UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (68) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: bjchip Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 90263  
Subject: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/3/2004 5:20 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 109
What this election has shown, more than any other thing (and without respect to the outcome in Ohio and the ultimate declaration of winners and losers), is that the USA is a starkly, brutally, divided land.

I am glad not to live there any more. I am glad that my boy cannot be drafted. I am glad not to have to put up with the ignorance of the half of the population that cannot recognize an illegal President making an illegal war and helping the guy who killed 3000 Americans to succeed in his aim... bankrupting the United States. If the US electorate was as intelligent and informed about the real world as they are about the Red Sox, this might not have occurred, but they are not and it did.

...and I am glad that I do not need to return anytime soon. The division that this has proved is too deep to be borne. It is too bitter and brutal to be anything but a danger to the land I was born in.

The USA must reap what Bush has sown before it will understand well enough to reject the demented and globally detested criminals currently in power. Perhaps it is better that Kerry should lose. Blame cannot then be shifted away from the people responsible for the dire straits the country is in today.

respectfully
BJ



Print the post Back To Top
Author: JustWhoIAm Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17255 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/3/2004 5:24 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
What this election has shown, more than any other thing (and without respect to the outcome in Ohio and the ultimate declaration of winners and losers), is that the USA is a starkly, brutally, divided land.

I disagree. We are a united land made up of individuals with differing opinions on what is best fo rthe country. We hold elections to determine our officials and, for the most part, everyone goes along with the results or tries to change them the next election.

Keith

Print the post Back To Top
Author: hk2 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17259 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/3/2004 5:57 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
The USA must reap what Bush has sown before it will understand well enough to reject the demented and globally detested criminals currently in power.


I'm afraid it won't work like that. I'm afraid that the majority of the people will not recognize that the problems this country faces and will face in the future are a result of Bush's "leadership".

Jim

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 2old4bs Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17265 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/3/2004 7:32 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 14
I am glad not to have to put up with the ignorance of the half of the population...

I would suggest that your assumption that the results are based on 'ignorance' only illustrates your own ignorance. There are any number of reasons why individuals cast their vote for one candidate or another, to suggest that half of them do it out of 'ignorance', is a totally incorrect assumption. A person as biased toward the right as you are to the left might just as well claim that the other half voted out of ignorance.

...that cannot recognize an illegal President...

So you're still sticking with that tired claim? Take off your bias blinders.

2old
(who voted for Kerry)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SuisseBear Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17267 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/3/2004 7:53 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
There are any number of reasons why individuals cast their vote for one candidate or another, to suggest that half of them do it out of 'ignorance', is a totally incorrect assumption.


Precisely. And downright scary.


SB
[disillusioned]

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DevilsAvocat Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17276 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/3/2004 8:39 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
I know how you feel...i felt the same when a president lied under an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth...it is called perjury regardless of the subject matter but it got spun by the mass media as being only about sex...

Kerry lost this election because he never made a case that was accepted by the majority of undecided voters as to why he would be better than Bush...what he would do different and better...just as the Republicans never made a successful case to the American people as to why Clinton should be convicted at the impeachment trial...

we tend to re-elect Presidents unless the economy is bad or they seem to be incompetent...it may have been close on these issues for Bush but not enough people thought either...as an aside, you probably intended to say 'former' US and not 'formerly'...

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bikrdude Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17288 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/3/2004 10:26 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
>>What this election has shown..is that the USA is a starkly, brutally, divided land<<....seems to confirm what the rest of the world suspected about US..voters endorse anything goes doctrine...

Print the post Back To Top
Author: eaglehaslanded Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17300 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/3/2004 11:58 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
We're glad you're not here, too. Hope the door didn't hit you on your way out.

eag

Print the post Back To Top
Author: steve203 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17305 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/3/2004 12:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 10
The sense I get from coworkers is that, in spite of Bush imprisoning US citizens without charge or trial, in spite of Bush stealing our Social Security benefits, in spite of Bush lying us into a war and getting thousands of people killed so his buddies can profits from it, Bush is seen as a good moral person who will ban abortion, so nothing else is important.

Steve...all the folks who voted Repub, get back to me in 10 years and tell me how you like living in a police state

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bjchip Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17306 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/3/2004 12:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
Election 2000 is a side issue and recognized as an opinion of mine by me. No blinders. My view is that the right of the Supreme Court to intervene in the Florida electoral process in 2000 is not something that is recognizable in the Constitution of the United States. It was up to the Florida Supreme Court, and that worthy body was not permitted to do its job. I regard this accession to power as illegal and I accepted it because there is little choice in the matter. I will never accept it as legitimate even though it was by definition "legal". It has nothing to do with the "ignorance" with which I charge 50.5% of my fellow countrymen.

Ignorance has many levels. Ignorance of the rest of the world to the degree necessary to regard this Iraq war as either necessary or justified is a deep, deep ignorance.

The War in Iraq was the act of an idiot directed by a madman. That is my opinion. That statement contains several assumptions on my part and is arguable but not provable.

The War in Iraq was a mistake.
The War in Iraq was unnecessary.

These are simply true statements. No opinion is necessary to determine them. The facts permit no other conclusions. There is no assumption in either of them.


It takes ignorance of the facts of the WMD issues and the necessity of war to assert that this President has NOT made a mistake in Iraq. That is not an assumption either, except that it contains the assumption that people are not completely stupid.

Going to war by mistake trumps every other issue that was raised in this election. No President who does it deserves anything less than impeachment for cause. There is NO reason to vote for a President who would make and has made such a mistake. No economic belief in tax relief, no Christian belief in the ascendancy of Jesus, no reason that could possibly override the fact that the untimely deaths of 100,000 people including no few of our own, have been for a mistake that this President cannot even admit.


respectfully
BJ





Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: HarryHope Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17308 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/3/2004 12:20 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I am glad not to have to put up with the ignorance of the half of the population...

I would suggest that your assumption that the results are based on 'ignorance' only illustrates your own ignorance. There are any number of reasons why individuals cast their vote for one candidate or another, to suggest that half of them do it out of 'ignorance', is a totally incorrect assumption. A person as biased toward the right as you are to the left might just as well claim that the other half voted out of ignorance.
------------------------------------
The reference may be to polls that showed over half of Bush supporters believe there were WMDs in Iraq and that Iraq was behind 9/11. In any event those who get their information from FOX are doomed to ignorance. But ignorance is a condition that can be eliminated with knowledge.
Things will get worse in the US when reality hits the economy. I suspect that when that happens, there will be a lot less ignorance.







Print the post Back To Top
Author: bjchip Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17314 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/3/2004 12:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
What this election has shown, more than any other thing (and without respect to the outcome in Ohio and the ultimate declaration of winners and losers), is that the USA is a starkly, brutally, divided land.

I disagree. We are a united land made up of individuals with differing opinions on what is best fo rthe country. We hold elections to determine our officials and, for the most part, everyone goes along with the results or tries to change them the next election.


You'd have been correct 20 years ago. Now it is not so true. People don't get their news from independent sources, it is fed to them through the filters of the media, and people on different sides choose different sources of information and thus filters. Our disagreements have become so marked as to reveal an underlying disagreement about the nature of the world in which we live. Someone doesn't know what is real.

Both "sides" are likely to be wrong insofar as they rely on faulty information. Reality however, is going to bite back.

That Bush led us into a war in error is a FACT, not an opinion. There were no WMDs. It was an error. Given the harm to the country he should be impeached, not re-elected and given that, I think that you are wrong that "everyone goes along". Bush can't be impeached with the current congress, and there is still apparently a majority that believe that the USA can do whatever it pleases. They have dragged the 49.5% minority into something incalculably more brutal and damaging than anything Clinton was ever accused of, and no justice will be served.

The Republicans didn't bother to wait for the next election when Clinton was impeached for private behaviour that did no real harm to the country. The damage this time is far greater and it appears that there will be no redress except by history and the punishment that reality invariably inflicts on those who ignore it.

So you will find that there will be no healing in this second term. No "going along". It is perhaps more obvious from out here... but the title of this thread is something I am sure is true. As Jefferson said, "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just".

respectfully
BJ





Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ekavana186 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17315 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/3/2004 12:57 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Steve...all the folks who voted Repub, get back to me in 10 years and tell me how you like living in a police state


Which gulag will you be doing time in?

Ed

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ekavana186 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17317 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/3/2004 1:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
The Republicans didn't bother to wait for the next election when Clinton was impeached for private behaviour that did no real harm to the country.

One more time,..., Clinton was impeached for lying under oath.

Ed

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bjchip Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17322 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/3/2004 1:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
About a blow job.

Someplace along the line someone forgot that the private lives of Presidents is NOT important to their public performance. People like you have been flogging this deceased equine ever since.

This is NOT about CLINTON! YOU can't make it be. Though it is to be expected that someone would try.

BJ


Print the post Back To Top
Author: KodiakBear Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17323 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/3/2004 1:15 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
>>> Someplace along the line someone forgot that the private lives of Presidents is NOT important to their public performance. <<<

I disagree.
Maintaining the image of the Presidency is part of job performance.

KB

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ekavana186 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17324 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/3/2004 1:32 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
This is NOT about CLINTON! YOU can't make it be. Though it is to be expected that someone would try.

BJ



Seems to me that you were the one to bring it up.

Ed

P.S. Someplace along the line someone forgot that the private lives of Presidents is NOT important to their public performance.

Someplace along the line someone forgot that violating the law by any citizen especially lawyers and Presidents IS important to their public performance.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bjchip Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17325 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/3/2004 1:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Both you and KB have it wrong. This is not about Clinton... and I will not respond in this thread, to any further nonsense that equates lying about consensual sex with putting the USA 200 Billion in debt, destroying another sovereign nation and getting 100,000 people KILLED.


respectfully
BJ



Print the post Back To Top
Author: KodiakBear Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17326 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/3/2004 2:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

>> Both you and KB have it wrong. This is not about Clinton. <<

I didn't say it was.

