Oh and, How Many? Well, there have been several judges in the last few years who have been convicted, after impeachment. Want me to name a few?
Yes please do.
I don't ask questions like that, unless I know the answer . It is often easy to find answers to direct questions. But it is apparent that you have a tough time grasping their full meaning.
OK Dan... which of the things I just mentioned are lies, and why? Please provide links.
Veterans taking a huge-hit
A core group of veterans, those with service-connected disabilities, lower incomes and those with special needs, will receive greater focus under the President's FY 2006 budget proposal for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Secretary Jim Nicholson gave testimony on the FY 2006 VA budget to the House Veterans' Affairs Committee that highlighted a 2.7 percent increase in discretionary programs over last year's funding level. The President's FY 2006 budget proposal totals $70.8 billion-$37.4 billion for mandatory programs and $33.4 in discretionary programs. This represents a 2.7 percent increase in discretionary funds over the enacted level of 2005. From 2001 to 2005, there has been a 47 percent increasein veterans health care funding.
bankruptcy laws that have been made HARSH to say the least
...The bankruptcy reform is designed to prevent abuses of the law, require more people who can afford to do so pay more of their debts and encourage other options of resolving debt problems...
...The BAPCP Act is designed to make it more difficult for those who can afford other optionsand who may have to pay more than hoped. Here are some of the changes and how they may affect you:
During the 180-day period before filing for bankruptcy you must have been briefed by an approved nonprofit budget and credit counselingagency. The agency must provide information that outlines the availability of credit counseling and perform a budget analysis for you. If you can't afford to pay for the service, it will be free.
To qualify for Chapter 7 -- often referred to as a fresh start or a clean slate or wiping out your debts -- your income will now have to be below the median income for the same size family in your state or you will have to undergo a bankruptcy means test. The means test is complex and fairly rigid when it comes to expenses. As an example, a person is allowed $1,500 per year per child under age 18 for private education expenses regardless of the actual expense.
If your income is greater than the median income for the same size family in your state and you can pay at least $6,000 over five years or $100 a month, you will be required to file under Chapter 13 -- where you must repay at least a portion of your debts.
You will be required to pay the full amount owed on your car loan regardless of the condition of the car as opposed to paying only what your car is worth under the current bill.
Bankruptcy attorneys must certify their clients' financial statements to the court and will be held financially responsible if the statements are false. Due to this change, many bankruptcy attorneys may charge more for their services.
The filing fee has increased from $155 to $200 for Chapter 7, but decreased from $155 to $150 for Chapter 13.
In other words, if you can afford to pay something on the debt you have, you must do it. Only fair to those that have loaned you the money.
now there is Social Security, which is directly under attack...
This is a democrat's idea. Why it is bad, I have no idea. The following is from an address given by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D) on March 16, 1998:
B.
Voluntary Personal Savings Accounts
Beginning in 2001, the bill would permit voluntary personal savings accounts, which workers could finance with the proceeds of the two percent cut in the payroll tax. Alternatively, a worker could simply take the employee share of the tax cut in the form of an increase in take-home pay equal to one percent of wages. (Economists will argue that workers who do not opt for voluntary personal savings accounts will also, eventually, receive the employer share in the form of higher wages. But that's a discussion for another time.)
The magic of compound interest will enable workers who contribute two percent of their wages to these personal savings accounts for 45 years (2000-2045) to amass a considerable estate, which they can leave to their heirs.
Lawmakers enacted three major tax bills between 2001 and 2003. The Economic Growth and Taxpayer Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) lowered rates, increased credits, and offered relief from marriage penalties and from the alternative minimum tax (AMT).
Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 110,000 in March, and the unemployment rate declined to 5.2 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. Several industries added jobs over the month, including construction, mining, health care, and wholesale trade.
You are correct about 47% being wrong...it is actually 47.5%. Sorry for the mistake.
My claim is that the changes to Bankrupcy Laws, newly signed into law, are Harsh.
Why is it harsh to expect you to pay at least some of what you owe if you are able to? We are talking about $100/month if you have the means to pay it. If you provide a service or a product to someone, wouldn't you expect some sort of payment from the person?
Here is a link for you (since you don't seem to care to look for them yourself) http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/L3Bankruptcy022805SD.pdf It is S-256 which is the bankruptcy bill of which you speak. Please show me where I am wrong.
Sen. Moynahans proposals, which were also the Democratic President's proposals at that time, were for savings accounts OUTSIDE of the Social Security Insurance System, not INSIDE the system as is now being proposed.
