Let's Talk some POLITICS up in here - #2

[chadgumbo]

From the Scott Hays post of June 4th...

And so, the "acceptable" dialog across the isle over such hot button issues such as choice/no-choice (I refuse to call it "right to life", since the same people who oppose a woman's right to choose tend to favor the death penalty)

I would agree with that statement. It does seem as though most people who are "pro-life" also favor the death penalty. Conversely, it seems just as strange that the people who are pro-choice also tend to be anti-death penalty. At face value it does seem to be an odd mixture regardless of which side one's individual politics comes down on.
- chadgumbo

[featphoto]

mike said:

I certainley don't want to appear insensitive to anyone with a uterus, but with our country being sold out from under us I still don't think we have the "luxury" of this being a "large fish" issue. I understand that the current administration with thier hand picked judicial system will jeopordize Roe v Wade but I say cure the desease not the symptoms.

again, I must disagree with the importance (or, more precisely the lack of it) you assign to the choice issue. Dismissing it as a "common sense non-issue" is just the mistake the anti-choice group is waiting for, the complacency born of having held the line for so long that it no longer seems like something that needs to be fought for. The current government, in concert with the religous right, is ducking, dodging, weaseling and sneaking in an on-going attempt to restrict one of the most basic rights a person can have: the freedom to choose what to do with their own body. in this case it affects only women directly, and in only one specific health area, but if they win the right to dictate that one issue today it isn't too much of a stretch to imagine them setting their sights on your hospital room tomorrow (remember the Terri Schiavo circus?), your bedroom after that (oh, right, they've already done that too) ... once the dogmatic religous right succeeds in abridging an individual's constitutional rights in one area, I think we're all in danger ... and the belief by a fanatical group that they have the right to impose their belief structure on all of us because they have "God on their side" is most definitely the disease itself, not just a symptom.

[Mike]

If you think we have opposing views on any of this then there a "whole bunch" of my posts you should catch up on.
When it comes to this administration versus our rights I don't "dismiss" anything!

[Mike]

Bush condemns Iran elections process

President Bush, addressing the Iranian people on the eve of their presidential election, on Thursday denounced Iran's electoral system as undemocratic and vowed that America will stand with those seeking freedom in the Islamic Republic. In a statement distributed by the White House, Bush said,

"Today, Iran is ruled by men who suppress liberty at home and spread terror across the world. Power is sin the hands of an unelected few who have retained power through an electoral process that ignores the basic requirements of democracy."

In My Humble Opinion - He's absolutely right, but it's just kind of sickening hearing it come from BUSH?CHENEY 2004, if you know what I mean.

I think he even told them that "BTW, just in case it ever comes up...the Democrats will ban your Quran!!!" ;D
just kidding

[Scott Hays]

Actually, the President's "senior advisors" will merely rewrite or delete portions of the Iranian Constitution to fit with their policies as related to the Middle East. This is the modus operandi of this Administration, taken directly from George Orwell's mind, when it comes to justifying anything it does that may meet with some opposition. Doesn't matter if it is in the BLM (grazing practices have little environmental impact on the local ecosystem), the Justice Department ($10 million is a better settlement than $130 million), the Department of State (weapons of mass destruction must exist), the Department of the Interior (Mr. Cooney may have been a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, but he wouldn't let that previous commitment interfere with his "final editing" of this report on global warming).

The funny thing is (though I am not laughing) is that no one seems to be particularly disturbed by these "minor" rewrites of history. Apathy probably explains why the pimps and whores of this Administration continue to brazenly modify truth to match their master's vision of reality.

I am astounded that anyone who supports this Administration can look a fellow American in the eye and claim that one continuing strength of this President is his unwavering depth of morality (one of three claims to legitimacy this illegitimate President can make)

[Mike]

shays said:

the pimps and whores of this Administration continue to brazenly modify truth to match their master's vision of reality.

Sometimes words can actually paint an accurate description.

Pimps = Karl Rove, Bush, Cheney.
Whores = Bill Frist, Condi, Delay, The Christian Coalition, The CIA, ect, ect.

I just hate the fact that Texas "Good ole Boy" poilitics are trying to take over the world.

[Mike]

To all you "Pops" out there...HAPPY POPS DAY!!!

PEACE,
Mike

[BillL]

I think he even told them that "BTW, just in case it ever comes up...the Democrats will ban your Quran!!!" ;D
just kidding

Leaving aside my usually silliness for a moment, I think an argument could be made that BOTH sides of the isle have, in the past, present and future, moved to eliminate things that they don't like. For example, many in the bible belt have called for books to be removed for mentioning evolution. On the other hand, many have called for bibles (or prayers, comments, quotes, etc) to be removed from anything even resembling a government facility. I'm not saying it's OK because both sides do it, but I am saying that this is nothing new and best to leave those that get upset about to just sit there and stew. Frankly, any time anyone tells me not to do something, I usually want to try it. That's why my hands are always covered in paint; I can't help but see if the wet paint sign is lying to me.

This is the modus operandi of this Administration, taken directly from George Orwell's mind, when it comes to justifying anything it does that may meet with some opposition.

You may want to ammend that to every administration. Believe it or not but GW Bush is not the first guy to spin things and dismiss things. If memory serves, Clinton was the undeniable master of spin and bait and switch. He could change the dialogue at the drop of a hat to whatever it was he wanted to say.

I am astounded that anyone who supports this Administration can look a fellow American in the eye and claim that one continuing strength of this President is his unwavering depth of morality (one of three claims to legitimacy this illegitimate President can make)

Don't get too angry with me here, but why should you get upset over what anyone else thinks about this administration. If I had wasted all that energy during the Clinton years I'd probably be bedridden. The beauty of this country (the US, of course) is that I can have my opinion. Of course, that also leads to people like David Koresh and those Hale-Bop guys that offed themselves but the point is I'm free to think what I like. And yes, I do think he is very solid in his morales (at least as far as politicians go). I'm just convinced that the line is so obscured now that no one really knows how a moral person acts anymore. The fact of the matter is it's between him and his god. Regarding the legitimacy of the presidency, well there's no arguement. He is the legitimate president whether anyone else likes it or not. Both Gore and Kerry conceded. It's official and no one should have any doubt who the president is. And for those that want to belabor the point, GW Bush had more votes cast for him in each of his elections than Clinton did (then again, they never ran against each other). Of course, that's most likely because of Ross Perot (he took votes equally from both candidates, in my estimation) and Ralph Nader never did get that momentum that Ross picked up.

The funny thing is (though I am not laughing) is that no one seems to be particularly disturbed by these "minor" rewrites of history

Every president, and their administrations, has tried to "re write" history. The problem is that the ones that care more about their legacy (and less about the present) seem to get too caught up in it and their legacy ends ups taking a hit.

Sometimes words can actually paint an accurate description.

I'm begging you not to get me started. It'll get real ugly real fast and, outside of the laughs, will end up being a very disturbing thread.

Bill L

------> Finally figured out why I couldn't get my account reactivated

[Mike]

billl said:

Sometimes words can actually paint an accurate description.

I'm begging you not to get me started. It'll get real ugly real fast and, outside of the laughs, will end up being a very disturbing thread.

Bill L

Uh...OK...Bill, please don't get started.

[Mike]

billl said:

And yes, I do think he is very solid in his morales (at least as far as politicians go). I'm just convinced that the line is so obscured now that no one really knows how a moral person acts anymore. The fact of the matter is it's between him and his god.
Bill L

You do what you want. I'm not standing next to Dubya in an Lightening Storm...no way!

The line is not obscured. Right is still right, and Wrong is still wrong. Recognizing the difference is really not all that complicated.

And as it was so eagerly pointed out during the Clinton Administration, as long as he is President his moral makeup is not just between him and his God.

[BillL]

The line is not obscured. Right is still right, and Wrong is still wrong. Recognizing the difference is really not all that complicated.

If what you just said is true, then how do you explain something as general as violence? We know it's not right to hurt someone else, right? But what if that other person hit you first? What if they just said something that offended you? Maybe you didn't like the color of his shirt? Where's that line and should/does that move in regards to others? For example, If you insult the color of my jacket, does that mean I need to prove a point and kick your ass? In some circles, that's exactly what would be expected. While, generally speaking, I completely agree that right is right my point is that just because I think something is right doesn't mean that it's right for anyone else.

And as it was so eagerly pointed out during the Clinton Administration, as long as he is President his moral makeup is not just between him and his God.

I actually say something nice about Clinton and now I have to sound like a robot again. Here we go...in my opinion (and many others as well) it was not specifically the fact the he cheated on his wife...or the fact that it happened in the Oval Office...or the fact that it was an intern...or the fact that it was a very young woman...or the fact that there remained evidence of said encounter but more the fact that a sitting President was willing to purposely mislead a Federal investigation in which he was required by law to be involved with. Any way you slice it, that's perjury. Had you or I done it, depending on the matter, we would have suffered some sort of reprecussions (prison?). The fact that it was a sitting President, beyond any of the other stuff, is what really kicked it for me. And if you can't see how closely that it follows the blueprint of what cost Nixon his job, than we truely are from different processes of thinking (not that that's a bad thing, mind). Wow, listen to me...Johnny Heavy all of a sudden. I promise you guys I'm still a smartass deep down. I'll try to work in some new material in the next few posts. I'm trying to get to full member status 'cause I hear that's where all the cool kids hang out (and they smoke too).

Bill L

[Mike]

billl said:

[and now I have to sound like a robot again. Here we go...in my opinion (and many others as well) it was not specifically the fact the he cheated on his wife...or the fact that it happened in the Oval Office...or the fact that it was an intern...or the fact that it was a very young woman...or the fact that there remained evidence of said encounter but more the fact that a sitting President was willing to purposely mislead a Federal investigation in which he was required by law to be involved with.
Bill L

Bill,
You have a choice; you do not have to sound like a robot. ;D
It was the "cigar thing" that got you wasn't it? Yep the cigar thing. ;D

Speaking of a sitting President willing to purposely mislead a Federal Investigation...oh wait....I guess he doesn't have to mislead if he owns said Federal Investigation does he?!? Well at least he still has to mislead the American public.

[Mike]

billl said:

The line is not obscured. Right is still right, and Wrong is still wrong. Recognizing the difference is really not all that complicated.

If what you just said is true, then how do you explain something as general as violence?
Bill L

1700 young Americans dead going after Bin Laden = RIGHT.

1700 young Americans dead going after Hussain = WRONG.

[featphoto]

mike said:

1700 young Americans dead going after Bin Laden = RIGHT.

1700 young Americans dead going after Hussain = WRONG.

if I may be allowed to add one ...

>1700 young Americans dead going after Hussain after our president & his lackys lied about the reason = CRIMINAL

[BillL]

1700 young Americans dead going after Hussain after our president & his lackys lied about the reason = CRIMINAL

True, I'm sure Saddam is a real sweetheart of a guy. I mean, how can you not respect a guy that tried to wipe out a whole ethnic population from his country. And that doesn't even include all of his own countrymen that were offed because they voiced dissent. Clearly we should have just left this guy alone. It's amazing to me to see the accusations (from some) of censorship regarding this administration all while there are people all over the world actually dying because they disagree with what their government (elected or otherwise) is doing. I'm not saying that it's not possible that there is some form of censorship here. What I am saying is, losing your job because of you being outspoken is very different from being killed. But that's just me, I guess. I'm also not dismissing the arguement of the reasons for the war but I do think that the assumption that they outright lied to start a war is wrong. While I don't agree with the administration on many things and I don't like they way they have handled some things; but to say that they just outright lied is, at this point, inconclusive. They obviously felt they had the goods. They didn't. History will judge them.

Bill L

---I assume that your comment was refering to the Iraq / Bin Laden connection in regards to 9/11. My comments were based on the fact that they thought they had the evidence needed to link them and they came up well short. The end result, in this case, is the administration got caught without the goods and had to rejustify their actions. Thankfully, Saddam made that an easy job.