There's Dirt Under Every Bu$h [Archive] - The Gemstone IV Players' Corner

02-22-2004, 09:16 AM

well let us start with Clinton.
President Clinton did it in 2000, appointing Judge Rover Gregory to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The exact same thing that George Bush did.
And you wish to talk about Hypocritcal or liars? Look at your own demacratic party

" In one memo to Sen. Richard J. Durbin of Illinois obtained by The Washington Times, Washington lawyer Miguel A. Estrada is singled out as "especially dangerous" because "he is Latino." Mr. Estrada, born in Honduras, withdrew his nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in September after being filibustered for eight months."

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20031115-121140-2918r.htm

read it for yourself.

The reason for this being such an issue is there has never been so much opposition against the appointment of judges in the past. NOT one judge appointment has been filibustered. Now many are getting such treatment. Estrada had a limited paper trail because he never made any controversial decisions, heaven forbid we have somebody in office that follows the law and constitution instead of making law by their ruling (which is not in the power of the judicial branch of the United states government).

finaly bush had enough and took a page from the Bill clinton play book.

02-22-2004, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by longshot
I'll post in Edine's place.

I would relly likke to say somthing that sounds orgenal, but I can't do it.

I will try my best to cennter the atetntion back on mysefl, but in the mentime, I will be joining a combat unit to fight my low sefl estem.

and what brought this about longshot?

Ilvane

02-22-2004, 09:36 AM

I think appointing a judge is wrong, whether Clinton or Bush did it. The scary thing for me is the people that Bush is putting on the benches of the Appeals courts. One is a self proclaimed right wing Christian conservative, so any kind of issue regarding abortion rights will most likely be in a bad spot if it comes through him..

:shrug: Bush is 10 times more dangerous than Clinton ever was. I think the most dangerous Clinton was, was if you were a pretty woman..:lol:

-A

02-22-2004, 09:53 AM

why do you feel that way?
should i not be upset that a pro-abortion judge is apointed?

TheEschaton

02-22-2004, 11:10 AM

instead of making law by their ruling (which is not in the power of the judicial branch of the United states government).

Actually, the whole point of the judicial system is to look at a law, and, if it is not right, to rule so, said ruling thus becoming the new law.

It's called checks and balances - it's a check on the legislative branch making crazy laws, it's balanced in that a) judges have to be appointed, and b) they have to wait for the case to come to them, they can't rule on laws passed arbitrarily.

-TheE-

TheEschaton

02-22-2004, 11:34 AM

I love how people think that because we don't like Bush as a President, we must of loved Clinton. I'll admit Clinton was a better President than Bush, but I don't think he was all that great a guy.

Furthermore, another contention is that this is just another example of hypocrisy - they say the Democrats are blocking the judicial process, when they did the same thing to Clinton's appointee.

This administration rants about how it is against judges making laws from the bench, and making political moves, convienantly forgetting that the highest court in the land made law from the bench and politically installed their administration.

-TheE-

02-22-2004, 11:43 AM

No, the whole point of the judicial branch is to decide the constitutionality of a law, if it is not constitutional they send it back to the legislative branch, they for example as what is happening in Mass. right now where the judicial branch of the state government has decided to say that Gay marriage is law, and forcing the state legislature to draft a law to accommodate for it.

Executive- enforce
legislative- create
judicial- Determines if Laws are Broken

And on the abortion issue ask your fellow lawyer it is a set president and it is highly unlikely that it will ever become illegal <except in extreme forms such as partial birth>

02-22-2004, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by TheEschaton

Furthermore, another contention is that this is just another example of hypocrisy - they say the Democrats are blocking the judicial process, when they did the same thing to Clinton's appointee.

-TheE-

this will be fun

Tell me all knowing one how this is the same thing.

Clinton's judges were put to a vote and rejected

Bush's are not being allowed to be put to a vote as the LAW states they should

TheEschaton

02-22-2004, 11:48 AM

Rulings on the law in the general case are as law themselves. There's no need to do anything further.

In Massachusetts, the judicial branch has said one thing - and the legislative branch has merely been told to conform to the ruling (IE, issue marriage licenses). They don't have to make a new law supporting the court's decision.

The current controversy is that MA legislators are trying to supercede the ruling with a constitutional amendment, the one thing that could overrule a court's decision. Which is stupid, because as soon as it would be passed, someone would sue based on the amendment, and the amendment would be overturned by the courts.

Amendments are meant to guarantee rights, not take them away. That's why the Prohibition ones and the Slavery ones never lasted.

-TheE-

02-22-2004, 11:59 AM

Rulings on law are law themselves?
What happened to checks and balances?

OK you it is obvious to me you do not know the facts of what is going on in mass.
The liberal court made a decision based on the constitution of that state. They said that the constitution has in it the right for gay marriage and TOLD the legislature to draft a law to allow for it.
The state does not want to do that, and when the law passes into the state constitution the court can do nothing to change it no matter if there is a law suit or not for constitutional law supersedes any other. Once it is written in the state constitution the only way to change it is another amendment.

02-22-2004, 12:01 PM

I also note that you decided not to answer me why Bushes judges were not put to a vote as required by the United States constitution
Clinton on the other had had his judge voted on, REJECTED by a majority vote and he put him into power anyways

02-22-2004, 12:03 PM

if you need excerpt from the constitution stating that the appointed judges shall be put into office by a MAJORITY vote meaning 51 votes yes not the 67 needed to defeat a filibuster

02-22-2004, 12:18 PM

Slavery (which was never put into the constitution so i dont see why you brought that up, it was the 13th amendment i believe which stated that it is not allowed in the united states) and prohibition, was removed by anamendment, not by the rule of a judge. And no amendments are not meant to give or take away rights, amendments are used to change the constitution as the Legislature and 2\3 of the States see fit. It is there so the government can change in the process of law as it feels is needed

[Edited on 2-22-2004 by The Edine]

Hulkein

02-22-2004, 12:22 PM

People say Bush is dangerous? Clinton bombed other countries on Fridays to make sure that the weekend headlines weren't about him getting a domer.

Latrinsorm

02-22-2004, 01:09 PM

Were somebody's posts deleted, or did Edine really just post 4 times in a row? ;)

I think it's unfair to judge the judges (heh) unless you know them or have seen them in action. Otherwise it's all hearsay and stuff.

HarmNone

02-22-2004, 01:13 PM

No posts have been deleted in the making of this thread. :D

HarmNone

Ravenstorm

02-22-2004, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
I think it's unfair to judge the judges (heh) unless you know them or have seen them in action. Otherwise it's all hearsay and stuff.

Because judging them on something they mere months ago should be ignored?

Pryor also came under fire for filing a Supreme Court brief in a Texas sodomy case comparing homosexual acts to "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography and even incest and pedophilia."

This is the type of 'compassionate conservative' Bush is. And the Republicans are just as skilled in the fine art of the filibuster as Democrats. To pretend otherwise is a blatant attempt at misdirection if not an outright lie. But that's Dubya modus operandi, isn't it?

Raven

Latrinsorm

02-22-2004, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
Because judging them on something they mere months ago should be ignored?As someone who is oft misunderstood myself, I think it's kinda mean to not give these folks a chance to defend themselves.
But that's Dubya modus operandi, isn't it?Um... I dunno. :D I'm not real up to speed on this politics stuff, as I'm sure you've noticed.

Ravenstorm

02-22-2004, 05:02 PM

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
As someone who is oft misunderstood myself, I think it's kinda mean to not give these folks a chance to defend themselves.

There is nothing ambiguous about what he said. That judge is no different from Fred Phelps in his beliefs and his words. Bush considers him one of the best lawyers in the country so it is safe to assume he agrees. Both Pryor and Bush are responsible for things like this:

http://tinyurl.com/39pk3

They might not be preaching violence but they are certainly planting the seeds.

Raven

[Edited on 2-22-2004 by Ravenstorm]

Hulkein

02-22-2004, 05:07 PM

You're taking thing waaaayyy too personally if you believe that Bush and the judges are responsible for Jamaicans mauling someone.

[Edited on 2-22-2004 by Hulkein]

Ravenstorm

02-22-2004, 06:01 PM

Do you really believe it doesn't happen here in America too? Have you forgotten Matthew Shepard? What do you think the average or less than average person thinks when they hear a 'respected' judge comparing homosexuality to necrophilia and bestiality? And how do you think someone who is gay feels when they hear it? Did you know the experts now say that one in three of all teen suicides are of gay and lesbian kids?