So? What what is the difference in your view?
By the way, it is not insurance and there never was any guarantees made.
This will automatically mean a Cutbackof Fundingto upwards of 70% of the people (who will use that system) for retirement-income, IFthey were born after 1950.
And taking the money out of SS as Moynihan proposed would not do the same?
As inUser Fees, Gas Taxes, Property Taxes and a whole unbelieveable-list of other TAXES that we all must pay, including the NEW Sales-Tax proposed in Minneapolis, to pay for that new stadium...!
Federal taxes on gasoline have been at $.184/gallon since the early 90's. They have not increased, but you knew that. You also know that the president has no authority over property taxes or the proposed taxes to fund a stadium in Minneapolis. Why you use these lies to promote your claim that president Bush is raising taxes is beyond me.
And just for the record, I disagree with any taxes going into building a stadium for the rich unless I can use some to build a new house for my family as well.
Also, people without children OR those who are the richest among us, GOT a Federal Tax Decrease, which did little to move the economy ...and has done nothing to decrease MY taxes, nor MOST people in the ever spiraling-downward middle class. If you got aTax DecreaseI am happy for you. You are in the
Minority.
You are either uniformed or plain out lieing. Those with children get to deduct extra for each child. Take a look at your last few 1040's and you will see what I mean. Everyone paying taxes got federal tax relief. If you were being honest, you would admit that your federal taxes were reduced.
NETjob losses under this administration are STILL a reality
How in the hell does that equate to a loss of jobs?
and today the GDP re-affirmed that the economy is moving along at a SLUGGISH or STAGNANT pace for the 5th month in a row, causing the Fed Chairman to hint that ANOTHER 1/4% increaseof interest rates, is coming... No matter WHAT JT says.
You just contradicted yourself in the same sentence. The reason for raising interest rates is to fight off the inflation that comes with a bustling economy, low unemployment and higher wages. Lowering interest rates would encourage people to buy more thus helping the economy. So which is it?
I didn't have time toresearch any of that, and I don't want to.
You demanded links from me and then say this? It is obvious from your answers that you did not research it at all, but choose instead to throw the democrats talking points around and hope that something sticks.
Could you please tell us again why you do not have to provide links but everyone does?
As to Moynahan and Clinton's SS'I' (stands for Insurance)...
They may call it that, but it's not. There is no defined benefit for one thing. A current congress cannot force such a liability onto a future congress. There is no contractual obligations and congress can raise or lower payments on a whim. For that matter, they can cancel the entire program if they so wish, political suicide but they can do it. What you pay in is considered taxes, not payments and are thrown into the general fund. etc.
They proposed taking 2% out of the General Fundto invest, NOTthe SS 'Trust' Fund.
If you read the speech of Moynihan's that I linked to earlier, he was proposing a cut in Social Security taxes of 2% that you could then use for an IRA type of account. He was proposing a return to "pay as you go" for SS and eliminating the so called trust fund.
“A medical system that only treats the sickest of the sick and the poorest of the poor is not sustainable and would be undesirable.
Give me a break! He has admitted to getting $68.2 billion (even though the proposal is for $70.8 billion) which like it or not is still a 42.1% increase since 2001. Now he claims it only covers "the sickest of the sick and the poorest of the poor"?
He could get $1 trillion and still be crying these crocodile tears about how mean old Bush is. If things are that bad, it tells me that the previous president must have really held back on the money.
Telling us how Bush is bankrupting the country while you are demanding more money doesn't make much sense either.
The Administration wants to impose a new $250 annual user feeon certain veterans who also would see their prescription drug co-payments more than doubled, from $7 to $15.
A $250 user fee and a $15 co-pay on prescriptions on "certain veterans"? I read that as those with the means and no serious problems will pay a fee or co-pay if they use the services. Way cheaper than anything you will find on the outside.
Adding to their out-of-pocket costs, would force them out of the system and put even greater strain on resources needed to treat their fellow veterans.
So if they are not in the system using up resources, how can they take away resources needed by others? I would think that would leave resources open for the others. Doesn't make sense.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on May 3, 2005 at 09:11pm.]
"Go to any Minnesota college graduation this spring and you're likely to see many more women than men in caps and gowns, receiving degrees. Many people applaud the trend, though newly released data have some in post-secondary education asking in worried tones: Where have the young men gone?"
Is the scorn for "scholars" and the contempt for educated, uppity women driving this?
