Bushwhacking

[Buckaroo Banzai]

"Finally, I'd like to add something...Michael Moore is an idiot. What brain cell did he use to say there isn't a terrorist threat? I can't say it enough, Micheal Moore is an idiot!"

If Steven can say this, why can't I insult Bush & Co. anyomore Pam?

Michael Moore has more brain cells than most, especially one or two
"leaders" I can think of.

As for the rest of the above post, it seems pretty reasonable to me.

Peace.

[Buckaroo Banzai]

"One of the hardest things to do in life is to agree to disagree and still live harmoniously..."

That's hilarious to me coming from the man who attacks everyone who disagrees with his conservative out-look as unpatriotic or worse and can't bare to hear his precious "president" criticized while I'm sure Clinton got quite a grilling from the same person.

Tough to live harmoniously with "leadership" who torture innocents (even one), rig elections, spy on innocent civilians, wage war for profit, believe in "voodoo economics" and the "imperial presidency" and get around obeying the law 750 times by writing a signing statement on a napkin. Not to mention the state of the middle-class and "someone's" cronies raping us at the pump.

Or actual terrorists who blow themselves up in a market, etc.
Or armies who drop bombs on houses and wedding parties and take out the infrastructure of innocent civilians.

Let's just agree to disagree harmoniously, sounds nice.
Maybe we could all do some group therapy together?
Group hug.

Peace please.
This is getting out of control and there's is plenty of blame to go around.

P.S. A conservative is a person who believes that nothing should be done for the first time. Lol. I forget who said that.

[Buckaroo Banzai]

It's amazing to me how no one responded to "you know who" massaging the German chancellor at the G8 or Condi playing piano while the Middle-East burns. I got a spanking for pointing this out. Even if I did so harshly. Don't criticize the king. Lol.

Our country needs an enema and we will be just fine!

[pam]

I'm starting this thread so that those who want to discuss our prez (and particularly with Josh) in the OT area can do so here. The rulz? Just don't attack each other.
Pam

[Buckaroo Banzai]

Bring it on! Lol. ;)

[RC Mike]

"Finally, I'd like to add something...Michael Moore is an idiot. What brain cell did he use to say there isn't a terrorist threat? I can't say it enough, Micheal Moore is an idiot!"

If Steven can say this, why can't I insult Bush & Co. anyomore Pam?

Michael Moore has more brain cells than most, especially one or two
"leaders" I can think of.

As for the rest of the above post, it seems pretty reasonable to me.

Peace.
Ok, I have decided to post here knowing that it is definately at my peril, as I am going to be responded to in a way that will likely make me say something Pam will lock the thread and put me on moderation.

I think the big difference Josh, is that Steven's response, even in your opinion, is 99% completely reasonable. You disagree with one line, and that is your right, but the rest of it was not designed to elicit angry responses. It was designed to promote thought, unlike some other posts around here.

Just FYI, anyone who says there is no terrorist threat from radical Islam does not strike me as particularly bright.

His “pig obsession” press conference, swearing, chewing with his mouth full, “Yo Blair!” and now this? Sorry folks, the middle east is on fire and this our “leader”?

Not mine. I think he is drinking again and I’m not alone. For a rich kid he sure shows no class or manners. Remember this when he was the executioner in Texas???
Like this. Purely venemous angry speculation, designed to offend, regardless of the title of the thread.

And frankly, it was very refreshing to see him make a very valid point with understandable language. If Iran and Syria took their funding and supplies from Hezzbollah, do you think they would be having this current fight? And I think that violating a border and killing 8 people and kidnapping 2 would be classified as "S#!T."

I feel it is my patriotic duty to demand some oversight of this “appointed” president (2000 and don’t get me started on Ohio 2004) and his cronies. He embarrasses me and millions of other proud Americans over and over again. (Some people here seem to forget Al Gore won the popular vote by over ½ a million votes in 2000 and yes Bush WAS indeed appointed.)
And this, where you say we should forget the constitution. Yes, Josh, the same constitution that says I will never get a vote in a presidential election until I decide to move out of California.(Which will not happen, but it would be nice for my vote to count) But the point is that the small states would never have joined the republic without some say in who the the president is. Imagine living in South Dakota and knowing that Long Beach, CA has almost twice as many votes as your entire state. You do not matter. Now for that reason, South Dakota gets 3 electoral votes, and CA gets 55. Ok, they are overrepresented, but what about the 5,387,865 CA republicans who are disenfranchised by the 6,685,288 democrats. You are kidding, right?

P.S. Yes, I believe Israel should defend itself but collectively punishing a civilian population for some sick radicals’ crazy actions is wrong. Israel is a religious state and should act accordingly, IMO. I’m a proud Jew who has no problem criticizing Israel’s government and I’m a proud American who has the right to criticize President Darth Cheney, eh, I mean Bush.
OK, lets get real. The "civilians" in Gaza and south Lebanon know who the fighters are. But lets start with the first fallacy here. Who is a soldier and who is a civilian. When does a meeting of soldiers become a wedding party? maybe when the soldiers who survive move the weapons and then invite the press in to witness the "innocent civilians?" But this ignores an important point. People who have never been in uniform might not know this, but those of us who have sat through those hours long Geneva Conventions lectures by the JAG know that the conventions only apply to people who are, get this, "UNIFORMED SOLDIERS IN A SIGNATORY COUNTRY'S ARMED FORCES." You know Josh, that famous photo of a Vietnamese general "murdering in cold blood" a young man in civilian clothing? Well, that "young man" was actually a North Vietnamese Lieutenant Colonel who was wearing civilian clothing in South Vietnam trying to set up a suprise attack, and as such, according to the Geneva Conventions subject to immediate and summary execution.

