Senior Member

Jersey City
159 posts, Jun 2001

posted 01-16-2003 04:40 PM            

---

Seek,
The traditional definition of a conservative would be an "individualist". The traditional definition of a liberal would be "humanist". Now, both those ideas are noble things, to help yourself without hurting anyone and helping those in need. Here's the problem. I have no problem if someone wants to be rich, own a gun, or worship Jesus. It's when laws are enacted to make me think a certain way, and feel alienated if I don't. On the other hand, welfare to capable workers and corporations is a big problem. Unfortunatley, neither camp is even close to the original ideas. We have a bunch of RADICALS on both sides now, with the Constitution itself at stake. You see, that's why the NWO put up Bush and Clinton...To give Cons and Libs bad names. Personally, I can't stand them both.

I know Bill Buckley. I remember him from the 50's, since I'm 53 years young, arguing with Gore Vidal on a show. I kind of like him, perhaps he's an old school conservative, and he loves Ja Weed, and is honest about it, just as Vidal is.

Chemspiracy Realist

East Central Florida
706 posts, Apr 2001

posted 01-16-2003 04:47 PM            

---

quote:

---

the founding fathers were a positive lot they set out to achieve a goal for the betterment of humanity

---

Very true, only unfortunately even they had to eventually resort to violence to effect change.

quote:

---

hmmm....for someone who claims to know a lot about the constitution...the mechster does not know that a president can only sign bills into law passed BY THE CONGRESS !

---

Well, this is how it's supposed to work. You might want to investigate the far (too far)reaching powers of "executive orders". Set up to skirt the system.

I firmly believe that waking people up discussing these issues and bringing them in to the public light is a solution. It is the best way to fight anyone who's deeds are best suited to the dark.

Getting involved on the local level and communicating at your town meetings, to let them know they can pass a resolution and decline to participate in the anti-patriot Patriot Act.

`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

Oh, like jay walking? Too broad of a definition.

There are solutions offered here, but how can we expect some of you to see that when you don't even admit there is a problem?

Political debate is still legal, and it is part of the solution. Beats violence don't ya think?

Love the topic here and wish I could hang around and brawl. Got a new contract today so will be scarce for the next six weeks or so. Can't take time to post if I barely have time to read the threads. You can be sure I'll be lurking around where time allows to catch up on the fire works.

One last thing. I love America, I love this country, I have nothing but respect for those that enlist to serve. The treatment they receive from our leaders (and some of their own) at times is horrendous.

------------------
Don't Chemplicate Life

[Edited 1 times, lastly by FLKook on 01-16-2003]

posts,

posted 01-16-2003 04:48 PM            

---

FROM SECTION 802 PATRIOT ACT

(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--

`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

`(B) appear to be intended--

`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

WHAT WRONG WITH IT?

DUH!!!!

THIS COULD MEAN ANYONE COULD BE A "TERRORIST"
FOR BREAKING ORDINARY LAWS YOU DUMMY!!!

Freaking hopeless.

BJ,

I disagree, it means basically someone treated for depression ten years ago won't be able to have a firearm.

It's unconstitutional.

[Edited 1 times, lastly by Mech on 01-16-2003]

249 posts, Jan 2003

posted 01-16-2003 04:48 PM            

---

Gas, you almost start to make sense until you lapse into statements like this;

"You see, that's why the NWO put up Bush and Clinton...To give Cons and Libs bad names. Personally, I can't stand them both."

249 posts, Jan 2003

Senior Member

Jersey City
159 posts, Jun 2001

posted 01-16-2003 05:15 PM            

---

BJ,
What is illogical about saying Bush and Clinton are NWO stooges? Because I don't like your "Boy", that makes me a flaming liberal communist? If I said, "Clinton is an NWO stooge, and I think Bush is the greatest", I would be OK in your book. You, a staunch right winger who seems to only think with one side of his brain, and feel that all liberals are anti-american. In fact, you seem to think there's some left-wing conspiracy to take your guns. You know what, there is. The same as these Neo-Cons want to take away our rights.

Now the same 1/2 brained liberal will say, "Right-Wingers are all facsists". If you would see the good in both sides, then you will be able to see the rotten in both. Bush and Clinton are both designed to make Libs and Cons hate each other even more, without ever finding a medium where everyone is happy. I stand by that, and they don't call the "The Whole Bird" for nothin'.

Damnit...I'm a doctor jim
3403 posts, Jul 2000

posts,

posted 01-16-2003 05:42 PM            

---

Like I said.

HOPELESS

Senior Member

Jersey City
159 posts, Jun 2001

posts,

Damnit...I'm a doctor jim
3403 posts, Jul 2000

posted 01-16-2003 10:54 PM            

---

never seen conclusive proof that either one happened...

but coulter is hot man !

Senior Member

Jersey City
159 posts, Jun 2001

posted 01-17-2003 09:32 AM            

---

Seeker,

Coulter
http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2002/06/27/coulter/

Burning Bush Arrest
http://www.thespeciousreport.com/2002_burningbush.html
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=16929

Now don't get me wrong, I was never a Clinton fan. Why do a lot of conservatives say you're un-American when you dislike and critisize Bush, but when they used to critisize Clinton, they weren't un-American. I guess that makes me un-American SQUARED, since I did not like either. The only 2 close to honest presidents in the last 50 years......Carter and Eisenhower.

Damnit...I'm a doctor jim
3403 posts, Jul 2000

posted 01-17-2003 04:54 PM            

---

Now don't get me wrong, I was never a Clinton fan. Why do a lot of conservatives say you're un-American when you dislike and critisize Bush,

there's a difference between critisizing and berration...let's take mech for example...it's painfully obvious he does not base his view on experience or reality for that matter...

I mean please 2 of mech's doosies....

"Bush is hitler and a traitor" "he is a satanic nwo shill"

there is no factual data to support either of these accusations by mech but yet day after day after day he posts and re-posts the same old shit...which are lies he has repeated so many times he actually believes them now...

but when they used to critisize Clinton, they weren't un-American. I guess that makes me un-American SQUARED, since I did not like either.

to me clinton gave us plenty of reason to dislike him and did a terrible dis-service to this country (we don't want to talk about the last minute pardons)...but fair enough atleast your civil about it gas...I still don't see what irks you about bush but hey...that's your business...

btw remember when dukakis was running against bush 1 ? I seen a bumper sticker that said "dukakis for president, lick the bush campaign".....

The only 2 close to honest presidents in the last 50 years......Carter and Eisenhower.

jimmy carter ?!?!?!?! the inventor of stagflation double digit unemployment and double digit interest rates...holy smoke !

he may have been honest but absolutely the worst president ever !

whoopse...coulter was making an off the cuff sarcastic remark...and hey clinton his tart and that cigar made the US a laughing stock all over the world !

that humphrey dude is and was a religious nut...which spells trouble 99% of the time...he was arrested 25 times for his behavior...he deserved what he got...and please, like he will ever pay the 250,000 anyway...maybe playing where's the soap in the prison shower will clear his mind a bit....

later gas

------------------
T/S

1280 posts, Oct 2000

posted 01-17-2003 05:36 PM            

---

Hey Mech, gotta love them Brits
---------------------------------------------
Most Brits See Bush As
The 'Global Village Idiot'
By Andrew Rawnsley
Chief Political Commentator of The Observer
1-16-3

"Across British public opinion, George Bush is seen as the global village idiot."
-
The British are usually undaunted by the prospect of war, and Tony Blair is generally the most effective communicator of his political generation. So you can appreciate the bafflement inside Downing Street that the Prime Minister is finding it so difficult to convince his country that he is right to mobilise military force against Saddam Hussein. Mr Blair's advisers are frustrated, and increasingly bewildered, that all his exertions of rhetoric and argument have not managed to swing public opinion behind the case for disarming the Iraqi tyrant.

If anything, the more he talks about dealing with Saddam, the more anti-war sentiment seems to spread within his own Government and across the country.

There can be few people who don't know that Saddam Hussein is a mass murderer who treats his own subjects with hideous cruelty and would not hesitate to inflict the most appalling suffering on others.