Do you really think none of that matters? That it makes no difference? That what they're saying and preaching is not hurting anyone? Yes, I know. It doesn't affect you so you probably don't care. Look at your friends some time. Chances are one of them might be gay. He or she might not have told you because of something you said or a 'joke' you once told. He might not have told his parents because they'd disown him. Or he believs all his friends will suddenly hate him. Or he has a strong religious belief but that religion is telling him how bad he is so he doesn't ever want to think about it. Or he's read in the paper the latest instance of violence.

So yes, that article is about something that happened in Jamaica but it goes on all over the world. Including in our country. And yes, Bush and other bigots are partly responsible.

And yes, I take it seriously because it goes way beyond who can marry whom. It's about how the leaders of this country are telling people that being gay is no different than fucking a corpse or an animal. You think that's not important or something to get upset over?

Think about it.

Raven

Latrinsorm

02-22-2004, 06:28 PM

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
There is nothing ambiguous about what he said. Just because it's unambiguous doesn't mean it's exactly what the guy meant to say. Like I said, I have been misunderstood, and it really makes me sad when someone will take what I say, twist it up big time, then use it against me. As such, I try very hard not to do the same to other people, regardless of whether or not I agree on what could be their beliefs or principles.

Ilvane

02-22-2004, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by Hulkein
People say Bush is dangerous? Clinton bombed other countries on Fridays to make sure that the weekend headlines weren't about him getting a domer.

Hey, he did bomb Osama..around that time in fact..;) Some distraction..hm.

-A

[Edited on 2-22-2004 by Ilvane]

Ilvane

02-22-2004, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by The Edine
Rulings on law are law themselves?
What happened to checks and balances?

OK you it is obvious to me you do not know the facts of what is going on in mass.
The liberal court made a decision based on the constitution of that state. They said that the constitution has in it the right for gay marriage and TOLD the legislature to draft a law to allow for it.
The state does not want to do that, and when the law passes into the state constitution the court can do nothing to change it no matter if there is a law suit or not for constitutional law supersedes any other. Once it is written in the state constitution the only way to change it is another amendment.

Actually, they are trying to come up with a way that makes everyone happy in our Legislature right now. Civil unions may wind up being what is accepted.

We aren't all liberals here in Massachusettes--by the by--we actually have a Republican governor, the illustrious Mitt Romney.

-A

Hulkein

02-22-2004, 06:38 PM

I didn't mean that it doesn't happen in places other then Jamaica, and I'm not saying it's ok for that stuff to go on, I'm just saying that whether the President is Bush or Kerry or Edwards or Clinton, it really won't change the situation.

When the leaders say it's no different then fucking a corpse or animal, it is in response to the accusation that you can't legislate sexual preference. Clearly, it is needed. While being gay isn't the same, it's just a comparison I think (unless you've read otherwise, I haven't seen it in any other context.)

Ilvane

02-22-2004, 06:46 PM

Personally I don't the government should have say about what you do in the privacy of your own home. I don't think that they should prohibit two men or two women from getting married if they feel like it. Just because religion says that marriage is between a man and a woman, doesn't mean everyone feels that way.

I don't mind if homosexual people marry at all, it's none of my business, just as much as if heterosexual people get married.

I also found this link on Judge Pryor, which I found interesting.

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/pryor.html

-A

Latrinsorm

02-22-2004, 07:14 PM

Originally posted by Ilvane
Personally I don't the government should have say about what you do in the privacy of your own home. There are a number of reasons the government should invade one's home.

Ilvane

02-22-2004, 07:23 PM

It's easy when you take something out of context.;)

I mean that if two consenting adults are in the privacy of thier own homes, and have relations together, it's no ones business, especially not the government. Can you imagine if the government were in your bedroom, telling you what you can and can't do?

:shrug: Seems reasonable enough to me to keep that private, no?

-A

Hulkein

02-22-2004, 07:42 PM

The government does keep that private. It's the marriage part that isn't legal in all areas.

[Edited on 2-23-2004 by Hulkein]

Skirmisher

02-22-2004, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by Hulkein
When the leaders say it's no different then fucking a corpse or animal, it is in response to the accusation that you can't legislate sexual preference. Clearly, it is needed. While being gay isn't the same, it's just a comparison I think (unless you've read otherwise, I haven't seen it in any other context.)

Um, if it is not the same then why make such an inflammatory comparison?

Answer: To do exactly that and attempt to equate them.

Hulkein

02-22-2004, 07:58 PM

it is in response to the accusation that you can't legislate sexual preference. Clearly, it is needed.

Skirmisher

02-22-2004, 08:02 PM

Someone give Hulkein a wack, he's stuck.

02-22-2004, 08:03 PM

This is directed at Rave, you bring up Matthew Sheppard and I believe that is was a horrid thing that was done to him
but I ask you, do you know who Jesse Dirkhising is?

Edit: to add anyone at all know who he was

[Edited on 2-23-2004 by The Edine]

Hulkein

02-22-2004, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by Skirmisher
Someone give Hulkein a wack, he's stuck.

I'll elaborate.

- "The government has no right to legislate anything that has to do with sexual preference. The government should not make morality based decisions." -- "Well what about current laws in place making it illegal to fuck random animals and to have sex with dead bodies? Those are morality based laws, and take place in the bedroom."

Someone saying this doesn't mean they're saying that homosexuality is as bad as necrophelia or animal sex, but it's just an easy example to show that the government does and should make laws that are legislating what one does in the bedroom.

Just because you're not following the thought process doesn't mean I'm stuck.

[Edited on 2-23-2004 by Hulkein]

Skirmisher

02-22-2004, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by The Edine
This is directed at Rave, you bring up Matthew Sheppard and I believe that is was a horrid thing that was done to him
but I ask you, do you know who Jesse Dirkhising is?

Edit: to add anyone at all know who he was

[Edited on 2-23-2004 by The Edine]

Edine, I hope the animals that did that to that poor boy die a painful death, but I fail to see how what happened to him is relevant here.

Warriorbird

02-22-2004, 08:11 PM

Because we like bringing up straw men, slippery slopes, and totally irrelevant things to issues.

Skirmisher

02-22-2004, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by Hulkein
I'll elaborate.

- "The government has no right to legislate anything that has to do with sexual preference. The government should not make morality based decisions." -- "Well what about current laws in place making it illegal to fuck random animals and to have sex with dead bodies? Those are morality based laws, and take place in the bedroom."

Someone saying that doesn't mean they're saying that homosexuality is as bad as necrophelia or animal sex, but it's just an easy example to show that the government does and should make laws that are legislating what one does in the bedroom.

Just because you're not following the thought process doesn't mean I'm stuck.

I was trying to give you an out.

Anyone who makes that simplistic argument is just sad as there are obvious differences between consenting human adults and a human with either an animal or a cadaver.

I would have thought that clear.:?:

02-22-2004, 08:13 PM

I wont make you wait for my answer
Jesse Dirkhising....

Most of the nation has not heard about two homosexual men who face the death penalty in Arkansas, charged with raping and torturing a 13-year-old boy to death last month. The brutal crime against Prairie Grove, Ark., seventh-grader Jesse Dirkhising -- who was raped repeatedly and suffocated with his own underwear in the pre-dawn hours of Sept. 26 -- was reported by news organizations in Arkansas and also covered by newspapers in Oklahoma and Tennessee. But the boy's death did not receive national media attention. Tim Graham, director of media analysis for the Media Research Center, said he is not surprised. "Nobody wants to say anything negative about homosexuals. Nobody wants to be seen on the wrong side of that issue," said Mr. Graham, who sees "political correctness" at work
"Joyce Howard Price / The Washington Times"

What about the scene when police arrived?
BENTONVILLE, Ark. -- Police officers didn't try to revive a dying boy who had been sexually assaulted because they weren't carrying their disease-deterrent masks, the officers testified Thursday. Police officers said at Brown's trial Thursday that the boy was lifeless, his face was blue and he had blood in his mouth and excrement smeared on his body when they entered the gay couple's apartment in Rogers. "There was horrible stench in the room when I walked in. It was overwhelming," said Jason Curry, a former police officer in Rogers now with the U.S. Border Patrol in Arizona. Under cross-examination by Brown's lawyer, both Curry and former Cpl. Ian Smith said they had left the masks necessary to protect themselves from disease behind in the car when they entered the apartment. Department policy mandates their use during resuscitation attempts, they said.
"AP"
Is that any more horrid than what happend to Matthew Sheppard? No.

Edit: this all happend within one month of the same time, because nobody wishes to report on the bad things Homosexuals do you never heard about it.

