_criticized_as_more_lax/
>
>You're over-generalizing an odd interpretation of what's discussed in that article.

So you're saying that judges being treated with corporate funded vacations masked as symposia is actually OK, but may be interpreted wrongly? I wish you never have a case against a corporation which hosted your judge.

>>- the President was caught lying several times and still isn't called in front of any commission. Remember what Clinton's impeachment was about?
>
>"Caught lying?" That depends on what side of the political spectrum you play on. Regardless, Clinton lied under oath, which is a much more serious offense.

CIA secret prisons, extraordinary renditions.

>>- the President engages in outright illegal domestic spying program...
>
>I don't believe that he does, and I've made my case for that here before. Regardless, that is an issue for the courts to determine, which they are in the process of.

Then why are they trying to enact laws to make it legal? Why don't they just wait for the courts?

>>Enough?
>
>No. But thanks for playing.

Actually, too much for me already - and I really don't have the time to dig up more. Though that'd be just a matter of patience.

>>(b) I did.
>
>And that's my central point - you are the one making the argument. I haven't heard any Islamic fundamentalist making it.

Again, I'm not talking about them, but rather about their oponents. And I doubt their word can be heard far without some help.

>>Ergo, your assumptions are just assumptions.
>Symantically, yes. However, what I've heard and read tells me that the fundamentalists don't base anything they do on what happens in the West, unless they can use it to further the jihad.

So you are sure they never use the behavior of the West to quash any dissent at home? Oh, yes, that counts as furthering the jihad.

>>We don't know what's going on there - but it's more reasonable to assume that some opposition to fundamentalists exists. Or else they wouldn't need to kill anyone, if everyone was on their side.
>
>A strange place to end up discussing whether the US government's "allowance" of religion into politics influences Islamic fundamentalists. However, yes, I would hope there's some opposition within the Islamic world.

Somehow I always envision the country where I live to be held to higher standards. And the point I was trying to make is that upholding these standards would help - and that their lowering is counterproductive.