Now, these people do not wear uniforms(strike one), do not fight for a signatory country(strike 2), and do not abide by the conventions themselves(strike 3). So until the people of that country intend to effectively police their country to keep criminals from using their country as a base of operations for a terrorist group(or for the politically correct, political party) to attack another country, at some point, that country has to expect to be attacked back. And frankly, it took way too long.

Now, will real civilians(as opposed to people who just wear a robe while they fight) get killed? I don't know? Maybe if they did not launch rockets from apartment buildings and from as close as 10 feet to a UN outpost, that would be less of a chance. But the moment a rocket flies from a Tyre apartment building, it becomes a legitimate target, and if the residents of a building see rockets flying from the 8th floor, it might be a good indication to get out of the building.
Tough to live harmoniously with "leadership" who torture innocents (even one)
Proof please of even one who was not punished, as opposed to people who were released saying to AI that they were regularly tortured while they were regularly visited by the IRC?
rig elections
Proof please? Oh wait, it was aparantly the repaving efforts in the unserved areas of town and police presence that scared legal voters away, or maybe the requirement to register in only one county in Ohio.
spy on innocent civilians
Oh, wait, it was Bushes fault for not knowing about 9/11, but listening in on phone calls to terror numbers in Pakistan and Afghanistan to find out what the next plan is going to be is bad, what do you want? Tell me, is there anything Bush can do right for you? What if he uncovered a plot to blow a dirty bomb in the Chinese Theatre? But it took a phone tap from a throw away cellular to a throw away cellular in Pakistan to do it? Would you still disagree?
wage war for profit
Proof please? Are you basing this on Farenheit? If so I will respond to this with a small version of reality.

From dave kopel.org, a Green party afiliated website. (http://www.davekopel.org/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm#Saudi_Departures_from_United_States)

"Moore’s film suggests that Bush has close family ties to the bin Laden family—principally through Bush’s father’s relationship with the Carlyle Group, a private investment firm. The president’s father, George H.W. Bush, was a senior adviser to the Carlyle Group’s Asian affiliate until recently; members of the bin Laden family—who own one of Saudi Arabia’s biggest construction firms—had invested $2 million in a Carlyle Group fund. Bush Sr. and the bin Ladens have since severed ties with the Carlyle Group, which in any case has a bipartisan roster of partners, including Bill Clinton’s former SEC chairman Arthur Levitt. The movie quotes author Dan Briody claiming that the Carlyle Group "gained" from September 11 because it owned United Defense, a military contractor. Carlyle Group spokesman Chris Ullman notes that United Defense holds a special distinction among U.S. defense contractors that is not mentioned in Moore’s movie: the firm’s $11 billion Crusader artillery rocket system developed for the U.S. Army is one of the only weapons systems canceled by the Bush administration.

Moore claims that refusing to mention the Crusader cancellation was all right because the cancellation came after the United Defense initial public offering (stock sale to the public). But the cancellation had a serious negative financial impact on Carlyle, since Carlyle still owns 47% of United Defense.

Moore tells us that when Carlyle took United Defense public, they made a one-day profit of $237 million, but under all the public scrutiny, the bin Laden family eventually had to withdraw (Moore doesn’t tell us that they withdrew before the public offering, not after it).

There is another famous investor in Carlyle whom Moore does not reveal: George Soros. (Oliver Burkeman & Julian Borger, "The Ex-Presidents’ Club," The Guardian (London), Oct. 31, 2000.) But the fact that the anti-Bush billionaire has invested in Carlyle would detract from Moore’s simplistic conspiracy theory.

Moore alleges that the Saudis have given 1.4 billion dollars to the Bushes and their associates.

Moore derives the $1.4 billion figure from journalist Craig Unger’s book, "House of Bush, House of Saud." Nearly 90 percent of that amount, $1.18 billion, comes from just one source: contracts in the early to mid-1990’s that the Saudi Arabian government awarded to a U.S. defense contractor, BDM, for training the country’s military and National Guard. What’s the significance of BDM? The firm at the time was owned by the Carlyle Group, the powerhouse private-equity firm whose Asian-affiliate advisory board has included the president’s father, George H.W. Bush.

...The main problem with this figure, according to Carlyle spokesman Chris Ullman, is that former president Bush didn’t join the Carlyle advisory board until April, 1998—five months after Carlyle had already sold BDM to another defense firm.

Moore response: Provides extensive citations for facts about Carlyle which were never disputed. Does not address the fact that Democrats and George Soros are also involved in Carlyle. Does not address how Bush administration severely harmed Carlyle by cancelling the Crusader. Reiterates the points made in response to Isikoff & Hosenball, that Bush friends were involved in Carlyle before George H.W. Bush was.

Interestingly, Fahrenheit omits one of the leading evildoers in Moore's grand conspiracy theory. As he told an audience in Liverpool, England, "It’s all part of the same ball of wax, right? The oil companies, Israel, Halliburton." The oil companies and Halliburton are prominent villains in Fahrenheit, but there is no mention at all of Israel. Indeed, a Bush quote about terrorism in Israel is chopped to remove the Israel reference. That Moore ignores Israel in Fahrenheit makes sense, given Moore's stated intention of using the movie to defeat George Bush in November. Most American Jews are Democrats; if they found out what Moore believes about Israel they might be considerably more skeptical about Moore's claims regarding other alleged global conspirators. (Moore is strongly anti-Israel; he has called for the U.S. to cut off all aid to Israel, and to use the money to buy weapons for the Palestinians. His latest book, Dude, Where's My Country, is dedicated to the memory of Rachel Corrie, an American who traveled to Israel, burned an American flag for some Palestinian children, and served as an activist for a terrorist support group called the International Solidarity Movement (ISM). The ISM which is run by the Palestinian Communist Party and which advocates the extermination of the state of Israel. She died trying to prevent an Israeli bulldozer from removing some shrubbery which was thought to cover tunnels used by terrorist bombers to enter Israel. Thus Moore dedicated his book to someone who deliberately sought to assist the terrorist murder of civilians in Israel.)

Moore response: None"

believe in "voodoo economics"
Well, it has resulted in raising federal revenues, but I know, it would be better to take from the rich and give it to the deserving....
"imperial presidency"
Maybe that is called leadership on principle, not polls.
"Not to mention the state of the middle-class and "someone's" cronies raping us at the pump.
Um, have you heard of China and India? Even better, right in our own hemisphere, You may have heard of Hugo Chavez, someone I think might be more your style? Well, he made it kinda a little bit harder for Shell Oil to bring his oil to the US when he decided that Shell Oil, who had paid and continued to pay royalties for the right to pump oil from Venezuela, no longer had that right, and that everything Shell had built, pumps, refineries, pipelines, port facilities, airports, everything, now belonged to the government with no recompense. Now, you can complain about the $10b profits of today, but can you imagine what that write off cost Shell?
Peace please.
This is getting out of control and there's is plenty of blame to go around.
You mean like when Clinton decided he really would rather not deal with Osama.

I guess my last point is directed at your home page Josh, which states on its front page that "Love is the message."

I see no love in any of your posts toward Bush. Simply hate. You hate the man, because he won an election you think he should have lost, and has taken actions you disagree with. He does not speak like a "politician," he speaks like a common man. Well, hate does not help anything. See Middle East for examples. Don't hate. Try to win the next election, according to the constitution it will take place the first Tuesday of November, 2008, and will be decided by the electoral college.

Im sure George Soros will be helping, so you should have a nice budget..

Mike

[Buckaroo Banzai]

He's your man alright.

[sombody]

Here we go again - The crack smokin Democrats against the abortion clinic bombin/sniper republicans.

My dad still has his faded impeach Clinton bumper sticker on his car to counter the Bush bashers in the neighborhood.

Kind of a twisted effort at being passionate I think
Is there any common ground ?




Rick

[JohnM]

Here we go again - The crack smokin Democrats against the abortion clinic bombin/sniper republicans.

My dad still has his faded impeach Clinton bumper sticker on his car to counter the Bush bashers in the neighborhood.

Kind of a twisted effort at being passionate I think
Is there any common ground ?

Common ground, perhaps. In my 56 years I have yet to see a single occupant of the oval office who lived up to the presidential oath:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of
President of the United States, and will to the best of my
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the
United States."

They all take office and then tend to forget that the Constitution even exists. And why not? The Constitution doesn't vote, doesn't have a voice, has no lobbyists and doesn't sit on the board of Haliburton. And the typical voter is willing the give up all his/her Constitutional freedoms as long as the government doles out bread, circuses and large portions of fear. Actually its more of a common swamp than common ground.

[Buckaroo Banzai]

Great post John M.

Sombody says, "Is there any common ground?"

Between torturing, war profiteering, civil rights out-the-window, racist, election rigging, using bully/smear tactics, spying, signing statement BSing, out of control spending, neo-con nut jobs and...

Environmentally protective, education minded, help the poor, medical coverage for everyone, out of control spending, diplomatically minded, war as a last resort, and sushi-eating liberals like me?

Going to tough. Lol.

Peace.

[Buckaroo Banzai]

Yawn...

Ambassador claims shortly before invasion, Bush didn't know there were two sects of Islam

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Ambassador_claims_shortly_before_invasion_Bush_080 4.html

"Galbraith reports that the three of them spent some time explaining to Bush that there are two different sects in Islam--to which the President allegedly responded, “I thought the Iraqis were Muslims!”"

Yeah, this guy Bush is da' bomb!
Woohoo! Woop Woop!

[pam]

I imagine he knows now. :p I'm guessing that a lot of American weren't aware that there were two sects of Islam. I didn't. Heck, I'm willing to bet that there might be even more, at least in practice, particulary as you get away from the ME. GWB was chosen and groomed for his position as president. Being of an incurious nature, as I understand it, there was a lot of foreign affairs he needed to be brought up to speed on. It's not surprising when the previous governance experience he had was in a state where the legislature meets every other year.
Pam

[RC Mike]

"Galbraith reports that the three of them spent some time explaining to Bush that there are two different sects in Islam--to which the President allegedly responded, “I thought the Iraqis were Muslims!”"

Yeah, this guy Bush is da' bomb!
Woohoo! Woop Woop!
Assuming this is even slightly true, why would this guy wait 3.5 years to say this? Cause he has a book to sell? Bulls#!t either way is still bulls#!t.

Mike

[Buckaroo Banzai]

Mike,

I think you are really GWB posting under a fake name. ;)
This guy can do no wrong, huh?

I thought I drank all the koolaid! Lol.

Come join us (non-neo-cons) in the light.

Republican state senator joins Democratic Party
http://ap.ardmoreite.com/pstories/state/ok/20060803/77090196.shtml

Or would you rather stay with Cheney on the "dark side" as he has said himself. Do a google search if you don't remember this one.

Why are you defending the indefensible?
What's in these wars for you personally?
Do you feel safer with no "beefed up" port nuclear/chemical plant, border or airport securtry?
Do you want the UAE running our sea ports? Sorry Steven.

I don't get this.
It's like you will accept anything from this guy.
What would he have to do to loose your support? Seriously?
Sell crack to babies while shooting people from his Hummer? Lol.

Peace.

[Buckaroo Banzai]

Just curious how we see ourselves politically.

I am NOT a neo-con. Lol.
I'm a proud liberal, progressive and sometimes radical.
I have no problem stating that.

So?

For those who are unsure of the definition...

Neo_con:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-con

Liberal:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+liberal&btnG=Google+Search

Conservative:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=define%3A+conservative&btnG=Search

Moderate:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=define%3A+moderate&btnG=Search

Let's come out of the shadows and identify ourselves.
I have nothing to hide, do you?

[Desert_Seg]

Just curious how we see ourselves politically.

I am NOT a neo-con. Lol.
I'm a proud liberal, progressive and sometimes radical.
I have no problem stating that.

Ah, I've tried to stay above the fray.

Neo-Rad, that is what you are....and that is worse than even a far right conservative.

BTW, Neo-Con is a term that is primarily used by the opponents of conservatism, such as yourself. It is not an identified position, nor even an identified party.

Neo-Con does NOT exist except in the minds of those very much against, and often afraid of, the far right wing. This term is erroneous and primarily used as a scare tactic.

I see big problems with both Neo-Rad (or Neo-Lib) and Neo-Con positions. People who have fit this bill have tried to force their countries (and even regions) to believe in their way and only their way. That's bad.

The more appropriate choice for any country is to be a moderate, one that believes in the right of others to have their own opinions, beliefs, and yes, even often electing a leader that folks don't like.

BTW, not that I much care, but whom would you rather have as President and Vice President.

Steven

[RC Mike]

Josh,

You seem to think a lot of things about me, my president, and my country that are completely untrue. So I will try to enlighten you knowing that you do not want to hear what I say and will call me names and tell me I live in the dark side and am a neo-con (that wikipedia article is so bizarre I have no idea what it means) and basically I am talking to a brick wall with the amount of what I will say you will absorb.

FYI, just because I have strong beliefs doesn't mean I can't be persuaded with sound logic, real compassion and common sense.

No joke here.
We know this to be a fallacy, but whatever.

Anyone catch Rumsfeld's appearance in front of the Senate?
That guy is deranged, IMO. I can just see him in a few years, completely mentally gone asking himself questions all day in a corner.
How does he sleep at night?

Rumsfeld:
Am I old? Yes.
Am I crazy? Defends who you talk to.
Do I come across as deranged? Maybe to some.
Should more of our young soldiers be cannon fodder? My goodness ah... no.
Should I admit failure and retire? Possibly so.

Central Casting couldn't find a better guy to play the crazy, corrupt, incompetent government official if their lives depended on it.
Rumsfeld could have quite a career... in film playing evil geniuses. If he isn't facing charges of treason.

Pathetic.

It's going to be fun to watch these Neo-Cons run out of town (by the GOP) so we can get our country back from this death machine in power now.
Maybe one day we can get you in an anger management class so you can learn to spout your venom with a little less spittle and acid.. No, why bother.
You seem to enjoy it.

Environmentally protective
So I guess that you will vote against Angeledes in this gubantorial election? No, that would take knowledge and logic instead of blind partisan fury.

education minded,
So that is why California voters (you know, the 6.6m democrats) decided to vote down a proposition that would allow a school to decide in the first two years whether a teacher was working instead of granting instant tenure. Great idea. So if a teacher decided he was just going to sit at the desk eating doughnuts all day, they cannot be fired. Brilliant.

medical coverage for everyone,
Gee Josh, unless I am mistaken, we already have this in California. There is this thing called an emergency room, which you better not have an emergency, because it is the waiting room for free medicine. You see, if you present yourself at an emergency room, you cannot be turned away, regardless of ability to pay.

diplomatically minded,
So which wing of Hamas are you going to negotiate with? The elected leaders who say they have no idea about the kidnappings? Explain exactly what that will accomplish. Saddam had 12 years 12 Josh to comply with the terms of his cease-fire agreement (No Josh, the original declaration of war in Iraq was never ended, as Saddam never fulfilled the terms of his cease-fire agreement.) And don't get me started with Jimmy(the savior) Carter's "agreement" with N. Korea. Face it Josh, some people (you perhaps) cannot be reasoned with. They hate. They want to kill. They need to be dealt with before they kill you. That is the real world.

election rigging,
Ever look at California's congressional districts Josh? Enough said.

racist,
I would say F^&$ you, but that would say that this deserved to be acknowledged.

torturing,
Still no proof.. Just vague speculation, and insults.

I thought I drank all the koolaid! Lol.
You apparently did. From that hands of Cindy and Susan. Good luck with the hangover.

What's in these wars for you personally?
Um, the fact that no one has committed a major terror attack in my country for 5 years? Duh!

Do you feel safer with no "beefed up" port nuclear/chemical plant, border or airport securtry?
Um have you been to Long Beach lately? Or are you pontificating from on high in Hollywood? Because there is plenty of security dowm here, and if you want to make airport security work, STOP SEARCHING GRANDMA. Profiling works, so do it. There, I'm a racist because I believe in doing something that works instead of stealing my nail clippers.

Do you want the UAE running our sea ports?
Why not? They seem to have figured out that it is in their best interest to come into the modern world. They would be more attractive to me that the Chinese who currently run large portions of our ports.

It's like you will accept anything from this guy.
It is like you will not accept anything from this guy. Tomato/Tomatoh.

I am NOT a neo-con. Lol.
I'm a proud liberal, progressive and sometimes radical.
I have no problem stating that
Nice, a radical. Have you noticed what these people tend to have in common? They hate till they kill. Good luck with that Josh.

Mike

[Buckaroo Banzai]

Wow.

And you say I need anger management? Lol.
I wasn't calling you a racist, I do believe however that there are racist/classist policies in place by this "administration" right now in 2006.

You still haven't done your own research and determined if you are a Neo-con or not? This isn't complicated.
Read for yourself tough guy. You're just dodging the question or are too lazy to do your research from your source of choice.
Get on it! Lol.

As for, "Gee Josh, unless I am mistaken, we already have this in California. There is this thing called an emergency room"

That is the LEAST compassionate thing I heard in a long while. Are you spiritual in any way? Got a conscience?
At least you are honest about your lack of care for people worse off than yourself.

Keep talking, have a drink or three, let's talk some more.
Let's hear how you really feel. Lol.

FYI, not all radicals kill. Ever read about the 60s? There are many ways of being "radical".
Ask the skateboarders. Lol.

There are those even today who consider being gay or race mixing "radical".

Why do you protect Bush from taking responsibility from the carnage he has caused in rediculous war in Iraq?

This war is a failure much like everything else Bush has touched throughout his life.
This man has accomplished nothing noteworthy on his own.
If he weren't a Bush, he'd be a petty criminal, or worse, IMHO.

Peace.

[RC Mike]

You still haven't done your own research and determined if you are a Neo-con or not? This isn't complicated.
Read for yourself tough guy. You're just dodging the question or are too lazy to do your research from your source of choice.
According to that moronic Wikipidia article, I am, I am not, then I am, then I am not, then I am, then I am not.

What I am is a realistic libertarian. I want the government out of my life as much as possible. But sometimes, the government needs to be there, I understand that, but get rid of 90% of the government and I would be thrilled.

Mike

[Buckaroo Banzai]

Hi Steven,

"I see big problems with both Neo-Rad (or Neo-Lib) and Neo-Con positions. People who have fit this bill have tried to force their countries (and even regions) to believe in their way and only their way. That's bad."


No my way or the highway. How about fair and open elections again?
How about freedom of speech and the press again? I'd be cool with that as a start.
I believe the people get the government they deserve... unless the elections are hijacked.


"The more appropriate choice for any country is to be a moderate, one that believes in the right of others to have their own opinions, beliefs, and yes, even often electing a leader that folks don't like. "

I have no problem with this if there are fair and honest elections, like in Canada for example.


"BTW, not that I much care, but whom would you rather have as President and Vice President."

If you don't care. Don't waste my time and yours.
But I would like to see a third party candidate, maybe a moderate from each party running together to help heal our country.
Not sure though we would agree on who the moderates are. ;)

Peace.

[Buckaroo Banzai]

Steven, are you a neo-con?

Your explanation of the term is just plain silly IMHO and frankly, Clintonion. Lol.

Ok, let's try this...
Are you in line with the world vision of what many of the so-called neo-con think tanks profess?

I know you know what I mean.
Let's not get squirmy. ;)

Yes or no?
Simple question.
And I DO care what YOU think and find you articulate and wise even when I strongly disagree with you.
I think that's our core difference right there.
RC Mike? I respect him because he is as crude as I am sometimes.

[RC Mike]

I know you know what I mean.
Let's not get squirmy. ;)
Ok, which do you mean?

The term was prominently used circa 1970 by socialist author and activist Michael Harrington in a manner similar to MacDonald's meaning, that is, to characterize former leftists who had moved significantly to the right – people he derided as "socialists for Nixon."

As of 2005, the most prominent supporters of the neoconservative stance inside the Administration are Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

So, to be a neo-con is to be left leaning social and hawkish on defense. But the three most prominent neocons are lifelong heartless ultraconservatives who happen to be hawkish on defense.

Pray tell, what in the hell do you mean Josh?

Mike

[Desert_Seg]

I do so at my own peril but here goes....

...How about fair and open elections again?

The elections were fair and open. The popular vote has limited say in who gets elected....the Electoral College does it all. Unfortunately, the LOSER chose to take it to the Supreme Court, rather than standing up and taking it like a man (or woman) should. With pride and dignity.

BTW, I remember when both sides said they would abide by the results of the recount...and then poof! off to the Supreme Court it went.

Oh, and if you think I'm bashing Gore because he is a Dem...not to worry, I got lots of pictures of us together hanging on my "I love me" wall. Long story, but it was a fun time!

How about freedom of speech and the press again? I'd be cool with that as a start. I believe the people get the government they deserve... unless the elections are hijacked.

Huh? we have FoS, and we have FoP, and the elections were fair.

I have no problem with this if there are fair and honest elections, like in Canada for example.

Again, I don't know why you think the elections weren't fair or honest

If you don't care. Don't waste my time and yours.

You have a point, and I do care or I wouldn't have asked.

But I would like to see a third party candidate, maybe a moderate from each party running together to help heal our country.
Not sure though we would agree on who the moderates are. ;)

WOW! We agree on something. I am very much an outsider type of voter (Anybody remember John Anderson?) I also believe we need to have moderates who are outside their party's mainstream. What we need are "anti-yes" men (or women) to run this country.

Who would you pick?

Steven

[RC Mike]

But I would like to see a third party candidate, maybe a moderate from each party running together to help heal our country.
Not sure though we would agree on who the moderates are. ;)

Peace.
Just curious Josh, who would you have supported, Lamont or Lieberman? I think I know, but I don't want to assume.

Mike

[RC Mike]

I know you know what I mean.
Let's not get squirmy. ;)

Yes or no?
Simple question.

Where did you go Josh? Don't want to answer Lamont v Lieberman?

Mike

[Stewbonz]

I'm not Democrat or Republican but I watched Bushs press conference last nite and the guy comes across as a real fool.

It's embarrassing.

[Buckaroo Banzai]

I’m back,

Just need a break. Sometimes I get too wrapped up in all this.
But I still find it fun and informative. It’s feels like we are all starting to
communicate without attacking each other’s patriotism, etc.

"Where did you go Josh? Don't want to answer Lamont v Lieberman?"

Lieberman would make a fine Republican, IMHO. You guys can have him. Lol.
Spineless suck up to Bush and too one-sided for Israel, IMO.
And I’m a Jew.

"WOW! We agree on something. I am very much an outsider type of voter (Anybody remember John Anderson?) I also believe we need to have moderates who are outside their party's mainstream. What we need are "anti-yes" men (or women) to run this country."

Amen brother! See that? There is a middle ground. Although the neo-cons had their way for a long while now, I would like to see a true liberal like Dennis Kucinich get a shot at the helm.

I can’t believe Mike can’t figure out what a neo-con is. Can someone fill him in for me please?

I'd support Colin Powel/Wesley Clark ticket. Although I feel Colin let us all down at the UN, I think he learned that lesson the hard way.

Also, McCain/Clinton - Although reluctantly because of their sucking up to Bush and his illegal war.

How about William Cohen and someone moderate?
He was Sec. of Defense under Clinton and a Republican.

I even was intrigued by Perot

Anderson was before my time although I do remember him and was very interested in the independent candidate concept.

As for the state of our democracy, elections, fop, etc. we will just have to agree to disagree.
But compared to the UAE, I can see why you would believe that. ;)

Peace.

[Buckaroo Banzai]

Steven, are you a neo-con?

Your explanation of the term is just plain silly IMHO and frankly, Clintonion. Lol.

Ok, let's try this...
Are you in line with the world vision of what many of the so-called neo-con think tanks profess?

I know you know what I mean.
Let's not get squirmy. ;)

I'm a proud liberal, as you know, but open to a bi-partisan ticket. I want transparent government.

[Desert_Seg]

Steven, are you a neo-con?

Your explanation of the term is just plain silly IMHO and frankly, Clintonion. Lol.

Ok, let's try this...
Are you in line with the world vision of what many of the so-called neo-con think tanks profess?

I know you know what I mean.
Let's not get squirmy. ;)

I'm a proud liberal, as you know, but open to a bi-partisan ticket. I want transparent government.

I'm not a neo-Con and don't believe there is really such a thing, rather neo-Con is a term that was coined to denigrate those who they (whomever they may be) don't agree with.

I'm have been called a conservative liberal and a liberal conservative but I tend to avoid labels. I rarely follow party lines (that's a recipe for failure) and vote my beliefs. I'm all about eliminating Pork (Sen Byrd can pack his bags), balancing the budget, flat tax, bringing back the draft (this one will get some response, I'm sure), and yes, even eliminating Affirmative Action (more response).

I believe that Social Security needs to be regulated (it isn't and was NEVER a retirement plan), I believe we need to put more emphasis on individual responsibility and less on government assistance.

I believe that even though we need to flex our muscles every now and then we also need to fix our problems at home. However, if our Commander in Chief makes a determination that we need to enter into a conflict somewhere, I will support his decision to the hilt, even if it is a decision with which I may personally disagree.

I like a McCain / Bradley ticket, although just don't see it. A McCain / Powell ticket would also be interesting.

Kucinich? I shudder at the thought.

McCain / Clinton? Which Clinton are you talking about?

I believe we are fragmented as a nation because we no longer wish to talk and only wish to force our opinions on others. I believe what I believe but will always respect (strange as it may be :-) ) what you believe.

In short, I do wish we could all just get along, but know better. Because I know better I'm so glad WE are the big guns and not them (whomever them may be).

Steven

[Buckaroo Banzai]

Interesting.
We're not worlds apart.

"Balancing the budget" - who is against that? Oooops, our president. I'm with ya' on this though.

"Flat tax" - I think many folks would get screwed but open to discussion. If we all made the same money, fine. Ooops, that's communism. My bad. ;)

"Bringing back the draft" - See ya' in Vancouver. Lol.

"Eliminating Affirmative Action" - Here we disagree. I hope I live to see the day when this happens and every American family is strong and has access to good schools, hospitals, etc.

"I believe that Social Security needs to be regulated" - I believe it needs to be protected. Too many older folks would be homeless without it. Sad truth. Why can't some of our tax dollars go toward a retirement plan of some sort if we choose? Call it what you will. Unfortunately there are many folks who didn't get access to a good education or have poor money skills, mental problems or live on minimum wage for much of their lives or worse.

"I believe we need to put more emphasis on individual responsibility" - Agreed. Government assistance should be the last option when things get tragic for American families or individuals.

"I will support his decision to the hilt, even if it is a decision with which I may personally disagree." (War) - Oy vey. Sobering up, eh? I got more good stuff in my stashbox. Help yourself... please. ;)

"And less on government assistance." - How about less on war?
IMO, it's obscene how much money is being spent in Iraq (billions per week?) that could be building schools, hospitals, libraries, colleges, breaking up gangs, etc. etc. etc.

As far as a bi-partisan ticket goes, at this point in history when so much is being asked of our military I believe now is the time for a Powel/Clark or McCain/Cohen type ticket. Two military men (or women) who have been in combat first hand, one from each party, to spank the rest of us into some kind of unity and not take war so lightly might just be what we need. Kerry was my guy. A deal breaker for you I know. But the Peaceful Warrior? His story spoke to me. Anyway... back to compromise.

Hmmmm. Wouldn't it be a kick if there were a ticket we could both vote for?

I think I'm more the Colin Powel type and you are more McCainish. Lol.

Ok Powel/McCain or McCain/Powel?
Let's flip a coin.

Peace.

[RC Mike]

Interesting.
We're not worlds apart.

"Balancing the budget" - who is against that? Oooops, our president. I'm with ya' on this though.
Um, who writes and passes a budget? Sleep through civics Josh? Give the president a line-item veto. Then you can blame him, and kill pork.

"Flat tax" - I think many folks would get screwed but open to discussion. If we all made the same money, fine. Ooops, that's communism. My bad. ;)
What a joke. Have you seen the tax code Josh? Tried to read the 40k+ pages of tax law. Instead of doing something that makes sense, we create a huge industry for people who can afford to to slip around taxes by hiring the right lawyers.

"Bringing back the draft" - See ya' in Vancouver. Lol.
Why am I not suprised. Let America provide your security, but make sure you don't lift a hand. This frankly infuriates me Josh. Ever heard that quote "ask not what your country can do for you?" I think he was even a democrat.

"Eliminating Affirmative Action" - Here we disagree. I hope I live to see the day when this happens and every American family is strong and has access to good schools, hospitals, etc.
Part of why I left the navy. AA is a joke.

"I believe that Social Security needs to be regulated" - I believe it needs to be protected. Too many older folks would be homeless without it. Sad truth. Why can't some of our tax dollars go toward a retirement plan of some sort if we choose? Call it what you will. Unfortunately there are many folks who didn't get access to a good education or have poor money skills, mental problems or live on minimum wage for much of their lives or worse.
It was supposed to be disability insurance, not retirement Josh. Get a grip. Look at your paycheck. It says SSDI. Social Security Disability Insurance.

"I believe we need to put more emphasis on individual responsibility" - Agreed. Government assistance should be the last option when things get tragic for American families or individuals.
How can you square this with your last point.

"I will support his decision to the hilt, even if it is a decision with which I may personally disagree." (War) - Oy vey. Sobering up, eh? I got more good stuff in my stashbox. Help yourself... please. ;)
Now I know why you hate the minutemen. The DEA is crediting them with a 20% reduction in drug trafficking across the border. Minutemen causing inflation Josh?

"And less on government assistance." - How about less on war?
IMO, it's obscene how much money is being spent in Iraq (billions per week?) that could be building schools, hospitals, libraries, colleges, breaking up gangs, etc. etc. etc.
Ever read the constitution Josh? The function of the federal government is to provide for the common defense and to regulate interstate commerce. All other powers to the several states. Get a clue

As far as a bi-partisan ticket goes, at this point in history when so much is being asked of our military I believe now is the time for a Powel/Clark or McCain/Cohen type ticket. Two military men (or women) who have been in combat first hand, one from each party, to spank the rest of us into some kind of unity and not take war so lightly might just be what we need. Kerry was my guy. A deal breaker for you I know. But the Peaceful Warrior? His story spoke to me. Anyway... back to compromise.

Hmmmm. Wouldn't it be a kick if there were a ticket we could both vote for?

I think I'm more the Colin Powel type and you are more McCainish. Lol.

Ok Powel/McCain or McCain/Powel?
Let's flip a coin.

Peace.
"I watched villiages burned like Gjhengis Kahn." Where did he get that pronunciation. That spoke to you? I thought it looked dumb.

Mike

[pam]

I thought that the Republican congress passed the line item veto into law during the Clinton Admin. It was one of those things I was amazed that was passed.

SSDI would be for Medicare, not Social Security proper.

I'm guessing different organizations print the words differently?

Mine, on my checkstub, says:

Medicare Fica
Social Security Contributions

It doesn't say anything about SSDI
Pam

[RC Mike]

Never(ok, was passed once, but), never will. How would Byrd get to tell his supporters in WV "For every dollar in taxes you pay, I bring $1.22 back to WV, oh and I was only kidding when I was in the Klan."

Mike

Edited to reflect Pam's post

[pam]

Ah, here it is: From Wikipedia. It was passed, but later declared unconstitutional, so I'm thinking the "never passed" might not be right.

"The President of the United States was briefly granted this power by the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_Item_Veto_Act_of_1996), passed by Congress in order to control "pork barrel spending (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork_barrel_spending)" that favors a particular region rather than the nation as a whole. The line-item veto was used 11 times to strike 82 items from the federal budget[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto#_note-1) [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto#_note-2) by President Bill Clinton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton).

"However, U.S. District Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._District_Court) Judge Thomas F. Hogan decided on February 12 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_12), 1998 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998) that unilateral amendment or repeal of only parts of statutes violated the U.S. Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution). This ruling was subsequently affirmed on June 25 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_25), 1998 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998) by a 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) in the case Clinton v. City of New York (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._City_of_New_York).

"A constitutional amendment to give the President line item veto power has been considered periodically since the Court ruled the 1996 Act unconstitutional."

[RC Mike]

Hmmmm.. I don't remember that, but I believe you. That was back when I was still floating around with the navy, sometimes we did not get a lot of news.

Every check I have ever received has always said SSDI. I dont know.

Mike

[Buckaroo Banzai]

Hi Mike,

I'll respond to your last hostile post later. Yawn.

In the meantime...

Classy guy your "man" is... ;)

Oilman Bush has gas in background...
http://news.bostonherald.com/columnists/view.bg?articleid=154220

[polo_pro]

I think the need for a line item veto shows how broken the legislative process is. By allowing "unrelated" amendments to bloat bills, we disable any attempt by our representaives (congressional or executive) to control spending. I don't want to get into a debate about when an amendment is "related" or "unrelated". My point and suggestion is that the legislative branch should be geared up to pump out 10,000's of smaller bills rather than the tiny number of bloated bills as is currently done.

Of course, there's a bigger problem in my mind. There's no reason given today's technology that we couldn't change the government from being a republic into being a true democracy (where you vote on bills directly instead of having a representative). I'm the first to say that technology could add risk to the whole voting procedure, but we should take on these challenges and embrace technological changes rather than be afraid of them. Also, I'll concede in advance that the average US citizen might not be ready to take on the added civic responsibilities of a true democracy...better education may be needed (along with some basic protections to prevent Chicago style wards mechanisms from developing and undermining individual choice for economically disadvantaged folks).

So...have I taken this OT tangent off far enough to derail this thread? (Or the real question is if going OT on an OT thread makes it "on topic" and have to get moved to another forum?) Ah well, this is the OT forum so anything goes, eh? Also given the resolve of a few of the folks involved in this thread, I'm sure we'll be back on target soon enough!

[RC Mike]

In the meantime...

Classy guy your "man" is...
Wow, he gave a TV camera the finger and he farts. I'm sure that you have never done either. The fact that this is the reporting cracks me up. The Boston Herald needs to turn him in to satan in hopes of getting democrats elected. Oh, wait, just about every politician in Mass is a democrat.

Kinda like those hilarious ads for Angeledes. Arnold points out that Angeledes wants to raise 10 billion in taxes. Does Angeledes refute this? No, he puts out an ad of one line of Arnold's speach at the RNC from 2004.

Mike

[Desert_Seg]

Plomoh, I disagree with you that the line item veto shows how broken our sytem is. I believe it more aptly shows the politics is a business and the lengths that folks will go to stay elected.

If you look at the system as a whole, it works and works well. What doesn't work is the folks who, for good reasons or not, attempt to hijack a bill by adding their "special" clause. Remember the planes that the Air Force didn't want but had the money authorized anyway, remember the "bridge to no where" in Alaska?

Each one of these little add-ons cost us millions and with folks like Sen. Byrd bragging about how they are able to control the passage of a bill, I think a better solution is term limits, another drastic solution to a problem we shouldn't have.

Steven

[citivolus]

I'd just be happy if the fools in congress bothered to read the laws they are voting on. If that meant they only were able to wade through 1/10 of the legislation they currently do that would be only an added bonus. It couldn't really hurt them either since they wouldn't have to do the whole embarrassing "Yes, it's what I voted for, but it isn't what I want" bit.

[pam]

I agree with both term limits and campaign finance reform. As long as the rule is that ya gotta dance with them that brung ya, campaign finance reform is probably the only real way to go (although, I'm sure someone will find a way to get around it...)
Pam

Plomoh, I disagree with you that the line item veto shows how broken our sytem is. I believe it more aptly shows the politics is a business and the lengths that folks will go to stay elected.

If you look at the system as a whole, it works and works well. What doesn't work is the folks who, for good reasons or not, attempt to hijack a bill by adding their "special" clause. Remember the planes that the Air Force didn't want but had the money authorized anyway, remember the "bridge to no where" in Alaska?

Each one of these little add-ons cost us millions and with folks like Sen. Byrd bragging about how they are able to control the passage of a bill, I think a better solution is term limits, another drastic solution to a problem we shouldn't have.

Steven

[Buckaroo Banzai]

This hole in the ground...

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/

Peace please. God bless.

[JohnM]

This hole in the ground...

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/

Peace please. God bless.

Wow.....

I can't help but be reminded of the lines that Michael Douglas delivered in 'The American President':We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious men to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, friend, I promise you, Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things and two things only: making you afraid of it and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections.Substitute 'George W. Bush' for 'Bob Rumson' and you've summed it up.

JohnM

[citivolus]

The hole is a tribute to the morally vacuous misuse of eminent domain that made the complex possible.

[Buckaroo Banzai]

Another good one...

Republicans Questioning Bush's Iraq Policies

http://news.aol.com/politics/story/_a/republicans-questioning-bushs-iraq/n20060912030409990001?cid=771


Peace please.