Anti-bush rally going on today in NY

[bugzy]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5833290/

[mike]

its not looking good for bush. I dont know about you down south, but up here in LA, north county, I see FAR more kerry stickers, infact, I hardly ever see a bush sticker.

[SoCal_GLI]

its not looking good for bush. I dont know about you down south, but up here in LA, north county, I see FAR more kerry stickers, infact, I hardly ever see a bush sticker.


imagine that, a liberal state voting for kerry...


california, oregon and washington all have a strong kerry following (apparently none of these states can handle the truth)

[bugzy]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/29/gop.main/

Michael Moore, Jesse Jackson were out there hahah



check out some of the pictures


http://i.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/allpolitics/0408/gallery.convention/1.ny.ap.jpg

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/allpolitics/0408/gallery.convention/2.ny.ap.jpg

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/allpolitics/0408/gallery.convention/3.ny.ap.jpg

[SoCal_GLI]

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/allpolitics/0408/gallery.convention/3.ny.ap.jpg



does michael moore have his finger in that dudes ass?

[mr_wrong]

imagine that, a liberal state voting for kerry...


california, oregon and washington all have a strong kerry following (apparently none of these states can handle the truth)


No. They just can't handle the bullshit.

[Troike]

I saw a redneck standing on the side of the road holding a "Bush Cheney 2004" sign today .. I gave him a thumbs-down but I don't think he saw me.

[madajb]

, oregon
Depends on what part you are in.
That's why we're a swing state.
-ajb

[mike]

I think all of us here in the "liberal states" can think for our own, besides, I dont think Bush even deserves to be allowed to run for re-election after the dog and pony show we have seen in his present term.

[OCbuiltGTI]

imagine that, a liberal state voting for kerry...


california, oregon and washington all have a strong kerry following (apparently none of these states can handle the truth)

From what it looks like the Bush administration doesn't think anyone can handle/deserves the truth.

[mike]

From what it looks like the Bush administration doesn't think anyone can handle/deserves the truth.
http://www.dnr.state.sc.us/cec/educate/img/bullseye.jpg

[Alan_One]

My sister is there.

http://www.theblankspace.com/alan/dumbass.gif

[A1pocketrocket]

so...a giant crowd looking for a handout?

[madajb]

so...a giant crowd looking for a handout?
Well, Jesse certainly is, he's been doing that since MLK was killed.
-ajb

[4pounder]

does michael moore have his finger in that dudes ass?

Probably in his own ass.

[creanium]

No, that would be his head. :)

[PERTANO]

Regardless of whatever happens during this election neither one is worth a vote. Unfortunately we gotta vote for one of them.

[4pounder]

No, that would be his head. :)

Hehe, sorry, I couldn't tell the difference since both ends spew the same stuff. :)

[PDVR6]

so...a giant crowd looking for a handout?

ooooooor, a giant crowd expressing their opinions to the world in a large scale.

[A1pocketrocket]

ooooooor, a giant crowd expressing their opinions to the world in a large scale.

expressing their desire for welfare, social medicine, and affirmative action.
aka. people looking for a handout :ha:

[Chip]

Regardless of whatever happens during this election neither one is worth a vote. Unfortunately we gotta vote for one of them.

You can always vote for a write-in.

You'd be surprised how many votes Mickey Mouse got for president during the last election.

[bugzy]

You can always vote for a write-in.

You'd be surprised how many votes Mickey Mouse got for president during the last election.
I think we should vote Bill Gates for president

oh wait ... nevermind

[thobbes]

expressing their desire for welfare, social medicine, and affirmative action.
aka. people looking for a handout :ha:

Interesting you have a problem with affirmative action - considering that's how President Bush got into Yale. It's ok for our leader to accept assistance...but not working single mothers?

Affirmative action works on a point system where lower income and minority applicants are given more points than their more affluent peers. You know who gets the most points? "Legacies" aka people whose parents went to the same school. that type of affirmative action has NOT been outlawed. interesting that a system based on race is eliminated while one that favors the wealthy is allowed to remain.

not to mention the federal government pays for the healthcare of congress and other elected officials (who really do need the "handout" huh?). yet the rest of America's workers don't deserve the same benefits? i'm confused as to what defines a "Compassionate America".

[bugzy]

Interesting you have a problem with affirmative action - considering that's how President Bush got into Yale. It's ok for our leader to accept assistance...but not working single mothers?

Affirmative action works on a point system where lower income and minority applicants are given more points than their more affluent peers. You know who gets the most points? "Legacies" aka people whose parents went to the same school. that type of affirmative action has NOT been outlawed. interesting that a system based on race is eliminated while one that favors the wealthy is allowed to remain.

not to mention the federal government pays for the healthcare of congress and other elected officials (who really do need the "handout" huh?). yet the rest of America's workers don't deserve the same benefits? i'm confused as to what defines a "Compassionate America".
Wow! First person to actually have valid points to his opinion and arguement.

Welcome to SoCalEuro !!

Hopefully sets an example for others ;)

[Tom (aka Godzilla)]

I'll be soooo happy when this election is over.

No matter what happens, roughly half of the country is gonna be pissed off about it.

I stick to my viewpoints and the things that I consider important. I've given up trying to argue with people, everyone is too deeply entrenched at this point.

[SoCal_GLI]

No. They just can't handle the bullshit.


and we all know kerry is more truthful :rolleyes:

do some research brother

[creanium]

Interesting you have a problem with affirmative action - considering that's how President Bush got into Yale. It's ok for our leader to accept assistance...but not working single mothers?

Who said it was okay for him?

Affirmative action works on a point system where lower income and minority applicants are given more points than their more affluent peers. You know who gets the most points? "Legacies" aka people whose parents went to the same school. that type of affirmative action has NOT been outlawed. interesting that a system based on race is eliminated while one that favors the wealthy is allowed to remain.

Any form of bias should be outlawed. Just because you come from a poor background, or a rich background, or because you're white or black or whatever should have no basis on your acceptance to colleges. I still don't see where anyone said that a "legacy" bias was okay.

not to mention the federal government pays for the healthcare of congress and other elected officials (who really do need the "handout" huh?). yet the rest of America's workers don't deserve the same benefits? i'm confused as to what defines a "Compassionate America".

What's so wrong with that? Elected federal officials are EMPLOYED by the federal government. To me they get the same benefits I do working for a private company. So in reality, it's not so much a handout as it is an employee benefit.

[SoCal_GLI]

Interesting you have a problem with affirmative action - considering that's how President Bush got into Yale. It's ok for our leader to accept assistance...but not working single mothers?

Affirmative action works on a point system where lower income and minority applicants are given more points than their more affluent peers. You know who gets the most points? "Legacies" aka people whose parents went to the same school. that type of affirmative action has NOT been outlawed. interesting that a system based on race is eliminated while one that favors the wealthy is allowed to remain.

not to mention the federal government pays for the healthcare of congress and other elected officials (who really do need the "handout" huh?). yet the rest of America's workers don't deserve the same benefits? i'm confused as to what defines a "Compassionate America".


exactly how did Bush get into a predominately white school for rich people under affimative action? please explain (that's not affirmative action as much as it is bias)

and the federal government pays for my health care too, so what of it?

[mike]

oh jesus christo....another political thread has had its fuse lit, interesting note nobody has mentioned yet....where were the demonstators at the Democratic National Convention? didn't seem to be any.

Im voting for Kerry as at this point he is by far the lesser of the two evils, you have to vote for one as it really and truely is a two party system unless you live in a fantasy land. I'm non partisan, I vote for whoever I feel will do the best job at the time. Which Bush jr. and his daddies friends in the cabinet has made a complete mess of his term, lost our budget surplus, investors are scared of putting money out due to his unpredictability causing our economy to go down the shitter, put us heavily in debt by starting a war on a witch hunt that has now turned into a modern day vietnam and god knows what else has gone on that remains to be unvield in the future.

First off, I belive affimitive action is a major form of discrimination giving people free rides that dont deserve it. If I work my ass off in school, I dont want to be told "Sorry we dont have room to accept you because we have to have X number of people who need to go to this university due to affirmitive action" thats bullshit. Make your own way. There are people that pass over more qualified minorities, that sucks but thats called life

I dont think people need to be supported but everyone falls on hard times, unless you have a nest-egg, you might need assistance like the disability and social security we pay for. I pay for it, so if one of you gets hurt, I pay your bills and vice-versa. It will be there if and when you need it, but there are people who abuse it and get away with it and that sucks but thats life too.

I belive we should wipe the slate clean, pay slightly higher taxes and take health care out of the private sector completely, look at Canada, what ever you need you get. most people have a HMO (Have Money Or die) and it costs you $100 a month atleast just for yourself and you get the run around between specialists and your doctor when you need something besides a routine doctor visit.

It will be interesting in the next few months as poll start coming out and from which media giants they come from be it the free press, liberal media or the right wingers at FOX.

[SoCal_GLI]

oh jesus christo....another political thread has had its fuse lit, interesting note nobody has mentioned yet....where were the demonstators at the Democratic National Convention? didn't seem to be any.

Im voting for Kerry as at this point he is by far the lesser of the two evils, you have to vote for one as it really and truely is a two party system unless you live in a fantasy land. I'm non partisan, I vote for whoever I feel will do the best job at the time. Which Bush jr. and his daddies friends in the cabinet has made a complete mess of his term, lost our budget surplus, investors are scared of putting money out due to his unpredictability causing our economy to go down the shitter, put us heavily in debt by starting a war on a witch hunt that has now turned into a modern day vietnam and god knows what else has gone on that remains to be unvield in the future.

First off, I belive affimitive action is a major form of discrimination giving people free rides that dont deserve it. If I work my ass off in school, I dont want to be told "Sorry we dont have room to accept you because we have to have X number of people who need to go to this university due to affirmitive action" thats bullshit. Make your own way. There are people that pass over more qualified minorities, that sucks but thats called life

I dont think people need to be supported but everyone falls on hard times, unless you have a nest-egg, you might need assistance like the disability and social security we pay for. I pay for it, so if one of you gets hurt, I pay your bills and vice-versa. It will be there if and when you need it, but there are people who abuse it and get away with it and that sucks but thats life too.

I belive we should wipe the slate clean, pay slightly higher taxes and take health care out of the private sector completely, look at Canada, what ever you need you get. most people have a HMO (Have Money Or die) and it costs you $100 a month atleast just for yourself and you get the run around between specialists and your doctor when you need something besides a routine doctor visit.

It will be interesting in the next few months as poll start coming out and from which media giants they come from be it the free press, liberal media or the right wingers at FOX.


the first bold point:
i totally agree, affirmative action is BS, and your boy kerry is all about it

the second bold point:
have you ever been to canada? it borderlines communism when it comes to health care. not everyone is treated equal and when you do get medical attention you will recieve the minimum amount of attention to keep you alive. (i have been in canada and recieved medical attention (using a friends number))

[mike]

not everyone is treated equal and when you do get medical attention you will recieve the minimum amount of attention to keep you alive. (i have been in canada and recieved medical attention (using a friends number)) I didn't think the canuks could make a whiskey that strong ed!

[SoCal_GLI]

I didn't think the canuks could make a whiskey that strong ed!


LOL......whiskey is not my bag(it makes me beligerant(sp?)...LOL, but they do have Molson XXX.

can we say setting a broken foot with no anesthetic???(gotta love skateboarding in Canada...lol)



but at least it was free...lol

[mike]

how come we got to pay for this hoser's doctor bills? whats that all aboot eh?

[OCbuiltGTI]

I think it's about time we vote Steven Hawkings into office.

We'd be dumb not to... :tup:

[thobbes]

Socal gli - i already explained how president Bush got in on a point system. read the first post again. i simply meant to draw a parallel for the sake of the argument. i understand that the term "affirmative action" immediately conjures images of race. It was actually intended to help women too. that's a group that used to be told they weren't worthy enough to vote in this country, and a group which on average still makes less then men who perform the same work.

creanium- you're correct, I was the first to mention affirmative action as it applies to president Bush. since protestors exercising their first amendment rights were criticized as wanting the "handout" of AA in a political debate, i felt it was a logical connection that president Bush wasn't being criticized in the same light.

we have different views on affirmative action. i think it's a catch 22, i have a difficult time understanding why qualified applicants should be turned down. however, i do believe character says a lot about a person. and someone who has overcome more obstacles (as many minority and poor students must) tend to have more life experience. that contributes a lot to a college campus.

you're also correct saying that elected officials' healthcare as provided by federal funds could be characterized as being paid by their employer. i don't have a problem with that. i do have an issue with so many people being raped by HMO's - and that's just the ones who can afford to be. there's too much influence from these organizations on our leaders, who are wealthy enough to not personally worry for their healthcare or that of their children.

sorry if that reeks of communism. but that philosophy in practice was done much differently than what was the original intent. helping out our fellow man really isn't such an awful thing.

mike i agree with a lot of what you have to say. there actually WERE protestors at the DNC, though many were critcizing the democrats for not being liberal enough. either way, they were not as organized nor as strong a presence as has been seen in New York.

kerry is about much more than affirmative action - and i hardly think that's the biggest issue that will see debate over the next four years.

[A1pocketrocket]

Socal gli - i already explained how president Bush got in on a point system. read the first post again. i simply meant to draw a parallel for the sake of the argument. i understand that the term "affirmative action" immediately conjures images of race. It was actually intended to help women too. that's a group that used to be told they weren't worthy enough to vote in this country, and a group which on average still makes less then men who perform the same work.

creanium- you're correct, I was the first to mention affirmative action as it applies to president Bush. since protestors exercising their first amendment rights were criticized as wanting the "handout" of AA in a political debate, i felt it was a logical connection that president Bush wasn't being criticized in the same light.

we have different views on affirmative action. i think it's a catch 22, i have a difficult time understanding why qualified applicants should be turned down. however, i do believe character says a lot about a person. and someone who has overcome more obstacles (as many minority and poor students must) tend to have more life experience. that contributes a lot to a college campus.

you're also correct saying that elected officials' healthcare as provided by federal funds could be characterized as being paid by their employer. i don't have a problem with that. i do have an issue with so many people being raped by HMO's - and that's just the ones who can afford to be. there's too much influence from these organizations on our leaders, who are wealthy enough to not personally worry for their healthcare or that of their children.

sorry if that reeks of communism. but that philosophy in practice was done much differently than what was the original intent. helping out our fellow man really isn't such an awful thing.

mike i agree with a lot of what you have to say. there actually WERE protestors at the DNC, though many were critcizing the democrats for not being liberal enough. either way, they were not as organized nor as strong a presence as has been seen in New York.

kerry is about much more than affirmative action - and i hardly think that's the biggest issue that will see debate over the next four years.

ok seriously man...comparing affirmative action with legacy? boy you are a michael moore fan! elite schools have helped alumni family for ages because they want to keep a school tradition in a family. my grandfather graduated from Stanford giving me lineage but i still didnt manage to get in. want to know why? because i didnt earn it.

'helping out our fellow man really isn't such an awful thing.' what happened to taking responsibility for ones self? why should i pay for the family on welfare that decided to have 3 children when they couldnt afford to even feed themselves? they made a choice and now must be responsible for their actions. i dont have any children....because i can't afford it. its called living within your means.

i dont know about you, but if i did all my homework, studied, and recieved A's on tests while my neighbor got drunk all weekend and forgot that class was even being held, id be pretty pissed when my A turned into a B- and his F raised up to a C just to make sure all the class passed. goodbye socialism, hello liberatarianism. take responsibility for yourself. when you eff up, pay the consequences. when you succeed, reap the benefit.

[allizard]

Last I checked our Constitution clearly said we are a Republic form of government. Not Social Democratic like the liberals want us to be. Futhermore, the Constitution also said the federal goverment is only responsible for our safely (national security) and let the states governement handle the welfare (I'm stretching on this). That is until FDR got us into the New Deal that injects welfare programs from the Federal level. Which... I don't agree at all.

As for Anti-Bush crowd... I have one thing to say... you should be glad we have a country that Explicitly allow freedom of expression written in our Constitiution. NO where in the world have the same rights as we do. So don't go fucking abuse it!!!

I'm so over with arguing and for those of you are undecided. You are going to pick the lesser of two evils here. So do your research and vote what is right not what is for your pocket book.

- Allen

[allizard]

ok seriously man...comparing affirmative action with legacy? boy you are a michael moore fan! elite schools have helped alumni family for ages because they want to keep a school tradition in a family. my grandfather graduated from Stanford giving me lineage but i still didnt manage to get in. want to know why? because i didnt earn it.

'helping out our fellow man really isn't such an awful thing.' what happened to taking responsibility for ones self? why should i pay for the family on welfare that decided to have 3 children when they couldnt afford to even feed themselves? they made a choice and now must be responsible for their actions. i dont have any children....because i can't afford it. its called living within your means.

i dont know about you, but if i did all my homework, studied, and recieved A's on tests while my neighbor got drunk all weekend and forgot that class was even being held, id be pretty pissed when my A turned into a B- and his F raised up to a C just to make sure all the class passed. goodbye socialism, hello liberatarianism. take responsibility for yourself. when you eff up, pay the consequences. when you succeed, reap the benefit.

Amen Bro! :tup:

[mr_wrong]

and we all know kerry is more truthful :rolleyes:

do some research brother

I never implied that Kerry is 100% truthful. No can say that Bush is 100% truthful either.

As far as research, we could both find an equal # of sources where one or the other lied, so what's the point.

[mr_wrong]

As for Anti-Bush crowd... I have one thing to say... you should be glad we have a country that Explicitly allow freedom of expression written in our Constitiution. NO where in the world have the same rights as we do. So don't go fucking abuse it!!!


- Allen


So as long as you tow the line, you're not abusing it, and anything else is?

And who gets to decide who's abusing it and what the alleged abuse is (abortion, gay rights, right to die)?. I say alleged because abuse of a freedom is a conflict of ideals. And no I'm not refering to yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater.


.

[Tom (aka Godzilla)]

Kerry tells lies, Bush tells lies.

Kerry is a rich bastard, Bush is a rich bastard.

Both the Dems and the Replubicans have their attack dogs.

Is there anyone out there that is still undecided or on the fence in this election?

[bugzy]

Kerry tells lies, Bush tells lies.

Kerry is a rich bastard, Bush is a rich bastard.

Both the Dems and the Replubicans have their attack dogs.

Is there anyone out there that is still undecided or on the fence in this election?
I nominate Tom for president ;)

[A1pocketrocket]

Kerry tells lies, Bush tells lies.

Kerry is a rich bastard, Bush is a rich bastard.

Both the Dems and the Replubicans have their attack dogs.

Is there anyone out there that is still undecided or on the fence in this election?


the best would be to drive America away from the two-party system. i dont think Rep.'s or Dem.'s would have nearly the numbers they do if people didnt feel they "had" to vote for one or the other. im not Bush's biggest fan, but hes getting my vote anyway.