He has committed dreadful atrocities against internal opponents and twice launched invasions - into Iran and Kuwait - of his neighbours. There can be few people who aren't aware that the Iraqi despot has a lusty appetite for acquiring weapons of mass destruction and he has failed to account to the UN inspectors for the deadliest elements of his arsenal.

There must be few people who can't grasp that the UN inspectors would not have got back into Iraq after a four-year Saddam-imposed absence had he not been threatened with force.

There are surely few people who can't follow Mr Blair's logic when he warns that, unless checked, it is only a matter of time before Saddam makes a marriage of hell with a terrorist group who would exult in the capability of exploding a nuclear device in a major western conurbation such as London.

And there are surely few people who can't see that if Saddam is allowed to emerge smiling from his latest trial of strength with the democracies, then the message will resound around the world that the West is not prepared to protect the freedom and security either of its own people or those less able to defend themselves, encouraging every other rogue state to follow a Saddamite vector.

These are compelling arguments which have been vigorously promulgated by the Prime Minister. So why is he having so little traction on his country?

Why can't he even convince a majority of his own Cabinet? I think Mr Blair's essential difficulty can be summarised in three words: George Walker Bush.

"I've no hang-ups about removing Saddam. I've no hang-ups about joining the United States in military action," one impeccably loyal and Atlanticist Labour MP commented to me recently. "It's following that cowboy which I find so hard to stomach."

He speaks not just for many Labour MPs and activists, but also for much of Britain. You'd expect the Left, especially those strands of the Left whose thinking is still framed by the Vietnam War, to be repelled by the idea of saddling up for a posse led by this very Right-wing American President. What is striking is how George W Bush arouses so much anxiety and antagonism across centrist and conservative Middle Britain. A former Conservative Cabinet minister regards Bush as "like a child running around with a grenade with the pin pulled out".

Charles Kennedy has not adopted his anti-Dubya position just because he thinks it's right; he also knows that it is popular with many of the Tories he wants to woo over to the Liberal Democrats.

Across British public opinion, George Bush is seen as the global village idiot. This is a one-dimensional caricature of the man - albeit a caricature that he has rather encouraged. The point is that the cartoon cowboy image is now pretty indelibly stuck.

The broad British view of George Bush is that he is Ronald Reagan without the brains. One of the Prime Minister's own advisers on foreign policy privately describes the American President as "cretinous".

Americans may say - and they may be right - that there's an element of a British superiority/ inferiority complex at work here.

Having seen the United States replace us as the world's dominant power, I suspect that we are fond of consoling ourselves with the idea that the Americans put dimwits in the Oval Office.

Being a Texan doesn't help. The American presidents who are preferred by the British are avuncular war heroes like Eisenhower or glamorous East Coasters like Kennedy or charismatic Anglophiles like Clinton.

Sleaze-bag he may have been, but Bill Clinton had a feel for the erogenous zones of the British, he knew that winning friends here and elsewhere in Europe required a more sophisticated patter than the gunslinging clichÈs of his successor.

Remember how Clinton was mobbed at Labour's Blackpool conference, recall how he wowed the crowd at the Hay-on-Wye literary festival. You just can't see George W Bush understanding how to work the British. Actually, you just can't see him at a literary festival, period. I've heard several people close to the Prime Minister sigh wistfully that it would all be so much easier if Clinton were still in the White House.

People may be just about prepared to trust Mr Blair's judgment on Iraq. What scares them is the man who they know to be calling the real shots. Mr Blair has been exerting some influence, but the perception persists that the Prime Minister is being sucked into conflict on the slipstream of an American President driven by a thirst for oil and revenge on behalf of his daddy.

The view that the Prime Minister has over-estimated his leverage over the White House reaches into the highest levels of Mr Blair's Cabinet. One very senior minister told me just the other day that the Americans "don't give a damn what we think". The minister almost spat out his food as he spoke.

If he wants to go to war in Iraq, Tony Blair's task is not convincing Britain that Saddam Hussein is wicked. The bigger hurdle is persuading the British that George W Bush isn't all bad.

Damnit...I'm a doctor jim
3403 posts, Jul 2000

posted 01-22-2003 03:35 AM            

---

david the thread killer....

(subliminal humor...not...maybe..being careful)