Look for the Blogswarm and Talk Radio to hang on Chris Rock's every word at the Oscar's tonight, looking for something to turn him into the poster child for the Democratic Party.
He gets out of line, they'll try to make him a bigger Democrat than FDR by the middle of the week.
Franken sure becomes a powerful member of the new media when it's convenient for you.
Isn't that what you have been telling us? Why is it different now?
Mark my words.
Marked. However, it does depend on how political hemakes this award show. The show is supposed to be about actors/actresses and movies. We'll see if he can keep it that way.
Only problem with your theory is that those commissioners are from the Clinton era.
Micheal J. Copps served as President Clinton's Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Trade Development 1998-2001 and as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Basic Industries under Clinton, 1993-1998. He also served for 15 years with Democrat Sen. Fritz Hollings (SC) in several positions including Chief of Staff.
Chairman Micheal K. Powell was nominated by Clinton and sworn in on November 3, 1997.
Commisioner Jonathan S. Adelstein is a well known Democrat.
If you are disatisfied with the way things are going, don't blame Bush or the "southern-baptist-republican party Neo's".
I don't know why it's relevant that they're Clinton appointees, either. They're bureaucrats who implement policy, They're obviously not taking orders from Clinton anymore.
[Edited 3 times. Most recently by on Mar 4, 2005 at 06:29am.]
Oct 29, 2004 10:14 am "But of course the Times story is being proven wrong every hour."
As of this hour, you can't say that.
"WASHINGTON (AP) -- An Army unit removed 250 tons of ammunition from the Al-Qaqaa weapons depot in April 2003 and later destroyed it, the company's former commander said Friday. A Pentagon spokesman said some was of the same type as the missing explosives that have become a major issue in the presidential campaign...
As of this hour, we can say partisan liberals were caught lying again;
Remember al-Qaqaa? This was the massive cache of explosives that American forces failed to secure after the fall of Saddam. In the final week of the presidential campaign it was The Most Important Story on Earth.
The New York Times splashed the news on its front page and didn't stop splashing it for a week. In all, the Times ran 16 stories and columns about al-Qaqaa, plus seven anti-Bush letters to the editor on the subject over an eight-day period. Editorial boards across the country hammered the "outrage" for days. It led all the news broadcasts. It became the central talking point of the Kerry campaign, with John Kerry bellowing his indignation at the administration's incompetence at every stump stop. Maureen Dowd wrote a column about it, titled "White House of Horrors."
The Democrats' standard complaint is that nominees are out of the jurisprudential ``mainstream.'' If Kennedy represents the mainstream, it is time to change the shape of the river. His opinion is an intellectual train wreck, but useful as a timely warning about what happens when judicial offices are filled with injudicious people. Â
Has Georgie-Porgie got his panties in a wad again? George, 5-4 is the same majority that put Bush in the White House. Take your intellectual spanking like a man.
You write that the court held differently 16 years ago; so what? I'm sure that there are a number of prior decisions you'd like to see revisited and decided differently; I'm sure because you occasionally write about them.
Back when Bill Clinton's judicial nominees were being filibustered by the dozen, you thought the filibuster a fine thing; a year and a half or so ago, when less than a handful of Bush's nominees were being delayed, the filibuster became the tool of Satan. A few months ago, possibly stung by some people who pointed out the contradiction between those two strongly worded columns smelt of hypocrisy, you reversed yourself yet again on the practice. How dare you criticize the Court for just one reversal? After all, if the Court did not occasionally reverse itself, we'd still have fugitive slave laws and segregation.
Kennedy's opinion, in which Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens joined, is a tossed salad of reasons why those five think the court had a duty to do what state legislatures have the rightful power and, arguably, the moral responsibility to do.
I'll be waiting for your column condemning the Santorum amendment to the minimum-wage bill which takes away state control over wages and hours. But I won't be holding my breath.
You write that the court held differently 16 years ago; so what? I'm sure that there are a number of prior decisions you'd like to see revisited and decided differently; I'm sure because you occasionally write about them.
I can see you are as intellectually impotent as Kennedy.
