Forums Index >> General >> Thanks Democrats
Page : 1 . . . . . 20 : 21 : <22> : 23 : 24
Here's a democratic kick to the republican grill.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/11/05.html#a5727
The curtain has been pulled back, turkeys. Bush is done.
Prof sayeth:
Granted, we all have to be self-serving to a degree, but when our decisions affect millions, I would think those running the show, given their education/intelligence (mb not the same thing) and the gravity of their decisions would err on the side of generosity.
Self-serving to what degree?
The problem with the left right now is "superficial analysis...long on ascribing motive and short on allowing for good faith."
I watched the Brooks/Shields debate on News Hour. Ummmmm. I didn't see "Bobo gets rocked."
Shields talked about things "that we have not seen."
Like the 48-page report that Scooter Libby put together for Colin Powell before he went to the UN. Maybe Shields would like to see that report, but has he?
Nope. But that didn't stop Shields from citing it as evidence.
Brooks asked for evidence, Shields gave out hypotheticals.
Gee, I remember when it was guilty until proven innocent. Or is it the other way?
More importantly, Brooks had an interesting response to Shields surmises. (I gist because the transcript is not available until tomorrow.)
"If you want to condemn Bush for judging badly on the Iraq, that's one thing," Brooks said.
"But if you want to say he lied us into war, that's Joe McCarthy territory. That is a most heinous charge and if you're going to make that, you'd better have solid evidence"
Self-serving. Who is self-serving?
Due process?
Forget the good faith part. Throw the good faith part out completely.
Without good faith, if you make superficial analysis and wild motives, then all you have left is due process.
And talking points? Lord. The joke is that Fitzgerald may bring more charges. And not just to Karl Rove. We may have Tim Russert in jail before all this is over. (Keep in mind that the Big Show hasn't even started yet with the Federal Trial. We are going to get testimony from LOTS of people.)
No one has been charged except Libby. Again, no one was charged with outing Valerie Plame.
The joke is that Fitzgerald really may bring more charges and if he does then we will know.
Meanwhile, we get leads like this one from NPR's story on Bush's South American trip: "It looks like Bush's problems followed him to South America as questions about Rove outweighed questions about this trip at his news conference."
What!!!? A self-fulfilling prophesy? Yeah, the reporters brought the problems and called themselves "problems" as well? Oooooooooh boy.
Meanwhile, we get the CIA leaking like a bucket that Valerie "good with an AK47" Wilson might have shot up.
Item: Dana Priest of the Washington Post writes a front-page story on Wednesday headlined, CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons.
Pay close attention to the second sentence of the story: "The secret facility is part of a covert prison system set up by the CIA nearly four years ago that at various times has included sites in eight countries, including Thailand, Afghanistan and several democracies in Eastern Europe, as well as a small center at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, according to current and former intelligence officials and diplomats from three continents."
"Secret"! "Covert"!
So after the press and the Left make a meal of the allegation that people in the White House might have leaked the name of a covert operative, and after we find out that Plame was indeed not a covert operative under the law, the Washington Post — by its own admission — can print classified information that involves covert CIA activity?
Last edited: Sunday, November 06, 2005 at 1:40:16 PM
Did someone speak? Guess not....since nothing was said.
this is for my buddy chief:
aka nostradamus...
Last edited: Sunday, November 06, 2005 at 6:13:24 PM
I need help. I'm not able to comprehend this piece of material. It seems to be saying that there is no santa clause and that g w bush isn't the second coming. Oh uh! Uh oh! That means an existential crisis is building up, and that always makes my head feel all stingy. JJ, can you spin this one off for me so I can go back to picking daisys?
Report Warned Bush Team About Intelligence Suspicions
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/politics/06intel.html
WASHINGTON, Nov. 5 - A high Qaeda official in American custody was identified as a likely fabricator months before the Bush administration began to use his statements as the foundation for its claims that Iraq trained Al Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons, according to newly declassified portions of a Defense Intelligence Agency document.
I mean, we all know this wasn't our lord, the right reverend jesus bush's fault. It was bad intelligence. Right chief? JJ? My heads feeling all stingy...don't let me down in my time of crisis. Spin, sacred hack, spin...
Ohhhh!
*JJ, raising his hand up high*
I'll take that one, Alex! For $1,000.
Who was the Senator who attended a closed hearing on Oct 2, 2002 and heard this from George Tenet from the CIA?
Regarding Senator Bayh's Evan Bayh, Democrat of Indiana question of Iraqi links to al-Qa'ida. Senators could draw from the following points for unclassified discussions:
* Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and al-Qa'ida is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.
* We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qa'ida going back a decade.
* Credible information indicates that Iraq and al-Qa'ida have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.
* Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al-Qa'ida members, including some that have been in Baghdad.
* We have credible reporting that al-Qa'ida leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. Capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al-Qa'ida members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.
* Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of a relationship with al-Qa'ida, suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. Military action.
I have been invoked......
LOL
Sorry - have been traveling too damn much lately. I see I have a lot to catch up on.
Just read a great article - though I would share:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn06.html#
Wake up, Europe, you've a war on your hands
November 6, 2005
BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
Ever since 9/11, I've been gloomily predicting the European powder keg's about to go up. ''By 2010 we'll be watching burning buildings, street riots and assassinations on the news every night,'' I wrote in Canada's Western Standard back in February.
Silly me. The Eurabian civil war appears to have started some years ahead of my optimistic schedule. As Thursday's edition of the Guardian reported in London: ''French youths fired at police and burned over 300 cars last night as towns around Paris experienced their worst night of violence in a week of urban unrest.''
''French youths,'' huh? You mean Pierre and Jacques and Marcel and Alphonse? Granted that most of the "youths" are technically citizens of the French Republic, it doesn't take much time in les banlieus of Paris to discover that the rioters do not think of their primary identity as ''French'': They're young men from North Africa growing ever more estranged from the broader community with each passing year and wedded ever more intensely to an assertive Muslim identity more implacable than anything you're likely to find in the Middle East. After four somnolent years, it turns out finally that there really is an explosive ''Arab street,'' but it's in Clichy-sous-Bois.
The notion that Texas neocon arrogance was responsible for frosting up trans-Atlantic relations was always preposterous, even for someone as complacent and blinkered as John Kerry. If you had millions of seething unassimilated Muslim youths in lawless suburbs ringing every major city, would you be so eager to send your troops into an Arab country fighting alongside the Americans? For half a decade, French Arabs have been carrying on a low-level intifada against synagogues, kosher butchers, Jewish schools, etc. The concern of the political class has been to prevent the spread of these attacks to targets of more, ah, general interest. They seem to have lost that battle. Unlike America's Europhiles, France's Arab street correctly identified Chirac's opposition to the Iraq war for what it was: a sign of weakness.
The French have been here before, of course. Seven-thirty-two. Not 7:32 Paris time, which is when the nightly Citroen-torching begins, but 732 A.D. -- as in one and a third millennia ago. By then, the Muslims had advanced a thousand miles north of Gibraltar to control Spain and southern France up to the banks of the Loire. In October 732, the Moorish general Abd al-Rahman and his Muslim army were not exactly at the gates of Paris, but they were within 200 miles, just south of the great Frankish shrine of St. Martin of Tours. Somewhere on the road between Poitiers and Tours, they met a Frankish force and, unlike other Christian armies in Europe, this one held its ground ''like a wall... A firm glacial mass,'' as the Chronicle of Isidore puts it. A week later, Abd al-Rahman was dead, the Muslims were heading south, and the French general, Charles, had earned himself the surname ''Martel'' -- or ''the Hammer.''
Poitiers was the high-water point of the Muslim tide in western Europe. It was an opportunistic raid by the Moors, but if they'd won, they'd have found it hard to resist pushing on to Paris, to the Rhine and beyond. ''Perhaps,'' wrote Edward Gibbon in The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire, ''the interpretation of the Koran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Mahomet.'' There would be no Christian Europe. The Anglo-Celts who settled North America would have been Muslim. Poitiers, said Gibbon, was ''an encounter which would change the history of the whole world.''
Battles are very straightforward: Side A wins, Side B loses. But the French government is way beyond anything so clarifying. Today, a fearless Muslim advance has penetrated far deeper into Europe than Abd al-Rahman. They're in Brussels, where Belgian police officers are advised not to be seen drinking coffee in public during Ramadan, and in Malmo, where Swedish ambulance drivers will not go without police escort. It's way too late to rerun the Battle of Poitiers. In the no-go suburbs, even before these current riots, 9,000 police cars had been stoned by ''French youths'' since the beginning of the year; some three dozen cars are set alight even on a quiet night. ''There's a civil war under way in Clichy-sous-Bois at the moment,'' said Michel Thooris of the gendarmes' trade union Action Police CFTC. ''We can no longer withstand this situation on our own. My colleagues neither have the equipment nor the practical or theoretical training for street fighting.''
What to do? In Paris, while ''youths'' fired on the gendarmerie, burned down a gym and disrupted commuter trains, the French Cabinet split in two, as the ''minister for social cohesion'' (a Cabinet position I hope America never requires) and other colleagues distance themselves from the interior minister, the tough-talking Nicolas Sarkozy who dismissed the rioters as ''scum.'' President Chirac seems to have come down on the side of those who feel the scum's grievances need to be addressed. He called for ''a spirit of dialogue and respect.'' As is the way with the political class, they seem to see the riots as an excellent opportunity to scuttle Sarkozy's presidential ambitions rather than as a call to save the Republic.