KB

Print the post Back To Top
Author: HOGridin Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17327 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/3/2004 2:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
I must respectfully say, (and in doing so please realize that I voted last time for Nader and this time for Kerry), eff off.

America is not dead
Long live America

HOGr

Print the post Back To Top
Author: mozdzenj Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17329 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/3/2004 2:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Someplace along the line someone forgot that the private lives of Presidents is NOT important to their public performance.

The impeachment was about lying under oath in a civil lawsuit.

On the one hand, presidents are not supposed to lie under oath. On the other hand, that is a pretty thin excuse for something as serious as impeachment.

Paula Jones filed a sexual harassment law suit against Bill Clinton, about their relationhship while he was governor of Arkansas. Clinton lied under oath when testifying.

Meanwhile the Whitewater land deal investigation was implicating the Clintons. After Vince Foster died of a single gunshot wound, his office was raided by Federal officals who took several cardboard boxes of records. Some missing Whitewater documents turned up in the private living area of the White House with Hillary's finger prints on them.

Some Arkansas state troops said they had driven Clinton to meetings with his sex partners, while Clinton was Governor.

Meanwhile, Moncia's friend (what was her name?) released to some Republicans tapes of conversations where Monica talked about her interaction with Bill Clinton (some friend).

The soapopera writers could not have done a better job of polarizing the country into two fractions that were more pro and anti Clinton than anything else.

Everyone forgot about the stock market bubble danger (Greenberg in 1999 "How can we say there is a stock market bubble, when to do so would be to discount the opinions of millions of investors? ), Osoma bin Laden (fire a few cruise missles and call it a day), outsourcing to China was not even a concern. People were arguing about jobs moving to Mexico. The import/export imbalance was not a problem because the U.S. was smarter than everyone else, it was a new service and information based economy, and no one had to sweat anymore. We just waited for our JDSU stock to double a few more times.

Those were great days, money, sex, crooked business deals, suicide (or murder?), dirty politics, politicans on both sides of the aisle insulting eachother. And the markets went up and up and up. Too bad the party ended.

The rumors about JFK and Marilyn Monroe and a few other pretty ladies were worth fantisizing about. Bill and Monica were two pigs rolling in the mud. About as unappetizing as catching your fat neighbors with their bedroom shades up at night. I'd rather not think about it.




Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: mozdzenj Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17330 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/3/2004 2:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
...equates lying about consensual sex with putting the USA 200 Billion in debt, destroying another sovereign nation and getting 100,000 people KILLED.

They are not the same.

But to be nitpicky, Clinton lied when testifying in a lawsuit about sexual harassment. A bad thing to do, but I don't think it ranks up there killing over 100,000 people and running the government deep into debt.

I don't think the Navy Tailhook scandal should have ended so many military careers. I think some other punishment would have been more appropriate.

Running up massive debt, killing over 100,000 people, torturing people, canceling the Bill of Rights, those things should be impeachable offenses. With Repubs in control of house, senate, president, and supreme court, that is not going to happen.



Print the post Back To Top
Author: drebbin Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17331 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/3/2004 3:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
bjchip: What this election has shown, more than any other thing (and without respect to the outcome in Ohio and the ultimate declaration of winners and losers), is that the USA is a starkly, brutally, divided land.

Well, anyone who didn't know that is a complete idiot. And this isn't new, it has always been that way. Know any Presidential races that were won 80-20? Of course not. It is ALWAYS divided. Its just that when Democrats like Bill Clinton are winning 43% of the vote, nobody talks about it, but when Bush wins 51%, well, now we are deeply divided. Face it, Americans have different views on things. Its OK. And it sure as heck ain't new.

If the US electorate was as intelligent and informed about the real world as they are about the Red Sox, this might not have occurred, but they are not and it did.

They are. It is probably a good idea to start to come to terms with this, rather than assume that if people disagree with you, it means they are uninformed. The people knew what they wanted, and they voted for it. They just disagreed with you. Deal with it.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: warrl Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17332 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/3/2004 3:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
I am glad not to live there any more. I am glad that my boy cannot be drafted. I am glad not to have to put up with the ignorance of the half of the population that cannot recognize an illegal President making an illegal war

If that's your understanding of the law, I'm glad you don't live here anymore too.

The President you refer to was elected entirely in accordance with the law, and the war you refer to was resumed entirely according to law. The only international diplomatic figures likely to go to prison over it are from France, Germany, and Russia - three countries that opposed the resumption of the war.

If you had merely asserted that the President is unfit for the job, I would have heartily agreed with you. Neither major party has nominated a candidate that was clearly fit for the job since 1976 (and most candidates including the last six have been clearly unfit), and in '76 I was too young to be paying attention.

But it is not illegal for a Republican to win an election by systematic application of the law as it stands, nor is it illegal for a President to resume a war with the consent of Congress.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: warrl Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17333 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/3/2004 3:57 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The War in Iraq was the act of an idiot directed by a madman. That is my opinion.

I agree. Fortunately, thanks to Bush, and no thanks to the bribe-taking French and Russians, we got rid of the idiot madman.

