PDA

View Full Version : Justice Alito



pooltchr
01-31-2006, 06:20 PM
In the past weeks, Samuel Alito faced our congress as they grilled him about everything under the sun, trying to find a good reason that he shouldn't be on the Supreme Court. Reports came out that they were not going to find anything, and his position was virtually secured.
I saw the roll-call vote today, and it was one of the most partisan vote imaginable. One Republican and two Democrats went against the party line.

If, during all the confirmation hearings, nothing was produced that would dictate that he was not a good judge, and would not make a good justice, why did the vote go the way it did? Either he is justice material, or he isn't. If he isn't, why wasn't that discovered during the hearings? And if nothing was discovered, why would so many vote against him?

O-K, I know the answer...it's politics as usual. Are all of these people in Washington (both parties) such wimps that they just fall into line with the party, regardless of what they believe is right? I can't believe that all the republicans found no fault with him and all the democrats thought he wasn't good enough for the job.

Are they supposed to make the decisions based on whether or not he is qualified for the job, or whether or not he thinks like they do on certain subjects. Party affiliation aside, do we want good honest fair judges, or do we want judges who agree with us???????????

I think one of the biggest problems in this country is that too many people support one party exclusively, and just accept the party spin, rather than take a realistic look at the facts on some subjects. It's no wonder so little gets accomplished in Washington. They are all too busy with their "civil war" to do what they were elected to do. I thought we elected these people to represent us, not to represent their respective party leadership!

Partisan Politics Sucks!!!!!!!! I wish we had more people in Washington who would stand up for what they believe, and not concern themselves with what people might think. I could actually respect a person who took an unpopular stand on an issue because it was what he really believed. Cheers to those who broke party lines, and voted their hearts!
Steve

Steve

Drop1
01-31-2006, 08:29 PM
Too much heart,and too few brains. I don't have to vote for a Democrat,and I don't have to vote for a Republican. I will vote for the person,and not for a party. Whats going on now in Washington,is a beauty contest,among fellow party members:a race to be popular,within one's own party,and screw the Country.

eg8r
02-01-2006, 06:31 AM
Once again not enough people believe in Kerry. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif George Bush has been kicking his butt since college. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r

Gayle in MD
02-01-2006, 09:57 AM
There are many things about political life which are not admirable, and some politicians, have more integrity than others, in both parties.

Some Presidents, have the ability to inspire non-partisan debate, and non-partisan effort and interest in acheiving valuable results and accomplishments from government. This president, is a divider, and has failed to reach out in any significant way to the minority party in his Supreme Court nominations. Both Roberts and Alito represent the extreme right in their philosophies. Hence, the pronounced divide by party line.

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
02-01-2006, 10:22 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> There are many things about political life which are not admirable, and some politicians, have more integrity than others, in both parties.

Some Presidents, have the ability to inspire non-partisan debate, and non-partisan effort and interest in acheiving valuable results and accomplishments from government. This president, is a divider, and has failed to reach out in any significant way to the minority party in his Supreme Court nominations. Both Roberts and Alito represent the extreme right in their philosophies. Hence, the pronounced divide by party line.

<font color="blue"> Yes, both are very right of center. This may restore some balance to the court. Each time Bush has reached across the isle, he has had his hand snapped at. I really beleive he might have considered a less right wing person but he would have faced the same hatred so he stuck with his base. It's hard to blame him.

The left faces a large problem here. If you are in a room with a group of 100 typical Americans. 80% or so are relieous but only a small portion are Conservative right wing. Most of these people don't want back room abortions, roll back to the 1960's. However, a democrat says, "You have to separate church from state." Most of the room is still with them at this point. Then a Democrat says, "Yes, you born again Christians are full of it." He/she was playing to the left and probably doen't reaaly care about much but the message. 80% of the people in that room, 60% of whom are not right wing just heard their belief system mocked and while the'll still smile at you at the party, they'll vote for someone who they beleive will protect their right to believe. The Republicans say, "We are with you. We believe. It's not shame to beleive and we don't go to church just to be seen on TV."

In the quietness of the voting booth, these people make decisions based on who they trust with their beliefs, even more so then who they trust not to take bribes, get BJ's or any number of assorted wrongs.

See, you are in that room. Many will agree with your intellectual arguments. But they will vote with their belief in who will represent their core values better, not who could call Bush the cleaverest names or sling the most accusations. Realists know the difference. The next party to win the white house will not be the group who says, "We are not as bad as him." It will be people with new ideas on how to protect the values of that large group within the 100. Thankfully, we have not heard one new idea from thee left in 8 years. </font color>

Deeman

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

wolfdancer
02-01-2006, 11:05 AM
I had a revelation this morning, an almost religious experience if you will. I read the article about Western Union no longer in the telegram business, and it mentioned the first message ever sent "What hath God wrought?"
Many of us pray to an invisable God, and when something bad, or evil happens, we are comforted by the message that God is testing us, and will not place a greater burden upon us then we can handle.
It's obvious to me that God is testing us all, with GWB. Not enough people accepted this during the first four years, so God arranged for GWB to test us for another four, knowing that he had already put a plan in place, to limit the tenure to 8 years.....so as not to overburden us....praise Jesus!!!
For myself, with weakened beliefs, it's been almost too much
to endure.....I was considering moving to Texas, and joining the Islamic movement there.....
I aslo beieve hiddne in your message is the same partisan beliefs, the same hatreds, that divide this country....unless you were a little tongue-in-cheek.
"The Democrat says you are full of it?...even though many are strong Christians themselves.
And thank God we have had no new ideas from the left in 8 years?
Being against all members of an opposing party, and mentally assigning them just negative value systems.....is bigoted, i believe.....and goes back to Steve's ponder, of why we can't appoint people on their merits.There are good people in both parties...but it's a shame that GWB and Cheney, now represent the Republican standards.
The only "new" ideas from GWB were...."no new taxes", and let's bomb Saddam...again
and, oh yes, the terribly flawed "place your bets" retirement program to replace the oft raided "piggy bank" SS
I think he should have been impeached as an economic dunce, just for coming up with that idea.

There was also some irony in that appointment...Alito is too conservative for the left, and too liberal for the right.

Drop1
02-01-2006, 12:28 PM
Are you saying God is not GWB? Hell I thought it was GWB testing us. Think I will take a nap.

wolfdancer
02-01-2006, 12:33 PM
LOL !!!...the second coming already...why didn't I think of that?

Deeman3
02-01-2006, 12:39 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> I had a revelation this morning, an almost religious experience if you will. I read the article about Western Union no longer in the telegram business, and it mentioned the first message ever sent "What hath God wrought?"
Many of us pray to an invisable God, and when something bad, or evil happens, we are comforted by the message that God is testing us, and will not place a greater burden upon us then we can handle.
It's obvious to me that God is testing us all, with GWB. Not enough people accepted this during the first four years, so God arranged for GWB to test us for another four, knowing that he had already put a plan in place, to limit the tenure to 8 years.....so as not to overburden us....praise Jesus!!!
For myself, with weakened beliefs, it's been almost too much
to endure.....I was considering moving to Texas, and joining the Islamic movement there.....
I aslo beieve hiddne in your message is the same partisan beliefs, the same hatreds, that divide this country....unless you were a little tongue-in-cheek. <font color="blue"> Of course, I was a lot tongue in cheek. It's silly but while I don't beleive the message, I believe this is the thought process/challenge the democrats face. Even if there are good ideas more often than every 8 years from the left, the message gets too clouded with hatred. </font color>
"The Democrat says you are full of it?...even though many are strong Christians themselves. <font color="blue"> Yes, many are Christians but are more liberal in the rest of their lives. However, Democratic pundits mis-estimate the thinking process of a lot of them. While many polsters try to determine single issue voting blocks, they do take a lot for granted. They do not understand the right wing Christians connection to the middle east conflict and even the most liberal of Christians investment in the outcome of any Israili/Palestinian conflict. Therefore, they sell the party on secular ideas when, while relavent to most Christians, takes a backseat to moral considerations in the end. Then, individual candidates wrap themselves, uncomfortably sometimes, in an "I go to church too!" campaign. Can you really sell the idea of a practicing Roman Catholic (named Kennedy) standing up and supporting abortion? I know it sounds easy to cover right now in a rational debate but try to sell that in church. Does it matter? No, except if you want to get elected outside a vary narrow geographic area. </font color>
And thank God we have had no new ideas from the left in 8 years? <font color="blue"> Maybe unfair, but name them! Aside from GWB is the devil, what have the democrats put together as a unified strategy? </font color>
Being against all members of an opposing party, and mentally assigning them just negative value systems.....is bigoted, i believe.. <font color="blue"> It is. I admit that all democrats are not stupid. Many are very bright and have much to add to the public debate. However, I also believe, like the Islamic people, they have let the far left take over their rational middle ground. A I said before, let a democrat make a modeerate statement and he/she is blastedfrom the left. "Get back in line. This train is headed left." Am I wrong? Maybe but I'm not a racist at all. If the riots did not happen back in the 60's would we have provided the welfare benefits we have? Secondly, was this doen properly to lift up the poorer among us or was it botched, as I stated? </font color> ...and goes back to Steve's ponder, of why we can't appoint people on their merits.There are good people in both parties...but it's a shame that GWB and Cheney, now represent the Republican standards. <font color="blue"> If Kennedy or Hillary were in office, I could be making the same charges right now. </font color>
The only "new" ideas from GWB were...."no new taxes", and let's bomb Saddam...again <font color="blue"> Well, respectfully, he got everything he wanted except SS reform. As the war began many of you said we would be in bread lines by now, how the tax cuts would put us under. </font color>
and, oh yes, the terribly flawed "place your bets" retirement program to replace the oft raided "piggy bank" SS <font color="blue"> Don't blame Bush for the "oft raided SS fund". Who raided it and conotinue to until this day?</font color>
I think he should have been impeached as an economic dunce, just for coming up with that idea. <font color="blue">Well, if giving someone the option to invest int the private secotr is being a dunce, I join the club. </font color>

There was also some irony in that appointment...Alito is too conservative for the left, and too liberal for the right. <font color="blue">Yes, he may be tto far left for some but remember, Bush may get to make another appointment or two in the next three years. That would balance the court even more. JK </font color>
<hr /></blockquote>
<font color="blue"> Wolf,

Don't take any of my arguments to heart. I certainly don't know what I'm talking about. I, like you, am just waiting for the Democratic strategy to unveil itself. I see where James Carville has it figured our in his new book. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif


Deeman </font color>

wolfdancer
02-01-2006, 02:00 PM
Dee, I've been playing the market for a few years now, and the market makers been playing me for the same time frame.
I made money last year, and I'm ahead this year....in fact yesterday was a red letter day, up over $2k...I was so estatic, I almost went down and registered Republican, but settled for a diet coke. I gave some back today.....
But the old rules governing investments are out...P/E ratios, price to sales, growth, etc ....it's just imaginary future growth, mregers that may not work like Time-Warner/AOL, or guys like Cramer mentioning one of my stocks the other day, and it goes up 10 %.....it's all market sentiment now.I once read that investors held Yahoo stock for 3 day, on avg.....is that investing, or? Since most people would have to bail out on a 20% correction....and most don't use stop loss orders (me neither).....there goes the retirement.
Or get caught with an Enron, or Global Crosing as I did....and there would be a lot more #101 California St. massacres.
The market is like a craps table.....winners and losers on every bet/order.
What if someone bet it all on Krispy Kreme, a TASR....or GM...soon to be GM.PK?