A few years back I was criticized for a throwaway observation to the effect that ''I find it easier to be optimistic about the futures of Iraq and Pakistan than, say, Holland or Denmark." But this is why. In defiance of traditional immigration patterns, these young men are less assimilated than their grandparents. French cynics like the prime minister, Dominique de Villepin, have spent the last two years scoffing at the Bush Doctrine: Why, everyone knows Islam and democracy are incompatible. If so, that's less a problem for Iraq or Afghanistan than for France and Belgium.
If Chirac isn't exactly Charles Martel, the rioters aren't doing a bad impression of the Muslim armies of 13 centuries ago: They're seizing their opportunities, testing their foe, probing his weak spots. If burning the 'burbs gets you more ''respect'' from Chirac, they'll burn 'em again, and again. In the current issue of City Journal, Theodore Dalrymple concludes a piece on British suicide bombers with this grim summation of the new Europe: ''The sweet dream of universal cultural compatibility has been replaced by the nightmare of permanent conflict.'' Which sounds an awful lot like a new Dark Ages.
Copyright © The Sun-Times Company
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
That is an interesting article, Chef.
One aside is how the spin-doctors are leaning/playing the story.
Awwwwww, I mean the left, the mediacrats, and -- watch out for some moonbats on the right as well!
The left's version: They are in the bad parts of town, underprivileged, rioting out of hopelessness.
The mediacrat version: They are in the bad parts of town, underprivileged, rioting out of hopelessness. (hmmm, looks the same?)
The right's version: It's those commies...erp...correction...Islamists in the bushes. They're out in the open now!
Mr. Steyn seems to have better perspective, doesn't he? I think he truly does. But, hey, it's just a talking point. Pay no attention to moi.
I'll have a burger, fries, and a Coke, Chef. Please.
Last edited: Monday, November 07, 2005 at 8:21:17 AM
Hmmm, post seems to have disappeared.
Sry, Chef. I will try to repeat.
Don't set the dry yard on fire while grilling out....
Did I say I'll have a Coke, burger, and fries yet? Oh, yeah, did.
Wait! I remember!
I have a follow-up question!:
Who said this?:
"We know [Iraq is] developing unmanned vehicles capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents...all U.S. Intelligence experts agree they are seek nuclear weapons. There's little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop them.... In the wake of September 11th, who among us can say with any certainty to anybody that those weapons might not be used against our troops, against allies in the region? Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater--a nuclear weapon...."
Ding! Ding! The Daily Double!
For an additional $1,000,000,000 (about the cost of one day of pre-war CIA intelligence), who quoted it on a recent news talk show? To whom was it said? Who fell out on the floor laughing over the whole thing? (Hint: that would be me.)
Last edited: Monday, November 07, 2005 at 8:31:47 AM
Roflol, Flea.
Unemployment line here I come...
Dunno, gone back to picking daisies. Existential crisis averted, politcal-religious beliefs intact. Thanks JJ. Thank you jesus bush!
I knew you could do it! I was worried you might be confused and pricked by doubt, or that you had felt the sting of conscience as well. But then, your religious conviction is so strong! Nothing can get between you and your faith in our lord and savior, jesus bush.
You skillfully ignored the wilkerson issues
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/july-dec05/wilk_11-4.html
And the issues surrounding the niger forgeries and claims the the US knew the info was bad:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9912352/
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1104/dailyUpdate.html
Well done sir hack! And nice job above warning us about those nefarious liberals and their toadies in the press. Ever since the liberals have risen to their ascendent position, the US has gone to hell. But we shall overcome!
Dobson earned the title. He proselytized hard for Bush this last year, organizing huge stadium rallies and using his radio program to warn his 7 million American listeners that not to vote would be a sin. Dobson may have delivered Bush his victories in Ohio and Florida.
http://www.slate.com/id/2109621/
Antiwar Sermon Brings IRS Warning
# All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena risks losing its tax-exempt status because of a former rector's remarks in 2004.
The Internal Revenue Service has warned one of Southern California's largest and most liberal churches that it is at risk of losing its tax-exempt status because of an antiwar sermon two days before the 2004 presidential election.
Rector J. Edwin Bacon of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena told many congregants during morning services Sunday that a guest sermon by the church's former rector, the Rev. George F. Regas, on Oct. 31, 2004, had prompted a letter from the IRS.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-allsaints7nov07,0,6769876.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Here's an appropriate bleed-over from a different thread.