Now if Bush doesn't make TOO much of a mess of the aftermath, we could do well.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: warrl Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17334 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/3/2004 4:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
That Bush led us into a war in error is a FACT, not an opinion. There were no WMDs. It was an error.

I guess you haven't read the Duelfer report.

Most of the reasons Bush led us into the resumption of the Iraq war were mostly or entirely wrong.

But not all of them were entirely wrong. In fact, some of them were mostly correct.

For example, according to Duelfer there were some serious but small WMD programs going on in Iraq even while the 2003 attack was in progress. No, Saddam didn't have the large-scale WMD that we thought he had, but yes, Saddam did have WMD programs that were clearly in violation of the cease-fire.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bjchip Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17336 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/3/2004 4:11 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
As I pointed out earlier the Supreme Court assuming jurisdiction in this case is unprecedented and would, if they'd thought a LITTLE harder about it, have been found to be unconstitutional.

It wasn't. My opinion of their interpretation remains.

If you believe that the unnecessary deaths of 100,000 people can be justified on the grounds of the UN resolutions interpretation YOU choose as opposed to the one that the UN itself uses, and then that the war is legally founded despite the opposition of the majority of the other members of the security council, and that the the false evidence of WMDs is sufficient justification to enable the war under the congressional resolution that required that it be a LAST resort, then you are one of the people I took such pains to avoid.

War should ALWAYS be a last resort, even if it were (and I am not conceding the point) legal. On that basis alone Bush should be impeached rather than re-elected given the damage that has been done to the lives, fortunes and sacred honor of our country. That you and others do not recognize the mistake and willfully ignore the consequences simply adds to the problem.

Some people cannot understand complex things. Some cannot understand simple things. The former are conservatives, the latter are liberals.

respectfully
BJ


Print the post Back To Top
Author: MATZOID Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17337 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/3/2004 4:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The USA must reap what Bush has sown before it will understand well enough to reject the demented and globally detested criminals currently in power. Perhaps it is better that Kerry should lose. Blame cannot then be shifted away from the people responsible for the dire straits the country is in today.

Amen to that, brother. I will not be happy until these thugs are wearing stripes. And I think before the end of Bush Hell II, at least one will be.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bjchip Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17338 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/3/2004 4:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
The ability to create WMD programs at any larger scale was blocked by the presence of inspectors. If there was a clear and imminent threat to the USA then the war might have been legally based. There was not. The evidence was cherry-picked, culled and cooked until Bush could say what he wanted to say, but the war itself was not necessary.

As for the Duelfer report you are correct, I have no time for reading it and thank you for the highlights. I do not doubt that there WERE some reasons for this war, and some of them are "correct". The reasons presented and the evidence presented didn't constitute the justification necessary under the Congressional resolution, or necessary to permit the extinguishing of 100,000 lives. The "imminent" danger from a country where we had inspectors prowling around and attack aircraft patrolling the borders, simply did not exist. I knew that when Bush and Cheney started beating the war drums. I was right.

respectfully
BJ




Print the post Back To Top
Author: bjchip Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17339 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/3/2004 4:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Now if Bush doesn't make TOO much of a mess of the aftermath, we could do well.

Too late

Print the post Back To Top
Author: steve203 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17343 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/3/2004 5:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Which gulag will you be doing time in?

As Michigan, particularly the south east corner where I live, voted Kerry, no doubt this part of the state will be turned into a gulag with the auto plants converted to forced labor camps.

Seriously, I'm male, white, Christian and straight, and in Michigan voters don't declare a party affiliation, so I'll probably be OK long enough. If need be I'll sacrifice my books and movies when they are put on the banned list as immoral. I'll submit to having an ID chip implanted so that the government can follow my every move (wow will they be bored). I'll submit to reciting the government required Christian fundamentalist prayers (raised Southern Baptist so not that different from what I've lived with). I have some personal savings, and no debts, so I'll have something to live on when the government defaults on Social Security.

I'll be OK until the government passes a "family protection act" that gives married men job preference because "they have families to support", but until that happens, the removal from the job market of women and people of color will create plenty of opportunities for people of the "right" background.

Steve...wishes he was 100% kidding


Print the post Back To Top
Author: spongepaul Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17344 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/3/2004 6:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"I'll submit to reciting the government required Christian fundamentalist prayers (raised Southern Baptist so not that different from what I've lived with). Hey Steve, Do you know why Southern Baptists don't do it standing up?..... Because someone might catch them and think they're dancing. <ggg> (Just a joke people, feel free to make fun of Lutherans if you wish.) -Paul

Print the post Back To Top
Author: notablelaggard Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17345 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/3/2004 6:09 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Going to war by mistake trumps every other issue that was raised in this election. No President who does it deserves anything less than impeachment for cause. There is NO reason to vote for a President who would make and has made such a mistake. No economic belief in tax relief, no Christian belief in the ascendancy of Jesus, no reason that could possibly override the fact that the untimely deaths of 100,000 people including no few of our own, have been for a mistake that this President cannot even admit.


as I understand it, no war president who has run has ever not been re-elected into office.



nl

Print the post Back To Top
Author: KodiakBear Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17346 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/3/2004 6:11 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3

>>> Going to war by mistake trumps every other issue that was raised in this election. <<<

WMD wasn't a mistake, it was a lie.

KB

Print the post Back To Top
Author: hk2 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17350 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/3/2004 7:09 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Most of the reasons Bush led us into the resumption of the Iraq war were mostly or entirely wrong.

But not all of them were entirely wrong. In fact, some of them were mostly correct.

For example, according to Duelfer there were some serious but small WMD programs going on in Iraq even while the 2003 attack was in progress. No, Saddam didn't have the large-scale WMD that we thought he had, but yes, Saddam did have WMD programs that were clearly in violation of the cease-fire.


I guess I have a much higher justification threshold than others of what it takes to start an all-out war. It was evident to me then (and I posted about it) that we were blustering our way into war with no justification (to my satisfaction).


It is also unacceptable to me to dig around after the fact in order to find justification. You've got to have it up front.

Kerry was right wrt his "global test" concept. Before you go to war, your reasons have to pass the "stink test". Your justification has got to be "intuitively obvious to the most casual observer".


Jim

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ekavana186 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17354 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/3/2004 7:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Steve...wishes he was 100% kidding

Ed.... wishes Steve was 100% kidding because he beleives in the American public as much as Ed does.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: warrl Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17356 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/3/2004 7:38 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
It is also unacceptable to me to dig around after the fact in order to find justification. You've got to have it up front.

We had it up front - or thought we did.

Does this mean we can't search a person's house for stolen property until after they are convicted of possessing stolen property?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: hk2 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17366 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/3/2004 8:32 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
We had it up front - or thought we did.

I do not, and did not believe we ever did. All their arguements revolved around what could or what might happen. When you listened to what was said as well as what was not said, it was clear everything was based on speculation.

You shouldn't have to search for evidence to support your desire for war. Hell, you shouldn't even desire war. That was warning flag number one.

War should be the last resort, and evidence should force your hand.


Does this mean we can't search a person's house for stolen property until after they are convicted of possessing stolen property?

The effects of a search and the effects of war are so vastly different as to be almost infinite. It is this very severe effect of war that mandates a high threshold. Just as the burden of proof is so much higher in a capital murder case than would exist in small claims court.

As an aside, of course we were searching Saddam's house. The administration used the fact that the inspectors didn't find anything as more "evidence" we had to invade. Maybe it's me, but I cannot comprehend people willfully accepting some of the "logic" that came from this administration.


Jim

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bjchip Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17368 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/3/2004 8:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
as I understand it, no war president who has run has ever not been re-elected into office.

A point, a definite point. The legitimacy of the war is left for history to understand. One keeps hoping that people might actually think. Unfortunately they would rather die.

respectfully
BJ

Print the post Back To Top
Author: skybluewater Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17370 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/3/2004 9:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
If the US electorate was as intelligent and informed about the real world as they are about the Red Sox, this might not have occurred, but they are not and it did.

Actually I think they would've voted the exact same way even if they knew how Bush was screwing them. All that matters to these people is what their really old book says. And as distasteful as it is to Dems (me included), we have to talk to these people and listen to them. I doubt we can win many of them over to our side, but we have to try.

Erik

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bjchip Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17371 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/3/2004 9:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
>>> Going to war by mistake trumps every other issue that was raised in this election. <<<

WMD wasn't a mistake, it was a lie.


KB, it was and yet there is "plausible deniability" built into the intelligence reports that Bush never had to look at, because they didn't agree with his view of the universe.

I am perhaps, too polite.... but when I call a man a liar I have to know that he KNEW the difference between what he said and the truth and that he purposely tried to deceive me to my detriment... and even then I will question the purpose served in showing him that he has made a mortal enemy. Bush has plausible deniability built in. Who could possibly believe that he really KNOWS what he is doing. Cheney on the other hand...

Lying is one of the real sins against humanity. It is SO difficult to communicate effectively. Lying just makes it so much more difficult... so I try not to label people with that particular one. Because if I do decide that someone is lying to me, they are NEVER forgiven and it is NEVER forgotten.

respectfully
BJ



Print the post Back To Top
Author: mcain6925 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17372 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/3/2004 9:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
is that the USA is a starkly, brutally, divided land.

Those of us here in Colorado must be particularly oddly divided. Collectively, we (1) voted for Bush, (2) elected a Democrat to fill our open US Senate seat, and (3) took control of both houses of the state legislature from the Republicans and gave it to the Democrats. This is the first time the Democrats have controlled both houses of the state legislature since the 70s. The governor is a Republican. Color us purple, I guess...

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bjchip Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17381 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/3/2004 10:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
If the US electorate was as intelligent and informed about the real world as they are about the Red Sox, this might not have occurred, but they are not and it did.

Actually I think they would've voted the exact same way even if they knew how Bush was screwing them. All that matters to these people is what their really old book says. And as distasteful as it is to Dems (me included), we have to talk to these people and listen to them. I doubt we can win many of them over to our side, but we have to try.


What was the quote about ignorant and free and what never was and never will be?

respectfully
BJ

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TrustTheTrend Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17385 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/3/2004 11:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
ouch

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TrustTheTrend Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17386 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/3/2004 11:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
its Moz

<IKnow>
<<Duh>>

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 2old4bs Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17415 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/4/2004 10:13 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
The War in Iraq was a mistake.

I agree with you (and I'm glad you're not part of the 'LIE' crowd ;-)

The War in Iraq was unnecessary.

That depends on one's definition of 'necessary'. I think it can be argued that any democracy established in that region of the world, if successful (and that's a big IF), could result in more stability in the region, more economic power to the 'people', and therefore less fanatacism. If one looks at a map the geo/social importance of an Iraqi democracy seems clear. For one thing, it sandwiches Iran between 2 democracies. If the living standard should rise in the 2 democracies, the large portion of Iran's citizenry already itching for change might be more willing to 'fight' more actively for it. There is also the chance that it might put more pressure on the Saudis to incorporate change. IMHO, this direction is what the Bush admin had in mind all along, and the WMDs were a justification for taking action in that direction. (Note that I didn't say the WMDs were a LIE, just a good enough reason in their minds.) I think that more stability in the region coupled with more economic power in the hands of the people could be viewed as 'necessary' to the security of the U.S. OTOH, the U.S. action, which has created such instability in the short-term, might prove over the long-term to be a BIG mistake. But I don't think you or I or anyone else will know this for 20-30 years.

One can also make the argument, of course, that the U.S. is without any right whatsoever to attempt to 'engineer' the fates of other nations, or regions, for its own benefit. But isn't this in actuality what the foreign policy of all nations is designed to do? It all boils down to the extent of the interference (a matter of degree) that the citizens of the 'acting' nation are willing to permit. This is where the true differences lie. And it's obvious that in this country, there are true differences.

Going to war by mistake trumps every other issue that was raised in this election.

I'm just curious, would you feel the same way if Bill Clinton or John Kerry had made the same 'mistake'? I'm hoping you would.

IMO, there is an underlying issue that should have been raised in this election--the further corporatization of the American political process. It's shameful that Nader's viewpoints got absolutely no media 'air' time to speak of, but is proof of the truth of his claims. Corporate cronyism in this country is at an all-time high, and it not only doesn't pass the 'stink' test, it reeks. It makes me sick that people are losing their lives in wars to ensure that corporations stay healthy (and I'm not just talking about Halliburton), and that the execs who run them stay wealthy. Oh well, I'm getting off the beaten path...

Respectfully,
2old



Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: bjchip Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17450 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/4/2004 5:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Going to war by mistake trumps every other issue that was raised in this election.

I'm just curious, would you feel the same way if Bill Clinton or John Kerry had made the same 'mistake'? I'm hoping you would.


.. or Carter or Nixon or Johnson or Kennedy. The standard of necessity must be met before the battle standard is raised.

Since my standard for this is "necessity" I cannot accept the PNAC view or any other arguments that the benefits outweigh the costs, or the benefits might outweigh the costs. The "peak oil" issue looks like the subtext for an argument of necessity, but in the end that would fail as well. People who try to reckon the cost of war should at least have had some experience in war. The only one in this administration who really knew what he was doing was Powell, and they sidelined him for disagreeing. Which turned out to be the pattern for this administration and not a very good one.

Since they clearly indicated that disagreement was "career limiting" the temptation to tell them what they wanted to hear was great, the issue then becomes the degree to which they really knew what was going to happen. A good leader knows better than to pollute his intelligence services with political sycophants. We really don't have a good leader now.

I knew that this would lead to instability before the war started...
not sure how to explain how I KNEW, but I literally bet my future and the futures of all my family on it.

One can also make the argument, of course, that the U.S. is without any right whatsoever to attempt to 'engineer' the fates of other nations, or regions, for its own benefit. But isn't this in actuality what the foreign policy of all nations is designed to do? It all boils down to the extent of the interference (a matter of degree) that the citizens of the 'acting' nation are willing to permit. This is where the true differences lie. And it's obvious that in this country, there are true differences.

I think that the right of nations to effect change in the structure of other nations is limited to the benign case. We are permitted to attempt to help them. We are permitted, by extension, to attempt to help the Iraqi people to remove Saddam Hussein. We should be guided by a due consideration of the potential for harm, and the use of war as a tool for creating such change is, I think, limited severely by the harm caused.

Nader didn't get air time because his candidacy was not viable. He (and Badnarik) should be campaigning for Single Transferrable Voting or Preferred Balloting or any of a dozen different balloting systems that provides for those minority vote to be counted rather than wasted. They should be doing it on a state-by-state basis. Once people get a chance to vote FOR someone without "wasting" that vote the true support of the green, libertarian and other minor parties would become apparent.

With respect to the corporate ownership... that was part of my decision to leave. That and a perception of impending financial disaster. The US economy is stretched tight as a drum. There's no margin anywhere for the Fed to escape if the market for our debt starts to dry up. No savings, no real production anymore, outsourced manufacturing and IT services... with "peak oil" imminent if not already here I sense a convergence of problems not seen in our history. I prefer not to be present when these rocks and the hard place get together.

The rich will do OK, they always do. The only change that could threaten them would be the people of the US returning to consciousness and my feeling about "heartland America" is that it won't. These are people who would rather die than accept the possibility that the USA might not be the perfect place they imagine it to be.

Be Fortunate

BJ




Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: 2old4bs Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17457 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/4/2004 5:32 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
A good leader knows better than to pollute his intelligence serviceswith political sycophants. We really don't have a good leader now.

Agreed.

He (and Badnarik) should be campaigning for Single Transferrable Voting or Preferred Balloting or any of a dozen different balloting systems that provides for those minority vote to be counted rather than wasted. They should be doing it on a state-by-state basis. Once people get a chance to vote FOR someone without "wasting" that vote the true support of the green, libertarian and other minor parties would become apparent.

I saw a detailed analysis on C-Span by a Texas A&M Poly Sci Prof of the negative impact the electoral college has on our elections. It doesn't do any of the things that its proponents claim. Unfortunately the 'ruling' party in each state will never change it, because it's to their advantage to keep it.

You be fortunate too,

2old



Print the post Back To Top
Author: hk2 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17469 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/4/2004 6:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The standard of necessity must be met before the battle standard is raised.

Since my standard for this is "necessity" I cannot accept the PNAC view or any other arguments that the benefits outweigh the costs, or the benefits might outweigh the costs.


Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Until 2000, I never really paid politics much mind. My wife actually avoided anything to do with politics as she had "more important" things to worry about. But she listened enough as my daughter & I discussed matters over dinner. She joined me in voting for the first time in our lives.

Being from Ohio, she was shocked that they went for Bush.



The rich will do OK, they always do.

My wife surprised me today when she said we should move to a smaller place and save more money. Her justification?

"Bush is only going to take care of the rich, and we ain't one of them... yet."

Jim

Print the post Back To Top
Author: hereandnow Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17476 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/4/2004 9:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I'm just curious, would you feel the same way if Bill Clinton or John Kerry had made the same 'mistake'? I'm hoping you would.


You may not be old enough to remember, but this same mistake cost LBJ his Presidency -- not the Great Society, which was popular.

You do not kill Americans without a very good reason. That applies as much to the President as to Osama.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Springtex Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17486 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/4/2004 11:53 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
<My view is that the right of the Supreme Court to intervene in the Florida electoral process in 2000 is not something that is recognizable in the Constitution of the United States. It was up to the Florida Supreme Court, and that worthy body was not permitted to do its job.>

That is one of the most profoundly ignorant statements I have ever seen on this website. It was a federal election. Review the Constitution.

/s/ S.T.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Springtex Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17487 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/4/2004 11:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Enough already. Box.

/s/ S.T.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bjchip Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17493 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/5/2004 2:40 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Why doesn't my "ignore fool" button work? You've been out of sight for a week and suddenly you're back? What does it take?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Springtex Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17494 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/5/2004 3:16 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I do hope that, consistent with the title you gave to this thread, you are no longer a U.S. citizen. And that Ashcroft's people will pick you up if you ever show your face again at our border.

/s/ S.T.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: hk2 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17500 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/5/2004 5:43 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Springtex, We try to keep the level of discourse more civil that what is commonly found on PA.

Jim

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bjchip Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17507 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/5/2004 9:22 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Its OK... I'm treating him the way Bush treats half this country and all the rest of the world. He's an ignored-fool.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 2old4bs Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17521 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/5/2004 10:50 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I'll be OK until the government passes a "family protection act" that gives married men job preference because "they have families to support",...

Hey Steve, they don't need to pass a law, married men have been and still are in power, they've already got this 'law' sewn up via the board rooms. And if uppity women and minorities manage to find their way into those board rooms, hey, just throw them in jail for lying about an illegal act that they can't even prove in court was actually done. Get it?

If need be I'll sacrifice my books and movies when they are put on the banned list as immoral.

Just send em to me, I'll 'watch' em for you ;-)

2old




Print the post Back To Top
Author: 2old4bs Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17525 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/5/2004 11:40 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
You may not be old enough to remember...

LOL, I'm "2old"

You do not kill Americans without a very good reason. That applies as much to the President as to Osama.

The problem lies in one's definition of "very good reason". Just to supply some perspective:

There were many in the U.S. who did not think that Hitler marching through Europe was a "very good reason", yet we eventually lost over 400,000 Americans in that conflict.

By the closing days of Vietnam, many agreed that there was not a "very good reason", unfortunately by then we had already lost over 50,000.

Let's hope we can get out of Iraq keeping our casualties below the number we lost on 9/11.

2old



Print the post Back To Top
Author: hereandnow Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17539 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/5/2004 3:15 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
2old4bs added to your Favorite Fools list.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Springtex Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17540 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/5/2004 3:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<Springtex, We try to keep the level of discourse more civil that what is commonly found on PA.--hk2>>

How nice. I didn't realize I had wandered into La-La Land. What was not "civil"--besides the rant against Bush and America that I responded to?

And tell me, as a fellow ex-USN officer, how do you propose to deal with foreign agents who dedicate their time to fomenting insurrection and violence against our President?

/s/ S.T.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: hk2 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17541 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/5/2004 4:07 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
What was not "civil"--besides the rant against Bush and America that I responded to?

I found that post to be pretty much directed at the poster vice the issues.

Jim

Print the post Back To Top
Author: steve203 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17554 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/5/2004 7:11 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Just send em to me, I'll 'watch' em for you ;-)

You want banned material? Remember what happened to Winston Smith for reading Goldstein's book? By the time O'Connor was done with him, O'Connor could hold up 4 fingers and Smith would think he saw 5 because that's what the party wanted him to see.

I can't help but wonder if the Department of Religous Purity will take the scissors to "Star Trek III, the Search for Spock", where McCoy says "according to myth, the world was created in 7 days". That will not sit well when schools are teaching "Creation Science"

Steve


Print the post Back To Top
Author: Springtex Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17563 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/5/2004 8:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
<<I found that post to be pretty much directed at the poster vice the issues.--Jim>>

You're talking about the one where he alleged the U.S. Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to resolve a Constitutional issue arising out of a federal election? Sheesh. Oh, well. I think I posted a brief on that here at the time--if not a brief, at least several explanatory comments. It is old business--but business nevertheless.

Not on this Board, though. I did just wander in, followed a link, I guess, didn't realize where I was.

I can tell you're a Navy man--I haven't heard anybody use that word "vice" in that way since NAVOCS. It was a real victory for the Navy last Tuesday, don't you think?

BTW, what do you think on this--I suspect that Kerry accepted a General Discharge in lieu of disciplinary action back sometime in 1972-73. Then he got it upgraded when Carter's amnesty program kicked in. That would be consistent with what happened in cases I handled myself at the time.

/s/ S.T.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: hk2 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17566 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/5/2004 8:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<I found that post to be pretty much directed at the poster vice the issues.--Jim>>

You're talking about the one where he alleged the U.S. Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to resolve a Constitutional issue arising out of a federal election?


I was referring to you hoping Ashcroft's people would pick up the poster.


I suspect that Kerry accepted a General Discharge in lieu of disciplinary action back sometime in 1972-73. Then he got it upgraded when Carter's amnesty program kicked in.

Could be. But I'm not knowledgeable enough to speak to this. I know some discharges can be upgraded after a period of time.

Jim

Print the post Back To Top
Author: hk2 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17568 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/5/2004 8:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<My view is that the right of the Supreme Court to intervene in the Florida electoral process in 2000 is not something that is recognizable in the Constitution of the United States. It was up to the Florida Supreme Court, and that worthy body was not permitted to do its job.>

That is one of the most profoundly ignorant statements I have ever seen on this website. It was a federal election. Review the Constitution.


I thought that the Florida Supreme Court was interpreting state election procedural laws. But I could be wrong.

Jim

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Springtex Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17570 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/5/2004 9:57 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Could be.

/s/ S.T.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: mcain6925 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17573 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/5/2004 10:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I thought that the Florida Supreme Court was interpreting state election procedural laws. But I could be wrong.

The first time around their ruling was based in part on the US Constitution and federal election statutes, and the SCOTUS told them (correctly) that they did not have the standing to do that. The second time they ruled strictly from Florida law and the Florida constitution, and got told that (a) their ruling conflicted with the federal equal protection clause and (b) there was insufficient time for them to provide a third ruling that did not conflict and properly implement it. Gore's legal team blew it when they did not ask for a state-wide recount from the beginning.

The Florida SC did Gore no favors with some of their rulings. The silliest one was the ruling that when the Florida legislature passed a law delegating a power given to them by the US Constitution, and the law said "ten days", that the Florida SC could decide arbitrarily that ten days was too few, but 13 might be enough. Or 17. Or whatever they felt like. State courts periodically get slapped down for attempting to mess with the state legislature when it's exercising a power granted by the US Constitution -- by definition the state courts have no standing to rule on such exercise.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 2old4bs Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17595 of 90263
Subject: Re: The formerly United States of America Date: 11/6/2004 11:43 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
You want banned material? Remember what happened to Winston Smith for reading Goldstein's book? By the time O'Connor was done with him, O'Connor could hold up 4 fingers and Smith would think he saw 5 because that's what the party wanted him to see.

I can't help but wonder if the Department of Religous Purity will take the scissors to "Star Trek III, the Search for Spock", where McCoy says "according to myth, the world was created in 7 days". That will not sit well when schools are teaching "Creation Science"


Steve,

It appears that you base your world view on works of science fiction. Folks who do that are prone to having panic overtake reason. (Remember the "War of the Worlds" broadcast?)

OTOH, we need people like you to guard the perimeters. But keep in mind that if you panic too often, you'll find yourself in the unfortunate position of another fictional hero, the boy who cried wolf.

To cry wolf" is to persistently raise the alarm about a non-existent situation, with the implication that the person who cries wolf will not be believed should a real emergency take place.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/The%20Boy%20Who%20Cried%20Wolf

2old





Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (68) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement