[art_director]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

No worse than voting in evangelicals and other heretics I s'pose

V

Evangelicals tend to be polarizing -- their faith being too extreme for moderates. Ellison is far and away moderate when it comes to his faith. Unlike Evangelicals, he doesn't exploit it for political gain. I can think (George Bush) many politicians (Michelle Bachman) who will play (John Ashcroft) the faith card (Dan Coats) to manipulate the vote.

[Ron Goodman]

Carter approved FISA, but Bush decided that it didn't apply to him--he wants no judicial review at all.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

Carter approved the wiretaps during his term.(FISA)
How come Pen registers were legal for Clinton yet illegal for Bush?

All partisan bickering BS.

The feds already had power to tap lines -- with court approval. So why did George see the need to allow them to operate outside that legal provision?

I smell a rat, you should, too.

I don't want the government having that power regardless of who is in charge.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Ron Goodman 

Carter approved FISA, but Bush decided that it didn't apply to him--he wants no judicial review at all.

Precisely. He thinks he's above that law and many others. He's about to begin reading from a new playbook -- and it's about time.

I was happy when Clinton was called on his misdeeds and now I want to see Bush answer for his. I'm not suggesting impeachment, that would get our nation no where fast. I just want the Googler-in-Chief to have his wings clipped.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

It's almost as ridiculous as lefties supporting a 13-year-old's right to an abortion without parental consent. Meanwhile, that same 13-year-old can't even go on a class trip without parental consent.

So prefer the coat hanger method as opposed to it being done by a doctor?

Kids are going to have sex. There is no way around that. Good education is the key to really preventing teen pregnancies. People by default make mistakes.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

People by default make mistakes.

Voting for George W. Bush being one prime example.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by art_director 

Precisely. He thinks he's above that law and many others. He's about to begin reading from a new playbook -- and it's about time.

I was happy when Clinton was called on his misdeeds and now I want to see Bush answer for his. I'm not suggesting impeachment, that would get our nation no where fast. I just want the Googler-in-Chief to have his wings clipped.

Don't forget that Signing law that was passed. The President gets to decide how a law is interpreted. They basically gave him the power to write new laws. It's god damn horrifying.

[Sky Captain]

If you're a terrorist.

[The Left]

missing the point sky, if we treat everyone with respect, there will be no more war.

[G Barnett]

Originally Posted by Mark Larr 

So you lost no freedoms and are on the side of those who want you destroyed.


Even the despicable John Walker Lyndh got a fair shake, perhaps?


He wasn't hanged as he should have been, a boon for those on the left wanting to harm our country.

I'm on the side of rule of law. That being the Constitution. That being FISA. That being habeas corpus and presumption of innocence until guilt is proven in a public trial.

Bush is doing as much to destroy America as Al Qaida and their ilk can dream of doing, and he's doing it from within. Al Qaida, quite frankly, doesn't scare me. They have no power here. Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and their crew are the frightening ones -- they've got the same exact social agenda as Al Qaida, only camouflaged as Christian values.

Tell ya what -- when the Republicans tell them and all their sheep to take a hike -- maybe then I'll consider what the party has to say. Until then, I stand opposed.

[placebo1969]

Originally Posted by The Left 

missing the point sky, if we treat everyone with respect, there will be no more war.

Then we can do trust falls and sing kumbaya!

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

If you're a terrorist.

Or if you oppose the president.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, should have that power. That's why our government was set up the way it was -- balance. How quickly we forget.

What Republican voters seem to never notice is the fact that Democrats will eventually have the same power when taking over the White House. Then y'all be screaming up a storm.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by G Barnett 

I'm on the side of rule of law. That being the Constitution. That being FISA. That being habeas corpus and presumption of innocence until guilt is proven in a public trial.

Bush is doing as much to destroy America as Al Qaida and their ilk can dream of doing, and he's doing it from within. Al Qaida, quite frankly, doesn't scare me. They have no power here. Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and their crew are the frightening ones -- they've got the same exact social agenda as Al Qaida, only camouflaged as Christian values.

Tell ya what -- when the Republicans tell them and all their sheep to take a hike -- maybe then I'll consider what the party has to say. Until then, I stand opposed.

Well said and true. Every word of it.

I'm with you.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by The Left 

missing the point sky, if we treat everyone with respect, there will be no more war.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

I'm glad that's a top down shot. I'm scared he might not have anything on under that shirt.