Why shouldn't I work for the N.S.A.? That's a tough one, but I'll give it a shot. Say I'm working at N.S.A. Somebody puts a code on my desk, something nobody else can break. So I take a shot at it and maybe I break it. And I'm real happy with myself, 'cause I did my job well. But maybe that code was the location of some rebel army in North Africa or the Middle East. Once they have that location, they bomb the village where the rebels were hiding and fifteen hundred people I never had a problem with get killed. Now the politicians are sayin', "Send in the marines to secure the area" 'cause they don't give a shit. It won't be their kid over there, gettin' shot. Just like it wasn't them when their number was called, 'cause they were pullin' a tour in the National Guard. It'll be some guy from Southie takin' shrapnel in the ass. And he comes home to find that the plant he used to work at got exported to the country he just got back from. And the guy who put the shrapnel in his ass got his old job, 'cause he'll work for fifteen cents a day and no bathroom breaks. Meanwhile my buddy from Southie realizes the only reason he was over there was so we could install a government that would sell us oil at a good price. And of course the oil companies used the skirmish to scare up oil prices so they could turn a quick buck. A cute little ancillary benefit for them but it ain't helping my buddy at two-fifty a gallon. And naturally they're takin' their sweet time bringin' the oil back, and maybe even took the liberty of hiring an alcoholic skipper who likes to drink martinis and play slalom with the icebergs, and it ain't too long 'til he hits one, spills the oil and kills all the sea life in the North Atlantic. So my buddy's out of work and he can't afford to drive, so he's got to walk to the job interviews, which sucks 'cause the shrapnel in his ass is givin' him chronic hemorrhoids. And meanwhile he's starvin' 'cause every time he tries to get a bite to eat the only blue plate special they're servin' is North Atlantic scrod with Quaker State. So what do I think? I'm holdin' out for somethin' better. Why not just shoot my buddy, take his job and give it to his sworn enemy, hike up gas prices, bomb a village, club a baby seal, hit the hash pipe and join the National Guard? I could be elected president.
- Will, Good Will Hunting
Auch, tis a good one.
This is one for our liberal friends...tis a very good read for all though
The Atlantic Monthly | January/February 2005
Letting Go of Roe
The Democratic Party's commitment to preserving Roe v. Wade has been deeply unhealthy for abortion rights, for liberalism more generally, and ultimately for American democracy
http://blog.democrats.com/node/2717
This is good too...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/19/AR2005101901974.html
Let it go.
it's BS law and it is costing us too much. While we fight tooth and nail over this, we aren't addressing more pressing issues.
Meanwhile, Roe gives pro-life politicians a free pass. A large majority of voters reject the hard-line anti-abortion stance: in Gallup polling since 1975, for example, about 80 percent of respondents have consistently favored either legal abortion in all circumstances (21 to 34 percent) or legal abortion under some circumstances (48 to 61 percent). Although a plurality of Americans appear to favor abortion rights substantially more limited than what Roe guarantees, significantly more voters describe themselves as "pro-choice" than "pro-life." Yet because the Court has removed the abortion question from the legislative realm, conservative politicians are free to cater to pro-lifers by proposing policies that, if ever actually implemented, would render those politicians quite unpopular.
In short, Roe puts liberals in the position of defending a lousy opinion that disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply while freeing those conservatives from any obligation to articulate a responsible policy that might command majority support.
Last edited: Monday, November 07, 2005 at 3:13:44 PM
This thread exemplifies the biggest challenge for liberals...we can't settle on a topic.
Last edited: Monday, November 07, 2005 at 5:09:40 PM
: :
Edit comment:
What does Jesus have to do with Bush?
Silly goose! Why everyone knows that they are one and the same!
In the church of republicanism, that is...
So, you guys see this one?
vatican rejects intelligent design?
Evolution in the bible, says Vatican
November 07, 2005
THE Vatican has issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin, voicing strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists who reject his theory of evolution and interpret the biblical account of creation literally.
Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible" if the Bible were read correctly.
His statement was a clear attack on creationist campaigners in the US, who see evolution and the Genesis account as mutually exclusive.
"The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," he said at a Vatican press conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator".
This idea was part of theology, Cardinal Poupard emphasised, while the precise details of how creation and the development of the species came about belonged to a different realm - science. Cardinal Poupard said that it was important for Catholic believers to know how science saw things so as to "understand things better".
His statements were interpreted in Italy as a rejection of the "intelligent design" view, which says the universe is so complex that some higher being must have designed every detail. "
Wowser, you know somepin's outta wack when american wingnuts make the vatican look like berkely...
Last edited: Monday, November 07, 2005 at 9:38:08 PM
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/11/07.html#a5756
Check out hardball...actually playing hardball. On air, prime time calling bush co a bunch of murdering liars. Thanks democrats.
@ Stink, FYI Darwin believed in creationism. He believed that God created all living things, and then evolution came to play shortly thereafter. I am Catholic and have no problems with evolution. What I do have a problem with is a one sided mentallity that the majority of you portray ( liberals and "bible beaters" as well).
Crooks and liars? Do you guys believe anything from the media? Newspapers are dying, the evening news ratings are plummeting. I know internet has something to do with this. Most folks out there are getting sick of being spoonfed whatever the media wants to cram down our throats.
