The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Ghoulish Delight]

yeah- cause people are so scared and stupid that someone asking them for their ID makes them afraid to vote.Someone asking them for ID and not handing them a balot (or computer login code) if they don't produce it prevents them from voting as is illegal.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

And regardless of what political side you are on, I think it is glaringly apparent that the voting system in this country is seriously broken at this point. There should not be questions so early on about alleged fraud (from both sides) all over the country and there shouldn't be people calling voters and spreading misinformation. Likewise, electronic voting machines are obviously not trustworthy enough to be counted on.

I am seriously dumbfounded and saddened at the overwhelming number of issues being reported in precincts all over the country. How can we expect people to vote if nobody on either side can trust that their vote counts for anything?

[Nephythys]

I understand the argument against poll workers giving bad info. I do not understand nor accept the ludicrous notion that requiring ID causes people to not vote, or feel that they can't vote.

Seems like a sure shot way to prevent fraud.

[wendybeth]

What I love is when we go to other countries to make sure their elections are above-board.:rolleyes:

[Nephythys]

And regardless of what political side you are on, I think it is glaringly apparent that the voting system in this country is seriously broken at this point. There should not be questions so early on about alleged fraud (from both sides) all over the country and there shouldn't be people calling voters and spreading misinformation. Likewise, electronic voting machines are obviously not trustworthy enough to be counted on.

I am seriously dumbfounded and saddened at the overwhelming number of issues being reported in precincts all over the country. How can we expect people to vote if nobody on either side can trust that their vote counts for anything?

Amen Brutha MBC- my question is, how do you fix it?

[Ghoulish Delight]

I understand the argument against poll workers giving bad info. I do not understand nor accept the ludicrous notion that requiring ID causes people to not vote, or feel that they can't vote.

Seems like a sure shot way to prevent fraud.
Which is fine, but a totally different discussion. No matter what the specifics of voting laws are, poll workers are by-and-large idiots and rarely know how to properly apply them.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Amen Brutha MBC- my question is, how do you fix it?

I honestly don't know. It just seems like the old system served us well for many, many years. Sure there were occasional problems but overall it seemed far more reliable. I'm not convinced that electronic voting is anywhere near as reliable. Just too many problems so far.

Technology is a wonderful thing but until there truly is a tamper-proof way to utilize it, I think I am going to be an absentee voter from now on.

[DreadPirateRoberts]

I honestly don't know. It just seems like the old system served us well for many, many years. Sure there were occasional problems but overall it seemed far more reliable. I'm not convinced that electronic voting is anywhere near as reliable. Just too many problems so far.

Technology is a wonderful thing but until there truly is a tamper-proof way to utilize it, I think I am going to be an absentee voter from now on.

I wonder if the problems we are seeing now are really worse than the past, or if in this age of instant information, we are more aware of them now.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Amen Brutha MBC- my question is, how do you fix it?I honestly believe the first, and easiest, step is to actually properly educate the poll workers. 99% of the issues you read about are either caused or exacerbated by poll workers who don't know the laws, don't understand the system, don't know how to resolve issues if they come up, and don't know where to turn for help. That's a serious flaw and no matter what rule changes you make, if the people running the show don't understand how to enforce them, we'll never get anywhere.

[Nephythys]

Which is fine, but a totally different discussion. No matter what the specifics of voting laws are, poll workers are by-and-large idiots and rarely know how to properly apply them.


Gosh- what a nice thing to say about the people who take their day to help people vote.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Gosh- what a nice thing to say about the people who take their day to help people vote. Sorry, I meant to specify the poll workers involved in most of the problems that get reported. Didn't mean to implicate all poll workers.

[Scrooge McSam]

Amen Brutha MBC- my question is, how do you fix it?

That's the rub, isn't it?

MBC, I'm surprised also but on the complete opposite end of the spectrum. I expected a free for all. I don't know if that's because of the good experience I had here, but I'm not seeing as many system failures in the news as I expected. For the most part, it seems the machines have been calibrated properly. There is some vote switching, but again not as much as I expected.

[BarTopDancer]

Let me get the Tequila.

Tequila makes my clothes fall off.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Sorry, I meant to specify the poll workers involved in most of the problems that get reported. Didn't mean to implicate all poll workers.And double sorry, I shouldn't imply that just because they screw up they're idiots. The can't be blamed if the correct information isn't readily available to them, or if procedures for dealing with issues aren't clearly laid out.

I'll revise to say that the entire system (or lack thereof) of running polling places is idiotic, independent of the actualy laws that govern them.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Screw all this election crap...Brittney and K-Fed are getting divorced!!!!

Man, I do NOT envy the judge who has to make THAT custody decission.

[Bornieo: Fully Loaded]

COming in late...

So you don't have to show ID to vote? I always have... from what I remember. Don't they need to check your address etc? So I can go anywhere and "be" someone else, give an address of someone I know and vote in thier place? Hmmmm... Am I an idiot or does that sound odd?

[Scrooge McSam]

Screw all this election crap...Brittney and K-Fed are getting divorced!!!!

uh... There's goes my reason for living?

No wait, how about...Well butter me up and sell me as a roaster but I never saw THAT coming?

Anyone?

[wendybeth]

Screw all this election crap...Brittney and K-Fed are getting divorced!!!!

Man, I do NOT envy the judge who has to make THAT custody decission.

Lindsey Lohan is also upset that people see her as a party girl. Maybe it's that Brazillion Taxi photo......

[Nephythys]

COming in late...

So you don't have to show ID to vote? I always have... from what I remember. Don't they need to check your address etc? So I can go anywhere and "be" someone else, give an address of someone I know and vote in thier place? Hmmmm... Am I an idiot or does that sound odd?


I had to show mine too- I prefer it that way.

[BarTopDancer]

Screw all this election crap...Brittney and K-Fed are getting divorced!!!!

Man, I do NOT envy the judge who has to make THAT custody decission.

It's a distraction by the [insert not your party here] to screw with the election results!!!!!!

[lizziebith]

I had to show mine too- I prefer it that way.

Okay I'd just read about Lindsay Lohan's taxi "shot" and didn't see that Nephy had posted this after a quote...so you can imagine...!:eek:

[Ghoulish Delight]

COming in late...

So you don't have to show ID to vote? I always have... from what I remember. Don't they need to check your address etc? So I can go anywhere and "be" someone else, give an address of someone I know and vote in thier place? Hmmmm... Am I an idiot or does that sound odd?
In California, you are only required to show photo ID the first time you vote if you regisetered by mail (that would be the first time after you register in California...not the first time per election. No ID required if you're voting more than once per election ;) ).

You are required to sign the registration book.

The reasons it is like this are varried, but the three most used arguments are, A) Requiring photo id constitutes a de-facto poll tax as it costs money to get said photo id, B) requiring id would force a voter to reveal private information in what's supposed to be a secret ballot, C) Voter intimidation in that people who may be in a situation where getting an valid photo ID is difficult would be reluctant to jump through the hoops to vote.

Note, I don't vouch for the validity of any of these clamis, just laying out the arguments that are generally used.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

I think I'm going to stay away from the coverage for the rest of the day, until I get home from my gig tonight. Then, I can turn on the special Jon Stewart/Steven Colbert coverage when i get home, and get the real scoop. :)

[Nephythys]

Okay I'd just read about Lindsay Lohan's taxi "shot" and didn't see that Nephy had posted this after a quote...so you can imagine...!:eek:


heehee- been following me around to parties?:D

[Not Afraid]

Screw all this election crap...Brittney and K-Fed are getting divorced!!!!

Man, I do NOT envy the judge who has to make THAT custody decission.

Voted, fed some cats and dogs and camped out at the Volvo dealer getting a remote programed. CNN was reporting on various and sundri things regarding the election when this BREAKING NEWS was announced.

Sometimes I feel I reside mostly in an alternate universe, just making occasional trips into reality to do mundan errends and be amused and disgusted in the process.

[Bornieo: Fully Loaded]

In California, you are only required to show photo ID the first time you vote if you regisetered by mail (that would be the first time after you register in California...not the first time per election. No ID required if you're voting more than once per election ;) ).

You are required to sign the registration book.

The reasons it is like this are varried, but the three most used arguments are, A) Requiring photo id constitutes a de-facto poll tax as it costs money to get said photo id, B) requiring id would force a voter to reveal private information in what's supposed to be a secret ballot, C) Voter intimidation in that people who may be in a situation where getting an valid photo ID is difficult would be reluctant to jump through the hoops to vote.

Note, I don't vouch for the validity of any of these clamis, just laying out the arguments that are generally used.

Ok. Works for me. No argument here. Next!

[wendybeth]

Let me be the first on the LoT to congratulate you, House Speaker Pelosi.:evil:

[Nephythys]

Here's hoping she lives up to her vow to not let the House go into useless impeachments which will waste time and money.

Imagine- asking a Dem to keep their word.

[Gemini Cricket]

Of course, if Bush gets a blowjob from someone, all bets are off.

[BarTopDancer]

Can we give Bush some pot? Maybe he'd quit trying to pick a fight with the rest of the world

[Nephythys]

Of course, if Bush gets a blowjob from someone, all bets are off.


whatever- clearly you missed the perjury and tampering with witnesses part that caused Clintons impeachment.

[Gemini Cricket]

Clearly you've missed the last five years somehow...

[SacTown Chronic]

There is no perjury when a man is asked questions that are nobody's business. Only injustice.

[JWBear]

...Imagine- asking a Dem to keep their word.
Imagine - Asking a Repub to keep them self out of criminal prosecution.

[JWBear]

whatever- clearly you missed the perjury and tampering with witnesses part that caused Clintons impeachment.
Whatever - clearly you missed that it was all started because some republican couldn’t keep his nose out of the President’s private sex life.

[MouseWife]

There is no perjury when a man is asked questions that are nobody's business. Only injustice.

:snap: freakin' :snap:

[Motorboat Cruiser]

I see I didn't miss much. :)

[MouseWife]

Whatever - clearly you missed that it was all started because some republican couldn’t keep his nose out of the President’s private sex life.


Exactly.

Let's see. Clinton will go down in history with Monica.

Bush. I don't even want to go there. Let's just say denial is something I see a lot of.

[CoasterMatt]

Let's see. Clinton will go down in history with Monica.

Or would that be Monica will go down in history? :evil:

[MouseWife]

Or would that be Monica will go down in history? :evil:

Hee hee...I read that and thought 'Oh, that will get some visuals'...:blush:

[scaeagles]

Whatever - clearly you missed that it was all started because some republican couldn’t keep his nose out of the President’s private sex life.

I agree to an extent. It stopped being private when it was happening in the Oval Office while foreign leaders were waiting for him in the Rose Garden, and I have heard of a sotry (no link, as it hasn't broken yet, but is supposed to soon) that Boris Yeltsin had intelligence about Monica and used that as leverage against Clinton. However, I digress from my intended subject matter.

I remember in 1994 watching election returns and rejoicing. I would imagine that is what is happening throughout most of the LoT community right now. However, I am not as depressed as I figured I would be. I didn't watch the TV last night figuring it would be bad, and this morning it was proven to be, well, bad. From my perspective, of course.

I'm trying to think of a positive spin, but I can't. Bush lost this election, sa is common in second term midterms, because of three things (two his fault, one not) - history (the party in power losews in midterms), Iraq (the PC prosecution has sucked, and the dems were fired up against it in general), and abandoning his based on spending and immigration issues.

That being said, I'm willing to give the dems a chance. Seriously - don't laugh.

They can't spend more money than the Republicans have. And that's there only real power at this point. Bush will hopefully pull out the veto pen when necessary, but I'm doubting it will happen.

My only concern is raising taxes. The economy is great by pretty much every measure, and I beleive that is largely because of tax policy. It has not hurt government receipts, in fact, the money collected has incresed with economic activity. The income tax is a tax on the attempted accumulation of wealth and has little or nothing to do with "taxing the rich", but that's a different story.

So, enjoy, my friends. I predict infighting within the dem party for the speakership, with Pelosi winning and hopefully in the spotlight sounding like a raving idiot, damaging her party for the 2008.

[Scrooge McSam]

They can't spend more money than the Republicans have. And that's their only real power at this point.

Subpoena power

:snap:

[scaeagles]

Subpoena power

:snap:

Hmmm...early morning grammatical booboo. Not "there only power", but "their only power". Too late to edit it, and Scrooge quoted my ineptitude. Sigh. Anyway....

I hope they do. Seriously. If they do, I predict their power won't last past the next election because they will appear to be motivated by political vengence.

[Scrooge McSam]

Better?

The political vengeance angle is something the republicans will definitely try. Whether that's successful depends on how effective the new Congress is in proving Bush's lack of honesty with the citizenry. And how petulant and bull headed Georgie decides to be in the coming months.

[Snowflake]

Better?

The political vengeance angle is something the republicans will definitely try. Whether that's successful depends on how effective the new Congress is in proving Bush's lack of honesty with the citizenry. And how petulant and bull headed Georgie decides to be in the coming months.

Why should George change, he's been petulant and bull headed since he's been in office? Okay, he'll be more petulant and bull headed. :D

[SacTown Chronic]

A fire in the master's house is set.

[SacTown Chronic]

Oh, and fvck you, Santorum.

[Nephythys]

It's useless- you will excuse anyone on your "side" no matter their offense- yet stomp and yell for the other "side" to pay and pay for any infraction.

My emotional disgust at some of you is too much for me- it makes me sick. I'll just side in with Leo- he has the best points.

[Alex]

One thing I do respect about Santorum (and it truly is a limited list) is that he stuck by what he believes in and who he believes in even when he knew it was costing him the election. Rather than what most of us got (politicians who's views adjust to get more votes) his constituents got a person who puts his views out and they got to decide if they liked them or not. No guessing what he really thinks is required.

[Gemini Cricket]

No, there's nothing to respect about Santorum.

[SacTown Chronic]

It's useless- you will excuse anyone on your "side" no matter their offense- yet stomp and yell for the other "side" to pay and pay for any infraction.

My emotional disgust at some of you is too much for me- it makes me sick. I'll just side in with Leo- he has the best points.I challenge you to find an example of me excusing any politician's bad behaviour.

[BarTopDancer]

It's useless- you will excuse anyone on your "side" no matter their offense- yet stomp and yell for the other "side" to pay and pay for any infraction.

Look in the mirror sweetie.

[Snowflake]

Okay, so now that the Democrats have the majority in the House, will anything really change? Somehow I doubt that it will. Although according to news reports President Bush congratulated to Democrats, somehow I figure he'll not be very cooperative and will not forego the partisan nature of politics and exercise his veto power to stem any real changes. I don't know, but I am glad all the mud slinging is done for time being and we can move on.

[Moonliner]

There is no perjury when a man is asked questions that are nobody's business. Only injustice.

Injustice? Perhaps. However when you are entering sworn testimony and lie that's pretty much the definition of perjury. I would have had a lot more respect for Mr. Clinton if he had just told them to piss off.

[Moonliner]

Okay, so now that the Democrats have the majority in the House, will anything really change? Somehow I doubt that it will. Although according to news reports President Bush congratulated to Democrats, somehow I figure he'll not be very cooperative and will not forego the partisan nature of politics and exercise his veto power to stem any real changes. I don't know, but I am glad all the mud slinging is done for time being and we can move on.

Yep. I'm sure when that stem cell bill reaches his desk he'll say to himself "well, if that's what the democrats want I guess I'll give it to them. After all they hold a majority".

Gridlock. It's what's for dinner.

[JWBear]

It's useless- you will excuse anyone on your "side" no matter their offense- yet stomp and yell for the other "side" to pay and pay for any infraction.

My emotional disgust at some of you is too much for me- it makes me sick. I'll just side in with Leo- he has the best points.
My "side" is America, democracy, and the american people. What's yours?

[SacTown Chronic]

I would have had a lot more respect for Mr. Clinton if he had just told them to piss off.Agreed. I bet Mr. Cheney tells Congress to piss off when they supoena him.


And I know the definition of perjury, tyvm. I didn't literally mean Clinton did not commit perjury. I simply hold that perjury charges against a man who is asked questions that he should not be compelled to answer is an injustice.

(Before you ask Neph, yes I would stand in defense of Bush if he was ever called in front of Congress to testify about a blowjob.)

[MouseWife]

My emotional disgust at some of you is too much for me- it makes me sick. I'll just side in with Leo- he has the best points.

I don't expect a non emotional response from you but I am going to venture a guess that you don't like the Clinton/Lewenski comments?

How about comments about how the election was rigged? How about how the Bush family acts like they are American Royalty? How are his daughters excused from duty?

And, finally, how about some emotional disgust with all of the body bags being sent back here from Iraq. Those bags hold our people, our fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers.

That is disgusting to me. And, your constant remarks about Dems and how you can't imagine them keeping their word, etc. etc. That is so, ah, narrow minded? Democrat is a political stance, and, if you knew some who lied or whatever, that doesn't mean every single Dem does.

You see, that is where I, as a Dem, differ from you, a Republican. I do not lump people together and then insult them all, of course, all the while presuming that I am better.

Which is what a lot of your posts do.

Thought I'd point that out because I just don't think you get that.

I see you came out here and had a great time, people welcomed you and were eager to meet you. People are people. This constant knocking of 'dems' is really getting old. I know this is a political time but I think enough is enough.

Just my .05c

And a freakin' good morning.

[Nephythys]

Agreed. I bet Mr. Cheney tells Congress to piss off when they supoena him.


And I know the definition of perjury, tyvm. I didn't literally mean Clinton did not commit perjury. I simply hold that perjury charges against a man who is asked questions that he should not be compelled to answer is an injustice.

(Before you ask Neph, yes I would stand in defense of Bush if he was ever called in front of Congress to testify about a blowjob.)


Wasn't going to ask.

Though I suspect your dream of subpeonas is never going to happen-however, if so you better hope they find something huge (which I doubt) because otherwise they will look like nothing but a gang out for revenge- hardly what most people want.

[Nephythys]

I don't expect a non emotional response from you but I am going to venture a guess that you don't like the Clinton/Lewenski comments?

Could care less about them actually.

How about comments about how the election was rigged? How about how the Bush family acts like they are American Royalty? How are his daughters excused from duty?

It wasn't- hasn't been- so what? That's not my perception. It's a volunteer military- they choose to not volunteer- shall we bring back the draft?

And, finally, how about some emotional disgust with all of the body bags being sent back here from Iraq. Those bags hold our people, our fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers.

Who knew what they were going into- who are more honorable than any of the armchair generals sitting safely here deciding how things REALLY are over there.

That is disgusting to me. And, your constant remarks about Dems and how you can't imagine them keeping their word, etc. etc. That is so, ah, narrow minded? Democrat is a political stance, and, if you knew some who lied or whatever, that doesn't mean every single Dem does.

You see, that is where I, as a Dem, differ from you, a Republican. I do not lump people together and then insult them all, of course, all the while presuming that I am better.

Bullshyt- you just did.

Which is what a lot of your posts do.

Said from the safety of the majority around here.

Thought I'd point that out because I just don't think you get that.

I see you came out here and had a great time, people welcomed you and were eager to meet you. People are people. This constant knocking of 'dems' is really getting old. I know this is a political time but I think enough is enough.

Just my .05c

And a freakin' good morning.


Spare me-

Conservatives get just as knocked here. I don't like the democrat party- and I will say so.

I said I HOPE they do keep their word- but I DOUBT IT. That is not narrow minded- I am trying to be positive about things and hope for good things.

But I have my doubts-

I don't think I am better- but I am sick of explaining that to anyone.

People are people- the guy who called my politics evil gave me a hug at the wedding. I LIKE the people- I loathe the politics on the left.

I am not backing down from that- anymore than the left backs down from hating the politics on the right.

I am having a freaking good morning thanks-despite the sanctimonious stuff here!

[Nephythys]

I challenge you to find an example of me excusing any politician's bad behaviour.


Then perhaps you are not included in the "some of you" statement.

[Nephythys]

Yep. I'm sure when that stem cell bill reaches his desk he'll say to himself "well, if that's what the democrats want I guess I'll give it to them. After all they hold a majority".

Gridlock. It's what's for dinner.


I wonder what the press conference today will be like- and what is it for?

[Not Afraid]

Mousewife gets the level-headed, astute, well-spoken Swanker award for the day. No, the week!

[Nephythys]

Whatever-:rolleyes:

GOP says Rumsfeld stepping down (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/08/D8L91ID02.html)

[Ghoulish Delight]

My emotional disgust at some of you is too much for me- it makes me sick. I'll just side in with Leo- he has the best points.Is it difficult to be such a drama queen, or does it just come naturally?

[JWBear]

GOP says Rumsfeld stepping down (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/08/D8L91ID02.html)
If true, then it's about time!

I suspect, now that checks and balances and congressional oversight have been restored, we’ll see a lot of sudden house cleaning by the administration.

[Gn2Dlnd]

Okay, so now that the Democrats have the majority in the House, will anything really change?

In a word? Yes! GOP says Rumsfeld stepping down (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/08/rumsfeld.ap/index.html)

Ta-daaa!

[katiesue]

I don't expect a non emotional response from you but I am going to venture a guess that you don't like the Clinton/Lewenski comments?

How about comments about how the election was rigged? How about how the Bush family acts like they are American Royalty? How are his daughters excused from duty?

And, finally, how about some emotional disgust with all of the body bags being sent back here from Iraq. Those bags hold our people, our fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers.

That is disgusting to me. And, your constant remarks about Dems and how you can't imagine them keeping their word, etc. etc. That is so, ah, narrow minded? Democrat is a political stance, and, if you knew some who lied or whatever, that doesn't mean every single Dem does.

You see, that is where I, as a Dem, differ from you, a Republican. I do not lump people together and then insult them all, of course, all the while presuming that I am better.

Which is what a lot of your posts do.

Thought I'd point that out because I just don't think you get that.

I see you came out here and had a great time, people welcomed you and were eager to meet you. People are people. This constant knocking of 'dems' is really getting old. I know this is a political time but I think enough is enough.

Just my .05c

And a freakin' good morning.

:snap: I don't think I could express myself any better than this :snap:

[Nephythys]

Gosh guys- why don't you just start another kick the shyt out of Nephy thread in the Parking Lot.

:rolleyes:

[Gn2Dlnd]

Gosh guys- why don't you just start another kick the shyt out of Nephy thread in the Parking Lot.

:rolleyes:

Well, gee whillikers. Didn't mean to hurt your feelings with the pointed remarks.


My emotional disgust at some of you is too much for me- it makes me sick.

Perhaps you meant to post that in the parking lot.

dee-yoo-oh-bee ell-ess-tee-ay enn-tee-ay-ar-dee!

[JWBear]

Gosh guys- why don't you just start another kick the shyt out of Nephy thread in the Parking Lot.

:rolleyes:
Is that an invitation?

[Not Afraid]

I've said it before and I'll say it again; Neph, you have no idea how you REALLY come across on message boards. I've met you in person and you're fun, nice and really great to be around. But, how you communicate in writing is like having a conversation with a tasmanian devel on crack. How many covert and overt comments do we all have to make before you take a good hard look at your communication style and possible be open to suggestions?

[wendybeth]

We're not going to provide another excuse for martyrdom.


Enough, already.

Now, MSNBC is reporting Montana went Dem, which leaves VA. While the margin is very slim, VA is a small state and 7,000 votes is actually a pretty good-sized lead. So, barring an unusually large conservative absentee vote, or some big voting discrepencies, I think we are looking at a Democratic Senate. Who'd of thought, eh?

[Nephythys]

I've said it before and I'll say it again; Neph, you have no idea how you REALLY come across on message boards. I've met you in person and you're fun, nice and really great to be around. But, how you communicate in writing is like having a conversation with a tasmanian devel on crack. How many covert and overt comments do we all have to make before you take a good hard look at your communication style and possible be open to suggestions?


When?

When someone chooses to talk to me rather than call me out and then pile on.

..and before someone calls me a victim- no, I am not.

However-I am sick of being called out and insulted (yes, I have been insulted) and it is human nature to defend.

I am open to suggestions-

[JWBear]

When?

When someone chooses to talk to me rather than call me out and then pile on.

..and before someone calls me a victim- no, I am not.

However-I am sick of being called out and insulted (yes, I have been insulted) and it is human nature to defend.

I am open to suggestions-
And I've said it to you before, if you don't like people attacking you, then don't attack other people. Many of your posts come across as attacks.

[Gn2Dlnd]

Looks like Virginia is the new Florida.

Ohio.

Florhioda.

Florhioda is for lovers

[Not Afraid]

However-I am sick of being called out and insulted (yes, I have been insulted) and it is human nature to defend.

I am open to suggestions-

Well, maybe being sick of it will cause you to take a hard look at your communication style.

[MouseWife]

Said from the safety of the majority around here.




I had time this morning to post but now have a wide awake full house including a husband who wants my time. So. Just a couple of things before I leave...

Safety? We are all 'safe' here. You and I are the same here. Actually, I think you are here more than I am so I'd think you'd have realized that.

Everyone likes you regardless of how you come across sometimes, which is what I was trying to point out. I am sure conservatives get grief as well but I don't think it is dished out quite the same.

Okay, put it this way. This is a family of sorts, right? I come from a big family. We are all different, thank God, even being raised by the same parents. When we get together it can be great, we all love and accept one another for who and what we are and have conversations discussing our lives and sharing our beliefs.

Well, there are a couple who insist upon pointing out what someone else is doing wrong and how wrong it is. What gives them the right to say they are right and the other wrong? But, the family still loves them and it goes on.

I will be back.

Glad to see everyone is having a freakin' good day. ;)

[Moonliner]

Well, maybe being sick of it will cause you to take a hard look at your communication style.

Ahhh, I kinda like the shoot first take no prisoner Nephy. I'm not sure I'd know how to handle a kinder/gentler egyptian princess bitch (or whatever that title you had was...)

[Not Afraid]

Ahhh, I kinda like the shoot first take no prisoner Nephy. I'm not sure I'd know how to handle a kinder/gentler egyptian princess bitch (or whatever that title you had was...)

Yeah, well. I don't think things are ever going to change no matter what anyone says, so you have no worries. :D

[Nephythys]

Ahhh, I kinda like the shoot first take no prisoner Nephy. I'm not sure I'd know how to handle a kinder/gentler egyptian princess bitch (or whatever that title you had was...)


Egyptian Demon Bitch- a name gifted me by JWBear. I find it delightful actually- despite what I suspect was his intent.

FWIW- I come here more than anywhere else these days- why? Because I like the people- even when I disagree and want to scream and yell and rip their hair out.

Family indeed. ;)

[JWBear]

Egyptian Demon Bitch- a name gifted me by JWBear. I find it delightful actually- despite what I suspect was his intent.

FWIW- I come here more than anywhere else these days- why? Because I like the people- even when I disagree and want to scream and yell and rip their hair out.

Family indeed. ;)
Actually… I pointed out that you named yourself after an Egyptian demon bitch (http://socsci.colorado.edu/LAB/GODS/nepthys.html)… If you’ve since decided to live up to your name, it’s not my fault. ;)

[Nephythys]

Actually… I pointed out that you named yourself after an Egyptian demon bitch (http://socsci.colorado.edu/LAB/GODS/nepthys.html)… If you’ve since decided to live up to your name, it’s not my fault. ;)



;) says you tounge firmly in cheek LOL

I think you said something about you would rather deal with someone else rather than an Egyptian Demon Bitch. I loved it.....so I adopted it.

Great title line :D

[wendybeth]

From FauxNews:

Breaking News >> Dow Industrials Post 12,176 Record Close, Boosted by Election Confidence


It will be interesting to see which stocks rose, and which fell.

[JWBear]

;) says you tounge firmly in cheek LOL

I think you said something about you would rather deal with someone else rather than an Egyptian Demon Bitch. I loved it.....so I adopted it.

Great title line :D
Hey... If the shoe fits... ;)

[CoasterMatt]

Hey... If the shoe fits... ;)
Make sure there's a matching one in the box, ya don't wanna hop around in one shoe lookin' all stupid or something...

The following message was brought to you by the great folks at Tylenol T3 :)

[Moonliner]

From FauxNews:

Breaking News >> Dow Industrials Post 12,176 Record Close, Boosted by Election Confidence


It will be interesting to see which stocks rose, and which fell.

Interesting. Halliburton crashed in early tradeing but actually closed the day up 0.17 points.

[Nephythys]

Link (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-goldberg9nov09,0,7245911.column?coll=la-opinion-rightrail)

An interesting column on why the GOP lost-

[BarTopDancer]

Swing swing swing goes the country (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061108/ap_on_el_st_lo/eln_ballot_measures)

[Nephythys]

Demorats want to bring back the draft? (http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=6026)

[Moonliner]

Demorats want to bring back the draft? (http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=6026)

Well yeah, there might be one or two dems who for one reason or another feel that way but two is a tad short of a majority.

Should I go looking for onesies and twosies among the republicans that have over the top views or have I already made my point?


Oh and just for the record, Mr. Rangel's issue is that minorities compromise more than 30% of the military and he says:

"I truly believe that those who make the decision and those who support the United States going into war would feel more readily the pain that's involved, the sacrifice that's involved, if they thought that the fighting force would include the affluent and those who historically have avoided this great responsibility,"

[wendybeth]

I couldn't get past the Pat Boone banner ad.

[Nephythys]

Well yeah, there might be one or two dems who for one reason or another feel that way but two is a tad short of a majority.

Should I go looking for onesies and twosies among the republicans that have over the top views or have I already made my point?


Oh and just for the record, Mr. Rangel's issue is that minorities compromise more than 30% of the military and he says:


It's a random political thought thread- so I posted a random item. I was not aware I was involved in a juvenile tit for tat battle where we have to justify what we post.

His race baiting and class warfare are disgusting. But typical.

[Moonliner]

It's a random political thought thread- so I posted a random item. I was not aware I was involved in a juvenile tit for tat battle where we have to justify what we post.

His race baiting and class warfare is disgusting- the notion that we would avoid conflict if "rich" people's kids went into the military is insulting, asinine and stupid.

No need to justify what we post? Oh.

Well now that just opens up a whole bunch of new avenues for comments...

[BarTopDancer]

No need to justify what we post? Oh.

Well now that just opens up a whole bunch of new avenues for comments...


Moonliner is a doodyhead!

[Nephythys]

No need to justify what we post? Oh.

Well now that just opens up a whole bunch of new avenues for comments...


:p
:decap:

meh

[Nephythys]

Al Qaeda gloats over Rumsfeld (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-11-10T172059Z_01_IBO132069_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ.xml&src=rss&rpc=22)

"The American people have put their feet on the right path by ... realizing their president's betrayal in supporting Israel," the terror leader said. "So they voted for something reasonable in the last elections."



Charming-

[JWBear]

Demorats want to bring back the draft? (http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=6026)
American Thinker?? Nephy, do you ever read anything that's not a conservative spin machine?

[Gemini Cricket]

Here's (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/11/08/censored-by-cnn-bill-mah_n_33701.html) an interesting video. Bill Maher on Larry King outing Ken Mehlman. A lot of DC insiders know this and Mehlmen never denied it, so why did CNN censor the interview?

Weird.

More self-hating gays in charge of anti-gayness. Bleh.

[Nephythys]

I was not aware all gay people had to want the same thing. Are they individuals or just a voting bloc? Are you deciding he hates himself because he does not make it an issue right out front?

Who cares?

but on other items-

Link (http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009222)

The other great symbol of GOP failure is the proliferation of earmarked spending. In 1994 there were 1,500 such projects stuffed into Democratic spending bills, and Republicans called this a fiscal disgrace. This year Republicans approved closer to 15,000 earmarks at a cost of more than $10 billion. The current leadership defended this earmarking even after such embarrassments as the Alaska Bridge to Nowhere were exposed. When they finally agreed to minimal transparency, it was too late.

...snip...

Too many Republicans were corrupted and seduced by power and forgot why voters sent them to Washington. Winning back the majority requires new faces of leadership far removed from this year's debacle.





I would love to see this change.

[Gemini Cricket]

If he is gay and he's promoting anti-gay legislation... if that's not self-hate, I don't know what is. And I do know self-hate when I see it.

[Nephythys]

If he is gay and he's promoting anti-gay legislation... if that's not self-hate, I don't know what is. And I do know self-hate when I see it.


I am not going to argue your personal experience by any means.

Before even asking another question- what are you considering when you talk about "anti-gay" legislation?

[Gemini Cricket]

Marriage quality, for one.

[Nephythys]

So if a gay person does not want gay marriage that makes them anti-gay and self hating?

So I wonder- it just seems like throwing people out who don't happen to get on board a certain issue. No individual thought, just a group think mentality that moves as one- otherwise is tossed as anti-gay or self hating?

[Gemini Cricket]

He works closely with the Feds and knows the numerous benefits of a Federally sanctioned union. Yet works against it. I'd say it was self-hating. I also think that staying in the closet is lying to yourself and others. If you're willing to do that to keep your comfy job, then your priorities are off. I'm speaking for myself and how I think. It's like a black man being in the klan. Makes no sense.
If he were out and was anti-marriage it would be a different thing. Fine don't get married, don't work towards it, but avidly work against it? That's messed up, too.

[Nephythys]

ok- another question.

The idea is to have being gay not be a big deal- as in accepted, equal. Right?

So what is with the "outing" of so called gay republicans?

The message is- "being gay is bad- you're a party of bigots- so you should reject so and so"

which seems to go directly against the idea that it should be accepted.

Just seems like a plan that would bite someone in the end. Especially because it seems to rely on some sort of institutionalized hatred which frankly I don't see.

[Nephythys]

I'm not even going to bother linking to the individual links-

Drudge Report- Germany is going to prosecute Rumsfeld (http://www.drudgereport.com/)

Yes, yes, I know, there's a big siren up at Drudge over Time magazine's exclusive on a lawsuit being filed against Don Rumsfeld over "prison abuse."

The German government isn't filing the lawsuit. It's 11 Iraqis and a Saudi who went court-shopping and filed in Germany because the country "provides 'universal jurisdiction' allowing for the prosecution of war crimes and related offenses that take place anywhere in the world." A previous lawsuit was filed on similar grounds and was dismissed. Yes, Germany has its share of weasels. But German Chancellor Angela Merkel isn't one of them and outrage at the country is premature. Calls to close our bases in Germany over this hyped news story are, with all due respect, silly.

The lawsuit hasn't even been filed yet. The Time blurb is a Friday afternoon freebie press release for the left-wing Center for Constitutional Rights--milking Rumsfeld's resignation for all the publicity they can get.

[Gn2Dlnd]

My honest answer, offered with no defensiveness on my part, is, if a Gay person, closeted or not, supports the work of an organization working against Gay equality, that person should be exposed as a hypocrite.

"Being Gay is bad" is not the message. The message is, "Being a hypocrite is bad," and, "Being against civil rights is bad."

[Nephythys]

Thank you for giving another view of it.

[Nephythys]

The comments on Mehlman made me curious-

Biography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Mehlman)

So much for no denial.

[Ghoulish Delight]

The comments on Mehlman made me curious-

Biography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Mehlman)

So much for no denial. "[You] have asked a question people shouldn't have to answer."

Good for him. He may indeed be a hypocrite, and that's something he's got to deal with. But I tend to be irked when public figures get pressured to come out of the closet, and particularly so in the political realm. One's sexuality is one's own business, no? So why is it okay to put pressure on them like that? Attack the issue, leave the individual to work their own sexuality and presumed hypocracy out for themself.

I can understand the argument that it's damaging to continued progress of gay rights if public figures are acting as if being labled gay is something to be avoided. But I think it's more damaging to be aggressive about it, and to use a person's sexuality as a political leverage point. In the end, who gives a rat's ass whether individual politicians are gar or not and what they're voting for? The righteousness of the desire for equal rights stands on its own, whether there are hypocrites working against it or not.

[JWBear]

"[You] have asked a question people shouldn't have to answer."

Good for him. He may indeed be a hypocrite, and that's something he's got to deal with. But I tend to be irked when public figures get pressured to come out of the closet, and particularly so in the political realm. One's sexuality is one's own business, no? So why is it okay to put pressure on them like that? Attack the issue, leave the individual to work their own sexuality and presumed hypocracy out for themself.

I can understand the argument that it's damaging to continued progress of gay rights if public figures are acting as if being labled gay is something to be avoided. But I think it's more damaging to be aggressive about it, and to use a person's sexuality as a political leverage point. In the end, who gives a rat's ass whether individual politicians are gar or not and what they're voting for? The righteousness of the desire for equal rights stands on its own, whether there are hypocrites working against it or not.

I think Gn2Dlnd hit it right on the nose. It's about hypocrisy. If a closeted gay man is advocating anti-gay legislation, that’s hypocrisy. If there were a politician of African-American descent who was able to “pass”, and did so – hid his ethnicity from the public and his family - and if he were trying to pass discriminatory laws aimed at African-Americans, then wouldn’t that be the same kind of hypocrisy? Should he not be exposed?

[Ghoulish Delight]

I think Gn2Dlnd hit it right on the nose. It's about hypocrisy. If a closeted gay man is advocating anti-gay legislation, that’s hypocrisy. If there were a politician of African-American descent who was able to “pass”, and did so – hid his ethnicity from the public and his family - and if he were trying to pass discriminatory laws aimed at African-Americans, then wouldn’t that be the same kind of hypocrisy? Should he not be exposed?Perhaps. But I find there to be too much venom and not enough sympathy from a community that is fighting persecution. Should he be exposed? I suppose. I just feel the focus is a little bit too much on demonizing hypocrites (who almost invariably will shoot themselves in the foot without help, thank you very much) and not enough on addressing the actual issue.

Plus, the public calls to out public figures aren't limited to politicians, who are in a position to be actively hypocritical and affect things. It extends to celebreties (Tom Cruise, anyone?). I find the vehement calls for people like Cruise to come out to be...unseemly.

All of this exposes a dichotomy in the gay rights message. "My sexuality is my business...but public figures' sexuality is my business too." Like I said, I see it to a point, but I think it's done in an agressive, political way that trivializes homosexuality and lends support to those that would demonize the "gay agenda".

[JWBear]

Perhaps. But I find there to be too much venom and not enough sympathy from a community that is fighting persecution. Should he be exposed? I suppose. I just feel the focus is a little bit too much on demonizing hypocrites (who almost invariably will shoot themselves in the foot without help, thank you very much) and not enough on addressing the actual issue.

Plus, the public calls to out public figures aren't limited to politicians, who are in a position to be actively hypocritical and affect things. It extends to celebreties (Tom Cruise, anyone?). I find the vehement calls for people like Cruise to come out to be...unseemly.

All of this exposes a dichotomy in the gay rights message. "My sexuality is my business...but public figures' sexuality is my business too." Like I said, I see it to a point, but I think it's done in an agressive, political way that marginalizes homosexuality and lends support to those that would demonize the "gay agenda".
I agree when it comes to non-political public figures. If they want to live a miserable life hiding, so be it. But, IMO, it's a different matter entirely when my rights are at stake.

[Nephythys]

Marriage is not a right- it's a choice.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Marriage is not a right- it's a choice.But allowing benefits of that choice to one group and not to another is discrimination.

[Nephythys]

But allowing benefits of that choice to one group and not to another is discrimination.


Yeah-though from the votes people are still not going for the idea of gay marriage. Even in CO the whole idea of domestic partners fell flat. I think mostly because of the little things hidden under the good idea.

...and for the record, you all know I'm conservative- but I don't give a whit about gay marriage. Doesn't bother me a bit- and my vote showed it. Get married- don't get married- whatever.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Yeah-though from the votes people are still not going for the idea of gay marriage. And, left up to popular opinion in the 60's, anti-miscegnination laws would have stood.

I'd like to see marriage dropped from the realm of law all together, but as long as it's there, it's everyone or no one.

[Nephythys]

No argument from me- but I would not hold your breath.

I still don't get the issue- I really can not wrap my brain around why anyone CARES!

[€uroMeinke]

Marriage is not a right- it's a choice.

Of course in some cultures it's an arrangement

[Gn2Dlnd]

I still don't get the issue- I really can not wrap my brain around why anyone CARES!

I'm not sure I understand. You don't get why anyone cares if Gay people get married, or why Gay people would want to get married? If it's the latter, it has to do not only with equality, but with visitation rights in jails and hospitals, custodial rights with children, health benefit rights, banking arrangements, inheritance issues, and so on. I've had many friends find themselves in dire circumstances when a partner has died from AIDS, only to have the family of the deceased claim all property. Or to be denied visitation rights in the hospital because they're not blood relations. Many of us have resorted to lying to get into the hospital room of a partner. Marriage may come with a lot of drawbacks, but the alternative leaves many of us with no recourse when a partner is in trouble.

[Alex]

Oh and just for the record, Mr. Rangel's issue is that minorities compromise more than 30% of the military and he says:

Since minorities make up about 30% of the population in general I assume this wouldn't be a bad thing. I assume it is meant that 30% of the military is black.

Taking a quick look into it, what is interesting to me is that while blacks are wildly overrepresented it looks like (if Fort Bragg (http://www.answers.com/topic/fort-bragg-north-carolina) is a reasonable sampling) whites are not particularly underrepresnted. 58% of Fort Bragg is white which is about in line with the general population (about 60%). So it looks like while one minority is way over represented in the army other minorities are way under represented.

Interesting. I will have to remember to look into whether Bragg is representative.

[Nephythys]

I'm not sure I understand. You don't get why anyone cares if Gay people get married, or why Gay people would want to get married? If it's the latter, it has to do not only with equality, but with visitation rights in jails and hospitals, custodial rights with children, health benefit rights, banking arrangements, inheritance issues, and so on. I've had many friends find themselves in dire circumstances when a partner has died from AIDS, only to have the family of the deceased claim all property. Or to be denied visitation rights in the hospital because they're not blood relations. Many of us have resorted to lying to get into the hospital room of a partner. Marriage may come with a lot of drawbacks, but the alternative leaves many of us with no recourse when a partner is in trouble.


I don't get why anyone cares if gay people get married- I just don't get it.

I heard an ad that compared gay marriages among straight marriages to counterfeit dollars among real money. The ad was stupid- gay people being married doesn't make a bit of difference to if I am married or not.

I just have not seen any reasonable argument against it-

I don't even but the idea that if you have gay marriage you will have to legalize bigamy or polygmy or other things-

[Snowflake]

I don't get why anyone cares if gay people get married- I just don't get it.

I heard an ad that compared gay marriages among straight marriages to counterfeit dollars among real money. The ad was stupid- gay people being married doesn't make a bit of difference to if I am married or not.

I just have not seen any reasonable argument against it-

I don't even but the idea that if you have gay marriage you will have to legalize bigamy or polygmy or other things-

I care because I feel denying gays the same legal right I would have as a straight person being married is a form of totally ridiculous discrimination. The religious issue is one that need not even be adressed with a civil ceremony.

I feel that the Comodore stated my position on this issue exactly. I've seen several friends in the same boat the Comodore spoke of when their partner passed away or was hospitalized. To me it is unconscionable that a couple in love, a couple willing to make a life commitment is denied because the sole reason to deny is that the couple is of the same sex.

As for you're not getting why people care, I suppose it depends entirely on the point of view you are examining. But I am assuming you are referring to the side that is so bitterly against gay marriage, am I right here?

[Nephythys]

I've said that now twice.

I don't know how to make it clearer.

[JWBear]

I think what Nephy is saying (and I'm sure she'll correct me if I'm wrong) is that she doesn't get why people are opposed to gay marriage.

[Nephythys]

I think what Nephy is saying (and I'm sure she'll correct me if I'm wrong) is that she doesn't get why people are opposed to gay marriage.


Exactly.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I've said that now twice.

I don't know how to make it clearer.I think the confusion is because it's really common to see people making the opposite argument say "I don't get why you care" to those who want equality. "It's just a piece of paper, why do you care?" So a lot of people have a knee-jerk, "What the hell do you mean, why do I care?!" reaction to that, so the rest can get lost in that blur (I know it took me a couple times to figure out that you meat you don't care from the other direction the first time this discussion was had lo those many boards ago).

[Nephythys]

ah-

To be clear- I don't get why people are opposed to it- because I don't see what difference it really makes.

[Snowflake]

I think what Nephy is saying (and I'm sure she'll correct me if I'm wrong) is that she doesn't get why people are opposed to gay marriage.

Thank you JW

[Snowflake]

ah-

To be clear- I don't get why people are opposed to it- because I don't see what difference it really makes.

Thank you, that clears it up.

[Alex]

It has been a very busy week for me, so other than knowing the broad strokes I haven't really watched the news since last Friday.

So it pleases me to read of this local (but nationally important) outcome:

ID takes a drubbing (http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2006/1108/3?rss=1)

What is really cool about it is that Ohio will now be able to trick Iowa into whitewashing its fences.

[Nephythys]

well - that did not take long (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/13/washington/13military.html?ei=5065&en=aaecf1f8312791fc&ex=1164085200&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print)


- and I doubt it will be that simple.

[innerSpaceman]

Well, being that hawk Republican McCain and hawk Independant-Democrat Lieberman were on Meet the Press this weekend insisting the only alternatives were a) leave completely, admitting defeat and allowing likely chaos (er, bigger chaos) or b) institute a massive build-up of troops and aim for victory. They each acknowledged they would push for plan b, but that the electorate seemed clear in desiring plan a.

While I'm not one for governing by popular opinion, I believe that ignoring the expressed popular opinion of voting - which is how the message is supposed to get through to government - is an abdication of responsibility to govern democratically (and, in this case, in the most vital area of governing).


I don't think officials should necessarily sacrifice their personal good judgment to the will of the people, and I respect McCain and Lieberman for sticking to their guns. But the people have clearly spoken, and it's quite right for politicians whose judgment does not conflict with the will of the people to govern according to the will of the people.


I know it won't happen this way, but the only thing better than our getting out of Iraq within four months would be getting out in three.

[Strangler Lewis]

I don't agree. I believe the knee jerk will of the people should generally be disregarded, just as I would hope my mechanic would disregard my will that my car should fly. Supermarket surveys generally show that most people would unknowingly repeal the Bill of Rights. Further, I don't think this election was a vote for chaos. I think it was an angry reaction to being lied to up and down the line.

[Not Afraid]

Giuliani in '08? (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20061113/ap_on_el_pr/giuliani2008_8)

Hmmmm, that's sort of a nice thought.

[Nephythys]

Damn sight better than McCain.

[Strangler Lewis]

Aw, hell. Let's repeal the two term limit and the prohibition against foreign born presidents. Let Bill run against Arnold. Have one of the debates be devoted solely to sex. Maybe two.

[wendybeth]

I thik he's probably one of the more viable candidates- he could probably attract a lot of Dems with his stance on some of the larger issues.

[Not Afraid]

Didn't he recently have cancer? That would scare away some votes.

[Strangler Lewis]

Could be. Paul Tsongas, who swore his cancer was a thing of the past, would not have lived out his first term. Kerry, McCain and Giuliani have all been treated for cancer. John Edwards's wife is sick, which also could be a distraction.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Damn sight better than McCain.

It will be interesting to see how many other republicans see it that way, being that the guy is pro gun control, pro gay marriage, pro choice, and has admitted to infidelity.

[Alex]

At this point and for at least a couple more terms I don't see it mattering much who is actually president, just what the letter after their name is. If it is the wrong one they will be evil spawn to 49.9% of the population. The level of discourse is just too hate filled.

Personally, I'll never vote for McCain. He's a decent enough guy but he doesn't strike me as sincere, just playing "straight talking" as a political gambit. He'll go where he needs to in order win. Plus, he is just too old. He'd be 72 when he took office, two years older than Reagan, who was laughed at for being too old. One year younger than Bob Dole who faced serious questions about his age in '96.

Guiliani is intresting (and more honestly a "straight talker," in my opinion) but I doubt he could get through primary which is always the problem on both sides killing the more appealing candidates on either side. That said, Guiliani would be a big lightning rod for the viotriol if he's elected and he has shown problems cowing his temper.

How about Guiliani/Rice against Clinton/Obama in '08? (I wonder if all the people who condemned the Bush "dynasty" as a reason not to vote for him will have a similar problem with a Clinton "dynasty."

[€uroMeinke]

I don't think this election was a vote for chaos.

Speak for yourself ;)
@

[Nephythys]

It will be interesting to see how many other republicans see it that way, being that the guy is pro gun control, pro gay marriage, pro choice, and has admitted to infidelity.


No argument there.


He won't get the Nom anyway-I doubt it anyway.

[Nephythys]

By the way, al-Qaida claims to have 12,000 fighters ready for death in Iraq. Once we leave and it takes over, it won't be the end — not by a mile. As al-Qaida said Monday, next it wants to topple Lebanon's democratically elected regime.

So much for the Democrats' notion that only Afghanistan represents "the real war on terror."

So in case you're thinking maybe this new era of appeasement and walking away from our enemies will work, it pretty much looks like the answer is no.

Our enemies, real and potential, seem to think the U.S. is weaker today than it was before the election.

It will be up to us as a nation — and to our newly shifted Congress — to prove them wrong.



link (http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=248314104543342)

Got to be a feather in the cap of dems to be endorsed by terrorists. :rolleyes:

[Nephythys]

Link (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009243)

That was fast. A mere two days after Democrats capture Congress claiming they wouldn't raise taxes, former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin tells them they should do so anyway.



True to form.

By the way, the federal deficit for fiscal 2006 was only 1.9% of GDP, which is lower than all but eight years since 1975. Add in the budget surpluses at the state level, and the overall U.S. fiscal "deficit" is economically trivial. It is all but irrelevant to Mr. Rubin's complaint that the U.S. borrows too much from "foreigners." Those foreigners invest here because of safety and soundness and the expected after-tax return. The quickest way to drive away those investors is to reduce that return by raising taxes.

But but but!! I thought we were BROKE! :rolleyes:

Excellent article.

[sleepyjeff]

The real reason Rubin wants to raise taxes;



...Mr. Rubin's real game here is politics. The Citigroup Inc. executive is part of Hillary Rodham Clinton's braintrust, and he and she would like nothing better than to coax Mr. Bush into raising taxes in the next two years. That would take the tax issue off the table in 2008, while splintering Republicans the way President George H.W. Bush's tax-hike deal with George Mitchell did going into 1992.

[wendybeth]

Aren't you guys glad the Dems are taking over the Congress? Now you'll have lots more to complain about- I mean, they haven't even taken over yet and you are already on a roll!

Someone has to finance this war, btw. Generously sending other people's kids over to serve as cannon fodder isn't going to cut it- you may actually have to underwrite it financially as well. Be interesting to see how many warhawks start backpedaling once this adventure starts hitting their wallets.

[Bornieo: Fully Loaded]

So, should I run for PResident or not?

[wendybeth]

So, should I run for PResident or not?

I don't know.....do you still have the runs? I'm not sure this country is ready for Presidents who like penicillin on their pizza.;):D

[Moonliner]

How about Guiliani/Rice against Clinton/Obama in '08?

What's wrong with a president that gets pissed off from time to time? It's a job that needs an propensity to kick a little ass now and then and if Guiliani's the only one standing between Hillary and the presidency he could also be a womanizing, coke snorting, gay bashing, commie loving, alzheimer's patient and still get my vote.

[Alex]

It depends on how they get pissed off. And Guiliani has a record of getting pissed off in bad ways and for bad reasons (especially when his dictatorial authority over New York was challenged). Don't know if that would be tempered by the office of the president or not.

I'm certainly interested in examining him more, I just have some reservations based on what I picked up as only a faintly casual observer of New York politics. Yes, he was impressive after 9/11, but then for quite a while so was a Bush. Before that, he was more of a mixed bag. If 9/11 hadn't happened I don't think there would have been any serious talk of him for president. That isn't a disqualifier, just something that I think may be telling.

As for Hillary, the only reason I probably will vote against her is that we disagree on many major issues. But I'll have to see who she is up against. I have nothing against her personally.

[€uroMeinke]

It depends on how they get pissed off. And Guiliani has a record of getting pissed off in bad ways and for bad reasons (especially when his dictatorial authority over New York was challenged). Don't know if that would be tempered by the office of the president or not.

Perhaps we should have some sort of dual presidency so we could play good cop bad cop with our adversaries...

"Man, I don't know how much longer I can keep Guiliana from launching a nuclear assualt on your grandmother - he's one f'd up dude, but if you maybe open your own arsenal up to inspection, I might be able to calm him down."

[sleepyjeff]

Aren't you guys glad the Dems are taking over the Congress? Now you'll have lots more to complain about- I mean, they haven't even taken over yet and you are already on a roll!



This is our one silver lining....so much easier to complain then to defend:D

[BarTopDancer]

Aren't you guys glad the Dems are taking over the Congress? Now you'll have lots more to complain about- I mean, they haven't even taken over yet and you are already on a roll!

Someone has to finance this war, btw. Generously sending other people's kids over to serve as cannon fodder isn't going to cut it- you may actually have to underwrite it financially as well. Be interesting to see how many warhawks start backpedaling once this adventure starts hitting their wallets.

You must spread some Mojo around before giving it to wendybeth again.

:snap: :snap:

[sleepyjeff]

How about Guiliani/Rice against Clinton/Obama in '08? (I wonder if all the people who condemned the Bush "dynasty" as a reason not to vote for him will have a similar problem with a Clinton "dynasty."

My problem with Guiliani against Hillary is I fear he might pull out at the last miniute and let Hillary win by default.

It would be interesting to see if Hillary could one up Gore by losing in two home States though...something really only possible if Giuliani were to be the candidate for the Reps.

[Gemini Cricket]

Guiliani - Do we really need another candidate that uses 9/11 to his political advantage? Just the fact that he's running is yet again reminding us about that. Bleh.

[sleepyjeff]

In all fairness to Rudy. He was considered a possible Presidential Candidate before September 11, 2001. Mostly due to his ability to transform a large floundering buruacracy in a short span of time.

[Snowflake]

In all fairness to Rudy. He was considered a possible Presidential Candidate before September 11, 2001. Mostly due to his ability to transform a large floundering buruacracy in a short span of time.

Well, in the current state, it will stretch his abilities to the max, IMO.
How will he do with foreign policy, I wonder given his lack of experience?
Seems to me, Mr. Bush has not done too well in that regard.

[sleepyjeff]

Well if we want a good foriegn policy guy I'd have to reccomend New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson.

If he were to win the Dems nomination I'd vote for him....if his vp choice was not too un-acceptable.

[JWBear]

Well if we want a good foriegn policy guy I'd have to reccomend New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson.

If he were to win the Dems nomination I'd vote for him....if his vp choice was not too un-acceptable.
I forgot about him! He's someone I could get behind.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I forgot about him! He's someone I could get behind.
Didn't know he was your type.

[JWBear]

So... Not.
http://photos.freenewmexican.com/2006/05/31/33363_210x1000.jpg

ETA: Furry cubs with goatees on the otherhand..... ;)

[Strangler Lewis]

Isn't that more a Van Dyke?

[Gn2Dlnd]

Penis Von Lesbian!

[Nephythys]

This euphoria, too, may prove problematic. There is evidence that a majority of Palestinians wish to have a state of their own as quickly as possible, and see outsiders' quest for a single state as a chimera. Nor is there any reason why many Israelis would choose to flee, as Ahmadinejad expects, rather than stay to defend their country.

Also, most Arab states remain committed to the Bush "road map," a fact underlined last week by Saudi Arabia's call for a new peace conference based on the two-state formula.

The mullahs and al Qaeda may soon find out that their celebration of "the end of Bush" was premature. Some Democrats may have promised cut-and-run. But, once in power, the party as a whole may realize (to its horror) that, this time, those from whom Americans run away will come after them.

One more fact for the mullahs and al Qaeda to take into account: Their nemesis, the reviled Bush, is around for another two years, and unlikely to dance to their tune, even if the new Congress demanded it. And two years is a long time in politics


Our Enemies Glee (http://www.nypost.com/seven/11162006/postopinion/opedcolumnists/our_enemies_glee_opedcolumnists_amir_taheri.htm?pa ge=0)

Here's hoping the Dems wise up before too many people catch on that the terrorists prefer them in power.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Our Enemies Glee (http://www.nypost.com/seven/11162006/postopinion/opedcolumnists/our_enemies_glee_opedcolumnists_amir_taheri.htm?pa ge=0)

Here's hoping the Dems wise up before too many people catch on that the terrorists prefer them in power.Who cares what they prefer? My vote isn't affected by what terrorists think.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Or, to put a finer point on it, if Al Quaeda is anything, it's a media-savy organization. Ever consider that maybe they are playing this "Oh yes, we'll be so happy when the Americans leave" card just to encourage us NOT to leave. Without us there, they don't have us as a lightning rod to rally extremists to their cause.

Am I convinced that's what they're doing? No. No more than I'm convinced that they really want us out. We have no way of knowing their real intentions from some guesses based on a few radical sermons and wild speculation.

[Nephythys]

The innate dishonesty of Pelosi (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/16/D8LE9QJO0.html)

"We made history and now we will make progress for the American people," Pelosi told the party caucus moments after her selection.

No- you repeated history- but you would like people to think that the opposing party taking back congress in a President's 6th year in office is new.

:rolleyes:

[Motorboat Cruiser]

We have no way of knowing their real intentions from some guesses based on a few radical sermons and wild speculation.

Also interesting to note that this author works for a public relations firm often hired by neo conservatives to push their agenda. He has had a number of his stories pulled, even (surprisingly) by the New York Post, for being later found to be factually incorrect and misleading.

[JWBear]

The innate dishonesty of Pelosi (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/16/D8LE9QJO0.html)



No- you repeated history- but you would like people to think that the opposing party taking back congress in a President's 6th year in office is new.

:rolleyes:
It's called a rhetorical device, Nephy. It's not meant to be taken literally.

Nice try though!

[wendybeth]

Hey! Bush finally made it to Vietnam! Better late than never.:rolleyes:

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/16/AR2006111601929.html)

The Bush administration has appointed a new chief of family-planning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services who worked at a Christian pregnancy-counseling organization that regards the distribution of contraceptives as "demeaning to women."

Nope, nothing controversial about that choice.

Of course, I doubt I will ever understand how someone who is pro-life could also be anti-contraception. It seems far more demeaning to a woman to say to her "Well, you shouldn't use contraception and you better not consider an abortion" but that is just me, I suppose.

[Prudence]

It's the same mentality as that which insists that strict Islamic laws are for the protection of women.

I'm going to rant now because I'm stuck somewhere doing something I don't want so I'm already peeved.

It is my opinion that certain men in patriarchal societies can't stand the idea that there is this one thing women can do that men can't. In some times and places it was considered dirty, demeaning, and unworthy of male attention. In others it's portrayed as an exalted role, placed on a pedestal, and controlled for our own "protection."

The result is the same: for those particular men (and the stark-raving mad women who support them) women are worth no more or less than that particular biological function. And anything that is perceived to interfere with that function is, by definition, unnatural.

It used to be, in Western society, that women were lesser minds, completely incapable of controlling our animal lusts, bent on continuing Eve's mission of dragging men away from their deserved paradise. Now we're lesser minds who are too innocent to fully understand the evils of the world that would drag us away from our noble, and only, mission of spawning future generations. If we had sex without the direct intent of procreating, well, then we would be tainted by lust, which is the sole prerogative of men.

It frustrates me until I can no longer speak. In a society where the pundits decry the evils of single or gay parenting, wail and moan about the poor boys who will grow up with no proper role model (because girls only need how to bake and clean from mom), the role of fathers is nonetheless marginalized. Fathers don't need paternity leave. They don't need to bond with their children. They don't need to attend t-ball games or go to PTA or help with homework or fix boo-boos or do anything except bring home the paycheck and occasionally administer discipline. The "parenting" is supposed to be the woman's job, the woman's only job, the job women are supposed to spend their whole lives wanting to do - and wanting to do by themselves. If dads are so necessary, why continue the ideal paradigm of dad works long hours to support mom and kids at home? Why not divide the labor so that kids benefit from both parents, not one parent and a wallet? Thild-rearing is called a privilege, but to too many men it's really perceived as a burden they want to ensure they don't inherit.

And lately I've been running into this attitude more and more. I don't know if it's because my recent spate of interviews has made me more sensitive or if it's sun sport or what, but lately any time I leave the safety of this rather enlightened community I run smack dab into a nest of mindless twits who ernestly insist that I'm completely misguided in my ambitions. I only *think* I'm suited to practice law. If I have functional girlie bits, I should concentrate on my "duty" to produce kids for my husband; only defective women pursue careers.

I'm frothing again and now I have to go to a seminar taught by a woman who thinks I have "credibility issues" she can't articulate. This should be fun.

[MouseWife]

And lately I've been running into this attitude more and more. I don't know if it's because my recent spate of interviews has made me more sensitive or if it's sun sport or what, but lately any time I leave the safety of this rather enlightened community I run smack dab into a nest of mindless twits who ernestly insist that I'm completely misguided in my ambitions. I only *think* I'm suited to practice law. If I have functional girlie bits, I should concentrate on my "duty" to produce kids for my husband; only defective women pursue careers.



Wow. What is more scary to me, because I am assuming, you are getting this from 'educated' people in the fields you are pursuing?

And, I have to agree with your comment about the Islamic laws...seen it for years...maybe about 6?

The choices of 'staff'; family friend, former Christian pregnancy counseling agency....

[Not Afraid]

Well, women don't enjoy sex anyways, right? Of course, unless they are a slut.

[Strangler Lewis]

Prudence, if you go to a big firm, the only trait you'll be valued for is your ability to bill time.

Most women aren't raised to be stay at home moms. What this leads to in my neighborhood is a bunch of overeducated women flocking to our underfunded school to volunteer as room mom, do fundraising, or this, that or the other thing. I strongly suspect that most of these women vote against the occasional property tax increase that gets floated to help the school district because god forbid the schools should be properly funded; they'd have nothing to do. There were also like 20 volunteers for the "field trip" to the pumpkin patch, each with two or three kids to shepherd. When I was a kid, the stay at home moms drank, did lunch, had affairs and fired the cleaning lady.

No one should feel guilty about not attending t-ball games because t-ball should not exist in the first place.

[Nephythys]

Speaker Pelosi Tempts Disaster
Nancy Pelosi has managed to severely scar her leadership even before taking up the gavel as the new speaker of the House. First, she played politics with the leadership of the House Intelligence Committee to settle an old score and a new debt. And then she put herself in a lose-lose position by trying to force a badly tarnished ally, Representative John Murtha, on the incoming Democratic Congress as majority leader. The party caucus put a decisive end to that gambit yesterday, giving the No. 2 job to Steny Hoyer, a longtime Pelosi rival.

But Ms. Pelosi’s damage to herself was already done. The well-known shortcomings of Mr. Murtha were broadcast for all to see — from his quid-pro-quo addiction to moneyed lobbyists to the grainy government tape of his involvement in the Abscam scandal a generation ago. The resurrected tape — feasted upon by Pelosi enemies — shows how Mr. Murtha narrowly survived as an unindicted co-conspirator, admittedly tempted but finally rebuffing a bribe offer: “I’m not interested — at this point.”

Mr. Murtha would have been a farcical presence in a leadership promising the cleanest Congress in history. Ms. Pelosi should have been first to realize this, having made such a fiery campaign sword of her vows to end Capitol corruption. Instead, she acted like some old-time precinct boss and lost the first test before her peers.

As incoming speaker, Ms. Pelosi will be dogged by skepticism — from within the party and without — about her political smarts and her ability to deliver a galvanized agenda.

It was a no-brainer for the caucus to end the misguided fight for Mr. Murtha, who belittled the need for reform. Now the pressure is even greater for Speaker-elect Pelosi to recover by leading the House to something actually worth fighting for — starting with credible anticorruption strictures. For this she needs gaffe-wary advisers, among them Mr. Hoyer, who has his own questionable record of flourishing in big-money politics. The new majority — led by a presumably wiser speaker — must realize by now that intramural vendetta is hardly a substitute for productive government.



Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/17/opinion/17fri2.html?ei=5090&en=822f450cc0697b4f&ex=1321419600&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print)

...and to continue building this "clean" congress they want to put Alcee Hastings in charge of the House Intelligence Committee- yeah- really impressive :rolleyes:

Alcee Hastings, Bribery, and the House Intelligence Committee
Will Democrats overlook the next chairman’s past?

By Byron York

Eighteen years ago, Democratic Rep. John Conyers came to believe that Alcee Hastings, at the time a federal judge in Florida, was guilty of impeachable offenses. Hastings stood accused of conspiring to take bribes, and, although it is little remembered today, Conyers served as the chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee that investigated Hastings and unanimously recommended his impeachment. After the House voted 413 to 3 to impeach Hastings, Conyers went on to serve as one of the House impeachment managers who successfully argued before the Senate that Hastings should be convicted and removed from office.

<snip>

After interviewing Dredge several times, the FBI designed a sting operation. An agent, posing as Frank Romano, approached Borders to say that yes, the Romanos were interested in paying off Hastings in return for light treatment. Borders said it could be done. When Borders said that, the undercover agent indicated he wanted to go ahead with the deal, but had some questions: How do I know you really speak for Hastings? Can you arrange some sort of sign to show that Hastings is on board?

Sure, Borders said — how about I have Hastings show up somewhere at the time and place of your choosing? That will show that we’re working together. Borders and the FBI agent, posing as Romano, agreed that Hastings could give the signal by coming to the dining room of the Fontainbleau Hotel at 8:00 P.M. on September 16, 1981. If Hastings did that — all he had to do was show up — then everyone would know he was part of the deal.

When the time came, FBI agents had the hotel under surveillance. And sure enough, Hastings showed up for dinner at 8. (The FBI did extensive investigation to determine whether Hastings might have gone to the Fontainbleau by chance, or whether Borders, who on that night was in Las Vegas watching a prizefight, might have tricked Hastings into it. They found nothing to support that theory.) The signal was sent; Hastings was on board.

<snip>

Hastings did indeed throw out the judgment, and showed particular interest in making sure it was done quickly. “I want the order today,” he told his law clerk, according to testimony in the case. “Sorry for the rush, but the order has to go out today,” he told his courtroom clerk. A short time later, a pickup date for the full payoff was set.

<snip>

The verdict, in the face of what seemed to be solid and convincing evidence, was too much for judges on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Florida. Using the authority they have to discipline fellow judges in some circumstances, they hired John Doar, the legendary Kennedy Justice Department lawyer, to investigate. Doar came back with an extensive report suggesting that Hastings was not only guilty in the bribery case but that he had lied repeatedly under oath at his trial. The report, in turn, led two Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee to advocate impeachment proceedings. The Democratic majority agreed, and Conyers was placed in charge of the subcommittee investigation. While Conyers was extraordinarily protective of Hastings’ rights, he also became convinced that Hastings was guilty. The House passed 17 articles of impeachment.

<snip>

Hastings was convicted on Article 1. Among those voting to convict were Sens. Harry Reid, Edward Kennedy, John Kerry, Jay Rockefeller (who will soon chair the Senate Intelligence Committee), Robert Byrd, Max Baucus, Kent Conrad, Daniel Inouye, and Frank Lautenberg. Hastings was then convicted on Article 2, Article 3, Article 4, and Article 5, which all concerned false statements he made at trial. He was acquitted on Article 6, convicted on Article 7, convicted on Article 8, and convicted on Article 9 — again, more false statements. Any one of those votes would have removed Hastings from office. The Senate decided not to vote on Articles 10 through 15, and Hastings was acquitted on Article 17. (On that one, 60 senators voted to convict, less than the two-thirds required.)

Link (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjhiODMwNDA0ZGEwMGI3ZGExOGFjYmIzNzQzZjhjYjc=)

Now, of course, the question is, should a man who was found guilty of impeachable offenses be entrusted with the nation’s most sensitive intelligence secrets? It’s a question Nancy Pelosi would undoubtedly prefer not to answer. But it’s not going away.

[Not Afraid]

I swear I live on a different planet. The news I listen too is not so parinoid.

[Prudence]

Wow. What is more scary to me, because I am assuming, you are getting this from 'educated' people in the fields you are pursuing?


Well, the educated people don't say it out loud. At least most of them don't. Not when there are women around. They just talk about you not being the right "fit" - because they already have "enough" women.

Actually, sometimes the other women are the worst. Many women do what they can to network and help others. But some buy into the "token woman" idea and have decided that's them - so they try to keep other women out to keep their own spot secure.

But hey - at least I'm white. My law school buddy was questioned at one interview solely on whether she would be a problem in the workplace because what it other people ate pork. She's half Egyptian. Coptic, not that it should be relevant. We had lots of laugh discussing how I was going to use her to take over the world by claiming different people served BLTs at their luncheons, naturally prompting her to blow up their offices.

[sleepyjeff]

I strongly suspect that most of these women vote against the occasional property tax increase that gets floated to help the school district because god forbid the schools should be properly funded; they'd have nothing to do.

The 30 or so women who tend to do all the volunteering at my Sons school not only voted for the last property tax increase; they went door to door for weeks prior to the election campaigning for it....


Antedote; for what it's worth;)

[BarTopDancer]

I swear I live on a different planet. The news I listen too is not so parinoid.

Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get them!


DUH!

[Nephythys]

Excuse me- what is paranoid about posting facts about the history of people in congress?

If Pelosi is going to say they are going to be the cleanest congress in history- then she backs a bribery suspect and an impeached judge for positions of power- that's not paranoia- that's stupidity- on her part.

Not that I care- the more stupid things they do- the better.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/17/opinion/17fri2.html?ei=5090&en=822f450cc0697b4f&ex=1321419600&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print)

...and to continue building this "clean" congress they want to put Alcee Hastings in charge of the House Intelligence Committee- yeah- really impressive :rolleyes:



Oh, like I'm going to believe anything that comes from that commie liberal fishwrap known as the NY Times.


;)

[Snowflake]

Hey! Bush finally made it to Vietnam! Better late than never.:rolleyes:

:D Man, if I could mojo you again, I would! :cheers:

[Strangler Lewis]

The 30 or so women who tend to do all the volunteering at my Sons school not only voted for the last property tax increase; they went door to door for weeks prior to the election campaigning for it....


Antedote; for what it's worth;)

Not so here. The principal supported it apologetically, and we got a mailer from the separate 501(c)(3) that supports the school district. Maybe it was talked about at bingo night, but we don't go to bingo night. Right now our school is being run on a church model with too many people building their social life around penny ante fundraisers. The teachers send out notices, "We need glue sticks," and half the moms run to Staples in their SUVs.

I don't envy our principal. When I was in elementary school in New York, the principal was a beast to the children and a civil servant to the parents. Here, he has to be pastor--everybody's best friend and always with his hand out.

[BarTopDancer]

Excuse me- what is paranoid about posting facts about the history of people in congress?

If Pelosi is going to say they are going to be the cleanest congress in history- then she backs a bribery suspect and an impeached judge for positions of power- that's not paranoia- that's stupidity- on her part.

Not that I care- the more stupid things they do- the better.

Not that you'll see this but...

Most of the links you post are right-wing paranoia rags. Ya, the NY Times has it's flaws but it's been one of the better links you post.

[sleepyjeff]

When I was in elementary school in New York, the principal was a beast to the children and a civil servant to the parents. Here, he has to be pastor--everybody's best friend and always with his hand out.

That is very well put.

[Scrooge McSam]

Not that I care- the more stupid things they do- the better.

Stupid abounds on both sides of the aisle and in the media.

Democrats:
Alcee Hastings? Bad move. Beyond bad... stupid!
Pelosa on Murtha? I can see it. Alliances and all. Murtha was exonerated on Abscam and he did bring Iraq policy to the fore. But he's too far into earmarks. People want that stopped.

Republicans:
Boehner? The guy that hands out the lobbyists' checks is the new majority leader.
Lott? I can't say that name, "minority", and "whip" without chuckling. Mississippi sends our love.

Media:
America just elevated our first woman to a national leadership role. Look for her to be painted as weak. It's already begun.
Newt Gingrich, unanimously elected just like Pelosi, didn't get his choice of majority leader way back when. He got Delay instead. Look at how differently Gingrich and Pelosi are handled.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Not that I care- the more stupid things they do- the better.This once again begs the question...are you seriously advocating party before country? You'd rather the Democrats screw up and make things worse just so they'll lose the next election?

As much as I dislike the politics of the Republican run congress, I always hoped they would NOT do stupid things. I was routinely disappointed, but as I've said many many times, I would have liked nothing more than for Bush and company to prove my assumptions wrong. They rarely have.

[innerSpaceman]

I tried not to read too much into that comment by Nephy. I will give her the benefit of the doubt that she would rather the country not go to hell so that her fave political party could later triumph electorally.


Sometimes, I let my partisanship get too out of hand in comments, but I'd much rather the president and the members of congress stop America from becoming loathed by everyone on the planet (its own citizens included) than prove themselves to be the bozos I take them for.



.

[JWBear]

This once again begs the question...are you seriously advocating party before country?....
That's what it sounded like to me, as well.

I can not fathom being so doggedly loyal to one party - especially to the point of putting party interests ahead of the good of the country. How sad.

[BarTopDancer]

Be nice to America or we'll bring democracy to your country

.

[Nephythys]

I would rather the Dems put the safety and well being of the country before their partisan hatred of Bush- but I know I can only count on one thing- for them to be who they are- and who they are....well.....we're already seeing who they are.

[BarTopDancer]

I would rather the Dems put the safety and well being of the country before their partisan hatred of Bush- but I know I can only count on one thing- for them to be who they are- and who they are....well.....we're already seeing who they are.


Not that you'll see this either...

Much like we hoped that Bush would put the needs of the country infront of his desire to make the entire country a Christian nation or finish what his daddy started. And we all know how that turned out...

[wendybeth]

I would rather the Dems put the safety and well being of the country before their partisan hatred of Bush- but I know I can only count on one thing- for them to be who they are- and who they are....well.....we're already seeing who they are.
Partisan hatred? What would you call this? (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15773983/)



Seems the Dems aren't the only ones disenchanted with Georgie Boy.

[Nephythys]

Hot for martyrdom

Dr. Tawfik Hamid doesn't tell people where he lives. Not the street, not the city, not even the country. It's safer that way. It's only the letters of testimony from some of the highest intelligence officers in the Western world that enable him to move freely.

This medical doctor, author and activist once was a member of Egypt's Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya (Arabic for "the Islamic Group"), a banned terrorist organization.

He was trained under Ayman al-Zawahiri, the bearded jihadi who appears in Bin Laden's videos, telling the world that Islamic violence will stop only once we all become Muslims.

snip
"The deliberate and determined expansion of militant Islam and its attempt to triumph not only in the Islamic world but in Europe and North America. Pure ideology. Muslim terrorists kill and slaughter not because of what they experience but because of what they believe."

Hamid drank in the message of Jihadism while at medical school in Cairo, and devoted himself to the cause.

His group began meeting in a small room. Then a larger one. Then a Mosque reserved for followers of al-Zawahiri.

By the time Hamid left the movement, its members were intimidating other students who were unsympathetic.

snip
"The first thing you have to understand is that it has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with poverty or lack of education," he says.

"I was from a middle-class family and my parents were not religious. Hardly anyone in the movement at university came from a background that was different from mine.

"I've heard this poverty nonsense time and time again from Western apologists for Islam, most of them not Muslim by the way.

There are millions of passive supporters of terror who may be poor and needy but most of those who do the killing are wealthy, privileged, educated and free.

If it were about poverty, ask yourself why it is middle-class Muslims -- and never poor Christians -- who become suicide bombers in Palestine."

His analysis is fascinating.

Muslim fundamentalists believe, he insists, that Saudi Arabia's petroleum-based wealth is a divine gift, and that Saudi influence is sanctioned by Allah.

Thus the extreme brand of Sunni Islam that spread from the Kingdom to the rest of the Islamic world is regarded not merely as one interpretation of the religion but the only genuine interpretation.

The expansion of violent and regressive Islam, he continues, began in the late 1970s, and can be traced precisely to the growing financial clout of Saudi Arabia.

"We're not talking about a fringe cult here," he tells me. "Salafist [fundamentalist] Islam is the dominant version of the religion and is taught in almost every Islamic university in the world.

It is puritanical, extreme and does, yes, mean that women can be beaten, apostates killed and Jews called pigs and monkeys."

He leans back, takes a deep breath and moves to another area, one that he says is far too seldom discussed: "North Americans are too squeamish about discussing the obvious sexual dynamic behind suicide bombings.

If they understood contemporary Islamic society, they would understand the sheer sexual tension of Sunni Muslim men.

Look at the figures for suicide bombings and see how few are from the Shiite world.

Terrorism and violence yes, but not suicide. The overwhelming majority are from Sunnis.


Now within the Shiite world there are what is known as temporary marriages, lasting anywhere from an hour to 95 years. It enables men to release their sexual frustrations.


"Islam condemns extra-marital sex as well as masturbation, which is also taught in the Christian tradition.

But Islam also tells of unlimited sexual ecstasy in paradise with beautiful virgins for the martyr who gives his life for the faith.

Don't for a moment underestimate this blinding passion or its influence on those who accept fundamentalism."

A pause. "I know. I was one who accepted it."

This partial explanation is shocking more for its banality than its horror. Mass murder provoked partly by simple lust.

But it cannot be denied that letters written by suicide bombers frequently dwell on waiting virgins and sexual gratification.

"The sexual aspect is, of course, just one part of this. But I can tell you what it is not about. Not about Israel, not about Iraq, not about Afghanistan. They are mere excuses. Algerian Muslim fundamentalists murdered 150,000 other Algerian Muslims, sometimes slitting the throats of children in front of their parents. Are you seriously telling me that this was because of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians or American foreign policy?"

He's exasperated now, visibly angry at what he sees as a willful Western foolishness. "Stop asking what you have done wrong. Stop it!

They're slaughtering you like sheep and you still look within. You criticize your history, your institutions, your churches. Why can't you realize that it has nothing to do with what you have done but with what they want." Then he leaves -- for where, he cannot say. A voice that is silenced in its homeland and too often ignored by those who prefer convenient revision to disturbing truth. The tragedy is that Tawfik Hamid is almost used to it.

Link (http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=eb74b136-3729-42a1-821b-77366f7af920)

[Nephythys]

Beheaded if you don't pray (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,234817,00.html)

And people bitch about Christians??? :rolleyes:

[Not Afraid]

Beheaded if you don't pray (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,234817,00.html)

And people bitch about Christians??? :rolleyes:

Yes, there are many wrongs in this world and Christians are not the only ones to participate in these wrongs. However, they still deserve to be bitched about.

[Nephythys]

:rolleyes: The day Christians start beheading people for not saying grace I might buy that line.

[CoasterMatt]

I wouldn't behead somebody for not praying, but if one more stroller gets slammed into me at Disneyland, I just might give somebody a tracheotomy with the edge of my AP :evil:

[€uroMeinke]

:rolleyes: The day Christians start beheading people for not saying grace I might buy that line.

Really, that's be some sort of Spanish Inquisition, and nobody expects...

[Nephythys]

Sorry- but the date of the article is in 2006. Last I checked there is NO current comparison in any modern religion.

[Not Afraid]

OK, so if there is someone out there that is a worse offender than you are, then that makes you clean.

Got it.

[€uroMeinke]

Sorry- but the date of the article is in 2006. Last I checked there is NO current comparison in any modern religion.

I don't know, I'm not sure what you want to say by posting the article. Do you think it speaks for all Islam? Do you think a "Holy War" is inevitable. Do you think we need a final solution and start beheading Muslim's in protest?

People do stupid things in the name of relgion - to me this is another example of that. I'm not sure what your take is - other than you seem to just want to attack whatever someone else's response might be.

What do you think about the articles you posted?

[Nephythys]

OK, so if there is someone out there that is a worse offender than you are, then that makes you clean.

Got it.


If the best you can do is twist the words :rolleyes:

[Not Afraid]

Yeah, that's about the best I can do that that sort of illogical BS.

[JWBear]

If the best you can do is twist the words :rolleyes:
If more than one person has the same (or similar) interpretation of what you say, then perhaps it is what you are saying and not the interpretation.

This is not the first time you’ve used the acts of one group to try and excuse, or deflect scrutiny from, the acts of another. If I were to commit burglary, and get caught, I seriously doubt that the judge would be lenient just because someone else has committed murder.

[Strangler Lewis]

Sorry- but the date of the article is in 2006. Last I checked there is NO current comparison in any modern religion.

The question is not what any religion does, it's what any society does to maintain order. Most countries with capital punishment kill people for what appears to be trivia in order to maintain order. China is a prime example.

We kill people for supposedly serious reasons. However, some states are now expanding the death penalty beyond murder cases to serial child molesting. I have no doubt that if you phrased your supermarket survey correctly, you'd find support for greater expansion of the death penalty, just as you find support for repealing much of the Bill of Rights.

Further, since America is not currently a Christian theocracy, it makes no sense to predict what would happen in such a country. One need only look at the English-only movement to have one's confidence shaken. One hears about this or that community trying to get non-English books out of their libraries and trying to punish non-English usage.

Given the religious rights attempt to make this a Christian country, and the not entirely implausible view that the First Amendment only prohibits a national church, not state churches, it is not inconceivable that we could live in a state with an official state church. I would be terrified to live in such a place at least shortly after its inception when the call for abuses of newly acquired power would be greatest. Maybe there would just be fines and imprisonment rather than beheadings, but that would be a distinction attributable to how cheap life is in poor societies. It would not change the fact that the minister running the state with a gun and the imam running the Somali village with a gun would have been cut from the same cloth.

[Alex]

I bitch about Christians all of the time. I bitch about a lot of things all of the time.

To bitch about them is not to inherently consider them as bad or worse than other things I bitch about.

To complain about both Islamic and Christian fundamentalism is not to say that they are equally bad (overall, right now, Islamic fundamentalism is a worse thing than Christian fundamentalism), that they are bad in the same way (for the practice of civic government in America, Christian fundamentalism is currently a far worse thing than Islalmic fundamentalism), or that they are equally important (perhaps the continued existence of the McRib is of more importance than either).

[JWBear]

....(perhaps the continued existence of the McRib is of more importance than either).

Mmmmmm.... McRib.........

[Alex]

I can't say as I've ever had a McRib but I find the very concept of the thing repugnant at a very deep level of my corporeal soul.

[CoasterMatt]

It takes a certain amount of faith to eat a McRib...

[SacTown Chronic]

And people bitch about Christians??? :rolleyes:Neph, what do you think of Congressman-elect Keith Ellison's desire to be sworn into office with the Qur'an?

[Alex]

You didn't ask me, but I'll share my view:

I think it is ridiculous.


(But I think it is ridiculous to use a Bible as well. If history has shown us anything it is that sacred texts hold no power in preventing people from lying or behaving inappropriately. They might as well use a magic rock imbued with the power of Ramba to smite you with boils should you misbehave).

[€uroMeinke]

They might as well use a magic rock imbued with the power of Ramba to smite you with boils should you misbehave).

Cool! - Where can I get one of these?

[Alex]

I have hundreds of them along the walkway out in front of our apartment. Give me your address and I'll send you one.


No...wait. I just did the magical incantation in my head so all of the rocks in front of your house are now properly imbued. Enjoy the magic and don't misbehave.

[SacTown Chronic]

(But I think it is ridiculous to use a Bible as well. If history has shown us anything it is that sacred texts hold no power in preventing people from lying or behaving inappropriately. They might as well use a magic rock imbued with the power of Ramba to smite you with boils should you misbehave).I couldn't agree more.


My personal preference would be to be sworn in using a Mad magazine.

[Nephythys]

I actually had read that he would not be- nor do they swear in on the Bible. New House members are sworn in enmasse and pictures are taken after the fact with the Bible or other book as it were.

So if you were expecting some kind of outrage from me- you thought wrong.

[Nephythys]

Yeah, that's about the best I can do that that sort of illogical BS.

You make shyt up and say my comment was BS? :rolleyes:

[Ghoulish Delight]

I actually had read that he would not be- nor do they swear in on the Bible. New House members are sworn in enmasse and pictures are taken after the fact with the Bible or other book as it were.Some members are sworn in this way, others are sworn in during private sessions where they do swear on the bible. It's their choice.

Prager's a f*cking idiot.

[Nephythys]

Some members are sworn in this way, others are sworn in during private sessions where they do swear on the bible. It's their choice.

Prager's a f*cking idiot.

ah-

I still had heard that he had chosen to not swear in using the Koran (sp?)- had that changed?

I doubt it makes much difference.

[Ghoulish Delight]

ah-

I still had heard that he had chosen to not swear in using the Koran (sp?)- had that changed?Do you have a source? According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Ellison%2C_Dennis_Prager%2C_and_the_Oath_on_ the_Quran#Ellison_and_Staff_Response) :

"In a phone interview with the Minnesota Monitor, Ellison said "that he’s not changing his mind about the sacred text he’s swearing on. 'The Constitution guarantees for everyone to take the oath of office on whichever book they prefer. And that’s what the freedom of religion is all about.'" Ellison was also quoted in another source saying "Using the Quran, really to me, is an affirmation of the religious freedom and diversity that the constitution stands for."

[SacTown Chronic]

I actually had read that he would not be- nor do they swear in on the Bible. New House members are sworn in enmasse and pictures are taken after the fact with the Bible or other book as it were.It's my understanding that there is a public swearing in ceremony with all members and no bibles and then private individual ceremonies that involve an oath and the bible.


So if you were expecting some kind of outrage from me- you thought wrong.I didn't know what your opinion would be...that's why I asked.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

This (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2006/12/05/a_response_to_my_many_critics_-_and_a_solution) is Prager's response to all the flack, for anyone interested in reading it. The link was emailed to me after I wrote to him, voicing my displeasure with his earlier comments.

A selected quote from the rather long response:

You don't have to be Christian to acknowledge that the Bible is the source of America's values. Virtually every founder of this country knew that and acknowledged it. The argument that founders such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were deists, even if accurate (it is greatly exaggerated), makes my point, not my opponents'. The founders who were not believing Christians venerated the Bible as the source of America's values just as much as practicing Christians did.

[Ghoulish Delight]

He claims he isn't racist...but then he makes these wonderfully contradictory statements:

A tiny number of Jews have used only the Old Testament. As a religious Jew, I of course understand their decision, but I disagree with it.

Keith Ellison is ending that powerful tradition, and it is he who has called the public's attention to his doing so.

So, Jews have brought the Tanakh (old testament) in the past, but it's Ellison who is ending the tradition and destroying the fabric of our society? That says it all, to me, Mr. Prager. This isn't about the new testament being the foundation of our country, it's about Ellison being a dirty Muslim. You give those Jews who have done essentially the exact same thing a pass, then put the blame for your perceived horrific injustice squarely on this one Muslim. Ugly, ugly stuff.

[Strangler Lewis]

I think this makes my earlier point. From the protest that you're only upholding tradition (in the public square) it's a small descent to try to make that traditional expression a law.

[Gemini Cricket]

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b268/braddoc310/ldb061207.gif

[mousepod]

If I had to be sworn in for public office (not that I'm running), I'd want to swear on the Constitution. Has anyone requested this?

[Nephythys]

Do you have a source? According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Ellison%2C_Dennis_Prager%2C_and_the_Oath_on_ the_Quran#Ellison_and_Staff_Response) :

"In a phone interview with the Minnesota Monitor, Ellison said "that he’s not changing his mind about the sacred text he’s swearing on. 'The Constitution guarantees for everyone to take the oath of office on whichever book they prefer. And that’s what the freedom of religion is all about.'" Ellison was also quoted in another source saying "Using the Quran, really to me, is an affirmation of the religious freedom and diversity that the constitution stands for."

Let me look- it was an article shortly after the election.

[Nephythys]

Apologies- the article was a day or two after the election and I can no longer find it. I know I saw it- but it was either incorrect or something changed.

I have one more place to look.

[Nephythys]

Sorry- no go. I have only my memory of the article.

Though after running a Google search I see alot of anger over this koran thing.

[Alex]

If I had to be sworn in for public office (not that I'm running), I'd want to swear on the Constitution. Has anyone requested this?

I believe the idea has come up before. Though I find it equally ridiculous. If it is necessary that they make additional commitments then write them down and have the person sign them and then make violation of that contract a specific criminal offense. Oaths of office are already vague to the point of uselessness and hold no real value.

[Prudence]

Some people find value in social ritual. As far as I can tell, the private ceremonies are more a personal photo-op than anything else. If I were being sworn in, I'd like my share of the pomp and circumstance. But, of course, I'm quite ridiculous.

[Alex]

I'm fine with the social ritual aspect, but before it is worthwhile to get upset about what is under their hand while saying something I would think it relevant that what they are saying have some importance.

I, Loyal Citizen of the Republic, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.

Now, the sentiments expressed are certainly worthy, but they actions they imply are entirely subjective. By all means stand up and shout it to the world but since it is essentially non-negatable (everybody's definition of enemy, threat, attack, defense, etc. is different) but it has the same value to other people regardless of what is under your hand while saying it. It isn't like god has shown itself to be inclined towards immediately smiting anybody who makes a false oath on the bible while Allah is lax in this department.

If one feels that putting a hand on a bible will making an oath strenthens the oath, then by all means do so. To me the oath is no stronger because of it and I'm saddened that it takes a fear of magical retribution to do what one was elected to do.

I'm all for pomp and circumstance. Just not the silliness of getting hepped up about deviations.

[Nephythys]

Do courts still use a Bible for swearing in?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Do courts still use a Bible for swearing in?
The rules vary state-by-state. I believe the most common setup is the choice of "the bible or no sacred text at all," but I don't have anything to support that.

[Bornieo: Fully Loaded]

So, sufice to say that any oath by the politicians means nothing. IMHO it's true. You can liken it to Vows at weddings when months later there's a divorce or cheating, etc. Having a bible, Mad Magazine or having it in a church or officiated by some child molestor doesn't mean anything until it's backed up with action, truth and some kind of character.

IMHO

[mousepod]

I know that the last time I did jury duty, we raised our right hands and swore - no bible. I'm not sure about the witnesses, though. I guess I could stand up and walk into the office next to mine (I'm in a jail) and ask, but I'm just too lazy right now...

[Alex]

While some jurisdictions may still offer the use of a bible for swearing in (I just asked a PD lawyer friend of mine and she says she's never been in a courtroom that ever uses a bible or any other prop) there is no jurisdiction where it would be required to swear on a bible and the option to simply affirm to tell the truth is the standard so far as I know.

[Strangler Lewis]

I believe (but am not positive) that the "or afffirm" option was not originally designed as an accommodation to non-believers, but rather as an accommodation to those whose religious beliefs prohibit the taking of oaths.

[Alex]

The Constitution repeatedly refers to "oath or affirmation" so I guess it goes back to English common law.

[Strangler Lewis]

And the final word on the subject. Or at least the faithful word.

http://www.thefaithfulword.org/oaths.html

[Not Afraid]

It seems silly to require a non believer to swear on a bible. That would be akin to me swearing on Barney.

[Gemini Cricket]

I would love to be sworn into office with my hand on a Mad Magazine. That would be so funny.
:D

[Not Afraid]

I've been without TV, radio and computer for the bulk of the last week. My knowledge that something new happened this morning came in the form of 3 separate people (unknown to one another) saying "Can the President look any dumber?"

[Alex]

I'm not seeing anything at CNN. What did Bush do to look stupid?

[Not Afraid]

These similar comments were all in response to the Iraq report. Not having read it, I'm not quite sure how he looks so dumb from my own POV.

[Alex]

Ah. When you said "something new happened this morning" I thought you meant that something new had happened this morning.