[art_director]

I haven't been 'round this part of the forums as long as many of you. One thing I've noticed in the general course of discussion is that many of the right-leaning posters seem to be young and impressionable. No doubt there are exceptions but many of them sound like they get their politics from their parents rather than from their experiences. Some even talk about their finances being on the low end -- as in, just out of school money -- yet they complain aboiut taxes. Once the rubber meets the road and you get going you quickly realize how it all really works. The Republicans and their tax schemes of recent benefit the wealthy and screw everyone else. You don't need to be an economist to see that. You need only think for yourself.

[art_director]

Rumor: The Overlook Hotel? As in The Shining?

[The Left]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

well you'll notice they are not carrying guns no?

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by art_director 

Rumor: The Overlook Hotel? As in The Shining?

Notice the sig too? (Credit for making it does not go to me)

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

Notice the sig too? (Credit for making it does not go to me)

To be honest I glossed over the sig but caught the mention. Loved that book.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

](Credit for making it does not go to me)

Yeah, I wouldn't wanna take credit for that piece of crap if I made it, either.

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by G Barnett 

Tell ya what -- when the Republicans tell them and all their sheep to take a hike -- maybe then I'll consider what the party has to say. Until then, I stand opposed.

As if the Democratic party dosen't attract sheep.

The conservatives are for the self reliant types. Hardly sheep that need to be tended over.
Like Democrat voters.(Or they expect the government to tend them like sheep)

[Nicko]

Saw this on NYT and thought it was apt







“I, for one, welcome our new Democratic overlords.”

[G Barnett]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

As if the Democratic party dosen't attract sheep.

The conservatives are for the self reliant types. Hardly sheep that need to be tended over.
Like Democrat voters.(Or they expect the government to tend them like sheep)

Funny, I didn't say Conservatives, per se. I referred specifically to the followers of Robertson, Falwell and the other rabid fundamentalist preachers out there. For them, sheep is quite the appropriate term, considering both the whole shepherd religious motif and their unquestioning following of their mullahs. Those sorts wouldn't know "self-reliant" if it walked up and bit 'em on the backsides. All they know is what their "shepherds" tell them.

I've got, well, at most issues of style and degree, perhaps, with the fiscal conservatives that used to make up the Republican party. So, ditch the fundie baggages and then we can maybe get the country back on the right track, yes?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Every election is a victory for democracy - not just when the election results suit you.

No, this administration and by extension the party that has supported and fostered it, is the greatest threat our democracy has ever known. This is a president bent on being an elected king--precisely what the founders did not want--and who has tried to circumvent and sabotage fundamental precepts of democracy during his tenure.

Repudiation of his policies is a victory of democracy, not the election of a party that is only marginally less corrupt. We are not out of the woods, but at least we've stopped blindly following the arrogant fool who led us into them in the first place.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

No, this administration and by extension the party that has supported and fostered it, is the greatest threat our democracy has ever known. This is a president bent on being an elected king--precisely what the founders did not want--and who has tried to circumvent and sabotage fundamental precepts of democracy during his tenure.

Get back on the meds, champ.

[Ron Goodman]

Before you start telling people to take their meds, do a search on the "unitary executive". "Elected king" might be a little bit of hyperbole, but not so much as you might think.

[ironknee]

gloat
/gloat

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Get back on the meds, champ.

Wow, is that the best you can do? Just wait until the final results for virginia come through.

[houstonmacbro]

rummy is gone! check cnn.com

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

gloat
/gloat

You know, I honestly didn't think you Americans had it in you. How wrong I was.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

You know, I honestly didn't think you Americans had it in you. How wrong I was.

i'm as surprised as you are

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

You know, I honestly didn't think you Americans had it in you. How wrong I was.

Americans are fickle and have the attention span of a…uh…where was I?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Ron Goodman 

Before you start telling people to take their meds, do a search on the "unitary executive". "Elected king" might be a little bit of hyperbole, but not so much as you might think.

You guys would have had a fit during the FDR and LBJ administrations.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

No, this administration and by extension the party that has supported and fostered it, is the greatest threat our democracy has ever known. This is a president bent on being an elected king--precisely what the founders did not want--and who has tried to circumvent and sabotage fundamental precepts of democracy during his tenure.

Haven't really studied FDR, have you?

[kmkkid]

I'm not into all this american voting, but what state is the 1 undecided which is going to break the tie?

Is it virginia?

[houstonmacbro]

virginia is still undecided. they just called montana for the democrats.

[smacintush]

And they are talking recount aren't they? A recount in VA can't even BEGIN until the 27th.

[zerostar]

I haven't been watching the news today but what is the holdup? Webb has it by almost 7,000 votes with 99% reporting... MT was much closer than that.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

Just wait until the final results for virginia come through.

Um, I live in NJ. No need to wait for me.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by zerostar 

I haven't been watching the news today but what is the holdup? Webb has it by almost 7,000 votes with 99% reporting... MT was much closer than that.

I read that Maryland had something like 180,000 absentee ballots to count, so if Virginia has even half that, theoretically it could affect the outcome.

[zerostar]

gotcha, do they only count absentee if it is a close race/will effect the outcome?

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by zerostar 

gotcha, do they only count absentee if it is a close race/will effect the outcome?

They may "call" the election if the margin is too great for absentee ballots to affect anything. But absentee ballots are always counted, no matter how close the race may be.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Get back on the meds, champ.

A mature and substantive response, to be sure.

Google this: "unitary executive" and "signing statements"

You are aware that he literally said the Constitution is "just a god-damned piece of paper," right? Couple that with the disdain for the universal standards of human and legal rights represented by his decisions to strip at least one American citizen of his right to trial, to intern supposedly illegal combatants at Gitmo, his endorsement of "aggressive" interrogation despite its proven record of unreliability, to commission "secret" prisons, to export prisoners to regimes known to use torture, to continue to maintain a cloak of secrecy over almost everything this administration does from roaming wire-tapping to the energy policy.

This is not a man who believes in the values of democracy. He does not embrace the openness of the democratic process. He does not believe in limited power.

This president had to be stopped.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

This is not a man who believes in the values of democracy. He does not embrace the openness of the democratic process. He does not believe in limited power.

This president had to be stopped.

Keep writing that fiction there, tiger.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by MacNStein 

Haven't really studied FDR, have you?

Sure I have, and yes, I would oppose such measures today. The problem is that Bush hasn't studied FDR and has learned nothing from history. Take the Japanese internment, which our government has since had to apologize for.

But Bush goes beyond anything FDR did, primarily because of the context and the motive. FDR really was steering the helm during a world-wide struggle against an aggressive and dangerous enemy. Bush's reaction to Al-Qaeda has only fueled their delusions of grandeur. They are medievalists with box cutters and a few bank accounts. Though their crimes against us are horrific, their power and reach is not. To rewrite the rules by which we govern our nation because of these backward monsters is to give them far more than their due.

What's more, FDR did not have a personal stake and an overriding conflict of interest in everything he did while guiding the US through WWII. Bush, though, has constructed an administration of cronies deeply tied to the industries which will benefit most from the war in Iraq and from his interpretation of the "war on terror." This is hardly a conflict of interest they were unaware of--there were seminars for businessmen in the lead-up to war.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Keep writing that fiction there, tiger.

Again...do you actually have anything to say? Usually, I find, when people can only fire back empty quips, then they have no substantive basis for their remarks.

Prove me wrong, but do the reading suggested above first. Google: "unitary executive" and "signing statements"

[RAILhead]

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Sure I have, and yes, I would oppose such measures today. The problem is that Bush hasn't studied FDR and has learned nothing from history. Take the Japanese internment, which our government has since had to apologize for.

But Bush goes beyond anything FDR did, primarily because of the context and the motive. FDR really was steering the helm during a world-wide struggle against an aggressive and dangerous enemy. Bush's reaction to Al-Qaeda has only fueled their delusions of grandeur. They are medievalists with box cutters and a few bank accounts. Though their crimes against us are horrific, their power and reach is not. To rewrite the rules by which we govern our nation because of these backward monsters is to give them far more than their due.

What's more, FDR did not have a personal stake and an overriding conflict of interest in everything he did while guiding the US through WWII. Bush, though, has constructed an administration of cronies deeply tied to the industries which will benefit most from the war in Iraq and from his interpretation of the "war on terror." This is hardly a conflict of interest they were unaware of--there were seminars for businessmen in the lead-up to war.

Thank you, that's a well-crafted and accurate telling of the facts.

I would make this one edit / addition:

The Bush family, going back four generations, realized the power and profit in war. They also realized the power and profit in oil. This conflict afforded George W. Bush both. Dubya learned this from his father, who learned it from his father, etc. My point is that this war was in planning long before September 11, the vial of white powder or the botched FBI intelligence.

A study of the Bush and Walker ( where George's 'W' comes from ) families will quickly bring people up to speed on these facts.

[Sky Captain]

Bataan. There's a real winner for humanity.
Has Japan apologized for that yet? Nanking?


What no mention of German internment?
My father hunted his own people as well as my Uncle.
And their farhers fought their own people 25 years earlier.

The difference between FDR and Bush: FDR sent tens of thousands of GI's to their death for something that would have worked itself out in Europe and Asia.
And we're still stuck there.
I got stuck there.