On the other hand,talk radio (which has a more of a mainstream stance) ratings are going up. Go figure. The liberal infrastructure that has infested the universities and media is failing in winning over the average joe. Peeps are fed up!! Including me...
Not sure I follow killer,
first of all, I've always said creationism and evolution were not incompatible ideas...so I side with the pope on that issue.
Next I suppose you accuse me of being one sided...i dunno. About five posts up I state my oppositition to Roe. Not a very liberal thing to do, no? Then you make a claim of talk radio being mainstream. That's far fetched.
Maybe you find my tone objectionable...dunno.
I know you object, just not sure to what...maybe you think I'm spinning. The hardball link I thought interesting not because it's neccessarily truthful, but that it shows that the press seems to be going from blind support of Iraq war, to blind attack dog. Mathews is a big ass hypocrite in my book. The time to be skeptical was three years ago. He had his chance, and he soft peddaled, just like 90% of the press. If they are irrelevant, like you say, maybe its because they are so worthless. Witness hardball.
And you say people are turned off...right now, most people I know aren't...i get the feeling that people who voted for bush are turned off. But they shouldn't be. They need to turn something on, or run the risk of making the same mistake in 06/08.
You're hinting around an important issue here, stink. I want to bring it out. These issues that you mentioned are there for a purpose.
•abortion
•creationism/intelligent design
•Roe v. Wade (related to first one)
•Supreme Court nominees, and how they respond to these issues
•taxation and how "they" waste money
(there are probably more, but I'm not thinking of them)
In one form or another, these issues have been argued about for quite a long time. I'd give them 25-30 years or so, (more in the case of taxes). Politicians have been using these issues to polarize the electorate. It's not accidental. They are strategically using these issues to divide the nation. If they can get the people evenly divided on these issues, and get them to be passionate about that division, then they can control elections. If they can sway a small percent of the people to their side, they can win, because the rest of us are 50-50.
If you think about this, what impact do those issues have on most people's day to day lives? Not much. These issues make good arguments. You can get people fighting about them. While they're fighting about them, you can do whatever else you choose to, because people are too worried about these issues to notice what's going on.
These issues distract us from real problems, like crumbling highway systems, underfunded schools, overworked and underpaid people, children in poverty, and unaffordable health care. These problems fall on the vast majority of people while a very few become insanely wealthy.
How do we put these (non) issues aside, and move on to what's really important? How can we set priorities that make sense for most people, not just the well connected?
@ LGM
There is no such thing as a "non-issue." Unfortunately, each individual issue is what gave rise to special interest groups....which, in my opinion, are the cells that make up each party's "animal."
Interesting posts the last few days.
@ KKB
Stinky is probably more towards the center than you realize, once the smoke of his anger at W clears. Not quite a centrist mind you - just not completely left.
I also disagree with the disengagement of the voter view. I think if anything, today's media, coupled with today's gutter political environ (i.e. The guernatorial races today) is electrifying the electorate.
Interesting happenings in the Senate today....for the record, JJ called it a few posts ago.
"You can get people fighting about them. While they're fighting about them, you can do whatever else you choose to, because people are too worried about these issues to notice what's going on.
These issues distract us from real problems, like crumbling highway systems, underfunded schools, overworked and underpaid people, children in poverty, and unaffordable health care. These problems fall on the vast majority of people while a very few become insanely wealthy"
Precisely. While we are all tied up with cultural issues, more immediate, more tangible issues are ignored.
Look at your list
Abortion/ roe v wade
creationism
supreme court nominees aka roe v wade
taxation
Of these, the first three are related. They are purely cultural issues. Taxation is typically framed as an issue of paying too much, rather than one of paying equitable amounts. It may not be a cultural issue, but it is one of ideology. Republican/libertarian ideology largely.
Here's my take: these issues are currently "owned" by the conservatives and right now, they set the agenda. Roe v wade has given them that ability, largely, because roe v wade more than any other issue has alienated many voters from the democratic party. Moderates are turned off. It is bad law -- and its draconian. Defending it puts one at a major disadvantage. The issue also comes with legions of proxy combatants (religious leaders) who are willing to spend considerable resources attacking it, and using their influence to stir their followers to support conservative leaders -- which allows conservative politicians to stay out of the fight for the most part. If conservative politicians actually had to take part in helping dismantle roe, they would come off as looking anti-women's rights and would risk alienating 50% of the population (women) and those that respect the notion of equality (progressives). So they sit back, occasionally stoke the fires of the religious opponents of roe and essentially do nothing about it. Meanwhile, they use the support of the religious right to keep them in power, and using this power, they work on their pro-corporate, anti-environment, anti-working class, anti-tax agenda. The results are what you see today, illustrated nicely by your graphs, and reinforced by the nightly news. America is increasingly the land of haves and have nots.
The democrats feed right into the BS with regard to roe. They circle up the wagons, pretending that its ok to attack judicial nominees on ideology and not credentials. Its not really the ideology they are worried about -- if it was, they'd be raising questions about worker's rights, the environment, civil rights, etc. No, they are really only concerned about roe v wade. Its stupid, and its a lost cause. And its a bad cause. I saw kennedy trying this stunt on talk shows. The hypocrasy coming out of his mouth was making even him grimace. The jackass.
If they would step back from roe, they could work on other battles. Ones they've been neglecting. These are the battles we are concerned with...i mean, who the hell can really support abortion? I don't. But, I do support a women's right to chose. That right to chose is not quaranteed by the constitution however. That right to chose is granted by society based on respect for equal rights, but tempered by morality and ethics. Its a tricky situation, and one best left up to communities (states, cities, counties) to determine. I have every reason to believe that in the land of stink and fleas, oregon, we would keep abortion save and legal. Alabama? Not so sure, but I respect the ability/right of alabama to work that out for themselves...they will have to live with the consequences of their decision though...
So let's cut the posturing on roe, democrats. Wise up. Its a crappy hand, its a crappy law, and its allowing the status quo republicans to manipulate politics to the advantage of their corporate donors to the simultaneous detriment of working class families everywhere.
Chief: I disagree about every issue being important. I really think that the democratic message (whatever that is- I should say, potential message) is stronger than the republican in terms of appeal to a nation of fair minded people. But only once you take ROE out. Get rid of roe, and the republican message loses its mass appeal. All the republicans have then is: cut rich folk's taxes, pave the forests, make war on everyone, subvert public education, attack science, outsource jobs, appoint cronies, shirk responsibility, encourage consumerism (some hyperbole added). Not exactly a strong hand in a democracy peopled primarily by middle class and working class folks, eh?
Last edited: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 at 10:20:54 AM
Thanks for defending me chief, but what kill is really trying to say is that I'm a jackass. And he's right. I am a jackass! Yeeehaw!!!!
You're not a jackass at all. However, you and Colin Powell have something in common.
I guess it's kind of obvious why G.W. Is grinning.
Like a midget at a urinal, I was going to have to be on my toes.
Invite a retard to a picnic and you'd better expect to get drool in the potato salad.
Last edited: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 at 10:28:02 AM
That's a great picture!...maybe that's why colon left. He didn't see the fine print -- the job was for secretary of state/presidential proctologist...
Here we see colon living up to his name. The sniff test doesn't seem scientific, but that doens't seem to worry the pres... What do you expect from a adherent of Intelligent Design?
Well guess where W's hand is.
Actually I was just looking for a reason to post that gif.
More later tonight; wages, health, ect. Be safe boys...
{WalMart free for over 24 months!}
@Stink, didn't mean to direct it at you. I rushed this post 2 min before work. Sorry. :)
@ stink, there is a big differense between turned off and what I said, "peeps are gettin fed up!" Pissed off!! Good posts all around. I did think you were spinning and maybe I should read all the posts before making my own, Makes me look stupid.. %)
@Chief- I knew I'd get called on the label (non) issues - I see them as issues that aren't going to be resolved, and that for practical purposes have no solution that we can work on. I try to focus on the practical, so to me, they are fairly meaningless.
They're useful in separating people that agree in many ways on other issues, though.
@ LGM
Very true....I figured that's what you meant, just wanted to make the special interst group point.
Great exchange of ideas here y'all. Much food for thought.
@ Stinky
I agree that there are a finite set of issues that each party uses to rally the masses....the biggest being (as you stated) Roe v. Wade...but I also think there are a couple more of equal importance - or at least of equal passion, nat'l defense being the one that immediately comes to mind. Interestingly enough, it appears that gov't fiscal abuse and immigration are emerging in that class as well.
For the record, I also agree with a woman's right to choose...in certain circumstances.
Killbilly, no apologies neccessary and no offense taken. I stray into spin at times. I admit that. Who doesn't. Ah, and I see the difference between what you said and how I interpreted. I agree. Folks is getting sick of this current climate. I think most of us here included.
Chief: I don't know how much difference there really is on nat'l defense issues though. On immigration, I'm a influenced by the sierra club's stance. Which means, I side with most conservatives on this issue. But for different reasons.
Roe v wade: I support a women's right in most circumstances...what those circumstances are though probably need some discussion. I find the sort of abortion on demand reality quite sickening though. Some honest discussion needs to happen here, which ain't gonna happen with polarized camps.
I do support a women's right to chose. That right to chose is not quaranteed by the constitution however. That right to chose is granted by society based on respect for equal rights, but tempered by morality and ethics. Its a tricky situation, and one best left up to communities (states, cities, counties) to determine.
And societies/communities have a good track record of respecting equal rights and privacy? Of appropriate use of morality and ethics? Of separating religion from law?