[bugzy]

the best would be to drive America away from the two-party system. i dont think Rep.'s or Dem.'s would have nearly the numbers they do if people didnt feel they "had" to vote for one or the other.
i agree with that idea ... 2 parties ... only gives you limited choice. if there wasnt a limitation of parties we'd see more options in the presidential runs

[paultakeda]

'helping out our fellow man really isn't such an awful thing.' what happened to taking responsibility for ones self? why should i pay for the family on welfare that decided to have 3 children when they couldnt afford to even feed themselves? they made a choice and now must be responsible for their actions. i dont have any children....because i can't afford it. its called living within your means.

Let us now consider those three children. Are they responsible for their parents actions? They now have much more to accomplish to be recognized than someone born into privilege. On a hypethetical point system, where 100 guarantees a premiere college education and career, you could say they start at 0 while others start at 50 or 90.

There are two fairly solid ideals in American culture: one is written in the constititution, that all men are created equal. The other ideal comes as a corollary to the idea that everyone is equal, and it is that one can achieve anything if one works hard enough.

The problem is that in reality, social conditions exist such that legal equality does not translate to having the ability to achieve anything if you work hard enough. There are certainly exceptions, but for the majority of the population, class systems based on economic standing self-perpetuate. If the goal of the American republic is to uphold these two ideals, then it must continue to change until you can honestly say that any person born, regardless of the faults of their parents, has the ability to improve his/her situation and will have equal access and be in level competition for schooling and employment as a person born into privilege.

Affirmative action strove to establish the "level playing field", where gender, ethnicity, and economic background would be equalized using a set of conditions, and in many cases, were coupled to existing point systems. As an artifact of its time, it certainly was effective, breaking down many sociocultural barriers. Hence, affirmative action was a good thing forty years ago.

Today, not so much. Affirmative action as it existed is no longer viable today, but letting it go and not replacing it with a revised set of balancers is equally ignorant. Unfortunately, this is not a popular subject, and many continue to view it as a black and white topic with no room for discourse on improvement.

Of course, this will not be a major issue for the upcoming election, so I'm quite surprised it showed up on this thread in the first place.

[paultakeda]

exactly how did Bush get into a predominately white school for rich people under affimative action? please explain (that's not affirmative action as much as it is bias)


Actually, it's six of one half dozen of the other because both employ the same point system.

Consider the following hypothetical point system at X University:

Applicant A:
African-American: 5 points
Family income < $50,000: 5
GPA: 4.0 x 10 = 40
Parent(s) never went to college: 5
Parent(s) did not attend this school: 0
Total: 55

Applicant B:
Caucasian-American: 0 points
Family income > $50,000: 0 points
GPA: 2.0 x 10 = 20
Parent(s) went to college: 0
Parent(s) attended this school: 40
Total: 60

Affirmative action and legacy points are part of the same pool. You might say, then, that if A=B, and B=C, then A=C.

[madajb]

Kerry tells lies, Bush tells lies.

Kerry is a rich bastard, Bush is a rich bastard.

Both the Dems and the Replubicans have their attack dogs.

Is there anyone out there that is still undecided or on the fence in this election?
VWs suck.
Audis suck.
Domestics suck.
Imports suck.

Doesn't stop us from standing around talking about them.
-ajb

[madajb]

If the goal of the American republic is to uphold these two ideals, then it must continue to change until you can honestly say that any person born, regardless of the faults of theirs parents, has the ability to improve his/her situation and will have equal access and be in level competition for schooling and employment as a person born into privilege.

The Republic disappeared years ago, but that's a different topic.

Today, not so much. Affirmative action as it existed is no longer viable today, but letting it go and not replacing it with a revised set of balancers is equally ignorant.
Such as? What, other than academic performance, do you feel should be taken into account for college admissions.
What, other than past job performance, should be taken into account when hiring for a job?

-ajb

[A1pocketrocket]

Let us now consider those three children. Are they responsible for their parents actions? They now have much more to accomplish to be recognized than someone born into privilege. On a hypethetical point system, where 100 guarantees a premiere college education and career, you could say they start at 0 while others start at 50 or 90.


why does that translate over into my financial burden? it is not logical to punish the succesful for the mistakes of the stupid.

[paultakeda]

Such as? What, other than academic performance, do you feel should be taken into account for college admissions.
What, other than past job performance, should be taken into account when hiring for a job?

You're dealing with affirmative action again. The goal is to figure out how to level the playing field before you reach the evaluation of an applicant so that academic and past job performance is all that is necessary.

[paultakeda]

why does that translate over into my financial burden? it is not logical to punish the succesful for the mistakes of the stupid.

Financial burden? The point is to make sure that children born into unfortunate circumstance are given the ability to become productive members of society, decreasing financial burden.

It's just as illogical to punish a child for the mistakes of a parent.

[madajb]

You're dealing with affirmative action again. The goal is to figure out how to level the playing field before you reach the evaluation of an applicant so that academic and past job performance is all that is necessary.
Ah, utopia.
Let me know when you find it, would ya? =)
-ajb

[madajb]

Financial burden? The point is to make sure that children born into unfortunate circumstance are given the ability to become productive members of society, decreasing financial burden.

It's just as illogical to punish a child for the mistakes of a parent.
There have been decades of programs that purport to achieve that goal.
So far, they haven't worked.
-ajb

[wikedgolf]

There have been decades of programs that purport to achieve that goal.
So far, they haven't worked.
-ajb


wow.. im not the only one that see that.

[allizard]

So as long as you tow the line, you're not abusing it, and anything else is?

And who gets to decide who's abusing it and what the alleged abuse is (abortion, gay rights, right to die)?. I say alleged because abuse of a freedom is a conflict of ideals. And no I'm not refering to yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater.


.

Let me give you an example of abuse....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5567879/site/newsweek/

That's boarderline on Treason. I don't understand how people get away with this crap.

[madajb]

Let me give you an example of abuse....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5567879/site/newsweek/

That's boarderline on Treason. I don't understand how people get away with this crap.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Helpfully bolded.
-ajb

[paultakeda]

Ah, utopia.
Let me know when you find it, would ya? =)
-ajb

Isn't that what we're striving to achieve?

There have been decades of programs that purport to achieve that goal.
So far, they haven't worked.

All the more reason to come up with a better idea, not put blinders on and say the problem doesn't exist.

[mr_wrong]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Helpfully bolded.
-ajb

There's that pesky first amendment again :rolleyes:




"Checkpoint" won't be published until Aug. 10, but already Matt Drudge, Rush Limbaugh and right-wing bloggers have Baker in their cross hairs.

If Rush disapproves, it must be treason :rolleyes: .

I'd love to see what kind of reaction would come out of a book discussing assassinating Clinton. The Bush nuthuggers would be beside themselves.

Again. Who gets to decide the definition of abusing freedom?

[A1pocketrocket]

If Rush disapproves, it must be treason :rolleyes: .


if michael moore says it, it must be true.

[mr_wrong]

if michael moore says it, it must be true.

Where was MM even mentioned in the article? I'm the first to admit that he's an embarrassing windbag. I'll never understand why all the Right Wing(nuts) have such a hard on for him. All they do is bring attention to him. Unless they're really that worried about him- than who's the fool? Get over it already.

[Imola20thSD]

For good and ill, the Iraqi prisoner abuse mess will remain an issue. On the one hand, right thinking Americans will abhor the stupidity of the actions while on the other hand, political glee will take control and fashion this minor event into some modern day My Lai massacre.

I heard some arabs are asking for an apology. I humbly offer mine here:

I am sorry that the last seven times we Americans took up arms and sacraficed the blood of our youth, it was in the defense of muslims (Bosnia, Kosovo, Gulf War 1, Kuwait, Current War.

I am sorry that no such call for an apology upon the extremists came after 9/11.

I am sorry that all the murderers on 9/11 were Arabs.

I am sorry that Arabs have to live in squalor under savage dictatorships. I am sorry that their leaders squander their wealth.

I am sorry that their governments breed hate for the United States in their religious schools.

I am sorry that Yassir Arafat was kicked out of every Arab Country and hijacked the palistenian "cause."

I am sorry that no other arab country will take in or offer more than a token amount of financial help to those same Palestinians.

I am sorry that the USA has to step in and be the biggest financial supporter of poverty stricken Arabs while the insanely wealthy Arabs blame the USA.

I am sorry that our own LEFT WING ELITE and our Media can't understand any of this.

I am sorry that the UNITED NATIONS scammed the poor people of Iraq of the "food for oil" money so they could get rich while the common folk suffered.

I am sorry that some arab governments pay the families of homicide bombers upon theior death.

I am sorry that those same bombers are seeking 72 virgins. I can't seem to find one here on Earth.

I am sorry that the bombers think that babies are legitimate target.

I am sorry that our troops are dying for more arabs.

I am sorry they show so much restraint when their brothers in arms are killed. I am sorry that Muslim Extremists have killed more Muslims than any other group.

I am sorry we don't drop a few DOZEN "Daisy Cutters" on Fallujah. ( Note: a "Daisy Cutter" is a 10,000 lb. bomb, used to clear helicopter landing zones.)

I am sorry every time terrorists hide they find a conenient "Holy Site"

I am sorry they didn't apologize for driving a jet into the WTC that collapsed and severely damaged St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church-one of our Holy Sites

I am sorry they didn't apologize for flight 93 and 175, the USS Cole, the embassy bombings, etc.