Deeman3
02-01-2006, 04:25 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Dee, I've been playing the market for a few years now, and the market makers been playing me for the same time frame.
I made money last year, and I'm ahead this year....in fact yesterday was a red letter day, up over $2k...I was so estatic, I almost went down and registered Republican, but settled for a diet coke. I gave some back today.....
But the old rules governing investments are out...P/E ratios, price to sales, growth, etc ....it's just imaginary future growth, mregers that may not work like Time-Warner/AOL, or guys like Cramer mentioning one of my stocks the other day, and it goes up 10 %.....it's all market sentiment now.I once read that investors held Yahoo stock for 3 day, on avg.....is that investing, or? Since most people would have to bail out on a 20% correction....and most don't use stop loss orders (me neither).....there goes the retirement.
Or get caught with an Enron, or Global Crosing as I did....and there would be a lot more #101 California St. massacres.
The market is like a craps table.....winners and losers on every bet/order.
What if someone bet it all on Krispy Kreme, a TASR....or GM...soon to be GM.PK?
<hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">Hey, I've got some of that chummy GM stock but my contract says I can't do anything with it (Read Frozen) while with this company. So, I'm in for a rough ride but won't even check the ticker anymore to keep my ulcers under control. </font color>

Deeman
broke but not dead broke .........yet!

Gayle in MD
02-02-2006, 04:10 AM
Sorry Deeman, the polls show that by a large margin, Americans do not think that Bush has any viable plan for the problems that we face in this country. Democrats will not have to come up with any broad sweeping ideas in order to move forward in their elected numbers because Bush has done absolutely nothing to put this country forward. In fact, all of the threats, problems, issues, both domestic and foriegn, economic and intellectual, have either been totally ignorred, or greatly worsened through the non policies of Republicans, and George Bush. The question in future elections will not be which party can come up with the most dynamic solutions, but rather, how soon can we vote these corrupt, lying sob's out of office, and try to get this country back on track.

Every challenge that we face, as a country, from illegal aliens, renamed immigrants by Bush, to the so called war on terror, a re-naming of his actual policy, which is nation building around the world, in countries who see us as destructive occupiers they would like to run out of their country, to our educational system, ineffective and declining, the national deficit, the huge trade deficit, corporate greed leading to the exporting of American jobs, a broken army, and over half the country finally beginning to wake up to the fact that this president, divides, lies, spins, is incompetant, and has failed to put into action any viable plan for any of the important issues which Americans are facing today. The non issues which were created by this administration in their recent elections will no longer captivate this country. Americans are seeing their wages drop, their borders leaking criminals like a seive, their dollars losing value, their children's future being mortgaged, their pocket books being gouged by Bush's oil, and pharmeceutical cronies, and millionaires being given a nice hand upwards while the living standards for the middle class family suffer and decline. I hardly think that Rover, Bush's attack dog, will be able to focuss voters attentions on a woman's right to chose, or attacking a segment of Americana for their blasphemous sexual practices.

We can't rebuild Iraq, because insurgents are blowing up the contractors, and their projects, faster than we can rebuild. The country is in a civil war, 80% of Iraqis want us out of there, and half of them now say that they want to kill the Americans. Bush has no exit strategy, no viable solutions for health care, no dynamic solutions to our dependency on oil, saving social security, improving education, and on and on. What Americans know now is that we went into Iraq on false information, we are losing the war, and it is not a war on terror, and never was, we are deeper in debt, we are losing manufacturing jobs, our wages are dropping, our borders are open to any terrorist who wishes to cross them and blow us up, and having Democracy on the march solves nothing when you are in a part of the world where people go to the polls vote fanatics into office. And add to that that we have a president who calls all those who see the folly of his policies for what they truly are, unrealistic, isolationist, defeatists, and you have the coming of a new era election wise. The truth, the reality of day to day existance, eventually does dismantle rhetoric, lies and incompetance, and people do come to see what is so, and take action against those who created failure, and destruction.

You speak in your post of trust, Americans do not trust Bush, the Republican party has shown itself to be corrupt, Bush is losing his base, and yet you seem to think that people will go into a voting booth and vote on religious issues again? I don't think so.

BTW, just so you'll know, I personally have no issues with everyone worshipping in their own way, to their own interpretation of who and what God is, for the benefit of their own personal psychological and spiritual comfort, I just don't like it when they try to make their personal beliefs into laws, and endeavor to dictate to the rest of us what we may and may not do in our personal lives. As for your reference to whomever you were aiming it, regarding offending the religious philosophy of the religious right, in connection with the voting booth, hey, you lost me, I haven't seen or heard of any democrats, liberals, or whatever you wish to label all those of us who have seen through the Wizards of Oz, (Bush/Rove/Cheney) make any effort to prevent people from their right to worship as they chose, I think you've got that one backwards, we don't endeavor to dictate to others, we leave that to the religious right, and their unamerican desire to impose their beliefs on the rest of us, and make them into law.

And finally, you speak of realists, and I say to you, anyone who thinks we are fighting terrorists in Iraq, winning the war in Iraq, have an Iraq exit strategy, have a plan for saving our jobs, lowering health costs, solving our dependency on foreign fuels, improving our educational system, saving social security, medicaid and medicare, closing our borders to criminals, attacking our growing trade deficit, can certainly not consider himself, a realist. We can't even rebuild a levee system in New Orleans, let alone re-build Iraq! We can no longer afford to elect presidents who have no respect for the necessity of diplomacy, in a world full of nuclear weaponry.

Gayle in Md., cynical, skeptical, and lovin' it.

DickLeonard
02-02-2006, 06:44 AM
poolchr The Supreme Court lost its place as the third part of the Govenment when it appointed GWB disallowing the one man one vote in Florida by not ordering a recount of the voting in Florida [the right descision].

Who cares what they rule we know they will vote in favor of big business over individuals rights. They have read the words We the People now they interpret it to mean We the Corporations. ####

eg8r
02-02-2006, 06:52 AM
[ QUOTE ]
poolchr The Supreme Court lost its place as the third part of the Govenment when it appointed GWB disallowing the one man one vote in Florida by not ordering a recount of the voting in Florida [the right descision]. <hr /></blockquote> Well #### don't get your panties in a twist, every single recount of the votes have shown W to still win. You know what else would have been great is if the Dems would have allowed all votes to count.

[ QUOTE ]
Who cares what they rule we know they will vote in favor of big business over individuals rights. <hr /></blockquote> Hopefully they will overthrow Souter and take another look at the last vote on emminent domain.

eg8r

pooltchr
02-02-2006, 07:06 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> poolchr The Supreme Court lost its place as the third part of the Govenment when it appointed GWB disallowing the one man one vote in Florida by not ordering a recount of the voting in Florida [the right descision]. <font color="red"> That was several years ago, and although I am getting old, I can still remember that they spend weeks and weeks counting and recounting and recounting votes. Your guy LOST! There was also another election since then...If the public didn't want Bush again, why did the majority vote for him????? Your arguement is simply an opinion, and pretty much pointless. Besides, the thread is about the partisan way in which both Republican and Democratic congressmen are handling themselves...just going through the motions and supporting the party line. Say what you want about GW, but he does what he thinks is right, and stands by it. I think he has moved away from what the Republican party stands for particularly with fiscal conservatism, so I don't agree with everything he does...but at least he isn't a pawn of a political party. </font color>

Who cares what they rule we know they will vote in favor of big business over individuals rights. They have read the words We the People now they interpret it to mean We the Corporations. ####
<font color="red"> The supreme court has done some pretty dumb things in the past years. Hopefully, with the latest additions, that will change. Their job is to determine if the laws passed by congress meet the criteria of the constitution. As long as they do that, I am happy. When judges start legislating from the bench, I have a big problem. </font color> <hr /></blockquote>
Steve

Deeman3
02-02-2006, 07:26 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Sorry Deeman, the polls show that by a large margin, Americans do not think that Bush has any viable plan for the problems that we face in this country. <font color="blue"> Whew, I didn't know we had changed to where we now elect our leaders in mid sessions polls. </font color> Democrats will not have to come up with any broad sweeping ideas in order to move forward in their elected numbers because Bush has done absolutely nothing to put this country forward. <font color="blue">Republicans everywhere deeply appreciate your continued belief in this fantasy. </font color> In fact, all of the threats, problems, issues, both domestic and foriegn, economic and intellectual, have either been totally ignorred, or greatly worsened through the non policies of Republicans, and George Bush. The question in future elections will not be which party can come up with the most dynamic solutions, but rather, how soon can we vote these corrupt, lying sob's out of office, and try to get this country back on track. <font color="blue"> Again, this was your belief in 2000 and 2004. </font color>

Every challenge that we face, as a country, from illegal aliens, renamed immigrants by Bush, to the so called war on terror, a re-naming of his actual policy, which is nation building around the world, in countries who see us as destructive occupiers they would like to run out of their country, to our educational system, ineffective and declining, the national deficit, the huge trade deficit, corporate greed leading to the exporting of American jobs, a broken army, and over half the country finally beginning to wake up to the fact that this president, divides, lies, spins, is incompetant, and has failed to put into action any viable plan for any of the important issues which Americans are facing today. The non issues which were created by this administration in their recent elections will no longer captivate this country. Americans are seeing their wages drop, their borders leaking criminals like a seive, their dollars losing value, their children's future being mortgaged, their pocket books being gouged by Bush's oil, and pharmeceutical cronies, and millionaires being given a nice hand upwards while the living standards for the middle class family suffer and decline. <font color="blue"> And you see where the democrats have not supported these same companies? When have the lobbies not pandered to the party in power? </font color> I hardly think that Rover, Bush's attack dog, will be able to focuss voters attentions on a woman's right to chose, or attacking a segment of Americana for their blasphemous sexual practices. <font color="blue"> Perhaps not, but Bush is still appointing courts to the right of this stand. It doesn't look like there's a big uproar over that. Maybe I missed it. I was watching the History Channel last night. </font color>

We can't rebuild Iraq, because insurgents are blowing up the contractors, and their projects, faster than we can rebuild. The country is in a civil war, 80% of Iraqis want us out of there, and half of them now say that they want to kill the Americans. Bush has no exit strategy, no viable solutions for health care, no dynamic solutions to our dependency on oil, saving social security, improving education, and on and on. What Americans know now is that we went into Iraq on false information, we are losing the war, and it is not a war on terror, and never was, we are deeper in debt, we are losing manufacturing jobs, our wages are dropping, our borders are open to any terrorist who wishes to cross them and blow us up, <font color="blue"> If our borders are so open to terrorists and they certainly want to kill us, why have there been no new attacks under Bush? Just lucky? With 100,000,000 Muslims out kill us all, why are we not seeing attacks on a daily basis? Are they waiting for Hillary?</font color> and having Democracy on the march solves nothing when you are in a part of the world where people go to the polls vote fanatics into office. And add to that that we have a president who calls all those who see the folly of his policies for what they truly are, unrealistic, isolationist, defeatists, and you have the coming of a new era election wise. The truth, the reality of day to day existance, eventually does dismantle rhetoric, lies and incompetance, and people do come to see what is so, and take action against those who created failure, and destruction.

You speak in your post of trust, Americans do not trust Bush, the Republican party has shown itself to be corrupt, Bush is losing his base, and yet you seem to think that people will go into a voting booth and vote on religious issues again? I don't think so. <font color="blue"> You do continue to miss the point. As long as you believe that people will not vote religious issues, you are right where the right wants you. You will continue to believe people will vote on the issues you select and for the reasons you voice. Didn't happen in 2000, didn't happen in 2008. I do speak of trust. It may be a sad commentary on your party but even with all the many cases of corrutpion (Delay)your party is still not trusted as much. You mislead yourself into the thinking that the poles a year before an off year election have any bearing on the outcome of the Senate elections. </font color>

BTW, just so you'll know, I personally have no issues with everyone worshipping in their own way, to their own interpretation of who and what God is, for the benefit of their own personal psychological and spiritual comfort, I just don't like it when they try to make their personal beliefs into laws, and endeavor to dictate to the rest of us what we may and may not do in our personal lives. As for your reference to whomever you were aiming it, regarding offending the religious philosophy of the religious right, in connection with the voting booth, hey, you lost me, I haven't seen or heard of any democrats, liberals, or whatever you wish to label all those of us who have seen through the Wizards of Oz, (Bush/Rove/Cheney) make any effort to prevent people from their right to worship as they chose, I think you've got that one backwards, we don't endeavor to dictate to others, we leave that to the religious right, and their unamerican desire to impose their beliefs on the rest of us, and make them into law. <font color="blue"> Again, you don't say, "You have no right to worship." No on questions that, for now. It's the mocking of people's religious views that offend. You don't remember them as they are just curt comments from the left and many have been, indeed, clever. You just underestimate the broad brush you are capable of offending with. Many who you might have in your flock are, as I said, with you until you begin mocking their seriously held beliefs. To you, it's a small joke. To them, it's showing that you are not from their ilk. You may rail at a silly preacher somewhere, that's o.k. but you don't have the temperment to calmly judge a single person's actions and comment. You will rail against all religious people and even the middle of the road believers will quietly resent that. Hey, it's to my advantage that you don't believe this stuff. </font color>

And finally, you speak of realists, and I say to you, anyone who thinks we are fighting terrorists in Iraq, winning the war in Iraq, have an Iraq exit strategy, have a plan for saving our jobs, lowering health costs, solving our dependency on foreign fuels, improving our educational system, saving social security, medicaid and medicare, closing our borders to criminals, attacking our growing trade deficit, can certainly not consider himself, a realist. We can't even rebuild a levee system in New Orleans, let alone re-build Iraq! We can no longer afford to elect presidents who have no respect for the necessity of diplomacy, in a world full of nuclear weaponry. <font color="blue"> And I still believe we can no longer afford to elect presidents who pander to world opinion and wait for consensus before defending our interests. I know you want our president be liked and popular. However, I'd rather have him distained and effective. </font color>

Gayle in Md., cynical, skeptical, and lovin' it. <font color="blue"> Deeman
sorry I can't jump on the liberal train just yet.</font color> <hr /></blockquote>

DickLeonard
02-02-2006, 08:44 AM
Pooltchr I don't care who won that was still the correct decsion.####

Gayle in MD
02-02-2006, 08:57 AM
I didn't say we elected in mid session polls. I guess you think that by the time we vote, Iraq will be re-built, the deficit will be gone, and the middle east will be Disney World and shangra La all rolled into one. Really, you do have faith, blind faith.

Apparently, you can't think of a single success to contribute to George Bush. When his failures are listed, all you people can think about is Clinton's BJ, cause you sure can't hold up any successful policies from this administration.

I guess you don't think Bush wasn't pandering to his base when he ousted Harriet?

Since you think Bush has accomplished so much for this country, why not give a few examples, instead of your constant sarcastic arrows.

<font color="red"> </font color> [ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote> When have the lobbies not pandered to power [ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>
Oh, semantics again, look up pandering, it does not mean taking bribes, like the republicans have done.

If you think that the absence of a terrorist attack is due to the War In Iraq, or Bush's spying on Americans, you are certainly not lacking any fantasy in your little world.

Delay, HA HA HA HA HA, he's just the tip of the iceburg when it comes to the corruption in this administration. Obviously, you haven't seen any of the interviews with Americans following Bush's ridiculous, rhetorical BS, speech, full of lies, such as, "We Are Winning In Iraq" The whole world knows that's a lie, except for the hypnotised right. FYI, the polls show that the majority in this country do not trust Bush. Polls regarding the Republican Party drop to a lower level every week.

Well, lol, your right, I do have this sneaking suspicion that organized religion has historically been at the heart of many many wars, and that the War On Terror, aka, the unwinnable war in Iraq, is, interestingly enough, a war between two religious fanatics, Gaoege Bush, and purportedly, ObL, just a coincidence, surely.

<font color="red"> </font color> You're party is not trusted as much [ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>

I don't know where you got that one, Faux News???

Oh, so you think I rail against religion? HA HA HA...you must be referring to my disbelief that there are actually people walking the streets of America, believing that a man can live inside a whale. Yeah, I can sure rail against that one. And, as a matter of fact, you seem to be the one who gets awfully irritated with people whose religious philosophy is different than yours. Are there other things you have in common with the terrorists?

I know this may be a flash for you, but 2008 hasn't arrived yet, try not to say what didn't happen in 2008, even if you are foaming at the mouth as you type.

If what you want is a president who is disdained, you surely got your wish on that. It's a toss up around the world, who is hated the most, ObL, or George Bush.

Your use of the word "effective" in the same sentence with reference to George Bush is truly hillarious! Again, why not point out a few accomplishments, other than pandering to his rich friends with his tax policies. His SS failed, according to the 9/11 investigative, bi-partisan group, he has failed totally in making this country safer. His economic policies are growing us tremendous debt. In the midst of a national disaster, his appointees failed miserably to respond to the needs of those who were dying. Every General interviewed agrees the Insurgency is growing, by numbers, and by weapons, and the sophistication of weapons. He has no effective health care policy, his No Child Left Behind is notoriously a complete failure, White House Top Aides under investigation, and indictments. Borders wide open. Republicans crying on the steps of the capital over their sins, deficits through the roof, LMAO....you call that effective? Believe me, never before have your opinions and pr9ojections been so comical! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif Dream on, Deeman, but stock up on the tranquilizers, you're going to need them for your rude awakening.
Oh...and by the way, this will also shock your delicate nature, but the overwhelming majority of Americans believe in a woman's right to chose, so I wouldn't be too comfy regarding the religious rights power in taking that stand, this failed republican policy and crimewave is going to enlighten the middle of the road people, the ones who only voted for Bush because ObL dared forbade them to do so.


Gayle in Md....wishes Deeman could learn to post his views about issues, instead of always bringing things down to personal attacks against me. But hey, we can do that, if you insist.

eg8r
02-02-2006, 09:07 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Obviously, you haven't seen any of the interviews with Americans following Bush's ridiculous, rhetorical BS, speech, full of lies, such as, "We Are Winning In Iraq" The whole world knows that's a lie, except for the hypnotised right. <hr /></blockquote> According to Boortz we are not doing to bad, but you would never give this information out because it does not fit your agenda of untruths... <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Boortz:</font><hr> In case you don't already know it, insurgent attacks on our troops and security forces in Iraq are on the decline. In the 1st week of October of last year there were 700 such attacks. By mid-December that figure had dropped to 500. Just last week the number had dropped to 400. That's a 43% drop in about three months. At the same time our forces in Iraq are turning over more and more of the Iraqi territory to the Iraqi defense forces to handle. Just last week military control of two large provinces in Iraq were turned over to Iraqi security forces.

Yeah ... this all sounds a lot like we're losing over there, doesn't it? <hr /></blockquote> Keep up your little fantasy but the truth is that we are successful over in Iraq and it is continuing every day.

eg8r

Deeman3
02-02-2006, 09:55 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> I didn't say we elected in mid session polls. I guess you think that by the time we vote, Iraq will be re-built, the deficit will be gone, and the middle east will be Disney World and shangra La all rolled into one. Really, you do have faith, blind faith. <font color="blue"> You don't recognise GWB's accomplishments. It does little good to mention them. </font color>

Apparently, you can't think of a single success to contribute to George Bush. When his failures are listed, all you people can think about is Clinton's BJ, cause you sure can't hold up any successful policies from this administration. <font color="blue"> I believe you are the one keeping Clintons' BJ alive, you keep citing it as an accomplishment. </font color>

I guess you don't think Bush wasn't pandering to his base when he ousted Harriet? <font color="blue"> Yes, and it worked very weel, didn't it? </font color>

Since you think Bush has accomplished so much for this country, why not give a few examples, instead of your constant sarcastic arrows. <font color="blue"> Iraq, Afghanistan, Increased school funding, lack of follow-up attacks after 9/11....see I said it would do little good.... </font color>

<font color="red"> </font color> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
<hr /></blockquote> When have the lobbies not pandered to power &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
<hr /></blockquote>
Oh, semantics again, look up pandering, it does not mean taking bribes, like the republicans have done. <font color="blue"> Both parties have taken bribes, always the majority party having the most given to them. They are prosecuting the crooks, I agree they should. Just don't convict the entire Bush administration without a trial as you are trying to do. </font color>

If you think that the absence of a terrorist attack is due to the War In Iraq, or Bush's spying on Americans, you are certainly not lacking any fantasy in your little world. <font color="blue"> You still have not said what YOU think is the reason for the lack of attacks.....long silence. </font color>

Delay, HA HA HA HA HA, he's just the tip of the iceburg when it comes to the corruption in this administration. Obviously, you haven't seen any of the interviews with Americans following Bush's ridiculous, rhetorical BS, speech, full of lies, such as, "We Are Winning In Iraq" The whole world knows that's a lie, except for the hypnotised right. FYI, the polls show that the majority in this country do not trust Bush. Polls regarding the Republican Party drop to a lower level every week.

Well, lol, your right, I do have this sneaking suspicion that organized religion has historically been at the heart of many many wars, and that the War On Terror, aka, the unwinnable war in Iraq, is, interestingly enough, a war between two religious fanatics, Gaoege Bush, and purportedly, ObL, just a coincidence, surely. <font color="blue"> Where have you ever had any evidence that GWB is a a fanatic over religion? He jst sayd God guides his decisions as all American presidents have, rememebr Carter? Naw, you don't remember his even more aggressive faith proclaimations, of course not. </font color>

<font color="red"> </font color> You're party is not trusted as much &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
<hr /></blockquote>

I don't know where you got that one, Faux News???

Oh, so you think I rail against religion? HA HA HA...you must be referring to my disbelief that there are actually people walking the streets of America, believing that a man can live inside a whale. Yeah, I can sure rail against that one. And, as a matter of fact, you seem to be the one who gets awfully irritated with people whose religious philosophy is different than yours. <font color="blue"> I care very little about other's views of God. I just pointed out a flaw in the liberals methodology, don't take it so personally as you are not even a democrat, you say. </font color> Are there other things you have in common with the terrorists? <font color="blue"> Perhaps, I want them dead as long as they attack us. </font color>

I know this may be a flash for you, but 2008 hasn't arrived yet, try not to say what didn't happen in 2008, even if you are foaming at the mouth as you type. <font color="blue">Gayle, a personal attack from such a reasonable person as you. </font color>

If what you want is a president who is disdained, you surely got your wish on that. It's a toss up around the world, who is hated the most, ObL, or George Bush. <font color="blue"> Again, it's just not a personality contest with me. I don't care that he's popular, I care that he is effective. </font color>

Your use of the word "effective" in the same sentence with reference to George Bush is truly hillarious! Again, why not point out a few accomplishments, other than pandering to his rich friends with his tax policies. His SS failed, according to the 9/11 investigative, bi-partisan group, he has failed totally in making this country safer. <font color="blue"> Again%2

Deeman3
02-02-2006, 09:57 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> I didn't say we elected in mid session polls. I guess you think that by the time we vote, Iraq will be re-built, the deficit will be gone, and the middle east will be Disney World and shangra La all rolled into one. Really, you do have faith, blind faith. <font color="blue"> You don't recognise GWB's accomplishments. It does little good to mention them. </font color>

Apparently, you can't think of a single success to contribute to George Bush. When his failures are listed, all you people can think about is Clinton's BJ, cause you sure can't hold up any successful policies from this administration. <font color="blue"> I believe you are the one keeping Clintons' BJ alive, you keep citing it as an accomplishment. </font color>

I guess you don't think Bush wasn't pandering to his base when he ousted Harriet? <font color="blue"> Yes, and it worked very weel, didn't it? </font color>

Since you think Bush has accomplished so much for this country, why not give a few examples, instead of your constant sarcastic arrows. <font color="blue"> Iraq, Afghanistan, Increased school funding, lack of follow-up attacks after 9/11....see I said it would do little good.... </font color>

<font color="red"> </font color> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
<hr /></blockquote> When have the lobbies not pandered to power &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
<hr /></blockquote>
Oh, semantics again, look up pandering, it does not mean taking bribes, like the republicans have done. <font color="blue"> Both parties have taken bribes, always the majority party having the most given to them. They are prosecuting the crooks, I agree they should. Just don't convict the entire Bush administration without a trial as you are trying to do. </font color>

If you think that the absence of a terrorist attack is due to the War In Iraq, or Bush's spying on Americans, you are certainly not lacking any fantasy in your little world. <font color="blue"> You still have not said what YOU think is the reason for the lack of attacks.....long silence. </font color>

Delay, HA HA HA HA HA, he's just the tip of the iceburg when it comes to the corruption in this administration. Obviously, you haven't seen any of the interviews with Americans following Bush's ridiculous, rhetorical BS, speech, full of lies, such as, "We Are Winning In Iraq" The whole world knows that's a lie, except for the hypnotised right. FYI, the polls show that the majority in this country do not trust Bush. Polls regarding the Republican Party drop to a lower level every week.

Well, lol, your right, I do have this sneaking suspicion that organized religion has historically been at the heart of many many wars, and that the War On Terror, aka, the unwinnable war in Iraq, is, interestingly enough, a war between two religious fanatics, Gaoege Bush, and purportedly, ObL, just a coincidence, surely. <font color="blue"> Where have you ever had any evidence that GWB is a a fanatic over religion? He jst sayd God guides his decisions as all American presidents have, rememebr Carter? Naw, you don't remember his even more aggressive faith proclaimations, of course not. </font color>

<font color="red"> </font color> You're party is not trusted as much &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
<hr /></blockquote>

I don't know where you got that one, Faux News???

Oh, so you think I rail against religion? HA HA HA...you must be referring to my disbelief that there are actually people walking the streets of America, believing that a man can live inside a whale. Yeah, I can sure rail against that one. And, as a matter of fact, you seem to be the one who gets awfully irritated with people whose religious philosophy is different than yours. <font color="blue"> I care very little about other's views of God. I just pointed out a flaw in the liberals methodology, don't take it so personally as you are not even a democrat, you say. </font color> Are there other things you have in common with the terrorists? <font color="blue"> Perhaps, I want them dead as long as they attack us. </font color>

I know this may be a flash for you, but 2008 hasn't arrived yet, try not to say what didn't happen in 2008, even if you are foaming at the mouth as you type. <font color="blue">Gayle, a personal attack from such a reasonable person as you. </font color>

If what you want is a president who is disdained, you surely got your wish on that. It's a toss up around the world, who is hated the most, ObL, or George Bush. <font color="blue"> Again, it's just not a personality contest with me. I don't care that he's popular, I care that he is effective. </font color>

Your use of the word "effective" in the same sentence with reference to George Bush is truly hillarious! Again, why not point out a few accomplishments, other than pandering to his rich friends with his tax policies. His SS failed, according to the 9/11 investigative, bi-partisan group, he has failed totally in making this country safer. <font color="blue"> Again, you won't answer this but why are we safer? Good luck, leadership of the left/ </font color> His economic policies are growing us tremendous debt. In the midst of a national disaster, his appointees failed miserably to respond to the needs of those who were dying. Every General interviewed agrees the Insurgency is growing, by numbers, and by weapons, and the sophistication of weapons. <font color="blue"> More sputtering untruth. You get a couple of retired irate soldiers to ay something and you say every General. Get serious. </font color> He has no effective health care policy, <font color="blue"> Like the Democrats have put forward?</font color> his No Child Left Behind is notoriously a complete failure, White House Top Aides under investigation, and indictments. Borders wide open. Republicans crying on the steps of the capital over their sins, deficits through the roof, LMAO....you call that effective? Believe me, never before have your opinions and pr9ojections been so comical! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif Dream on, Deeman, but stock up on the tranquilizers, you're going to need them for your rude awakening. <font color="blue"> We don't need those so much outside the beltway. </font color>
Oh...and by the way, this will also shock your delicate nature, but the overwhelming majority of Americans believe in a woman's right to chose, so I wouldn't be too comfy regarding the religious rights power in taking that stand, this failed republican policy and crimewave is going to enlighten the middle of the road people, the ones who only voted for Bush because ObL dared forbade them to do so. <font color="blue">I believe in a woman's right to choose. That does not mean I want the rest of the liberal agenda as well. </font color>


Gayle in Md....wishes Deeman could learn to post his views about issues, instead of always bringing things down to personal attacks against me. But hey, we can do that, if you insist. <font color="blue"> Gayle, everytime I post an answer to anything you post, you hide behind what you claim are personal attacks. It's not true. You want to be taken seriously but can't help playng the hurt gender card. Just because I think you are irrational does not mean I have personally attacked you. I believe while you have suggested that you might get me beat up, I have just tried to answer your questions. If anything that disagress with your point is a personal attack, you just don't want any arguamt in opposition to you. That's o.k. just don't claim to be fair.</font color>


Deeman
really quite relaxed.....
<hr /></blockquote>

Gayle in MD
02-02-2006, 10:02 AM
Ah ha ha ha ha...What good is a guy who stands by what he thinks is right, when the whole world knows he was wrong in the first place. You righties are just like Bush, hand pick your facts to support your fantasies, and deny reality to the end.

What can you say about a commander in chief who declares victory, "Mission Accomplished" and years later, the country is still in a war? March will mark the beginning of the fifth year in Iraq. U.S. involvment in WWI came to an end after 19 months. Victory in Europe was declared in WWII after 3 years, 5 months, Cease Fire in Korea after 3 years and 1 month.

Our equipment is failing, our troop levels are sinking, the war costs are far greater than anticipated, and the terrorists in other countries are growing and enboldened by our worn out army, equipment, and funds. You think Bush isn't a pawn of a political party, no, he's a dictator, which do your prefer??? Presidents who digest the facts before they start wars, or presidents who go off half cocked, and start wars that are unwinnable militarily.... then insist, regardless of the facts, that they will stay until certain impossible events are accomplished?

This war, according to many who have been there and come home to write the truth of what is happening, is a loosing battle. We Need to get the hell out of Iraq. Less than seven percent of those we are fighting in Iraq are terrorists, the rest are Iraqis who want us out of there. This is NOT a war on terror, this is an attempt at nationbuilding in an area which is in the midst of a civil war! Our troops will continue to be killed by Iraqis who see them as interfering occupiers. Our Constitution does not list Nation Building as an American endeavor or responsibility. George Bush is a pawn to his own oversized ego, he can't admit he has failed, even when the evidence is overwhelming! Few things are as repugnant as arrogance in the midst of incompetance.

Gayle in Md. When you have a President who is a divider, and a Congress who are poor winners, you end up with overly partisan political results.

DickLeonard
02-02-2006, 10:03 AM
Eg8r we still aven't developed a cure for the women carrying a bomb and detonating herself. I know little of the muslim world. The only thing I read was that they carry a grudge for 100s of years and we have killed more than 100,000 innocent Iraqis whose families will get even one day. So we are winning the War only in our minds.####

wolfdancer
02-02-2006, 10:36 AM
Another horror story about emminent domain:
Carl and Joy Gamble, retirees who had lived in the same house in Norwood, a Cincinnati suburb, for more than three decades, did not realize their neighborhood was "deteriorating." Neither did the Norwood City Council, until it heard about developer Jeffrey Anderson's plan to build offices, condominiums, chain stores, and a parking garage there.

The prospect of new tax revenue opened the city council's eyes to the awful conditions in the Edwards Road Corridor. It turned out the area was plagued by "obsolete platting" (small front yards), "faulty street arrangements" (two cul-de-sacs), "incompatible uses" (businesses close to homes), "nonconforming uses" (homes and businesses that did not meet zoning and building requirements imposed after they were constructed), and "diversity of ownership" (homes and businesses owned by different people).

An "urban renewal study" suggested and financed by Anderson documented these horrors, leaving the city with no choice but to condemn any property in the neighborhood whose owners refused to sell and hand it over to Anderson, who had kindly agreed to reimburse the government for any expenses entailed by that process. After more than two years of legal challenges by the Gambles and other holdouts, the Ohio Supreme Court now must decide whether there's anything wrong with this cozy arrangement.

The conflict between the Gambles and Anderson is the most important eminent domain case since last year's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court upholding forced transfers of property for economic development. In that case, Kelo v. New London, the Court concluded that any project can count as a "public use," thereby justifying the exercise of eminent domain, if the government expects it to generate more tax revenue than the homes or businesses it replaces.

Under that standard, there would be no need for the city of Norwood to pretend the Gambles' well-maintained middle-class neighborhood is in imminent danger of becoming a slum. It could just say, "You guys have to move, because we care about the tax base more than your property rights."

But the Norwood City Code allows condemnations for private development only if they're necessary to eliminate "slum, blighted, or deteriorated" conditions or to fix areas deemed to be "deteriorating." No one can seriously maintain that the Edwards Road area falls into the first category (although the city initially tried), but both the trial court and the state appeals court agreed that calling the neighborhood "deteriorating" was not an "abuse of discretion."

It was only an abuse of English and common sense. The area, which the city called "generally ... in good shape" only five years before calling it "deteriorating," did not include a single dilapidated, vacant, or tax-delinquent property. It was not blighted by any stretch of the imagination, but the city claimed to be worried that it might become blighted someday.

As the Institute for Justice points out in its brief for the Gambles, "the requirements of the 'deteriorating' designation are so minimal, and the conditions so ordinary, that ... it can apply to virtually any neighborhood." Like the Gambles, you could be living in a "deteriorating" neighborhood, subject to condemnation, without knowing it.

The main hope for the Gambles is that the Ohio Supreme Court can interpret the state constitution to provide more protection for property rights than Kelo v. New London says the U.S. Constitution does. The relevant provision of the Ohio Constitution says "private property shall ever be held inviolate," though "subservient to the public welfare," and may be taken only "for public
use."

If the Ohio Supreme Court, unlike the U.S. Supreme Court, refuses to equate public use with private use and denounces land grabs like the one attempted by Jeffrey Anderson, it would signal that new legislation is not the only way to curtail eminent domain abuse in the wake of Kelo v. New London. This is the sort of condemnation we need to prevent further deterioration of our property rights.

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine and a contributing columnist on Townhall.com.

Gayle in MD
02-02-2006, 10:40 AM
You're right, Deeman, I, and 68 percent of the people in this country, are irrational in our assessments of George Bush's performance during his administration. Just keep telling yourself that.

Oh, and you are listing Iraq, and Afghanistan as successes? AH HA HA HA...Afghanistan, isn't that where he called the troops back and let bin Laden get away? Iraq, isn't that where we are presently Nation Building in the midst of a civil war being fought for the benefit of Iraqis, 45 percent of whom think it is justifiable to kill our troops? and only 18 percent have confidence in U.S./U.K. forces? Over 80 % want us to leave, over 70% favor a time table for withdrawel of U.S. forces, with half favoring a total withdrawel in the next six months. The Iraqi's are against foreign presence in Iraq of any kind. Our troops are being slaughtered for NOTHING, but to assuage George Bush's bad reviews on his totally poor, unrealilstic judgement by continuing on a nonsensical course death and destruction, fueled by our very presence.

I don't recall ever suggesting to you that I would have you "Beat up" but don't give me any ideas, LOL.

Tell ya the truth, Deeman, I don't recall your ever posting a response to me that didn't include some sarcastic personal insult. Perhaps, it is you who can't take opposing viewpoints.

As for the time span between terrorist attacks, I think the one in this country before 9/11 occurred in the early nineties, 92 or so? Does that mean the Clinton did a grand job holding off another attack for the rest of his tenure? According to your rationale, that must be the case. We haven't had an attack, because it is still being planned, but don't worry, it is coming, and I'm sure you will be thrilled just knowing the likely target will be near me.

As for President Carter, he is and has always conducted himself with great grace, and humility, devoted his life to helping others, and was probably the most honest man to occupy the white House since Abraham Lincoln. I don't think I can say that he went overboard with the religious overtones the way George Bush did, but then, he had to do something to get people to give him another chance, after building such a reputation for all the drinking and drugs and failures, in fact, he pretty much fked up everything he touched, and continues to do so to this day.

Gayle in Md....

Deeman3
02-02-2006, 10:45 AM
Gayle,

You just continue to let your party fight terror from behind their desks, negoiating, placating and appeasing. I'll let my president fight it the way he is. In 2008, in case you are, for once in an election correct, we will let Hillary gladhand us back into warm and fuzzies with the terrorists. She can follow that stantion of inspiration Jimmy (I was attacked by a killer rabbit and space aliens) Carter like he did with the Irian hostages and, then, after 400 or so days of being held hostage an real president will be elected (like Reagan) and the terrorists will fold or keep running.

Let your leader dump more billions down the gullet of the NEA that further insures we have incompetent teachers and dumbed down students.

Let her stand up and vote for military action but start disassembling it as she gets into office.

Let her go to Paris and shake hands with politicians who critiqueevery move we make but hold their hands out for money to "allow" us to protect their international interests.

eg8r
02-02-2006, 10:58 AM
Yeah, this emminent domain crap that is going on is ridiculous. I think it makes me madder than anything as of late.

eg8r

eg8r
02-02-2006, 11:17 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Eg8r we still aven't developed a cure for the women carrying a bomb and detonating herself. <font color="red"> I doubt we are looking for a cure. I have no problem with that women detonating herself, I am just happy that we are looking for ways to identify this woman and hopefully help lead her to an unoccupied area so she can kill herself without hurting anyone else. Since you brought up the woman, do you not care about men or children? </font color> I know little of the muslim world. The only thing I read was that they carry a grudge for 100s of years <font color="red"> This is all you have read and you are going to try and come up with something logical to back your opinion? I can't wait to hear it. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif </font color> and we have killed more than 100,000 innocent Iraqis <font color="red"> We have killed 100,000? I think you are mixed up again. Saddam killed the hundred thousand, and when we captured him all those families rejoiced. </font color> whose families will get even one day. So we are winning the War only in our minds. <font color="red"> Well, there it is, I knew given enough rope you would, well never mind. The only thing you read is that these terrorists hold a grudge and with that little gem of knowledge you deem we are not winning the war. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif Well, don't be too sad if we take Boortz' real numbers over your gem as evidence of a war being won and more and more succesful. He may not always be right, but when competing with the type of defense you just showed, who could argue with Boortz. Thanks. </font color> #### <hr /></blockquote> eg8r

pooltchr
02-02-2006, 11:20 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> U.S. involvment in WWI came to an end after 19 months. Victory in Europe was declared in WWII after 3 years, 5 months, Cease Fire in Korea after 3 years and 1 month.

<hr /></blockquote>

Gayle...you are correct...oops, wait a minute...at last check, we STILL have troops based in Germany and Korea!!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif
Steve

wolfdancer
02-02-2006, 11:42 AM
A Freudian slip, perhaps???

"However, I'd rather have him distained and effective."

disdained would be scorned, while
distained would be dishonored.......and to that I would agree.....he has dishonored the office of the Presidency.
This man has many phycological problems....feelings of inadequacy,delusional grandiose daydreams,hero fantasies,....as do many driven men.....in short he wants to be loved,respected, revered.....but his self aware inadequacies prevent this from ever really happening. Some of these rich, powerful men often pay dominitrices to spank, or abuse them. Hillary could probably save him a couple of bucks there.
these are my own learned observations, of course....I am not a Physcologist, although I did stay in a Motel six, and once read a copy of "Physcology Today"

SpiderMan
02-02-2006, 12:02 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> Eg8r we still aven't developed a cure for the women carrying a bomb and detonating herself. I know little of the muslim world. The only thing I read was that they carry a grudge for 100s of years and we have killed more than 100,000 innocent Iraqis whose families will get even one day. So we are winning the War only in our minds.#### <hr /></blockquote>

Dick,

Where did you read that number? It isn't even close to the truth. If you found out that the number was inflated by 1000% or more, would you feel differently or would you continue trusting your sources?

SpiderMan

Deeman3
02-02-2006, 12:03 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> A Freudian slip, perhaps???
"However, I'd rather have him distained and effective."
<font color="blue"> Distain \Dis*tain"\, v. t. [imp. &amp; p. p. Distained; p. pr. &amp; vb. n. Distaining.] [OE. desteinen, OF. desteindre to take away the color, F. d['e]teindre; pref. des- (L. dis-) + F. teindre to tinge, dye, L. tingere. See Tinge, and cf. Stain.] To tinge with a different color from the natural or proper one; to stain; to discolor; to sully; to tarnish; to defile; -- used chiefly in poetry. ``Distained with dirt and blood.'' --Spenser.

[She] hath . . . distained her honorable blood. --Spenser.

The worthiness of praise distains his worth. --Shak.


So, Grasshopper, I guess I would rather have him stained or tarnished with accusations of stupidity, not knowing when groundhog day falls or even incompentence and still be effective in his job of protecting America. Many of you hated Reagan much worse than you now do Bush (I know you will object this but hold on a minute). However, as destructive as liberals considered him, he is and will be celebrated as one of our greatest presidents. Heck, those of us who didn't like Clinton still, now, look back with some phrase for his presidency. Memories of the losing side is just never that historically signifigant anyway. </font color>



disdained would be scorned, while
distained would be dishonored.......and to that I would agree.....he has dishonored the office of the Presidency.
This man has many phycological problems....feelings of inadequacy,delusional grandiose daydreams,hero fantasies,....as do many driven men.....in short he wants to be loved,respected, revered.....but his self aware inadequacies prevent this from ever really happening. Some of these rich, powerful men often pay dominitrices to spank, or abuse them. <font color="blue"> and there's something wrong with that? </font color> Hillary could probably save him a couple of bucks there. <font color="blue"> Did I hear he may the wrong sex for her? </font color>
these are my own learned observations, of course....I am not a Physcologist, although I did stay in a Motel six, and once read a copy of "Physcology Today" <hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue"> I yeild to your Motel Six diploma as mine is not even that good..... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif </font color>


Deeman
distained by all......

wolfdancer
02-02-2006, 12:17 PM
Eg8r, I believe the answer is in amending city charters to be similiar to Norwoods...or amending State constitutions to protect these unlawful seizures.
As one guy said though "If they want my property,molon labe"

wolfdancer
02-02-2006, 12:57 PM
While you and Barbara insisted on ruining, with trivial data a good joke that merely adjusted the facts to suit the punchline
You failed to note that Bush did the same thing in his State of The Union address. John (16:33)
If a President lying to the Congress is not a sin....seems like lying to the entire American Public should be.
I wish they did already have a "morning-after" pill....because I woke up the next A.M. thinking we've all been screwed......again.

Deeman3
02-02-2006, 12:59 PM
I don't usually do cut and paste drivebys but this one seemed related.

Deeman


George W. Bush is on the attack. Last night's State of the Union Address showed that the Bush Administration is going to spend this election year attacking opponents of the war and his brand, spankin' new "Terrorist Surveillance Program."

Who could be against that, after all?

The new tact is a change for a White House that spent the fall crouched in a fetal position following their shameful handling of Hurricane Katrina, Iraq, Harriet Miers, the CIA Leak case and just about everything the President touched.

But for now, things look like they are breaking the President's way. Oh, I know what those pesky polls say but January polls in 2000, 2002 and 2004 were predicting Democratic victories. Trust me. This week's polls mean about as much as who Sports Illustrated picks as preseason football champs.

Besides, Bush's political opponents are not exactly helping their cause.

Democrats looked like idiots during the Alito hearings. They fumbled over a futile filibuster that Republicans reveled in. Many want to send Democratic Senator John Kerry boxes of French pastries as thanks for walking into that trap.

Republicans I talked to on the Hill this week asked me one question. "Is he really that stupid?"

Maybe he is.

How else could you explain this?

"And there’s no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women."

Yes. That’s John Kerry on "Face the Nation" accusing US troops in Iraq of conducting terror campaigns against the Iraqi people. That would be the same John Kerry who said the following about US soldiers 30 years ago:

"They raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."

John Kerry emphasized to America and the world that "these war crimes committed in Southeast Asia are not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."

I practically begged Senator Kerry to apologize for those Vietnam remarks, predicting early in the campaign they could cost him the Presidency. Reading them almost two years later, I can’t believe he was too stupid to apologize then, and so stupid now that he would slander our troops again--this time the ones fighting and dying in Iraq.

But like Massachusetts' Senior Senator, Ted Kennedy, Senator Kerry presents a terrible front for the Democratic Party. And as with Senator Kennedy, loyal Democrats need to tell him to shut his mouth.

The past few months have shown political winds can always shift. Democrats just need to know when to duck for cover to let the Republicans destroy themselves.

Email JScarborough@msnbc.com
Watch Scarborough Country Mon.-Thu on MSNBC TV at 10 p.m. ET

• January 30, 2006 | 11:04 a.m ET

wolfdancer
02-02-2006, 01:51 PM
John Kerry spoke about what he deemed to be true, back then, and didn't try to amend it, to make it PC for his campaign....as many others would have done.
I don't believe that he meant to slander the troops in Iraq with that remark...even he knows this is not Germany after WWII, when our army was handing out chocolate bars to grateful children.
I respect Sen. Kerry for speaking his mind, and not colorizing it to appease the masses.
We have two less then honorable men in the White House,men that have put this nation in jeopardy. Though you fail to see that now, your children will.

wolfdancer
02-02-2006, 02:15 PM
ed8r, there seems to be confirmed reports of at least 30,000 killed, and unconfirmed reports placing that figure near 100,000.
And sorry, I can not cite sources, off hand, to back up either figure, but where there's smoke.....?
Googling "Iraqi civivlian war casualties", brings up some chilling reading

wolfdancer
02-02-2006, 05:28 PM
" Did I hear he may the wrong sex for her?"

Where did you hear a silly thing like that? http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/9605/v5aph8izmmqsjsq3lrkpqkxpljpz9w.jpg

pooltchr
02-02-2006, 06:17 PM
Kerry has no respect at all for the military. He got out as quickly as he could, took what he could from it, then proceeded to bad mouth military personnel for the rest of his career. He continues to do so. How you can have any respect for someone like that boggles my mind.

And his buddy Teddy couldn't get a job as a driver's education instructor!!!

These guys are the "leadership" of their party??? It's no wonder they can't win an election!

Steve

Qtec
02-02-2006, 09:32 PM
Its fantasy to think that in war attrocities aren't commited by both sides. [Ever heard of Tigerforce?] I dont think Kerry was badmouthing the military- he was just telling it like it is. I dont think you can expect soldiers to act 'normal' in situations like Vietnam or Iraq. In both cases, the soldier doesnt speak the language and cant tell who the enemy is. Combine that with jungle warfare when you cant see more than 10ft in front of you and you have people ready to flip. A 3rd of combat soldiers today who come back from Iraq need psychiatric help. [ A 3rd of all homeless people in the US are veterans! Its true!]

Q

Wilfred Owen

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares2 we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest3 began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots4
Of tired, outstripped5 Five-Nines6 that dropped behind.

Gas!7 Gas! Quick, boys! – An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets8 just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling,
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime9 . . .
Dim, through the misty panes10 and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering,11 choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud12
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest13
To children ardent14 for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori. [Trans. It is sweet and noble to die for one's country ]

8 October 1917 - March, 1918

eg8r
02-03-2006, 04:17 AM
[ QUOTE ]
And his buddy Teddy couldn't get a job as a driver's education instructor!!!
<hr /></blockquote> Still no word from Mary Jo. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
02-03-2006, 04:25 AM
[ QUOTE ]
While you and Barbara insisted on ruining, with trivial data a good joke that [b[merely adjusted the facts[/b] to suit the punchline
<hr /></blockquote> Is this what we have been saying about the facts of the left for years. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif All you guys ever do is "merely adjust" the facts, and the Democratic party has been the punchline since 1996. How funny is that for ya. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
You failed to note that Bush did the same thing in his State of The Union address. <hr /></blockquote> I don't remember anyone showing up on the board quoting Bush's speech. If they did, and did not note the "mere adjustment of facts" then mention it on the post.

[ QUOTE ]
If a President lying to the Congress is not a sin....seems like lying to the entire American Public should be.
<hr /></blockquote> Lying is always a sin, no matter who you are speaking to. This was not a problem for the Dems during the previous Presidency so why all the fuss now. Flip-flop was such a great term. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
I wish they did already have a "morning-after" pill....because I woke up the next A.M. thinking we've all been screwed......again.
<hr /></blockquote> I agree, surprised. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Seems Bush is going to continue his spending programs with no relief in sight.

eg8r

wolfdancer
02-03-2006, 08:37 AM
Re: Ted Kennedy....if he was a poor man when he caused the death of Mary jo, he would have faced several charges...vehicular manslaughter? Like most rich, well connected people..."nothing"
Her death was a tragedy; he caused it, and got away with it.
It's now in the past....people change...if you want to attack him politically....then do so based on his tenure as Senator. Obviously the voters in Mass. must find some redeeming quality in him......
Re: Kerry....leaving the military after the mininum required time....and that included wartime service.....is now a reason for personal attack?
Again, why not challenge his political program?
After all Eisenhower proved that a great military career does not mean you'll make a good President.
Actually why waste your time attacking these guys, since neither will ever be President?....why not educate us, on the superior qualities of Bush/Cheney?
http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/4682/pbamaugtwvkgopi4uavb8bc5b6yw5e.jpg

wolfdancer
02-03-2006, 08:49 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Is this what we have been saying about the facts of the left for years. All you guys ever do is "merely adjust" the facts, and the Democratic party has been the punchline since 1996. How funny is that for ya. <hr /></blockquote>
I'm glad you find humor in your own beliefs
[ QUOTE ]
I don't remember anyone showing up on the board quoting Bush's speech. If they did, and did not note the "mere adjustment of facts" then mention it on the post. <hr /></blockquote>
I don't understand that statement???
I found Bush's speech to be less then truthful, as did the Washington Post....why would I have to quote someone here?
[ QUOTE ]
This was not a problem for the Dems during the previous Presidency so why all the fuss now. <hr /></blockquote>
I find this reasoning flawed.....just because something wrong happened in the past, we should now accept it as correct?

pooltchr
02-03-2006, 08:58 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Re: Ted Kennedy....if he was a poor man when he caused the death of Mary jo, he would have faced several charges...vehicular manslaughter? Like most rich, well connected people..."nothing"
Her death was a tragedy; he caused it, and got away with it.
It's now in the past....people change...if you want to attack him politically....then do so based on his tenure as Senator. Obviously the voters in Mass. must find some redeeming quality in him...... <font color="red"> Mass is known to be one of the most liberal stated in the country..Kennedy is a good fit for them. </font color>
Re: Kerry....leaving the military after the mininum required time....and that included wartime service.....is now a reason for personal attack? <font color="red"> Getting medals for a few scratches...leaving for "medical reasons" after a few weeks there....yeah, he's got my respect!!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif </font color>
Again, why not challenge his political program? <font color="red"> What political program???????? </font color>
After all Eisenhower proved that a great military career does not mean you'll make a good President. <font color="red"> And your problem with Eisenhower is??????? </font color>
Actually why waste your time attacking these guys, since neither will ever be President? <font color="red">Because we will still be hearing about the crazy stuff they come up with long after GW has returned to his ranch in Texas. </font color> ....why not educate us, on the superior qualities of Bush/Cheney?
http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/4682/pbamaugtwvkgopi4uavb8bc5b6yw5e.jpg <hr /></blockquote>

Chopstick
02-03-2006, 08:59 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> " Did I hear he may the wrong sex for her?"

Where did you hear a silly thing like that? http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/9605/v5aph8izmmqsjsq3lrkpqkxpljpz9w.jpg <hr /></blockquote>


HEY! That's my seat.

wolfdancer
02-03-2006, 10:00 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Mass is known to be one of the most liberal stated in the country..Kennedy is a good fit for them. <hr /></blockquote>
Until 1952, when the obelisk suddenly appeared, Mass. was staid Republican territory....the Cabot Lodges

[ QUOTE ]
And your problem with Eisenhower is? <hr /></blockquote>
No problem...as an instructor of mine used to say comparing Presidents " FDR proved you could make a career out of it, Truman proved you didn't have to know anything, Eisenhower proved you didn't have to do anything...to be President"
No scandals there...except for the Nixon thing, and Nixon's pathetic "Checkers" speech. The Presidential term however was marked by a recession, or economic stagnation, as are most Republican admins in peacetime ...

Deeman3
02-03-2006, 10:18 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Chopstick:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> " Did I hear he may the wrong sex for her?"

Where did you hear a silly thing like that? http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/9605/v5aph8izmmqsjsq3lrkpqkxpljpz9w.jpg <hr /></blockquote>


HEY! That's my seat. <hr /></blockquote>


<font color="blue"> Wolfdancer,

Thanks, That's the first good t-shirt decal I've been given in months. It will be off the press this afternoon. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif</font color>

Deeman

eg8r
02-03-2006, 10:28 AM
[ QUOTE ]
It's now in the past....people change...if you want to attack him politically....then do so based on his tenure as Senator. <hr /></blockquote> You know what, you reap what you so. Ted Kennedy does his best to dig up dirt on peoples past, especially anyone Bush nominates and he tries to taint the person based on it. If it is good enough for uncle teddy, the it is good enough for Mary Jo. Don't ask us to do something in defense of teddy, when teddy himself is not willing to comply. This is the reason teddy had to finally leave his little college club and quit paying his dues recently.

eg8r

eg8r
02-03-2006, 10:42 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolf:</font><hr> While you and Barbara insisted on ruining, with trivial data a good joke that merely adjusted the facts to suit the punchline
You failed to note that Bush did the same thing in his State of The Union address. <blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> I don't remember anyone showing up on the board quoting Bush's speech. If they did, and did not note the "mere adjustment of facts" then mention it on the post. <blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolf:</font><hr> I don't understand that statement??? <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> It is quite simple. You started a thread in which you quoted Air America making a joke that was factually incorrect. Barbara noted it and we all agreed. In your defense you mention Bush's speech. Who cares about Bush's speech, no one came here and quoted it. If you found a thread here that mentions Bush's speech and someone did not mention the mistake then you would have something but you don't. You are the only one that quoted something with bad info (even if it was a funny joke). /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Don't worry about it too much, you seem content with mere adjustments of facts.

[ QUOTE ]
I find this reasoning flawed.....just because something wrong happened in the past, we should now accept it as correct? <hr /></blockquote> You are suffering from "Qtec mentality", the inability to understand the main point. I am not asking you to accept anything, I am just merely pointing out that you had no problem when "your" guy was lying his butt off left and right, but now that "your" guy is not in office you seem to take offense. I am not asking you do anything except open your eyes and see your actions for what they are. I don't think anyone should ever accept a lie, no matter who is telling the lie.

eg8r &lt;~~~thought the joke was funny even though it was incorrect

wolfdancer
02-03-2006, 10:50 AM
Steve, here's a related link, re: nominations
web page (http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=17708)
My thoughts on supreme court appointments...are that the judges make interpretive rulings, based on their own biases.....and the confirmers of those nominations try to insure that they share the same biases.....anti-labor, anti-big business, anti-civil rights, anti- women's rights,anti-left/right, etc...and then they consider the nominees merits, if any.

wolfdancer
02-03-2006, 11:07 AM
I still think you missed my point...everybody brought up the error in the joke, and nobody commented on the errors in the speech.
I thought Bill Clinton lied about his liason, but think he should never have had to answer the question.That lie should not even count.... Were the Clinton's squeaky clean about "Whitewater"??? that would be more relevant then some sexual peccadillo

pooltchr
02-03-2006, 06:54 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> .That lie should not even count....
<hr /></blockquote>

You just lost a lot of credibility with that statement.

A lie, is a lie, is a lie.

wolfdancer
02-05-2006, 09:16 PM
Yeah, right!!!
web page (http://www.interventionmag.com/blog/)
[ QUOTE ]
You don’t need moral clarity to see that Bush has been brazenly dishonest with American people on the subject of domestic surveillance. Bush knew and accurately described the law – “a wiretap requires a court order” – yet his administration was ignoring the law at the same time Bush made that statement, an assertion that has since proven to be misleading. In short, Bush broke law and lied about it.

Not since Bill Clinton’s, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman,” has a presidential whopper been so transparent. Clinton, of course, lied about a private matter that by itself was not illegal. For lying under oath about a consensual affair, however, he was impeached by the House of Representatives.

Lying to the American people is not a crime. Yet Bush’s prevarications regarding domestic surveillance are potentially far more insidious to our Constitutional system of checks and balances than Bill Clinton’s relatively minor mendacity. Ignoring the intent of Congressional legislation while the administration insists it can interpret statutes anyway it sees fit would essentially render the legislative and judicial branches irrelevant.

Republicans who voted for George Bush cited “moral values” as a prime reason in casting their ballots for the president. It is hypocritical in the extreme, however, for Republicans who called for Clinton’s impeachment to remain silent while Bush’s lies undeniably rise to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” <hr /></blockquote>

eg8r
02-06-2006, 10:33 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I still think you missed my point...everybody brought up the error in the joke, and nobody commented on the errors in the speech. <hr /></blockquote> I am not missing your point, your point is moot because the speech was not brought up until you noticed you made a mistake and wanted to cover it up with someone else's mistake. Come on this is not rocket science and I would think you would catch on. If there were errors in the speech then fine, I am glad you caught them. The problem is that the thread is about the joke. Your reaction is similar to someone getting caught for stealing and their only defense is to say, "yeah, well that guy has stolen stuff before." Weak at most.

eg8r

eg8r
02-06-2006, 10:41 AM
Once again, you are questioned about something you say (last time was a quote you defended) and you try to divert attention to someone else. Look, pooltchr is right, a lie is a lie is a lie. It does not matter than Bush has told lies, the reasoning for his reply was that you felt the lie should not count. BS and you know it. If Clinton was stupid enough to lie about something so dumb don't you think he would be even more at ease to continue the process on more relevant stuff. This is a game you are playing.

All through the Clinton administration he and his wife stated again and again, over and over, that they did not remember anything (Rose docs, Monica, Broaderick, etc). However, once they are out of the White House, their memoirs sell for millions of dollars. They are liars and just because you feel someone else might have lied does not remove the fact that the Clintons are liars.

A lie is a lie is a lie, and to state that one should not "count" is ridiculous.

eg8r

wolfdancer
02-06-2006, 12:55 PM
Ed8r....I'll say it again so that that narrow-minded brain of your can get it....let me put in in a street vernacular, so that there can be no misunderstanding
It was no ***** business of Congress, it's no **** business of mine, nor yours, to know who Bill clinton was *****.therefore the **** lie is irrevelant. I can tell you thought who GWB is screwing....the American people.....
If you think White House sex is so important, so worthy of investigation......Google "White House Sex Scandals"
You'll find many references relating to the Reagan/Bush eras. See which is more of a threat to homeland security,Monica paying lip service to Bill, or......
web page (http://www.thelawparty.com/FranklinCoverup/franklin.htm)

And is groundhog day more important to you then say..

[ QUOTE ]
You know your President is serious when he drops his “g”s off words ending in “ing.” That’s when he’s just folks. That’s when he breaks through the formality and levels with us, American to American. That’s the tip-off that this is the line in the speech that really matters.

I counted but one dropped “g” in the president’s State of the Union address on Tuesday night, and for all his protestations of setting a new tone, of seeking bipartisanship, of being kinder and gentler, it came in the speech’s one real attack line against the Democrats. “If there are people inside our country who are talkin’ with al Qaeda,” said the president, “we want to know about it, because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again.”

So much for the kinder-and-gentler crap. That’s the line that you’ll hear from George W. Bush as the midterm elections draw nigh. He and his party stand or fall on their reputation as tough guys. It’s the only reputation they have left. The polling makes clear that Americans don’t trust them to manage the economy, or fix their health coverage, or even run the war in Iraq. Americans (a bare majority, but that’s a lot more than on any other topic) trust them only to be ruthless, overreaching sons of bitches in protecting us against terrorists. It is, as Karl Rove has all but admitted, their last line of attack against the Democrats, who’ve sounded squeamish about the National Security Agency listening in on — well, we don’t know whom they’re listening in on — without a court order. This fall, we can expect to hear little else from a president likely to be floundering yet.

That’s still pretty thin gruel for his congressional allies. Think of the program the president just outlined: What’s there to campaign on? The last half of Bush’s speech was almost Clintonian in its abundance of discrete initiatives. In Clinton’s case, all those micro-initiatives were a contrast to a Gingrich-led Republican Party that wanted to dismantle everything. In Bush’s case, they mark a retreat to the high ground of platitudinous programs, from which little will come. Clinton was also able to summon genuine enthusiasm for his mini-ideas, while there was something inescapably perfunctory about Bush’s recitation of his own domestic program tonight. Bush may be nobody’s intellectual, but absent a big idea, he’s visibly bored.

Which doesn’t leave congressional Republicans with much to campaign on. My suspicion is that those Republican incumbents particularly spooked by the prospect of defeat will seize the anti-immigrant low ground that may prove disastrous for the party’s long-term prospects with Latino voters, but which worked for Pete Wilson and may just work for some of them. What else are Republicans supposed to run on, anyway? Their performance in office? The reconstruction of New Orleans? The success of the Medicare drug benefit? The economy? The war? Their ethics?

<hr /></blockquote> web page (http://www.laweekly.com)

But you're right....even though GH day was so near my mom's birthday (Feb 4) that we used to kid her about....I didn't have a clue .....BUT just to show you ...no hard feelings...I'm going to award you a point for your astute observation re GH day, and grudgingly, since your lie defination fits the Biblical meaning....another point.
We Catholics assign values to sins...venial is like a misdemeanor. Clinton's, I'd rate a Venial sin....mortal is like a felony....like Bush's lies....couple of "Hail Mary's" would get bill off the hook...I'm afraid your guy might have to rot in.....for awhile
Anyway, that's a total of two debating points, and that brings your grand total to date......to "ca-ching".....2
Is your lie is a lie mantra....right out of the Republican handbook?....or does it just apply when to the other party?
I think I'd downplay "lies" .....might just destroy your belief systems......and you know...some folks go postal, when that happens.
And finally, you seem to have this strange insistance, in the threads here that everybody is supposed to reply to fit your interpretation of what the gist of the thread is????? discussions/debates though, don't quite work under that narrow focus.....maybe you should begin a blog site, where you can delete any opposition????

Gayle in MD
02-06-2006, 09:31 PM
H AH HA HA HA...You're right about all of it, but VERY right about the post police, aka, eg8r!

Also, when you post something he doesn't agree with, he calls you a liar.

He is famous for demanding that you prove everything you post, but he NEVER proves anything he posts.

Back to the speech...lies lies lies, frighten frighten frighten, more lies lies lies,

The hearings today showed me enough for me to know, Bush is breaking the law with these wire taps. Gonzales was stone walling like crazy, wouldn't answer anything. Republicans wouldn't even swear him in, they voted down the Democrats who asked that he be sworn in, it's a whitewash. They are breaking the law, and using fright to beat down those how could raise enough ruckus with their representatives to force an impeachment.

The truth, usually comes out, eventually. Good news on this one, long Statute Of Limitations!!!

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
02-07-2006, 05:25 AM
[ QUOTE ]
therefore the **** lie is irrevelant. <hr /></blockquote> Wrong again. LOL, the more you say it the closer your ability to explain it mirrors a street thug. It is relevant, you are just unable to comprehend it. This is common sense and it is just blowing right above your head.

[ QUOTE ]
We Catholics assign values to sins...venial is like a misdemeanor. <hr /></blockquote> Which is just another example that the Catholic religion is in direct violation of the Bible. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

pooltchr
02-07-2006, 06:14 AM
Since this thread has evolved into a new topic, I will take the opportunity to point out that there are still terrorists in this country who want to do serious damage to us. You are so intent on getting Bush on any point you can find, that you seem to forget that we as a country need to do whatever is necessary to stop them. We know they will do whatever they think is necessary to get us.
When those who would do us harm are in our country, I think it's appropriate that we look for them where they are.
I can still vividly remember the sight of jets flying into buildings in New York City. Any attempt to tie the hands of those who are trying to prevent a similar action just increases the odds that we will eventually face more of the same.
I'm not a big fan of the Federal government regardless of which party is in power, but in this instance, I say "Do what ever is necessary to find these people and stop them!"
Steve

Gayle in MD
02-07-2006, 09:01 AM
Opps right back at ya. Maybe you haven't noticed, but we aren't still fighting a war in those countries, the point of my post, this war goes on and on, with no progress other than purple fingers, possible only through concentrical layers of concentrated troops and weaponry.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
02-07-2006, 09:10 AM
Tap Tap Tap, and Jack, when you go back now and read the things that Kerry said he was right on the money. Too bad, as the English Newspapers wrote...."How can forty million people be so dumb!"

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
02-07-2006, 09:54 AM
Funny how differently people look at things, that is people unaffected by the Rove/Bush/Cheney slander machine, and the Swift Boat BS lies which provided us with the wrost president in the history of this country, the son of another president who did absolutely nothing of value for this country, and also could not say N-U-C-L-E-A-R. As we progress toward 8 trillion in deficit predictions, and hear the rhetoric of a president touting education, as he cuts education funding, cuts funding for our veterans, cuts health care for our poor and our old, and continues with tax cuts, designed to most advantage the rich, which he pays for through more borrowing, and ignores safety measures discovered and reccommended by a bi-partisan committee whose goal was to investigate how the United States Government failed during the Bush administration to follow up on warnings that Osama bin Laden was "Determined to attack inside the U.S." to which his response was to go to Iraq to settle a score for Big Daddy, and get Saddam H. who had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attack, after convincing the Congress and the Senate through felonious testimoney using cherry picked intelligence that S.H. was connected to 9/11 and had weapons of mass destruction. This followed by failing grades from the same committee three years later, after the president's failed performance on National Security was highlighted by his failed response to the greatest natural disaster of our times.

How you can have respect for someone like that, boggles my mind.

Here's my version....Bush copped out completely on Vietnam, chushy little non battlefield hiding place down south, provided by Daddy...not what you know, but who you know, savior, and Jr. couldn't even pull that off without going AWOL, to avoid having to take a drug test. But the "Not what you know, but who you know, connections, saved him again, after Karen huges, and other cornies stormed the office of the reserves, and deep sixed all the negative info from his records.

John Kerry, unlike the deferment laden Bush administration, served in Vietnam, and had the courage to speak out against the mis-guided war policies and lies which were fed to us by a succession of presidents regarding Vietnam, served his time, was wounded, and awarded medals for his service to his country. After which he devoted himself to working to help wounded Veterans, forgotten by their Government after we fled the unrealistic and failed efforts in Vietnam.

We now reap the great benefits of the Bush administration, which inhereted over 250 billion dorrars of government surplus, and had in return produced soaring deficits, both National and Trade, job figures which do not reflect the true state of jobs, and small business growth, A National Homeland Security which has been deem totally uneffectrive, an illegal alien crises which has been exascerbated by his neglect and his goal to forgive the criminals who invade our broken borders, failing grades for his educational program, a failed atempt to come up with a solution for Social Security, a program which economists agree could easily be solved through a 1% increase in taxes on billionaires, the top 2 % in this country who use the greates protion of our natural resources percentage wise to hear their big houses, run their boats and personal jets, and travel to other countries to spend their lavish vacations.

No one would hire an ex library clerk who committed man slaughter on the highway and killed her X high school lover after he dumped her for another girl, but in her "Not what you know, but who you know" priveledged world, she never had to go to court.

No wonder the republican party is coming to the end of their fantasy tenure, full of rhetoric and lies and corruption, but most of all, debt and an unwinnable war on the other side of the world. But, they were such poor winners, it is really something they deserve, IMO, since the bigger they come, the harder they fall.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
02-07-2006, 10:19 AM
I couldn't agree with you more regarding our need to search out terrorist in this country, but unfortunately, George Bush sin't focussing on terrorists in this country, he is growing them in the Middle East, as evidenced on all news channels except Fox, (faux) the national republican cable channel.And you totally neglect that Bush has failed to do the things that the 9/11 commision advised him to do to make this country safer. That 9/11 happened on his watch. That he was warned by many terrorist experts of the group that was in this country who committed the 9/11 attack, and that our recent hurricane disaster proved that his appointees, and programs for greater safety from future terrorist attacks have failed, as evidenced by his administrations failed response to Katrina and the failure to put into place the recommendations of the 9/11 commission.

Also, he has and has had the authority to do whatever is necessary to protect us through surveillance, he just chose to do it illegally, the same way he does everything, including winning elections. And his actions through his illegal wire taps have failed to produce even one arrest.

Too bad Clinton wasn't president on 9/11, since he had such great success keeping this country safe after the first WTC attack, for the following seven years of his tenure, in spite of the fact that republicans did everything they could to dig up dirt and distract him from our safety by delving into his personal sex life, and wasting millions of dollars, and then failing to achieve the impeachment they so desperately desired.

Detecting lies is not a knack of republican Bush devotees. Creating lies is more their forte'.

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
02-07-2006, 06:07 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> No one would hire an ex ....who committed man slaughter on the highway ....... "Not what you know, but who you know" priveledged worldGayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

I don't know about that. The people of Massachusetts don't have a problem putting a killer on the payroll.

pooltchr
02-07-2006, 06:09 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Too bad Clinton wasn't president on 9/11,

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

Do you think he would have had to tell Monica to stop, or would he have waited 5 minutes to respond????

Gayle in MD
02-07-2006, 07:45 PM
Gayle,

You just continue to let your party fight terror from behind their desks, negoiating, placating and appeasing. I'll let my president fight it the way he is.

<font color="red"> </font color> You mean, hiding behind his desk, placating and appeasing? <font color="red"> </font color>

In 2008, in case you are, for once in an election correct, we will let Hillary gladhand us back into warm and fuzzies with the terrorists. She can follow that stantion of inspiration Jimmy (I was attacked by a killer rabbit and space aliens) Carter like he did with the Irian hostages and, then, after 400 or so days of being held hostage an real president will be elected (like Reagan) and the terrorists will fold or keep running. <font color="red"> </font color> Reagan didn't get them out, Carter did. <font color="red"> </font color> <font color="red"> </font color>

<font color="red"> </font color> <font color="red"> </font color> When it comes to terrorists, both Clinton and Carter protected this country better than Bush has. No attacks on our soil during Carter, Clinton kept them away from 93, till he left office. Bush could only hold them off seven months after he came in! <font color="red"> </font color>

Let your leader dump more billions down the gullet of the NEA that further insures we have incompetent teachers and dumbed down students.

<font color="red"> </font color> I wish you wouldn't talk about Americans that way! When it comes to blowing money, no one could keep up with Bush and this republican Congress and Senate!<font color="red"> </font color>

Let her stand up and vote for military action but start disassembling it as she gets into office. [ <font color="red"> </font color> color:"red"] </font color> I guess you didn't notice, but after the cold war ended, we did have a time when cutting funding for defense to help get the economy back on track, (after the miserable nightmare years of Reaganomics, and Iran Contra mess,) made sense, and after Bush Sr failed to handle SH, Clinton managed to leave us with a huge surplus, in spite of all the money republicans wasted investigating the Clintons. You poor winners just can't stop looking back, and blaming Clinton for everything Bush is doing, can you? <font color="red"> </font color>

Let her go to Paris and shake hands with politicians who critiqueevery move we make but hold their hands out for money to "allow" us to protect their international interests.

<font color="red"> </font color> You mean like Bush, holding hands with the Saudi Prince??? <font color="red"> </font color>

<font color="red"> </font color> Deeman, I enjoy chatting politics with you, but lets try and keep it to current events. Things are looking so bad, thanks to your man Bush, that all that you and your republican cronies on here want to do is either live in the past, or jump to the future, but I guess I can understand that, I'd be embarrassed too, if I had been a staunch supporter of the worst president in the history of the United States, and the most mismanaged and un-necessary war ever, I'd be trying to change the subject, too, hmmm, maybe. <font color="red"> </font color>

<font color="red"> </font color> Gayle in Md. <font color="red"> </font color>

<font color="red"> </font color>

Gayle in MD
02-07-2006, 08:17 PM
No, I think he would have set, paused, finished, but not freezed, like Bush did, before he charged away to fly off to safety.

I know it is hard for you to keep the political discussions to the present fk'd uped circumstances caused by George Bush, but, yesterday is gone, and tomorrow is only a dream, so let's just keep the discussions to the present fk d' uped circumstances we're in right now, thanks to GW.

Gayle in Md...Republicans just can't deal with what is!

pooltchr
02-08-2006, 06:15 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> No, I think he would have set, paused, finished, but not freezed, like Bush did, before he charged away to fly off to safety.

I know it is hard for you to keep the political discussions to the present fk'd uped circumstances caused by George Bush, but, yesterday is gone, and tomorrow is only a dream, so let's just keep the discussions to the present fk d' uped circumstances we're in right now, thanks to GW.

Gayle in Md...Republicans just can't deal with what is! <hr /></blockquote>

Gayle...you brought it up, as noted in the quote I attached to my comment.
Steve

Gayle in MD
02-08-2006, 08:59 AM
Check out the thread, eg8r brought up Kerry, then Deeman brought up the Clintons, check out other threads, the Bush lovers are constantly bringing up either Bill, or Hilliary, or Kerry, so my question is this...when I point out the failures of this administration, is it just too humiliating for you Bush supporters to admit that you have been duped by GWB, therefore you have to either live in the past, or ridicule future possible Democratic presidents who might be elected at some time in the future? Clinton, for example, has been out of office for six years, so why are we discussing him? Hilliary hasn't even confirmed that she will be a nominee, so why discuss her?

I am more focussed on the current messes we are dealing with as a country. That would be the case, regardless of which party was in office, if they were behaving the way this current bunch is behaving.


You think I would be OK with any president, under any circumstances, illegally wire tapping Americans in secret, and accounting to no one for his actions? Believe me, I would not trust any president with that kind of power. And, I firmly believe that Bush has parlayed 9/11 into an opportunity to do as he pleases by banking on his ability to spread fear here in our country, and use it as a blank check to do as he wishes, without having to abide by our system of checks and balances, and by operating in ways which I find to be not above board, such as deep sixing records of his past, and records of his father's administration. I find all that particularly repugnant, especially when he portrays himself as an honest man and so called Born Again Christian.



I am against violence, and war. I am against the mixing of organized religion and politics. I am against any action which deprives people of their chosen religion. I am against societal philosophies and policies which disregard the needs of the old, the ill and the poor. I am against the oppression of women. I am against any one segment of society trying to impose their religious views on the rights of other's personal choices in life. And, I am very much against any president who lies to the American people, either through insinuation, or action. I see a party in power which displays a vigor for everything which I find offensive and wrong, therefore, I will continue to speak out against them, and to be involved in the changes which I believe are necessary in order to protect our Constitution, and the ecology and survival of the world. My personal view is that in spite of the fact that Bush has failed to be the president he promised he would be, but the antithesis instead, those who hated Clinton are still living in the Clinton administration, rather than face the many failures and lies of this administration. If you can't see the difference between a president lying about his personal sex life, and a man lying about possible threats to our nation, and its need to go to war, or illegally wire tapping Americans, then there is really no common ground from which I could discuss politics with any so partisan an individual. And also, any man, who deems himself an appropriate judge or dictator of a women's right to choose abortion, is in my world an oppressor of women's rights, and therefore just another dangerous dictator in the world. This is why I do not support either Roberts, or Alito as appropriate nominees to the Supreme Court, and given that the vast majority of Americans believe in a woman's right to choose, their appointments are just another action by George Bush which does not represent the values of his country. This, coming from a man who promoted himself as a man who would be the president of ALL the people, hence, just another campaign lie, like the lie that he would be fiscally responsible, and beleived in a small government. He is the most deceitful man to occupy the White House in my lifetime.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
02-08-2006, 10:20 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Check out the thread, eg8r brought up Kerry, then Deeman brought up the Clintons, check out other threads, the Bush lovers are constantly bringing up either Bill, or Hilliary, or Kerry, so my question is this...when I point out the failures of this administration, is it just too humiliating for you Bush supporters to admit that you have been duped by GWB, therefore you have to either live in the past, <hr /></blockquote> Well, if you are only able to handle a discussion that dates back as far as the last presidential election, then fine, just state it. Kerry is certainly not too far in the past for even an ridiculous statement as the one you mentioned. My goodness you go further back than that when you mention 9/11. So, as far as you are concerned, we cannot mention Kerry from a couple years back, but you can mention 9/11 for a couple years back. LOL, what a joke.

eg8r

pooltchr
02-09-2006, 05:54 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Believe me, I would not trust any president with that kind of power. And, I firmly believe that Bush has parlayed 9/11 into an opportunity to do as he pleases by banking on his ability to spread fear here in our country, and use it as a blank check to do as he wishes

Gayle in Md.


<hr /></blockquote>

Gayle,
Based on this comment, you seem to think GW is setting up some super base for him to rule the country. GW is a LAME DUCK president who will have no power at all in 700 days! What possible benefit would he gain from randomly listening to the average citizen's phone calls? Do you really feel threatened by this activity. GW doesn't give a damn what you are I or anyone here talks about on our phones. What he does care about is catching terrorists who threaten the country with violence. He will have no more power after listening to me talk to my mother about coming over to help her hang her curtains. He has nothing to gain from this whole program other than to stop potential terrorists. And he will have no power at all in two years. I really don't understand how the wiretaps are providing him with fuel to build his "power". It's a tool to fight the enemy, pure and simple. Take it away from him if you like, but be prepared for the consequences.
Steve

Gayle in MD
02-09-2006, 08:27 AM
I see the devastating consequences of George Bush's lies every week at Walter Reed, and on the news channels, when I see all the people who have lost their lives, and been maimed through his mis-handling of this war, and the supression of intelligence which did not support his desire to go to war in Iraq, hence the on-going investigation into his slanted testimoney to Congress, the Senate and the world regarding Iraq which led us into this horrible waste of lives and money in Iraq. Whether or not I am being listened to, is believe me, the least of my worries.

Watching a president lie and break our laws for six years, is of great concern to me. Watching him travel along a path which is designed to remove checks and balances from our government, is and should be of great concern to all of us, and is obviously, of great concern to the Senate and the Congress, both parties, hence investigations are being launched. Watching republicans vote against swearing in Gonzales before he began his testimoney, was very revealing, since republicans are in a trick bag, they don't want their congressional power dimished by Bush, but they also cannot afford another republican scandal on an election year. Had you had enough interest to watch the first meeting by the bi-partisan commitee, questioning Gonzales, this week, you would have been aware that we have an Attorney General, the highest law enforcment official in the country, exposed as having lied during his confirmation hearings.

Since young people are dying every day, and being maimed, as a result of the lies Bush told which led to this war, one would think that EVERY AMERICAN in this country would make every effort to be informed, and concerned about the untruthful and deceitful tactics of the corrupt administration.

Don't try to twist my concerns regarding the illegal wire tapping of Americans into some personal paranoia on my part. I couldn't care less who overhears or listens to my telephone conversations, in fact, it would give me great pleasure to think that George Bush could hear each and every thing I say about him, I really wish I could tell him to his face exactly what I think of him, although, if that were possible, I would probably be in the cell next to Cindy Sheehan, since this administration uses every tactic they can think of to silence and discredit their dissenters, even outing secret classified CIA operatives, hence, the request by the CIA to the special prosecutors office to investigate the outing of Valerie Plame.

Therefore, I do not share your apathy regarding anything that George Bush does, or how many are killed and maimed due to his lies, or how many more corrupt republican actions take place before we are done with him and the rest of this republican bunch.

Our laws are there for good reasons. IMO, the president, his aides and executive cabinet, and the leaders of the majoirty party in the Senate and the House should be held accountable when they break the law, and since most of them are being investigated and/or indicted for crimes, including the president, I am not apathetic regarding what is happening to my country.

Pooltchr..."It's a tool to fight the enemy, pure and simple"

If you were abreast of the information regarding the FISA laws, and the actions of George Bush, you wouldn't make such an ill advised statement. His ability to wire tap is not at risk, or in question. Only his illegal actions are being questioned, wire tapping in secret, and without following the necessary procedures to insure that the privacy of Americans is not at risk. FISA laws are there for a reason, one reason being to protect our Constitution, and protect our privacy as Americans. If George Bush breaches his responsibility to the Constitution, and the Congressional oversight, and FISA oversight, he should be impeached. America cannot afford to allow him to set a new illegal precedent of breaching the law, which would give future presidents unchecked powers to surveil Americans.

After viewing the dying people in New Orleans, floating, and starving, and still without trailers to live in, and Bush's Budget proposals, which cut funding for our veterans, our old, and our ill, no one, including you, could ever convince me that George Bush gives a good damn about what happens to the people in this country, or any country, or anything beyond his massive unchecked ego and power hungry appetite.

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
02-09-2006, 09:09 AM
Damn, Gayle, my head hurts. The subject was wiretapping. How you get the war, Walter Reed, and New Orleans into the debate is amazing. It seems to be a tactic you like. Type 8 paragraphs on every subject imaginable, but miss the point.
I can't bring myself to wade through another tirade of everything GW has done wrong in your opinion to find the answer to my question.
I give up! You win! Whatever..... /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif
Steve

Gayle in MD
02-09-2006, 09:43 AM
OK, here's a nice simple answer for you. George Bush is a proven liar, therfore, I don't trust anything he does, especially when he is breaking the law to do it, and has a six year record of not doing what should be done to protect Americans from terrorists, or natural disasters.

Gayle In Md.

pooltchr
02-09-2006, 05:49 PM
Any thoughts on the reports that the planned attack on Los Angeles was stopped before it happened thanks to the efforts of many governments (ours included)? You don't suppose they might have been tapping phones, do you???
Steve

Gayle in MD
02-09-2006, 06:05 PM
No, I don't, because if that were the case, Bush would be shouting it from the rooftops.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
02-10-2006, 05:57 AM
[ QUOTE ]
No, I don't, because if that were the case, Bush would be shouting it from the rooftops. <hr /></blockquote> LOL, don't take this too personal but that is one of the dumber statements on the web today. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Bush is trying to prove what he did was legal, he would not be out on any rooftop shouting he got information from illegal wiretapping until he is sure his actions were legal.

You don't seem to care one bit about anything that Bush does even if it results in something positive. You will twist this crap so much that I don't think you even realize what you sound like. Not very impressive to say the least.

eg8r

P.S. for the thin-skinned here on the board, my statement above is in no way calling Gayle dumb (she seems well-read, just the content of her reading is speculative /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif )

Vagabond
02-11-2006, 05:16 PM
he is my kind of guy.he does not descriminate and he does not hesitate order strip earch on a 10 year old kid.

eg8r
02-13-2006, 05:45 AM
[ QUOTE ]
he is my kind of guy.he does not descriminate and he does not hesitate order strip earch on a 10 year old kid. <hr /></blockquote> Please remind everyone to not allow you near their children. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Is your real name Michael?

eg8r

Vagabond
02-13-2006, 07:51 AM
You must be sick to give sick interpretation of what I said. There is no reason for u to insult me like that and aggressive towards me.I was talking about his position on 4th amendment as reported on the National media including by Rush Limbaugh last saturday.Yes he does not descriminate in his recommenadations of application of 4th amendment.Yes I heard on TV/Radio that he approved strip search on a 10 year old kid.
Do not mess with me like u do with others on this board and getting away.

eg8r
02-13-2006, 10:35 AM
[ QUOTE ]
You must be sick to give sick interpretation of what I said. There is no reason for u to insult me like that and aggressive towards me. <hr /></blockquote> LOL, apparently you are wound pretty tight also. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Relax it was a joke. Is the reason you keep your anonymity because of this thin skin?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
02-13-2006, 12:44 PM
Hi Vagabond,
You would think, that now that Ed has a daughter, he could relate to what a detrimental, lasting emotional wound must have been suffered by this child after such a horrible attack on her privacy. Typical conservative judge. If they aren't invading your privacy, or trying to legislate from the bench, like they did in our 2000 presidential election, their not happy. These Republican conservative judges are all political activists.

Gayle in Md.