Random stuff to argue about (fka the Fascist thread)

[TrailBate]

So, why is the govn't going after baseball and the Shiavo's? So you don't notice that the Republicans are attempting to silence the minority forever, exercising more political power than in the entire history of the US government. The Republicans have called it the "nuclear (Nukular) Option."



The "nuclear option" calls for Dick Cheney to use a parliamentary trick to overturn the 200-year-old right to filibuster judicial nominations. A filibuster is simply the right of a group of at least 41 concerned senators to extend debate and delay controversial votes. If Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist can twist enough arms to get 51 votes in support of Cheney's ruling, the minority party will be completely silenced for the first time ever.


***Radical Republicans want absolute power to appoint Supreme Court justices that will favor corporate interests and the extreme right over the rest of us.

***To get it, they plan to use a parliamentary trick they call the "nuclear option" to overturn 200 years of bipartisan checks and balances that have kept the courts fair for centuries.

***After eliminating the right to filibuster, Bush and the Republicans would have absolute, unchecked power over all three branches of the federal government for the first time in American history.

***While the "nuclear option" is likely to come up in a fight over an Appeals Court nominee, make no mistake—the real targets here are the 4 Supreme Court seats likely to turn over in the next 4 years.

***Republicans have taken millions of dollars from their corporate backers. Now as payback, they're trying to force through judges who will favor those same corporate interests by overturning laws protecting the environment, civil rights, and workers—laws these companies have been trying to get rid of for years.

Keep in mind that a full 90% of Bush's nominees have been approved by the democrats, but the Bushies say this is NOT enough! They have decided they should get everything they want! This is not what the US gov't was set up to do!

[priss]

This is not what the US gov't was set up to do!


Is this the government that was set up in the US in the begining when these rules were made? 2 partys that do nothing with the peoples interest involved but only act to discedit one another to secure power.

Now we are all forced to pick one or the other and if we lose then we get no representation at all.

Civil War starts over such as this.

[bdee]

The Republicans are really going to screw the pooch with this one. Does Dick and CO. really think they will be the majority forever? What's going to happen when the shoe's on the other foot - oh wait then they'll argue it's "un - American" for their right to filibuster to be quashed (even though they caused it). ::)

Whatever your stance politically this goes well beyond a right/left issue. This removes a core principle of our governmental system. One party rule wasn't the idea 225 + years ago.

I'm still naive enough to be blown away by these types of things, I'll admit it. I never thought I'd reach 30 and see the things I'm seeing now. Where the hell are the moderates, on both sides? There has been way too much pandering to certain segments of the voting base by one side, while the other side just rolled over and played dead.
The only thing that keeps me from going nuts is knowing that there will be a backlash to all of it at some point. Remember what happened after Bush part 1 (not a horrible President - especially compared to Junior and his predeccesor).

[BG]

Hmmm, fascism, civil war...Note to self;

Stop in at Pete's gun shop on the way home.
Join heavily armed white supremacist group in northern NH over the Easter holiday.

All set, Thanks

BG

[gnurider1080]

how long does it take to gain citizenship in canada? why do i have a feeling im gonna be drafted when i turn 18?

[BG]

how long does it take to gain citizenship in canada? why do i have a feeling im gonna be drafted when i turn 18?


Mention my name.

http://www.student.cs.uwaterloo.ca/~jj2lee/DND/

BG

[Rych]

So, why is the govn't going after baseball and the Shiavo's? So you don't notice that the Republicans are attempting to silence the minority forever, exercising more political power than in the entire history of the US government. The Republicans have called it the "nuclear (Nukular) Option."



The "nuclear option" calls for Dick Cheney to use a parliamentary trick to overturn the 200-year-old right to filibuster judicial nominations. A filibuster is simply the right of a group of at least 41 concerned senators to extend debate and delay controversial votes. If Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist can twist enough arms to get 51 votes in support of Cheney's ruling, the minority party will be completely silenced for the first time ever.


Radical Republicans want absolute power to appoint Supreme Court justices that will favor corporate interests and the extreme right over the rest of us.

To get it, they plan to use a parliamentary trick they call the "nuclear option" to overturn 200 years of bipartisan checks and balances that have kept the courts fair for centuries.

After eliminating the right to filibuster, Bush and the Republicans would have absolute, unchecked power over all three branches of the federal government for the first time in American history.

While the "nuclear option" is likely to come up in a fight over an Appeals Court nominee, make no mistake—the real targets here are the 4 Supreme Court seats likely to turn over in the next 4 years.

Republicans have taken millions of dollars from their corporate backers. Now as payback, they're trying to force through judges who will favor those same corporate interests by overturning laws protecting the environment, civil rights, and workers—laws these companies have been trying to get rid of for years.

Keep in mind that a full 90% of Bush's nominees have been approved by the democrats, but the Bushies say this is NOT enough! They have decided they should get everything they want! This is not what the US gov't was set up to do!

Sure this is the first time the legislature threatened overturn 200 years of bipartisan checks and balances. Your favorite Ku Klux Klan senator, Robert Byrd compares the republicans to the Nazis for just trying to get a vote on Bush’s nominees. Oh course Byrd himself used the same tactic in the 70’s when the Democrats had control.

“Sen. Byrd is often credited with pioneering the Senate procedure he now derides as a denial of free speech and a threat to our liberties. Recall that it was Sen. Byrd who led the charge to establish new Senate precedents in 1977, 1979, 1980, and 1987 - including a number of precedents that were designed specifically to stop filibusters and other delay tactics that were previously authorized under Senate rules or prior precedents:
In 1977, Senator Byrd led the establishment of a new precedent in order to break a post-cloture filibuster on a natural gas deregulation bill, stating:
“I make the point of order that when the Senate is operating under cloture, the Chair is required to take the initiative under Rule XXII to rule out of order all amendments which are dilatory or which on their face are out of order." That precedent contravened prior precedent, which would have required the Chair to await a point of order from the floor.
In 1979, Senator Byrd led the establishment of a new precedent that allowed the Chair to rule on questions of germaneness raised during the consideration of appropriations bills - notwithstanding Senate Rule XVI, which states that all questions of germaneness on appropriations bills must be decided by the full Senate.
In 1980, Senator Byrd led the establishment of a new precedent to require an immediate vote, without debate, on any motion to go into executive session to consider a particular nomination. His new precedent was specifically designed, in his words, to "deal with a filibuster on the motion to proceed" to a nomination. Previously, a motion to proceed to a particular nomination was debatable. The new precedent was sustained by a vote of 54-38, and yet the precedent did not “rob a senator of the right to speak out against an overreaching executive branch,” as Sen. Byrd claimed in his op-ed.
In 1987, Senator Byrd caused establishment of a new precedent declaring that certain tactics were to be construed as dilatory during roll call votes and therefore always out of order no matter what - even though the text of the Senate rules had clearly authorized such tactics. Previously, dilatory tactics were out of order only after cloture had been invoked.
And in 1975, the Senate voted three times (51-42, 48-40, and 46-43) in support of the power of a Senate majority under Article I to change the rules. Those precedents forced the Senate to act and led to a major change in the cloture rule.”
So when we count your “200 years of bipartisan checks and balances.” Are they 200 years that are just not in a row?
The only difference between the 70’s and now is in the 70’s the republicans were not smart enough to come up with a catchy phrase like “NUCLEAR OPTION”. Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good argument.

[Scott O]

So, why is the govn't going after baseball and the Shiavo's? So you don't notice that the Republicans are attempting to silence the minority forever, exercising more political power than in the entire history of the US government. The Republicans have called it the "nuclear (Nukular) Option."



The "nuclear option" calls for Dick Cheney to use a parliamentary trick to overturn the 200-year-old right to filibuster judicial nominations. A filibuster is simply the right of a group of at least 41 concerned senators to extend debate and delay controversial votes. If Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist can twist enough arms to get 51 votes in support of Cheney's ruling, the minority party will be completely silenced for the first time ever.


***Radical Republicans want absolute power to appoint Supreme Court justices that will favor corporate interests and the extreme right over the rest of us.

***To get it, they plan to use a parliamentary trick they call the "nuclear option" to overturn 200 years of bipartisan checks and balances that have kept the courts fair for centuries.

***After eliminating the right to filibuster, Bush and the Republicans would have absolute, unchecked power over all three branches of the federal government for the first time in American history.

***While the "nuclear option" is likely to come up in a fight over an Appeals Court nominee, make no mistake—the real targets here are the 4 Supreme Court seats likely to turn over in the next 4 years.

***Republicans have taken millions of dollars from their corporate backers. Now as payback, they're trying to force through judges who will favor those same corporate interests by overturning laws protecting the environment, civil rights, and workers—laws these companies have been trying to get rid of for years.

Keep in mind that a full 90% of Bush's nominees have been approved by the democrats, but the Bushies say this is NOT enough! They have decided they should get everything they want! This is not what the US gov't was set up to do!


Complaining will get you nowhere. Why don't you do something about it? Or, you could just read Rych's reply and maybe that'll ease your mind.

[TrailBate]

Complaining will get you nowhere. Why don't you do something about it? Or, you could just read Rych's reply and maybe that'll ease your mind.


I do. I write my reps/senators/congressman, and I let others know when I see something that I think is going wrong. What else would you like me to do?

As for Senator Byrd, I don't know much about him. The only thing about Rych's reply I can find when I search around is a website where Rych seems to have gotten the exact quote from. I will concede he is correct, without my knowledge of any other facts.

But there is a difference between Byrd's circumstance, and the current one where one party controls the house, senate, and the presidency. Now on top of that, they want to silence the minority. Get one or two more conservatives in the Supreme Court, and the US government is dangerously one-sided.

We've gone to war in Iraq, and tried to set up a government that is fair to all it's citizens, yet we're doing the opposite in our own country.

Instead of sitting by believing your government is doing everything in your best interest, why don't YOU do something about it?

[Mr_Cheeze]

So, why is the govn't going after baseball and the Shiavo's? So you don't notice that the Republicans are attempting to silence the minority forever, exercising more political power than in the entire history of the US government. The Republicans have called it the "nuclear (Nukular) Option."



The "nuclear option" calls for Dick Cheney to use a parliamentary trick to overturn the 200-year-old right to filibuster judicial nominations. A filibuster is simply the right of a group of at least 41 concerned senators to extend debate and delay controversial votes. If Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist can twist enough arms to get 51 votes in support of Cheney's ruling, the minority party will be completely silenced for the first time ever.


***Radical Republicans want absolute power to appoint Supreme Court justices that will favor corporate interests and the extreme right over the rest of us.

***To get it, they plan to use a parliamentary trick they call the "nuclear option" to overturn 200 years of bipartisan checks and balances that have kept the courts fair for centuries.

***After eliminating the right to filibuster, Bush and the Republicans would have absolute, unchecked power over all three branches of the federal government for the first time in American history.

***While the "nuclear option" is likely to come up in a fight over an Appeals Court nominee, make no mistake—the real targets here are the 4 Supreme Court seats likely to turn over in the next 4 years.

***Republicans have taken millions of dollars from their corporate backers. Now as payback, they're trying to force through judges who will favor those same corporate interests by overturning laws protecting the environment, civil rights, and workers—laws these companies have been trying to get rid of for years.

Keep in mind that a full 90% of Bush's nominees have been approved by the democrats, but the Bushies say this is NOT enough! They have decided they should get everything they want! This is not what the US gov't was set up to do!


You are just completely wrong on this one. The filibuster has been properly used by legislators to exclusively delay the process of bill making. Until recently, it was NEVER used to block judicial nominees. Go back in history, you'll not find a Democrat appointed judge that was ever blocked in such a manner. Clinton got his. Reagan got his. And so on and so forth. The Constitutional right of the President to appoint judges has never been questioned. The Republican threat to impose the nuclear option is merely to put things back as they should be... to put the judicial nominee up for a Yea or Nay vote. Nothing else need be debated. That's it. Don't like it? Well, then they should shut their festering pie holes and win a god damned election.

When is the Democrat Party going to stop acting like a bunch of losers and do something that might make people want to vote for them? ... like having Hillary run for Oval Office?!? lmao

It's pretty funny that Hillary is doing exactly what her husband did when he first ran for President in 1991. She is giving herself a complete political makeover. Is this what the Democrats need? Because I don't think she's going to fool as many people as Bubba did. She's just way too polarizing a figure.

[TrailBate]

Don't like it? Well, then they should shut their festering pie holes and win a god damned election.

you're absolutely right about this. But when a lot of people are being misled, and absolute nutjobs are getting a lot of financial support from the republican party, it makes this a little difficult. (who was that wacko senator that won a seat in 2004 even after he refused to debate in the same building as his opponent, and called him "limp wristed", etc?)

When is the Democrat Party going to stop acting like a bunch of losers and do something that might make people want to vote for them? ... like having Hillary run for Oval Office?!? lmao

It's pretty funny that Hillary is doing exactly what her husband did when he first ran for President in 1991. She is giving herself a complete political makeover. Is this what the Democrats need? Because I don't think she's going to fool as many people as Bubba did. She's just way too polarizing a figure.



The democrats are a bunch of indecisive, lost pussies. The system is ripe for an intelligent 3rd party leader to step forward and give the anti-neocons a voice. The only thing the Dems have going for them is Obama. [/quote]

[TrailBate]

You are just completely wrong on this one. The filibuster has been properly used by legislators to exclusively delay the process of bill making. Until recently, it was NEVER used to block judicial nominees. Go back in history, you'll not find a Democrat appointed judge that was ever blocked in such a manner. Clinton got his. Reagan got his. And so on and so forth. The Constitutional right of the President to appoint judges has never been questioned. The Republican threat to impose the nuclear option is merely to put things back as they should be... to put the judicial nominee up for a Yea or Nay vote. Nothing else need be debated. That's it. Don't like it? Well, then they should shut their festering pie holes and win a god damned election.

.



20% of Clinton's judicial nominees were blocked.

[ride in maine]

obama is a good person and looks to be a good leader. but you need to pry the democrat party away from ted kennedy ,the clintons ,and move on. org.when that happens you will see the democrats going in a better direction instead of hiding behind the polls.

[Rych]

20% of Clinton's judicial nominees were blocked.


Were they blocked, or voted down? There is a difference.

My ideal 3rd party candidate:

Pro-Choice but partial birth abortions

Pro capital punishment

Anti-nation building… as George Bush was supposed to be. In the case of the iraq war, It’s simple. Go in and remove the government get out. Leave a warning, eff with us again and we’ll flatten you again.

Pro free market… if I want to drive a SUV and pay $4 a gallon for gas that’s my option. No artificial fuel taxes to discourage SUV driving. I would be open to tax breaks for alternative fuel vehicles.

No child left behind... I say leave them behind. If the kid is not interested in keeping up with his class, no problem, here is your diploma attached to your new shovel. May one of them serve you well.

Social Security Retirement benefits. If your over 40, good for you no changes except retirement benefits will not be paid until your 70. If your under 40 the good news is we are giving you 30 years warning. You ain’t getting Social Security benefits. Seek out IRA’s or a passbook for a savings account, or learn to eat from dumpsters.

Suicide booths in every state….Want to commit suicide, no questions asked. Go down to your local suicide booth, pay your $100 non-refundable body disposal fee, then go home and wait for the mandatory 5 day suicide waiting period to end, then return to suicide booth or don’t.

Guns….Everyone over 15 will be required to be armed at all times in public. If you are found unarmed you can be legally shot by one of your fellow citizens….

Hmmm…maybe I’ve gone a little off track.

[BG]

"My ideal 3rd party candidate:"

LMAO ;D Now that's gettin' back to good old American values. And gives as reasonable a choice of candidate as what we have now, sweet.

BG

[truckboy]

The Democrats have a more disparate voter base. It's tougher to get Blacks, Liberal White, Hispanics, Gays, Blue Collar workers of all persuasions, etc. to agree than it is to get Rich Folk and Christians to agree. All the GOP needs to do is scare the Pious and tell them they'll take care of the bad guys, throw in some code words to make them think the GOP is a God fearin' party and the're in. To put 'em over the top, the kneejerk Fox "News" viewers and AM raido listeners (they can't ALL be christian and/or rich, some must be middle class secular fools) come along for the ride.

Plus it's way easier to throw mud and inuendo at your opponent than it is to deflect that and get Americans to listen to intelligent long-term solutions. Kerry tore Bush up in terms of policy and smarts in the debates and Bush just pushed the same tired crap; Easy short-term band-aids and slandering comments.

The Democrats are going to have to start playing as dirty as the GOP, and that goes against the nature of the party, or take the high road and wait it out, and Americans have a short attention span.

[kernel crash]

"The Democrats are going to have to start playing as dirty as the GOP, and that goes against the nature of the party, "

AH HA HA HA HA HA HA, AH HA HA HA HA HA HA That's a killer man. a real killer. Hey have you been wearing your helmet lately?

[Mr_Cheeze]

The Democrats are going to have to start playing as dirty as the GOP, and that goes against the nature of the party, or take the high road and wait it out, and Americans have a short attention span.


LMFAO!!!! Now that's the funniest thing I've read in some time.

Exactly what Democrat Party have you been watching.

[ride in maine]

the democrats did more mudslinging with kerry and his flip flops then the mudslinging in the atv debate going on in the other forum

[truckboy]

Get real you idiots. Stop getting your information from Fox "News" and start thinking for yourselves. Do you really mean to tell me you think the GOP is cleaner than the Dems? That the Bushies have actual ideas and Kerry didn't? Which election did YOU watch?

[ride in maine]

Get real you idiots. Stop getting your information from Fox "News" and start thinking for yourselves. Do you really mean to tell me you think the GOP is cleaner than the Dems? That the Bushies have actual ideas and Kerry didn't? Which election did YOU watch?

spoken by some one who thinks the alphabet channels are the real news. and I watched the same election you watched. If you think there was no mud slinging than I feel sorry for you which I guess then makes me a idiot.the bushies may not have all of the ideas but then again he does not hide behind the polls and speaks his mind. right or wrong.

[kernel crash]

"Do you really mean to tell me you think the GOP is cleaner than the Dems?"

No. I think their equal when it comes to dirty politics. It's just that YOU thought that somehow the Republicans had the inside track all to themselves. You need to get real. And I won't call you an idiot.

[ride in maine]

like I said kernel there was mudslinging but in order for the democrats to take control of there destiny they needto let moveon.org moveon and get some new blood in there elite little cub which if you were watching is still controled by the clintons.and that is the real reason why your man kerry lost. if he had won then hillary would not run in the 2008 election. she would have to run in 2012 which then would make her to old, but then you already knew that .

[truckboy]

Is it mudslinging to say Bush never reported for duty or is it digging up the truth. Is it mudslinging to find a bunch of guys who never served with Kerry and create a "citizens for" group? How about Dukakis' pre-release prisoner debacle. And can you honestly tell me they weren't after Clinton from the minute he announced he'd run? Christ - "travelgate", whitewater, Monica. None of that made a difference in his ability to run the country.

My point is that THAT'S what the GOP hacks do better than the Democrats. Fear and Smear is what I call it. They get the first sucker punch in by paying some bum to claim their opponent is some kind of immoral (shudder) liberal (shudder) Then talk about God out one side of their face and make self-serving immoral, short term ploicy out the other. When the Dems bring up Bush's "duty" record or supporters bring up ties to Enron and Saudi oil, it has implications about who he's going to take care of, and we're seeing exactly that now. When the GOP questions a candidate's morality because he smoked dope in college it's not about how well he's going to run the country, it's about scaring the voters and smearing his image.

[ride in maine]

Is it mudslinging to say Bush never reported for duty or is it digging up the truth. Is it mudslinging to find a bunch of guys who never served with Kerry and create a "citizens for" group? How about Dukakis' pre-release prisoner debacle. And can you honestly tell me they weren't after Clinton from the minute he announced he'd run? Christ - "travelgate", whitewater, Monica. None of that made a difference in his ability to run the country.

My point is that THAT'S what the GOP hacks do better than the Democrats. Fear and Smear is what I call it. They get the first sucker punch in by paying some bum to claim their opponent is some kind of immoral (shudder) liberal (shudder) Then talk about God out one side of their face and make self-serving immoral, short term ploicy out the other. When the Dems bring up Bush's "duty" record or supporters bring up ties to Enron and Saudi oil, it has implications about who he's going to take care of, and we're seeing exactly that now. When the GOP questions a candidate's morality because he smoked dope in college it's not about how well he's going to run the country, it's about scaring the voters and smearing his image.


Fear and smear? everytime the democrats look to say something they go to the polls. and if you don't think that bush was not in the military ,let tlk about the thirty plus pages that jon kerry will not release to the public record.saudi oil only makes me wonder if you really believed the white washing that micheal moore butthead put out there.the saudis have been linked to carter clinto and yes bush, but wait a minute our economy doesn't run on air.it runs on oil .and I voted for clinton both terms but when you lie under oath you go to jail as you and I would if we lied under oath. I could care less who he orks on the side or in the oval office. but he lied under oath.Don't care if they smoked dope either don't care if they got caught for drun driving ,who cares I want some one even though I didnot vote for hime to step up to the plate and hammer aour thoughts through.until we as a country start standing up fo the usa then we will be nothing. the information is right in front of you on everything I said so gol ook at it dig out the google. I don't agree on the shiavo mess but he spoke his say unlike mr kerry and mrs clinton who started to say something until the polls came out showing that the people didnot like what was being dished them, and they went back out of site. well have a great day and let ride ltr back to work for me

[TrailBate]

Fear and smear? everytime the democrats look to say something they go to the polls. and if you don't think that bush was not in the military ,let tlk about the thirty plus pages that jon kerry will not release to the public record.saudi oil only makes me wonder if you really believed the white washing that micheal moore butthead put out there.the saudis have been linked to carter clinto and yes bush, but wait a minute our economy doesn't run on air.it runs on oil .and I voted for clinton both terms but when you lie under oath you go to jail as you and I would if we lied under oath. I could care less who he orks on the side or in the oval office. but he lied under oath.Don't care if they smoked dope either don't care if they got caught for drun driving ,who cares I want some one even though I didnot vote for hime to step up to the plate and hammer aour thoughts through.until we as a country start standing up fo the usa then we will be nothing. the information is right in front of you on everything I said so gol ook at it dig out the google. I don't agree on the shiavo mess but he spoke his say unlike mr kerry and mrs clinton who started to say something until the polls came out showing that the people didnot like what was being dished them, and they went back out of site. well have a great day and let ride ltr back to work for me


oh boy.
Bush has his own share of sealed records.
Lying about a bj is worse than lying about 9/11, wmd's, Iraqi ties to Bin Laden, torture, etc?
Please tell me WHY we invaded Iraq.
I don't even know what all this Poll stuff is about....

[Mr_Cheeze]

So let me see if I get this straight. It's okay that Democrats have done and continue to do weasely things (ballot fraud, for one), they're Democrats! Don't you see? They are for the working family! They are for the children! They are for the environment. What? Taxes? Taxes are good!! It's American to pay taxes! Those tax cutting Republicans are only for the evil rich.

Stop it, okay? You only make yourself look silly when you try to make the argument that Democrats: good Republicans: bad.

They're ALL friggin power hungry scumbags who care not a wit for those who don't line their coffers with graft for re-election.

And what's-his-name is right about the Democrats and poll watching. They have almost perfected the art of riding the popular wave to the center. Bill did it, and Hillary is doing it right now. Oh, the Republicans try to do it too, but they get reeled in by the religious right before they go too far. That's why Guilliani has no shot in 2008.

[truckboy]

Cheeze -

Enough with the taxes. I'm so sick of hearing "tax and spend Democrat" I got exactly 300 dollars from Bush's tax rollback and nothing changed on April 15. Clinton paid off the deficit. Bush II is busy making it the biggest in hisory.

They all watch the polls. Bush watches the Religious (self)Right(eous) and his corporate fatcats.

[TrailBate]

So let me see if I get this straight. It's okay that Democrats have done and continue to do weasely things (ballot fraud, for one), they're Democrats! Don't you see? They are for the working family! They are for the children! They are for the environment. What? Taxes? Taxes are good!! It's American to pay taxes! Those tax cutting Republicans are only for the evil rich.

Stop it, okay? You only make yourself look silly when you try to make the argument that Democrats: good Republicans: bad.

They're ALL friggin power hungry scumbags who care not a wit for those who don't line their coffers with graft for re-election.

And what's-his-name is right about the Democrats and poll watching. They have almost perfected the art of riding the popular wave to the center. Bill did it, and Hillary is doing it right now. Oh, the Republicans try to do it too, but they get reeled in by the religious right before they go too far. That's why Guilliani has no shot in 2008.


yeah, let's cut taxes so I can get back $500, and Bush can get back $80,000. Sounds good. While we're cutting taxes, lets cut VA benefits, even though Bush promised not to. Let's cut spending in every conceivable department EXCEPT MILITARY SPENDING. Firefighters don't need more or up-to-date equipment. we don't need more cops, better schools, better health care. Screw all that. Deficit? what is that? Oh, that's that thing that is accruing millions of dollars per day in interest that will have to get paid back someday. And it will probably be thanks to a democratic president again (clinton), and all the republicans will say "well, WE never raised taxes!"

Don't mind that republicans make up false intelligence reports to get america into war, then blame the intelligence department for it later, so Bush can replace everyone with his buddies. Then let's watch 1,500 americans and over 100,000 iraqi civilians die so Halliburton can charge YOU 8 million dollars for $80,000 worth of fuel, and put it's employees in the most expensive Kuwaiti hotels before they're sent off to die in unarmed convoys.

Let's watch people imprisoned with no charges against them and no access to legal help. Let's watch "terrorists" be denied access to witnesses, except for government prepared testimony from that witness.

Let's watch american soldiers imprisoned for torturing soldiers, while Bush and Rumsfeld, who knew fully well what was going on, get off scott free.

Let's watch Cheney help Halliburton get billions of dollars for rebuilding Iraq, a war that was necessary because Iraq wasn't disarming, and the sanctions that Cheney himself violated as CEO of Halliburton ignored were not working.

At least dems watch the polls and see what americans are thinking. What does Bush say? "I don't pay attention to polls." ie, "I don't care what people think"

Let's watch Delay use Schiavo as a personal attack against himself, even though he pulled the plug on his own fathers life support. Let's watch Delay help reform product liability lawsuits even though he himself made tons of money on such a lawsuit.

And if you think Republicans have not gotten involved in voter fraud, you've been asleep.

When Bush allowed companies to dump more mercury, who was that helping? Bankruptcy bill, who did that help?

Let's watch Bush claim that he's trying to stop the spread of nukes, while he invades countries that don't have them, and sells f-16's to countries that have them, are making more, and are selling them to other countries.

Let's watch Bush make fake news stories, fake town hall meetings (since he is afraid to face any real critics), and prevent any demonstrators from getting anywhere near anyplace he goes. God forbid anyone should find out there are people that don't like him.

Let's watch Bush end his vacation early for Terri Schaivo, yet he didn't interrupt his precious vacation when the tsunami kills 200,000 people, and STILL does nothing about Dafur and the Congo, where over 300,000 have been killed in the past year.

Like I said before, Dems are lost. I have little love for them, either. But the Dems are angels compared to the Bush administration. This is the most powerful group of organized criminals in the history of this planet. well, behind Hitler and Stalin, I guess....

[BG]

" well, behind Hitler and Stalin, I guess...."

Don't forget Jesus.

BG

[ride in maine]

So let me see if I get this straight. It's okay that Democrats have done and continue to do weasely things (ballot fraud, for one), they're Democrats! Don't you see? They are for the working family! They are for the children! They are for the environment. What? Taxes? Taxes are good!! It's American to pay taxes! Those tax cutting Republicans are only for the evil rich.

Stop it, okay? You only make yourself look silly when you try to make the argument that Democrats: good Republicans: bad.

They're ALL friggin power hungry scumbags who care not a wit for those who don't line their coffers with graft for re-election.

And what's-his-name is right about the Democrats and poll watching. They have almost perfected the art of riding the popular wave to the center. Bill did it, and Hillary is doing it right now. Oh, the Republicans try to do it too, but they get reeled in by the religious right before they go too far. That's why Guilliani has no shot in 2008.


yeah, let's cut taxes so I can get back $500, and Bush can get back $80,000. Sounds good. While we're cutting taxes, lets cut VA benefits, even though Bush promised not to. Let's cut spending in every conceivable department EXCEPT MILITARY SPENDING. Firefighters don't need more or up-to-date equipment. we don't need more cops, better schools, better health care. Screw all that. Deficit? what is that? Oh, that's that thing that is accruing millions of dollars per day in interest that will have to get paid back someday. And it will probably be thanks to a democratic president again (clinton), and all the republicans will say "well, WE never raised taxes!"

Don't mind that republicans make up false intelligence reports to get america into war, then blame the intelligence department for it later, so Bush can replace everyone with his buddies. Then let's watch 1,500 americans and over 100,000 iraqi civilians die so Halliburton can charge YOU 8 million dollars for $80,000 worth of fuel, and put it's employees in the most expensive Kuwaiti hotels before they're sent off to die in unarmed convoys.

Let's watch people imprisoned with no charges against them and no access to legal help. Let's watch "terrorists" be denied access to witnesses, except for government prepared testimony from that witness.

Let's watch american soldiers imprisoned for torturing soldiers, while Bush and Rumsfeld, who knew fully well what was going on, get off scott free.

Let's watch Cheney help Halliburton get billions of dollars for rebuilding Iraq, a war that was necessary because Iraq wasn't disarming, and the sanctions that Cheney himself violated as CEO of Halliburton ignored were not working.

At least dems watch the polls and see what americans are thinking. What does Bush say? "I don't pay attention to polls." ie, "I don't care what people think"

Let's watch Delay use Schiavo as a personal attack against himself, even though he pulled the plug on his own fathers life support. Let's watch Delay help reform product liability lawsuits even though he himself made tons of money on such a lawsuit.

And if you think Republicans have not gotten involved in voter fraud, you've been asleep.

When Bush allowed companies to dump more mercury, who was that helping? Bankruptcy bill, who did that help?

Let's watch Bush claim that he's trying to stop the spread of nukes, while he invades countries that don't have them, and sells f-16's to countries that have them, are making more, and are selling them to other countries.

Let's watch Bush make fake news stories, fake town hall meetings (since he is afraid to face any real critics), and prevent any demonstrators from getting anywhere near anyplace he goes. God forbid anyone should find out there are people that don't like him.

Let's watch Bush end his vacation early for Terri Schaivo, yet he didn't interrupt his precious vacation when the tsunami kills 200,000 people, and STILL does nothing about Dafur and the Congo, where over 100,000 have been killed in the past year.

Like I said before, Dems are lost. I have little love for them, either. But the Dems are angels compared to the Bush administration. This is the most powerful group of organized criminals in the history of this planet. well, behind Hitler and Stalin, I guess....




blah blah good democrats blah blah micheal moore good blah blah gorgre soros good blah blah change the channel blah blah democrats cna't do no wrong just ask dan rather blah blah move on.org (the controler of the democrat party) blah bla blah who cares the economy was tits up when clinton left the white house and probaly would still be that way if 911 had not happened .the government has little to do with the econmy. its the people that run the economy.If gore was in office when 911 happened then we would be bitching about his budies ripping off the american people. and my taxes would be evn higher then they are now.
the bottom line is you need to look at both sides of the story and go with what feels good. if you don't think we were in trouble before bush then you were mistaken and we would not be having this conversation because it would be to late and we would be under muslim rule. they tried to knock the towers down on clintons watch and bin laden blew up the cole on clintons watch. so it does not matter whos up front we only are allowed to hear what the alphabet channels want us to hear and that it (by the way you would look better in a berka)anyways carry on as I know you will and look forward to more banter from you.


bring on thespring dry out the trails and lets ride ltr calvin

[TrailBate]

blah blah good democrats blah blah micheal moore good blah blah gorgre soros good blah blah change the channel blah blah democrats cna't do no wrong just ask dan rather blah blah move on.org (the controler of the democrat party) blah bla blah who cares the economy was tits up when clinton left the white house and probaly would still be that way if 911 had not happened .the government has little to do with the econmy. its the people that run the economy.If gore was in office when 911 happened then we would be bitching about his budies ripping off the american people. and my taxes would be evn higher then they are now.
the bottom line is you need to look at both sides of the story and go with what feels good. if you don't think we were in trouble before bush then you were mistaken and we would not be having this conversation because it would be to late and we would be under muslim rule. they tried to knock the towers down on clintons watch and bin laden blew up the cole on clintons watch. so it does not matter whos up front we only are allowed to hear what the alphabet channels want us to hear and that it (by the way you would look better in a berka)anyways carry on as I know you will and look forward to more banter from you.


bring on thespring dry out the trails and lets ride ltr calvin


wow, nothing like an argument built on solid facts. ::)

[truckboy]

[quote author=ride in maine
the bottom line is you need to look at both sides of the story and go with what feels good.

bring on thespring dry out the trails and lets ride ltr calvin


Yes, there are two sides to every story. And each one I hear both sides of, leaves me feeling really bad about the current administration. That's AFTER considering both sides.

How about the BBC? Think they're partial to the Dems? Last I checked NBC ABC and CBS reported what the president does without comment. I can tell a lie when I hear it. I don't need Dan Rather to tell me what to think.

Yes, let's ride!

[BG]

And let's build trails.

BG

[MTBME]

"Last I checked NBC ABC and CBS reported what the president does without comment. "

That the way it should be. They should report the news, not try to give us their spin on it. There are plenty of places for people to go to get more of the background to the story. Hey is it my imagination or are we hearing more positive news, from the networks, coming out of IRAQ since the election? Think about it.

[kernel crash]

"Hey is it my imagination... "

No its not. I've noticed the same thing over the last few months. Too many examples for it to be a coincidence.

[TrailBate]

"Last I checked NBC ABC and CBS reported what the president does without comment. "

That the way it should be. They should report the news, not try to give us their spin on it. There are plenty of places for people to go to get more of the background to the story. Hey is it my imagination or are we hearing more positive news, from the networks, coming out of IRAQ since the election? Think about it.


Are you saying things ARE getting better in Iraq, or that is just what they are reporting?

And the networks don't seem to report everything the president stuff, just the media-hyped stuff, and mostly positive stuff. Anyone see a news story on Bush cutting VA benefits after he promised not to? Any major networks reporting on Bush's pro-death law in texas in 1999?

[MTBME]

"Are you saying things ARE getting better in Iraq, or that is just what they are reporting?"

I think were starting to see a more balanced reporting of events in IRAQ. Are things better? Maybe better in small painful increments. More Iraqies have access to cell phones, satellite TV and the internet than any time in their history. More schools are being built. And in a story I found strange, Iraqies have a thirst for American culture. Theirs a big demand for tee shirts with American sports stars on them. And lately Iraqies have taken to the street to demonstrate against foreign insurgents that are killing Iraqies. So who knows how things are going. Time will tell.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Oh you guys... stop glossing over all of the bad stuff that damages the Bush administration.

There must be a conspiracy by the Feds to propagate only positive news out of the Middle East. What with Israel receding, Lebanon demanding freedom from Syria, Iran getting scolded by all sides for their attempt at nuclear proliferation. There has to be more bad stuff. HAS TO BE, dammit!!!! Dan Rather where are you?

[TrailBate]

I think were starting to see a more balanced reporting of events in IRAQ. Are things better? Maybe better in small painful increments. More Iraqies have access to cell phones, satellite TV and the internet than any time in their history. More schools are being built. And in a story I found strange, Iraqies have a thirst for American culture. Theirs a big demand for tee shirts with American sports stars on them. And lately Iraqies have taken to the street to demonstrate against foreign insurgents that are killing Iraqies. So who knows how things are going. Time will tell.



That doesn't sound like balanced reporting. When was the last time you heard about the shooting of the Italian journalist? It was a quick blurb in the US, then gone. Meanwhile michael jackson and Schiavo are taking up all the news.

I just wanted to add that I'm sure some things are getting better. But I'm just as sure some things are worse. Unemployment is still about 50%, most hospitals are still in bad shape, etc. You should read some Iraqi blogs. Can't get any more truthful than that.

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

just an example.

[TrailBate]

Oh you guys... stop glossing over all of the bad stuff that damages the Bush administration.

There must be a conspiracy by the Feds to propagate only positive news out of the Middle East. What with Israel receding, Lebanon demanding freedom from Syria, Iran getting scolded by all sides for their attempt at nuclear proliferation. There has to be more bad stuff. HAS TO BE, dammit!!!! Dan Rather where are you?


Lebanon has been trying to get Syria out for a long time. The assassination just brought things to the boiling point. Pakistan is the biggest proliferator of nukes in the history of the planet, yet they are still our allies, and we're selling them nuclear capable f-16's. Saudi Arabia is as corrupt as anyone else in the region, with it's own human rights problems, but they are also our allies. Egypt is still cracking down on non-government approved political movements, and so Is pakistan. Bush and Lebanon's independence move has nothing to do with each other. If you're gonna give Bush credit for lebanon, give him credit for all the other countries over there too.

[Mr_Cheeze]

I'm not giving Bush credit for anything, so don't assume my meaning. My point is that much positive IS coming out of the Middle East lately. No need to look beyond that unless you just want to keep piling onto Bush and Co., which I know you do.

[TrailBate]

I'm not giving Bush credit for anything, so don't assume my meaning. My point is that much positive IS coming out of the Middle East lately. No need to look beyond that unless you just want to keep piling onto Bush and Co., which I know you do.


Yes you were. Your post was a sarcastic one implying all the anti-Bushites are making bad stuff up. We're not.

I hate Bush, that's no secret. People who believe he is a "compassionate conservative" are, in my opinion, naive morons or at best, completely misled. I know to the pro-bushites, I am a paranoid conspiracy theorist. Unfortunately, I have too much fact to back up my paranoia.

However, If a came across any pro-Bushy dying of thirst in the desert, I would still give him water. Although that water will likely have a high mercury content, thanks to Bush's anti-environment policies. ;D

[felixatvtc]

More Iraqies have access to cell phones, satellite TV and the internet than any time in their history. More schools are being built. And in a story I found strange, Iraqies have a thirst for American culture. Theirs a big demand for tee shirts with American sports stars on them.

That's fantastic, maybe they'll be fat, stupid, apothetic just like most American's soon and we'll be able to forget about them like we have within our own borders.

Oh what a fine planet this is becoming. I can't wait until "mother nature shrugs us off like a case of flees" (Carlin)
"Human's are a virus with shoes" -Hicks

[BG]

Now we are talking. The problems end when "we" all gow away. Don't worry we're working on it. Won't be long now.

BG

[TrailBate]

More Iraqies have access to cell phones, satellite TV and the internet than any time in their history. More schools are being built. And in a story I found strange, Iraqies have a thirst for American culture. Theirs a big demand for tee shirts with American sports stars on them.

That's fantastic, maybe they'll be fat, stupid, apothetic just like most American's soon and we'll be able to forget about them like we have within our own borders.

Oh what a fine planet this is becoming. I can't wait until "mother nature shrugs us off like a case of flees" (Carlin)
"Human's are a virus with shoes" -Hicks


I wouldn't say things are improving over there unless they can watch the Michael Jackson trial....

[felixatvtc]

I wouldn't say things are improving over there unless they can watch the Michael Jackson trial....


That sure would keep them busy for awhile. They'd be like why is that white women is that black guy's (defendents) seat. I figure that ALONE would stop at least 2....maybe 3 carbombings

[Mr_Cheeze]

Yes you were. Your post was a sarcastic one implying all the anti-Bushites are making bad stuff up. We're not.

I hate Bush, that's no secret. People who believe he is a "compassionate conservative" are, in my opinion, naive morons or at best, completely misled. I know to the pro-bushites, I am a paranoid conspiracy theorist. Unfortunately, I have too much fact to back up my paranoia.

However, If a came across any pro-Bushy dying of thirst in the desert, I would still give him water. Although that water will likely have a high mercury content, thanks to Bush's anti-environment policies. ;D


So now you're telling me what I meant and the tone of it? You have special powers. Ok, the next time you have an issue, I'll check with you first to make sure I should be giving the answer expected of me.

[truckboy]

Now we are talking. The problems end when "we" all gow away. Don't worry we're working on it. Won't be long now.

BG


Is this before or after the True Believers ascend to heaven?

[TrailBate]

Yes you were. Your post was a sarcastic one implying all the anti-Bushites are making bad stuff up. We're not.

I hate Bush, that's no secret. People who believe he is a "compassionate conservative" are, in my opinion, naive morons or at best, completely misled. I know to the pro-bushites, I am a paranoid conspiracy theorist. Unfortunately, I have too much fact to back up my paranoia.

However, If a came across any pro-Bushy dying of thirst in the desert, I would still give him water. Although that water will likely have a high mercury content, thanks to Bush's anti-environment policies. ;D


So now you're telling me what I meant and the tone of it? You have special powers. Ok, the next time you have an issue, I'll check with you first to make sure I should be giving the answer expected of me.




"Oh you guys... stop glossing over all of the bad stuff that damages the Bush administration.

There must be a conspiracy by the Feds to propagate only positive news out of the Middle East. What with Israel receding, Lebanon demanding freedom from Syria, Iran getting scolded by all sides for their attempt at nuclear proliferation. There has to be more bad stuff. HAS TO BE, dammit!!!! Dan Rather where are you?"

Well, you have either become anti-Bush, or this is sarcasm.
which is it? Oh, I know, it's "moot" right?

[BG]

Now we are talking. The problems end when "we" all gow away. Don't worry we're working on it. Won't be long now.

BG


Is this before or after the True Believers ascend to heaven?


Does it matter?

BG

[TrailBate]

I changed the title of this thread so I (or anyone else) can throw random discussion- or argument inducing items in here. I'd hate to be the creator of all the threads in this forum.


SO

THe pope has been given his Last Rites. ( the Rite to die? oh nevermind.) He's in my Death Pool, so that's the positive side I guess.

Anyone want to guess how long it will be before the Schiavo TV movie is made? Sure to be slanted for the Republicans.....

[TrailBate]

I don't know what's more amusing- a Miss Wheelchair pageant, the winner being stipped of her crown for walking, or the other contestants being offended that she can walk.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/01/ms.wheelchair.ap/index.html

What's next? the Miss Vegetative State Pageant?

[BG]

LMAO ;D Now that's funny Sh%%.
I'd bet CBS already has a movie made.

BG

[truckboy]

Anybody see South Park Wednesday night?

It was Priceless. Can't go into too much detail but I'll just say it involved Kenny dying, and being revived and kept alive by a feeding tube, Cartman fighting to have the tube removed, and Republicans doing Satan's work by fighting to keep him alive. Priceless, and quite timely.

[TrailBate]

Anybody see South Park Wednesday night?

It was Priceless. Can't go into too much detail but I'll just say it involved Kenny dying, and being revived and kept alive by a feeding tube, Cartman fighting to have the tube removed, and Republicans doing Satan's work by fighting to keep him alive. Priceless, and quite timely.


I haven't seen that show in like 2 years. I miss it.. :'(

Too bad I have a problem staying awake past 9.

[TrailBate]

Now that Terri is dead (we can be on a first-name basis now, right?), the gov't needs to occupy your minds with something else.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/football/nfl/03/31/bc.fbn.congress.nflster.ap/index.html?cnn=yes

[BG]

Anybody see South Park Wednesday night?

It was Priceless. Can't go into too much detail but I'll just say it involved Kenny dying, and being revived and kept alive by a feeding tube, Cartman fighting to have the tube removed, and Republicans doing Satan's work by fighting to keep him alive. Priceless, and quite timely.


;D ;D ;D Yep ;D ;D ;D

[Slider]

Here's a surprise - the Atty. General wants the Patriot Act renewed. I can hear the internal debate:

Gonzales: You think this thing is restrictive and unconstitutional?

Bush: WTF would we care about that?

Gonzales: Just kidding. I wanted to make sure you were't suffering from pangs of conscience as we rape the country.

Bush: Me? Conscience? BWAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/05/patriot.act.ap/index.html

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

Now this is MY kind of patriot act.

washingtonpost.com
In Ariz., 'Minutemen' Start Border Patrols
Volunteers Crusade to Stop Illegal Crossings
By Amy Argetsinger
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 5, 2005; Page A03


BISBEE, Ariz., April 4 -- Penny Magnotto and Gayle Nyberg stood at their post on a forbidding stretch of desert road, staring down the seven strands of barbed wire separating them from Mexico.

The Southern California women had risen at dawn in their makeshift quarters at a nearly defunct Bible college to join scores of other volunteers from around the country on the first official day of a highly symbolic crusade. Their mission: to monitor the flow of illegal immigrants crossing into the United States and to do their legal best to stop it. So they stood ready -- binoculars, walkie-talkie, sunblock, water -- and gazed at the motionless landscape of sand and brush.

"If we see any immigrants, we'll first radio someone, and then call Border Patrol," said Nyberg, 56, in a camouflage jacket.

"We can ask them if they'll wait," explained Magnotto, 61, in a red, white and blue windbreaker, "but we can't touch them."

But had they seen anyone on this stretch of border, the illegal entry point for hundreds of thousands of immigrants a year?

Well, no, they said. Not yet.

With the start of the Minuteman Project -- a combination "civilian patrol" and immigration protest -- officials with the U.S. Border Patrol were reporting a sharp drop in the number of illegal crossers apprehended along a stretch of border said to be the most porous in the nation.

Organizers of the effort -- decried by President Bush as "vigilante" activity and by Mexican President Vicente Fox as an "immigrant hunter" -- claimed an early victory. "We've completely locked down the border," said Larry Morgan, a volunteer from Long Beach, Calif. Sightings of 24 potential crossers were reported to authorities, Minuteman organizers said.

But border officials and others said the decrease probably had less to do with Minuteman vigilance than a military patrolling effort on the Mexican side of the border -- not to mention the boisterous protesters, counter-protesters and satellite-equipped TV trucks gathered on the usually desolate dirt road between Douglas and Naco, Ariz.

"Migrants aren't crossing here, that's the effect," said Scott Kerr, 29, a worker with Christian Peacemaker Teams, a relief group that leaves water and food for immigrants trying to cross the treacherous, dry terrain. "Some days we'll encounter hundreds. Today we didn't see any."

The full impact of the Minuteman Project remained elusive Monday. Organizers said more than 400 people had arrived over the weekend for orientation sessions and rallies, the first wave of the 1,300 volunteers they expect to participate in some part of the month-long desert vigil.

Thus far, there were no immediate signs of the white supremacist gangs or other troublemaking groups that local officials feared would be drawn by the event, and no reports of clashes or violations.

But the event also seemed much smaller than advertised. Organizers had promised to place teams of monitors at quarter-mile or half-mile intervals along a 23-mile length of border. But by midmorning Monday, all of the visible activity was clustered around a two-mile stretch, where a dozen or so teams were stationed. Organizers said others were as far as three miles back from the border or stationed in canyons, away from the dirt road.

Even as they gazed out at the border with binoculars, many of the Minutemen acknowledged that making a point was their true purpose.

"I'm a right-wing conservative Bush supporter, and I think Bush is wrong on immigration," Morgan said, citing the president's support of a guest-worker program that would allow more Mexicans to work legally in the United States on a temporary basis.

Morgan, 60, a general contractor, stood on a hillside with two other men, monitoring the barbed-wire fence and sharing grievances about border crossers. They complained about provisions in some states to issue driver's licenses or in-state tuition rates to illegal immigrants. Darrel Wood, 44, a fiber-optics engineer, said eight of the 10 most-wanted criminals in his home state of Utah are illegal immigrants; Morgan blamed them for prison overcrowding and California's fiscal crisis.

"It's affecting my children at school," Wood said. "They're suffering, trying to get these immigrant kids up to speed."

In the five days since Minuteman volunteers began arriving, the Border Patrol had apprehended far fewer immigrants than usual -- about 100 a day, down from the usual 300, said Andy Adame, a Tucson-based spokesman for the federal agency.

But Adame said he believed the decrease was linked to an operation by Mexican officials on the other side of the border. "We don't attribute that to the civilians patrolling the desert," he said. Minuteman organizers said they have directed their volunteers to call Border Patrol if they spot suspicious activity, rather than confronting the people themselves. Adame said he could not say how many calls they had received from Minutemen, if any; he said there had been no rise in the overall number of calls they receive from citizens.

Adame also reiterated the Border Patrol's objections to the program, noting that the volunteers were setting off sensors placed along the border and blurring the footprints agents often follow in search of illegal immigrants.

"They're tromping all over the place making our job a little more difficult," he said. "It's not a major crisis, but it is detrimental to our operations."

Officials with the Cochise County Sheriff's Department reported no incidents connected to the Minuteman effort. There were, however, anecdotal accounts of testy exchanges between the Minutemen and representatives of the various organizations that oppose the program.

Kathryn Ferguson, a Tucson documentary filmmaker who volunteered as a "legal observer" with the Arizona chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, reported encounters with "a lot of verbally aggressive people" who called her a terrorist or communist.

She said that one of her colleagues -- a woman with a dark complexion -- approached a team to pet a dog and was told by its owner, "My dog's trained to keep people like you off my land." But she said other Minutemen were pleasant, chatting about how they had never been involved in a protest before or how much they enjoyed the desert.

Morgan scoffed at the suggestion that his crowd of fellow border-watchers harbored any malcontents. "This is a cross section of America, and I love being with them," he said. In the meantime, though, he wished things would liven up a bit.

"I'd like to see some more movement," he said. He was eager to put the night-vision goggles to work and had volunteered to fly a plane for aerial surveillance.

Paul Johnson, 60, a native of Jamestown, N.Y., with a sheathed knife on his belt, recalled the ominous sight the team spotted on Saturday, its first trip to the barbed-wire frontier.

"We saw 15 ready to cross the border, all dressed in black," he said. "They saw us and just stood there for an hour." He said they were later escorted away by a relief group and driven back into Mexico.

Morgan nodded. "They'll just make an attempt later on."

[TrailBate]

Don't you hate it when someone who works for you gives you a piece of paper, and you don't read it but put it in your pocket, then you hand it out to other people without ever reading it? I hate that. I'm CONSTANTLY putting pieces of paper in my pocket, then giving it to people, without ever looking at it! Why don't people stop giving me pieces of paper?!


http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/07/schiavo.memo.ap/index.html

[TrailBate]

You want to be Physician of the Year? Just send George W or Tom DeLay $1,250!!

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=643826

[TrailBate]

Kurds apparently planning to secede
from Iraq Wire Services |
"U.S. military officials are concerned that ethnic tensions could turn into widespread violence and, perhaps, civil war in Iraq's northern city of Kirkuk, setting a dangerous pattern for rest of the country. Kirkuk oil fields hold around 9 million barrels of proven reserves and Kurdish talk of secession is at a fever pitch... Many Arabs and Turkomen say the Kurds are using force, when necessary, to push them out of Kirkuk."


Iraq casualties hidden from press cameras
Independent
"The Pentagon has been accused of smuggling wounded soldiers into the US under cover of darkness to avoid bad publicity about the number of troops being injured and maimed in Iraq. The media have also been prevented from photographing wounded soldiers when they arrive at hospital. Records show that flights from military bases in Germany arrive in the US only at night... At the beginning of 2003, Mr Bush issued a presidential order that the media should be banned from photographing the return of troops' coffins when they are flown into the US, usually at Dover air base in Delaware. Parents of dead soldiers have also often been banned from meeting the coffins."

Gay GOP consultant weds boyfriend
New York Times
"Arthur J. Finkelstein, a prominent Republican consultant... said Friday that he had married his male partner in a civil ceremony at his home in Massachusetts. Mr. Finkelstein, 59, who has made a practice of defeating Democrats by trying to demonize them as liberal, said in a brief interview that he had married his partner of 40 years to ensure that the couple had the same benefits available to married heterosexual couples... Finkelstein has been allied over the years with Republicans who have fiercely opposed gay rights measures, including former Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina, and has been the subject of attacks by gay rights activists who have accused him of hypocrisy."

Bush denies judicial oversight at Guantanamo
Washington Post
"President Bush should be allowed to exercise his power to prosecute and punish al Qaeda terrorists for war crimes without intervention from U.S. courts, the Justice Department told a federal appeals court yesterday. A government attorney made the arguments in appealing a ruling by a lower court last year that the military commissions created to prosecute suspected terrorists are inherently unfair to the accused and illegal under military and international law... The case centers on the government's efforts to prosecute Salim Ahmed Hamdan, 34, an Afghan national, on charges of being Osama bin Laden's driver and an active member of his terrorist network."


and check out what was going in in Baghdad while american media was covering the wedding of prince charles, and the death of the pope:

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=5723

[Slider]

This one nicely encapsulates the Bush administration's approach to education specifically, but also to politics generally: Accuse the opposition of being "un-American" and racist.

http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-sternberg0413.artapr13,0,7002187.story?coll=hc-headlines-local

Now, you have to understand that Connecticut is among the top two or three states in the country in education spending, testing methods, teacher salaries, independent rakings, and testing results. To its credit, the state has sued the Feds over the idiotic No Child Left Behind act.

Somehow, U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings seems completely unaware of what CT has achieved. Does she talk about the merits of the suit? Does she acknowledge that maybe CT deserves some input in the policy process, in view of its success?

Nope. She calls names, and tosses verbal bombs. Exactly what people do when they are absolutely wrong, and know it. I can't wait to see Bush get his ass kicked in court.

Slider

[TrailBate]

Terry Jones
Tuesday April 12, 2005
The Guardian

A report to the UN human rights commission in Geneva has concluded that Iraqi children were actually better off under Saddam Hussein than they are now.
This, of course, comes as a bitter blow for all those of us who, like George Bush and Tony Blair, honestly believe that children thrive best when we drop bombs on them from a great height, destroy their cities and blow up hospitals, schools and power stations.

It now appears that, far from improving the quality of life for Iraqi youngsters, the US-led military assault on Iraq has inexplicably doubled the number of children under five suffering from malnutrition. Under Saddam, about 4% of children under five were going hungry, whereas by the end of last year almost 8% were suffering.

These results are even more disheartening for those of us in the Department of Making Things Better for Children in the Middle East By Military Force, since the previous attempts by Britain and America to improve the lot of Iraqi children also proved disappointing. For example, the policy of applying the most draconian sanctions in living memory totally failed to improve conditions. After they were imposed in 1990, the number of children under five who died increased by a factor of six. By 1995 something like half a million Iraqi children were dead as a result of our efforts to help them.

A year later, Madeleine Albright, then the US ambassador to the United Nations, tried to put a brave face on it. When a TV interviewer remarked that more children had died in Iraq through sanctions than were killed in Hiroshima, Mrs Albright famously replied: "We think the price is worth it."

But clearly George Bush didn't. So he hit on the idea of bombing them instead. And not just bombing, but capturing and torturing their fathers, humiliating their mothers, shooting at them from road blocks - but none of it seems to do any good. Iraqi children simply refuse to be better nourished, healthier and less inclined to die. It is truly baffling.

And this is why we at the department are appealing to you - the general public - for ideas. If you can think of any other military techniques that we have so far failed to apply to the children of Iraq, please let us know as a matter of urgency. We assure you that, under our present leadership, there is no limit to the amount of money we are prepared to invest in a military solution to the problems of Iraqi children.

In the UK there may now be 3.6 million children living below the poverty line, and 12.9 million in the US, with no prospect of either government finding any cash to change that. But surely this is a price worth paying, if it means that George Bush and Tony Blair can make any amount of money available for bombs, shells and bullets to improve the lives of Iraqi kids. You know it makes sense.

[Rych]

Terry Jones
Tuesday April 12, 2005
The Guardian

A report to the UN human rights commission in Geneva has concluded that Iraqi children were actually better off under Saddam Hussein than they are now.
This, of course, comes as a bitter blow for all those of us who, like George Bush and Tony Blair, honestly believe that children thrive best when we drop bombs on them from a great height, destroy their cities and blow up hospitals, schools and power stations.

It now appears that, far from improving the quality of life for Iraqi youngsters, the US-led military assault on Iraq has inexplicably doubled the number of children under five suffering from malnutrition. Under Saddam, about 4% of children under five were going hungry, whereas by the end of last year almost 8% were suffering.

These results are even more disheartening for those of us in the Department of Making Things Better for Children in the Middle East By Military Force, since the previous attempts by Britain and America to improve the lot of Iraqi children also proved disappointing. For example, the policy of applying the most draconian sanctions in living memory totally failed to improve conditions. After they were imposed in 1990, the number of children under five who died increased by a factor of six. By 1995 something like half a million Iraqi children were dead as a result of our efforts to help them.

A year later, Madeleine Albright, then the US ambassador to the United Nations, tried to put a brave face on it. When a TV interviewer remarked that more children had died in Iraq through sanctions than were killed in Hiroshima, Mrs Albright famously replied: "We think the price is worth it."

But clearly George Bush didn't. So he hit on the idea of bombing them instead. And not just bombing, but capturing and torturing their fathers, humiliating their mothers, shooting at them from road blocks - but none of it seems to do any good. Iraqi children simply refuse to be better nourished, healthier and less inclined to die. It is truly baffling.

And this is why we at the department are appealing to you - the general public - for ideas. If you can think of any other military techniques that we have so far failed to apply to the children of Iraq, please let us know as a matter of urgency. We assure you that, under our present leadership, there is no limit to the amount of money we are prepared to invest in a military solution to the problems of Iraqi children.

In the UK there may now be 3.6 million children living below the poverty line, and 12.9 million in the US, with no prospect of either government finding any cash to change that. But surely this is a price worth paying, if it means that George Bush and Tony Blair can make any amount of money available for bombs, shells and bullets to improve the lives of Iraqi kids. You know it makes sense.



Wait this is a real revelation…War reduces quality of life. Talk about an instant gratification society.

[TrailBate]

Tom DeLay wants to define what "good behavior" is so he can go after Supreme Court Justices! HAHAHAHAHA!!!

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/20/delay.judges.ap/index.html

[Slider]

If you want fascism, the easiest way to get it is to remove any possible debate about it.

Slider

Some fear law would create national ID card
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | April 26, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Congress is poised to pass a law that would make sweeping changes to the nation's system for issuing driver's licenses by imposing stringent requirements on states to verify the authenticity of birth certificates, Social Security cards, legal residency visas, and bank and utility records used to obtain a license.

House Republicans attached the bill to a must-pass supplemental spending package for troops in Iraq without first putting it through the usual legislative scrutiny of hearings and debate. Should it emerge intact from House-Senate negotiations over the spending package, it could be law next month.

Touted as an antiterrorism measure, the ''Real ID Act" would also overturn laws in nine states that allow illegal immigrants to obtain driver's licenses. If a state does not comply with any provision of the law, its residents would no longer be able to use their driver's licenses for federal identification purposes, such as for boarding a plane.

The law, some say, would effectively turn the new driver's license into a national identification card. Its chief champion, House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, Republican of Wisconsin, says the measure would help prevent terrorists from fraudulently gaining official documents that would allow them to enter the country and move freely.

Another set of provisions would significantly raise the standard of proof that asylum applicants must meet when claiming that they have been persecuted on ethnic, religious, or political grounds. It would also grant greater discretion to Homeland Security officials to reject asylum seekers and curtail the ability of appeals courts to issue stays of deportation orders and review rejected cases.

Terrorists have ''used almost every conceivable means of entering the country," Sensenbrenner said in a statement provided by an aide. ''They have come as students, tourists, and business visitors. They have also been [legal permanent residents] and naturalized US citizens. They have snuck across the border illegally, arrived as stowaways on ships, used false passports, and have been granted amnesty. Terrorists have even used America's humanitarian tradition of welcoming those seeking asylum. We must plug these gaps."

But many critics of the Real ID Act say that it goes too far and that its language is riddled with problems that might have been corrected through the normal legislative review process.

''This bill has not received a single hearing in either chamber of Congress, so the challenges it presents for states have never received any attention," said Cheye Calvo of the National Conference of State Legislatures. ''It does much more than just deny driver's licenses to illegal immigrants."

State legislators and governors say that the Real ID Act would lead to horrific delays at motor vehicle bureaus, that it would cost hundreds of millions of dollars more than Congress thinks, and that it would impose an unrealistic three-year deadline for having the verification system in place.

Moreover, civil libertarians argue that by creating uniform national standards for driver's licenses and requiring states to pool driver information in a national database, the bill is a back-door move to creating a national identification card, which they oppose on privacy grounds.

And immigrant advocates fear the asylum changes are too draconian and will hurt people with legitimate claims of persecution.

But Sensenbrenner is pushing hard to keep the measure on the final Iraq spending bill, and his opinion carries special weight in Congress. Republican leaders promised him last December that the Real ID Act would get a quick hearing in 2005 after he agreed to remove it from a major intelligence overhaul bill that the Bush administration needed to pass.

Moreover, political observers say the Bush administration is unwilling to antagonize Sensenbrenner because, as Judiciary Committee chairman, he will hold sway over President Bush's proposal to reform the immigration system by establishing a system of guest worker visas.

''They're going to stick it on the supplemental, and it's going to stay on there," Senate minority leader Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, said yesterday. ''It's a terrible piece of legislation. . . . They put it on a supplemental, which they knew you couldn't stop. I've had a senator come to me and say, 'We're going to filibuster this.' I said, 'Get real. It's not going to happen. It's a defense bill.' "

Six Republican senators last week expressed similar concerns when they signed a letter asking Senate majority leader Bill Frist, Republican of Tennessee, not to let the Real ID Act appear in the final bill. They were led by Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, a lawmaker close to evangelical Christian groups who are particularly concerned about the asylum provisions.

''Legislating in such a complex area without the benefit of hearings and expert testimony is a dubious exercise and one that subverts the Senate's deliberative process," said the letter, which was also signed by Republicans John McCain of Arizona, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, John Sununu of New Hampshire, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, and Richard Lugar of Indiana.

Jeff Lungren, a Sensenbrenner spokesman, yesterday rejected the notion that the bill could use further debate, arguing that the policy proposals contained in the Real ID Act have been public since Sensenbrenner tried unsuccessfully to include them in the 2004 intelligence overhaul law.

''Since that [intelligence] bill passed about five months or so ago, this issue has continued to be at the forefront," Lungren said. ''Just because some senators have chosen not to address it and to ignore it doesn't mean that we don't need to have these provisions and bolster our border security now."

Cory Smith, who has been tracking the asylum provisions for Human Rights First, called Lungren's comments ''disingenuous."

''I'm sure at some place somewhere years ago something about asylum was brought up, but there were no hearings on this," he said. ''There has not been careful consideration of these serious changes to asylum law and immigration policy."

Calvo and Lungren also sparred over how much the driver's licensing provisions would cost.

Lungren pointed to a $100 million estimate by the Congressional Budget Office. But Calvo said the real amount is more likely to be between $500 million and $700 million when the cost of such items as new equipment to tap into national databases is included.

Tim Sparapani, ACLU legislative counsel, said the Real ID Act's rules would result in a de facto national identification card because it would require states to pool driver data in a national database.

''When you condition travel on an identification card and create an internal registry of citizens and a way to track them, that is entirely contrary to most Americans' understandings of the way their country works and should work," Sparapani said.

[TrailBate]

House Republicans attached the bill to a must-pass supplemental spending package for troops in Iraq without first putting it through the usual legislative scrutiny of hearings and debate. Should it emerge intact from House-Senate negotiations over the spending package, it could be law next month.

This is priceless. Now if anyone fights it (democrats), they'll be blamed by republicans for "not supporting the troops."

would also overturn laws in nine states that allow illegal immigrants to obtain driver's licenses.

No problem with this

If a state does not comply with any provision of the law, its residents would no longer be able to use their driver's licenses for federal identification purposes, such as for boarding a plane.

complete bs. Have republicans ever heard of "states rights"? The only time Republicans like state's rights is to keep from converting to the popular vote for presidential elections.

Its chief champion, House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, Republican of Wisconsin, says the measure would help prevent terrorists from fraudulently gaining official documents that would allow them to enter the country and move freely.

complete crap. Most "terrorists" get their "fraudulent documents" overseas, often through bribes. THis will not change a thing.


Terrorists have ''used almost every conceivable means of entering the country," Sensenbrenner said in a statement provided by an aide. ''They have come as students, tourists, and business visitors. They have also been [legal permanent residents] and naturalized US citizens. They have snuck across the border illegally, arrived as stowaways on ships, used false passports, and have been granted amnesty. Terrorists have even used America's humanitarian tradition of welcoming those seeking asylum. We must plug these gaps."

which is why car bombs are going off all over the place in the US today. What a load of crap! Nice scare tactics. "terrorists also crall into the vaginas of unsuspecting fat women to gain access to the United States. They have disguised themselves as dogs, and even suitcases! They can shrink down to the size of a flea, only to regrow to their normal size once inside the US!"

[BG]

"terrorists also crall into the vaginas of unsuspecting fat women to gain access to the United States. They have disguised themselves as dogs, and even suitcases! They can shrink down to the size of a flea, only to regrow to their normal size once inside the US!"


Disgusting little bastards.

BG

[TrailBate]

WOW, liberals are un-american, anti-faith, pro-death, and now worse than the Nazi's and Al Qeada!!!!




Robertson: Judges worse than Al Qaeda



BY DEREK ROSE
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Federal judges are a more serious threat to America than Al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 terrorists, the Rev. Pat Robertson claimed yesterday.
"Over 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings," Robertson said on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos."

"I think we have controlled Al Qaeda," the 700 Club host said, but warned of "erosion at home" and said judges were creating a "tyranny of oligarchy."

Confronted by Stephanopoulos on his claims that an out-of-control liberal judiciary is the worst threat America has faced in 400 years - worse than Nazi Germany, Japan and the Civil War - Robertson didn't back down.

"Yes, I really believe that," he said. "I think they are destroying the fabric that holds our nation together."

Robertson's comments came with a showdown looming in the Senate over seven of President Bush's conservative judicial nominees who have been blocked by Democrat filibusters. Republicans have threatened a "nuclear option" to pass the judges by rewriting Senate rules to stop the filibusters.

Sources told the Daily News that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist lacks the 50 votes he needs, which could be a blow to his presidential hopes. "I don't think Frist has the votes," a GOP aide said. "He's now in his own corner. If he doesn't have the votes, he's really screwed."

Robertson echoed that sentiment. "I just don't see him as a future President," Robertson said.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Robertson is for the Republicans as Jesse Jackson and Al. Sharpton are for the Democrats. Everybody else within the party are rolling their eyes and mumbling how they just wish this idiot would shut the f*** up. Is there any coincidence that they all consider themselves reverends?

[Slider]

Another surprise - we agree again. Unfortunately, Robertson has a lot more pull in the Republican party than Sharpton and Jackson do in the Democratic party.

On the bright side, his extremism might well split the effort next time around. The far right thinks they own the Republicans, since they delivered in the last election. But more moderate members are't quite ready to concede the platform.

Slider

[TrailBate]

How many contradictions can you find in this article??

I like the part about lowering troops in S Korea in exchange for more capability!


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has issued a report to Congress that said the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan could hamstring the U.S. ability to fight other wars, a senior military official told CNN.

The chairman, Gen. Richard Myers, supplied the report, an annual document on the U.S. military's ability to carry out war plans, to the lawmakers.

In a news conference last week, President Bush said Myers told him that "we have plenty of capacity."

Bush said he asked the general, "Do you feel that we've limited our capacity to deal with other problems because of our troop levels in Iraq?

"And the answer is, no, he doesn't feel we're limited," Bush said.

White House spokesman Trent Duffy reiterated Tuesday the president's belief that the military is prepared for whatever it may face.

"We are at war, and that level of operations does have some impact on troops," Duffy said. "But the president continues to be confident, as well as his military commanders, that we can meet any threat decisively."

The senior military official told CNN that because of the U.S. deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, the report concludes that future armed conflicts would last longer and produce higher casualties.

The report finds that the United States still would have the ability to win another military face-off but wouldn't be able to build up its forces as quickly as it did for the Iraq war.

"It would be harder to sprint that fast," the official said.

The report cites areas in particular stress: stockpiles of precision weapons and the availability of pre-positioned equipment, including vehicles, and reserve units -- who are providing much of the combat support in Iraq.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman downplayed the findings, calling the report an "internal management tool."

"What is certain is the U.S. military remains capable of executing every mission it is assigned," Whitman said.

But he acknowledged fighting multiple conflicts simultaneously can put stress on forces.

"If you're doing A, B and C and are asked to do D, will D be harder? Sure," Whitman said.

Speaking at his news conference Thursday, the president said that while troop levels were down in South Korea, for example, "we traded troops for new equipment."

"We brought ... our troop levels down in South Korea but replaced those troops with more capacity," Bush said.

[Rych]

How many contradictions can you find in this article??


"We brought ... our troop levels down in South Korea but replaced those troops with more capacity," Bush said.



I don't know if it's true or not, but if it takes 10 soldiers to guard a section of the DMZ, but you can guard the same section of the DMZ with 1 soldier equiped with new technology. IE night vision goggles, microwave movement sensors ( I made that up;))

[TrailBate]

oh please let this lead to impeachment! please PLEASE!!


88 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS CALL FOR IMMEDIATE ANSWERS ABOUT SECRET BUSH/BLAIR PRE-WAR DEAL

May 5, 2005

The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States of America
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

We write because of troubling revelations in the Sunday London Times apparently confirming that the United States and Great Britain had secretly agreed to attack Iraq in the summer of 2002, well before the invasion and before you even sought Congressional authority to engage in military action. While various individuals have asserted this to be the case before, including Paul O'Neill, former U.S. Treasury Secretary, and Richard Clarke, a former National Security Council official, they have been previously dismissed by your Administration. However, when this story was divulged last weekend, Prime Minister Blair's representative claimed the document contained "nothing new." If the disclosure is accurate, it raises troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of your own Administration.

The Sunday Times obtained a leaked document with the minutes of a secret meeting from highly placed sources inside the British Government.1 Among other things, the document revealed:

Prime Minister Tony Blair chaired a July 2002 meeting, at which he discussed military options, having already committed himself to supporting President Bush's plans for invading Iraq.
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw acknowledged that the case for war was "thin" as "Saddam was not threatening his neighbours and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, or Iran."

A separate secret briefing for the meeting said that Britain and America had to "create" conditions to justify a war.2

A British official "reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove

Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."


As a result of this recent disclosure, we would like to know the following:

Do you or anyone in your Administration dispute the accuracy of the leaked document?
Were arrangements being made, including the recruitment of allies, before you sought Congressional authorization go to war? Did you or anyone in your Administration obtain Britain's commitment to invade prior to this time?

Was there an effort to create an ultimatum about weapons inspectors in order to help with the justification for the war as the minutes indicate?

At what point in time did you and Prime Minister Blair first agree it was necessary to invade Iraq?

Was there a coordinated effort with the U.S. intelligence community and/or British officials to "fix" the intelligence and facts around the policy as the leaked document states?


We have of course known for some time that subsequent to the invasion there have been a variety of reasons proffered to justify the invasion, particularly since the time it became evident that weapons of mass destruction would not be found. This leaked document - essentially acknowledged by the Blair government - is the first confirmation that the rationales were shifting well before the invasion as well.

Given the importance of this matter, we would ask that you respond to this inquiry as promptly as possible. Thank you.

[kernel crash]

blah, blah, blah, blah, blah

[TrailBate]

I love it. Your president makes up evidence to justify a war which has killed thousands, and all you can come up with is "blah blah blah"?

[BG]

I love it. Your president makes up evidence to justify a war which has killed thousands, and all you can come up with is "blah blah blah"?



Hmmmmmmmm...I got nothin'.

BG

[Slider]

Bush could have a smoking gun in his hand, standing over the dead body of an Iraqi prisoner, and his backers would still say "blah, blah, blah."

They are so invested in the BS that he spews, that they can't possibly reconsider at this point. Beyond that, most don't care that they've been lied to, and seem to be in favor of divisive, counter-productive domestic policy, imperialistic, racist foreign policy, and absurd economic policy. Erosion of the Constitution means nothing, rape of the environment means less, and billion dollar handouts to Halliburton don't even seem to register.

I keep getting an image of Charlton Heston in Soylent Green, when he finally sees what is happening, and all he can say is "Madness!"

We are in really, really deep ****.

Slider

[TrailBate]

And kansas is having their school district debate as we speak about changing the curriculum from evolution to creationism, and they have witnesses! I can't wait for God's testimony.

[gnurider1080]

And kansas is having their school district debate as we speak about changing the curriculum from evolution to creationism, and they have witnesses! I can't wait for God's testimony.

its probably gonna be some random guy from the bible belt dressed up as jesus.

[BG]

'We are in really, really deep ****.'

Always have been, guess it's just what makes us happy, till the end.

BG

[kernel crash]

My point was this is just the same old tired crap that just keeps getting recycled over and over and over again. Trail Bait seems to need his daily fix of this stuff. I don't.

[Slider]

The point is that it is really not the same crap, but completely new evidence. Your dismissal of it helps point out the problem. News like this gets dismissed as noise, largely because Bush shovels so much **** that it does get tiring to try to make sense of it all.

Quoting a famous abolitionist "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." But, we can bike too!

Slider

[TrailBate]

My point was this is just the same old tired crap that just keeps getting recycled over and over and over again. Trail Bait seems to need his daily fix of this stuff. I don't.



I didn't make that letter up. It's the actual letter congress sent to the president. Lucky for Bush, most people care more about runaway brides, feeding tubes, and Michael jackson to notice that Bush is doing the "same old tired crap" again. Maybe if somebody found his sperm on somebody's dress, people would notice.

[Rych]

Ok, even I have a problem with this drudge headline:


"Dem Chairman Dean Endorses Socialist For Senate In VT"

Here is the link:

http://www.benningtonbanner.com/Stories/0,1413,104~8676~2861278,00.html

Maybe he is a socialist, as Dean is, but nowhere in the the story does it say he is a socialist.

[Slider]

This is a quote from an AP story regarding the current hearings on the Bolton nominatio as the US rep to the UN. No WONDER the Bush administration wants him. He plays their game!

"Transcripts of the committee's interviews with Mr. Wilkerson and a second official, Robert L. Hutchings, the former chairman of the National Intelligence Council, were provided by a Congressional Democrat opposed to Mr. Bolton's nomination.

"I wouldn't say he was making up facts," said Mr. Hutchings, whose job was to coordinate the government's formal intelligence estimates. "Let's say that he took isolated facts and made much more of them to build a case than I thought the intelligence warranted. It was a sort of cherry-picking of little factoids and little isolated bits that were drawn out to present the starkest-possible case."

I mean, where have we seen this before?

Slider

[BG]

"I mean, where have we seen this before?"


HERE.

BG

[Rych]

"I mean, where have we seen this before?"


HERE.

BG



LBJ?

[BG]

"I mean, where have we seen this before?"


HERE.

BG



LBJ?




Him too.

BG

[TrailBate]

I'm glad to see that freedom is freely freeing the free people of the free country of free afghanistan. Hopefully this freedom will be a beacon to to the rest of the middle east whom are not free.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/05/11/afghan.protest/index.html

[felixatvtc]

Here's something i wonder about. Overseas they flip/burn cars during protests Vs. in this country morons go into the streets and burn/flip cars in celebration (RedSox, UNH hockey, etc). I wonder what they do when say.....they have a person win the olympics ???

[TrailBate]

Rumsfeld is going to announce today about 30 base closings. I'm curious to see how many will be in Texas......

[MTBME]

Well it will be interesting to see how Massachusetts fares in all of this. Unfortunately there is a payback mentality in place here. To quote Queen "Everbody plays the game". The Republicans could look at Mass and say what have you done for me lately? In the end, the Hanscom workers could all be singing, "another one bites the dust".

[TrailBate]

I think instead of closing bases in the US, why don't we close all our foreign bases? Imagine how much money we'd save! Plus, all our soldiers would be spending their paychecks here in the US, helping our economy, instead of spending it all on foreign countries who don't want us.

[Rych]

When New York goes on alert because of an aircraft danger, aren't the fighters scrambled out of otis?

[Slider]

I started a new topic before finding the references to Otis here. It warrants its own discussion, I think.

Slider

[TrailBate]

Surprise, surprise! Texas makes out good in the end!!


"President Bush’s home state of Texas could gain more than 9,000 military jobs even while losing four major installations and several smaller ones."


here is the red state/blue state breakdown:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/13/11033/6867

[kernel crash]

"Surprise, surprise! Texas makes out good in the end!!"

As did Massachusetts, Kerry's home state.

[TrailBate]

where did you see the massachusetts numbers?

[kernel crash]

http://www.lowellsun.com/front/ci_2735016

I believe Maine and CT were the only New England states to lose jobs in this realignment.

[TrailBate]

hmmm, Massachusetts gets 500 new jobs, texas gets 9,000....hmmmm.....

[Slider]

Bill Frist ought to rethink his long term goals. I think McCain just derailed any presidental hopes he may have had, and switched the religious right to a side track at the same time.

The moderates have saved the day, and American democracy with it.

Slider

[BG]

Long live the filibuster and my favorite...7 in 7.

BG

[Mr_Cheeze]

Bill Frist ought to rethink his long term goals. I think McCain just derailed any presidental hopes he may have had, and switched the religious right to a side track at the same time.

The moderates have saved the day, and American democracy with it.

Slider


Except that they weren't trying to kill the filibuster, and you know it. It was an attempt to stop recent trend by Democrats of using the tactic to block judges, something that has not been done before. The most ridiculus argument put up by the Dems is this notion that the Republicans "want to pack the benches" with their guys.

Um... isn't that the ******* POINT?!?!?!?!?! You got Teddy Kennedy out there crying. "ahhh.... the Republicans feel they won the Presidency, the House and the Senate." They feel they won? Last I checked, they did win, you big headed sop! JEEZ! And those winners get to reap the spoils of getting their damned judges appointed. At least that's the way it's been for 212 or so years up to this point.

The centrists saved the day. What crap. McCain and his pseudo-republican cohorts have only proved that they don't have any balls.

This whole thing is about nothing more than the fear of the overturning Roe v. Wade. So you had better believe that this so-called compromise where the Democrats have promised not to use the filibuster except in extenuating circumstances will get tossed out the door the very minute after Bush, should he get the opportunity, nominate to the Supreme Court anybody that is not sufficiently "anti-choice". This will be their extraordinary circumstance.

[BG]

"The moderates have saved the day, and American democracy with it."


Now that is some pretty funny ****, i must admit.

BG

[TrailBate]

Except that they weren't trying to kill the filibuster, and you know it. It was an attempt to stop recent trend by Democrats of using the tactic to block judges, something that has not been done before.

completely wrong. completely. Tell me what the success rate is of Bush's nominees compared to previous presidents. please.

This was nothing more than the powerful trying to get more power. And yes, Democrats are absolutely thinking of Supreme Court nominees. [/quote]

[Mr_Cheeze]

Not wrong at all. Show me when the filibuster has been used by any Congress before the Bush Presidency. It hasn't. Other tactics have been used, like holding up judicial nominees in committee. But that is different than using filibuster, whihc should only be used to hold up legislation for debate. Nothing more.

You want Democrats to get judges? Then they need to win more elections.

[TrailBate]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7518425/

and..


Falsehood #1: Democrats' filibuster of Bush nominees is "unprecedented."

The most prevalent talking point put forth by advocates of the "nuclear option" is that Democratic filibusters of 10 of President Bush's judicial nominees are "unprecedented" in American history.

But Republicans initiated a filibuster against a judicial nominee in 1968, forcing Democratic president Lyndon Johnson to withdraw the nomination of Associate Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas to be chief justice. Then-Sen. Robert Griffin (R-MI) recognized at the time that denying nominees a vote was already an established practice. "It is important to realize that it has not been unusual for the Senate to indicate its lack of approval for a nomination by just making sure that it never came to a vote on the merits. As I said, 21 nominations to the court have failed to win Senate approval. But only nine of that number were rejected on a direct, up-and-down vote," Griffin said, according to a May 10 New York Times op-ed by former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell (D-ME).

Cloture votes were also necessary to obtain floor votes on Clinton judicial nominees Richard A. Paez and Marsha L. Berzon in 2000, and Republicans attempted to filibuster the nomination of U.S. District Judge H. Lee Sarokin to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 1994. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), who is leading the Republican opposition to Democratic filibusters, voted against cloture for the Paez nomination.

And these are merely instances when Republicans filibustered Democratic presidents' judicial nominees. The Republican-controlled Senate blocked approximately 60 Clinton nominees through other means. This included strict enforcement under Clinton of the "blue slip" policy, which at the time allowed a senator from a nominee's home state to block a nominee simply by failing to turn in the blue-colored approval papers required for the nomination process. While Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT) strictly adhered to the "blue slip