After all, if the Court did not occasionally reverse itself, we'd still have fugitive slave laws and segregation.
Anyone should be able to see how utterly ignorant you are! You apparently have no grasp that Congress had a proper role in those matters. It is apparent that you don't believe in democracy or a republican form of government. Instead you believe in implementing what you want at any cost to freedom or to the intellect. It is apparent you have no regard for the Constitution or constitutional government in general.Â
Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins,concurring.
     Perhaps even more important than our specific holding today is our reaffirmation of the basic principle that informs the Court's interpretation of the Eighth Amendment. If the meaning of that Amendment had been frozen when it was originally drafted, it would impose no impediment to the execution of 7-year-old children today. See Stanfordv. Kentucky, (1989) (describing the common law at the time of the Amendment's adoption). The evolving standards of decency that have driven our construction of this critically important part of the Bill of Rights foreclose any such reading of the Amendment. In the best tradition of the common law, the pace of that evolution is a matter for continuing debate; but that our understanding of the Constitution does change from time to time has been settled since John Marshall breathed life into its text. If great lawyers of his day--Alexander Hamilton, for example--were sitting with us today, I would expect them to join Justice Kennedy's opinion for the Court. In all events, I do so without hesitation.
Â
Anti American nonsense and a violation of their oath to uphold the US Constitution. The evolving standards of decency is not for any court to decide. it is for the legislature. It is the attitude of these people that undermines our government. Because if the Constitution doesn't;t mean something specific then it either means nothing or anything a few judges want it to mean.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Mar 9, 2005 at 10:11am.]
The Court's special reliance on the laws of the United Kingdom is perhaps the most indefensible part of its opinion. It is of course true that we share a common history with the United Kingdom, and that we often consult English sources when asked to discern the meaning of a constitutional text written against the backdrop of 18th-century English law and legal thought. If we applied that approach today, our task would be an easy one. As we explained in Harmelinv. Michigan, (1991), the "Cruell and Unusuall Punishments" provision of the English Declaration of Rights was originally meant to describe those punishments " 'out of [the Judges'] Power' "--that is, those punishments that were not authorized by common law or statute, but that were nonetheless administered by the Crown or the Crown's judges. Under that reasoning, the death penalty for under-18 offenders would easily survive this challenge. The Court has, however--I think wrongly--long rejected a purely originalist approach to our Eighth Amendment, and that is certainly not the approach the Court takes today. Instead, the Court undertakes the majestic task of determining (and thereby prescribing) ourNation's currentstandards of decency. It is beyond comprehension why we should look, for that purpose, to a country that has developed, in the centuries since the Revolutionary War--and with increasing speed since the United Kingdom's recent submission to the jurisprudence of European courts dominated by continental jurists--a legal, political, and social culture quite different from our own. If we took the Court's directive seriously, we would also consider relaxing our double jeopardy prohibition, since the British Law Commission recently published a report that would significantly extend the rights of the prosecution to appeal cases where an acquittal was the result of a judge's ruling that was legally incorrect. See Law Commission, Double Jeopardy and Prosecution Appeals, LAW COM No. 267, Cm 5048, p. 6, ¶1.19 (Mar. 2001); J. Spencer, The English System in European Criminal Procedures 142, 204, and n. 239 (M. Delmas-Marty & J. Spencer eds. 2002). We would also curtail our right to jury trial in criminal cases since, despite the jury system's deep roots in our shared common law, England now permits all but the most serious offenders to be tried by magistrates without a jury. See D. Feldman, England and Wales, in Criminal Procedure: A Worldwide Study 91, 114-115 (C. Bradley ed. 1999).
Back when Bill Clinton's judicial nominees were being filibustered by the dozen, you thought the filibuster a fine thing; a year and a half or so ago
Can you provide more info or links on this? I would like to read more about it. I honestly do not remember this occuring. Not saying you are wrong, I just don't remember it.
If you're referring to how many of Clinton's judicial appointments were blocked, googling "clinton-judicial-nominees filibuster" will net you a few hundred hits. It's a start. Christ what a day. I'm outta here.
