What makes them right?

Post #287,825 by Seamus 6/25/07 10:07:11 PM Reply	What makes them right? Tie goes to the speaker? What makes this a tie? Based on this ruling, any group can create an issue ad that doesn't talk mention candidates but references a web site that is nothing but an advocacy site for one candidate, containing a message that wouldn't be allowed on the air. Since the advocacy portion of the message is not part of the commercial, it is ok? It rather effectively guts the law. Intent of the message had no role in this decision, according to Roberts, but intent certainly seems to have played a big part in the affirming the legality of the suspension of the poor Alaskan high school kid for his free speech off school property. Free speech, to me, does not imply that mass or commercial speech can't be regulated. Seamus
Post #287,843 by boxley 6/26/07 7:23:10 AM Reply	mass speech is free, commercial is not Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #287,845 by andread 6/26/07 8:47:55 AM Reply	Re: What makes them right? it's an election anyone should be able to be heard A Play I Some Music w/ Papa Andy Saturday 8 PM - 11 PM ET All Night Rewind 11 PM - 5 PM Reggae, African and Caribbean Music [link\|http://westcottradio.org\|Tune In]
Post #287,846 by jake123 6/26/07 8:53:11 AM Reply	In the real world, it doesn't really work that way freedom of the press only applies to people that can own one. Getting ads on TV is both difficult and expensive, which drastically narrows the field of people who can afford to do so. See, for example, the efforts of adbusters to get ads on TV, even while being willing to pay for it.
Post #287,852 by andread 6/26/07 12:12:57 PM Reply	Re: In the real world, it doesn't really work that way I see your point but rules are somewhat different for campaign ads and I oppose censorship even if there are economic inequities A Play I Some Music w/ Papa Andy Saturday 8 PM - 11 PM ET All Night Rewind 11 PM - 5 PM Reggae, African and Caribbean Music [link\|http://westcottradio.org\|Tune In]
Post #287,853 by hnick 6/26/07 12:42:23 PM Reply	The problem as I see it is this: Freedom of speech should apply to everybody. Everybody being individual humans. Corporations, PACs, unions, and other organizations should not have free speech. They are not people. They are legal constructs. Congress should be regulating them. That's their job. Congress should not be regulating people. In theory, Congress serves the people, not regulates (rules, really, these days) them. my 0.02
Post #287,858 by bepatient 6/26/07 1:48:56 PM Reply	Nice theory :-) Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #287,918 by jb4 6/27/07 10:16:02 AM 6/27/07 10:16:34 AM Reply	What part? The part that corporations, PAC, unions, etc are not people, or that Congress serves the people? jb4 "It's hard for me, you know, living in this beautiful White House, to give you a firsthand assessment." — George W. Bush, when asked if he believed Iraq was in a state of civil war (Newsweek, 26 Feb 07) Edited by jb4 June 27, 2007, 10:16:34 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #287,923 by bepatient 6/27/07 11:10:23 AM Reply	Re: What part? "In theory, Congress serves the people, not regulates (rules, really, these days) them." Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #287,974 by jb4 6/27/07 8:56:25 PM Reply	Not sure it was really ever a theory... More like a goal... jb4 "It's hard for me, you know, living in this beautiful White House, to give you a firsthand assessment." — George W. Bush, when asked if he believed Iraq was in a state of civil war (Newsweek, 26 Feb 07)
Post #287,983 by bepatient 6/27/07 11:29:14 PM Reply	Lofty ideal perhaps? Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #287,992 by hnick 6/28/07 6:55:10 AM Reply	Ok, so it's a joke these days. Civil servant is semantically equivalent to civil master. That's not likely to change in my lifetime. I just wish they'd knock off the bullshit about "land of the free and home of the brave" before games and such. That's also gone forever.
Post #288,002 by boxley 6/28/07 9:09:34 AM Reply	land of the safe home of the whiners? Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #288,006 by hnick 6/28/07 9:20:00 AM Reply	Better, but I'd likely be more caustic.
