To save America, we need another 9/11 by CrevanReaver

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"These aren't gaffes. They're opinions and comments ..." But they are sooo unsupported and self-contradictory. You must spend a lot of time chasing your opinions around and around - like a puppy with its tail.

"Nicely taken out of context." No, not really. You posted what you posted. Suck it up and move on.

"You mean shackle themselves to the womb to tomb mentality of the LEFT ... Not making up anything as I go along, them's just the facts." No, they're opinions.

"No,it's YOUR party which wants to drag out partisan investigation after investigation, screaming about Impeachment ... And John Conyers thanks you." Ken Starr says thank you to you, as well.

"t's certainly not about any freedoms you've lost, as those would be 'zero'." I'll take "writ of habeus corpus and innocent until proven guilty Ken !"

"While winning in Iraq, that is." Now THAT'S funny. Deranged, off-track, out to lunch - but funny.

"One leaker so far has been identified." Someone within the administration had to leak the information. Who was that ?

"They'd rather hurt Bush and the GOP politically than do what's right for the country and defend it against Islamic zealots." How do you know ? Oh, YOU use Tarot cards.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 7:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

But, Chris, is all, and SignyM ... if I could be as smart as either of you, I'd feel lucky.

Rue, this is strange to read, because I'd feel lucky to seem as bright as either you or Signy...

*would this constitute an intellectual circle-jerk?*

Puny 130 Chrisisall

I think you're all a bunch of dumbasses, sitting around pontificating on your intelligence, going round and round and bickering about Left and Right politics when that shouldn't even factor into it or matter,(stupid) its the actions not the politics that should matter. But then again I get a kick out of reading this shyt if that makes me a dumbass too so be it

I don't claim to be the brightest bulb in the pack but I'm not the dimmest either and I know what I see. The only people I see using terror tactics, running this country to the ground and trying to take away freedoms and destroy civil rights is the current Bush administration..and I could give a damn about their politics.!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 11:18 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

auraptor

Quote:
Why the hell didn't they just GET a FISA directive ? Maybe because they were afraid of leaks, as seems to be case. Seems some would rather sabotage the President's office than see us track down the terrorists..... One leaker so far has been identified. Wanna guess which party he contributed to in '04 ??

Aw hell Auraptor, even the WH wouldn't use such a lame excuse. The "warrantless' program was started in 2001. Back then, the only leaks that were being published were those bits of info leaked by the WH itself. And specifically the FISA judges have NEVER leaked anything. Since the warrants would only be exposed to the FISA court, the WH had no reason to think that the warrants themselves would be compromised, therefore fear of a "leak" is an improbable rationalization for not going thru the FISA court.

So, if you were to come up with a better reason why Bush started a warrantless eavesdropping program (and you're going to have to, since the reason you gave doesn't make any sense) what would that be?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 11:26 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The only people I see using terror tactics, running this country to the ground and trying to take away freedoms and destroy civil rights is the current Bush administration and I could give a damn about their politics.!!

But that IS their politics. Politics just isn't democratic versus republican, its the whole ethos of how to run a country. Now, some administrations choose secrecy because their real reasons for doing what they do wouldn't stand inspection under the plain light of day. And that's their politics.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 11:57 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"These aren't gaffes. They're opinions and comments ..." But they are sooo unsupported and self-contradictory. You must spend a lot of time chasing your opinions around and around - like a puppy with its tail.

No, they're supported, but not contradictory. You just can't deal with them, it seems.

Quote:
"Nicely taken out of context." No, not really. You posted what you posted. Suck it up and move on.

Not when you take words out of context, I won't suck it up and move on. I'll simply remind folks that it's taken out of context.

Quote:
"You mean shackle themselves to the womb to tomb mentality of the LEFT ... Not making up anything as I go along, them's just the facts." No, they're opinions.

Yes. Opinoins based on facts.

Quote:
"No,it's YOUR party which wants to drag out partisan investigation after investigation, screaming about Impeachment ... And John Conyers thanks you." Ken Starr says thank you to you, as well.

That depends on what your definition of "is" is.

Quote:
"t's certainly not about any freedoms you've lost, as those would be 'zero'." I'll take "writ of habeus corpus and innocent until proven guilty Ken !"

Fictional answer. You've lost neither. Next? ( And it's PRESUMED innnocent, in a court of law )

Quote:
"One leaker so far has been identified." Someone within the administration had to leak the information. Who was that ?

Read the papers much ?

Quote:
"They'd rather hurt Bush and the GOP politically than do what's right for the country and defend it against Islamic zealots." How do you know ? Oh, YOU use Tarot cards.

Pretty easy to figure that one out. When they say exactly the same things as Bush says, only they said it when Clinton was in office, then flip flop their views after the war starts, it's clearly political. When making up false claims of having been ' outed ', as the Plames did, shows they were clearly against the war and were trying to harm the Administration, leaking top secret programs which were helping fight the terrorist all on a bogus claim of the people's 'right to know', when revealing that program puts an end to its effectiveness.....no need for Tarot cards here. Just dealing with the facts, again.

"Global warming - it's not a fact, it's just a delusion."

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 12:05 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
auraptor
Quote:
Why the hell didn't they just GET a FISA directive ? Maybe because they were afraid of leaks, as seems to be case. Seems some would rather sabotage the President's office than see us track down the terrorists..... One leaker so far has been identified. Wanna guess which party he contributed to in '04 ??
Aw hell Auraptor, even the WH wouldn't use such a lame excuse. The "warrantless' program was started in 2001. Back then, the only leaks that were being published were those bits of info leaked by the WH itself. And specifically the FISA judges have NEVER leaked anything. Since the warrants would only be exposed to the FISA court, the WH had no reason to think that the warrants themselves would be compromised, therefore fear of a "leak" is an improbable rationalization for not going thru the FISA court.

So, if you were to come up with a better reason why Bush started a warrantless eavesdropping program (and you're going to have to, since the reason you gave doesn't make any sense) what would that be?

No, I don't have to, pressed for time as I am now, but here's the guy they're looking into. If you ever care, that is.

WASHINGTON — FBI agents searched the home of former Justice Department lawyer Thomas Tamm last week in an effort to determine who leaked details of the warrantless eavesdropping program to the news media, Newsweek magazine reported Sunday, citing two anonymous legal sources.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/08/06/fbi_raids_home_in_jus
tice_dept_media_leak/3971/

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 1:26 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Nice post 6ixString...I think the vast majority of people in the Government are good and decent people, same as in the private sector. Because we only really ever hear about the bad apples, so many bad apples sometimes, it seems like everything in the world is corrupt and inept. That's why it's a good idea to keep your sense of humor handy whenever your first instinct is too get agitated....especially 'bout things and/or people you cannot do anything about. All you really can do to change anything is to vote for candidates you believe in, ones who have a track record of achievements that agree with your positions. Political promises, politically expedient flip-floppers, and opponent bashing will never help you or I one iota.

I'm not a saint, and I go out of my way most times to let that be known. I'm not sitting here judging them and throwing stones at them while claiming that I am any better morally then they are. To them and their own, I'm sure most of them are great people. It's all the "little people" they tend to view as nothing more than statistics and votes that get hurt when they pass new laws on a daily basis which serve to restrict personal freedom more every day. Or when they vote themselves pay raises on our dime. Or get their dipshit cousin a job when more intelligent, harder working people are unemployed or underemployed.

But you're right. To be fair, there is a lot of good in people and just because someone chooses to be a servant of the Government, it doesn't make them inherantly evil. I'll just reiterate my point that if we take away the free will of man through technology and the legislation of morality, we're doomed.

I'd love to share your beliefs about the value of voting, but in my mind it is little more than and exercise in impotency. But I think I will be exercising the right to get my boy Ron Paul in. He's the only politician I've ever constantly agreed with on almost everything aside from issues which I view as insignificant in light of current events such as his stance on abortion. Fix the country first, then we'll figure out if we should allow that or not...

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 2:22 AM

Well folks, my head hurts. It's that spot that keeps tapping the wall during certain discussions.

Rap: I don't know how you can look at the patriot act, the drop of need for judicial oversight for wire taps, and any other number of items put in place in the last six years and not even express the least understanding of why folks feel their freedoms are being curtailed. Ok, we don't agree. I just hope you'll understand that at some point, those folks who feel their freedoms are being curtailed will push back, and may push back so much harder than you anticipate.

I truly don't care if it is an 'extension' of what started during the Clinton years. Really, truly. If it makes you happy, I'd rather find a third party that is free of the historical bagage of both parties; but one thing is clear to me... you won't be in that third party either. You seem to think what the Republicans are doing is right, which scares the crud out of me.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 3:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
While winning in Iraq, that is.

This one statement alone should point out to all here that discussion is all but useless with ya, AU. Care to support this statement at ALL? Do you define winning by just taking out Saddam? The fact that our peeps over there are fatigued matter? That we've been there this many years already? That the violence hasn't slowed? How the f**k do you see a win over there?
Please, don't make it THIS easy to call you on acting like an idiot...

