I - along with a bunch of other people, most of whom are considered to be Juggalos, if ya dont know what that is... i'd be happy to explain that for ya too-... use it like the words "dude" or "man" get used (overused in my books) all the time.
If you've "seen the lyrics" and ya dont "listen" then your just like any other doubter that Ive talked to in the past, and its not even worth either your or my time explaining what everything is all about.
But trust me, theres more to being a Juggalo, that what comes out in their songs.
Like I said... you wanna know, I'll talk with ya. But if all you wanna do is sit there and bullshit, then this conversation is over.
But conservatives still need to ask themselves: to what end? Do we want another Taft or Nixon, who imposed liberal policies no Democratic president could achieve as the price for keeping a Republican in the White House? It is a question worth asking.
The Supreme Court is looking beyond America's borders for guidance in handling cases on issues like the death penalty and gay rights, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (news - web sites) said Saturday.
America was formed as a country ruled by law. The supreme law of our land is supposed to be the United States Constitution. All actions take by government in this country are supposed to be taken under some authority granted by that Constitution. One of the principal precepts of our Constitution is that all people are supposed to be treated equally under our law. The rules apply to everyone, rich and poor, black and white.
Recently the Supreme Court ruled that racial discrimination is just fine when it comes to granting admission to colleges and universities. Clearly this disparate treatment is not constitutionally proper, but the Supremes got around this by referencing international law and treaties.
Now I’ve been telling you folks for years that our courts consider treaties to be superior in force and effect to our Constitution. Many of you have told me that I’m all wet on this one. OK, fine. I’m all wet. So tell me why Justice Ginsberg cited an international treaty in her vote to uphold racial discrimination in college admissions. Ginsburg also said --- no pay attention --- that the Internet is making decisions of courts in other countries available to be read in the United States . She says that these decisions should not be ignored.
Is this leftist Justice saying that the Supreme Court is now ruling on American law and our Constitution based in part on the findings of foreign courts? All this time I have been operating under the assumption that our judges should be interpreting our laws on the basis of the U.S. Constitution. Now they’ve included foreign court decisions in their process?
If you’re halfway bright and educated you will readily recognize how dangerous this is for the future of our Republic. If you’re not that bright you probably didn’t read this far anyway. - Neal Boortz
They're going to chrun out a ballot in California that looks like elections in India.
The sad part about it is that it looks like Democrats are chomping at the bit to break ranks and run as well.
Put your money on the car-alarm salesman -- pardon me, Citizen Statesman-- who's heading the recall effort as the next governor. He'll buy the governor's office one way or another.
These Republicans in California are rapacious bastards.
I read yesterday that Davis is working with Clinton.
He could help save his ass. Davis is a survivor. There's rulings coming out today on his lawsuits. He could bog this down until next March. By that time the sharks could end the feeding frenzy and Californians could return to watching car chases.
The necessary amendment need go no further, nor should go any further, than to limit the application of the full-faith-and-credit clause to exclude any requirement to abide by laws or judicial findings authorizing same-sex marriage. If individual states wish to authorize civil unions between members of the same sex, they would be free to do so, but not free to plead immunities particular to their own state as extending to all 50 states.
I'm just joking. I don't want to recall Tim Pawlenty. I didn't want him elected in the first place, but I'll respect the process. Not enough Californians can.
As I said before, your tagline still doesn't make any sense. You should contrast Democrats with Repbublicans.
I don't care for the recall either but it looks like it will go back to the people to decide. California is in shambles that's for sure. Some say well the dems controll it so any R, would be good. I disagree, if they're going to run a republican then they ought to actually run one. Ahnold isn't IMO. Ahhnold is very left of right. He's essentially a liberal republican. His odds are pretty good though due to the celebrity factor. Well ther's Ariana and Gary Coleman AKA Arnold Drummond. It's a circus.
What I perhaps see as a bad thing or trend is that many people who have no idea of the issues end up voting for someone because of "star power". Not that a celeb can't or shouldn't run, it's their right to do so and I tip my hat to them since they'll go from being oogled over to being criticized from every angle. (Jesse sure handled that well, snicker) People will pull a lever for someone because of name recognition and not where he/she stands. That's why I think Jesse was such a failure when he could have done some good as an independant. He was all talk and in the end most people that did vote for him were disappointed and I don't think he stood a chance of getting re-elected and he knew it. It will be a definate circus out in California that's for sure. Then again it always has been out there, sometimes you reap what you sew.
BTW speaking of Ahhnold's buddy Jesse. Rumor has it that his MSNBC show will never make it to the air. LOL
Rick, cheer up. The Dems have one of their own celebs running.
Noneother than the publisher of Hustler Larry Flynt.
Too bad Springer dropped out, it would have been the perfect ticket to represent the Dems, plus think of all the support Willy would have thrown at them. Flynt/Springer in 04'.........The party of spinger and Flynt..LOL
I guess now instead of "Jerry Jerry, it's Larry Larry !
Strange that a conservative would mock a successful businessman. I thought they were Your People.
I'm not knocking his business, I think it's wrong but it's perfectly legal. I'm mocking his candidacy and how fitting it is that he's running as a Dem.
The Associated Press Wednesday, August 6, 2003; 8:48 PM Â Â
SIOUX CITY, Iowa - Veteran black activist Al Sharpton contended Wednesday that the news media are dismissive of his presidential campaign because newsrooms are overwhelmingly white.
"I think when you look at the lack of diversity in the newsrooms, when you look at the lack of diversity from the editors and those in power, then you see them as automatically dismissive of anything that is not like them, which is white males," said Sharpton.
"I think we've seen some very blatant racial insensitivity in the coverage of this race so far," said Sharpton, in an interview with The Associated Press.
Gee Al could it be that your poll numbers stink because you're a complete whackjob ?
As far as the recall and who is/becomes the Gov. of Cali. I could care less. I think it is up to the people of Cali. to decide who is best suited to run thier affairs. The elected Davis and have lived with the results. If they recall him and elect someone else, they will have to live with the results of that too.
Well if Arnold wins the California Governorship, does that mean Richard Dawson or Carl Weathers will be running for Governor any time soon? "The Running Man" and "Predator" would already have two governors in the movie, why not start a trend?
I - along with a bunch of other people, most of whom are considered to be Juggalos, if ya dont know what that is... i'd be happy to explain that for ya too-... use it like the words "dude" or "man" get used (overused in my books) all the time.
one of "my" songs?
A personal revelation about what?
If you've "seen the lyrics" and ya dont "listen" then your just like any other doubter that Ive talked to in the past, and its not even worth either your or my time explaining what everything is all about.
But trust me, theres more to being a Juggalo, that what comes out in their songs.
Like I said... you wanna know, I'll talk with ya. But if all you wanna do is sit there and bullshit, then this conversation is over.
So, I'll bite, J:
Tell us about the Posse, Are they insightful fellows? Like Shakespeare?
Do they stalk around the stage? The only English you can recognize are the curses? Do they sell CDs by the billions?
Are they Savage Young Capitalists?
But conservatives still need to ask themselves: to what end? Do we want another Taft or Nixon, who imposed liberal policies no Democratic president could achieve as the price for keeping a Republican in the White House? It is a question worth asking.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brucebartlett/bb20030805.shtml
I'm concerned about Bush as well. He has yet to exercise the veto.
I'm concerned about Bush as well. He has yet to exercise the veto.
So a good president is one that vetos legislation?
Yeah, a good President would veto at least one.
Two he should have vetoed were the farm bill and the education bill.
A good president just might have control over the legislation that is passed by Congress and would have no need to use the veto.
A good president with heavy majorities in both houses.
A good president with heavy majorities in both houses.
Not necessarily but it wouldn't hurt.
It's hard for me to criticize Bush a lot of the time.
It's hard for me to criticize Bush a lot of the time.
What?
Bush should have vetoed campaign finance reform too. It is unconstitutional in my opinion.
It will probably get challenged again.
That will be good. I want the courts to explain one more time how money = speech.