Post #288,049 by Ashton 6/28/07 10:00:24 PM Reply	Land of the somnolent shopping sheep? Or if that's too polite - Land of the assholes who have made Waste their Bizness God's command, and pissed away in 50 years, resources which might have left the species enough time to grow up. Except - that's too many words for the reduced attention span already accomplished. Fewer - Die You Motherfuckers. You tossed all the emergency rations into the Marianas Trench, just to amuse yourselves.
Post #288,149 by tablizer 7/2/07 12:32:51 AM Reply	Money tilt If corporations can buy the airwaves, then the political messages will be tilted toward pro-business ideas because they have the most access. ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #287,859 by Andrew Grygus 6/26/07 1:50:30 PM Reply	So the well heeled should be alowed to drown out . . . . . the voices of the less well financed? That is neither democracy nor freedom of speech. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #287,872 by boxley 6/26/07 3:50:24 PM Reply	you are either a mass movement that can collectively anti up the bucks to publish or you are well heeled and anti up the bucks to publish. When has it ever been different? Medium providers need to get paid and our bottom line is expecting great things between now and 2008. thanx, bill Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #287,888 by Seamus 6/26/07 7:08:47 PM Reply	Anyone can be heard The regulation wasn't stopping them from being heard, just regulating how they are heard beyond their own individual speech. The point about intent is important to me. The Supreme Court is saying you can take intent into account when the speech concerns smoking dope, but you can't take the intent into account when the intent of the speech is to side step a election law/regulation. Seamus
Post #287,889 by boxley 6/26/07 8:04:44 PM Reply	wrong conclusion "The Supreme Court is saying you can take intent into account when the speech concerns smoking dope, but you can't take the intent into account when the intent of the speech is to side step a election law/regulation." The speech of students attending a "school sponsored event" can be censored for pro-drug messages. The speech of issues during a campaign may not be abridged by censors. The speech concerning a candidate specifically can be censored. thanx, bill Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #287,890 by Seamus 6/26/07 8:31:06 PM 6/26/07 8:31:31 PM Reply	I disagree If I am not mistaken the banner was not on school property. As to the commercial, the message of the commercial itself seemed to fit the guidelines, it was the website that they attempted to send voters didn't fit the guidelines. So, by keeping the commercial clean but having a website with content that basically asked voters not to vote for McCain, the regulators decided that the intent of the commercial was to violate the regulation. Justice Roberts said that they couldn't judge the intent of the message; just the message itself. So, in the case of the High School student the principal could judge the intent of the student's message, but that the FEC could not judge the intent of the commercial. That to me is wrong, either they both can use intent to judge the message and take action or neither should be able to. Now, if he let the FEC judge intent, he still could have ruled that they misjudged this message or that the standards used were inappropriate. Seamus Edited by Seamus June 26, 2007, 08:31:31 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #287,891 by crazy 6/26/07 8:47:10 PM Reply	School property is not the issue [link\|http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/12/01/scotus.bonghits/index.html\|http://www.cnn.com/2...nghits/index.html] Even though Frederick was standing on a public sidewalk, school officials argue that he and other students were participating in a school-sponsored event. They had been let out of classes and were accompanied by their teachers. As much as I approve of bong hits, and disapprove of Jesus (or so some might think), I gotta say the school was 100% within their rights of determining the behaviour of the students they were responsible for.
Post #287,892 by Seamus 6/26/07 8:50:29 PM Reply	No it is not the issue The ability to judge the intent of the message is the issue. Box brought it up, just because the school considered them at a school function doesn't mean they couldn't have been skipping school and been protesting on their own time. But again, it is just a side issue. Seamus
Post #287,894 by boxley 6/26/07 8:51:47 PM Reply	its the CENTRAL ISSUE to the ruling sheesh Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #287,895 by Seamus 6/26/07 9:16:41 PM Reply	It was the intent to promote drug use that Judge Roberts ruled allowed the school to suspend the student and violate his rights: "It was reasonable for (the principal) to conclude that the banner promoted illegal drug use-- and that failing to act would send a powerful message to the students in her charge," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court's 6-3 majority. Breyer noted separately he would give Morse qualified immunity from the lawsuit, but did not sign onto the majority's broader free speech limits on students. ... In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said, "This case began with a silly nonsensical banner, (and) ends with the court inventing out of whole cloth a special First Amendment rule permitting the censorship of any student speech that mentions drugs, so long as someone could perceive that speech to contain a latent pro-drug message." [link\|http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/25/free.speech/index.html\|http://www.cnn.com/2...speech/index.html] His reasoning implies that if the banner mentioned drugs but didn't promote drug use the suspension would have been illegal. The ability to judge the intent of the message is the issue I was dealing with. Seamus
Post #287,896 by boxley 6/26/07 9:31:35 PM Reply	splutter! If he wasnt on a school outing, the schoolboard and the principal would have lost all down the line, dont you understand that? The school only has standing because it was a class sanctioned activity. Since it was a school sanctioned activity the intent is the dicerning of the principal. The principal determined the intent to be an non-school allowed message. If it was after hours she could have shit a brick as far as the court was concerned. thanx, bill Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #287,902 by Seamus 6/27/07 5:28:16 AM Reply	Are you really this dense? The ability to judge theintent of the message has been the issue for me from the start. Everything else is details, without the right details we wouln't be talking about the intent of the message issue. The court could have decided to weigh in and say that by cutting class that the student wasn't under the supervision of the principal but the court didn't take this side issue into consideration. The students don't completely don't lose their first amendment rights when they are in school. The court ruled the school got to judge the intent of the message, as to whether is affected student saftey which is ridiculous in this case, but that the FEC didn't get to judge whether the intent of the message was to circumvent the regulation. Either the court should let both have the ability to judge the intent of the message or neither. Seamus
Post #287,905 by bepatient 6/27/07 7:03:48 AM Reply	Re: Are you really this dense? "The students don't completely don't lose their first amendment rights when they are in school." Yeah, they pretty much do. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #287,906 by CRConrad 6/27/07 8:06:35 AM Reply	What was that about "it's a free country", again?
Post #287,924 by bepatient 6/27/07 11:14:29 AM Reply	Couple of issues with this First, these are generally children under the age of consent. As such, they are under the protection of the school. So, are your children allowed to say anything they want to you or any other adult. Say, would you allow them to tell your mother to go get $#(Q&d? Or would you want to limit that speech? Different on a college campus... Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}*
Post #287,976 by jb4 6/27/07 8:58:13 PM Reply	Dude, not only is 18 over the "age of consent" (as if that has anything to do with this), 18 is also over the age of majority; the guy who displayed the sign was officially an adult, able to vote, and able to get shot all to hell in a war manufactured by the guy he most likely didn't vote for. jb4 "It's hard for me, you know, living in this beautiful White House, to give you a firsthand assessment." — George W. Bush, when asked if he believed Iraq was in a state of civil war (Newsweek, 26 Feb 07)
Post #287,985 by bepatient 6/27/07 11:41:43 PM Reply	Ask it another way had the boy been injured, would the parents of that boy sued the school for failure to protect him while at a school sanctioned event? If there was a reasonable expectation that this event was held by the school on behalf of the students then it is not a speech issue because the administration has the right and indeed the duty to control the environment and was within their rights to suspend him for policy violations. The rest was a nice rant but completely irrelevant. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #287,987 by Ashton 6/28/07 5:23:27 AM Reply	Begs the question of his Majority Were he a 50 yo perpetual grad student in Biz-Ad.. (perhaps on a field trip to apply the Michelson-Morley technique (to see if money really has any velocity, after-all)) and choked on a pretzel - would his academic retinue be deemed in loco parentis, too? 50 ~= >'18' for all legal purposes. Besides, as to these litmus decisions -- the creds lost by the USSC in the '00 Election-nullification only hinted at the next rash of 5-4 redefinitions of the Constitution. Now if all 3 branches of Govt. + the pathetic remnants of the 4th (Estate) also drop below 30% in these tiresome polls, we may achieve perfect consistency, at last - Nobody listening to anyone. A Nation of W-clones. I can hardly wait.
Post #287,993 by bepatient 6/28/07 8:25:13 AM Reply	This is a litmus decision? I'm surprised they even took it. Student, at a school event, deliberately (by his own admission) provokes the school administration with a sign that he considers a joke and they don't. He lost. He should have. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #288,047 by Ashton 6/28/07 9:45:57 PM Reply	Litmus only in the sense that - should an unbroken stream of reversals of minor issues ensue, converging, betraying a pattern asymptotic to some Major Reversals, now being brewed -- then we shall have the full measure of the degree of sophisticated lying within the ~~Bush~~Cheney/Rove-picks' {hah} 'testimony' before Congress. Man: The Lying Animal. 21st Century man: less and less interested in whether it matters.
Post #287,909 by boxley 6/27/07 9:09:08 AM Reply	Im not the one who cant understand the basis of the case the court sided with the school who claimed they had jurisdiction over speech content. What part of that dont you understand? If the school did not claim jurisdiction there is no case. Intent doesnt mean a damn thing here. Now the school has a policy of no gang crap, drug crap and race crap. Bong hits for Jesus was taken as a pro drug message (stupid yes) You wouldnt be a school teacher would you or maybe a government worker? thanx, bill Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #287,916 by JayMehaffey 6/27/07 10:14:47 AM Reply	Re: School property is not the issue School property is not the issue [link\|http://www.cnn.com/2...nghits/index.html\|http://www.cnn.com/2...nghits/index.html] Even though Frederick was standing on a public sidewalk, school officials argue that he and other students were participating in a school-sponsored event. They had been let out of classes and were accompanied by their teachers. As much as I approve of bong hits, and disapprove of Jesus (or so some might think), I gotta say the school was 100% within their rights of determining the behaviour of the students they were responsible for. Personally I think this case really hinges on the question of this being a school event or not. I suspect that if one of the students had gotten hurt at the event, the school would be arguing with equal vigor that once school was dismissed the students where on their own. Jay
Post #287,965 by Ashton 6/27/07 5:01:56 PM Reply	Prec\ufffdsamente - that would be a 100% Murican cop-out.
Post #287,893 by boxley 6/26/07 8:51:02 PM Reply	so all for censorship I see, no free speech allowed "School sponsored event" seems to make the case, he was under the jurisdiction of the school at the time he displayed the banner. [link\|http://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1558\|http://www.splc.org/...flash.asp?id=1558] The Court agreed with Morse that the 14-foot banner could be read as a promotion of drug use, deciding that the \ufffdBong Hits\ufffd message could be interpreted as either encouraging viewers to smoke marijuana or celebrating of drug use. The Court also agreed that the speech took place at a school-sponsored event, although the banner was held up off campus on a public street. \ufffdBecause schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can be reasonably regarded as encouraging illegal drug use, the school officials in this case did not violate the First Amendment by confiscating the pro-drug banner and suspending Frederick,\ufffd the decision reads. personally I disagree Now on to politics All of the nasty little issue ads that are clearly sponsored by moveon.org should also be banned because they run web sites derogatory of republicans? I dont think thats fair either. I dont care who sponsors an issue attack ad as it is usually some venal little twat with an axe to grind. Supported of course at arms length from the candidates of both parties. Issue attack ads are fine. Sliming a candidate directly on the tube is fine also. Speech that is not commercial or screaming fire in a theatre should not be limited by medium. If you think differently remove the first ammendment and nanny state us to death. thanx, bill Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #287,897 by Seamus 6/26/07 9:33:36 PM Reply	It is all about intent I don't agree with the logic that censoring speech about drug use is safe guarding the students. Nor would I agree with allowing the censorship even if I felt it would actually do anything to dissuade drug use. My point is about the who gets to judge the intent of the speech and who doesn't. The Supreme Court is allowing schools to use their judgment about speech supporting drug use because they generally agree with the schools judgments. But, they decided not to allow the FEC to judge the intent of the speech because in my opinion because they think they will agree with the FEC. If the web sites you mention ran ads similar to the Wisconsin Right to Life ad, they should be banned also. The first amendment is for an individual's speech. Speech from groups can be regulated. It is our job to agree on what is reasonable regulation. Seamus