Why is the media not covering Jesse Dirkhising murder like that of Matthew Shepard? Where were the Human Rights Campaign, and the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force on the day of Jesse Dirkhising's death?

[Edited on 2-23-2004 by The Edine]

Warriorbird

02-22-2004, 08:14 PM

Some people ARE that dim.

Hulkein

02-22-2004, 08:15 PM

Look, it's not about the specifics of the case, it's an example. It doesn't matter if the person is consenting or not. The statement is used in proving an argument wrong. The comment is made to show homosexuals and others that it IS the place of government to legislate certain areas. It's not a statement used to say 'homosexuality is bad.' The example has been used in articles and other forms of publication, I'm not pulling it out of my ass.

Summary:
This is what Raven said <<It's about how the leaders of this country are telling people that being gay is no different than fucking a corpse or an animal.>>

I said no, the government DIDN'T say that. They said that it is in the same legislative category. That is all. Don't read into it.

[Edited on 2-23-2004 by Hulkein]

Ilvane

02-22-2004, 08:20 PM

You know something? Deviants are deviants..Heterosexual, homosexual, whatever...

To equate anything like that to what they did to Matthew Shepard is ridiculous.

-A

Ravenstorm

02-22-2004, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by Hulkein
... but it's just an easy example to show that the government does and should make laws that are legislating what one does in the bedroom.

Yes they do and no they shouldn't. What consenting adults do sexually is no one's business but their own. Neither corpses nor animals involve consenting adults. But equating them with homosexuality is a wonderful way to get people to get outraged and shout about how horrible it is. You can be certain that was the intent.

And the government isn't even trying to legislate against 'deviancy' equally. Only homosexuals are the target of these religious bigots. Where is the move to outlaw S&M? There's a fair number of straight men and women who enjoy being whipped. Not to mention many more painful things. There's actual physical harm being done but I don't hear any move to make it illegal.

The US isn't a theocracy and to hell with anyone trying to turn it into one.

Raven

[Edited on 2-23-2004 by Ravenstorm]

Skirmisher

02-22-2004, 08:25 PM

You know....it saddens me that after reading that awful account of what happened to that poor boy the part that sticks with someone is that the accused were homosexual.

To use his murder in such a fashion is degrading.

To make the rather sophomoric error of taking one aspect that was not in any even implied to have had an impact in this attack and say that that is equal to what has been shown to be without a doubt an attack inspired by violent intollerance is unfortunate.

Ravenstorm

02-22-2004, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by Skirmisher
You know....it saddens me that after reading that awful account of what happened to that poor boy the part that sticks with someone is that the accused were homosexual.

It's a standard tactic of the right to try to equate homosexuality with pedophilia despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of pedophiles are as straight as Dubya. The poor boy was killed by *gasp* EVUL homos so of course, the important thing there is that they were gay.

Just like the most important thing about someone who's black and commits a crime is that he's black. Unfortunately, lots of people are killed in horrible ways every day and too many of them are children. That's why heterosexuality should be made illegal since the majority of crime is commited by straight men.

Raven

02-22-2004, 08:31 PM

no, the two men were homosexual partners. What I am pointing out is 1 mathew sheppard died and it made major news, the sad story of it all Jesse died and made almost not media ripples.

My point is you can not take one case of something bad that happend to one man and use that as an example to explain your views and how bad an anti-homosexual view is when there are things that homosexual's do that are just as bad to other people.

Hulkein

02-22-2004, 08:35 PM

Yeah... I don't think anyone is overly outraged that homo's killed him, but the fact that it was obviously squelched from the national media. If the nation was after gay's you could be damn sure that story would've been all over the headlines.

02-22-2004, 08:37 PM

I work with gay men, I am friends with gay men, and women. Because my views on homosexuality differ from theirs obviously that does not make me any less qualified to be a judge. Because I personally do not agree that Killing a child should be allowed by law does not make me any less qualified to be a judge. To think otherwise is wrong.

You argue that because of their moral view point on life they are less qualified to be judges.

You argue that because they have different views than what is politically correct they are any less qualified to be judges?

(Oh yeah your right republicans do know how to filibuster, BUT they "NEVER" filibustered a Judicial nominee.)

Ilvane

02-22-2004, 08:38 PM

Edine, really..look at what you said about that and think about it.

It could have been two heterosexual men..it could have been anything..the fact that those men were homosexual has nothing to do with the sickness of what they did. They are deviants.

Does that make more sense to you?

-A

02-22-2004, 08:45 PM

yes it could also have been to homosexual men who did that to Matthew shepherd because they dot like him
Circular logic sucks doesn't it?

Ravenstorm

02-22-2004, 08:51 PM

Originally posted by The Edine
Because I personally do not agree that Killing a child should be allowed by law does not make me any less qualified to be a judge.

No one believes killing a child should be allowed by law. Your point? Oh wait, there is none.

You argue that because of their moral view point on life they are less qualified to be judges.

I don't regard their views as moral.

(Oh yeah your right republicans do know how to filibuster, BUT they "NEVER" filibustered a Judicial nominee.)

And the Bush quote is that the Democrats used "unprecedented obstructionist tactics" which is obviously another statement designed to be deliberately misleading since the Republicans have used the same "unprecedented obstructionist tactics" on many ocassions. Oh, wait... They're not totally unprecedented are they?

Raven

Hulkein

02-22-2004, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
No one believes killing a child should be allowed by law. Your point? Oh wait, there is none.

So you're saying abortion isn't killing babies?

Bobmuhthol

02-22-2004, 08:59 PM

<<No one believes killing a child should be allowed by law.>>

WRONG.

02-22-2004, 09:09 PM

And the Bush quote is that the Democrats used "unprecedented obstructionist tactics" which is obviously another statement designed to be deliberately misleading since the Republicans have used the same "unprecedented obstructionist tactics" on many ocassions. Oh, wait... They're not totally unprecedented are they?

Raven

Umm Raven you need to do your research better I will say it again because you dont seem to understand
at no time as ****"anyone"**** filibustered the nomination of a judge in the past be it from the left or the right

02-22-2004, 09:10 PM

Rave are you for or against partial birth abortion?

Skirmisher

02-22-2004, 09:25 PM

Originally posted by The Edine
yes it could also have been to homosexual men who did that to Matthew shepherd because they dot like him
Circular logic sucks doesn't it?

The fact of the matter Edine is that the pathetic individuals who killed Shepherd did so BECAUSE he was gay.

If you have any proof of the accused in the case of young Jesse having any such predispostions please provide it?

Why don't you make the assumption that because the two accused most likely wore shoes that all people who wear shoes are liable to commit a similar crime?

It would follow your reasoning.

Ravenstorm

02-22-2004, 09:26 PM

Originally posted by The Edine at no time as ****"anyone"**** filibustered the nomination of a judge in the past be it from the left or the right

I see. So the Republican filibuster to block Abe Fortas from ascending to the position of Supreme Court Chief Justice in 1968 doesn't count? I didn't know that.

Raven

02-22-2004, 09:40 PM

Oh raven I'm sorry You mean the BIPARTISAN filibuster of Abe Fortas?

[Edited on 2-23-2004 by The Edine]

Artha

02-22-2004, 09:40 PM

Maybe he should've said 'In the last 35 years has anyone filibustered..." or "In recent times, nobody has filibustered...."

02-22-2004, 09:42 PM

I need to correct myself then it does seem I was slightly wrong in my statment there has NEVER been a partisan filibuster of a judge

Ravenstorm

02-22-2004, 09:50 PM

Irrelevant. The fact is that the filibuster is not unprecedented in congressional politics as a whole nor is it even unprecedented when it comes to judicial nominees.

Bush lied again. Oh, I'm sorry... He was operating under faulty intelligence again.

Raven

02-22-2004, 09:52 PM

your right but a partisian filibuster is and that is what is going on it is not Irrelevant because at no time has one party competely tried to stop judical nominees

Hulkein

02-22-2004, 10:13 PM

Rave, are you insinuating that Bush really wasn't given faulty information?

Ilvane

02-23-2004, 01:33 AM

Don't you think he should have been damned sure the information he was given was correct before he went and sent our men and women over there to fight?

I love the Republicans, they are a plethora of contradictions..

They are pro-war, but pro-life.

For the death penalty, but also for less gun control.

They are "No child left behind," but enjoy cutting funding for the schools.

They want to send our men and women to war--but they want to cut the benefits for veterans.

-A

longshot

02-23-2004, 03:06 AM

Originally posted by The Edine

and what brought this about longshot?

Alcohol. Lots of alcohol.

I was the MC of a charity concert and had to do it all in Japanese in front of about 150 people. The "unwinding" after the concert got pretty messy.

Sorry man.

Latrinsorm

02-23-2004, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by Ilvane
They are pro-war, but pro-life.Killing is wrong. However, war saves lives. Numerical morality is a bitch, but is required in a world such as this.

Answer me this: what was the only way to be 100% sure that Saddam had WMD?

The only answer I can think of: when he used them.

02-23-2004, 12:36 PM

you really gotta be kidding me about that

Democrats are pro-choice but anti death penalty

circular logic again anyone

Ravenstorm

02-23-2004, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by The Edine
circular logic again anyone

Circular reasoning is an argument that uses itself to prove itself. It has nothing to do with contradictory statements.

Raven

Hulkein

02-23-2004, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by Ilvane
Don't you think he should have been damned sure the information he was given was correct before he went and sent our men and women over there to fight?

He was damned sure. When the British Intelligence and CIA tells you something, I think that you're going to take it seriously.

<<They are pro-war, but pro-life.>>

Babies are innocent lives. Anyone who faught for Iraq was given the chance to surrender and lead peaceful lives.

<<For the death penalty, but also for less gun control.>>

There's a difference between an upstanding citizen owning a protected firearm and a drug dealer killing a cop or an innocent family with a gun HE WOULD OWN NO MATTER THE LAWS ON GUNS, SINCE IT IS OWNED ILLEGALLY.

<<They are "No child left behind," but enjoy cutting funding for the schools.>>

I really don't debate about education, so I don't fall under that category. But from what I have read it's the system that needs to be revamped from the ground up, tossing more money to be mis-managed isn't the solution.

<<They want to send our men and women to war--but they want to cut the benefits for veterans.>>

I don't.. Don't know much about that.

Ravenstorm

02-23-2004, 08:09 PM

Originally posted by Hulkein
Rave, are you insinuating that Bush really wasn't given faulty information?

Actually, I'm not implying it. I'm stating it outright. I don't believe there was any faulty intelligence. I believe Bush knowingly and deliberately twisted the facts to support the conclusion he wanted them to reach. He wanted to invade iraq so ignored anything that would hamper that. Much the way he's done here...

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/report.html

And if even that doesn't work, he'll try to change the rules of the game to get things to work the way he wants. Like here...

http://tinyurl.com/38uor

Why not? if you're being criticized for losing manufacturing jobs, just reclassify fast food as manufacturing. It's brilliant!

And even if neither of that proves what he did with Iraq, it's just more evidence of what he's really like.

Raven

Skirmisher

02-23-2004, 08:15 PM

Originally posted by The Edine
you really gotta be kidding me about that

Democrats are pro-choice but anti death penalty

Bzzzzz. Soooo sorry.

<-----------Democrat who is for the death penalty AND pro choice.

circular logic again anyone
No.

GSTamral

02-23-2004, 09:25 PM

Raven,

it can equally be argued that the FDR lied to the american people and actually instigated US intervention into WW2, a war that logically, did not concern the United States, nor did it directly threaten the US.

The signals sent to Japan along with the embargos threatened all but garaunteed that Japan would declare war on the US. He also did this outside of the authority of Congress and AGAINST the will of the american people, who were starkly against the war just a year before

Woodrow Wilson did much the same in WWI for that matter. What business did the US have there? Why were our troops sent to deal with a war on foreign soil to which we were not a factor of in the negotiation process??

Raven, either you back up your words by chastizing and blasphemizing liberal leaders like FDR and Wilson along with Bush, or you come to your common senses and make the simple connection that some wars, while not necessary can end up serving the greater good of mankind. And before we went to war in Iraq, there was a 76% approval for it.
was it a false premise? probably. Was it based on bad information? who knows. Maybe. Maybe not. but members of FDR's cabinet admitted bullshitting signals to Japan to incite conflict which would allow the US to move into Europe because it was the right thing to do.

Come on raven, lets hear you say it.

Fuck FDR
Fuck Wilson

Fuck all wars in which we were deliberately led into.

Ravenstorm

02-23-2004, 09:31 PM

1) I'm against presidents lying no matter who it it. Yes, Clinton is a dick for lying. Also for cheating on his wife.

2) Comparing invading Iraq to getting involved in both world wars is retarded. And yes, I'm using that adjective quite deliberately.

Raven

[Edited on 2-24-2004 by Ravenstorm]

GSTamral

02-23-2004, 09:43 PM

While we're at it debating the economy, raven, why dont you include that the last 2 years of Clinton's presidency, those were the first two consecutive years in 1900 and onward american history in which the real GDP grew at less than 2.0% per year, setting the stage for a disastrous liquidity trap. Even during the great depression two consecutive years at that rate never happened.

I'll be the first to admit, I'm a fiscal conservative, but I have voted for democrats AND republicans in my time.

Since we're slinging mud here for the presidential campaign, let's sum up equal arguments for both sides rather than promoting a purely liberal agenda.

That lovely Senator, John Kerry has one of the worst track records of any Senator in the US. Massachusetts enjoys the highest personal income and property taxes in the United States, yet also has the HIGHEST percentage of uninsured children. Massachusetts high schools ranked 43rd out of 50 states.

John Kerry, the war hero, organized a giant campaign against Vietnam after he returned from battle, urging thousands of war veterans to throw away their medals of distinction. He symbolically tossed a purple heart, and two other such medals, all of which were awarded to him during battle at the base of the Washington monument to start the ceremony.

Problem: those medals were not his. He framed his medals, which sit on his desk to this day. He not only asked others to do something he would not, but then had the audacity to throw somebody else's medals and rob them of that "pleasure", at the time stating them as his own.

If you think Bush has a problem with Ethics, why dont you speak about Kerry's voting record? He was FUCKING OUT ON A GOLF TRIP when the American Labor Act of 2003 was passed. And now he has the gall to call himself a president for the unions?

then you have Nader, who admittedly lied about cars in consumer report articles for payoffs nearly 25 years ago.

Finally, you get Edwards, who is young enough to perhaps still give a shit about ethics and morality, but he won't win the democratic nomination because he isn't slinging enough mud.

I could see myself voting for Edwards. Kerry is a pure joke, and has absolutely no moral ground to stand on in accusing Bush of anything. He shat on veterans and then claims to be their leader. I don't think Bush is a good president, but at least he's a leader. But at least I dont subject myself to liberalist or pure conservative banter from known websites which don't promote news, but simply an agenda.

GSTamral

02-23-2004, 09:45 PM

oh really raven? why is it retarded?

both cases involve fighting a war against an essential dictator who used mass genocide as a means to defeat enemies, and neither of whom had any direct plan to attack the United States.

Ravenstorm

02-23-2004, 09:54 PM

You're welcome to cite any sources you care to. If you can manage to find a right wing source that is capable of refuting those two links I posted, feel free. I'd be interested in seeing how they manage to put either of them in a good light.

And if you can't see the difference between wars of conquest sweeping across Europe and Iraq, I'm not a good enough educater to enlighten you.

And for the record? I don't think Bush is a good leader. Leaders need to be trusted and he obviously can't be.

Raven

Glavenfyre

02-23-2004, 10:01 PM

It will be one hell of a long time before we find someone that CAN be trusted, left wing or right wing. There is no such thing as an altruistic politician, or person for that matter, so get over it and accept the lesser of two evils.

Hulkein

02-23-2004, 10:24 PM

<<And for the record? I don't think Bush is a good leader. Leaders need to be trusted and he obviously can't be.>>

I trust Bush.

Hulkein

02-23-2004, 10:26 PM

Also, you saying Tamral can't disprove the links you posted really doesn't address the rest of the quality points he brings up.

GSTamral

02-23-2004, 10:40 PM

Raven,

Professor Albert M. Kinsworth, Rutgers University
Professor Ashutosh Chilkoti, Duke University
Professor William Horvath, University of Pennsylvania.

All renowned and published doctorates across the fields of study. All who have argued what Bush did in Iraq is an exact replica of FDR's actions in WW2. Yes Raven, they are retarded too. God they must be, because look at where they are.

Glavenfyre

02-23-2004, 10:47 PM

Professors come up with the stupidest stuff just to try to make a name for themselves... If you can only cite three professors then you are stretching it a lot.

Ravenstorm

02-23-2004, 10:50 PM

Link? Because I suspect what they said is that the tactics Bush used to involve the country in a war were the same and not that the scope of the conflict was the same.

Just like shooting someone who is pointing a gun at you might be justifiable while shooting someone who is yelling at you is not.

Because if they were claiming that the justification for invading Iraq is even close to fighting Hitler, yes I would certainly call them retarded.

And to respond to Hulkein, you're right. I'm not responding to those points though because I'm not an economist nor do I wish to research it. He may very well be correct. I just don't care. I loathe Bush for many reasons and the economy is a very tiny one. As is his war record.

I'll leave a response to anyone else who wishes to pick up that particular gauntlet. It is up to the reader's of the thread to decide which issues they care about more.

Raven

Edaarin

02-23-2004, 10:52 PM

Professors come up with stupid shit? Are you on crack? Those schools aren't exactly second or third tier either.

EDIT: It seems to me that Tamral's post was to point out that it was the same tactics, not the same scope. I don't recall reading him ever implying it was on the same level as either WW, but maybe my brain's just fried from a long day.

[Edited on 2-24-2004 by Edaarin]

Hulkein

02-23-2004, 10:55 PM

Heh, I was going to say the same thing Ed.

Raven, if you don't dislike Bush for his economic record, or the war, then I really can only guess that most of it has to do with him being conservative when it comes to personal issues. All the power to dislike him for any reason you want, I just don't see how it makes him a bad president.

Ravenstorm

02-23-2004, 11:05 PM

I would hope it was an argument for the same tactics. Hence my 'justifiable force' comparison.

Though I've tried to find the professors listed. Albert M. Kinsworth appears to not exist as far as google is concerned. William Horvath was hard to pin down but there is a professor that has something to do in the health field. And Ashutosh Chilkoti is a professor in biomedical engineering.

Hulkein, the reasons I dislike him have been stated in numerous posts and there are way too many issues beyond the two you mentioned to bring them all up again especially as many of them are in this thread.

Raven

GSTamral

02-23-2004, 11:13 PM

Raven,

Hitler aside, how about WW1? That had NOTHING to do with religion, and concerned America in 0 ways. In fact, it was a threat to precisely ONE major US trading partner, Great Britain.

Iraq was a threat to also a single US trading partner, Saudi Arabia.

The Autro-Hungarian-Turkish or Ottoman empire had precisely 0 interest in American soil. They had 0 interest in extinction of a people. They were by far less of a threat to the United States as Iraq, because they didnt even give a shit about the US. Iraq was at least talking a big game against the US. Nobody in austria could care less who the US was.

Raven, if you need a reason to hate bush, go for it. He has faults, as with anyone else. He isnt god.

Honestly, congress has more important things to do than spend time on a filibuster for an appelate court judge. I know you're looking at any reason you can, but currently, there is an economy to fix, there is a war on terrorism to fight, there are bioterror bills that need to pass, and so many things that require more pressing attention.

Both republicans AND democrats have a longstanding tradition of never agreeing on anything. Democrats would love nothing more than to use a case like this to stall more productive things and more immediate needs from going through, so they can blame the other party when something goes wrong before the bill can be enacted. This isnt anything new, BOTH sides do it on a regular basis.

That Bush circumvented this process is actually something that a true leader would do, in order to get things accomplished. Do I trust Bush? eh, not really. Do I think he's a good leader? Yes.

and yes, I will freely admit, my stance on politics is driven by the economy, the crime rate in america, the quality of the school system, and the desire for a system that doesnt penalize people who work hard and are successful.

I dont give two shits about gay rights because well, I'm not klaive. Either way, not a damn difference to me.

I dont really care about abortion. Its a moral argument that can go both ways, and I dont find more righteousness to either side. Furthermore, as a male, I will not ever be in such a situation, and like above is not a political issue for the legislative branch. Anyone who votes legislation based on judicial views is the true retard, and should take that 3rd grade class on the american government again.

Ilvane

02-23-2004, 11:16 PM

I can give plenty of reasons why I won't vote for Bush, but that's just my personal feeling on him. I can try to educate and get someone to see what I see about him, but if someone isn't willing to look at posts, or even look into it, there is no point in debating, because they have already made up thier mind.

I have voted Republican before, when John McCain was running for president...back then he wasn't afraid to stand up to the establishment of the Republican Party.

Of course now, we have Bush at the head of the party, which pulls me far, far away from the Republican Party.

-A

GSTamral

02-23-2004, 11:18 PM

Ashutosh Chilkoti is a professor of Biomedical Engineering AND is also a professor at the Fuqua School of Business (the graduate business academy at Duke), William Horvath is a professor in public policy, and Kinsworth is an associate doctorate professor in American studies, to get the information straight.

Hulkein

02-23-2004, 11:19 PM

I've read every post with an open mind... I am voting in my first presidential election but I don't think I'll vote along party lines no matter what throughout my life, I do actually look at issues and I just agree mainly with the republican views.

Edited to add- I voted for Rendell for governor of PA, he's a democrat :thumbsup:

[Edited on 2-24-2004 by Hulkein]

GSTamral

02-23-2004, 11:21 PM

Ilvane, nobody's asking you to vote for Bush. But if you're going along the party establishment this and that, don't preach Kerry either. He's a complete Kennedy lackey, and his track record is about as bad as it gets.

You want to preach edwards? fine. He actually seems like an upstanding type. I could actually see myself voting for him. But anyone who bashes Bush for these hackneyed reasons and then jots down someone like Kerry, you're only advertising yourself as a hypocrite.

GSTamral

02-23-2004, 11:24 PM

Raven, on a side note, it is interesting that you have quoted one of the most backwards and damaging presidents this nations has EVER EVER seen.

The only stick Teddy carried was the one he tried to stick up the people's ass with his ridiculous theories on isolationism. The same isolationism and immediate pullback of support that is the ultimate root of all the violence in central america today.

Ravenstorm

02-23-2004, 11:41 PM

I do however agreed with the quote no matter who said it, especially in light of Ashcroft's 'anyone who speaks out against us supports terrorism' line.

Raven

Edited to add:

Though it is a bit wordy and I find it annoying so it's replaced with another.

[Edited on 2-24-2004 by Ravenstorm]

Ilvane

02-23-2004, 11:47 PM

I actually quite like John Kerry.

He's not as left as the Bush campaign is going to portray. I voted for him last time when it came up.

Kennedy and he are supposed to work together, since they are both senators from MA, right? He's not much of a lackey though, since he really has been out on his own as far as what he thinks of some issues. Kennedy is definately a liberal, and we love him for it.;)

-A

GSTamral

02-23-2004, 11:59 PM

Kerry's personal issues and vietnam blashpemy aside,

is that why Massachusetts has the highest per capita personal income percentage tax in america? They ain't far behind in corporate taxes either.

Is that why Massachusetts has the highest percentage of uninsured children in the nation?

Is that why Massachusetts ranks 43rd out of 50 states in terms of quality of high school education (median SAT score), this despite having two of the most prestigious private high schools in the country to keep up the average?

Is that why Massachusetts, despite not being nearly as populous as some other states, ranks a dismal 37th in violent crime?

Why is the average standard of living in massachusetts (in real domestic GDP) ranked only 29th out of 50, despite having a port, a major international airport and one of the nations largest metropolis' in the state?

You've got a senator whose family made their money smuggling illegal goods into the country, and the other senator (Kerry) who's been under his wing the whole time.

and you live him why?

GSTamral

02-24-2004, 12:05 AM

I'd like to point out that the 4 most liberal (by percentage) states in america rank as follows, as compared to their conservative counterparts.

Education: (standardized test results/high schools)

California: 50th
Massachusetts: 43rd
Maine: 21st
New Jersey: 46th

Nebraska: 1st
Texas: 19th
Oklahoma: 12th
South Carolina: 31st.

I based how liberal a state was based on the party of the governors office over the last 20 years, and the general bias of the house legislations in each state over the same period.

Guess that should settle that debate eh?

Ilvane

02-24-2004, 12:09 AM

Hey, Kerry was a war hero, which is more than the President can say. His father was, but not him. There are some people out there right now who have no clue what Vietnam was like and I can't imagine unless we were there, we would know. I respect Kerry for his service, and for his protests after the war, on what he thought was right.

For all the violent crime, I don't see much of it around here, even in the city, it's not that bad around here. From the sounds you make, you'd think we were having shootings all the time or something.

I don't agree the school reforms they have been doing, like MCAS-which was suggested and started by the Republican governor.

The reason why we have so many uninsured children(and I dispute that it's the highest) is also thanks to the Republican governor and his cuts, cutting off a ton of children from Mass health..It's certainly not the Kennedy families fault. In fact, Kennedy has pushing for healthcare for everyone before it was a hot political topic.

I'd post more, but I'm tired..maybe tomorrow.

-A

GSTamral

02-24-2004, 12:14 AM

Kerry was a war hero : Yes he was, however, he blew it by his actions after the war.

He advocated vets to throw away their medals at the washington monument in protest of the war. He then comes out, leads the pack, and throws away a purple heart, and two other medals. Other people take their own medals and toss them.

His actual medals were framed, and sit at his desk. Kerry is EXACTLY like kennedy. He'll preach you till the sun comes up how you should eat a plate full of shit. And people do it, and feel validated by doing it. All the while the fucker is eating a steak dinner and laughing at us.

Kerry chastised Bush repeatedly for soft money issues in 2000. Look at his public books. FUCKING hypocrite!

As for what your governor is doing for the school system, something needs to be done, because under liberal lawmaking, they've just gotten worse and worse over the last 50 years. If radical change is needed, so be it, because the school system is completely fucked up.

Latrinsorm

02-24-2004, 12:19 AM

Originally posted by GSTamral
Woodrow Wilson did much the same in WWI for that matter. What business did the US have there? Why were our troops sent to deal with a war on foreign soil to which we were not a factor of in the negotiation process??Progressivism. <cough> War to end all wars. <cough cough>

Ilvane

02-24-2004, 12:30 AM

Actually--I'm still reading right now, but I'll respond about the soft money stuff. I admit this is from a democratic website..but it responds just the same.

"Kerry Ranks 92 Out of Current 100 Senators in Special Interest Money. According to data from Center for Responsive Politics, Kerry ranks 92nd out of the current 100 Senators in taking “special interest” money. [www.opensecrets.org]"

Bush has taken more money from the special interest than anyone. I find it really amusing that he chose that as a battle.

Look at the medicare bill, a give-away to the Pharmaceutical companies--interestingly enough.."The Pharmaceutical Industry Gave Nearly $1.4 Million to Bush in 2000. The pharmaceutical industry gave $1,399,333 to Bush in 2000; $449,333 directly to his campaign and $950,000 to his inaugural fund." [www.crp.org]

Also see: When Medicare discount prescription cards are issued in June 2004, David Halpert-owned AdvancePCS will be in a position to profit handsomely from the government contract. Halbert, “a longtime friend and contributor to several of Bush's campaigns, helped craft the portion of the Medicare bill that allows seniors to buy discount drug cards.” Halpert may, in fact, sell AdvancePCS to Caremark Rx before the cards are even issued, allowing him to garner a personal profit of $200 million. [Boston Globe, 12/12/03]

As for Kerry's record..In 1995, John Kerry voted to place new, more stringent requirements on lobbyists. Kerry joined a bipartisan coalition to require lobbyists to register with the proper authorities and make public their list of clients. In 1993, Kerry voted to require that lobbyists fully disclose their clients and activities, as well as the fees paid to them. Kerry’s also voted to create an office of lobbying registration at the Justice Department with a uniform disclosure system. [Senate Roll Call Votes 1993, # 116; 1995, # 328]

Now I'm going to bed for a while.

-A

Ravenstorm

02-24-2004, 01:50 AM

Some more information to consider:

http://www.vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/01/105146.php

http://www.theorator.com/bills108/s89.html

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:H.R.163:

Raven

Edaarin

02-24-2004, 07:27 AM

Google will be the downfall of modern society

Hulkein

02-24-2004, 08:23 AM

Google is just annoying for online debates.. Debates that are important are done in person so I think we're safe for a little while longer from Google, until they implant it in our heads at least.

GSTamral

02-24-2004, 09:48 AM

Raven, posting a link like your first one has eliminated any credibility you will ever have in a political debate with me.

Why dont you just say you go out of your way to find independant media articles with absolutely no factual evidence in order to scare people to vote democrat down the line. While you're at it, you might as well visit the local old age home, tell them voting Republican will make the government take away all of their medication immediately and make them starve to death. I would focus particularly on the older, more susceptable ones.

That bullshit doesnt fly here, but just so you can see yourself how entirely full of shit you are, I'll tear apart that article myself.

"The Pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide.. Though this is an unpopular election year topic, military experts and influential members of Congress are suggesting that if Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan [and a permanent state of war on "terrorism"] proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft. "

WHICH FUCKING INFLUENTIAL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS EVER SAID THIS????

"
Strategic Objective 1.2: Ensure a mobilization infrastructure of 56 State Headquarters,
442 Area Offices and 1,980 Local Boards are operational within 75 days of an authorized
return to conscription."

Is this his basis of the article? BECAUSE ITS A FUCKING PRIMARY OBJECTIVE EVERY YEAR. Even under Clinton, Reagan, Carter.

Here's their 1999 primary goal sheet:

FY 1999 Annual Performance Goals:

Ensure that 90% of SDs and RFOs can successfully perform TPR functions and responsibilities.

Results: Ninety-one percent.

Ensure that 90% of assigned SDs and RFOs are capable of administering the RIPS.

Results: Eighty-eight percent.
FY 2000 Annual Performance Goals:

Ensure that 90% of assigned SDs and RFOs are capable of implementing TPR functions and responsibilities.

OMG OMG BILL CLINTON WANTED TO REINSTATE THE DRAFT OMGOPMG OMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMG!!!!!!

fucking retard.

And while he's at it, why doesnt the author mention that the Universal National Service Act of 2003 does nothing more than the following:

1) supercede the Selective Service Act of 1967, a JFK brain child, which has, by the way, never been repealed.
2) Expand the number of branches that qualify for duty.
3) Expand all instances of him to include her.
4) Replace the obligation of all men 18-30 with all men and women 18-26.
5) absolutely nothing regarding the legality or use of a draft.
6) Decrease the minimum time in service to allow for at least some programs which are 2 year commitments (although it does not say if it has reduced existing commitments, such as the current general 6 year commits from the army)

Now, back to this whole draft bullshit. If I were to walk around and ask my local governor about what it would be like to return to a society based on slavery, he would say "it wouldnt work". I could then take that quote completely out of context and make an article about how the united states is moving back to a society based on Slavery.

"The experts are all saying we're going to have to beef up our presence in Iraq," says U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel, the New York Democrat. "We've failed to convince our allies to send troops, we've extended deployments so morale is sinking, and the president is saying we can't cut and run. So what's left? The draft is a very sensitive subject, but at some point, we're going to need more troops, and at that point the only way to get them will be a return to the draft."

Raven, you truly amaze me as being so stupid and naive to take this quote so blatantly out of context. God damn you're a dumb fuck.

Charles Rangel, for the last 9 years, has spoken out against the current induction system of the military, because by and large, it is low-income and minorities who join the military after completing high school and/or reaching the age of 18. I've attended his speeches, and my cousin is on his research panel. He believes that service should be obligatory to a percentage of all races, instead of the current system in which the inductees are primarily low income families and minorities. He is a fucking proponent of the draft, but as a means to diversify the troops for the sole purpose that if more middle and upper class young men went into the military, there would be more political pressure never to use the armed forces. It is his stance that currently because the vast majority of the troops are minorities and low income family children, they are expendable and being used recklessly.

Way to do your research. Way to use scare tactics to open eyes. Way to use absolute lies to work your magic. Go back to the old age home and tell them voting for bush means they wont get medicine and their children will get assassinated. It might work better there. What you just did is worse than lying.

Hulkein

02-24-2004, 12:05 PM

:thumbsup:

Ravenstorm

02-24-2004, 12:54 PM

Hey, you left out that Rangel was a Democrat.

I suppose I should have accompanied that with a post. My fault for posting at 2am. However, the intention was to point out that 1) which president would be more likely to sign a bill like that into law if they made it through Congress and 2) if it was passed, which president would be most likely to invade another country to get out troops shot at?

Now was the first link slanted? Course. That's whyt I included the links to the two bills themselves. Don't agree it's worth taking into consideration? Fine. So don't.

Instead, post a few more comparisons of invading Iraq to Hitler sweeping through Europe. After all, that's so obviously NOT a dumb fuck thing to do because it's the two situations are entirely the same.

On consideration though, I should probably have waited till today to do any posting instead of in the wee hours of the morning. I'd have read through the actual bills more closely and done some corroboration of the link I got from someone's LJ.

Mea culpa. I take solace in the fact though that while I may have screwed up a bit, you'll always be a retarded dumb fuck supporting another one for President. But hey, I'll just lay my mistake at the feet of faulty intelligence. It's not like you don't respect that lame excuse and blindly believe it.