Coming from someone who's been demonstrating for a year or more that he doesn't understand the difference between global climate and local weather, that's really too funny.
I have witnessed how you guys on "the right" have become rather quiet lately, and I believe it is because you too see how things are changing/swerving so quickly to the right in this country, that you too are frightened of the guy in the White House,
finally , and the direction that he and this Congress have taken this nation, since he was elected. Shocking, isn't it?
You should (finally) be frightened, too.
You couldn't be more wrong, that is if you are meaning me. Bush still has a long ways to go before I will think he has gone far enough to the right. And Frist even appears cowardly to me. He just needs to say we are changing the Senate rules on filibusters for judicial nominees and then just do it.
I have witnessed how you guys on "the right" have become rather quiet lately, and I believe it is because you too see how things are changing/swerving so quicklyto the right in this country, that you too are frightenedof the guy in the White House,
finally , and the direction that he and this Congress have taken this nation, since he was elected. Shocking, isn't it?
You should (finally) be frightened, too.
Nope, it's called being busy and trying not to gloat. Wait oh that's right, Iraq, quagmire=Vietnam, Bush, evil blah blah, blah. Democracy will never work in the ME, etc. etc. We now return you to your regularly scheduled evil Bushco=Hitler Dubya rant.
I find it amazing how some on the left can claim the moral high ground when it comes to racism and then claim that an entire region of the world is unable to have a democratic form of government, all southerners are toothless hicks that are racist, people of faith are...well, bad, etc.
I have stated here that I did not know what to expect when you wanted to meet, but that you were very pleasant and nice to myself and family members. It was great to meet you in person and I hope that nothing I say here makes you think otherwise. I would enjoy meeting you again sometime.
I was commenting on the left in general, but you kind of reinforced that belief. You state, "I don't know whoever said that ALL people from the south are bad."then go on to say that "Politics of The South, ARE diferent from the Politics of the rest of us, for the most part."and "I havesaid that our government is now being run BYSouthern Baptist Neo-Cons, and that is the absolute truth, like it or not."That does not sound like you are too friendly towards the south.
Every single poltico that speaks for this administration has a southern drawl.
Are you talking about Powell? Cheney? Card? Rice? Gutierrez? Gonzalez? Who?
If you want to talk "southern drawl" and being overrun by southerners, how does the current administration compare to the last one? Why didn't you worry about their drawl? Why does it even matter?
Even the many, many people from what was formerly known as the Republican Party are becomming scared...especially about SS changes, as is being proven by the responses to Gdubbya's rediculous proposals.
Name them. I am sure that there is some, but "many, many"? I wish that all these years I have been paying into SSÂ would have been in an account for me and my family. Nothing wrong with building your own retirement nestegg and having something to leave to your loved ones. I really don't understand why people are opposed to that. Why shouldn't I be able to put my own money into a retirement account instead of being forced to give it to the federal government to spend on what they wish?
As Jon Stewart's guest said last night... "A lot of the "Red States" voted for this president because of Security Issues, NOT SS issues."
You are getting your news from Comedy Central now? Paul Krugman from the New York Times is not exactly a Republican by any stretch of the imagination and is living in his own fantasy land. Fact is that President Bush and the Republicans have been discussing this for many years. Hereis a link to CNN and the 2000 Republican Platform. For Krugman to make such a statement is ludicris at best.
Supporting something isn't the same as imposing something. For instance, supporting your right to have a gun doesn't impose a gun on you. If you make me have a gun, they you have imposed on me. If you prevent me from having a gun, then you have imposed on me. If you support no one preventing me from having a gun, then you aren't imposing on me and are in fact, helping to prevent others from imposing on me. Just because someone says you can do something doesn't mean you have to.
[Edited 4 times. Most recently by molegrass on Mar 11, 2005 at 09:20pm.]
