Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

srmeaney · 2005-04-22 03:41:42

I hear that the USA is rejecting foreign flights that pass through its airspace if it is opposed to certain passengers being onboard. I also see that Herr Docktor Rice is advocating regieme change in another European Country because they find the election result offensive.

Perhaps The world would be a better place if all Americans were returned home to deal with their own problems. They obviously cant be trusted with international travel.

Grypd · 2005-04-22 04:22:34

Now this is http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_5286.shtml]bizarre

And here was me thinking the only privacy he was going to get was that of a lovely spartan prison cell. For a long long time. Very private.

BWhite · 2005-04-22 13:59:48

George Bush is a http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca … ]Chicagoan

Too bad he lost the city 82% - 18% or something like that.

Cobra Commander · 2005-04-23 08:11:49

George Bush is a Chicagoan
Too bad he lost the city 82% - 18% or something like that.

Which reminds of this amusing anecdote. At the last Mars Society conference (in Chicago) I went with three others. One also attended the conference while the other two engaged in drunken debauchery throughout the day with some local acquaintances. At one point they were walking through the city, no doubt on their way to some unsavory establishment, and were approached by some Democrat Party canvassers trying to convince people to vote Kerry. In Chicago. Preaching to the choir.

They approach these two and ask "Are you planning to vote For John Kerry for President" or something to that effect, to which one of my comrades replied (straight-faced by all accounts) "Yeah, he was great in Pet Detective!"

:laugh:

Zealots have no sense of humor.

srmeaney · 2005-04-23 08:59:17

In a September 24, 2003 declassified “Secret” FBI report obtained by Judicial Watch, the FBI invoked Exemption 6 under FOIA law on behalf of bin Laden, which permits the government to withhold all information about U.S. persons in “personnel and medical files and similar files” when the disclosure of such information “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Does this mean they have made him a citizen so they dont have to tell anyone they have him. That kind of puts a whole new spin on American Citizenship. Now everyone is a hostage of the US government.

BWhite · 2005-04-27 05:32:56

Bush is unhappy that the judicial nomination of Griffin is being filibustered.

Griffin's father http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_ne … f.html]led a filibuster against appointing Abe Fortas to the Supreme Court.

Pot, meet kettle.

= = =

Seven years ago the GOP filibustered an ambassador because he was gay:

The Family Research Council`s senior writer, Steven Schwartz, appeared on National Public Radio at the time and explained the value, even the necessity, of the filibuster.
"The Senate," he said, "is not a majoritarian institution, like the House of Representatives is. It is a deliberative body, and it`s got a number of checks and balances built into our government. The filibuster is one of those checks in which a majority cannot just sheerly force its will, even if they have a majority of votes in some cases. That`s why there are things like filibusters, and other things that give minorities in the Senate some power to slow things up, to hold things up, and let things be aired properly."

Frist is pulling an unprincipled power play - - pure and simple.

= = =

Bush is scheduled to speak at the Calvin College graduation. A religious institution sympathetic to his politics, you might think.

But perhaps not:

Kate Bowman, the student activities coordinator at the college, e-mailed to say: "Many of us do not believe that Calvin's graduation ceremony is the proper forum for a partisan political address, particularly from such a divisive and controversial figure. . . .
"Many of us believe that his actions since taking office contradict the teachings of the Gospel, and though we love President Bush as our brother as we are called to love all (even our enemies), we profoundly disagree with his appeals to Christianity to support his own political aims."
Bowman reports: "There is a lively and thoughtful discussion happening on our in-house faculty listserv at the moment around the issue of Bush's visit. Currently the hot topic is how protest should be approached at this event. People want to be respectful without appearing to give a stamp of approval to the actions of the administration."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … .html]WaPo link

Edited By BWhite on 1114602522

Cobra Commander · 2005-04-27 06:02:27

Okay. . . so are you saying that because a Republican was involved in a week-long fake-fillibuster in the 1960's over conflict of interest issues with a sitting justice of the Supreme Court nominated for Chief Justice who had no majority support it justifies Democrats staging multiple fake-fillibusters over the span of years against multiple nominees to multiple courts for the simple reason that they disagree with their refusal to institutionalize Leftist dogma?

Hell, if that's the standard then I'm perfectly justified in staging a coup. Afterall, my taxes are too high and that's all it really took before.

Reaching dude. Reaching.

What this is really about is the Democrats trying to retain power even they they've been voted out and the Republicans so used to being in the minority they can't help but act like it. If we're going to let the Party that loses elections dictate what's the point?

BWhite · 2005-04-27 06:05:36

The Family Research Council`s senior writer, Steven Schwartz, appeared on National Public Radio at the time and explained the value, even the necessity, of the filibuster.

"The Senate," he said, "is not a majoritarian institution, like the House of Representatives is. It is a deliberative body, and it`s got a number of checks and balances built into our government. The filibuster is one of those checks in which a majority cannot just sheerly force its will, even if they have a majority of votes in some cases. That`s why there are things like filibusters, and other things that give minorities in the Senate some power to slow things up, to hold things up, and let things be aired properly."

See link above.

Edited By BWhite on 1114603558

Cobra Commander · 2005-04-27 06:17:03

Yes, Republcans who currently oppose the fillibuster have in the past supported it. Further, Democrats who currently enact the fillibuster have in the past condemned it. Harry Reid himself is on record as trashing it.

Point being, taking a partisan side on this is willingly allowing oneself to be manipulated by the blithering asshats that have been screwing us over for years.

Fact is, the fillibuster is a way for the minority party to disrupt things. It's meant for legislation, but then we get to the real point. Democrats have a tendency to bypass legislating in favor of getting their way through the courts. The distinction between a law and a judge to dictate law is lost on many.

For example, want to know why abortion is such a hot-button issue in this country? Because it never had a real chance with the people, the courts just dictated it. Voters don't like that.

So, where do we draw that line between majority rule and minority rights? Hint: If your answer depends on who the minority is, it shouldn't be your call.

But hey, don't listen to the fascist, I wouldn't want to shatter any illusions about "one man, one vote" or anything.
:;):

Cobra Commander · 2005-04-27 06:40:14

While we're on the subject of fillibustering, I've got a compromise proposal. The minority Party can fillibuster legislation, appointees, anything they want with one condition. They have to actually fillibuster, none of this cloture vote stuff. If you want to hold it up, go for it. Stand at the podium and jibber-jabber about nothing until the opposition can take it no more. Be like Strom Thurmond, now that was a fillibuster. Want to keep debate open? Keep debating, even if it's absurd nonsense. What we have now isn't a fillibuster, it's a lazy-man's obstruction.

Surely if our elected representatives feel so strongly about an issue they'd be willing to spend a night or two holding their ground on the Senate floor?

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1114605652

Palomar · 2005-04-27 20:50:28

*I have a question.

Tonight, on ABC Nightly News: The crown prince of Saudi Arabia visiting Pres. Bush. They're holding hands.

I've seen a photo of this (a visit years ago in Saudi Arabia) before: Holding hands.

What is up with that? ??? Is it a cultural thing with the Saudis?

--Cindy

Grypd · 2005-04-28 04:35:50

In Saudi and actually most arab states the area of personal space is a lot smaller than we in the west are comfortable with. And holding hands is commen with men there as it is a pure sign of friendship. Unlike us in the west who are of the belief it is a sexual connotation in Arabia it is a sign of trust and for the people of Saudi it will be increasing there confidence in any deal made.

Hope that helps

Palomar · 2005-04-28 05:23:15

In Saudi and actually most arab states the area of personal space is a lot smaller than we in the west are comfortable with. And holding hands is commen with men there as it is a pure sign of friendship. Unlike us in the west who are of the belief it is a sexual connotation in Arabia it is a sign of trust and for the people of Saudi it will be increasing there confidence in any deal made.
Hope that helps

*Yes it does, thank you Grypd.

I didn't figure it had any sexual overtones. I thought perhaps it was either Saudi cultural or might be indicative of some sinister alliance ala a secret brotherhood.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2005-04-28 09:27:05

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … ed]Apology for grenade attack

*Yeah, I'll say you had "other problems." If your religious sentiments interfered with the carrying out your duties, you should have requested a discharge from the armed services. Duh.

--Cindy

DonPanic · 2005-04-29 04:13:04

LO

If your religious sentiments interfered with the carrying out your duties, you should have requested a discharge from the armed services.

No, the Army instructors just missed their lobotomisation work on the soldiers' brains. (if any brain left)
As we say in France,
"why imbeciles are dressed with uniforms ?"
-Up to recognize them better...

Palomar · 2005-04-29 09:09:03

LO
If your religious sentiments interfered with the carrying out your duties, you should have requested a discharge from the armed services.
No, the Army instructors just missed their lobotomisation work on the soldiers' brains. (if any brain left)
As we say in France,
"why imbeciles are dressed with uniforms ?"
-Up to recognize them better...

*Hi DonPanic. You do have a point: Senior officers and others around this soldier should have noticed something amiss/disturbing about his demeanor and behavior, then should have attempted to deal with it (including discharge if necessary). But there are so many soldiers, so many distractions, and I'm unfamiliar with the culture of the armed forces, i.e. if "ratting on" a fellow soldier (who might seem hostile or antisocial or sinister or whatever) is discouraged or welcomed. BTW, I noticed in another article that this soldier was given the death sentence yesterday.

-*-

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u … 1]Internet doomsdayers and the new Pope

Thought I'd rather place that article here than in the "Apropos of Nothing" thread.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-04-29 09:25:18

Internet doomsdayers and the new Pope
Thought I'd rather place that article here than in the "Apropos of Nothing" thread.

Yep, one Pope to go.

Interestingly the timetable could coinicde with the end of the Age of the Fifth Sun on the Mayan calendar, in December of 2012 If I recall correctly.

Whatever the case, if the apocalypse is coming at least I'll be young enough to enjoy it. I mean, if you can't ride around in pickup trucks with shotguns while fighting bad guys what's the point? :;):

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1114790369

BWhite · 2005-04-29 10:55:46

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/co … 0.html]New data for the wingnuts to ignore. :;):

srmeaney · 2005-04-29 10:57:40

Yep, one Pope to go.

Only if Catholics dont get to vote them in directly (majority decision). The idea of a church that spouts pro European is out of step with a future where seventy five percent of Catholics are not European.

Cobra Commander · 2005-04-29 11:12:12

New data for the wingnuts to ignore.

Interesting findings. Now here's the thing:

The figures corresponds well with the energy imbalance predicted by computer modelling of climate change. "There can no longer be genuine doubt that human-made gases are the dominant cause of observed warming," said Dr Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies at Columbia University's Earth Institute.

Only there is "genuine doubt that human-made gases are the dominant cause of observed warming" and this does nothing to strengthen that connection.

Many of us who Bill so eloquently terms "wing nuts" (ignoring the other wing) aren't saying that the climate isn't changing, clearly all sorts of things are changing as they always have. But if we really want to be intellectualy honest, really want to be scientific about this, we need to realise that the planet's climate is far more complex than a simple man spew filth, planet get warm mechanism.

All the global warming arguments assume that we must be directly responsible for any change without producing any conclusive evidence to that effect and when anyone questions that assertion they are accused of ignoring the observed change itself. It would be insanity if so many weren't afflicted.

Palomar · 2005-04-29 13:53:43

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050429/ap_ … nelson]How ironic

*...considering "On the Road Again" is one of his biggest hits.

The politicians who turned down this proposal sure are prissy and self-righteous.

On a different note, Texas has the highest rate of spousal abuse/beatings in the nation. I wonder what those two politicians are doing about that.

--Cindy

srmeaney · 2005-04-29 14:03:23

Then I cant possibly suggest that you (in a spousaly abbused situation) drop a quilt on the bed and after He passes out drunk on the quilt, sew him up in it, drag him out to the kerb and beat him with a stick until the cops come.

DonPanic · 2005-04-29 14:13:23

LO

But if we really want to be intellectualy honest, really want to be scientific about this, we need to realise that the planet's climate is far more complex than a simple man spew filth, planet get warm mechanism.

Sorry, but this side of Atlantic, we piss of laughter when ordinary people start giving lessons of scientific attitude to scientists.

BWhite · 2005-04-29 14:48:57

LO
But if we really want to be intellectualy honest, really want to be scientific about this, we need to realise that the planet's climate is far more complex than a simple man spew filth, planet get warm mechanism.
Sorry, but this side of Atlantic, we piss of laughter when ordinary people start giving lessons of scientific attitude to scientists.

:up:

Palomar · 2005-04-29 16:10:13

Sorry, but this side of Atlantic, we piss of laughter when ordinary people start giving lessons of scientific attitude to scientists.

*Come now, DonPanic. You've made a collectivist statement.

No one on your side of the Atlantic dares to "give lessons of scientific attitude to scientists" -- ? (Not that I agree that -is- what the person you addressed was doing).

I'm not a scientist. Perhaps occasionally I make similar comments, or comments which might be construed that way. I do feel some of my thinking is scientific and I'm not reluctant to express an opinion.

::shrug::

--Cindy

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2005-04-22 03:41:42

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#77 2005-04-22 04:22:34

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#78 2005-04-22 13:59:48

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#79 2005-04-23 08:11:49

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#80 2005-04-23 08:59:17

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#81 2005-04-27 05:32:56

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#82 2005-04-27 06:02:27

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#83 2005-04-27 06:05:36

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#84 2005-04-27 06:17:03

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#85 2005-04-27 06:40:14

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#86 2005-04-27 20:50:28

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#87 2005-04-28 04:35:50

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#88 2005-04-28 05:23:15

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#89 2005-04-28 09:27:05

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#90 2005-04-29 04:13:04

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#91 2005-04-29 09:09:03

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#92 2005-04-29 09:25:18

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#93 2005-04-29 10:55:46

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#94 2005-04-29 10:57:40

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#95 2005-04-29 11:12:12

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#96 2005-04-29 13:53:43

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#97 2005-04-29 14:03:23

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#98 2005-04-29 14:13:23

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#99 2005-04-29 14:48:57

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#100 2005-04-29 16:10:13

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

Board footer