Take a look at the restrictive criminal abortion laws the majority of states had in place prior to Roe v. Wade...if you'd like cause for pessimism.
I respect the ability/right of alabama to work that out for themselves...they will have to live with the consequences of their decision though...
So too will the unwanted children...and the women deprived equal liberty...and the poor who will choose risky illegal abortions.
The proof of history and consequence of change warrant the fight.
Last edited: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 at 4:45:19 AM
What about abstinance, responsibility, faith. I am totally against abortion. It is the most disgusting procedure one could ever imagine. I went to Catholic schools and we actually saw a movie during highschool showing actual abortions. Needless to say it was very unnerving. :( I need to stop here before I get myself in trouble....
Suicide rate by "doctors" who perform abortions is very high....geee, I wonder why.
That's great KKB. Based on your opinions, I would recommend you and your girlfriend/wife discuss choosing not to have an abortion if an unwanted pregnancy were to occur...and that you work hard to advance greater abstinence, responsibility and faith amongst others. You might also look into helping make birth control more readily available and support adoption efforts in some way. If you have a ton of passion for the issue, try tackling the problems of unwanted children living in poverty. Boys Club volunteer or Big Brother, perhaps. I applaud your opinions and would respect all of the above reactions.
I'm purely situational when it comes to abortion. Harm to the mother, drug addiction by the mother, or any type of crime committed during conception are all valid reasons IMO. Also, I agree that abortion is a valid option if it is discovered that the child has a horrible ailment or brain impairment. That's a fine line at times, I know.
In the case of minors having an abortion I'm waffling a bit. I am leaning towards the idea that, regardless of who you are, if you get knocked up consenually you should not be permitted to have an abortion.
If more parents would put their kids up for adopton my friend, who currently is in the Ukraine adopting, would be back in Chicago going through the process instead of jetting to Europe. Some will say that these kids will be left in crappy foster homes or adopted by abusive people and be left to lead a life of misery. I've only one thing to say about that, join the other tens of millions.
Like a midget at a urinal, I was going to have to be on my toes.
Invite a retard to a picnic and you'd better expect to get drool in the potato salad.
44: shut yer pie hoe
Sometimes, life is suffering.
"The proof of history and consequence of change warrant the fight." yeah? Warrant propping up bad law? One with no constitutional footing? One that alienates a huge segment of society? Don't fink so, you crazy liberal. I dunno, but I would wager that in places like alabama, 3/4s of the population oppose roe. How do you justify a federal law that opposes the will of 70% of a given population? Here in oregon we are fighting to keep our death with dignity law. It reflects the will of oregonians, but goes against the will of the white house. I feel that the feds should respect our right to make these decisions for ourselves. I see the same principle applying with respect to abortion.
And another thing...while you are fighting for a women's right to chose for women in alabama, those women are voting in droves for Bush Co. How long do you think they would support a president that attempts to control what they do with their bodies? Huh? They won't...and there goes conservative control of anything...counties, cities, states...its over. 50% of the population starts to get uppity in the red states...mutiny.
Quit patronizing southern women. Its bad politics
While some white liberal from upstate new york is fighting for southern women's rights, those women are voting against that white liberal's interest. Not a great tactic my friend. Let roe go.
Last edited: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 at 8:37:35 AM
Look at you guys... You're proving my point
If you think about this, what impact do those issues have on most people's day to day lives? Not much. These issues make good arguments. You can get people fighting about them. While they're fighting about them, you can do whatever else you choose to, because people are too worried about these issues to notice what's going on.
These issues distract us from real problems, like crumbling highway systems, underfunded schools, overworked and underpaid people, children in poverty, and unaffordable health care.
I'd rather not argue hot button issues that won't be solved, and do something to effect issues that can be worked with.
Amen. It starts by letting roe go. With it goes any appeal the republican platform has for working class/middle class americans....
Until then, we're not going to be effective in addressing those issues that need attention, because those issues are controlled by republican/corporate interests. Single issue voters keep them in power. Get rid of the single issue: no power. Finally able to work for change.
Let roe go.
turn the issue from shaky constitutional right to state's rights. State politicians can oppose a women's right to self-determination at their own political peril. So many birds killed with one stone...if short sighted liberals can figure this one out and quit fighting battles for southern women....ahem...44...ahem.
Last edited: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 at 8:49:50 AM
Example:
Washington's state legislature passed a gas tax to fund highway repairs and improvements that are much needed. Some people put together an initiative to repeal that tax.
In the meantime, the state suspended work on road projects. They weren't sure if the funding to pay for them would be there until after yesterday's election. We had a big rockslide on one of the key mountian passes east of Seattle this week. It closed I-90 over the Snoqualmie Pass for several days.
The Trans. Dept knew that area was potentially a problem, but put off the work because of funding issues. That slide would have been prevented if the funding hadn't been interrupted. It was very high on the priority list.
If voters weren't so polarized around cultural issues and political philosophy, we would have avoided the problem. We need practical things, not argument about divisive issues.
(But, if you really want to argue about that stuff, have at it!)
Last edited: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 at 8:47:40 AM
LGM: you don't see the connections I'm drawing above?
Sure do. I was writing ^^ while you posted ^^^
You want the issue to be up to states. I can handle that, but the states I've lived in have the same problems with those cultural and philosophical issues. Unfortunately, in my state, politics tend to be very polarized, and not enough gets done.
Also, you're connecting inequality with different laws in different states. That was one reason behind the civil rights movement in the 60s
Last edited: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 at 9:15:14 AM
This issue will go down differently at the state level though. It will not pit the federal government against the will of conservatives en masse. It will pit the majority of washingtonians against the minority that don't support a women's right to chose. No way to make it a national issue. Politics becomes regional, and conservatives lose their national wedge issue.
That is a different outcome all together. One that doesn't play into the persecution game that politicians and religious leaders can play with roe.
In terms of comparing this to the civil rights movement, I don't think that's an apt comparison. This isn't really about equal rights. For one thing, there is no male corollary to having an abortion. So it's not like its an issue of forbidding a segment of society what another segment of society has access to, as it was the case with the civil rights issues of the 60s.
It seems to me to be more of an issue of an individual's right to self-determination. On what precedent one argues for the rights of self-determination...i'm not exactly sure. Ideas?
Last edited: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 at 9:28:49 AM
Roe = sacred cow to democrats.
nothing should be sacred to the skeptically minded...making something sacred means you quit thinking...and leads to what we usually fault republicans for...dogmatism.
And in other news: those dover school board members who were trying to force their religious views into the science curriculum via Intelligent Design...have all BEEN VOTED OUT. A victory for the concept of the separation of church and state. And a victory for progressives.
I won't take the opportunity here to overstate the relevance of the democratic victories in NJ and v'ginny. Or schwartz' failures in caulifloweria. Or however he pronounces it.
@ 44: Glad to see your response. I was in big brothers in high school. Got three little ones of my own right now. BTW, what is an unwanted pregnancy? My first child wasn't "planned" (hate that term) and by God I don't know where my life would be without her. I do believe in birth control as a matter of choice. My biggest form of abstinence is think tanks. (see Mrs. 44 thread) :P
Stink: Rut Roe, no more Roe. I agree.
California is going down the tubes. Can't believe none of those ammendments passed. California is going to see the riots that France has. France has mandatory 8weeks vacation, minimum wage is 10 bucks and hour, and half of all the wages go to taxes. No wonder unemployment is so high in france, it is impossible for businesses to make money there.
So far as the rioting goes I think they are doing us a favor by burning up all those crappy french automobiles, Renault, Le Car s etc etc etc. XD
I'm not going to agree with stink about sacred, but I will agree that the heavy emphasis on those right wing trigger issues has cost them. The whole view of putting business first and hoping that prosperity for all will follow seems to be falling apart. People are fed up with not getting what they feel they deserve while a few line their pockets.
Since the days of Reagan, I've called "trickle down" economics something else. Something like this:
Which also tells you what I think of that idea...
I also believe people are either fed up with or don't care about the abortion issue. Most people have their opinions on this, and few are going to change their minds. Hence, I agree that we should drop it from national decisions. Some want to use that issue to their benefit, though.
@KKB- Don't you hate it when your post goes to the top of a new page? I double post that way sometimes...
And I also don't care for that "unplanned = unwanted" idea. I wasn't planned on. I also know having kids is a great thing that really can help some people get focused on the important.
Last edited: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 at 10:57:23 AM
Yeeeeeeeep, that's right. It ain't over 'til the fat lady has sung...and waffles are served for all.
First up - Social Security.
I bring you the following from an email I rec'd earlier today. Slightly partisan, but I though "What the hey...what's not lately?"
SO:
Subject: Social Security
We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like
a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the
handle.--Winston Churchill
SOCIAL SECURITY:
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the
Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be
completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into
the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to
put into the Program would be deductible from their
income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the
independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the
General operating fund, and therefore, would only be
used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program,
and no other Government program, and,
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees
would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and
are now receiving a Social Security check every
month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed
on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal
government to "put away," you may be interested in
the following:
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from
the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the
General fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the
Democratically-controlled House and Senate.
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
"tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving
annuity payments to immigrants?
MY FAVORITE :
A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic
Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at
age 65, began to receive SSI Social Security
payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments
to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and
violation of the original contract (FICA), the
Democrats turn around and tell you that the
Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens
believe it!
I haven't had a chance to fact check yet - I'm sure someone will. I deleted the "pass this on" part of the email.
Well? Agree? Disagree?