under the constitution as it stands today, and if we have to go that far to get it into your head, the constitutions of the various states which have all subsequently applied the restrictions on congress to their own legislatures, we will not have any sort of government sanctioned religion in this country. not without amending 51 constitutions. and if that happens, vancouver's looking like a good place to go live.
I'm not sure all states have such restrictions. If they do they are irrelevant due to the interpretation of the Constitutiuon by the Supreme Court. This is what you need to get through your head: it was a usurpation of power by the feds.
I don't handle divorces either. Again that seems to be a catholic concern so I don't have an opinion on whether they should handle them or not. But I think some people go into marriage when they shouldn't and some decide to quit because they aren't willing to do what it takes to marriage work. However, there are some people that should get divorced. I think each attorney should handle the issue for themselves.
I'm not surprised. Just because it didn't happen today doesen't mean it never happened.
The Republicans this past weekend engaged in particularly blatent attempt at moral intimidation. When Dashle gently questioned the administration's prosecution of the war, Trent Lott and Tom Delay immediatly feigned disgust. How dare he question the president at this critcal time?
Well, if the adminstration continues to state that this war on terrorism has an alpha, but no omega, it's looks to me like they are trying to buy immunity from criticism from this period on.
Dashle isn't scoring any politcal points in doing this, when unquestioning approval is up over 80 percent in the rest of the country.
So maybe he's doing it because he thinks it's the right thing to do.
When Dashle gently questioned the administration's prosecution of the war, Trent Lott and Tom Delay immediatly feigned disgust. How dare he question the president at this critcal time?
The same Lott & Delay that did the same exact thing to Clinton?
"I think we can all agree that it got out of hand."
It did.
"Or would you prefer people posting your name, address, ss # again?"
What benefit would that provide?
"If you don't like how I run the show, take a hike or create your own forum."
I understand it isn't easy, but I've seen horrible language, and attacks the were meant to be attacks seemingly ignored while there was mild humor-laced remarks cruely dealt with, depending on the popularity of the poater or someone who's donated cash. One such individual cooly admitted he did and he's seem to have been granted immunity..
I think what I'm suggesting is a bit more balance.
Do you think you might just think about it rather than climb on your pedestal and shout GET OUT?!
Jethro is on the edge every post with you. He's harmless. He didn't attack Rick. They both post with their chins out.
At last, some powerful Democrats have dared to criticize Bush's endless war against terrorism, and for that they are being excoriated.
"The jury's still out about future successes," Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle said on February 28, according to The New York Times. "Before we make commitments in resources, I think we need to have a clearer understanding of what the direction will be."
Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott responded: "How dare Senator Daschle criticize President Bush while we are fighting our war on terrorism, especially when we have troops in the field? He should not be trying to divide our country while we are united."
House Republican Whip Tom DeLay of Texas "issued a one- word response," the Times noted: "Disgusting."
What's disgusting is the lack of tolerance among these Republicans for dissent, the lack of appreciation for free speech, the lack of understanding of the need for Congressional input into such momentous acts as going to war, and the lack of a basic knowledge of Congressional war powers as spelled out in the Constitution.
Article 1, Section 8, gives Congress the sole power "to declare war" and "to raise and support armies" and "to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces."
But these powers have atrophied over the past sixty years such that Congress no longer declares war; Presidents just wage it.
I urge Trent Lott and Tom DeLay to listen to a fellow Republican, Wisconsin Senator Robert M. La Follette, who warned about the perils of what he called "the war party" some 85 years ago.
His speech was called "The Right of the Citizen to Oppose War and the Right of Congress to Shape the War Policy."
"Every nation has its war party. It is not the party of democracy. It is the party of autocracy. It seeks to dominate absolutely. It is commercial, imperialistic, ruthless. It tolerates no opposition. . . . "In times of peace, the war party insists on making preparation for war. As soon as prepared for war, it insists on making war. If there is no sufficient reason for war, the party will make war on one pretext, then invent another, possibly more effective pretext after war is on.
"Before war is ended, the war party assumes the divine right to denounce and silence all opposition to war as unpatriotic and cowardly."
Lott and DeLay are up to an old and disreputable trick.
Some of you may recall that I posted a link to a quite remarkable speech by Ohio Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich a week or so ago.
Others did likewise, and look what's happened:
Kucinich's "Prayer for America" speech was interrupted by repeated standing ovations. But the real measure of the message's resonance came as the text of the speech circulated on the Internet--where a genuine worldwide web of opposition to the Administration's actions led to the posting of Kucinich's words on websites (including www.thenation.com) and dispatched them via e-mail. Within days, Kucinich received 10,000-plus e-mails. Many echoed New Jerseyan Thomas Minet's sentiments: "Since the 'Axis of Evil' State of the Union Address, I have been searching like Diogenes with his lantern for one honest person in Congress who would have the guts to speak out about the attack on Democracy being mounted by the Bush Administration. It has been a frustrating search indeed, and I was just about ready to give up hope when I ran across 'A Prayer for America.' Thank God for this man's courage." Others simply read, "Kucinich for President."
--The Nation
Being familiar with Kucinich from other contexts, I emphatically agree.
I'd have to say DeLay and Lott are using the time honored technique of shaming the opposition in shutting up by acting all pious. They know they would be doing the same thing if there was a Democrat in the White House.
As I write this, breaking news tells of yet another in a horrific, escalating string of Middle East terrorist attacks that will certainly, very soon, be responded to with still more obscene violence.
It makes absolutely no difference whether the bloodshed stems from Palestinian individual terror or Israeli state terror, the bloody consequence -- and the worsening danger -- remains the same. Innocent people are needlessly dying as the region is pushed toward a full-war explosion. Nothing more clearly or forcefully shows the futile stupidity and mutual destructiveness of "revenge".
Since Sept. 11, it's obvious that hardline positions everywhere have become much more dominant and concrete, with a chain of steadily worsening bellicosity unleashed by...what?
Was it the brutal nature of the WTC and Pentagon attacks themselves, or the Bush administration's ill-conceived, too militaristic and far too widely pursued, reactive belligerence?
That question can validly be debated, but it seems pretty certain that the perpetrators of last summer's atrocities calculated psychological effect perhaps even more carefully than where to strike a skyscraper with an airliner to achieve greatest devastation. Because, ever since, the world has been boiling toward enflamed results that have to be precisely what the terrorists hoped for.
What's needed now, are policy initiatives that run completely counter to what's been happening, and what's gotten predictable.
The heavy-handed over-reach of both Ariel Sharon and George Bush must be supplanted with a genuinely diplomatic approach, recognizing the requirement for some concession, and shared movement toward addressing each other's grievances.
What would truly help would be the emergence of some figure or force exhibiting Christ-like or Ghandi-esque qualities, but that's too much to realistically expect. The best actual hope lies with a personage or TENDENCY that would be roughly equivalent to Dwight Eisenhower, in his reponse to the Korean War in 1953.
Somebody has to step back from the brink and unequivocally state:
"Things have gone too far. This escalation has become untenable. I (we) pledge to restore peace and normalcy, and to find room for reasonable dialogue aimed at resolving underlying differences."
Our role has to be to lend pivotal, vocal support for such an outlook, for it may not emerge without a widespread insistence that it does.
You're a lawyer Jethro? What did you think about the pope's decree that catholic lawyers should not help people get a divorce?
JT you ARE a liberal!!!!
Whatever get's ya through the night, Justice Jethro.
A thought for today:
Thank God for flak jackets!
A thought for today:
Thank God for George Bush!
Yeeeah...and, Thank God for the fact that he will eventually be OUT of the White House.
Yeah, in about 6 years! =)
Re-elect Gore in 2004!
logical or not, it was done. deal with it.
I understand perfectly well.
under the constitution as it stands today, and if we have to go that far to get it into your head, the constitutions of the various states which have all subsequently applied the restrictions on congress to their own legislatures, we will not have any sort of government sanctioned religion in this country. not without amending 51 constitutions. and if that happens, vancouver's looking like a good place to go live.
I'm not sure all states have such restrictions. If they do they are irrelevant due to the interpretation of the Constitutiuon by the Supreme Court. This is what you need to get through your head: it was a usurpation of power by the feds.
Lundstrom posted: Re-elect Gore in 2004!
Uh, Lundstrom, Gore wasn't elected.
Lundstrom posted: Re-elect Gore in 2004!
Uh, Lundstrom, Gore wasn't elected.
You're a lawyer Jethro? What did you think about the pope's decree that catholic lawyers should not help people get a divorce?
I'm not catholic so I really don't care. That is the catholics problem to deal with.
Ok Jethro, do you think it is morally wrong for lawyers to help people divorce?
I don't handle divorces either. Again that seems to be a catholic concern so I don't have an opinion on whether they should handle them or not. But I think some people go into marriage when they shouldn't and some decide to quit because they aren't willing to do what it takes to marriage work. However, there are some people that should get divorced. I think each attorney should handle the issue for themselves.
Re-elect Gore in 2004!
And upon yet another recount, GORE STILL LOST!
Perhaps the Bush critics could be a tad more substanative in their criticizms. Otherwise it just sounds like sour grapes.
God Bless America...
And George W. Bush...
A great War president.
He's done more in a little over a year than Clinton did in eight....
And without any scandals...real or IMAGINED.
Sloop:
"Perhaps the Bush critics could be a tad more substanative in their criticizms (sic)"
Perhaps we could but maybe we're matching the level substance we seem to get from the other side.
Didn't read a whole lot of substance from you.
Dubya's hasn't done anything all that spectacular nor has he done anything all that terrible.
well, jt, there was that pretzel incident. :)
well, jt, there was that pretzel incident. :)
I forgot about that. It could have happened to anyone but, imagine if he had died.
He's done his job, as he should.
That doesn't mean that we need to lick his boots and sing his praises.
Like some.
We should still be free to disagree with some of the things he does, without being called traitors or something else.
We should still be free to disagree with some of the things he does, without being called traitors or something else.
I agree totally.
"Dubya's hasn't done anything all that spectacular nor has he done anything all that terrible."
You're half right.
"We should still be free to disagree with some of the things he does, without being called traitors or something else."
I saw no evidence of such a claim.
You're half right.
Ok, which? And why?
He's done his job, as he should.
That doesn't mean that we need to lick his boots and sing his praises.
No Lundstrom and his ilk lick the boots of Clinton and other morally bankrupt types.
Jethro, when are you going to act civil and not personally attack people?
Now what have I done?
No Lundstrom and his ilk...
Or was that a compliment?
"I saw no evidence of such a claim. "
I'm not surprised. Just because it didn't happen today doesen't mean it never happened.
The Republicans this past weekend engaged in particularly blatent attempt at moral intimidation. When Dashle gently questioned the administration's prosecution of the war, Trent Lott and Tom Delay immediatly feigned disgust. How dare he question the president at this critcal time?
Well, if the adminstration continues to state that this war on terrorism has an alpha, but no omega, it's looks to me like they are trying to buy immunity from criticism from this period on.
Dashle isn't scoring any politcal points in doing this, when unquestioning approval is up over 80 percent in the rest of the country.
So maybe he's doing it because he thinks it's the right thing to do.
So I hope he keeps talking.
THX:
I take jethro's criticism AS a compliment.
When Dashle gently questioned the administration's prosecution of the war, Trent Lott and Tom Delay immediatly feigned disgust. How dare he question the president at this critcal time?
The same Lott & Delay that did the same exact thing to Clinton?
Naw, couldn't be.
From Webster's New World Dictionary: "Ilk"-of the same sort or class.
I just meant Lundstrom and people like him licked the boots of Clinton etc.
I just meant Lundstrom and people like him licked the boots of Clinton etc.
That's much better. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
::pounds head on desk::
"So maybe he's doing it because he thinks it's the right thing to do."
Daschle reminds me of the spoiled, unpopular kid who keeps jumping up and down saying "LOOK AT ME...LOOK AT ME!!"
I hope the people of South Dakota are embarassed enough to vote him out of office.
I can't wait for the balance of power to change in the senate...
Republicans are going to stomp on these weasals.
THX....
Why don't you let people say what's on their mind?
It's so sterile in here people are afraid to pick their nose.
Just my humble opinion...nor a CRITICISM for goodness sakes...
<shiver>
Why don't you let people say what's on their mind?
Speaking your mind and personal attacks are two different things.
If you don't like how I run the show, take a hike or create your own forum.
I'm not going to tolerate the crap. I don't want it to escalate like it did at the PP.
I think we can all agree that it got out of hand.
Or would you prefer people posting your name, address, ss # again?
"I think we can all agree that it got out of hand."
It did.
"Or would you prefer people posting your name, address, ss # again?"
What benefit would that provide?
"If you don't like how I run the show, take a hike or create your own forum."
I understand it isn't easy, but I've seen horrible language, and attacks the were meant to be attacks seemingly ignored while there was mild humor-laced remarks cruely dealt with, depending on the popularity of the poater or someone who's donated cash. One such individual cooly admitted he did and he's seem to have been granted immunity..
I think what I'm suggesting is a bit more balance.
Do you think you might just think about it rather than climb on your pedestal and shout GET OUT?!
Jethro is on the edge every post with you. He's harmless. He didn't attack Rick. They both post with their chins out.
Will you think about it, JT?
"I hope the people of South Dakota are embarassed enough to vote him out of office."
The stump-jumpers in the West don't like him, but he's got the population centers in his back pocket.
"I can't wait for the balance of power to change in the senate... "
Can't ignore the appeal of absolute power, can you?
That is the problem with power. But it is usually the liberals that abuse it.
"But it is usually the liberals that abuse it."
Successfully advancing an agenda is usually called power abuse by the unsuccessful.
Sloop, I may have been a bit touchy with Jethro.
Unless there are complaints I'll try to stay out of it. Unless it's obviously crossed the line of course.
This could have shortened the war by months.
THE WAR PARTY TOLERATES NO OPPOSITION
At last, some powerful Democrats have dared to criticize Bush's endless war against terrorism, and for that they are being excoriated.
"The jury's still out about future successes," Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle said on February 28, according to The New York Times. "Before we make commitments in resources, I think we need to have a clearer understanding of what the direction will be."
Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott responded: "How dare Senator Daschle criticize President Bush while we are fighting our war on terrorism, especially when we have troops in the field? He should not be trying to divide our country while we are united."
House Republican Whip Tom DeLay of Texas "issued a one- word response," the Times noted: "Disgusting."
What's disgusting is the lack of tolerance among these Republicans for dissent, the lack of appreciation for free speech, the lack of understanding of the need for Congressional input into such momentous acts as going to war, and the lack of a basic knowledge of Congressional war powers as spelled out in the Constitution.
Article 1, Section 8, gives Congress the sole power "to declare war" and "to raise and support armies" and "to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces."
But these powers have atrophied over the past sixty years such that Congress no longer declares war; Presidents just wage it.
I urge Trent Lott and Tom DeLay to listen to a fellow Republican, Wisconsin Senator Robert M. La Follette, who warned about the perils of what he called "the war party" some 85 years ago.
His speech was called "The Right of the Citizen to Oppose War and the Right of Congress to Shape the War Policy."
"Every nation has its war party. It is not the party of democracy. It is the party of autocracy. It seeks to dominate absolutely. It is commercial, imperialistic, ruthless. It tolerates no opposition. . . . "In times of peace, the war party insists on making preparation for war. As soon as prepared for war, it insists on making war. If there is no sufficient reason for war, the party will make war on one pretext, then invent another, possibly more effective pretext after war is on.
"Before war is ended, the war party assumes the divine right to denounce and silence all opposition to war as unpatriotic and cowardly."
Lott and DeLay are up to an old and disreputable trick.
They should not be allowed to get away with it.
-- Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive
Some of you may recall that I posted a link to a quite remarkable speech by Ohio Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich a week or so ago.
Others did likewise, and look what's happened:
Kucinich's "Prayer for America" speech was interrupted by repeated standing ovations. But the real measure of the message's resonance came as the text of the speech circulated on the Internet--where a genuine worldwide web of opposition to the Administration's actions led to the posting of Kucinich's words on websites (including www.thenation.com) and dispatched them via e-mail. Within days, Kucinich received 10,000-plus e-mails. Many echoed New Jerseyan Thomas Minet's sentiments: "Since the 'Axis of Evil' State of the Union Address, I have been searching like Diogenes with his lantern for one honest person in Congress who would have the guts to speak out about the attack on Democracy being mounted by the Bush Administration. It has been a frustrating search indeed, and I was just about ready to give up hope when I ran across 'A Prayer for America.' Thank God for this man's courage." Others simply read, "Kucinich for President."
--The Nation
Being familiar with Kucinich from other contexts, I emphatically agree.
He'd make a superb president.
I'd have to say DeLay and Lott are using the time honored technique of shaming the opposition in shutting up by acting all pious. They know they would be doing the same thing if there was a Democrat in the White House.
They know they would be doing the same thing if there was a Democrat in the White House.
I don't know if they would or not. After all there is nothing more dishonest or more of a low life than a democrat!!!!
Thanks for the compliment, "counselor."
It's hard to say whether the champions of homosexual "rights" are gullible and misguided, selfish or, in many cases, simply deceitful and dishonest. Sometimes, one supposes, there may be elements of all three.
Economic patriotism may just be back in style. And if the European Union decides to haul us before the World Trade Organization for a caning, the president should tell the WTO to take a hike. If Europe wants a trade war with the United States, let it begin here.
"Unless there are complaints I'll try to stay out of it. Unless it's obviously crossed the line of course."
And I should've sent you a message instead of bringing it up on the board. My apologies, THX, and thanks...
SHALOM -- NOW OR NEVER!
As I write this, breaking news tells of yet another in a horrific, escalating string of Middle East terrorist attacks that will certainly, very soon, be responded to with still more obscene violence.
It makes absolutely no difference whether the bloodshed stems from Palestinian individual terror or Israeli state terror, the bloody consequence -- and the worsening danger -- remains the same. Innocent people are needlessly dying as the region is pushed toward a full-war explosion. Nothing more clearly or forcefully shows the futile stupidity and mutual destructiveness of "revenge".
Since Sept. 11, it's obvious that hardline positions everywhere have become much more dominant and concrete, with a chain of steadily worsening bellicosity unleashed by...what?
Was it the brutal nature of the WTC and Pentagon attacks themselves, or the Bush administration's ill-conceived, too militaristic and far too widely pursued, reactive belligerence?
That question can validly be debated, but it seems pretty certain that the perpetrators of last summer's atrocities calculated psychological effect perhaps even more carefully than where to strike a skyscraper with an airliner to achieve greatest devastation. Because, ever since, the world has been boiling toward enflamed results that have to be precisely what the terrorists hoped for.
What's needed now, are policy initiatives that run completely counter to what's been happening, and what's gotten predictable.
The heavy-handed over-reach of both Ariel Sharon and George Bush must be supplanted with a genuinely diplomatic approach, recognizing the requirement for some concession, and shared movement toward addressing each other's grievances.
What would truly help would be the emergence of some figure or force exhibiting Christ-like or Ghandi-esque qualities, but that's too much to realistically expect. The best actual hope lies with a personage or TENDENCY that would be roughly equivalent to Dwight Eisenhower, in his reponse to the Korean War in 1953.
Somebody has to step back from the brink and unequivocally state:
"Things have gone too far. This escalation has become untenable. I (we) pledge to restore peace and normalcy, and to find room for reasonable dialogue aimed at resolving underlying differences."
Our role has to be to lend pivotal, vocal support for such an outlook, for it may not emerge without a widespread insistence that it does.