"We don't want to be no pencil-necked college geek. We want to be a Man's Man like George Bush, not some metrosexual like John Kerry. Go to college, they might try to teach you Frenchor somethin'"
[Edited 7 times. Most recently by on May 4, 2005 at 04:19pm.]
"Seoul, South Korea -- As worries mount in Washington that North Korea could be moving toward its first nuclear weapons test, Pyongyang's neighbors remain skeptical, saying the country may just be posturing to strengthen its hand for future negotiations.
"China and South Korea, Pyongyang's two most important economic benefactors, also remain reluctant to consider sanctions against the North, say U.S. and Asian officials, and it isn't clear whether even an atomic test would persuade them to change their policies sharply."
The story goes on: Asian officials blame the U.S. for North Korea's belligerent stance. They think North Korea is trying to frighten its neighbors to wring concessions out of Washington.
My question is: Did Clinton make more of a hash of North Korea than Bush has with his axis of evil talk? What has been the upside of that?
In the 2000 Olympics, athletes from North Korea and South Korea marched in together. You think they're more together now?
[Edited 3 times. Most recently by on May 9, 2005 at 07:29pm.]
Well, he's been accused of molestation of young boys many years ago. He denies it. He admits that he met young men (over age 18) on the Internet and offered them city jobs. He, like many people, does not believe that gays need legislative "protection." He was married for a time in the 1990s. He says he's not gay, just confused.
I agree that West deserves what he gets from the voters, but only because he misused his office. The molestation allegations have not been proven and probably will not be. He has been "outed" by a liberal newspaper. Presumably these kinds of outings (like Gannon) are done by Democrats to show Republican hypocrisy. However, it makes the liberals look more like gay-bashers than the conservatives. I don't think it's a tactic that helps the party.
the liberals didn't have anything to do with anything about this story, but it makes them look like gay bashers? how convoluted is that?
I said "these kinds of outings" as in Gannon and the outings of Republican Congressman staffers. The liberals are supposed to be supporters and friends of gays, interested in their rights and privileges, tolerant of their lifestyles. But when they gleefully out gays who are Republican or connected to Republicans, they expose people's private lives to the media. Why? Because they know that it is still considered harmful to a public person to be "found out." Thus they play to the hatreds and prejudices of the public. NEVER is there any liberal expression of sympathy or support for these people, just a "gotcha" attitude that belies their so-called tolerance for gays. It reflects very poorly on them, in my opinion.
Was the guy outed on the editorial pages? If not, I don't know how you can ascribe political motive. It was news.
"Presumably these kinds of outings (like Gannon) are done by Democrats to show Republican hypocrisy. However, it makes the liberals look more like gay-bashers than the conservatives. I don't think it's a tactic that helps the party."
Helping "the party" had nothing to do with the newspaper running a story.
I said "these kinds of outings" as in Gannon and the outings of Republican Congressman staffers. The liberals are supposed to be supporters and friends of gays, interested in their rights and privileges, tolerant of their lifestyles.
Republican Congressmen aren't supporters and friends of gays, interested in their rights and privileges, tolerant of their lifestyles.
Hypocricy does not buy you tolerance when you are part of the problem.
and besides, they weren't questioning his gayness, they were questioning his haveing abused teens and having offered political jobs in exchange for sex. Just because he's gay doesn't protect him from scrutiny from this anymore than a politician offering someone of the opposite sex a job in exchange for sex.
As for Gannon... when you lead a party how's making political hay at the expense of gays, it's no one's fault but his to have his homosexuality exposed. His party brought the issue.
People on the right, particularly the religious right seem to think, when a scandal like this breaks that "the Media (always some unnamed monolith)" is out to get them. They don't understand that they set themselves up for it.
When you're an outspoken, public holier-than thou-type and you fall, that's news. As a matter of fact, that's the essence of news -- something out of the ordinary. Bill Bennett gambling away millions was news. The list goes on and on.
They think liberals get a pass because of the media. Most times, that 's not it. Liberals don't generally hold themselves up as saints. Anyone with any sense of what was going on had a pretty good idea Bill Clinton was a 'dawg in his personal life before he was elected.
[Edited 4 times. Most recently by on May 15, 2005 at 06:59pm.]
Anyone with any sense of what was going on had a pretty good idea Bill Clinton was a 'dawg in his personal life before he was elected.
and if Bill had been advocating laws against adultery and moralizing about how his opponents were guilty because of such behavior, he would have really deserved the light tht was shown on his indescretions.
It's Torpedo who is beating the horse of trying to talk to and about someone he told not to talk to him... and every time he beats that horse, I'm gonna point it out.
hyp·o·crite-- n.One who pretends to be what he is not or to have principles or beliefs that he does not have
The Democrats' efforts to block President Bush's qualified judicial nominees are not only hypocritical but are examples of partisan politicking at its worst.
Republicans in the Senate are working to ensure that all of President Bush's judicial nominees receive a fair and final up-or-down vote. Despite Senate history and tradition, Democrats are aggressively trying to prevent qualified judges from receiving what's been afforded every judicial nominee for over 200 years.
During the Clinton Administration, Democrats demanded up-or-down majority votes on judicial nominations, but, now that they are in the minority, they have become the party of obstructionism and double standards.
The Constitution guarantees an up or down vote, but the Democrats don't want to perform their duty.
On July 25, 2003, President Bush made history by nominating Janice Rogers Brown to the federal bench. Brown is the first African American elected to the California Supreme Court and was reelected by California voters with 76% of the vote.
The daughter of Alabama sharecroppers who grew up in segregated schools in the midst of Jim Crow policies in the South, Brown is a single mother who worked her way through college and law school.
Despite her sterling personal and legal credentials, during the 108th Congress, Senate Democrats used a hypocritical double standard to block her nomination. Judge Brown is not alone. Senate Democrats obstructed an up-or-down vote on 9 other well-qualified judges. Some of these judges have been waiting for a vote for four years.
It seems Democrats have changed their tune on giving all judicial nominees a fair up-or-down vote. They now claim the filibuster is a sacred tool of the Senate. But in 1995, Democrats, including nine who still serve, voted to rid the Senate of this tool.
That's right, nine current Democratic Senators voted to get rid of the filibuster. Now that it suits their needs, they praise it. What's worse than this hypocrisy is these same Senators now lead the obstruction and threaten to shut down the Senate. Their claims of loyalty to, and reverence for, Senate traditions are just another sham designed to hide their hypocrisy.
Wow, his numbers really changed over the past month/year. This is before the MoveOn.org's ad portraying Senator Frist meniacally blowing up the Capitol, the DNC leader Howard Dean's crazy statement about putting DeLay in jail even though he has not even been accused of a crime, etc. Gov. Janet Napolitano (dem) wouldn't even meet him while he was in Phoenix Wednesday, Barney Frank is appalled by Dean's rhetoric and now Dean has to go on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday. It should be a "scream" to hear what he has to say.
The DNC is falling apart. Their donations are pathetically low and they have no plan for Social Security or anything else for that matter. Throw in blatant lies like Fold's poll analysis and you can see why the Dems in congress have their worst poll numbers since the 90's and worse than President Bush's and the Republican's in congress:
CNN/USA Today:
4/29-5/1/05 = 40% approve, 52% disapprove
Harris Poll:
4/5-10/05 = 34% Excellent/Pretty Good, 64% Only Fair/Poor
I am the last person that I want in power, so I do not agree with your point. That attitude by the dems both in congress and their supporters will cost them dearly come election time.
The minority does not represent the majority and for them to think so is pretty arrogant.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. There's people out there that would support the anti-Christ as long as he had a "D" in front of his/her name.
These nominees go through, the Republican consolidation of power takes one more step to completeness.
The people have place the Republicans in the White House and the Senate. Because these branches choose judges they should have their choices as long as they get the needed majority vote in the Senate. If the people don't like it they can vote democrats in next time.
LOS ANGELES, May 11 - Before Hillary Rodham Clinton's former chief fund-raiser went on trial here for underreporting donations to her Senate campaign, political speculation has revolved around what if anything Mrs. Clinton knew about his alleged transgressions, as well as what if anything the trial would do to her presidential aspirations (assuming she has them).
A federal prosecutor tried to answer at least one of those questions in his opening statement on Wednesday in Federal District Court, when he told the jury, "You will hear no evidence that Hillary Clinton was involved in any way, shape or form."
Indeed, the prosecutor, Peter R. Zeidenberg, said that the fund-raiser, David F. Rosen, tried to keep Mrs. Clinton's campaign from discovering how much money was donated to cover the costs of the star-studded event at the heart of this criminal case. The reason, Mr. Zeidenberg said, is that Mr. Rosen was afraid he would be fired if the campaign found out how much money he had spent on the August 2000 event, the Hollywood Gala Salute to President William Jefferson Clinton.
Don't believe the prosector. Hillary Clinton is in it -- whatever it is -- right up to her eyeballs. She put the guy up to it and made sure he took the fall. She's a calculating woman.
I thought I'd do the conservative spin this morning.