And on the news front, Bush is now officially supporting writing discrimination into the Constitution. He needs to be removed from office. No ifs, ands or buts about it.

Raven

Hulkein

02-24-2004, 01:14 PM

I was glad to see what he said today. He's not writing anything discrimitory, marriage is for a man and a woman. That is what it is defined as, that is what it is. Here are some quotes from the article I read, tell me what you think Rave.

<<Bush called for an amendment "defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and woman, as husband and wife." ... he left the door open to states to provide homosexual civil unions and other legal arrangements for the gay community ... said these could include hospital visitation rights, insurance benefits and civil unions. >>

<<Kerry, a Massachusetts native himself, says he favors civil unions for gays but not the court's marriage ruling. He also says his position is the same as that of Bush's Vice President, Dick Cheney, one of whose daughters is openly gay. >>

Don't vote for Kerry now, he's a bigot. Thanks.

[Edited on 2-24-2004 by Hulkein]

GSTamral

02-24-2004, 01:27 PM

<<
Mea culpa. I take solace in the fact though that while I may have screwed up a bit, you'll always be a retarded dumb fuck supporting another one for President. But hey, I'll just lay my mistake at the feet of faulty intelligence. It's not like you don't respect that lame excuse and blindly believe it.
>>>

and you are welcome to your opinion. However its a FACT that your "news" sources are nothing more than bullshit scare operations to get people to vote democrat. I'm not the one here tied to a party you stupid lying sack of shit. I've voted democrat before. You're the one here voting down a party line.

Your posting and attempt to make public such a bullshit news source tells people everything they need to know about you. Why dont you focus your attention on scaring old people? or low income people? thats where most other democratic strategists focus their attention. American Indian preserves perhaps? Go lie to someone who isnt going to call you on it.

I have family on both sides of the fence. You've got nothing but an agenda you seem ripe to promote no matter how many lies you need to do it. I might even vote democrat if edwards wins his campaign. However, your banter on Bush is literal propaganda. You ARE a baby goebels with the scare propaganda. Because thats precisely the tactics he used in getting Hitler into power. It started with rumors of a Jewish disease. Then it was Jews are making Christians pay for everything. Faceless useless BS like that. Like the article you try to hawk on us.

Honestly, I'd like everyone to read it, just to see how full of shit you truly are.

GSTamral

02-24-2004, 01:30 PM

<<<
"Kerry Ranks 92 Out of Current 100 Senators in Special Interest Money. According to data from Center for Responsive Politics, Kerry ranks 92nd out of the current 100 Senators in taking “special interest” money. [www.opensecrets.org]" >>>

As a senator, he was 92 out of 100, yes. And Kennedy is probably in the same range. A democrat doesnt need any money to win Massachusetts. Look at the 11 million he raised in his campaign for presidency. If anyone didnt have much special interest money, it was actually Dean.

Latrinsorm

02-24-2004, 01:36 PM

Woodrow Wilson still kicks ass.

Ravenstorm

02-24-2004, 01:50 PM

Typical. Ignore every single other instance of accurate reporting against Bush and his people and pretend the one I fucked up on invalidates it all. Please, go ahead and invalidate the UCS report. Maybe you can find the name of a gym teacher who'll say they're all wrong.

Hulkein: Bush isn't going to be writing the Amendement. He'll support whichever the Republicans manage to get through and some are a lot more discriminatory in their wording and implications than what Bush is saying. Not to mention that it is discrimination anyway, creating a second class citizenry in the US.

Raven

GSTamral

02-24-2004, 02:04 PM

as for me being a retarded dumb fuck, raven, does anyone who doesnt hate president bush automatically qualify as a retarded dumb fuck?

Does anyone who doesnt believe the propagadistic lie you posted, are they retarded dumb fucks too?

I never said I agreed with everything Bush did. You're the one here who's using extremism. You're the one here posting articles that are nothing more than scare propaganda, with no factual basis. I can garauntee you Charles Rangel did not authorize or do an interview to make this article. I can promise you Charles Rangel would tell you exactly what I did. Some liar took what he said regarding a completely different situation horribly out of context.

As for comparing the invasion in Iraq to our involvement in WW1 and WW2, both were wars that did not involve the US. Hitler, was in fact, a trading partner with the United States until the invasion into Poland. Public support for entering WW2 was damn near zero until the US tricked Japan into basically declaring war on us. In fact, FDR even forced Russia to get involved by tricking Hitler's intelligence into thinking the Russians would attack.

in 1914, Woodrow Wilson sent hundreds of thousands of Americans to their death to fight the one war to end all wars.

Why is Europe then so much more important to our interests than the Middle East now? there were people fighting, not involving America by choice, and we stepped in and basically shoved our way into the battle.

The surrounding events actually are strikingly similar if you arent looking at the details with a blinded eye.

Artha

02-24-2004, 02:06 PM

"The other party's nomination battle is still playing out. The candidates are an interesting group with diverse opinions," Bush said. "They're for tax cuts and against them. They're for NAFTA and against NAFTA. They're for the Patriot Act and against the Patriot Act. They're in favor of liberating Iraq, and opposed to it. And that's just one senator from Massachusetts." - Dubya

[Edited on 2-24-2004 by Artha]

GSTamral

02-24-2004, 02:07 PM

raven, ummm DUHHH.

I said I didnt agree with everything Bush did, and I dont need propaganda to realize it. I've read plenty of arguments against him. Some are quite well thought out, some are overly idealistic for my tastes, and some are involving many issues that I dont believe should be at the forefront.

I never said your articles invalidate arguments against Bush. I said your article invalidates YOUR arguments against Bush. In fact, I would go so far as to say it invalidates just about any foray you ever put into a political debate. I thought I made that perfectly clear.

GSTamral

02-24-2004, 02:09 PM

excellent point Artha. Kerry was all for sending troops to Iraq, yet doesnt want to pay for it.

I'd really like to get a new vacation home. But only if I dont have to pay for it too..

Parkbandit

02-24-2004, 03:06 PM

I just hope Democrats push through the Kerry Nomination.. it will be much easier to beat him than Edwards in my opinion.

Kerry's legislative record is wide open.. and it's pretty pathetic. He goes around reminding us that he was a war hero constantly.. yet his voting record shows different. If it were up to Kerry, our armed forces would be using sticks and stones to defend themselves.

Latrinsorm

02-24-2004, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by GSTamral
Why is Europe then so much more important to our interests than the Middle East now? there were people fighting, not involving America by choice, and we stepped in and basically shoved our way into the battle.

The surrounding events actually are strikingly similar if you arent looking at the details with a blinded eye.
They really aren't. One main difference: the Progressive movement. Which ended shortly after (or perhaps during) WWI, and has yet to reappear. Another: massive genocide. Another: a clash between traditional and modern views on warfare, especially related to civilians.

Warriorbird

02-24-2004, 06:02 PM

None of the candidates will beat Bush. Enjoy the weak economy...Tamral and Park... I know it actually effects you. I'm sure we'll be bombed again too.

Parkbandit

02-24-2004, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by Warriorbird
None of the candidates will beat Bush. Enjoy the weak economy...Tamral and Park... I know it actually effects you. I'm sure we'll be bombed again too.

Anyone that has studied economics or business knows that all economies move in cycles.

Anyone that was paying attention to the key indicators also know that the economy was on a downturn prior to Bush getting into office.

TheEschaton

02-24-2004, 06:18 PM

It doesn't matter if the person is consenting or not.

I'm just catching up on this topic of mine that I created, so forgive me if this has been settled. It is ALL about consent.

A dead body cannot consent. Neither can an animal. Nor can, for that matter, a little boy, which is why pedophilia is illegal.

Adults CAN consent, and, two adults, having consented, should be afforded the rights of any other two consenting adults who have entered a relationship for good.

I find it fucking hilarious that the right wing always touts the sanctity of marriage - when the divorce rate is above 50%. Stupid fucks. How can they argue marriage is sacred if the "one man, one woman" combo can't even pull it up?

As for homosexuals being criminals, that's just the norm for any progressive movement - when women were getting their rights, but before women were viewed as independent - did you think people wanted examples of what women could do with full rights - like robbing banks - like passing counterfeit bills, etc, etc?

Calaeb Carr has a good book on this, called Angel of Death - how the nurturing nature myth of the mother is shattered by this heinous female serial killer.

Edited to add: I had to have training on domestic violence in gay households. The man who taught it, a gay man (and a friend of mine) talked a lot of this issue, how no one wants to confront the issue, not because it is abnormal and thus necessary to hide from public view, but for the very fact that it IS normal in a home of two people, YET it would be used to discredit homosexuals and make them SEEM abnormal. Note: the DV rate in homosexual households is less than heterosexual households, but not statistically significantly so.

-TheE-

[Edited on 2-24-2004 by TheEschaton]

TheEschaton

02-24-2004, 06:24 PM

Killing is wrong. However, war saves lives. Numerical morality is a bitch, but is required in a world such as this.

Ha! Your Jesuit education should of taught you that a wrong is a wrong no matter how you dice it, and that the ends NEVER justify the means.

I've seen so many Jesuits rip through Aquinas's Just War theory that it made me laugh.

-TheE-

Edaarin

02-24-2004, 06:29 PM

Anyone that has studied Economics also knows that the Central Bank also did almost everything in their power to use monetary attempt to reverse the effect that the fiscal policy the government was trying to implement in order to ease the slowdown in the economy so that it didn't turn into a regression.

TheEschaton

02-24-2004, 06:31 PM

Do I trust Bush? eh, not really. Do I think he's a good leader? Yes.

Does this put Richard Nixon in your list of "Good Presidents"?

-TheE-

Latrinsorm

02-24-2004, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by TheEschaton
Ha!Necessary != morally right. :P

TheEschaton

02-24-2004, 06:45 PM

and you are welcome to your opinion. However its a FACT that your "news" sources are nothing more than bullshit scare operations to get people to vote democrat. I'm not the one here tied to a party you stupid lying sack of shit. I've voted democrat before. You're the one here voting down a party line.

www.newsmax.com
www.foxnews.com
www.drudge.com

Need I go on? The right uses far more "scare tactics" than the left ever has. Sure, we bandy around the Big Brother thing (have you READ the Patriot Act?), but y'all will run with anything you think of as good.

It's like the Cold War all over again. "Communism" in third world Latin American countries is such a threat to us, that we should replace democratically elected (albeit left-leaning) leaders with brutal dictators with American interests in mind. You don't need to even go past what's going on with Aristade in Haiti. The U.S. has "warned against a coup against him" (IE, said "don't do it") while the rest of the world recognizes him as a fucking brutal dictator. If you want, reference Pinochet (put in power by a CIA-backed coup to replace democratically elected Allende), Noriega, the death squads of Nicaurauga (trained in our own Fort Benning, GA), Colombia (the war the U.S. is fighting that no one hears about), and the list goes on and on.

Terrorism is the new communism. When the people get out line, instead of having an air raid drill and having students cower under their desks and Americans build fallout shelters, we instead ramp up the terror alert to orange, and tell 'em to buy duct tape and flashlight batteries.

I, for one, would not be surprised to see that alert nudge up into orange come, oh, say, October or so.

-TheE-

TheEschaton

02-24-2004, 06:50 PM

As a senator, he was 92 out of 100, yes. And Kennedy is probably in the same range. A democrat doesnt need any money to win Massachusetts. Look at the 11 million he raised in his campaign for presidency. If anyone didnt have much special interest money, it was actually Dean.

And Dubya needed all that soft cash to win.....Texas? A Republican doesn't need any money to win Texas. AND YET HE STILL TOOK IT.

-TheE-

TheEschaton

02-24-2004, 06:55 PM

For a man who supports such a "moral leader" as G.W. Bush, I would of thought you would of only supported "moral actions" for the man.

After all, immorality is why a whole investigation costing hundreds of millions of the taxpayer's dollars was launched into our former President's personal affairs.

-TheE-

Parkbandit

02-24-2004, 07:03 PM

Maybe the leader of our country should learn not to lie while under oath. Or go in front of the American people and proclaim "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewisky."

I never had a problem with him getting his dick sucked in his office.. hell.. I was like "You go Bill".

Ilvane

02-24-2004, 07:29 PM

Ummm.

We wasted millions of dollars investigating the Lewinsky scandal..and meanwhile, we are sending guys and gals overseas on false intelligence. I think I mentioned this before, but there isn't much comparison, if you ask me.:)

-A

Chelle

02-24-2004, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by TheEschaton
I love how people think that because we don't like Bush as a President, we must of loved Clinton. I'll admit Clinton was a better President than Bush, but I don't think he was all that great a guy.

Furthermore, another contention is that this is just another example of hypocrisy - they say the Democrats are blocking the judicial process, when they did the same thing to Clinton's appointee.

This administration rants about how it is against judges making laws from the bench, and making political moves, convienantly forgetting that the highest court in the land made law from the bench and politically installed their administration.

-TheE-

Seriously, I don't understand the whole this Pres, that Pres is evil/horrible/great debate. Or the Repub/Dems are evaaal BullShit.

Give me a break. Polititians are just that and they have their own agendas. No particular one is greater or worse than the other. It's just too much of an asinine debate to begin with.

It reminds me of the grade school debate of "my daddy is better than your daddy." debate. Am I the only one who sees how stupid it is.

Now my personal opinion is that Bush has been a great President thus far. I agree with everthing he has done and said so far. I voted for Gore in 2000, and now I find that I am glad Gore did not win. I will be voting for Bush in 2004.

I think it would be dangerous for our country if Kerry should win. Kerry changes his views/policies at any whim and personally we need someone who isn't so flighty. I loath how Kerry uses his veteran status. It has nothing to do whether he would be a good President or not.

IMO

Hulkein

02-24-2004, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by TheEschaton
I'm just catching up on this topic of mine that I created, so forgive me if this has been settled. It is ALL about consent.

A dead body cannot consent. Neither can an animal. Nor can, for that matter, a little boy, which is why pedophilia is illegal.

Adults CAN consent, and, two adults, having consented, should be afforded the rights of any other two consenting adults who have entered a relationship for good.
[Edited on 2-24-2004 by TheEschaton]

Alright TehE, You took one sentence out of my point to disprove it, don't do that. Please read what I said. I didn't say anything about consent. Raven said 'The Administration said that gay sex is the same as necrophelia or animal sex.' I said no, the government used that as an example to say that they can and do have laws in place when it comes to the bedroom. THAT IS ALL. Rave tried to take something out of context to bash someone, I was simply providing the background of it all.

<<Neither can an animal>>

Do animals consent to be slaughtered and turned into burgers? Do they give consent to carry wagons or to be put in a cage 20 hours a day only to be cut, cleaned, and prance around on a stage? Do whales give consent to be locked up in Sea World? Doesn't even matter, that wasn't pertinant at all.

[Edited on 2-25-2004 by Hulkein]

Parkbandit

02-24-2004, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by Ilvane
Ummm.

We wasted millions of dollars investigating the Lewinsky scandal..and meanwhile, we are sending guys and gals overseas on false intelligence. I think I mentioned this before, but there isn't much comparison, if you ask me.:)

-A

This was the same faulty intelligence that Clinton used... so don't lay all the blame at Bush's feet.

Latrinsorm

02-24-2004, 08:29 PM

All I want to know is what President school is teaching these recent fellas that little psuedo-thumbs-up thing. You know the one I'm talking about? It's like you're throwing a thrust punch, then you just turn that thumb up a little bit? Clinton and (lil) Bush both use it. I don't know what it's supposed to do, but it makes me burn American flags.

I mean, uh, not trust them. :D I'd kick the crap out of someone burning the flag.

TheEschaton

02-24-2004, 11:44 PM

A few things. The lying under oath came AFTER the hundreds of millions of dollars to investigate the guy.

I said no, the government used that as an example to say that they can and do have laws in place when it comes to the bedroom.

And Hulkein, I'm saying that the comparison is an unfair, and unjust one, which is used to demonize gays, but has no logical or legal foundation.

I think it would be dangerous for our country if Kerry should win. Kerry changes his views/policies at any whim and personally we need someone who isn't so flighty. I loath how Kerry uses his veteran status. It has nothing to do whether he would be a good President or not.

While it's way too late for me to assess the validity of these statements (it's a snow job!) I would rather have a man who was adaptable to change than a man stubbornly set in his ways, for President.

And the pseudo-thumb thing? It's all the latest rage. Someone once posited (I think it was good old Jon Stewart himself) that maybe it's an attempt to point, without making it look accusing.

As for the false intelligence that Clinton was so duped by....he never seemed to have thought it a big enough risk to send a ground army into a sovereign nation, now did he?

The only serious problem I ever had with Bill Clinton's presidency (besides NAFTA, but that was a mess from both sides of the aisle) was his handling of the situation in Rwanda...or rather, the lack thereof.

Of course, Rwanda has nothing interesting to us....

-TheE-