Post #287,898 by boxley 6/26/07 9:43:01 PM Reply	speech from non commercial groups CANNOT be regulated go pass a law that the green party cannot say anything bad about the EPA. See how long that lasts thanx, bill Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #287,903 by Seamus 6/27/07 5:35:02 AM Reply	Let me be clearer If any other group, even a liberal group, ran an ad similar to one the Wisconsin group ran than their commercials should have been banned also. Seamus
Post #287,910 by boxley 6/27/07 9:10:25 AM Reply	I have not seen the ad, what in detail was the content Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #287,848 by Another Scott 6/26/07 9:50:18 AM Reply	I'm ambivalent. I'm more concerned about the decision being 5:4 than the actual substance of it at this point. It looks like a partisan decision that ignores previous rulings, and that's a bad thing. There's a problem with unknown or poorly disclosed groups, or individuals, putting up slanderous or deliberately misleading advertisements on TV and radio. There's a problem that conventional wisdom is that election campaigns are too expensive and that the money chase is corrupting our elections. The FCC only has jurisdiction over over-the-air broadcasts. It can't regulate cable, the internet, etc., as directly as it can broadcasters. As someone in a Supreme Court argument once noted, wealth isn't speech. Similarly, just because someone can't buy air time (for whatever reason) doesn't mean their First Amendment rights are being infringed. Rolling all this stuff together, I'm of the opinion that trying to regulate political TV ads is a lost cause. There will always be loop-holes, and always be ways to game the system. Probably the simplest solution is to make a condition of obtaining a commercial over-the-air license is that the awardee provide free airtime for candidates in local, state and national elections. The devil's in the details, though. While publicly financed elections has an appeal, without a free-airtime, it's hard to see how it will act as a restraint on spending. The political consultants have an interest in driving up the price of elections every year, as they presumably often get a cut of the spending in their consulting fees. Plus, who decides who gets money and how much money they get? Maybe [link\|http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm\|Washington had it right, after all]: I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy. The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty. Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #287,886 by Ashton 6/26/07 6:20:45 PM Reply	Between Washington and Franklin, the two pretty much outlined the path towards dissolution; hoped we wouldn't Do That -- Franklin {appeared to} believed it inevitable "after a time.." Neither had a plan for (later-on) undoing the cowardice, corruption of the masses -- their vulnerability to manipulation by the public circuses, the de-sinning of Greed, etc. Perhaps the oil thing + temperatures -?- shall seed the major overhaul so evidently required. But not before blood in the streets, IMO - 'we' lack the guts even to throw out our 'Shogun' and his sock puppet Pretender, despite that litany of rilly stupid moves.. so why would the US consumer face even deeper introspection (while the stores are still full of pretty Toys?) Bringing out the guns First will be ever-so-much more personally satisfying. For some period (?) which nobody could estimate. [link\|http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2007/05/02/notes050207.DTL&hw=Mark+Morford+hippies&sn=001&sc=1000\| The Hippies Were Right!] per Mark Morford - nevermind the plebian focus upon the dope, the hair, the free sex, the Purittanical piece of dung within every Murican gene... Every office slave subliminated his/her envy of a rat-race freed 'person', while mouthing the grade-school excoriations of a POV they never examined for a second. Their general realization that, "The Things weigh you down much more than buoy you up" -- has yet to sink in, of course. Muricans still believe, I Am What I Bought .. but sans free oil: We'll See what shiny new slogans are coined to justify the Inevitable as, "what I really wanted all along, y'know? cha cha" Parts of this could be rilly Fun, if enough relax and enjoy having More of 'Less stuff.' ;^>
Post #287,911 by jb4 6/27/07 9:29:50 AM Reply	Remember, according to a previous ruling, money == speech jb4 "It's hard for me, you know, living in this beautiful White House, to give you a firsthand assessment." — George W. Bush, when asked if he believed Iraq was in a state of civil war (Newsweek, 26 Feb 07)

Welcome to IWETHEY!