I can’t help but notice a couple of real-world parallels to stuff that was in “West Wing.”
WEST WING WORLD: In the flashback sequences where Bartlett was running for the presidency, his (soon to be fired) advisors kept urging him to refer to “my opponent.” The reasoning was, Why keep mentioning the name of the guy he’s running against? Why give him the publicity? Bartlett rejected the advice, maintaining that it would make it seem as if he couldn’t remember the guy’s name. That it would make him look “dotty.”
REAL WORLD: Bush constantly refers to Kerry as “my opponent” rather than by name. Either he doesn’t care if it makes him look dotty, doesn’t want to give Kerry additional publicity, or he really can’t remember Kerry’s name.
WEST WING WORLD: Bartlett’s second term opponent, the Bush-esque Governor Ritchie, wanted to minimize the number of debates. Bartlett wanted anywhere from three to five, Ritchie wanted no more than two (and eventually got it down to one).
REAL WORLD: Where Kerry wants as many debates as possible, with a minimum of three, the Ritchie-esque Bush wants no more than two, and technically hasn’t agreed to any. Whether they get it down to one has yet to be seen.
PAD
• 
No, he would have been asked to make it up by his superior.
No big deal!
“Just out of curiosity, PAD, are there like any liberal ideas you disagree with?”
I have taken issue with liberal ideas and the conduct of the Democratic party on any number of occasions on this blog. As opposed to Conservatives who, by all appearances, move in perfect lockstep and never display the slightest doubt or concern.
I think some of the most aggressive censors are liberals. I know of ostensibly liberal colleges where the liberal students creative byzantine codes of conduct designed to make everyone “sensitive” to each others feelings, when in fact they’re little more than elaborate endeavors to control speech and thought. I think most of the concepts that led to political correctness came from liberal thinking.
And if there is one great failure in the liberal philosophy, it is the cowardly away that we roll over for Conservatives, allowing them to control all discourse. Why are conservatives “pro-life” while we’re “pro-choice?” Why aren’t they referred to as “anti-choice” instead, instead of implying that liberals don’t give a dámņ about life? Why are conservatives allowed to set the most extreme interpretations of any situation and ascribe the worst end to us? “What, you don’t think we should have attacked Iraq? So you’re in favor of Saddam Hussein killing people!” And liberals just accept that it’s our lot to be constantly on the defensive. Only recently is that starting to change.
When Kerry loses–and he will lose, because I said months ago that unless he clearly distinguishes himself on Iraq from Bush, voters will keep Bush, and he’s failed to do so and that’s what’s gonna kill him–I think liberals should spend the next four years reclaiming the word “liberal.” Shake it loose of all the crap, the lies, the distortions, the BS that conservatives have attached to it so that liberals don’t have to be ashamed of being liberal. Reclaim it the same way that gays reclaimed “queer.” Remind Americans that if conservative thinking had always controlled this country, there wouldn’t BE this country.
PAD
I have never seen or heard a liberal refer to “pro-life” but rather they use the phrase “anti-abortion”. I can’t think of many times when liberals ever refer to conservatives as “pro-” anything, they like to shoehorn us as the “anti-” group, the group against everything. Conservatives are the ones that are usually unfairly labeled.
But, most likely, both of us are speaking from biased viewpoints.
Your party supports the killing of an unborn life and you don’t like the idea of being labed killers?
Perhaps a mass murderer should be labled a mass choice-maker.
As far as the typewriter goes, I have a Brother typewriter from the early 80s…I guess anything I type on it now must be from then?
“I have taken issue with liberal ideas and the conduct of the Democratic party on any number of occasions on this blog. As opposed to Conservatives who, by all appearances, move in perfect lockstep and never display the slightest doubt or concern.”
Funny, I remember Tim asking me if there was anything I disagreed with Bush on and my giving a whole list. In fact there is are many conservatives who are so fed up with Bush’s fiscal irresponsibility that they will just sit this election out (maybe not enough of them to make a difference for Kerry though).
Still, you say “by all appearances” which may well be true. If you studiously avoid listening to voices from the other side (except those who fit the stereotype desired) you can pretty much make any prejudice appear valid.
“Why are conservatives “pro-life” while we’re “pro-choice?” Why aren’t they referred to as “anti-choice” instead, instead of implying that liberals don’t give a dámņ about life?”
Probably because then the pro-lifers would be justified in referring to pro-choicers as “anti-life”. Even less would get discussed.
“Why are conservatives allowed to set the most extreme interpretations of any situation and ascribe the worst end to us? “What, you don’t think we should have attacked Iraq? So you’re in favor of Saddam Hussein killing people!” And liberals just accept that it’s our lot to be constantly on the defensive. Only recently is that starting to change.”
Yeah, the gentle liberals, led like the Eloi into the caves of the conservative Morlocks. Boo freaking hoo. Go to a college campus and watch how a conservative speaker is treated (and I give you credit for recognizing how oppressive a place some campuses can be.). There are dìçkš a plenty on BOTH sides to go around. If liberals respond to the Ann Coultures of the world by becoming ever more shrill and partisan they may well FEEL better but they will be unlikely to sway many others to their side.
“Remind Americans that if conservative thinking had always controlled this country, there wouldn’t BE this country.”
Depends on one’s definition of conservative and liberal, doesn’t it? Looking at the actions and beliefs of most of our great leaders of the past, one could argue whether they would be considered liberal or conservative today. (One could also argue, rather persuasively, that none of them could get elected dogcatcher today) (Which reminds me–do people anywhere actually elect dogcatchers?)
At any rate, arguing the above point might be an interesting exercise but most voters are probably more concerned with who is right for today and tomorrow, not yesterday.
I have taken issue with liberal ideas and the conduct of the Democratic party on any number of occasions on this blog. As opposed to Conservatives who, by all appearances, move in perfect lockstep and never display the slightest doubt or concern.
I think you’re wrong there. I have routinely criticized President Bush for running up the bills. The Medicare “reform” was anything but, and certainly wasn’t a necessary overage due to war/economic downturn.
And if there is one great failure in the liberal philosophy, it is the cowardly away that we roll over for Conservatives, allowing them to control all discourse. Why are conservatives “pro-life” while we’re “pro-choice?” Why aren’t they referred to as “anti-choice” instead, instead of implying that liberals don’t give a dámņ about life? Why are conservatives allowed to set the most extreme interpretations of any situation and ascribe the worst end to us? “What, you don’t think we should have attacked Iraq? So you’re in favor of Saddam Hussein killing people!” And liberals just accept that it’s our lot to be constantly on the defensive. Only recently is that starting to change.
I think you’re wrong here, too, since liberals use the same type of demagoguery. Vote against the Clean Air Act due to concerns about cost to business and consumers and “You must want dirty air and water!” There are justifiable concerns about both sides. Vote for legal/medical liability limits to keep from driving up health care costs and “You are keeping individuals from making Big Medical pay!”
As far as labels go, the whole “Pro-Choice”, “Pro-Life”, “Anti-Abortion”, “Pro-Death” is laughable to me. Liberals say they are pro-choice – until you talk about choice in schools. Conservatives are pro-life – until you talk about the death penalty. I go with Pro-Choice and Pro-Life simply because that’s what the groups call themselves.
Bottom line: both liberal and conservative try to marginalize the other – when on most issues there’s good reason for concern on both sides.
I think this Administration has taken steps to assure that we will not have another list like this ten years from now.
Sure, and what’s the list since 9/11?
And don’t forget to include everything that’s happened in Iraq.
Except… this administration won’t even fully fun homeland security. How is that helping? And besides boasting about 9/11, just exactly what have they done to make us safer? Specifics, please.
Please see this opinion piece by Ðìçk Morris in the New York Post. I remember the alert last year, but this is the first I’ve heard about the follow-up message.
So there’s a specific instance of the Patriot Act stopping a terrorist attack. There’s also more in the article about who they captured and the detailed plans. This is an interesting piece. I haven’t seen details of this incident anywhere else.
So there’s a specific instance of the Patriot Act stopping a terrorist attack.
Wrong. Chatter != terrorist attack.
Part of the excuse that we missed being able to prevent 9/11 was because of all the chatter.
Sorry, we just blew that one period.
But there is chatter all of the time. Just because they hear something, throw some police out there, and nothing happens doesn’t mean an attack was prevented.
That’s the kind of garbage the Bush Administration would have you believe.
As opposed to Conservatives who, by all appearances, move in perfect lockstep and never display the slightest doubt or concern.
Right, unlike liberals who are now blindling following Kerry because he isn’t Bush. Kerry wasn’t even on the Radar until Dean’s implosion.
And if there is one great failure in the liberal philosophy, it is the cowardly away that we roll over for Conservatives,
I have liberal family members, had liberal teachers and professors, and now have a liberal boss at work. None of them were cowardly and were quite pleased to go out of their way to assert that they were a liberal. Wether it is some Hollywood actor or our teachers and co-workers, conservatives are bombarded by liberals. You wonder why people like Rush Limbaugh are so popular? Its because they are an alternative to that bombardment. Some guy sits at home, turns on his radio, and there is someone who finally thinks the way he does.
Why are conservatives “pro-life” while we’re “pro-choice?” Why aren’t they referred to as “anti-choice” instead, instead of implying that liberals don’t give a dámņ about life?
We aren’t anti-choice. In fact we support choice in health care and social security. We support choice with school vouchers. We support choice in giving smaller governments more say.
We, on the other hand, do not support the termination of an unborn life. We wonder how you are allowed to be called “pro-choice” when what you do is give women the legal oppertunity to take the life of their children.
Why are conservatives allowed to set the most extreme interpretations of any situation and ascribe the worst end to us?
My whole life I’ve heard how Republicans are racists and don’t deserve the black vote, how they will take away my kid’s school lunch program, and how I won’t have social security because of them. How Republicans will ruin the little guy and only support the rich. Decmocrats have been trying to scare the American public into voting their way for years.
When Kerry loses–and he will lose, because I said months ago that unless he clearly distinguishes himself on Iraq from Bush,
No, Kerry will lose because he has done nothing to tell us about what he will do when he becomes president. Oh, sure we get some vague ideas from him, but where are the details?
How about him not talking about his 20 years in the senate? We go from John Kerry to war hero to John Kerry the presidential nominee? He will be in for a shock come the debates.
I think liberals should spend the next four years reclaiming the word “liberal.” Shake it loose of all the crap, the lies, the distortions, the BS that conservatives have attached to it so that liberals don’t have to be ashamed of being liberal.
I could say the same for conservatives and their recent push to be more moderate.
Remind Americans that if conservative thinking had always controlled this country, there wouldn’t BE this country.
Yes, PAD, I’d like to see you sit down with the founding fathers and compare notes. Explain to them how liberal means gun control, abortion, big federal government, higher taxes to pay for social programs, smaller national defense. Explain how many liberals today are in favor of legaliztion of drugs, homosexuals being married, and a loss of our nation’s autonomy to the world.
But there is chatter all of the time. Just because they hear something, throw some police out there, and nothing happens doesn’t mean an attack was prevented.
That’s the kind of garbage the Bush Administration would have you believe.
Okay, so the plans they obtained that detailed how the plot was to be carried out was what? A soup recipe?
If you don’t see hearing chatter, questioning a suspect and finding plans as stopping a terrorist act then what would you say qualifies? Stopping them when they are already in a truck with explosives?
So there’s a specific instance of the Patriot Act stopping a terrorist attack. There’s also more in the article about who they captured and the detailed plans. This is an interesting piece. I haven’t seen details of this incident anywhere else.
Your post said everything. This was an opinion piece, hasn’t been seen anywhere else, and is from the New York Post.
So, forgive me if I can’t trust it’s validity.
Your post said everything. This was an opinion piece, hasn’t been seen anywhere else, and is from the New York Post.
So, forgive me if I can’t trust it’s validity.
Okay you don’t trust the source, but that’s different than saying that it’s “garbage” that a terrorist attack was stopped because of chatter and police officers.
Besides, I said that I had’t seen it elsewhere – that doesn’t mean other sources aren’t available. I take it, then, that if information about this was corroborated, that your view would be different? I’ll be the first one to say that I’m interested in hearing more about this – and that it may change my view of the incident. On the surface, though, it seems like a pretty good victory.
Whoops, ended the bold quote too soon.
Here’s a story from last year about it from CNN:
Ohio trucker joined al Qaeda jihad
The details are essentially the same: he was making plans to bring down the bridge, was brought in for questioning and spilled the details. It doesn’t detail anything about the network chatter and how the police response may or may not have helped.
“Yes, PAD, I’d like to see you sit down with the founding fathers and compare notes. Explain to them how liberal means gun control, abortion, big federal government, higher taxes to pay for social programs, smaller national defense. Explain how many liberals today are in favor of legaliztion of drugs, homosexuals being married, and a loss of our nation’s autonomy to the world.”
Yes, as opposed to you sitting down and explaining how conservative means easier access to assault weapons, back alley coathanger mutiliations of a woman’s innards, advocating a hands-off Federal government except when it comes to winning an election, and the ability to annihilate people ten times over instead of five or waging unprovoked wars at the expense of having money to pay for vital social programs. Explain how conservatives don’t believe dying men and women should be allowed to smoke medically supervised pot because it relieves their agony, wants to introduce amendments that will curtail freedoms and rights instead of broaden them, believe the government should tell people who they can marry, and believe that the rest of the world can go screw themselves because we’re America, we’ll ignore agreements ranging from environmentally oriented treaties to the Geneva convention, and if you don’t like it, we’ll kill you.
Should make for a stimulating chat.
PAD
And their response would be:
conservative means easier access to assault weapons,
Guns helped us win our Revolution. Maybe you read about that somewhere.
back alley coathanger mutiliations of a woman’s innards,
What? People have gotten so ignorant that they would kill babies and mutilate themselves while doing it. Teach them to take responsibility for their actions and quit killing babies.
advocating a hands-off Federal government except when it comes to winning an election,
Tell the truth without bias, this only comes out of not like conservatives, not based on any fact.
and the ability to annihilate people ten times over instead of five or waging unprovoked wars at the expense of having money to pay for vital social programs.
Really, your budget now allows for taking money from the social programs to fund warfare??? Oh, and defending the ideals of the country that we created is not important???
Explain how conservatives don’t believe dying men and women should be allowed to smoke medically supervised pot because it relieves their agony,
We like to smoke, the savages gave us great tobacco!
wants to introduce amendments that will curtail freedoms and rights instead of broaden them, believe the government should tell people who they can marry,
So they have learned to use our amendment process correctly.
and believe that the rest of the world can go screw themselves because we’re America, we’ll ignore agreements ranging from environmentally oriented treaties to the Geneva convention, and if you don’t like it, we’ll kill you.
Wow, so crackpots that don’t understand what is truly going on with our government still exist today?
Now, that is how I see their comebacks.
I personally think that two of your issues are non-issues, and the rest are either straw-man arguments or flat-out distortions.
PAD, you seriously think that the founding fathers would support legalized abortions? Back alley abortions didn’t spring up in 60’s you know. They had them back then, however, they understood that it wasn’t the government’s place to legalize the taking of an innocent life. Hard to declare Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness when you can’t even be granted life.
Perhaps the founding fathers should have made a provision in the second amendment that said that the American people only had a right to arms as long as the government thought they were safe for the American people?
Unprovoked wars? Like the Revolutionary War? Knowing that they’d be better off with without British control they declared their Independence and war on England. We recently declared our right to defend our nation from terrorism, asked the world for help, they failed us so we went to war.
“amendments that will curtail freedoms and rights instead of broaden them”
Yes, I’m sure gay marriage is a liberal idea they would have supported.
“believe that the rest of the world can go screw themselves because we’re America,”
That sums up their isolationist theories pretty nicely actually.
Slightly off topic, but still political, so I thought I’d bring it up.
It sounds like, on the November ballot here in Colorado, will be to vote on whether to split the electoral vote among the candidates based on %-ages.
An article I read on the issue had the following:
Jim Riley, a political science professor at Regis University, said the current electoral college system works and he criticized the proposal.
“The argument from supporters is that their vote doesn’t count. Of course their votes count. They just happen to be on the losing side,” he said.
Riley also said allowing third-party candidates to get delegates would further dilute the state’s influence by prompting a flood of Ralph Naders or Ross Perots eager to try for a footnote in history.
“That would fragment the party system,” Riley said.
Well, let’s face it, if only for the last line alone, I will vote in favor of this.
The party system NEEDS fragmented.
The party system NEEDS fragmented.
I agree.
I would vote for that if I lived there. It seems so much more impartial.
Craig,
On that we can agree. I understand the major concern is that it will dilute Colorado to 1 electoral vote (since the state is even right now). I like the Electoral College – it serves a purpose to keep the urban areas from totally dominating the country and it serves a purpose in a case like 2000 to isolate problems. It does need tweaking, though. Getting rid of the “winner-take-all” rule would be the simplest way of preserving the intent of the Connecticut Compromise but still making a needed change.
I think you underestimate the Founding Fathers, Ken. Certainly their answers wouldn’t be as inane as those.
PAD
“PAD, you seriously think that the founding fathers would support legalized abortions? Back alley abortions didn’t spring up in 60’s you know. They had them back then, however, they understood that it wasn’t the government’s place to legalize the taking of an innocent life.”
Really. See, that’s interesting; I hadn’t read anything about the Founding Fathers’ opinions on that, especially since the concept of safe, clean, medically-controlled abortions didn’t exist. So since you’re basically making up positions for the Founding Fathers, I can just as easily point out that those Founding Fathers who pumped out bášŧárd children might very well have wanted the opportunity to have their mistresses or–what’s the word–slaves, avail themselves of such technology if it existed. And I further suspect they wouldn’t have wanted the government they founded telling them they couldn’t do it. Privacy issues, don’t’cha know.
“Perhaps the founding fathers should have made a provision in the second amendment that said that the American people only had a right to arms as long as the government thought they were safe for the American people?”
They pretty much did. It was the part about the necessity of maintaining a militia. See, I tend to think that making assault weapons–weapons of mess destruction, if you will–available to non-militia participants ranging from angry students to clever terrorists wouldn’t have been a big plus with the Founders.
“Unprovoked wars? Like the Revolutionary War? Knowing that they’d be better off with without British control they declared their Independence and war on England. We recently declared our right to defend our nation from terrorism, asked the world for help, they failed us so we went to war.”
Wow. What a load of crap.
“amendments that will curtail freedoms and rights instead of broaden them”
“Yes, I’m sure gay marriage is a liberal idea they would have supported.”
Putting aside that I’d be interested to see you provide evidence that they were opposed to it, I like to give the Founders credit in positing that they didn’t necessarily have to agree with an idea to support it. Plus I’m sure you’re ready to argue that the Founders wouldn’t have minded curtailment of the First Amendment with the proposed anti-Flag burning amendment that Bush supports. Yup, that’s our Republican government: Never hesitating to tell people how to run their lives or what they can and can’t do. Good thing they’re big believers in a hands-off government, huh.
“believe that the rest of the world can go screw themselves because we’re America,”
“That sums up their isolationist theories pretty nicely actually.”
Right, right. And we fought the revolutionary war all by ourselves and never sent ambassadors to Europe. Uh huh.
PAD
I don’t want to focus this too much on abortion, but have recently held some rather heated discussions with a good friend of mine who has the misfortune of being close to ultra-conservative…
I’d recommend anyone who holds the idea that aborition is just about killing babies or back-alley mutilations should do some researhc of their own before spouting off a party line of “abortion bad.” The analogy I used (and which was lost) was two people sitting next to a campfire. One discusses it in terms of color, temperature, sound, potential beneficial uses, and dangers associated with uncontrolled fire. The second person stares long and hard into the flames and says “fire bad.” Care to guess who’s supposed to represent the conservative view of “pro-life.”
Also, if you’re going to discuss the issue, at least go read some excerpts from Roe v. Wade to see what the highest judicial body in our country has to say about the issue. If anyone’s got an insight into what the FF possibly thought about abortion, it’s to be found there. It might surprise you. Sure, pro-choice advocates have heralded as a “victory,” but the actual ruling and the language found there is closer to the pro-life side.
And Ken: I’m trying really hard to read sarcasm into your supposed FF responses to today’s issues. Especially the crack about “savages.” Again, if that’s your opinion, go do some research and learn about the societies of those “savages,” AKA the indigent peoples who were happily and successfully inhabiting this land before European invaders, errr, settlers, appeared.
And finally (if anyone’s still reading…Beuller?) about N. Korea having/not having a nuke. Does it really matter? If they DID just detonate a termonuclear weapon, we’re in more danger of attack through WMDs than we’ve ever been since the Cuban Missile Crisis. Anf if NOT…who fricken cares? They just blew up a MOUNTAIN, with a blast radius of 2 MILES, if reports are to be believed. WHO CARES what kind of explosive they just detonated, it demonstrates that they have the capability of annhilating any city we have.
Either way, I’m not resting as well as I was a few days ago….
I understand the major concern is that it will dilute Colorado to 1 electoral vote (since the state is even right now).
Yes, in the article, it was also mentioned that one Republican in the state is having a fit saying it’s just liberals trying to steal electoral votes.
Last I checked, we hadn’t had the election yet, but the thought still counts for something I suppose… Is it an argument against splitting the votes borne out of fear? stupidity? I dunno.
If this had been done 4 years ago, it would’ve been atleast 3, if not 4, votes going to Gore, which would have made it 266 to 270 or 268 to 269.
Nice and ugly mess. 🙂
Kingbobb,
If the North Koreans used conventional explosives to do something like that, it would have taken a LOT of explosives. On the order of 1000 tons or more. How in the world would they get something like that to where it needed to go in order to hurt the U.S. A nuke could fit into a crate instead of a warehouse.
However, the North Koreans are definitely working on making a nuke. If that massive explosion was not a nuke, then they were probably blowing a huge stack of conventionals so they’ll have some comparison when they set off an actual nuke. That’s scary because it suggests to me that they think they’re close. Either that or someone accidentally blew up a hage stockpile of stuff…
They pretty much did. It was the part about the necessity of maintaining a militia. See, I tend to think that making assault weapons–weapons of mess destruction, if you will–available to non-militia participants ranging from angry students to clever terrorists wouldn’t have been a big plus with the Founders.
PAD is officially engaging in wishful thinking here. If the Founding Fathers had meant to be so specific about who should and should not be allowed guns they would have spelled it out. The simple fact that the very people who formed the militias in the first place WERE considered terrorists and such by the Crown at that time leads us to believe the opposite of what PAD thinks.
There was NO standing militia at the time of the Revolutionary War. It was the abilitiy to raise one SHOULD the need arise that led to the inclusion of the Second Amendment.
And it’s the Second Amendment that protects the First Amendment.
“amendments that will curtail freedoms and rights instead of broaden them”
You have READ the Constituiton haven’t you, PAD?
It’s FULL of articles and amendments that limit freedoms and rights.
I’ll name a few:
Slaves being three-fifths of a person,
women not being allowed to vote,
no one under twenty-five being able to be a representative,
No one under thirty-five being able to be President,
Only natural born citizens being allowed to be President.
Only two of these have changed and it wasn’t the Founding Fathers that changed them.
“amendments that will curtail freedoms and rights instead of broaden them”
You have READ the Constituiton haven’t you, PAD?
It’s FULL of articles and amendments that limit freedoms and rights.”
Look, I know you have this borderline-pathological need to disagree with everything I say, but you’re setting new levels of obtuseness with this.
I said specifically that Conservatives are eagerly advocating constitutional amendments that curtail freedoms, which is the opposite of the norm for amendments. You come back and quote the whole of the Constitution, which is great, but doesn’t remotely relate to what I said. Amendments are created to FIX the constitution and, more often than not, to expand rights that the constitution did not make explicit or attend to. The only amendment I can think of off hand that explicitly curtails the rights of the citizenry as a whole is the eighteenth, and that was repealed. But Bush and company advocate, for the first time in…what, eighty years?…amendments that talk about what citizens CAN’T do rather than what they CAN do. And conservatives can try and double-dutch around that all they want, but the bottom line is that anyone who supports that notion while claiming the GOP wants smaller government is just oozing hypocrisy.
PAD
Just one more comment on the Cheney speech–Chris Mathews spent a few days lambasting Cheney on it and then said:
September 12, 2004 Sunday
MATTHEWS: Let’s take a look at how Kerry’s handling or not handling this question. He looks indecisive on Iraq; he also has a problem with reliability. The question started, as we know, as Cokie said, over Vietnam and over his anti-war activities after coming home. And this week, the vice president carried that attack on his unreliability even further.
Vice President ÐÍÇK CHENEY: It is absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd, we make the right choice. Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that–that we’ll get hit again, that we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States and it will fall back into the–the pre-9/11 mind-set, if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts and that we are not really at war.
MATTHEWS: When I first heard that, I thought he was saying if Kerry wins, we’re going to get attacked. I looked at it again today, this morning, and I said, `Wait a minute. What he’s really saying, if you listen carefully, is we’ll get attacked again. Anybody can get attacked again, that danger is there, and these people will react in the old time way of saying we’ve got some criminals out there we got to catch, not recognizing this movement of war against us.
Both parties want bigger government:
Democrats: They want more goverment to take from the rich and give to the poor and to legislate “feelings” and “Politically Correct” Crap
Republicans: They want to take from the poor, give to the rich, make the rich richer and the poor poorer while making their silly religious beliefs law for everyone.
Neither party wants “smaller government”, because they know the America people don’t want or need the government they’re getting now. Both parties have ignored the constitution and buiklt goverment bigger and bigger and more intrusive into daily life of its citizens…
Look, I know you have this borderline-pathological need to disagree with everything I say, but you’re setting new levels of obtuseness with this.
Nah, it’s just fun.
I said specifically that Conservatives are eagerly advocating constitutional amendments that curtail freedoms, which is the opposite of the norm for amendments.
First, the context was about what the founding fathers would say about limiting or curtailing freedoms. My reply was in line with that context. The founding fathers limited certain freedoms despite their talk that “all men are created equal”, etc.
Given the current debate about gay marraige, I have no reason to doubt that had they thought it would come to the debate we’re having today, THEY would have limited marriage to one man, one woman in the Constitution themselves.
Second, not ALL conservatives are salivating at the thought of a Constitutional Amendment to limit gay marriage. I’m not, Ðìçk Cheney’s not, and I know several others who aren’t. On the other hand, I think bringing it up as a possibility also also quieted down a few liberal activists and judges who were blatantly ignoring laws that were already in place, and rewriting it to fit their own agenda.
Liberals should be the last to talk about “states rights”, when just this past summer they took Texas to the Supreme Court to have one of it’s laws declared unConstitutional. You think the same thing won’t happen with gay marriage laws passed by the states? It’s already in the works.
And as you pointed out yourself. When it suits their own purposes, liberals are all for limiting freedoms and rights. Gun control? Political correctness? Sensitivity classes? Separation of church and state?
Gun control?
Sure, everybody needs an AK-47 for deer hunting…
Separation of church and state?
Well, when the president says that he’s going on a jihad… I mean… crusade against terrorists, and that he was told by his imaginary friend (imho) to attack Iraq…
Then yes, we need separation of church and state.
Well, when the president says that he’s going on a jihad… I mean… crusade against terrorists, and that he was told by his imaginary friend (imho) to attack Iraq…
Then yes, we need separation of church and state.
The last I checked, President Bush was not establishing a religion – just exercising his right to practice his own. It’s justifiable to judge his leadership based on that faith, but it has nothing to do with separation of church and state. What was meant by that in 1776 has taken on a radically different meaning today.