I've never gotten the reasoning,
The Supreme Court is looking beyond America's borders for guidance in handling cases on issues like the death penalty and gay rights, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (news - web sites) said Saturday.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030803/ap_on_go_su_co/ginsburg_3
What utter nonsense!
That will be good. I want the courts to explain one more time how money = speech.
I've never gotten the reasoning,
Another news fllash: Rick doesn't get it!!!!
California is going down the drain, and something must be done. We need citizens with brains. To that end, I have prepared this quiz.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/bs20030806.shtml
THE RULE OF LAW
America was formed as a country ruled by law. The supreme law of our land is supposed to be the United States Constitution. All actions take by government in this country are supposed to be taken under some authority granted by that Constitution. One of the principal precepts of our Constitution is that all people are supposed to be treated equally under our law. The rules apply to everyone, rich and poor, black and white.
Recently the Supreme Court ruled that racial discrimination is just fine when it comes to granting admission to colleges and universities. Clearly this disparate treatment is not constitutionally proper, but the Supremes got around this by referencing international law and treaties.
Now I’ve been telling you folks for years that our courts consider treaties to be superior in force and effect to our Constitution. Many of you have told me that I’m all wet on this one. OK, fine. I’m all wet. So tell me why Justice Ginsberg cited an international treaty in her vote to uphold racial discrimination in college admissions. Ginsburg also said --- no pay attention --- that the Internet is making decisions of courts in other countries available to be read in the United States . She says that these decisions should not be ignored.
Is this leftist Justice saying that the Supreme Court is now ruling on American law and our Constitution based in part on the findings of foreign courts? All this time I have been operating under the assumption that our judges should be interpreting our laws on the basis of the U.S. Constitution. Now they’ve included foreign court decisions in their process?
If you’re halfway bright and educated you will readily recognize how dangerous this is for the future of our Republic. If you’re not that bright you probably didn’t read this far anyway. - Neal Boortz
You hit it on the nose Wolvie!
Hehehehe
Maybe you've heard of Ronald Reagan?
I don't really care who is elected Gov. of CA.
Anyone would be better than Davis.
Even some dumbass unemployed guy that never held the title of garbage collector.
They're going to chrun out a ballot in California that looks like elections in India.
The sad part about it is that it looks like Democrats are chomping at the bit to break ranks and run as well.
Put your money on the car-alarm salesman -- pardon me, Citizen Statesman-- who's heading the recall effort as the next governor. He'll buy the governor's office one way or another.
These Republicans in California are rapacious bastards.
"I don't really care who is elected Gov. of CA.
Anyone would be better than Davis."
You say you don't care, except you don't want Davis. Either you care or you don't. Which is it?
You say you don't care, except you don't want Davis. Either you care or you don't. Which is it?
Ok, so I do care.
I want Davis gone.
He's destroying the state, and CA is too big of a state to let him ruin.
That's the extent of my concern.
Funny how those who don't even live there are "Experts" on who "would be better" than Davis.
Last I knew, you didn't live in CA, so you should just shut your yap as well.
I'm not talking to you anymore, Bill Fold.
If I wasn't sysop of these threads I'd put you on ignore.
I read yesterday that Davis is working with Clinton.
He could help save his ass. Davis is a survivor. There's rulings coming out today on his lawsuits. He could bog this down until next March. By that time the sharks could end the feeding frenzy and Californians could return to watching car chases.
Is Bagdhad Bob running for Governor? I'm sure that could solve Cali's problems.
He could help save his ass.
I heard the Clinton's were in CA.
He could bog this down until next March.
They'll rule against him. It's already decided and he's got nothing. It's just a feable attempt to stop the inevitable.
These Republicans in California are rapacious bastards.
I will give you that.
You gotta admit though, that Davis has given them a lot to work with.
I mean, if he was doing a halfway decent job, there wouldn't be the option of a recall.
They want to grab power. So they're taking their shot.
Two can play at that game.
Well, there's always the chance that Davis won't be recalled.
The sad part about it is that it looks like Democrats are chomping at the bit to break ranks and run as well.
Not sad at all nor should it be unexpected.
The necessary amendment need go no further, nor should go any further, than to limit the application of the full-faith-and-credit clause to exclude any requirement to abide by laws or judicial findings authorizing same-sex marriage. If individual states wish to authorize civil unions between members of the same sex, they would be free to do so, but not free to plead immunities particular to their own state as extending to all 50 states.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/wfbuckley/wfb20030807.shtml
Recall Tim Pawlenty 4K Joe!
Here you go Rick, get started:
http://www.sos.state.mn.us/election/recall.html
All you need now is grounds and 25% of the voters to back you within 90 days of the issuance of a recall petition. Good luck!
I'm just joking. I don't want to recall Tim Pawlenty. I didn't want him elected in the first place, but I'll respect the process. Not enough Californians can.
As I said before, your tagline still doesn't make any sense. You should contrast Democrats with Repbublicans.
I'm just joking. I don't want to recall Tim Pawlenty. I didn't want him elected in the first place, but I'll respect the process.
Recall is part of the political process and apparently Rick doesn't respect that.
As I said before, your tagline still doesn't make any sense. You should contrast Democrats with Repbublicans.
Or Conservative with Liberal.
I don't care for the recall either but it looks like it will go back to the people to decide. California is in shambles that's for sure. Some say well the dems controll it so any R, would be good. I disagree, if they're going to run a republican then they ought to actually run one. Ahnold isn't IMO. Ahhnold is very left of right. He's essentially a liberal republican. His odds are pretty good though due to the celebrity factor. Well ther's Ariana and Gary Coleman AKA Arnold Drummond. It's a circus.
What I perhaps see as a bad thing or trend is that many people who have no idea of the issues end up voting for someone because of "star power". Not that a celeb can't or shouldn't run, it's their right to do so and I tip my hat to them since they'll go from being oogled over to being criticized from every angle. (Jesse sure handled that well, snicker) People will pull a lever for someone because of name recognition and not where he/she stands. That's why I think Jesse was such a failure when he could have done some good as an independant. He was all talk and in the end most people that did vote for him were disappointed and I don't think he stood a chance of getting re-elected and he knew it. It will be a definate circus out in California that's for sure. Then again it always has been out there, sometimes you reap what you sew.
BTW speaking of Ahhnold's buddy Jesse. Rumor has it that his MSNBC show will never make it to the air. LOL
Oh I almost forgot,
Rick, cheer up. The Dems have one of their own celebs running.
Noneother than the publisher of Hustler Larry Flynt.
Too bad Springer dropped out, it would have been the perfect ticket to represent the Dems, plus think of all the support Willy would have thrown at them. Flynt/Springer in 04'.........The party of spinger and Flynt..LOL
I guess now instead of "Jerry Jerry, it's Larry Larry !
Things are looking up for the dems ;)
"The Dems have one of their own celebs running. Noneother than the publisher of Hustler Larry Flynt."
Strange that a conservative would mock a successful businessman. I thought they were Your People.
Rick 8/7/03 12:31pm
I'm not knocking his business, I think it's wrong but it's perfectly legal. I'm mocking his candidacy and how fitting it is that he's running as a Dem.
Speaking of dem goofy Dems.
Sharpton blames low poll numbers on white press.
By MIKE GLOVER
Gee Al could it be that your poll numbers stink because you're a complete whackjob ?
As far as the recall and who is/becomes the Gov. of Cali. I could care less. I think it is up to the people of Cali. to decide who is best suited to run thier affairs. The elected Davis and have lived with the results. If they recall him and elect someone else, they will have to live with the results of that too.
The elected Davis and have lived with the results. If they recall him and elect someone else, they will have to live with the results of that too.
Exactly.
What do you all think of Arnold anyway?
He's not much of a "Republican" from what I hear. He's pro choice and pretty pro social programs.
Florida back-bencher mad at Berkeley research
I saw Rep. Tom Feeny on O'Reilly last night. He was kind of agitated, but I think he was trying to compare Ronald Reagan to Plato.
Well if Arnold wins the California Governorship, does that mean Richard Dawson or Carl Weathers will be running for Governor any time soon? "The Running Man" and "Predator" would already have two governors in the movie, why not start a trend?