Just for balance, I've introduced my son to Right-Wing Sci-Fi... by chrisisall

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Just for balance, I've introduced my son to Right-Wing Sci-Fi...

POSTED BY: CHRISISALL
UPDATED: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 15:08
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 5889
PAGE 2 of 2

Monday, October 27, 2008 7:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
If we followed the Constitution...there wouldn't be issues with their "rights"....

What- that goddamned piece of paper that keeps getting waved in the President's face???

Chrisisall

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

Monday, October 27, 2008 7:27 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Yeah......

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

Monday, October 27, 2008 11:50 AM

SWISH

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Yeah, but upon examination, I find that Finn is just reacting as strongly right as some of us do left...common sense & human decency is never on the edge IMO.

Yeah-yeah. But he's wrong! /self-depracting irony.

I will point out that I was speaking of the direction of the Republican Party as a whole, and not any individual Republican. Well, except for W and Cheney. And Rove. And McCain and Palin. And losers like Bill Orally and Ann whoeversheis. Basically, those who've been guiding the Party - setting a direction they believe will appeal to the most Republican voters, right? Hmm....

Anyhow, I did point out from the beginning that I know lovely Republicans. It's true, I do! But I don't find the general aims of the party involve the protection of individual rights, and I stated the reasons why. Not hearing any factual arguments here to make me change my mind...

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

Monday, October 27, 2008 12:23 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
condemning an entire region of people based on the actions of a few.
We're all doing that here, Finn.

We all have our particular sides in the matter, but not all of us are willing to make gross negative generalizations of an entire group of people. Now if you want to accuse me of taking a side in this matter – that’s true, I am, but the side I’m taking is one which condemns bigotry. For swish to condemn the South as white supremacist is a bigoted remark, and that swish’s side in the matter, but it’s not a point of view that I want to entertain with discussion.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

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

Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:06 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by swish:
And McCain and Palin.

Honestly, I don't have that big of a problem with McCain- I disagree with some of his stuff, but the guy means well, it wasn't until Palin hopped on board that I had my serious doubts about him...but he did just pick her 'cause of the beauty queen/religious right factor, still, it's troubling that she's such a nimrod...

If McPalin wins, I'm sure we'll muddle through, though, *sigh*

Chrisisall

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

Tuesday, October 28, 2008 10:54 AM

SWISH

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
We all have our particular sides in the matter, but not all of us are willing to make gross negative generalizations of an entire group of people.

Hmm... kinda like the message that liberals aren't real Americans, which no one on this board has ever even remotely suggested, right?

Whatever. I'm not going to spell out my meaning for you again. Clearly, you're bent on being offended so you can avoid the real discussion. Which was: the Republican Party's battle to defend rights like a woman's ownership of her own body, the right to marry whoever you happen to love, privacy in personal communications, worker's rights, and the little bitty one - habeus corpus. And yes - race relations. (Scary scary Muslims shouldn't ever hold office in the US cause they're all terrists! Evil welfare black people are taking all my money! Commie Chinese are gonna take over the world! Mexicans are destroying the fabric of the US!)

Do you have anything to say about that? At all?

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

Tuesday, October 28, 2008 10:57 AM

SWISH

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Honestly, I don't have that big of a problem with McCain- I disagree with some of his stuff, but the guy means well, it wasn't until Palin hopped on board that I had my serious doubts about him...but he did just pick her 'cause of the beauty queen/religious right factor, still, it's troubling that she's such a nimrod...

Yeah, I didn't mind him at all. Once. I recall at one time (sooo long ago it seems!) telling friends I felt pretty good about the election to come, that McCain, Clinton, and Obama would each be all right.

But then I saw McCain in action, running this campaign. I think he's a bit broken in the brain. Seriously.

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

Tuesday, October 28, 2008 11:12 AM

KHYRON

Quote:
Originally posted by swish:
I recall at one time (sooo long ago it seems!) telling friends I felt pretty good about the election to come, that McCain, Clinton, and Obama would each be all right.

But then I saw McCain in action, running this campaign. I think he's a bit broken in the brain. Seriously.

Same here. And I could say the same thing about Clinton, too. I was an Obama supporter from the start, but I didn't have anything against Clinton initially - until I saw what a disgrace her campaign was and I thought "If the wheels come off already just because there's some unexpected competition in the primaries, she'd make a horrible president".

------------------------------

McCain/Palin: The first presidential ticket that features two candidates who have both been found to have violated ethics standards.

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

Tuesday, October 28, 2008 1:49 PM

SWISH

Kind of makes me wonder about all this experience chatter. How long someone's been doing something matters less than how they good they are at it.

McCain sucks at running a campaign - whatever he's been doing the past thirty years doesn't change that fact. Palin sucks at thinking. A year and a half as a governor did her no good in that department. That's the bottom line for me. I'm sick of having an idiot in charge.

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

Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:42 PM

ODESSA762

Quote:
Originally posted by swish:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
We all have our particular sides in the matter, but not all of us are willing to make gross negative generalizations of an entire group of people.
Hmm... kinda like the message that liberals aren't real Americans, which no one on this board has ever even remotely suggested, right?

Whatever. I'm not going to spell out my meaning for you again. Clearly, you're bent on being offended so you can avoid the real discussion. Which was: the Republican Party's battle to defend rights like a woman's ownership of her own body, the right to marry whoever you happen to love, privacy in personal communications, worker's rights, and the little bitty one - habeus corpus. And yes - race relations. (Scary scary Muslims shouldn't ever hold office in the US cause they're all terrists! Evil welfare black people are taking all my money! Commie Chinese are gonna take over the world! Mexicans are destroying the fabric of the US!)

Do you have anything to say about that? At all?

I'm not sure I want to get into this with you, after all, you can't even spell "Habeas Corpus" correctly...but since I am a Conservative, I was able to figure out what you were talking about

hehehe.

You have implied that habeas corpus has been violated by the current administration in some way. Can you cite one example?

Can you cite one example where an individuals' right to privacy with regard to telephone calls has been violated?

I am a 'Blue Collar' worker. My rights have not been violated. Can you give me an example where 'workers rights' have been violated by the current Republican administration?

Also, you say Republicans are somehow wrong for being pro-life. How is being pro-life NOT in support of individual rights? By being pro-life, the Republicans are defending the life of the most innocent among us - children.

When it comes to civil rights, Republicans led the way. MLK was a Republican, you know

When many southern Democratic political leaders (Gov. Faubus...Dem, Arkansas) were resisting education desegregation, President Eisenhower (R) fought to make the southern Dems comply with the 'Brown' decision.

Governor Wallace was a Democrat. Barnett ( Governor of Mississippi) was as well. The fact of the matter is that the ranks of the anti-integration, anti-civil rights 'counter movement', if you will, is filled with Big Shot Democrats. Republicans ... not many.

As for marriage, like it or not, this is a Christian nation. The religion is the basis for our society and it customs & laws. So that explains the overwhelming public support for the 'One Man + One Woman = Marriage' thing. Since we basically have a 'majority rules' system that is how marriage is defined in America(with a few exceptions). Personally, if two dudes wanna get hitched, be my guest...more chicks for us straight guys! Win!

As for the original topic ... pretty decent show, but I was partial to...

THUNDERBIRDS!

I'm done.

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

Tuesday, October 28, 2008 4:40 PM

SWISH

Quote:
Originally posted by Odessa762:
You have implied that habeas corpus has been violated by the current administration in some way. Can you cite one example?

Military Commissions Act of 2006 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act)

"The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that the MCA constituted an unconstitutional encroachment of Habeas Corpus rights, and established jurisdiction for federal courts to hear petitions for habeas corpus from Guantanamo detainees tried under the Act."

Quote:
Can you cite one example where an individuals' right to privacy with regard to telephone calls has been violated?

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5987804&page=1

"Despite pledges by President George W. Bush and American intelligence officials to the contrary, hundreds of US citizens overseas have been eavesdropped on as they called friends and family back home, according to two former military intercept operators who worked at the giant National Security Agency (NSA) center in Fort Gordon, Georgia."

Quote:
I am a 'Blue Collar' worker. My rights have not been violated. Can you give me an example where 'workers rights' have been violated by the current Republican administration?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-tasini/republicans-admit-labor-
_b_42366.html

"But, the passage in the story, which is stuck near the end (which, I guess argues that you should always read from the back to the front) that is truly revealing is this:

"A problem that especially worries Republicans and the administration is how to ensure new labor commitments don't unintentionally rebound at home, where American businesses already have high workplace standards under U.S. law. Some officials fret about the limits imposed by U.S. law on the ability of government workers to organize and worry that putting ILO principles in a bilateral trade deal might lead to legal actions over whether the U.S. itself fully complies with the basic international rights.

"Right. Republicans and Administration officials worry that forcing our country to abide by rules set forth by the International Labor Organization would expose what is obvious: workers in this country do not have basic rights.

"And, yet, Republicans fear that adhering to those basic ILO standards would put employers in the U.S. at risk of running afoul of those very provisions."

Quote:
Also, you say Republicans are somehow wrong for being pro-life. How is being pro-life NOT in support of individual rights? By being pro-life, the Republicans are defending the life of the most innocent among us - children.

Ah yes - the world view where the woman has committed the worst sin - had sex with no plan for bearing children. Didn't the Virgin Mary tell her? She's supposed to NOT have sex but just wait in her pure state until, miraculously, she gets preggers! Not a whore, but still a loving mother. Now that'a a real American woman! Those others aren't worth respect and protection. Lock 'em up, force em to carry to term, wreck their lives and bodies. Then snatch the fetus - it can be indoctrinated, There's a chance it can be less evil than it's mama, so it's rights must come first...

Quote:
When it comes to civil rights, Republicans led the way. MLK was a Republican, you know

True but different era. Not applicable to today

Honestly, I don't know the full political history of the south, I just know that the modern crop or Repubs does plenty to demonize those with dark skin and different ways. McCain and Palin seem to see a Replublican base that they'll win over with all this talk.

Quote:
As for marriage, like it or not, this is a Christian nation.

No, like it or not this nation is founded on religious freedom. We have religion in our culture, but none of it should go anywhere government power or law-making. It's called separation of church and state. You may have heard of it....

Quote:
the overwhelming public support for the 'One Man + One Woman = Marriage' thing.

Huh. Really? Yeah, and Mac is only a few little points behind Obama*snicker*

Quote:
Since we basically have a 'majority rules' system

With things like the Bill of rights that protect minorities from majorities so that we're not a land of "biggest gang" wins...

Whatever. Thin, holmes. Real thin.

Apologies messiness. On medicine and very loopy. Must try to make it to bed now...

THUNDERBIRDS!

ThunderCATS?????

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

Wednesday, October 29, 2008 3:08 PM

ODESSA762

Quote:
Originally posted by swish:
Quote:
Originally posted by Odessa762:
You have implied that habeas corpus has been violated by the current administration in some way. Can you cite one example?
Military Commissions Act of 2006 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act)

"The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that the MCA constituted an unconstitutional encroachment of Habeas Corpus rights, and established jurisdiction for federal courts to hear petitions for habeas corpus from Guantanamo detainees tried under the Act."

The Boumediene v. Bush case allows for detainees to challenge their detention under habeas corpus. It has yet to be determined as to wether or not their habeas corpus rights were actually violated. In other words, the decision does not free them. Boumediene is still down at Gitmo. His case is pending. It is likely that all of the folks being held there will be released or moved to other facilities before the habeas corpus question is finalized. I sure hope none of them slip & fall while being relocated.

Try again?

With reference to the privacy issue, I was not able to open that ABC News link you provided, but if memory serves me correctly, that story went like this:

Two US Soldiers assigned to the NSA ALLEGE that they listened in on conversations. The key word being "ALLEGE". In other words, they offered no proof. Your argument is based on innuendo and heresay and is thus faulty. Maybe you can find a court case as evidence?

Strike Two.

In order to avoid taking this thread further off topic, I'll respond to the rest of your previous comments in another thread - if you'd care to crank one up.

...circular error probability zero. Impact with high order detonation. Thank You, have a nice day.

THUNDERBIRDS!

Hope you are feeling better

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

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE