shropshire 0 #101 May 8, 2006 Nah... couldn't give a toss. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #102 May 8, 2006 QuoteQuoteAnd your constant claims of Fascism, allusions to the KKK and all the rest of your thinly veiled PA's have gotten threadbare with those of us who *AREN'T* firmly in the Liberal camp... what's your point? Then quit fucking acting like it. If you dont like the name.. dont play the game. That's the whole problem though... your opinion is that ANYONE who isn't 100% against Bush is an "ultra rightie" and all the rest. You give no credence to the fact that people can support him in a general sense without agreeing with all his policies or actions. You love to bring up the "with us or against us" soundbite over and over again in ridicule, when it's exactly what you do to anyone who doesn't blindly toe the Democrat party line.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #103 May 8, 2006 QuoteThat's the whole problem though... your opinion is that ANYONE who isn't 100% against Bush is an "ultra rightie" and all the rest. You give no credence to the fact that people can support him in a general sense without agreeing with all his policies or actions. On the contrary. I find several Republican posters on here to be measured and not idealogs. Several of you though ARE in point of fact idealogs and far to the right of even what the Shrub espouses and will look for ANY reason to justify his abuses of power as it suits you. By the way I voted for Reagan and I voted for Nixon...... and both of them failed my trust in them to do right by our country.. Ronnie with Iran Contra and Nixon with Watergate. Sorta blows the shit out of your arguement about voting the Democrat Party Line huh. I used to be able to vote for the person if their position on the issues was acceptable to me. That does not happen with any republican candidates now for quite a while. The party Idealogs make sure they do not get on the Republican Party ticket..UNLESS they support positions I could never vote for because they are so far to the right. So I vote for Libertarians.... or for moderate Dems. I have yet to vote for a leftie. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #104 May 8, 2006 QuoteSorta blows the shit out of your arguement about voting the Democrat Party Line huh. Where did I say you vote Democrat? I said that you denigrate anyone who doesn't toe the Democrat party line. You refuse to acknowledge any viewpoint that is not "Get Bush" and equate anyone disagreeing to Fascist, idiotic or trailer trash..or all of the above (or worse).Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #105 May 8, 2006 QuoteYou refuse to acknowledge any viewpoint that is not "Get Bush" and equate anyone disagreeing to Fascist, idiotic or trailer trash..or all of the above (or worse). For all of the crap this administration is pulling.. why do you support them so fervently??? Personally I think it un-american to support his lies to get us into a war... his wiretappping of AMERICAN CITIZENS... his massive deficits...yet you claim anyone who does not agree with this fascist shit... is un American.. History will tell. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #106 May 8, 2006 QuoteQuoteYou refuse to acknowledge any viewpoint that is not "Get Bush" and equate anyone disagreeing to Fascist, idiotic or trailer trash..or all of the above (or worse). For all of the crap this administration is pulling.. why do you support them so fervently??? Personally I think it un-american to support his lies to get us into a war... his wiretappping of AMERICAN CITIZENS... his massive deficits...yet you claim anyone who does not agree with this fascist shit... is un American.. History will tell. And again, you state that anyone that is not fervently anti-Bush is "supporting them fervently". Please show any post where I've said that dissent is anti-american... again, you lump anyone that disagrees with your viewpoint as supporting fascism...and still can't see the hypocrisy behind your own actions.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #107 May 8, 2006 QuotePlease show any post where I've said that dissent is anti-american... again, you lump anyone that disagrees with your viewpoint as supporting fascism...and still can't see the hypocrisy behind your own actions. Its a standard ploy of the far right....and its been used quite a bit since this administration came to power.... so I guess when the Prez says you is with us or you is against us... you guys on the far right sure seem to be solidly fervently WITH HIM. You may not come out and say dissent is Un American personally on this website....but a hell of a lot of your fellow travellers including your President... certainly have. Since you and he have done that swearing to uphold and defend the constitution...... that my friend is REAL hypocrisy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #108 May 8, 2006 QuoteAnd again, you state that anyone that is not fervently anti-Bush is "supporting them fervently". Dude, you are beating your head against an extremely thick wall. It will feel good when you stop. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #109 May 8, 2006 "Same Old Song and Dance It's ok to admit you're a Dem now...honest, it is. We won't think any less of you for it.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #110 May 9, 2006 Just out of curiousity, as my research didn't turn anything up, have the Democrats introduced any sort of bill against warrentless wire taps? Challenges in support of the 4th Amendment (Search and Seizure)? Anything like that at all? Seems to me that if it were such an issue (and I think it might be), the fact that the Dems haven't (as far as I can find...) introduced anything to solidify their position in Congress and/or Senate tells me either I don't understand the full story (ala the legal intracacies) or that it might not be such an issue to begin with. After all, according to what I understand (and I could be wrong...), the Security Council knew about the wire tapping stuff, and approved it...so why no anger towards them? Why have they not made any sort of attempt at getting some sort of bill to prevent that? Just wondering if anyone had any insight on that. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #111 May 9, 2006 That hasn't been done to my knowledge, Michele. There are, however, two lines of thought: 1) It's always been illegal and unconstitutional, so why pass a law that confirms what we already have? Such a law would be symbolism over substance. The counter to that is that passing laws that are symbolism over substance is standard. 2) The president acted without a law authorizing him to do so, so what could is telling him "No." Trust me - there are legal challenges galore. AT&T is facing lawsuits over it, and the government is actually intervening to get the cases dismissed on the basis of national secuirty. We've only just begun... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #112 May 9, 2006 QuoteI sort of agree with what you wrote (we don’t care about the extra sex lives of our leaders).... except where it is indicative of more insidious aspects of their character ... namely LIEING.... how can we trust these scumbags with running our country if they can’t or won't tell the truth when question over something as simple as this. The problem scratches the surface of a far deeper and disturbing issue. N.B this isn't just happening in the US, recent scandals in the UK have done nothing to help Blair's battle against sleeze... just a bunch of hypocrites . Right, we wouldn't want to elect a president in the middle of an election scandal, after just having the VP resign due to tax evasion. We wouldn't want to elect a president with a criminal record, if even for drunk driving. We wouldn't want to elect a president that fought and screamed about posting his military record, and the n when he did, it was full of omissions and blacked out areas. No way, to think we could elect or retain an immoral president is absurd. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #113 May 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteSpeaking of condemnation by action... based on YOUR posting I'd say your "moderate" claim is getting rather threadbare... Oh yeah ... right...... You ULTRA RIGHT label ANYTHING to the left of your ridiculously FAR RIGHT position as Liberal.... Sorry but your total support for the administrations positions on nearly everything have gotten threadbare with the REST of us here in America. And your constant claims of Fascism, allusions to the KKK and all the rest of your thinly veiled PA's have gotten threadbare with those of us who *AREN'T* firmly in the Liberal camp... what's your point? No country has wholly 1 ideology, but it is fair to say that the US has a large component of Fascism, do ya think? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #114 May 9, 2006 QuoteJust out of curiousity, as my research didn't turn anything up, have the Democrats introduced any sort of bill against warrentless wire taps? Challenges in support of the 4th Amendment (Search and Seizure)? Anything like that at all? Seems to me that if it were such an issue (and I think it might be), the fact that the Dems haven't (as far as I can find...) introduced anything to solidify their position in Congress and/or Senate tells me either I don't understand the full story (ala the legal intracacies) or that it might not be such an issue to begin with. After all, according to what I understand (and I could be wrong...), the Security Council knew about the wire tapping stuff, and approved it...so why no anger towards them? Why have they not made any sort of attempt at getting some sort of bill to prevent that? Just wondering if anyone had any insight on that. Ciels- Michele Case law is far more binding than legislated law. The 2 US Sup Ct justices who were appointed by Clinton vote for 4th rights, whereas the other 7 appointed by Reagan, Bush, Bush vote against them normally. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #115 May 9, 2006 QuoteThat hasn't been done to my knowledge, Michele. There are, however, two lines of thought: 1) It's always been illegal and unconstitutional, so why pass a law that confirms what we already have? Such a law would be symbolism over substance. The counter to that is that passing laws that are symbolism over substance is standard. 2) The president acted without a law authorizing him to do so, so what could is telling him "No." Trust me - there are legal challenges galore. AT&T is facing lawsuits over it, and the government is actually intervening to get the cases dismissed on the basis of national secuirty. We've only just begun... Quote2) The president acted without a law authorizing him to do so, so what could is telling him "No." Hmmmmm, sounds like usurpation of power...... brings me back to the 1860's...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #116 May 9, 2006 Quote We wouldn't want to elect a president that fought and screamed about posting his military record, and the n when he did, it was full of omissions and blacked out areas. Or one that wouldn't post his military records at all, presumably?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #117 May 9, 2006 Quote1) It's always been illegal and unconstitutional, so why pass a law that confirms what we already have? Such a law would be symbolism over substance. The counter to that is that passing laws that are symbolism over substance is standard. 2) The president acted without a law authorizing him to do so, so what could is telling him "No" I dunno...maybe telling him "NO!" would at least pacify a public while the laws are challenged in court. It might show that someone, at least, is there doing "something" and that someone cares. I've been thinking that perhaps we should understand what the FISA court does, and also the RICO statutes, which allow the wiretapping without warrant (IIRC), and how those two work together after the 72 hours (again, testing my recall here...). QuoteTrust me - there are legal challenges galore. AT&T is facing lawsuits over it, and the government is actually intervening to get the cases dismissed on the basis of national secuirty. I know there are, but it will take 10 years (perhaps) to wend their way through the court system, and as Lucky pointed out, the judges on the SC tend to be fairly conservative at this point, with no real change there immenent (good lord, I can't spell that today!). I was just wondering what those on the far left were thinking, and why their leaders haven't stepped up and done something; they tend to stand up and do something about a non-issue like Terry Schiavo, and are often seen speaking out against people like DeLay, and what'shisname (my brain is tired today...can't recall his name...). So I was hoping perhaps they'd stand up and do something with some teeth in it, or at least an open gesture, that would bring the issue to a head, rather than let it fester. Unless...there's nothing they want to do, because of the political climate and the elections coming in a few months and two years...that might be a motivation. Hrm... QuoteWe've only just begun... Sure enough. Just where we'll end is anyone's guess... Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #118 May 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteSorta blows the shit out of your arguement about voting the Democrat Party Line huh. Where did I say you vote Democrat? I said that you denigrate anyone who doesn't toe the Democrat party line. You refuse to acknowledge any viewpoint that is not "Get Bush" and equate anyone disagreeing to Fascist, idiotic or trailer trash..or all of the above (or worse). Again, you shove aside the volumes of direct implication you have posted that she votes Democrat and hide behind the "I didn't say those exact words". Doesn't speak much for character. I won't speak for Amazon, but I surmise, from your prolific posts that you do support fascism in the US. I won't say that your are idiotic but the kindest thing I could say is that you do not have the perceptual wherewithal to see what is going on around you. If I am incorrect in the above assumption, and you are an intelligent, perceptual individual who sees what is happening to our country and yet continue to support it, well my words would be ...less kind.----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #119 May 9, 2006 QuoteQuote We wouldn't want to elect a president that fought and screamed about posting his military record, and the n when he did, it was full of omissions and blacked out areas. Or one that wouldn't post his military records at all, presumably? Meaning the average person? I wouldn't, but know 1 person who did. Is that what you're saying? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #120 May 9, 2006 QuoteThat hasn't been done to my knowledge, Michele. There are, however, two lines of thought: 1) It's always been illegal and unconstitutional, so why pass a law that confirms what we already have? Such a law would be symbolism over substance. The counter to that is that passing laws that are symbolism over substance is standard. 2) The president acted without a law authorizing him to do so, so what could is telling him "No." Trust me - there are legal challenges galore. AT&T is facing lawsuits over it, and the government is actually intervening to get the cases dismissed on the basis of national secuirty. We've only just begun... I wonder if it's kinda like standing up for free speech in the McCarthy era ...or having the cajones to vote against the mis-named Patriot Act immediately post 9/11. Could be political suicide.----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #121 May 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteSorta blows the shit out of your arguement about voting the Democrat Party Line huh. Where did I say you vote Democrat? I said that you denigrate anyone who doesn't toe the Democrat party line. You refuse to acknowledge any viewpoint that is not "Get Bush" and equate anyone disagreeing to Fascist, idiotic or trailer trash..or all of the above (or worse). Again, you shove aside the volumes of direct implication you have posted that she votes Democrat and hide behind the "I didn't say those exact words". Doesn't speak much for character. I won't speak for Amazon, but I surmise, from your prolific posts that you do support fascism in the US. I won't say that your are idiotic but the kindest thing I could say is that you do not have the perceptual wherewithal to see what is going on around you. If I am incorrect in the above assumption, and you are an intelligent, perceptual individual who sees what is happening to our country and yet continue to support it, well my words would be ...less kind. Oh yes, PLEASE show this direct implication... you're equally as guilty of "if you're not whole-heartedly bashing Bush/the administration, you're supporting the Fascists." When someone calls you on it to show proof, or shows that the Libs are equally at fault, you pull out the "uber-right" "fascist" "KKK" labels, or imply that the person is stupid or deluded since they don't automatically and enthusiastically agree with your point. Want to be taken seriously? Argue facts, not emotions. Be able to back up what you say and rebut arguments. There's a saying I heard attributed to a trial lawyer: "If the law is against you, attack the evidence. If the evidence is against you, attack the law. If both are against you, attack the opposing attorney." Guess what tactic you use 90+% of the time?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #122 May 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSorta blows the shit out of your arguement about voting the Democrat Party Line huh. Where did I say you vote Democrat? I said that you denigrate anyone who doesn't toe the Democrat party line. You refuse to acknowledge any viewpoint that is not "Get Bush" and equate anyone disagreeing to Fascist, idiotic or trailer trash..or all of the above (or worse). Again, you shove aside the volumes of direct implication you have posted that she votes Democrat and hide behind the "I didn't say those exact words". Doesn't speak much for character. I won't speak for Amazon, but I surmise, from your prolific posts that you do support fascism in the US. I won't say that your are idiotic but the kindest thing I could say is that you do not have the perceptual wherewithal to see what is going on around you. If I am incorrect in the above assumption, and you are an intelligent, perceptual individual who sees what is happening to our country and yet continue to support it, well my words would be ...less kind. Oh yes, PLEASE show this direct implication... you're equally as guilty of "if you're not whole-heartedly bashing Bush/the administration, you're supporting the Fascists." When someone calls you on it to show proof, or shows that the Libs are equally at fault, you pull out the "uber-right" "fascist" "KKK" labels, or imply that the person is stupid or deluded since they don't automatically and enthusiastically agree with your point. Want to be taken seriously? Argue facts, not emotions. Be able to back up what you say and rebut arguments. There's a saying I heard attributed to a trial lawyer: "If the law is against you, attack the evidence. If the evidence is against you, attack the law. If both are against you, attack the opposing attorney." Guess what tactic you use 90+% of the time? Ummm, the quote was "if neither the law nor the evidence is on your side, bang your fist loudly on the table." Hope you didn't hurt your hand. :)----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #123 May 9, 2006 QuoteI dunno...maybe telling him "NO!" would at least pacify a public while the laws are challenged in court. It might show that someone, at least, is there doing "something" and that someone cares. Who’s going to tell him no? He carries himself as a dictator, so who has the will or the power to say no? His Republican Congress? The US Sup Ct that daddy and Reagan packed for him (7-2)? He’s an out-of-control lunatic w/o a checks/balances system. QuoteI've been thinking that perhaps we should understand what the FISA court does, and also the RICO statutes, which allow the wiretapping without warrant (IIRC), and how those two work together after the 72 hours (again, testing my recall here...). I think they have 72 hours to then tell on themselves, but they seem to forget and the no-harm / no-foul rule applies, at least within their own minds. Again, where’s the jeopardy? This is why cops shoot people; no jeopardy. QuoteI know there are, but it will take 10 years (perhaps) to wend their way through the court system, and as Lucky pointed out, the judges on the SC tend to be fairly conservative at this point, with no real change there immenent (good lord, I can't spell that today!). The US Sup Ct can hear cases right away and render a binding decision, so they’re not all like that. Remember how the US Sup Ct ignored the 2000 election in record time? They can do that or actually hear the matter immediately. QuoteI was just wondering what those on the far left were thinking, and why their leaders haven't stepped up and done something; they tend to stand up and do something about a non-issue like Terry Schiavo, and are often seen speaking out against people like DeLay, and what'shisname (my brain is tired today...can't recall his name...). So I was hoping perhaps they'd stand up and do something with some teeth in it, or at least an open gesture, that would bring the issue to a head, rather than let it fester. Remember when they were going to filibuster a couple things in eth Senate? Then the Repubs were actually going to pass a law forbidding filibusters. The Repubs have hijacked the US. You, being right, may not want to view it that way, but it’s true on basically all levels. QuoteUnless...there's nothing they want to do, because of the political climate and the elections coming in a few months and two years...that might be a motivation. You could say that if they didn’t act before, but they did. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #124 May 9, 2006 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I dunno...maybe telling him "NO!" would at least pacify a public while the laws are challenged in court. It might show that someone, at least, is there doing "something" and that someone cares. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Who’s going to tell him no? He carries himself as a dictator, so who has the will or the power to say no? His Republican Congress? The US Sup Ct that daddy and Reagan packed for him (7-2)? He’s an out-of-control lunatic w/o a checks/balances system. I tend to disagree with you. Again, I hate invective, and this is an example of it. And I wouldn't call Souter or Kennedy examples of constructionist thought. It's why Alito or Roberts act as a "swing vote." Souter and Kennedy ended up about as conservative for Bush as Blackmun did for Nixon. Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I know there are, but it will take 10 years (perhaps) to wend their way through the court system, and as Lucky pointed out, the judges on the SC tend to be fairly conservative at this point, with no real change there immenent (good lord, I can't spell that today!). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The US Sup Ct can hear cases right away and render a binding decision, so they’re not all like that. Remember how the US Sup Ct ignored the 2000 election in record time? They can do that or actually hear the matter immediately. The SCOTUS RARELY gets something very quickly. My issue with this is whether this is even SCOTUS territory - it doesn't seem too novel of a thing to do warrantless searches. I can't even see the SCOTUS deciding this one. Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I was just wondering what those on the far left were thinking, and why their leaders haven't stepped up and done something; they tend to stand up and do something about a non-issue like Terry Schiavo, and are often seen speaking out against people like DeLay, and what'shisname (my brain is tired today...can't recall his name...). So I was hoping perhaps they'd stand up and do something with some teeth in it, or at least an open gesture, that would bring the issue to a head, rather than let it fester. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Remember when they were going to filibuster a couple things in eth Senate? Then the Repubs were actually going to pass a law forbidding filibusters. The Repubs have hijacked the US. You, being right, may not want to view it that way, but it’s true on basically all levels. I'm an absolute civil libertarian, and I disgree with your assessment. COngress can do things. The SCOTUS has a couple of damned good new justices. Period. I did an essay about why the Dems in the Senate looked like the jokes that they are.http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2182579#2182579[/url] If you act like a joke, think like a joke, and sound like a joke, you're a joke. The Dems in Congress are a gutless joke. While they're busy with invective and cowering, they have no unified ideal to stand in opposition to Bush and the Republicans in Congress. Read my linked post. The more I think about it, the more right I think I am. Dems can't do anything unless they at least give an appearance of legitimacy. Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unless...there's nothing they want to do, because of the political climate and the elections coming in a few months and two years...that might be a motivation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You could say that if they didn’t act before, but they did. They tried to act, but they are incompetent jokes. The Dems need to seriously get their shit together. The Repubs just haven't screwed it up the way the Dems did in 1993-1994. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #125 May 9, 2006 QuoteIf you act like a joke, think like a joke, and sound like a joke, you're a joke. The Dems in Congress are a gutless joke. While they're busy with invective and cowering, they have no unified ideal to stand in opposition to Bush and the Republicans in Congress. And I think that's my point in the end, Jer. Even if it "does no good" to say no, say NO anyway...even if it's a republican controlled congress, if the democrats did anything, at least they could say "hey, we tried, instead of just letting it all go on without a fight." But apparently they're not quite capable of that. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