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 3:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:

I think you're all a bunch of dumbasses

often guilty as charged, Jenny.

Quote:
its the actions not the politics that should matter.

Absolutely correct.
AU has a point concerning the elite left and their superiority complex and political shenanigans; both sides play their games.

Thanks for the reality-check.

Dumbass Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 4:24 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Auraptor, I figured it was Mr. Tamm that you were referring to. But... what does he have to do with getting FISA warrants? The DOJ (Tamm) and the FISC (warrants) aren't even in the same Branch of government! That's like saying I can't tell Sally because Jesse might tell

Apparently you can't tell the difference. And you're saying Bush can't either. What you're saying that Bush is so paranoid that he can't work with a small group of FISA judges and lawyers who have security clearance because they MIGHT tell somebody something some day even tho there is no evidence that might happen! And he can't work with the CIA or the FBI or the DOJ. And he won't testify before Congress (unless he's holding Dick's hand and it's not under oath) and claims Executive privilege on everything. Can't tell anyone, can't trust anyone... This goes way way beyond reasonable caution into pretty paranoid-sounding stuff.

You know it almost sounds like he has something to HIDE, doesn' it? But he wouldn't have anything to HIDE, would he?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 8:28 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Well folks, my head hurts. It's that spot that keeps tapping the wall during certain discussions.

Rap: I don't know how you can look at the patriot act, the drop of need for judicial oversight for wire taps, and any other number of items put in place in the last six years and not even express the least understanding of why folks feel their freedoms are being curtailed.

How? Because I know these things can't be inacted at the drop of a hat. The 'wireless wiretap' has to be with one end of the line outside the country, and with a known terrorist subject. The removal of the Gorelick wall , which kept different agencies from communicating with each other on info they had on terrorsts. Stuff like that is how.

Quote:
Ok, we don't agree. I just hope you'll understand that at some point, those folks who feel their freedoms are being curtailed will push back, and may push back so much harder than you anticipate.
I don't mind the pushin', if you're talking about voting for folks you think will change what you think needs changing. But its the unrelenting vitriol and vilification of those who don't see the P.A. being a problem ( yet ) that I'm fed up with.

Quote:
I truly don't care if it is an 'extension' of what started during the Clinton years. Really, truly. If it makes you happy, I'd rather find a third party that is free of the historical bagage of both parties; but one thing is clear to me... you won't be in that third party either. You seem to think what the Republicans are doing is right, which scares the crud out of me.
It depends on the party. I'll agree, that the current batch of GOPers have lost their way. I see myself as an American first, and a conservative Libertarian politically, more so than a Republican. FYI - I voted for Harry Browne in the 2000 election.

Chris, to answer your question:

Quote:
THE IRAQ SURGE:
WHY IT'S WORKING ...
By GORDON CUCULLU

March 20, 2007 -- 'I WALKED down the streets of Ramadi a few days ago, in a soft cap eating an ice cream with the mayor on one side of me and the police chief on the other, having a conversation." This simple act, Gen. David Petraeus told me, would have been "unthinkable" just a few months ago. "And nobody shot at us," he added.

And this....

WASHINGTON — Rep. Keith Ellison, Congress' only Muslim, made a weekend trip to Iraq, where a pair of sheiks urged him to help counter Al Qaeda's vision of Islam.

Ellison, D-Minn., said he met in Ramadi with the two sheiks, who oversee several hundred thousand congregants.

"They were very upset and concerned that Al Qaeda is misrepresenting Islam," Ellison told reporters Monday during a conference call from Germany on his way back to the U.S. "And they were talking to me about what I can possibly do to work with them to give a clearer, more accurate picture of what Islam is all about."

Ellison, a vocal critic of the Iraq war, was part of a delegation of six freshman House members, three Democrats and three Republicans, who visited Baghdad and Ramadi.

Leading the delegation was Rep. Jerry McNerney, D-Calif., who said he saw signs of progress in Ramadi in Anbar province and was impressed by Gen. David Petraeus, President Bush's top military commander in Iraq, who argued in favor of giving Bush's troop surge strategy time to work. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291417,00.html

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 8:40 AM

America loves a winner!

Sig.... I was referring to Thomas Tamm as an examle of those who are attempting to sabotage the Administration by leaking vital secret information , as well as those papers which chose to ran the story, even when specifically asked not to. If Bush were 1/2 the totalitarian king so many accuse him of being, he'd have forbidden the news papers from running those stories, and thrown the editors in jail for disobeying the President. W would have to act like Hugo Chavez, who so many on the Left seem to be in love with, in order to deserve being called the names he's been called.

Hell yes we've got something to hide. We're trying to hide our next move so the terrorist don't find out about it unitl after we've arrived at their front door, or dropped the next Daisy Cutter on their shack.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 8:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Chris, to answer your question:

THE IRAQ SURGE:
WHY IT'S WORKING ...
By GORDON CUCULLU

March 20, 2007 -- 'I WALKED down the streets of Ramadi a few days ago, in a soft cap eating an ice cream with the mayor on one side of me and the police chief on the other, having a conversation." This simple act, Gen. David Petraeus told me, would have been "unthinkable" just a few months ago. "And nobody shot at us," he added.

AU, thanks for showing me where you came to your evaluation on that. Still, I see other reports that don't make it seem so rosey...

Cautious Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 8:49 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Oh, F*X News. Well, then, it must be true.

Or not.

And the person who wrote the opinion piece - Gordon Cucullu - http://www.colonelgordon.com/ Conservative Speaker Gordon Cucullu - he wouldn't be biased at all, I take it.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 9:05 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Sig.... I was referring to Thomas Tamm as an examle of those who are attempting to sabotage the Administration by leaking vital secret information

Yes I figure it was Tamm you were referring to and I understand that some people leak info for political purposes (and that comment cuts nicely both ways) but what does that have to do with not getting FISA warrants? I know I keep asking the same question over and over, but I keep asking about FISA warrants and you keep pointing to everything BUT!

The FISC has never leaked warrant info. It's a very small court, with limited staff and top security clearance which has already issued 10,000- 15,000 warrants and refused less than a dozen. And if Bush can't trust THIS court, then he has one of two problems:

He's so paranoid that he should be on antipsychotics, or...

He wants to do something illegal (like spy on political opponents or look for leakers in his own administration or go on thousand-person fishing expeditions or simply intimidate the press) that he knew it wouldn't stand muster, even in the very generous FISA court.

In fact, it would be interesting to see how many times Bush (or his staff) went to the FISA court to get a warrant. Because common sense says if there was a big jump in attempted FISA warrants after 9-11 that would evidence a good-faith effort by the Administration to abide by FISA whenever possible. But if post 9-11 showed little increase in FISA warrants that would indicate a purposeful avoidance of the court.

---------------------------------
When will you stop trying to pound a square peg into a round hole?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 9:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

And the person who wrote the opinion piece - Gordon Cucullu - http://www.colonelgordon.com/ Conservative Speaker Gordon Cucullu - he wouldn't be biased at all, I take it.

Well, he said no one shot at them...not that he had a boatload of guys w/guns there to make sure the photo op wasn't spoiled or anything....

That's why cautious Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 9:50 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

There were two items posted together.
The first was from March 20, 2007, about how safe Ramadi has become. It's been my experience that when something drops off the news - it's not going so well. How much are you hearing about Ramadi ? Or Fallujah come to think of it, or Tikrit. Now, if I were to search under "northern iraq" or another, broader delimiter for the area, I'd probably find a lot more.

This is what I got from the first two links on a google of ramadi attack 2007

Thursday, March 1, 2007; Page A13
BAGHDAD, Feb. 28 -- A community leader in the western Iraqi city of Ramadi provided additional information Wednesday about a deadly car bombing earlier this week that U.S. officials said did not occur.

Suicide car bombers leave 20 dead in Ramadi
Attacks occur in area where U.S. making inroads against insurgents
Karin Brulliard, Washington Post
Tuesday, May 8, 2007

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 9:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

Suicide car bombers leave 20 dead in Ramadi

THAT'S AN ISOLATED INCIDENT! You make it sound like a war zone, which it is NOT! I deal in FACTS, not leftist nonsense.

"People don't like when you shoot their kids, I worked that out myself."

AURaptorisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 4:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I'll agree, that the current batch of GOPers have lost their way.

Ok, you've managed to surprise me with that comment. What example would you provide that the 'current batch of GOPers have lost their way'?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 16, 2007 4:18 PM

Sorry to be a nudge; but I was really hoping for a reply to that one /\.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 16, 2007 4:33 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I'll agree, that the current batch of GOPers have lost their way.
Ok, you've managed to surprise me with that comment. What example would you provide that the 'current batch of GOPers have lost their way'?

Nudge away. Real world tends to keep me from replying here.

Where to begin....

'Comprehensive' Immigration? Harriet Myers ? Excessive spending ? Extended stay for Donald Rumsfeld ? Not vetoing McCain/Fiengold ? Failure to adopt the FAIR tax plan as Platform dogma ? Perscription Drug Program? Gonzalez for USSC consideration? Dubai Ports deal ? Indifference to various National Security leaks ?

Some may note that I don't include 'Katrina'/New Orleans in this list. I honestly believe that, while the Fed Gov't showed it's usual ineptness to deal w/ something this large, the state/ local Govt's also bare the brunt of the blame. This diaster was decades in the making, and anyone who blames the Bush administration for the hardships resulting after Katrina is a complete and total moron.

Not a complete list, but it gives most of the highlights.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 16, 2007 4:37 PM

Double post

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 16, 2007 4:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
The only people I see using terror tactics, running this country to the ground and trying to take away freedoms and destroy civil rights is the current Bush administration and I could give a damn about their politics.!!
But that IS their politics. Politics just isn't democratic versus republican, its the whole ethos of how to run a country. Now, some administrations choose secrecy because their real reasons for doing what they do wouldn't stand inspection under the plain light of day. And that's their politics.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

I'm not saying that isn't their poltics what I'm saying is I don't give a damn about their poltics. ( and seriously lets be honest do you really think there is that much diffrence between the Democrates and Republicans in office) I'm not talking about the people, I'm talking about the politicans. and I'm not dumb Signym I know damn well that politcal ideology is how governments are ran, but ummm thanks for pointing that out, thats not what I was talking about.
I am so over Right, Left nonesense that has divided this country and have gotten people so stupid bickering with eachother that they can't concentrate on whats going on; we are being played, and I'm wondering what is it going to take for us to realize that!! It just seems rather petty to me at this point.I'm looking at what they do, their actions, thats the only thing that concerns me. There seems to be alot of hemming and hawwing over Left and Right on this board and its a bunch of BS. It has a way of just dronning on and on without much being acomplished I'm not saying that is what your doing, because I do see you and others trying to sometimes stick to the issues at hand but you do get caught up in the cycle too. I'm just at the point where if you can't get pass the left right stuff then whats the point.

I just really wonder sometimes, because people seem to identify with a party and defend it over the actions of the people in that party, I personally think its sad, and speaks volumes about where we are headed as a nation. Which kind of brings us back around to the orginal topic of this thread, about needing something to unite us. We do but on our terms not on theirs and we just keep continuing to play their game and its a game we can't win becuse it rigged. We all need to wake the hell up and soon. I don't know if there is any hope for people like Aupraptor, or maybe it has less to do with hope..and more to do with honesty.. (There are people who are totally on board with what the Bush administration is doing and they like it but are just to cowardly to be upfront and honest about it. Thus they try to find ways to defend it instead of just coming out with their true feelings) because I think Auprator is not being honest he's not willing to let it all hang out and in the process has got you guys going round in circles because of it. I think many liberal minded people are under the assumption that some people just don't have all the facts and need to made aware or they are naive. When really its that some of these people like whats happening or either don't care and if thats the case whats the point. But having said that there still has got to be a better way then the nonesense that I see on the board

Its like when someone brings up something that Bush has done or the Bush adminatration and then someone counters that with something Clinton has done,its ridiculous, instead staying focused on the issues it starts getting to be this tit for tat nonesense that just gets stupid. I don't care what someone's poltics are I don't care if they are Democrate or Republican..( of course I realize not everyone can be like me and thats fine)I look at their deeds I'd no more defend a Liberal then a conservative if they are wrong; but thats not what I see alot of times on this boar. I'm not saying your doing that because your not, but the constant arguing over it just seems rather pointless to me.!! thats all I'm saying. I guess I'm just curious why some of you guys bother

P.J

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 16, 2007 6:14 PM

ANTIMASON

...i agree...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 16, 2007 6:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I'll agree, that the current batch of GOPers have lost their way.
Ok, you've managed to surprise me with that comment. What example would you provide that the 'current batch of GOPers have lost their way'?

Nudge away. Real world tends to keep me from replying here.

Where to begin....

'Comprehensive' Immigration? Harriet Myers ? Excessive spending ? Extended stay for Donald Rumsfeld ? Not vetoing McCain/Fiengold ? Failure to adopt the FAIR tax plan as Platform dogma ? Perscription Drug Program? Gonzalez for USSC consideration? Dubai Ports deal ? Indifference to various National Security leaks ?

Some may note that I don't include 'Katrina'/New Orleans in this list. I honestly believe that, while the Fed Gov't showed it's usual ineptness to deal w/ something this large, the state/ local Govt's also bare the brunt of the blame. This diaster was decades in the making, and anyone who blames the Bush administration for the hardships resulting after Katrina is a complete and total moron.

Not a complete list, but it gives most of the highlights.

Thanks for the response. NP on not catching it the first time, with all the threads it's easy to drop the occasional item. I suspect on some of these items we are in concurrence.

Re: McCain Fiengold, why did you think it should have been vetoed?

And personally, as you've granted the Fed showed its usual ineptness, I won't make a cow. There was plenty of blame to go around on that one.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 16, 2007 7:40 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
I guess I'm just curious why some of you guys bother

Because as long as some folk go around hiding absolute insanity behind a mask of reason and logic (which, when picked apart, amounts to lies, doubletalk and newspeak) then there are people who might believe it.

I claw that mask off, and let folks see the hate, fear, intolerance and outright insanity of the folk coming up with these policies and bright ideas, as well as adding some historical education so folks can realize we done much of this stuff before, and where and how did it end up ?

And being a downright Anarchist, I don't have a side, and am completely annoyed as well at folk taking a party line and holding it in spite of blatantly obvious realities - even when the party in question betrays everything they pretend to believe in, it's madness.

Funny how the right screams womb-to-tomb at the left while proposing womb-to-tomb surveillence, innit ?

To paraphrase Treebeard.
"Side ?... I am not on anyones side, because no one is on my side..."

I want my damn country back, I want the freedoms guaranteed in the US Constitution, the so-called law of the land that both parties have been treating as toilet paper for the last 209 years, since the FIRST set of Tory->Federalist->Whig->Republicans tried to set up the FIRST "Patriot Act" back in 1789 with the Alien and Sedition Act.

I bag on the Repugs harder because in almost 230 years, they've done the most damage, and their agenda to reduce us back to a Feudal system with them as the Lords and us as the Peons has not been in doubt for much of that time - the Dimmocrats on the other hand, want us babysit by an all-powerful state "for our own good" which is almost as asinine, but they're fairly incompetent and disorganized, not to mention gutless, and I do not see them as a significant threat for that reason.

I strike where the threat is, and I don't feel threatened in any way by those Dimmocrat pansies, but these Rethugs are a clear and imminent danger to folk like me, and thus, are gonna take the brunt of my wrath - humankind is like that, something that makes us fear, that is a threat to us, we attack with all our might in the hopes of destroying it's ability to harm us.

And I think, in that, you can sum up a LOT of why folks are specifically attacking that political party - it's not a party/party issue cause the folks laying into them cross at least five political spectrums that I am aware of, it's simply that they are perceived as a threat to ANYONE not drinking their kool-aid and cheering them on, so this isn't a right-left fight, much as the righties would have people believe by throwing that strawman under the bus every chance they get.

This is the right-vs-the entire goddamn planet, is what it is, because almost everyone BUT them thinks they are formenting and desiring a third world war ending in a nuclear apocalypse, and no sane person wants that.

On a lesser scale, the agenda is disgustingly clear, they wish to reduce to population to more or less peon slave labor (and were mostly there already via debt slavery which qualifies in my eyes as indentured servitude to a bank!) and elevate themselves and their corporate buddies to lordship - and none of us would-be-peasants is too damned fond of the idea.

So it's not really right-left, it's people who percieve a threat at their freedom and personhood FROM the right, attacking it in hopes of breaking it's ability to do harm to them.

The idea that this is at all a party line issue is being fostered by those lunatic righties, in the hopes of dissuading folk from attacking them by smearing them with the word "liberal" (and if this word continues to be used as a smear here, you're gonna see words thrown back that'll make a prison gaurd blush, I swear it.) and falsely aligning them with "the left" and then trying to dismiss them with the assumption that they're just attacking them for political reasons, which is anything but the case.

To some degree, they sold you that jalopy, and you bought it, Jenny - sell it back and look close, it's everyone who feels threatened by them, and not a party issue at all.

It never was.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 16, 2007 9:49 PM

Quote:
To some degree, they sold you that jalopy, and you bought it, Jenny - sell it back and look close, it's everyone who feels threatened by them, and not a party issue at all.

No honestly I haven't bought what they are selling which is why I posted my thoughts. Its the insaneness of it all. When they start in with that left right crap I just wish someone would shut them down, because its not even about that!!

But instead of going round in circles I wanted someone to point out just how insane it is and I'll just say thank you now Frem because you did it.

I'm very in your face and I don't have the patience or tact that many of you do which is why I don't post as much. It drives me batshyt crazy literally to read some of these threads and see the insane crap that is posted..and nobody calling it what it is... crazy.

Thats also why I posted about the left- right crap,at this stage in the game, it should be pretty obvious to everyone that we are well beyond that. Its not a right left issue anymore if it ever was, frankly I thought you guys were the ones who had bought the crap they've been selling, but I'm happy to see this isn't the case and that I was wrong about that.

I didn't want to sound condesending, but I was wondering why do you guys even bother with the Auraptors and that ilk, when obviously they support what the Bush administration is doing, not because they don't know..but because this is the stuff they like and support. They pretend they want to discuss and issue, but they really don't. and so in order to discuss anything with them you guys have to pretend that they really want to discuss something. I'm reading these threads and I'm thinking Stop the madness, lets stop pretending...this is the crap they like and support and lets take it from there; trying to have a discussion with them seems insane, because it is insane.

I guess I didn't understand what you guys were trying to accomplish by going round and round with them. But I see now that your not doing this for them..I now have a deeper appreication and understanding of why many of you do what you do on this board.

As far as politcal parties are concerned, I don't even think in terms of politcal parties I'm way beyond that. I'm a liberal and a feminist, but I have no use for politcal parties at least not our two major parties

Quote:
I bag on the Repugs harder because in almost 230 years, they've done the most damage, and their agenda to reduce us back to a Feudal system with them as the Lords and us as the Peons has not been in doubt for much of that time - the Dimmocrats on the other hand, want us babysit by an all-powerful state "for our own good" which is almost as asinine, but they're fairly incompetent and disorganized, not to mention gutless, and I do not see them as a significant threat for that reason.

I strike where the threat is, and I don't feel threatened in any way by those Dimmocrat pansies, but these Rethugs are a clear and imminent danger to folk like me, and thus, are gonna take the brunt of my wrath - humankind is like that, something that makes us fear, that is a threat to us, we attack with all our might in the hopes of destroying it's ability to harm us.
...

I agree, and I have no intention of becoming anyones slave in any way, shape, or form, i'll fight it the only way I really know how and that is not to fear them, and stand up for what I believe I don't fear the Bush administration or anyone of these cowards on this board and if my only choice in this world is to die I'd do it happily,I'd take that choice over giving into them with fear any time or any day.

Reality in this country has been twisted its like were living in the matrix. The crap thats presented to us isn't what it appears to be, and this if the peception that we are working from. If we are seeking the truth from the basis of a twisted reality or a lie what kind of outcome will be the result.

shove me into shallow water before I get to deep

Anywho its good to see that you haven't lost your fire and will call some of these fools on their crap amen for that

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 16, 2007 9:49 PM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 16, 2007 11:58 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Pirate- check your PMs.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 17, 2007 12:48 AM

America loves a winner!

I think McCain/Fiengold should have been vetoed because it's unconstitutional. Not only does it limit free speech, it limits political free speech, which is the main reason FOR free speech in the first place. W balked at vetoing the M/F bill because he thought the courts would do his dirty work for him and find it illegal. They should have, but because W failed to uphold his duty to defend the constitution, he bears much of the blame.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 17, 2007 1:08 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Auraptor, I make the distinction between free speech and "bought and paid for" speech. In the first case, it should be given every possible consideration. In the second case, IMHO it's nothing more than advertising and should be treated as such. What say you?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 17, 2007 1:39 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Auraptor, I make the distinction between free speech and "bought and paid for" speech. In the first case, it should be given every possible consideration. In the second case, IMHO it's nothing more than advertising and should be treated as such. What say you?

The Gov't has no place in telling us what to say, nor when. Free speech is free speech.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 17, 2007 1:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I think McCain/Fiengold should have been vetoed because it's unconstitutional. Not only does it limit free speech, it limits political free speech, which is the main reason FOR free speech in the first place. W balked at vetoing the M/F bill because he thought the courts would do his dirty work for him and find it illegal. They should have, but because W failed to uphold his duty to defend the constitution, he bears much of the blame.

I have to admit, Sig's comments in mind also, that I have mixed feelings on the matter. Money is not speech, it is money. If I want to write an op ed piece that says "Vote for Joe because he's cool", that is speech. If I can get it on the air, by hook or crook, it is still speech. If the one of the parties gives George Billionare a 'suggestion' for something to publish in a paper, and he chooses to 'say it', blocking -that- would be unconstitutional, and I do believe M/F does block that as well.
We need some way to change our system so elections are not bought and paid for, where those who paid for it are given preferential treatment. I am at a grave loss as to how we get there, respect the ability of folks to voice their views, and respect the constitution.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 17, 2007 1:48 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Auraptor- the government is NOT telling anyone "what" to say or not say. The CONTENT of their speech is unrestricted. What MF does is affect the distribution of that content.

Sloppy, sloppy thinking!!!! That's always been your problem!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 17, 2007 2:04 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Auraptor- the government is NOT telling anyone "what" to say or not say. The CONTENT of their speech is unrestricted. What MF does is affect the distribution of that content.

Sloppy, sloppy thinking!!!! That's always been your problem!

You're wrong. It DENIES our right to speak freely.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 17, 2007 2:15 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

How?

BTW- here's a question you never answered: What does Mr Tamm have to do with not getting FISA warrants?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 17, 2007 2:31 AM

How about acknowledge that Rap doesn't like M/F and ask if he has a better idea on how to eliminate 'politician bought and paid for', or perhaps he doesn't have a problem with that either?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 17, 2007 2:42 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Okay, I acknowledge that Rap doesn't like M/F. So Rap- do you have any alternatives?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 17, 2007 2:49 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
How?

BTW- here's a question you never answered: What does Mr Tamm have to do with not getting FISA warrants?

I can't answer that question as it's presented, as it's a non sequitur.

As for M/F, it keeps radio talk shows from even discussing candidates ( however many days ) before an election. I think it's 60 ? Might be 90 even...

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 17, 2007 3:30 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Ah, I see, It was an interpretation of the bill that radio hosts, being employed by corporations, could not express an opinion since that would represent an contribution. Apparently this might be extended to the blogosphere as well. Hmmm... Needs some consideration.

And yes, the question was a non-sequitur, but you never answered it.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 17, 2007 3:40 AM

Yeh, that's the sort of thing that has made me uneasy about it as well.

Still... any ideas on how -else- to reduce/minimize/block 'politicians bought and paid for'?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 17, 2007 5:14 AM

FREMDFIRMA

One channel, nationwide, 24-7.

Let em hash it out there, debate, discuss the issues, their platforms, what they wanna accomplish, etc.
When no major candidates are running, run local ones, and give everyone an equal share of time.

Problem solved.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 17, 2007 6:27 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Maybe this idea is dumb, maybe not.............

ALL American citizens of qualified age, if they desire, should be able to log on to a website and enter their Presidential qualifications...ie. work experience, military experience, etc etc. Then a supercomputer collates all the data and spits out the top 10 qualified Americans for the job...no political Party involved, no Lib/Con label...just the best and most qualified civilians to do the job. Then they all go on stage for a few debates and America can vote...the winner becomes The President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 17, 2007 6:46 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I like Frem's idea better, b/c the person who write the computer program determines the choices. And in these days of being able to record TV shows, you can always watch the candidates, no matter when they're aired.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 17, 2007 10:58 AM

Have webcasting available for this channel.

While I don't know that this would solve 100% of the problem (for instance; who determines who can run? Must they run footage from any US Citizen over the age of 35 who was from birth a Citizen, etc?), but certainly it would resolve some of it. Would we attempt to restrict -all other- advertising, or simply let 'em do whatever they want in other media and just not worry about it?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 17, 2007 11:41 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I've been thinking about that ...

Perhaps it would be up to the parties to determine who runs. (That's a whole can of worms in itself, which I'm still thinking about.) But for a party to be a valid party, it has to represent more than a certain fraction of the represented population. (It unfortunately acts as a barrier to entry. Perhaps the station should also be attached to a website where people interested in running but not able to make the percentage can put their positions out there and generate interest.)

You know, with mega-corp, inc now owning the media - and I mean ALL the media - everything you see, hear, and to some extent read has been reduced to government press releases (another name for that is propaganda), infotainment, commercials and heavily funded yap. In fact, the other stuff - the news, the shows - are actually commercials to draw you to watch - the commercials.

I really don' think we need bought and paid for free speech. So - no to political ads.

As SignyM pointed out a while ago, the other thing that's GOT to go is corporate person-hood. Because there's REALLY no reason for corporations to have political rights. Maybe we need to lean on Congress to pass a law against it.

Oh, and I'd make it a genuine TV station. While (as I remember) 75% of Americans are on-line, it's heavily skewed against minorities. And something like 98% of people have a TV. So TV is better b/c it reaches a wider and more representative audience.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 17, 2007 12:52 PM