As I remember it, Clinton wanted the government to invest people's money, or at least to set up and manage the accounts for investment. It would have meant the government making investment decisions on billions of dollars, and NOBODY wants the government affecting the markets in any way whatsoever.
the very first people affected will be those who need that system the most, and cannot afford to lose any income
People born after 1950 will be able to CHOOSE to have private accounts. If they want to stay in the system as it is now, they can. People born before 1950 will remain in the system as it is now. So who is hurt?
lame
"comedian and liberal talk-show host"
Well one out of two aint bad.
Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America
Mark Levin
http://www.booktv.org/General/index.asp?segID=5491&schedID=334
Looks like a good book. I'll have to check it out this weekend.
Look for the Blogswarm and Talk Radio to hang on Chris Rock's every word at the Oscar's tonight, looking for something to turn him into the poster child for the Democratic Party.
He gets out of line, they'll try to make him a bigger Democrat than FDR by the middle of the week.
[Edited by on Feb 27, 2005 at 02:54pm.]
Why would Franken and DUh do that?
LOL! Franken sure becomes a powerful member of the new media when it's convenient for you.
Mark my words. Rock's cheek-to-jowl with Hillary Clinton and Howard Dean by midweek. Don't forget Dan Rather.
The Three (Four) Amigos.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Feb 27, 2005 at 04:53pm.]
Franken sure becomes a powerful member of the new media when it's convenient for you.
Isn't that what you have been telling us? Why is it different now?
Mark my words.
Marked. However, it does depend on how political hemakes this award show. The show is supposed to be about actors/actresses and movies. We'll see if he can keep it that way.
"Isn't that what you have been telling us? "
As I showed you through examples earlier this week, Dan, you don't know what I'm telling you.
Lol.
Does this mean that Dan is in agreement with Rat about Franken?
Interesting.
Mark my words. Rock's cheek-to-jowl with Hillary Clinton and Howard Dean by midweek. Don't forget Dan Rather.
Have you found anything yet Rat?
Does this mean that Dan is in agreement with Rat about Franken?
You're funny Crabs. I never said that I agreed with him, I said that he has been telling us that.
"Have you found anything yet Rat?"
So far, I've been wrong. But it's not midweek, yet. I just hear clips. Doesn't seem like Rock said whole lot that was controversial.
I don't watch the Oscars.
Only problem with your theory is that those commissioners are from the Clinton era.
Micheal J. Copps served as President Clinton's Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Trade Development 1998-2001 and as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Basic Industries under Clinton, 1993-1998. He also served for 15 years with Democrat Sen. Fritz Hollings (SC) in several positions including Chief of Staff.
Chairman Micheal K. Powell was nominated by Clinton and sworn in on November 3, 1997.
Commisioner Jonathan S. Adelstein is a well known Democrat.
If you are disatisfied with the way things are going, don't blame Bush or the "southern-baptist-republican party Neo's".
The previous White House must have had them on a shorter leash.
[Edited 3 times. Most recently by on Mar 3, 2005 at 02:45pm.]
That must be it. LOL
HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL
[Edited by on Mar 3, 2005 at 08:21pm.]
No, don't blame them man. After all, theyaren't running things...!
Â
I don't know why it's relevant that they're Clinton appointees, either. They're bureaucrats who implement policy, They're obviously not taking orders from Clinton anymore.
[Edited 3 times. Most recently by on Mar 4, 2005 at 06:29am.]
They're obviously not taking orders from Clinton anymore.
I wonder, do all Republican appointees to any office, take orders from Gdubbya?
Do they take orders from Ronald Reagan'ite's?
Do they take orders from G.H.W. Bush?
Do they take orders for
Ham Sandwiches?
I could always use one of those!
Anyone excited about this new casino Pawlenty wants?
This is an odd pursuit for a straight-laced guy like him.
One of the potential sites is near Mall of America.
God, help us.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Mar 5, 2005 at 06:19am.]
General Politics #7074
-
The Rat
Oct 29, 2004 10:14 am
"But of course the Times story is being proven wrong every hour."
As of this hour, you can't say that.
"WASHINGTON (AP) -- An Army unit removed 250 tons of ammunition from the Al-Qaqaa weapons depot in April 2003 and later destroyed it, the company's former commander said Friday. A Pentagon spokesman said some was of the same type as the missing explosives that have become a major issue in the presidential campaign...
As of this hour, we can say partisan liberals were caught lying again;
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/jg20050304.shtml
What ever happened to The Most Important Story on Earth?
Jonah Goldberg
(archive)
March 4, 2005
Print|
Send
|
Remember al-Qaqaa? This was the massive cache of explosives that American forces failed to secure after the fall of Saddam. In the final week of the presidential campaign it was The Most Important Story on Earth.
The New York Times splashed the news on its front page and didn't stop splashing it for a week. In all, the Times ran 16 stories and columns about al-Qaqaa, plus seven anti-Bush letters to the editor on the subject over an eight-day period. Editorial boards across the country hammered the "outrage" for days. It led all the news broadcasts. It became the central talking point of the Kerry campaign, with John Kerry bellowing his indignation at the administration's incompetence at every stump stop. Maureen Dowd wrote a column about it, titled "White House of Horrors."
Â
LOL @ BOOB
You know it :)
Do you think deficits have anything to do with spending? Nah, can't be.
The Democrats' standard complaint is that nominees are out of the jurisprudential ``mainstream.'' If Kennedy represents the mainstream, it is time to change the shape of the river. His opinion is an intellectual train wreck, but useful as a timely warning about what happens when judicial offices are filled with injudicious people. Â
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/gw20050307.shtml
Has Georgie-Porgie got his panties in a wad again? George, 5-4 is the same majority that put Bush in the White House. Take your intellectual spanking like a man.
You write that the court held differently 16 years ago; so what? I'm sure that there are a number of prior decisions you'd like to see revisited and decided differently; I'm sure because you occasionally write about them.
Back when Bill Clinton's judicial nominees were being filibustered by the dozen, you thought the filibuster a fine thing; a year and a half or so ago, when less than a handful of Bush's nominees were being delayed, the filibuster became the tool of Satan. A few months ago, possibly stung by some people who pointed out the contradiction between those two strongly worded columns smelt of hypocrisy, you reversed yourself yet again on the practice. How dare you criticize the Court for just one reversal? After all, if the Court did not occasionally reverse itself, we'd still have fugitive slave laws and segregation.
I'll be waiting for your column condemning the Santorum amendment to the minimum-wage bill which takes away state control over wages and hours. But I won't be holding my breath.
You write that the court held differently 16 years ago; so what? I'm sure that there are a number of prior decisions you'd like to see revisited and decided differently; I'm sure because you occasionally write about them.
I can see you are as intellectually impotent as Kennedy.
After all, if the Court did not occasionally reverse itself, we'd still have fugitive slave laws and segregation.
Anyone should be able to see how utterly ignorant you are! You apparently have no grasp that Congress had a proper role in those matters. It is apparent that you don't believe in democracy or a republican form of government. Instead you believe in implementing what you want at any cost to freedom or to the intellect. It is apparent you have no regard for the Constitution or constitutional government in general.Â
[Edited by on Mar 8, 2005 at 03:11pm.]
did you notice how bodine actually never said anything about the issue itself there? Just a bunch of hyperbolic "nuh-uhs"
[Edited by molegrass on Mar 8, 2005 at 06:44pm.]
bodine, read Brown vs. Board of Education and get back to us. (That should keep him busy for a year or two)
Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins,concurring.
     Perhaps even more important than our specific holding today is our reaffirmation of the basic principle that informs the Court's interpretation of the Eighth Amendment. If the meaning of that Amendment had been frozen when it was originally drafted, it would impose no impediment to the execution of 7-year-old children today. See Stanfordv. Kentucky, (1989) (describing the common law at the time of the Amendment's adoption). The evolving standards of decency that have driven our construction of this critically important part of the Bill of Rights foreclose any such reading of the Amendment. In the best tradition of the common law, the pace of that evolution is a matter for continuing debate; but that our understanding of the Constitution does change from time to time has been settled since John Marshall breathed life into its text. If great lawyers of his day--Alexander Hamilton, for example--were sitting with us today, I would expect them to join Justice Kennedy's opinion for the Court. In all events, I do so without hesitation.
Â
Anti American nonsense and a violation of their oath to uphold the US Constitution. The evolving standards of decency is not for any court to decide. it is for the legislature. It is the attitude of these people that undermines our government. Because if the Constitution doesn't;t mean something specific then it either means nothing or anything a few judges want it to mean.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Mar 9, 2005 at 10:11am.]
bodine, read Brown vs. Board of Educationand get back to us. (That should keep him busy for a year or two)
The Court's special reliance on the laws of the United Kingdom is perhaps the most indefensible part of its opinion. It is of course true that we share a common history with the United Kingdom, and that we often consult English sources when asked to discern the meaning of a constitutional text written against the backdrop of 18th-century English law and legal thought. If we applied that approach today, our task would be an easy one. As we explained in Harmelinv. Michigan, (1991), the "Cruell and Unusuall Punishments" provision of the English Declaration of Rights was originally meant to describe those punishments " 'out of [the Judges'] Power' "--that is, those punishments that were not authorized by common law or statute, but that were nonetheless administered by the Crown or the Crown's judges. Under that reasoning, the death penalty for under-18 offenders would easily survive this challenge. The Court has, however--I think wrongly--long rejected a purely originalist approach to our Eighth Amendment, and that is certainly not the approach the Court takes today. Instead, the Court undertakes the majestic task of determining (and thereby prescribing) ourNation's currentstandards of decency. It is beyond comprehension why we should look, for that purpose, to a country that has developed, in the centuries since the Revolutionary War--and with increasing speed since the United Kingdom's recent submission to the jurisprudence of European courts dominated by continental jurists--a legal, political, and social culture quite different from our own. If we took the Court's directive seriously, we would also consider relaxing our double jeopardy prohibition, since the British Law Commission recently published a report that would significantly extend the rights of the prosecution to appeal cases where an acquittal was the result of a judge's ruling that was legally incorrect. See Law Commission, Double Jeopardy and Prosecution Appeals, LAW COM No. 267, Cm 5048, p. 6, ¶1.19 (Mar. 2001); J. Spencer, The English System in European Criminal Procedures 142, 204, and n. 239 (M. Delmas-Marty & J. Spencer eds. 2002). We would also curtail our right to jury trial in criminal cases since, despite the jury system's deep roots in our shared common law, England now permits all but the most serious offenders to be tried by magistrates without a jury. See D. Feldman, England and Wales, in Criminal Procedure: A Worldwide Study 91, 114-115 (C. Bradley ed. 1999).
[Edited by on Mar 9, 2005 at 10:33am.]
Back when Bill Clinton's judicial nominees were being filibustered by the dozen, you thought the filibuster a fine thing; a year and a half or so ago
Can you provide more info or links on this? I would like to read more about it. I honestly do not remember this occuring. Not saying you are wrong, I just don't remember it.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/lazarus/20030306.htmlis about the Will flip-flop on the filibuster. Then in December he flip-flopped again.
If you're referring to how many of Clinton's judicial appointments were blocked, googling "clinton-judicial-nominees filibuster" will net you a few hundred hits. It's a start. Christ what a day. I'm outta here.
peter, you take a big enough beating at city hall. Why do you come here for more?
[Edited by on Mar 9, 2005 at 06:03pm.]
Coming from someone who's been demonstrating for a year or more that he doesn't understand the difference between global climate and local weather, that's really too funny.
Yeah,
the
answer every time you
need
it to be so.
It is the right answer every time I write it.
I have witnessed how you guys on "the right" have become rather quiet lately, and I believe it is because you too see how things are changing/swerving
so quickly
to the right in this country, that you too are
frightened
of the guy in the White House,
finally
, and the direction that he and this Congress have taken this nation, since he was elected. Shocking, isn't it?
You should (finally) be frightened, too.
You couldn't be more wrong, that is if you are meaning me. Bush still has a long ways to go before I will think he has gone far enough to the right. And Frist even appears cowardly to me. He just needs to say we are changing the Senate rules on filibusters for judicial nominees and then just do it.
I have witnessed how you guys on "the right" have become rather quiet lately, and I believe it is because you too see how things are changing/swerving so quicklyto the right in this country, that you too are frightenedof the guy in the White House,
finally
, and the direction that he and this Congress have taken this nation, since he was elected. Shocking, isn't it?
You should (finally) be frightened, too.
Nope, it's called being busy and trying not to gloat. Wait oh that's right, Iraq, quagmire=Vietnam, Bush, evil blah blah, blah. Democracy will never work in the ME, etc. etc. We now return you to your regularly scheduled evil Bushco=Hitler Dubya rant.
Â
and don't forget "I was there"!!
Democracy will never work in the ME
I find it amazing how some on the left can claim the moral high ground when it comes to racism and then claim that an entire region of the world is unable to have a democratic form of government, all southerners are toothless hicks that are racist, people of faith are...well, bad, etc.
fold: I would never try to impose MY morals or beliefs on anyone else, and I never have.
You support abortion on demand, don't you?
How does this impose anything on anyone?
I have met you and wished you well
I have stated here that I did not know what to expect when you wanted to meet, but that you were very pleasant and nice to myself and family members. It was great to meet you in person and I hope that nothing I say here makes you think otherwise. I would enjoy meeting you again sometime.
I was commenting on the left in general, but you kind of reinforced that belief. You state, "I don't know whoever said that
ALL
people from the south are bad."then go on to say that "Politics of The South, ARE diferent from the Politics of the rest of us, for the most part."and "I havesaid that our government is now being run BYSouthern Baptist Neo-Cons, and that is the absolute truth, like it or not."That does not sound like you are too friendly towards the south.
Every single poltico that speaks for this administration has a southern drawl.
Are you talking about Powell? Cheney? Card? Rice? Gutierrez? Gonzalez? Who?
If you want to talk "southern drawl" and being overrun by southerners, how does the current administration compare to the last one? Why didn't you worry about their drawl? Why does it even matter?
Even the many, many people from what was formerly known as the Republican Party are becomming scared...especially about SS changes, as is being proven by the responses to Gdubbya's rediculous proposals.
Name them. I am sure that there is some, but "many, many"? I wish that all these years I have been paying into SSÂ would have been in an account for me and my family. Nothing wrong with building your own retirement nestegg and having something to leave to your loved ones. I really don't understand why people are opposed to that. Why shouldn't I be able to put my own money into a retirement account instead of being forced to give it to the federal government to spend on what they wish?
As Jon Stewart's guest said last night... "A lot of the "Red States" voted for this president because of Security Issues, NOT SS issues."
You are getting your news from Comedy Central now? Paul Krugman from the New York Times is not exactly a Republican by any stretch of the imagination and is living in his own fantasy land. Fact is that President Bush and the Republicans have been discussing this for many years. Hereis a link to CNN and the 2000 Republican Platform. For Krugman to make such a statement is ludicris at best.
How does this impose anything on anyone?
It imposes death on the innocent unborn child.
Supporting something isn't the same as imposing something. For instance, supporting your right to have a gun doesn't impose a gun on you. If you make me have a gun, they you have imposed on me. If you prevent me from having a gun, then you have imposed on me. If you support no one preventing me from having a gun, then you aren't imposing on me and are in fact, helping to prevent others from imposing on me. Just because someone says you can do something doesn't mean you have to.
[Edited 4 times. Most recently by molegrass on Mar 11, 2005 at 09:20pm.]
I knew he had to get "Dubbya", "Vietnam" and "cuts" in there.
As I remember it, Clinton wanted the government to invest people's money, or at least to set up and manage the accounts for investment. It would have meant the government making investment decisions on billions of dollars, and NOBODY wants the government affecting the markets in any way whatsoever.
the very first people affected will be those who need that system the most, and cannot afford to lose any income
People born after 1950 will be able to CHOOSE to have private accounts. If they want to stay in the system as it is now, they can. People born before 1950 will remain in the system as it is now. So who is hurt?
and there's the problem. the system won't be as it is now.