I am sorry Michael Moore is American; he could feed a medium sized village in Africa/

I am sorry the French are french?

America will get past this latest absurdity. We will punish those responsible because that is what we do. We hang out our dirty laundry for all the world to see. We move on. That's one of the reasons we are so hated. We don't hide this stuff like all those Arab countries that are now demanding an apology.

Deep down inside, when most Americans saw this reported in the news, we were like- so what? We lost Hundreds, and made fun of a few prisoners. Sure, it was wrong, sure, it dramatically hurts our cause, but until captured we were trying to kill these same prisoners. Now we're supposed to wring our hands because a few were humiliated? Our own compassion is tempered with the vivid memories of our own people killed, mutilated and burnt amongst a joyous crowd of celebrating Fallujans.

If you want an apology from this American, you're going to have a long wait. You have a better chance of finding those 72 virgins.

[Imola20thSD]

Show Kerry Stronger America in 04-08!!!!

[mr_wrong]

For good and ill, the Iraqi prisoner abuse mess will remain an issue. On the one hand, right thinking Americans will abhor the stupidity of the actions while on the other hand, political glee will take control and fashion this minor event into some modern day My Lai massacre.

I heard some arabs are asking for an apology. I humbly offer mine here:

I am sorry that the last seven times we Americans took up arms and sacraficed the blood of our...........

Nice cut and paste, but what does that have to do with the topic?

[madajb]

Isn't that what we're striving to achieve?

Nope, I'd settle for a good old-fashioned republic.

All the more reason to come up with a better idea, not put blinders on and say the problem doesn't exist.
Are there any variations we haven't tried over the last 30 years?
=)
-ajb

[madajb]

For good and ill, the Iraqi prisoner abuse mess will remain an issue. On the one hand, right thinking Americans will abhor the stupidity of the actions while on the other hand, political glee will take control and fashion this minor event into some modern day My Lai massacre.

I get enough of these stupid chainletters in my email.
At least attempt to paraphrase.
-ajb

[Imola20thSD]

No I just copied the whole thing, who cares? Why do you nit pick? Plus lets get back to why BUSH is better. Dont forget we are at war against the same people who are POW's. Everyone knows we all just can't get along so why hide the shit.. F those people, F the wussy Democrats, because Kerry has no balls to fight a war on terror.

[A1pocketrocket]

Where was MM even mentioned in the article? I'm the first to admit that he's an embarrassing windbag. I'll never understand why all the Right Wing(nuts) have such a hard on for him. All they do is bring attention to him. Unless they're really that worried about him- than who's the fool? Get over it already.

im just showing that both parties have embarrasing windbags that might not express how the individuals really feel but seem to be the ones in the spotlight.

[paultakeda]

Neat. I get to try the ignore troll feature.

[paultakeda]

im just showing that both parties have embarrasing windbags that might not express how the individuals really feel but seem to be the ones in the spotlight.

I label GW an "embarrassing windbag".

Hell, if Arnold were running I'd vote for him. He's my kind of windbag. :) Someone write the amendment already and bring the prophecy from Demolition Man into the light.

No, really, I'm serious.

[A1pocketrocket]

I label GW an "embarrassing windbag".

Hell, if Arnold were running I'd vote for him. He's my kind of windbag. :) Someone write the amendment already and bring the prophecy from Demolition Man into the light.

No, really, I'm serious.

i imagine you watched his speech at the RNC? that man would be president himself if we let him.

"Arnold is numero uno"

[paultakeda]

i imagine you watched his speech at the RNC? that man would be president himself if we let him.

"Arnold is numero uno"

Actually, I didn't. But I voted him in as governor (though on principle I tried to keep Davis on... I don't believe in the recall system as it exists) because Bill Simon is exactly the sort of GOP that makes his party stink, and Bustamante is exactly the sort of Dem that makes that party stink.

I vote based on the person, and hope their moderate platform influences the party.

This would be why I'll vote Kerry. Bush is far too far to the right. Kerry's right in the middle (though he's pitching a bit more to the left right now to grab disenfranchised and disillusioned voters), which is where I want my presidents.

If the world were just, McCain would have won in 2000, but Bush used the same exact team that created the Swift Boat controversy to derail that particular pipe dream for me. That's probably another reason why I'm rather pissed... I can't for the life of me see how you discredit someone's military record when you yourself can't even provide evidence of showing up for the AF National Guard. But that's just another can of beans... this ramble is done, the SP2 download appears to be ready to restart the system.

[allizard]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Helpfully bolded.
-ajb

You don't need to remind me of the 1st Amendment. I just think this kind of material is a bit excessive and it could get you jail in another country.

[A1pocketrocket]

i suggest you watch if you get a chance. if you get past his cheesy movie phrases that he cant seem to leave behind, he has a charisma that is unbelievable.

[allizard]

This would be why I'll vote Kerry. Bush is far too far to the right. Kerry's right in the middle (though he's pitching a bit more to the left right now to grab disenfranchised and disillusioned voters), which is where I want my presidents.
.


Huh? Kerry is right in the middle? :confused:

For the record I didn't vote for Arnold either. I vote for Tom McClintock.

[Alan_One]

Actually, I didn't. But I voted him in as governor (though on principle I tried to keep Davis on... I don't believe in the recall system as it exists) because Bill Simon is exactly the sort of GOP that makes his party stink, and Bustamante is exactly the sort of Dem that makes that party stink.

I vote based on the person, and hope their moderate platform influences the party.

This would be why I'll vote Kerry. Bush is far too far to the right. Kerry's right in the middle (though he's pitching a bit more to the left right now to grab disenfranchised and disillusioned voters), which is where I want my presidents.

If the world were just, McCain would have won in 2000, but Bush used the same exact team that created the Swift Boat controversy to derail that particular pipe dream for me. That's probably another reason why I'm rather pissed... I can't for the life of me see how you discredit someone's military record when you yourself can't even provide evidence of showing up for the AF National Guard. But that's just another can of beans... this ramble is done, the SP2 download appears to be ready to restart the system.

Wow.

Well, I nearly lost my dinner when I saw McCain speaking about bush in a favorable way at the RNC. I'd never be able to do something like that for someone that dragged my ass through the mud as bush did to McCain in the past. I lost a lot of respect for McCain in that instant.

Arnold is about as qualified as bush. The recall was an extremely shrewd tactical maneuver on the part of the R's. The whole deal w/ Davis being blamed for buying all that power at those rediculous rates that were inflated by the very people that financed bush into office was tragically brilliant. Can anyone recall how the state of California (Davis) asked President bush to intervene in the power rapage and bush declined to get involved... I wonder why? Then turn around and use the situation (how Davis was forced to buy at those rates to secure power for CA) against him as a basis for recall. Brilliant. And all the while all those stupid stupid stupid californians allowing themselves to be manipulated into voting for a has been, former body builder turned "actor", one liner, dick.

I'm sorry but if anyone has seen Pumping Iron they'd know that Arnold is not leadership material for ANY pert of this nation other than maybe Arian Nation.

Fuck Bush, Fuck Arnold, Fuck the 2 Party System. Oh, and Fuck Nader

http://www.theblankspace.com/alan/dumbass.gif

[mr_wrong]

i suggest you watch if you get a chance. if you get past his cheesy movie phrases that he cant seem to leave behind, he has a charisma that is unbelievable.

I agree. Regardless of who wins this election, I think we will see some very interesting things happen before 2008 that just might allow Arnold to run for Pres and I would have no problem voting for him (or any moderate republican). My main issue with todays GOP is their alignment with the religious right, and their platform otherwise I might give them a second look . I think they lose alot of people because of this.

Too bad this "moderate image" they're showing is just window dressing that they'll just toss out the window as soon as the convention is over. Seems like they're showing us a nice steak dinner, and in the end serving us crackers.

BTW, GW can only dream of having the charisma, and intelligence Arnold has.

[paultakeda]

Huh? Kerry is right in the middle? :confused:

Why so confused?

If you go to SelectSmart (http://www.selectsmart.com/president/) and set up a hypothetical ultra left wing candidate, Kerry hits 66% (Bush 6%). How left-wing is 66%? As an aside, the Green Party's David Cobb is 97%.

[slowjet]

The thought of either Bush or Kerry running as president scares me. We need somebody who is caring but yet, rules with an iron fist! ;)

[A1pocketrocket]

I agree. Regardless of who wins this election, I think we will see some very interesting things happen before 2008 that just might allow Arnold to run for Pres and I would have no problem voting for him (or any moderate republican). My main issue with todays GOP is their alignment with the religious right, and their platform otherwise I might give them a second look . I think they lose alot of people because of this.


that is my main problem with the party as well. i don't like the partys position on abortion or gay marriage, which i see as the religious fanatical sides stranglehold over common sense freedoms.

[paultakeda]

that is my main problem with the party as well. i don't like the partys position on abortion or gay marriage, which i see as the religious fanatical sides stranglehold over common sense freedoms.

Then why are you voting in a man who agrees with the fanatical religious faction within the GOP? Calls for a constitutional amendment on marriage and the gradual erosion of Roe v. Wade are part of his portfolio.

[creanium]

Then why are you voting in a man who agrees with the fanatical religious faction within the GOP? Calls for a constitutional amendment on marriage and the gradual erosion of Roe v. Wade are part of his portfolio.
Again, it boils down to to opinion of which is the lesser of two evils.

[A1pocketrocket]

definitely stances i dont agree with, however, i still feel that my policies and fiscal issues would be closer represented by Bush than Kerry.

[allizard]

Why so confused?

If you go to SelectSmart (http://www.selectsmart.com/president/) and set up a hypothetical ultra left wing candidate, Kerry hits 66% (Bush 6%). How left-wing is 66%? As an aside, the Green Party's David Cobb is 97%.

Oh I'm sorry that I'm ultra right wing-nut. So anything is on my left!!

Kerry's stands on many issues is on the left anf far left. Even Zell Miller a Democrat said Kerry is on the far left. He's never ever a moderate in my book.

[allizard]

that is my main problem with the party as well. i don't like the partys position on abortion or gay marriage, which i see as the religious fanatical sides stranglehold over common sense freedoms.

Sorry, I don't see how gay marriage and abortion are religious issues. It's common sense that gay marriage is un-natural, and general abortion is same as murder.

[A1pocketrocket]

Sorry, I don't see how gay marriage and abortion are religious issues. It's common sense that gay marriage is un-natural, and general abortion is same as murder.
explain to me how something you perceive as un-natural should be mandated as law. the only arguement against homosexuality is bible based. just because your god doesnt condone it should not mean that it becomes law for a nation that is supposed to be seperate from a church. abortion is a womans right. what she does with her unborn ZYGOTE is not your concern. i disagree with partial birth abortions and do believe that there should be a cut-off term, however the procedure/concept should not be disallowed in whole.

[mr_wrong]

explain to me how something you perceive as un-natural should be mandated as law. the only arguement against homosexuality is bible based. just because your god doesnt condone it should not mean that it becomes law for a nation that is supposed to be seperate from a church. abortion is a womans right. what she does with her unborn ZYGOTE is not your concern. i disagree with partial birth abortions and do believe that there should be a cut-off term, however the procedure/concept should not be disallowed in whole.

+1

Boy me being a Kerry supporter, and you being a Bush supporter, we actually agree on a few issues. I guess it just proves that a little moderation might bring folks together.

[Brady91GTi16v]

im gonna start an anti-kerri rally... whos with me?

[paultakeda]

Oh I'm sorry that I'm ultra right wing-nut. So anything is on my left!!

Kerry's stands on many issues is on the left anf far left. Even Zell Miller a Democrat said Kerry is on the far left. He's never ever a moderate in my book.

Many issues meaning not all issues. Perhaps, hmm... 66%?

Of course, if you simply use a true/false toggle, then sure, I suppose there's no room for moderation.

[thobbes]

allizard - speech that is in poor taste is far different from treason. there's a reason the first amendment was given such a prominent place in the bill of rights. we can't even imagine the kind of energy and fear that fills the lives of people who have to watch every step so as to never seem in disagreement with whoever rules their nation. suppressing artistic creation strikes at the spirit of exchanging ideas freely, and the press is supposed to be a sort of fourth estate- keeping watch over a government which is easily corrupted. unfortunately today's version of the mainstream media is controlled by so few that there really aren't many different points of view represented. try reading the guardian - it's a UK paper. or even checking out BBC news. you can't accuse them of any bias (liberal, conservative or otherwise) because they obviously could care less about partisan politics. it's always a good idea to get your information from a variety of sources so you can question the information you are being giving. critical thinking rules. you say "it could get you in jail in a different country"????? aren't our freedoms what we're most proud of? forgive me forgetting who this quote should be attributed to, but "i may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight to the death your right to say it."

imola20thesd- there's a variety of reasons for respecting international agreements on war crimes. one is so that american troops won't be tortured or humiliated if they should be captured. can we agree that that is a worthy motive for behaving honorably? whether we want to admit it or not there are other points of view in the world, and those who hold those ideas think they are as just as we believe ourselves to be. the spirit of things like the Geneva Convention is that whatever we may disagree on, we won't torture each other. it seems crazy to agree on that kind of thing and still bomb the hell out of each other, but gotta take what we can get i suppose. and hey - way to go on classifying the entire middle east as full of "arabs." i can tell we're truly aware of the nuances of foreign policy around here. about as well-versed as our current president.

Alanone - I'm afraid I agree with you about McCain, it's been upsetting me this week. But I suppose even the more honorable politicians have trouble resisting the lure of power as they continue in the game. whatever happens this year McCain sure looks like a good, loyal Rep. nom for 2008 after the way he's toed their party line for president Bush.

seriously everyone who pointed out the futile effort this kind of discussion becomes if we're all set on our voting choice is kinda right. but it's still nice to hash out the reasons we support who we do, and I always enjoy hearing where other people come from. it does seem to come down to a few fundamental issues. i know many conservatives favor small government and fiscal responsibility. i just ask that you look to independent studies to decide if your party's nomination has lived up to those ideals, rather than believe the propaganda party leaders spew. they're paid to play to what you want to believe (i'm talking about ALL political parties here). and voting is great - but being an engaged, responsible voter who researches every decision is what really matters.

just for the hell of it, here's the first issues i think of when i decided who to vote for this year:

1. who would i rather have a beer with?
2. yeah right just kidding. i'm not that dumb.
3. how safe is our country, relative to its standing in the international community?
4. how have real threats to our country been dealt with? how have our agencies performed under the current leadership?
5. what is the state of civil rights relative to four years ago?
6. what is the state of environmental protections?
7. what is the danger to Roe based on the events of the next four years?
8. how has our economy been affected? and why exactly does it have to get so horrible for so long before the trickle down ever passes the millionare mark?
9. how has our country been treated by the leader who works for us? with respect, or with misinformation and contempt?
10. who places a higher emphasis on educating our youth?

ps. paul takeda i love that i had to re-read some of your sentences for a reason other than tragic logic.

[paultakeda]

1. Kerry. He's a bore, but he won't annoy me with an attempt at appearing to be a folksy American in touch with the common man.
2. True.
3. Relative to its standing with the international community? Bad. We have all the big guns, and indifferent China has all the manpower, but as a shining beacon of how to behave in a community, we suck.
4. Better communication between intelligence agencies is a good thing, unfortunately I don't find the centralization of power into the hands of a few all that great a solution.
5. Sucky, or do you really think the Patriot Act was needed to improve airport security?
6. Horrible. Denying that humans had anything to do with global warning even though their own agency shows evidence to the contrary sort of makes you wonder just who these jokers think they're fooling -- oh, that's right, most folks don't read the news.
7. Murky. Because people believe that before the legalization of abortion, the world was much better off when women slinked off to a dirty shack containing a man with a coat hanger and only the privileged could afford to bribe an MD to perform it in a private resort.
8. The economy suffered more from the dot-com bust, and it's recovering, though in no way is it because trickle-down theory works. Congratulate Greenspan, if you want to name names.
9. We're lied to, told we're un-patriotic if we don't believe them, kept in the dark, given as few press conferences as possible, and generally made to believe we're children that need coddling.
10. Kerry; education and providing information are of the same coin, and an expense this administration deems unnecessary.

[allizard]

explain to me how something you perceive as un-natural should be mandated as law. the only arguement against homosexuality is bible based. just because your god doesnt condone it should not mean that it becomes law for a nation that is supposed to be seperate from a church. abortion is a womans right. what she does with her unborn ZYGOTE is not your concern. i disagree with partial birth abortions and do believe that there should be a cut-off term, however the procedure/concept should not be disallowed in whole.

:bs:

Show me where in the US Constitution said seperation of church and states!!

On the other hand, let me show you what's said in our Declaration of Independence.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness..."

Now the meaning of Creator isn't necessary a Chirstian believes. But at least we understand our founding fathers believes something in a higher order.

On the other hand, I'm not debating gay rights and abortion rights from the religious bases. In fact, I'm thru debating and both sides is just as thick headed and there is no room for compromise.

[madajb]

Neat. I get to try the ignore troll feature.
It took you that long?
You have much patience, grasshopper.
=)
-ajb

[madajb]

You don't need to remind me of the 1st Amendment. I just think this kind of material is a bit excessive and it could get you jail in another country.
That's boarderline on Treason. I don't understand how people get away with this crap.

Apparently, I do.
Thankfully, we don't live in those other countries, we live in this country, where we are free to write stupid books and stupid talk show hosts are free to say stupid thing about the author.
heh.
-ajb

[madajb]

Wow.

Well, I nearly lost my dinner when I saw McCain speaking about bush in a favorable way at the RNC. I'd never be able to do something like that for someone that dragged my ass through the mud as bush did to McCain in the past. I lost a lot of respect for McCain in that instant.

McCain still hasn't given up on a another run after Bush is gone.
In which case he needs the RNC powerbase on his side, so, he has to play nicey nice.
-ajb

[madajb]

I agree. Regardless of who wins this election, I think we will see some very interesting things happen before 2008 that just might allow Arnold to run for Pres and I would have no problem voting for him (or any moderate republican).

I don't forsee any constitional amendments in the immediate future that would allow Arnold to be pres.

-ajb

[madajb]

Then why are you voting in a man who agrees with the fanatical religious faction within the GOP? Calls for a constitutional amendment on marriage and the gradual erosion of Roe v. Wade are part of his portfolio.
I fully support an amendment to the constitution on this issue. Hell, I'll even write it"

"The definition of marriage is hereby delegated to the states. Please see Article X if you need further clarification."

It seems the only way we'll get this nonsense decided by the people, not the politicians or the judges.
-ajb

[madajb]

try reading the guardian - it's a UK paper. or even checking out BBC news. you can't accuse them of any bias (liberal, conservative or otherwise) because they obviously could care less about partisan politics. it's always a good idea to get your information from a variety of sources so you can question the information you are being giving.
Eh? The Guardian is about as left as they come.
English papers tend to hide their biases much less than American papers do, it's a marketing strategy.
Try the Telegraph if you want a Conservatice biased British paper.
Hell, for that matter, try the Sun, they have the page 3 girls doing political blurbs now. =)

If you meant the beeb when you said " them", then ignore the above, though even then the BBC leans a little left, which I'd expect from a government funded operation. No need to bite the hand that feeds. =)

-ajb

[madajb]

:bs:

Show me where in the US Constitution said seperation of church and states!!

On the other hand, let me show you what's said in our Declaration of Independence.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness..."


No offense intended here, allizard, but you really need to go back and take a basic civics course.

Now, if you want to argue that incorporation(in the constitutional sense, not the business sense) is a direct violation of the spirit of the republic, that's another matter entirely.
=)
-ajb

[allizard]

allizard - speech that is in poor taste is far different from treason. there's a reason the first amendment was given such a prominent place in the bill of rights. we can't even imagine the kind of energy and fear that fills the lives of people who have to watch every step so as to never seem in disagreement with whoever rules their nation. suppressing artistic creation strikes at the spirit of exchanging ideas freely,


And you call that book art? :tdown: Look, I get your point. You know I don't like Kerry but I don't think anyone deserve the same treatment as a book written how to assassinate anyone for the matter. It's poor poor taste. This type of material will not be tolerated in a different country and all I'm saying yes have the freedom of expression here and yes we need to be responsible to what we say.

As for view points, I do read news from BBC and other sources. I can read news that's not in English and Foxnews is NOT my only source of information.

i know many conservatives favor small government and fiscal responsibility. i just ask that you look to independent studies to decide if your party's nomination has lived up to those ideals, rather than believe the propaganda party leaders spew.


Unfortunately, our government has been dominated literally "Centuries" by the Republican and Democrates and no chances for 3rd parties dominees. Years ago The Reform parties came close but ended up with power struggles within their own ranks between moderates and conservates factions. The RNC and DNC aren't the same anymore. Both parties have deviates from the original platforms. (If you listen to JFK's speech you'll hear his tones is more like a conservates. And make no mistakes, he's a Democrates.)
So we end up with two parties to choose that's closer to my ideal. Hence, I choose Republican.

[allizard]

No offense intended here, allizard, but you really need to go back and take a basic civics course.

Now, if you want to argue that incorporation(in the constitutional sense, not the business sense) is a direct violation of the spirit of the republic, that's another matter entirely.
=)
-ajb

None taken.... Sure I love to take another civic course. And I'll read it just as it is.

[allizard]

Apparently, I do.
Thankfully, we don't live in those other countries, we live in this country, where we are free to write stupid books and stupid talk show hosts are free to say stupid thing about the author.
heh.
-ajb

I don't understand why are you arguing? I'm thankful to live in this country. I just believe everyone should be responsible to their own action.




(Don't even go there claiming Bush lie and he need to take responsibility. He did not lie!! Clinton.. on the other hand, lie under oath.)

[paultakeda]

Show me where in the US Constitution said seperation of church and states!!

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment#Text)

The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries. — James Madison. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state#United_States_of_Am erica)

How soon we forget our own history.

Unfortunately, our government has been dominated literally "Centuries" by the Republican and Democrates and no chances for 3rd parties dominees.

By centuries you mean 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States). Okay, I'll give you 1.5. Which I suppose allows you to pluralize as it is greater than 1. The two-party system has been in place for 200 years, which is 2 centuries (also no great reason to pluralize, but I suppose considering the nation isn't all that old, 2 is a big number), but what those parties are tend to change. Of course, the present Dem/GOP parties are nothing like what they were at inception, or for that matter throughout their history.. you could say that the parties have changed face but not name, whereas in the past they would change their name as well to signify a major break in political aims.

[A1pocketrocket]

By centuries you mean 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States). Okay, I'll give you 1.5. Which I suppose allows you to pluralize as it is greater than 1. The two-party system has been in place for 200 years, which is 2 centuries (also no great reason to pluralize, but I suppose considering the nation isn't all that old, 2 is a big number), but what those parties are tend to change. Of course, the present Dem/GOP parties are nothing like what they were at inception, or for that matter throughout their history.. you could say that the parties have changed face but not name, whereas in the past they would change their name as well to signify a major break in political aims.

dont you remember in 1211 A.D. the great battle between the Roman Democrats and the Republicans led by Napoleon?

[allizard]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment#Text)

The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries. — James Madison. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state#United_States_of_Am erica)

How soon we forget our own history.

I didn't forget.

James Madison was actually spoke out against an established state-controlled church, such as the Anglican church in Virginia, which had forced all citizens to attend its services, pay tithes and which had persecuted all other Christian churches, such as the Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Mennonites, Lutherans, Quakers, etc... All these other Christian churches could not hold their own services, nor could they preach the Gospel without permission from the Anglican church. In Virginia, the Baptists had been thrown into prison on occasion, for worshipping God in their own way, and for preaching the Gospel outside the Anglican church. The "Virginia Statutes for Religious Freedom", which abolished the Anglican state-controlled church, replacing it with Freedom of Religion, that is freedom of different Christian churches, as above mentioned, to worship in their own way, without being persecuted and punished.

The real meaning of the First Amendment Clause of our United States Constitution, which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." He had this clause put into the Constitution, in order that the government would never again force citizens to attend a state-controlled church, such as the Anglican Church in Virginia had been.


By centuries you mean 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States). Okay, I'll give you 1.5. Which I suppose allows you to pluralize as it is greater than 1. The two-party system has been in place for 200 years, which is 2 centuries (also no great reason to pluralize, but I suppose considering the nation isn't all that old, 2 is a big number), but what those parties are tend to change. Of course, the present Dem/GOP parties are nothing like what they were at inception, or for that matter throughout their history.. you could say that the parties have changed face but not name, whereas in the past they would change their name as well to signify a major break in political aims.

Picky Picky...

[paultakeda]

The history behind an amendment does not allow you limit the impact of its very broad statement, that church and state must be separate. No specific church, no specific state, no specific situation is identified in the amdendment, and Madison himself colloquially refers to it as the separation of church and state.

This is, after all, what you wanted us to prove? That the separation of church and state is in constitution (albeit as an amendment)?

[madajb]

dont you remember in 1211 A.D. the great battle between the Roman Democrats and the Republicans led by Napoleon?
That was when they nominated the moderate Nero for Emperor, wasn't it?
-ajb

[OCbuiltGTI]

The only party I belong to comes equipped with Bitches and Beer.

[madajb]

I didn't forget.

No, you didn't forget the history, but you fail to understand it.
-ajb

[madajb]

The history behind an amendment does not allow you limit the impact of its very broad statement, that church and state must be separate. No specific church, no specific state, no specific situation is identified in the amdendment, and Madison himself colloquially refers to it as the separation of church and state.

This is, after all, what you wanted us to prove? That the separation of church and state is in constitution (albeit as an amendment)?

Well, you could argue that before the 14th Amendment and incorporation, the states were free to establish official state religions(and many had), but it's all moot now since a reversal of any of those decisions is highly unlikely.
=)

-ajb

[A1pocketrocket]

let us not forget that it is not just the letter of the law, but the fundamental reason America is here in the first place.

you may remember that funny little history lesson where you learned about those who were religiously oppressed and found shelter in a new land that gave them freedom from a government that was tied to a church. the history is there, dont repeat it. ;)

[paultakeda]

Well, you could argue that before the 14th Amendment and incorporation, the states were free to establish official state religions(and many had), but it's all moot now since a reversal of any of those decisions is highly unlikely.
=)

-ajb

True, but it's moot simply because allizard wanted us to point out where in the federal constitution it is written that church and state must be separated. Whether or not it was implemented by the states... well, then, yes, the 14th Amendment and incorporation duly apply.

[madajb]

let us not forget that it is not just the letter of the law, but the fundamental reason America is here in the first place.

you may remember that funny little history lesson where you learned about those who were religiously oppressed and found shelter in a new land that gave them freedom from a government that was tied to a church. the history is there, dont repeat it. ;)
I remember the one where the religious zealots fled to a new country so they could be fundamentalists in peace. There they formed a colony where residents were required to be members of the dominant church in order to vote or hold any office.
-ajb

[allizard]

No, you didn't forget the history, but you fail to understand it.
-ajb

I must be reading it from a different angle. The bases for this amendent lay in the prevailing opinion in 1789 that religion needed to be protected from government, not the other way around.

[paultakeda]

I must be reading it from a different angle. The bases for this amendent lay in the prevailing opinion in 1789 that religion needed to be protected from government, not the other way around.

Yes. You're reading it from the standpoint of limiting it to issues identical to the impetus for its draft and not in its design to address issues beyond the specific situation that caused it to be written.

[allizard]

Yes. You're reading it from the standpoint of limiting it to issues identical to the impetus for its draft and not in its design to address issues beyond the specific situation that caused it to be written.


So you are saying what he wrote is more of a Knee-jerk reaction?

[madajb]

I must be reading it from a different angle. The bases for this amendent lay in the prevailing opinion in 1789 that religion needed to be protected from government, not the other way around.
No, and here is the key point I think you are missing:
It's that the government should be entirely neutral when it comes to religious establishments, neither supporting a religion, nor protecting it from others.
The Federal government should, for all intents and purposes, make believe that religion doesn't exist.
-ajb

[madajb]

Of course, that runs directly counter to the Free Expression clause, which would basically be:
The Federal government should respect your religious expression absolutely and not interfere at all, even if it means sacrificing goats in the public square at high noon.

This is why we have the Supreme Court, to provide interpretations of the law, and attempt to apply them as evenhandedly as possible. It doesn't always work, but that's the system we're stuck with since we gave in to Federalism ages ago.

-ajb

[allizard]

Of course, that runs directly counter to the Free Expression clause, which would basically be:
The Federal government should respect your religious expression absolutely and not interfere at all, even if it means sacrificing goats in the public square at high noon.

This is why we have the Supreme Court, to provide interpretations of the law, and attempt to apply them as evenhandedly as possible. It doesn't always work, but that's the system we're stuck with since we gave in to Federalism ages ago.

-ajb

I have no argument here. :)

[allizard]

No, and here is the key point I think you are missing:
It's that the government should be entirely neutral when it comes to religious establishments, neither supporting a religion, nor protecting it from others.
The Federal government should, for all intents and purposes, make believe that religion doesn't exist.
-ajb

No, I'm not missing anything. And I know it's entirely impossible for government to be neutral on religion. That just goes back to Bush proposing marriage amendment. Personally, I know it's against the spirit of the Constitution. But I am not against it since I'm fed up with the liberal left.

Where is a time machine when you need one? Tommy and Jimmy have a lot of explaination to do.

[allizard]

May be I should clarify a bit more. Expressing religious believes is and should be protected. Where as I have the right to wear a cross or post your 10 Commendment (Cajun style) in Court Room. That is not a breach of Seperation of Church and States. What George did to propose a law that defines and enforce marriage only between man and woman is a breach of our Constitution if and only if it's argument is base on religious believes.

And of course let's not kid ourselves that it is religious motivated.

[paultakeda]

You have a right to wear a cross.
A judge is not allowed to display the Ten Commandments in the public space of a court of law -- he is by all means allowed to do so in his private chambers or home.

Communism. In a way, they won. Why else is our national motto "In God We Trust", when it originally was "E Pluribus Unum (One Out of Many)"? or that "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance? or that oaths end with "so help me God"?

[allizard]

You have a right to wear a cross.
A judge is not allowed to display the Ten Commandments in the public space of a court of law -- he is by all means allowed to do so in his private chambers or home.

I call that reinterpreation of the Constitution. Everything changes after 1947.

Communism. In a way, they won. Why else is our national motto "In God We Trust", when it originally was "E Pluribus Unum (One Out of Many)"? or that "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance? or that oaths end with "so help me God"?

Another knee jerk moment.

[madajb]

Communism. In a way, they won.
They did, it just took 9/11 to make it official.
I mean, Department of Homeland Security?
It even sounds Russian.
heh.
-ajb

[madajb]

Where is a time machine when you need one? Tommy and Jimmy have a lot of explaination to do.
Yeah, Sally Hemings' family needs some closure...
-ajb

[paultakeda]

They did, it just took 9/11 to make it official.
I mean, Department of Homeland Security?
It even sounds Russian.
heh.
-ajb

You said it. When they announced the name of the department, I thought I was back in China.

[OCbuiltGTI]

Last I checked our Constitution clearly said we are a Republic form of government. Not Social Democratic like the liberals want us to be. Futhermore, the Constitution also said the federal goverment is only responsible for our safely (national security) and let the states governement handle the welfare (I'm stretching on this). That is until FDR got us into the New Deal that injects welfare programs from the Federal level. Which... I don't agree at all.

As for Anti-Bush crowd... I have one thing to say... you should be glad we have a country that Explicitly allow freedom of expression written in our Constitiution. NO where in the world have the same rights as we do. So don't go fucking abuse it!!!

I'm so over with arguing and for those of you are undecided. You are going to pick the lesser of two evils here. So do your research and vote what is right not what is for your pocket book.

- Allen

Sorry I'm getting into this discussion a little late, but here goes.


1) At the time of the Constitution the "Republicans" were the liberal party. They weren't much different from the Democrats of today. That is a fact.

2) Freedom n.
The condition of being free of restraints.
Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression.

Political independence.
Exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of a specific action; civil liberty: freedom of assembly.
Exemption from an unpleasant or onerous condition: freedom from want.
The capacity to exercise choice; free will: We have the freedom to do as we please all afternoon. Ease or facility of movement: loose sports clothing, giving the wearer freedom.
Frankness or boldness; lack of modesty or reserve: the new freedom in movies and novels.

The right to unrestricted use; full access: was given the freedom of their research facilities.
The right of enjoying all of the privileges of membership or citizenship: the freedom of the city.
A right or the power to engage in certain actions without control or interference: “the seductive freedoms and excesses of the picaresque form” (John W. Aldridge).

You can't put a limit on freedom. If you try, then it's not freedom.

[allizard]

You said it. When they announced the name of the department, I thought I was back in China.

Just short of calling Motherland security. I have the same feeling also.

[creanium]

HUAAC all over again?

[allizard]

Sorry I'm getting into this discussion a little late, but here goes.


1) At the time of the Constitution the "Republicans" were the liberal party. They weren't much different from the Democrats of today. That is a fact.



I hope you mean the Democratic-Republican Party which became the Democratic Party today which... in a sence is a Liberal party. But the their agendas are certainly different today then 18th century.

The other party during the time of Constitution is the Federialist Party.

The GOP Republican party that we know today started 1854 which is around the beginning of Civil War 1861.

[paultakeda]

The GOP began and Lincoln promoted it as the party that supported emancipation. In other words, the Democrats were pro-slavery. The GOP as we know it today began its transformation in 1912 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0743203941/qid=1094235620/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/104-1825619-9954349?v=glance&s=books&n=507846). To be honest, part of me certainly wishes Teddy won the nomination and ran for a third term. The GOP would have been far more progressive (some would say liberal), more in tune with international concerns, continued a pro-environmental/conservationist policy, and by and large, combine the ideas of small government with progressive values.

Had that occurred, I'd probably be a registered Republican, not a swing voter. Not to mention FDR and Kennedy would probably have been Republicans as well, while the Dems continued to own the South.

Weird, eh?

[paultakeda]

Book description:


Four extraordinary men sought the presidency in 1912. Theodore Roosevelt was the charismatic and still wildly popular former president who sought to redirect the Republican Party toward a more nationalistic, less materialistic brand of conservatism and the cause of social justice.

His handpicked successor and close friend, William Howard Taft, was a reluctant politician whose sole ambition was to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. Amiable and easygoing, Taft was the very opposite of the restless Roosevelt. After Taft failed to carry forward his predecessor's reformist policies, an embittered Roosevelt decided to challenge Taft for the party's nomination. Thwarted by a convention controlled by Taft, Roosevelt abandoned the GOP and ran in the general election as the candidate of a third party of his own creation, the Bull Moose Progressives.

Woodrow Wilson, the former president of Princeton University, astonished everyone by seizing the Democratic nomination from the party bosses who had made him New Jersey's governor. A noted political theorist, he was a relative newcomer to the practice of governing, torn between his fear of radical reform and his belief in limited government.

The fourth candidate, labor leader Eugene V. Debs, had run for president on the Socialist ticket twice before. A fervent warrior in the cause of economic justice for the laboring class, he was a force to be reckoned with in the great debate over how to mitigate the excesses of industrial capitalism that was at the heart of the 1912 election.

Chace recounts all the excitement and pathos of a singular moment in American history: the crucial primaries, the Republicans' bitter nominating convention that forever split the party, Wilson's stunning victory on the forty-sixth ballot at the Democratic convention, Roosevelt's spectacular coast-to-coast whistle-stop electioneering, Taft's stubborn refusal to fight back against his former mentor, Debs's electrifying campaign appearances, and Wilson's "accidental election" by less than a majority of the popular vote.

Had Roosevelt received the Republican nomination, he almost surely would have been elected president once again and the Republicans would likely have become a party of reform. Instead, the GOP passed into the hands of a conservative ascendancy that reached its fullness with Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, and the party remains to this day riven by the struggle between reform and reaction, isolationism and internationalism.

The 1912 presidential contest was the first since the days of Jefferson and Hamilton in which the great question of America's exceptional destiny was debated. 1912 changed America.

[madajb]

To be honest, part of me certainly wishes Teddy won the nomination and ran for a third term.
Didn't he run on the Bull Moose ticket?
-ajb
(Too lazy to look it up)

[paultakeda]

Yeah, but only after losing the nomination to Taft. Had he been the GOP candidate, he'd've won.

[madajb]

Yeah, but only after losing the nomination to Taft. Had he been the GOP candidate, he'd've won.
I was rooting for Eugene in that election.
=)
-ajb

[allizard]

I was rooting for Eugene in that election.
=)
-ajb

Socialist.. :tdown:

[allizard]

You can't put a limit on freedom. If you try, then it's not freedom.

Along with that logic... let's say I don't like they way you look. And I decided to shoot you in the head because I'm free to do whatever I want and no limit.

:confused:

[madajb]

The other Eugene....
-ajb

[allizard]

The other Eugene....
-ajb


The fourth candidate, labor leader Eugene V. Debs, had run for president on the Socialist ticket twice before. A fervent warrior in the cause of economic justice for the laboring class, he was a force to be reckoned with in the great debate over how to mitigate the excesses of industrial capitalism that was at the
heart of the 1912 election.

Which OTHER one?

[A1pocketrocket]

Along with that logic... let's say I don't like they way you look. And I decided to shoot you in the head because I'm free to do whatever I want and no limit.

:confused:

that is called anarchy...
we should have freedom up to the point at which it interferes with someone elses freedom. shooting someone in the face definitely falls in the interfering catagory.

[allizard]

that is called anarchy...
we should have freedom up to the point at which it interferes with someone elses freedom. shooting someone in the face definitely falls in the interfering catagory.


A-ha!! so Freedom does have a limit and a personal responsibility to KEEP IT IN LIMITS. ;)

[A1pocketrocket]

A-ha!! so Freedom does have a limit and a personal responsibility to KEEP IT IN LIMITS. ;)

..cricket....cricket....

what are you trying to get at?
homosexuality and free speech should be banned?

[thobbes]

Personally, I know it's against the spirit of the Constitution. But I am not against it since I'm fed up with the liberal left.

this is totally my favorite statement. what a great way to run a country. get fed up with people who have different beliefs from yourself (no matter how many millions share those feelings) then ignore the most fundamental law of this country. that's true patriotism.

and I like the Whigs. not because of beliefs or anything, it's just fun to say.

[OCbuiltGTI]

Along with that logic... let's say I don't like they way you look. And I decided to shoot you in the head because I'm free to do whatever I want and no limit.

:confused:

Way to take my words out of context.

I appologize if you couldn't discern that I really meant freedom of speech.

You know the Naziis also believed that nobody elses opinions mattered and that there should be a limit on free speech.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v328/coupedeville66/37be5798.jpg

[SoCal_GLI]

I am sorry we don't drop a few DOZEN "Daisy Cutters" on Fallujah. ( Note: a "Daisy Cutter" is a 10,000 lb. bomb, used to clear helicopter landing zones.)


i loved your post. but the cluster bomb is only 1,000 pounds not 10,000

[SoCal_GLI]

Way to take my words out of context.

I appologize if you couldn't discern that I really meant freedom of speech.

You know the Naziis also believed that nobody elses opinions mattered and that there should be a limit on free speech.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v328/coupedeville66/37be5798.jpg



and as far as the comments here, you need to do more research on Hitler, cause you are way off, in fact if it wasn't for Hitler you wouldn't be driving a VW

[mike]

A-ha!! so Freedom does have a limit and a personal responsibility to KEEP IT IN LIMITS. ;)
yes, the minute you interupt someone elses freedom, as daryl said, then you've stepped out of reasonable bounds,
I watched as much of the Republican National Convention as I could before I got sick to my stomach from all the brain washing from the right wing but at the same time I couldn't keep from laughing (kind of like being at church).

I'm curious as to what you guys here that have been or are still in the service think about Kerrys military record VS. Bushs record (of deferments from service in nam)

[FunkTron]

does michael moore have his finger in that dudes ass?


heh....he is practicing his vantrilliquism. :D

[Monster8V]

I'm curious as to what you guys here that have been or are still in the service think about Kerrys military record VS. Bushs record (of deferments from service in nam)


Do you know that even if Bush begged to go to the frontlines of Viet Nam he couldnt?? His father's gov position prohibited him from ever seeing combat. :tup:

Lets just say for the sake of leading you to water, that Bush ran and hid so he didnt have to go to the Nam. Whats wrong with it?? It was good enough for Clinton, wasnt it?? :rolleyes:

I have issues with Kerry only serving 4 months, getting 3 Purple Hearts and not spending a day in the hospital NOR spilling a drop of blood. (Well, maybe when they pulled the rice outta his ass he might of bled a drop. :eek: )

Silver star for turning and your crewman falls overboard. Return and pick em up and heres your star?? Lame. It still works that way for officers.

Plus, why is he putting his whole campaign on his having served 4 months in Nam?? He's opened himself up to being put under a microscope and, what wouldja know, they found out alot of neg shit about him. Pitty.

Regardless, he served, many didnt so I have to respect that aspect of him. I just wish he could talk about, oh I dont know, ANYTHING else. :D

[OCbuiltGTI]

and as far as the comments here, you need to do more research on Hitler, cause you are way off, in fact if it wasn't for Hitler you wouldn't be driving a VW


I don't see why I would need to research Hitler anymore than I already do. My comment wasn't about Bush or any political party, but rather a comment on Allizards attitude toward others.

I'm not trying to toot my own horn, but I find myself to be a WWII "buff." I like to read/watch anything I can about WWII.

[OCbuiltGTI]

As for the elections...

I'm sick and tired of both parties trying to make the other seem like "idiots" or "immoral." When elections are run with one party accusing the other of trivial things like "not driving American Cars" or twisting words it makes me want to vote for a third party if I knew that voting that way wouldn't be just throwing my vote away. Honestly the two party system sickens me. When I ask Democrats why I should vote for Kerry and their only response is "you don't want to go to war do you?" and when asking Republicans the same question I get, "Kerry is a dumbass" it makes me sick. It's elections and party front runners like these that made me not want to register. (disclaimer: I eventually registered because I realized one vote counts.)

[mr_wrong]

Do you know that even if Bush begged to go to the frontlines of Viet Nam he couldnt?? His father's gov position prohibited him from ever seeing combat. :tup:

That's interesting, but I don't know if I buy it. Can you post a source?


Lets just say for the sake of leading you to water, that Bush ran and hid so he didnt have to go to the Nam. Whats wrong with it?? It was good enough for Clinton, wasnt it?? :rolleyes:

Let's flip that around. If Clinton had the family resources to get into the NG (and go AWOL), would he still deserve to be called a draft dodger? As he was refered to many times during his presidency.


Plus, why is he putting his whole campaign on his having served 4 months in Nam?? He's opened himself up to being put under a microscope and, what wouldja know, they found out alot of neg shit about him. Pitty.

Regardless, he served, many didnt so I have to respect that aspect of him. I just wish he could talk about, oh I dont know, ANYTHING else. :D

Gotta go ahead and agree with you in that one, but at the same time, I wish Bush would stop acting like it's Sept 12th 2001.

[RotorBG]

Getting back to the protestors in NY. One of those groups that are always doing polling when out and interviewed a bunch of them. Something like 87% poled sided with the Communist philosophy.

As for me, when I look in the mirror every morning I know that I am responsible for the things I do, not the government, not someone else, Me!
I joined the military at 28. I had already been to college (yes I am paying off my own student loads. Not like so many "Dead Beats” who get loans and don't). I was already working and had been married for three years, but I felt so strong about our wonderful country that I joined to do my part. I am still in at 42 and will continue to serve as long as we have a Commander in Chief that supports the troops. I almost resigned under Clinton because of the crap and deep cuts his administration put us through. (Balance the budget my rear end! He cut the military to the bone and used that money for other things.) Most of the soldiers I know/ knew would have left if Gore became president. I would say about 90% of us feel the same way if Kerry becomes pres.
The federal government many objective is “Defense of the Country against attack foreign and domestic”.
Everything else is icing.

Look at today’s unemployment rate 5.4% with a steadily growing economy. That’s better than Clinton’s 5.6%. In my job, I see these improvements every day through new service upgrades and business up sizing. Things are really cranking now.


I believe in:
Less Government
A Flat rate tax code
Responsibility for your own actions
Consequences for those actions
The second amendment
Merit not tenure
The doctrine of "Separation of Church and State" was noted to protect religion from government note government from religion.

With these values that I was brought up with, I am a conservative and will be voting for President Bush.

That all I have to say. This will be my only post on this thread.
OUT!!
Ben

[Monster8V]

Well said Ben!


That's interesting, but I don't know if I buy it. Can you post a source?


Actually, I cant. I heard it twice on, of all places, CNN. I didnt even know Bush 41 ran the CIA. :tup:



Let's flip that around. If Clinton had the family resources to get into the NG (and go AWOL), would he still deserve to be called a draft dodger? As he was refered to many times during his presidency.


Well, Bush wasnt AWOL. To site his not being able to produce pay stubs from 30 years ago is ludicrous. I cant produce any stubs from my service from the 80's. Was I AWOL too?? weak.

Something I learned about his NG service. If his unit had simply been activated, he would of gone to the Nam. (Even tho it conflicts with what ive repeated about his fathers position.)

My bother-in-law was, of all things, a door gunner in a Huey. He volunteered to go to Nam. Got sent to Germany instead.


Gotta go ahead and agree with you in that one, but at the same time, I wish Bush would stop acting like it's Sept 12th 2001.


Well, I wish Kerry and others would stop acting like its Sept 10th 2001.


Had 9/11 never happened, I doubt Bush would get elected. He is the right man at the right time in history. Kerry has been on the wrong side of history his whole career.

[mr_wrong]

Getting back to the protestors in NY. One of those groups that are always doing polling when out and interviewed a bunch of them. Something like 87% poled sided with the Communist philosophy.



This is why I get embarrassed by those 87%. They could really care less about what they are protesting, as long as they're "getting into some shit".

[mr_wrong]

Well said Ben!





Actually, I cant. I heard it twice on, of all places, CNN. I didnt even know Bush 41 ran the CIA. :tup:



You of all people should know that you can't trust "the liberal media" I thought that was your mantra ;)

Secondly, after giving it some more thought, I call bullshit on someone not serving if his father/mother is a governor/president, or any office holder. That would just scream favoritism. Although it MAY have helped get GW into the NG, instead of you know where...

Here's an article (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/09/politics/main628437.shtml) I found at the CBS News site.

As far as GW's AWOL status, it's safe to say that it can't be confirmed or denied.