Oh and, How Many? Well, there have been several judges in the last few years who have been convicted, after impeachment. Want me to name a few?
Yes please do.
It is almost an epidemic!
LOL
Run for the hills.
I don't ask questions like that, unless I
know
the
answer
. It is often easy to find answers to direct questions. But it is apparent that you have a tough time grasping their full meaning.
AH... of course. Change the subject. OK. Sure ...
the meaning
.
I didn't change the subject. I just pointed out that you missed the point of what I said.
OK Dan... which of the things I just mentioned are lies, and why? Please provide links.
Veterans taking a huge-hit
bankruptcy laws that have been made HARSH to say the least
In other words, if you can afford to pay something on the debt you have, you must do it. Only fair to those that have loaned you the money.
now there is Social Security, which is directly under attack...
This is a democrat's idea. Why it is bad, I have no idea. The following is from an address given by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D) on March 16, 1998:
Oh, and of course TAX HIKES,
the losses of jobs,
This is all I have time to research now, but you get the idea. By the way, I always include links, unlike you.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on May 2, 2005 at 04:31pm.]
Fold somehow turns a 33 billion dollar increase into a cut...amazing!!!
Oh and the 47% number, it's totally false.
70.8 billion - 48 billion = 22.8 billion
22.8 billion/48 billion = .475
You are correct about 47% being wrong...it is actually 47.5%. Sorry for the mistake.
My claim is that the changes to Bankrupcy Laws, newly signed into law, are Harsh.
Why is it harsh to expect you to pay at least some of what you owe if you are able to? We are talking about $100/month if you have the means to pay it. If you provide a service or a product to someone, wouldn't you expect some sort of payment from the person?
Here is a link for you (since you don't seem to care to look for them yourself) http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/L3Bankruptcy022805SD.pdf It is S-256 which is the bankruptcy bill of which you speak. Please show me where I am wrong.
Sen. Moynahans proposals, which were also the Democratic President's proposals at that time, were for savings accounts
OUTSIDE
of the Social Security Insurance System, not INSIDE the system as is now being proposed.
So? What what is the difference in your view?
By the way, it is not insurance and there never was any guarantees made.
This will automatically mean a Cutbackof Fundingto upwards of 70% of the people (who will use that system) for retirement-income, IFthey were born after 1950.
And taking the money out of SS as Moynihan proposed would not do the same?
As inUser Fees, Gas Taxes, Property Taxes and a whole unbelieveable-list of other TAXES that we all must pay, including the NEW Sales-Tax proposed in Minneapolis, to pay for that new stadium...!
Federal taxes on gasoline have been at $.184/gallon since the early 90's. They have not increased, but you knew that. You also know that the president has no authority over property taxes or the proposed taxes to fund a stadium in Minneapolis. Why you use these lies to promote your claim that president Bush is raising taxes is beyond me.
And just for the record, I disagree with any taxes going into building a stadium for the rich unless I can use some to build a new house for my family as well.
Also, people without children OR those who are the richest among us, GOT a Federal Tax Decrease,
which did little to move the economy
...and has done nothing to decrease MY taxes, nor MOST people in the ever spiraling-downward middle class. If you got aTax DecreaseI am happy for you. You are in the
Minority.
You are either uniformed or plain out lieing. Those with children get to deduct extra for each child. Take a look at your last few 1040's and you will see what I mean. Everyone paying taxes got federal tax relief. If you were being honest, you would admit that your federal taxes were reduced.
NETjob losses under this administration are STILL a reality
You have yet to prove this point.
In Jan. of 2000, there was 135,221,000 in the civilian workforce with 130,292,000 in non-farm labor. ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/History/empsit.02042000.news
In March of 2005, there was 140,501,000 in the civilian workforce with 132,926,000 in non-farm labor ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/History/empsit.04012005.news
How in the hell does that equate to a loss of jobs?
and today the GDP re-affirmed that the economy is moving along at a SLUGGISH or STAGNANT pace for the 5th month in a row, causing the Fed Chairman to hint that ANOTHER 1/4% increaseof interest rates, is coming... No matter WHAT JT says.
You just contradicted yourself in the same sentence. The reason for raising interest rates is to fight off the inflation that comes with a bustling economy, low unemployment and higher wages. Lowering interest rates would encourage people to buy more thus helping the economy. So which is it?
I didn't have time toresearch any of that, and I don't want to.
You demanded links from me and then say this? It is obvious from your answers that you did not research it at all, but choose instead to throw the democrats talking points around and hope that something sticks.
[Edited by on May 2, 2005 at 09:42pm.]
And frankly Dan, I post more links than most people in here ever do. (Not to mention I BEG for them half the time.)
Here are your last 5 quoted stories. Not one link in any of them.
'Bill - Fold' "In The News" 5/2/05 2:19pm
'Bill - Fold' "In The News" 5/2/05 5:44am
'Bill - Fold' "In The News" 5/2/05 4:40am
'Bill - Fold' "In The News" 4/30/05 6:13am
'Bill - Fold' "In The News" 4/30/05 6:08am
heh heh
meltdown...meltdown...meltdown
Indeed, and I said exactly WHY...
Could you please tell us again why you do not have to provide links but everyone does?
As to Moynahan and Clinton's SS'I' (stands for Insurance)...
They may call it that, but it's not. There is no defined benefit for one thing. A current congress cannot force such a liability onto a future congress. There is no contractual obligations and congress can raise or lower payments on a whim. For that matter, they can cancel the entire program if they so wish, political suicide but they can do it. What you pay in is considered taxes, not payments and are thrown into the general fund. etc.
They proposed taking 2% out of the General Fundto invest, NOTthe SS 'Trust' Fund.
If you read the speech of Moynihan's that I linked to earlier, he was proposing a cut in Social Security taxes of 2% that you could then use for an IRA type of account. He was proposing a return to "pay as you go" for SS and eliminating the so called trust fund.
“A medical system that only treats the sickest of the sick and the poorest of the poor is not sustainable and would be undesirable.
Give me a break! He has admitted to getting $68.2 billion (even though the proposal is for $70.8 billion) which like it or not is still a 42.1% increase since 2001. Now he claims it only covers "the sickest of the sick and the poorest of the poor"?
He could get $1 trillion and still be crying these crocodile tears about how mean old Bush is. If things are that bad, it tells me that the previous president must have really held back on the money.
Telling us how Bush is bankrupting the country while you are demanding more money doesn't make much sense either.
The Administration wants to impose a new $250 annual user feeon certain veterans who also would see their prescription drug co-payments more than doubled, from $7 to $15.
A $250 user fee and a $15 co-pay on prescriptions on "certain veterans"? I read that as those with the means and no serious problems will pay a fee or co-pay if they use the services. Way cheaper than anything you will find on the outside.
Adding to their out-of-pocket costs, would force them out of the system and put even greater strain on resources needed to treat their fellow veterans.
So if they are not in the system using up resources, how can they take away resources needed by others? I would think that would leave resources open for the others. Doesn't make sense.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on May 3, 2005 at 09:11pm.]
Are too many young men listening to the anti-intellectual message of the conservative right?
"Go to any Minnesota college graduation this spring and you're likely to see many more women than men in caps and gowns, receiving degrees. Many people applaud the trend, though newly released data have some in post-secondary education asking in worried tones: Where have the young men gone?"
Is the scorn for "scholars" and the contempt for educated, uppity women driving this?
"We don't want to be no pencil-necked college geek. We want to be a Man's Man like George Bush, not some metrosexual like John Kerry. Go to college, they might try to teach you Frenchor somethin'"
[Edited 7 times. Most recently by on May 4, 2005 at 04:19pm.]
Today's Wall Street Journal:
"Seoul, South Korea -- As worries mount in Washington that North Korea could be moving toward its first nuclear weapons test, Pyongyang's neighbors remain skeptical, saying the country may just be posturing to strengthen its hand for future negotiations.
"China and South Korea, Pyongyang's two most important economic benefactors, also remain reluctant to consider sanctions against the North, say U.S. and Asian officials, and it isn't clear whether even an atomic test would persuade them to change their policies sharply."
The story goes on: Asian officials blame the U.S. for North Korea's belligerent stance. They think North Korea is trying to frighten its neighbors to wring concessions out of Washington.
My question is: Did Clinton make more of a hash of North Korea than Bush has with his axis of evil talk? What has been the upside of that?
In the 2000 Olympics, athletes from North Korea and South Korea marched in together. You think they're more together now?
[Edited 3 times. Most recently by on May 9, 2005 at 07:29pm.]
Well, he's been accused of molestation of young boys many years ago. He denies it. He admits that he met young men (over age 18) on the Internet and offered them city jobs. He, like many people, does not believe that gays need legislative "protection." He was married for a time in the 1990s. He says he's not gay, just confused.