I’d been agreeing alot with Craig lately, but so what if someone wants an AK-47 for hunting?
Criminals are going to ignore the law anyway, so a “ban” on certain weapons is meaningless. Why shouldn’t a law abiding citizen be allowed to own one?
You cannot base a legal system on the acts of the few. Punish those who use “guns” illegally, and leave the rest of us alone. Don’t ban it for all based on the acts of the few, otherwise, cars and planes have to be banned, as do phones and computers, and all knives, and baseball bats and golf clubs, pillows and plastic bags, all medication that can have bad results incase of overdose… etc etc etc
Bladestar:
otherwise, cars and planes have to be banned
Why? Because someone could kill someone with a car? or a plane?
That’s asinine.
What is the intended purpose for a car or plane?
TRANSPORATION
What is the intended purpose for a gun?
To shoot a small projectile(bullet) from the barrel into it’s target/victim/prey.
The last I checked, President Bush was not establishing a religion –
The last I checked, it wasn’t Bush’s job to allow his religion to dictate policy for a nation full of people that don’t necessarily follow his religion.
Criminals are going to ignore the law anyway, so a “ban” on certain weapons is meaningless.
The question then to ask would be to ask why these guns were created to begin with.
You’d probably have to go to the NRA to find the answer to that though.
The last I checked, it wasn’t Bush’s job to allow his religion to dictate policy for a nation full of people that don’t necessarily follow his religion.
At the same time, there’s no prohibition against him doing so. A president makes the decision’s he makes , hopefully, based on the best information available, good advice, and finally, his own conscience. Most people who have any type faith based upbringing is going to go back to that faith in making their decisions.
Bladstar:
>Criminals are going to ignore the law anyway, so a “ban” on certain weapons is meaningless.
Not sure that I agree with this, since a logical follow-up would be why make anything illegal. I’d think that to have natural consequences in place would be the answer.
Craig:
>The question then to ask would be to ask why these guns were created to begin with.
>You’d probably have to go to the NRA to find the answer to that though.
Having grown up in a house whose primary income comes from the sale of firearms, I’ve had many interesting, if not much heated, conversations with dad about this. I’ve never received an answer that ends up being more than subjective opinion.
Side note, this morning on NPR, there was a report citing stats about the gun control laws and the lapse of the automatic weapons ban in particular. While I don’t have the source handy at the moment, the report concluded that a majority of Americans supported the ban. The NRA is the sole opponent of this ban.
Fred
eclark:
>>The last I checked, it wasn’t Bush’s job to allow his religion to dictate policy for a nation full of people that don’t necessarily follow his religion.
>At the same time, there’s no prohibition against him doing so. A president makes the decision’s he makes , hopefully, based on the best information available, good advice, and finally, his own conscience. Most people who have any type faith based upbringing is going to go back to that faith in making their decisions.
While I have no issue with this, my deepening concern surrounds him citing God and his Christian faith in his determination to rid the world of terrorism and set the U.S. on the right moral course. This not only offends me but, far more importantly, sets a severe impression on Muslims and the rest of the world watching. I honestly believe that it fans the flames of fanaticism. Holy War and cries for such, anyone?
Sorry RJM, but killing is already is illegal, no need for a law banning things that can kill.
This not only offends me but, far more importantly, sets a severe impression on Muslims and the rest of the world watching. I honestly believe that it fans the flames of fanaticism. Holy War and cries for such, anyone?
Fred, look at this new item on MEMRI. The video is dated May, but was just made available yesterday from a leader of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (part of their state military). Note the phrase “This terrorism is sacred“. Radical Islamists are already accepting that fighting the US with terror is part of their sacred duty.
President Bush has made it clear that we do not want a war on Islam. We have made painstaking efforts to not attack holy shrines – even when they have been converted to launch points for assaults against all the rules of “civilized” war.
Bush drawing strength from his faith and invoking it from time to time is nothing compared to what radical Muslim leaders are saying – and they’ve been saying it for a long time. It just took 9/11 for us to take notice. You can say that Bush is fanning it, but the flame was there burning all along.
The ban that just ended was not on “assault weapons”. Private ownership of fully-automatic weapons without a federal permit has been illegal since the 1930s. What ended was a rather silly ban on certain cosmetic enhancements that can make a given firearm look more dangerous than it actually is, and a debateable (as in there are good arguments on each side) ban on extended ammunition clips.
As a hunter, I don’t really see the need to carry more than five rounds in your rifle. If you can’t hit it in five shots, go back to video games – no stray ricochets there. As a family man, I don’t maintain a firearm for home defense. We live in a small apartment, you see, and I find a claymore and an assortment of daggers are quite sufficient. (Of course, did the police raid my home, I’d have them confiscated at the very least – the great state of California has decreed that double-edged blades are even more dangerous than fifteen-round banana clips. Go fig.)
On the other hand, if the great nightmare of times past were to come true, and I were to find myself defending my home against an invading enemy (“…foreign or domestic…”), I’d want as many rounds as possible of the most powerful ammunition I could lay my hands on.
Pad, when do we get back to WW discussions?
Hoping I did the html tags right this time.
Karen, when they talk you into listing the attacks that have taken place since 9-11, don’t forget to include Spain and Russia.
Posted by: Leviathan at September 11, 2004 05:31 AM
If only Kerry could produce really good Aaron Sorkin dialog, I’d _pray_ that they drop down to one debate!
I’d be happy if Wells could produce really good Sorkin dialogue!
Posted by: Mark L at September 14, 2004 03:39 PM
The last I checked, President Bush was not establishing a religion – just exercising his right to practice his own. It’s justifiable to judge his leadership based on that faith, but it has nothing to do with separation of church and state. What was meant by that in 1776 has taken on a radically different meaning today.
Posted by: eclark1849 at September 14, 2004 04:53 PM
The last I checked, it wasn’t Bush’s job to allow his religion to dictate policy for a nation full of people that don’t necessarily follow his religion.
At the same time, there’s no prohibition against him doing so. A president makes the decision’s he makes , hopefully, based on the best information available, good advice, and finally, his own conscience. Most people who have any type faith based upbringing is going to go back to that faith in making their decisions.
When Bush makes decisions that infringe on the exercising of our freedoms based on his religious beliefs then yes, by exercising his own he infringes on ours.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Posted by: Ken at September 12, 2004 11:07 PM
No, he would have been asked to make it up by his superior.
No big deal!
Ahhh but here’s the rub, Ken. When did he make the physical or his missing time up?
Posted by: Ken at September 13, 2004 02:42 PM
Really, your budget now allows for taking money from the social programs to fund warfare??? Oh, and defending the ideals of the country that we created is not important???
Explain to me, Ken, without using a reference to 9-11 or Al Qaeda, how a war in Iraq defends our ideals or our country. Especially since it’s been determined time and again that Iraq posed no significant threat to the US.
Mark L
We have made painstaking efforts to not attack holy shrines – even when they have been converted to launch points for assaults against all the rules of “civilized” war.
Yeah, much better to kill the people rather than destroy the buildings. That’ll win the Iraqi’s over really, really fast!
President Bush has made it clear that we do not want a war on Islam.
How has he done this? By invading Iraq or Afghanistan? By now making aggressive comments towards Iran? By dismissing the line drawn from 9-11 to Iraq? Exactly how has he made it clear we don’t want war with the Muslims?
Bush drawing strength from his faith and invoking it from time to time is nothing compared to what radical Muslim leaders are saying – and they’ve been saying it for a long time. It just took 9/11 for us to take notice. You can say that Bush is fanning it, but the flame was there burning all along.
If the flame was lit, Bush has primed it into a 4 alarm blaze.
When Bush makes decisions that infringe on the exercising of our freedoms based on his religious beliefs then yes, by exercising his own he infringes on ours.
Show me one example of a religious freedom that’s been restricted by the Bush presidency. The last I checked, everyone in this country is still allowed to pray, worship and celebrate the Divine (or not do so) in their own way.
His faith may aid him in how he leads, but that’s not an infringement of your rights.
How has he done this? By invading Iraq or Afghanistan? By now making aggressive comments towards Iran? By dismissing the line drawn from 9-11 to Iraq? Exactly how has he made it clear we don’t want war with the Muslims?
From President Bush’s speech to Congress on September 20, 2001:
“I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world.
Mark L,
Bush’s faith is leading him in scientific decisions. This is not in the best interests of the country.
He also used the word “crusade” when he first brought up the war. This is more faith and has very bad connotations to the Muslim world. Once the first impression was over, it’s too late to back track with sweeter language.
Don’t forget his desire for a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, which is driven by his and his religion’s discrimination of homosexuals.
Bush’s faith is leading him in scientific decisions. This is not in the best interests of the country.
As I said above, it is justifiable to judge his leadership of the country and how his faith is a part of that leadership. However, to state that he has infringed rights by doing so is false.
He also used the word “crusade” when he first brought up the war. This is more faith and has very bad connotations to the Muslim world. Once the first impression was over, it’s too late to back track with sweeter language.
He was specifically referring to the war against al Qaeda, not Muslims. I agree, the wording was awful, but to claim that we are waging war on Islam is false.
I have no problem with people holding Bush accountable to what they think about his leadership, but we don’t need the invented charges – there’s enough of those in the campaign already.