That really doesn't sound rabidly anti-gay to me.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/05/AR2005050501868.html
http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/05/051005spokane.htm
Â
I agree that West deserves what he gets from the voters, but only because he misused his office. The molestation allegations have not been proven and probably will not be. He has been "outed" by a liberal newspaper. Presumably these kinds of outings (like Gannon) are done by Democrats to show Republican hypocrisy. However, it makes the liberals look more like gay-bashers than the conservatives. I don't think it's a tactic that helps the party.
huh?
the liberals didn't have anything to do with anything about this story, but it makes them look like gay bashers? how convoluted is that?
there are four people who say he did.
he admits he's had relations with other men, but denies he's gay? says he's just "confused"?
the liberals didn't have anything to do with anything about this story, but it makes them look like gay bashers? how convoluted is that?
I said "these kinds of outings" as in Gannon and the outings of Republican Congressman staffers. The liberals are supposed to be supporters and friends of gays, interested in their rights and privileges, tolerant of their lifestyles. But when they gleefully out gays who are Republican or connected to Republicans, they expose people's private lives to the media. Why? Because they know that it is still considered harmful to a public person to be "found out." Thus they play to the hatreds and prejudices of the public. NEVER is there any liberal expression of sympathy or support for these people, just a "gotcha" attitude that belies their so-called tolerance for gays. It reflects very poorly on them, in my opinion.
"He has been "outed" by a liberal newspaper. "
Was the guy outed on the editorial pages? If not, I don't know how you can ascribe political motive. It was news.
"Presumably these kinds of outings (like Gannon) are done by Democrats to show Republican hypocrisy. However, it makes the liberals look more like gay-bashers than the conservatives. I don't think it's a tactic that helps the party."
Helping "the party" had nothing to do with the newspaper running a story.
[Edited by on May 15, 2005 at 04:21pm.]
Yup, that's enough for crabhole to convict when it comes to a conservative or republican.
Republican Congressmen aren't supporters and friends of gays, interested in their rights and privileges, tolerant of their lifestyles.
Hypocricy does not buy you tolerance when you are part of the problem.
and besides, they weren't questioning his gayness, they were questioning his haveing abused teens and having offered political jobs in exchange for sex. Just because he's gay doesn't protect him from scrutiny from this anymore than a politician offering someone of the opposite sex a job in exchange for sex.
As for Gannon... when you lead a party how's making political hay at the expense of gays, it's no one's fault but his to have his homosexuality exposed. His party brought the issue.
[Edited by molegrass on May 15, 2005 at 05:35pm.]
"Quit talking to me crabgrass" - Torpedo-8
People on the right, particularly the religious right seem to think, when a scandal like this breaks that "the Media (always some unnamed monolith)" is out to get them. They don't understand that they set themselves up for it.
When you're an outspoken, public holier-than thou-type and you fall, that's news. As a matter of fact, that's the essence of news -- something out of the ordinary. Bill Bennett gambling away millions was news. The list goes on and on.
They think liberals get a pass because of the media. Most times, that 's not it. Liberals don't generally hold themselves up as saints. Anyone with any sense of what was going on had a pretty good idea Bill Clinton was a 'dawg in his personal life before he was elected.
[Edited 4 times. Most recently by on May 15, 2005 at 06:59pm.]
and if Bill had been advocating laws against adultery and moralizing about how his opponents were guilty because of such behavior, he would have really deserved the light tht was shown on his indescretions.
crabgrass 5/15/05 5:29pm
It's Torpedo who is beating the horse of trying to talk to and about someone he told not to talk to him... and every time he beats that horse, I'm gonna point it out.
[Edited by molegrass on May 16, 2005 at 09:15pm.]
another opportunity: http://www.booktv.org/General/index.asp?segID=5491&schedID=359
Â
hyp·o·crite-- n.One who pretends to be what he is not or to have principles or beliefs that he does not have
The Democrats' efforts to block President Bush's qualified judicial nominees are not only hypocritical but are examples of partisan politicking at its worst.
Republicans in the Senate are working to ensure that all of President Bush's judicial nominees receive a fair and final up-or-down vote. Despite Senate history and tradition, Democrats are aggressively trying to prevent qualified judges from receiving what's been afforded every judicial nominee for over 200 years.
During the Clinton Administration, Democrats demanded up-or-down majority votes on judicial nominations, but, now that they are in the minority, they have become the party of obstructionism and double standards.
The Constitution guarantees an up or down vote, but the Democrats don't want to perform their duty.
On July 25, 2003, President Bush made history by nominating Janice Rogers Brown to the federal bench. Brown is the first African American elected to the California Supreme Court and was reelected by California voters with 76% of the vote.
The daughter of Alabama sharecroppers who grew up in segregated schools in the midst of Jim Crow policies in the South, Brown is a single mother who worked her way through college and law school.
Despite her sterling personal and legal credentials, during the 108th Congress, Senate Democrats used a hypocritical double standard to block her nomination. Judge Brown is not alone. Senate Democrats obstructed an up-or-down vote on 9 other well-qualified judges. Some of these judges have been waiting for a vote for four years.
It seems Democrats have changed their tune on giving all judicial nominees a fair up-or-down vote. They now claim the filibuster is a sacred tool of the Senate. But in 1995, Democrats, including nine who still serve, voted to rid the Senate of this tool.
That's right, nine current Democratic Senators voted to get rid of the filibuster. Now that it suits their needs, they praise it. What's worse than this hypocrisy is these same Senators now lead the obstruction and threaten to shut down the Senate. Their claims of loyalty to, and reverence for, Senate traditions are just another sham designed to hide their hypocrisy.
and his poll numbers go down, each
day
it continues.
Wow, his numbers really changed over the past month/year. This is before the MoveOn.org's ad portraying Senator Frist meniacally blowing up the Capitol, the DNC leader Howard Dean's crazy statement about putting DeLay in jail even though he has not even been accused of a crime, etc. Gov. Janet Napolitano (dem) wouldn't even meet him while he was in Phoenix Wednesday, Barney Frank is appalled by Dean's rhetoric and now Dean has to go on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday. It should be a "scream" to hear what he has to say.
The DNC is falling apart. Their donations are pathetically low and they have no plan for Social Security or anything else for that matter. Throw in blatant lies like Fold's poll analysis and you can see why the Dems in congress have their worst poll numbers since the 90's and worse than President Bush's and the Republican's in congress:
[Edited 5 times. Most recently by on May 19, 2005 at 05:44pm.]
Brave Democrats. More brave than I. These nominees go through, the Republican consolidation of power takes one more step to completeness.
So you believe in democracy unless it gets in the way of your party?
I believe in acquiring power, and so do you. I'll admit it, but you won't.
Except I have one thing that you don't have and that's a loyalty.
[Edited 4 times. Most recently by on May 19, 2005 at 08:39pm.]
I believe in acquiring power, and so do you.
I am the last person that I want in power, so I do not agree with your point. That attitude by the dems both in congress and their supporters will cost them dearly come election time.
The minority does not represent the majority and for them to think so is pretty arrogant.
[Edited by on May 19, 2005 at 08:43pm.]
I've said it before and I'll say it again. There's people out there that would support the anti-Christ as long as he had a "D" in front of his/her name.
"Loyalty" like that is meaningless.
Hitler would be the running mate, right?
They both have D's in front of their name, right?
That's where we're at. I knew it.
They both have D's in front of their name, right?
That's your loyalty.
Then if you want to stay away from those of us who run with Hitler and the Anti-Christ, better vote Republican.
Hitler is right here:
"Hey, Furer, buddy, let's have a couple beers and listen to some Wagner!"
You'd always vote "D".
The logical conclusion is that you'd vote for the Anti-Christ (or Hitler) if he were running under the "D".
You're obviously not logical.
Then by all means, clear up this fuzzy mind of mine.
[Edited by on May 20, 2005 at 05:57am.]
I have neither the time nor the inclination.
If you want to continue to make youself look stupid, I don't care.
Whatever gets you through the night.
You said it yourself, rat, "loyalty." That means you'll support whoever the party puts up no matter how bad.
These nominees go through, the Republican consolidation of power takes one more step to completeness.
The people have place the Republicans in the White House and the Senate. Because these branches choose judges they should have their choices as long as they get the needed majority vote in the Senate. If the people don't like it they can vote democrats in next time.
Looks like some more friends of the Clintons are going to be doing jail time.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-rosen20may20,1,879537.story?coll=la-headlines-california&ctrack=1&cset=true
Mrs. Clinton Not at Fault, Prosecutor Tells Jury
Don't believe the prosector. Hillary Clinton is in it -- whatever it is -- right up to her eyeballs. She put the guy up to it and made sure he took the fall. She's a calculating woman.
I thought I'd do the conservative spin this morning.
[Edited by on May 21, 2005 at 06:44am.]
No, she wouldn't know anything about a donation of $1.1 million dollars being reported as $400k a few months from the election.
If anyone is "teflon" in American politics, it's the Clintons.