transfer from Rumors Board - Stevie and Lindsey for Kerry

[CarneVaca]

We are living in New Roman Times. If you don't know what happened to the Romans, you'd better bone up now. It might give you some clues to prepare for what's to come.

No world power ever lasts forever, and we ain't any different. The Romans, the Ottomans, the Brits, Spain, the Chinese dinasties, the Nazis, Genghis Kahn, etc., all thought they could rule the world (or what they perceived as "the world"). Can't be done, not even through corporations. Our undoing will be our perpetual misunderstanding of the Muslim world and the extremist contingent that's causing most of our problems. We have the technology but they have the numbers. Look back at history and you will see that the most technically advanced societies invariably failed and got embroiled in conflicts in which they repeatedly underestimated their enemies.

I hate to bring you this piece of bad news, but hey, don't shoot the messenger.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by GypsySorcerer
That website needs to get their facts straight.

Many Democrats have talked about reinstating the draft, citing a disproportionate representation of minorities and under class in the military. Most, if not all, of the sponsors/co-sponsors of those Senate and House bills are Democrats.

I see the the Democrats support of the draft is an attempt to discredit and take down W. I think few would be so gung ho on the war if they were faced with a draft. But, that is my opinion - others may differ. Also, Rumsfeld has repeatedly stated, and correctly so IMO, that an army of volunteers performs better than an army of draftees. So, despite the current talk of reinstating the draft after the election (assuming a win by W), I remain skeptical.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Since when does a president introduce legislation?

????? All Presidents introduce legislation r at least sed bills to Congress. Don't you remeber Michael Douglas in the "The American President" syig "I am dending a bill to Congress that calls for a ban on all assault weapons . . . . "

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
If by "doing something right," you mean lying to American citizens (and the world), getting our young men and women killed while carrying out his family's vendettas, and denying American citizens their right to marry whomever they choose... among countless other things... then yep, he's doing a bang-up job!

But you know I love ya, Joe!

Only in Mass. and since the Goodrich decision does the right for homosexuals to "marry" exist in any state and then only under the Mass. Const., not the U.S. Const. This could change if the state legilature amends the Mass Const.

Also, the statement "American citizens their right to marry whomever they choose" implies support for polygamy. I mean in theory why are gay rights more important that the rights of polygamists to coose without govt. interference? That is why I say the govt. should not sanction marriage in any way, shape or form. Leave it to the churches!

Also, I believe the Defense of Mariage Act, which interestingly enough Kerry did not sign because he believed it was a hate filled wedge issue, only prohibits one state from having to recognize the validity of a non one man and one woman marriage from a sister state as all states would be required to do under the "good faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Const. and related U.S. Sup. Ct. decisions.

[strandinthewind]

More religious zealot CRAP from R's and D's.!!!!!

Gays lose challenge to Florida adoption ban
Wednesday, January 28, 2004 Posted: 8:24 PM EST (0124 GMT)

MIAMI, Florida (AP) -- Four gay men lost a federal challenge Wednesday to the only blanket state law banning homosexuals from adopting children, a statute passed at the height of Anita Bryant's anti-homosexual campaign.

full story at http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/28/ga....ap/index.html

[dissention]

Originally posted by GypsySorcerer
I just want to make a quick comment on OBL. I agree that he was and is a bigger threat to the US than Saddam ever was. (I do, however, think that the Iraqi people are much better off without him, and that they will see that in the long run.) But it really bothers me to see people blaming Bush for not capturing OBL. I mean, he was offered to Clinton (albeit under shady circumstances) and Clinton declined. But still, we could have had him. And no, I don't blame Clinton for 9/11.

He lost him. OBL was trapped in a cave and they let him escape.

And Daddy Bush was having breakfast with the Bin Laden's the morning of 9/11.

[dissention]

Originally posted by jwd
As far as denying American citizens their right to marry, you need to look a little further than Bush. It seems to be a very popular opinion held by most citizens in this country. Clinton himself signed the "Defense Of Marriage Act" AND John Kerry does not believe in gay marriage either.

My word.

Our country is split down the middle when it comes to gay marriage. Bush has turned it into a religious thing when it ISN'T. He has no right to ammend our Constitution to further his religious views. I find it insulting, offensive, and despicable.

Clinton wasn't much better about gay marriage.

As for John Kerry, get your facts straight. His personal belief is that he isn't for gay marriages, but he's clarified that as his personal belief. He isn't for using the government to prevent people from marrying. Personally, he doesn't like it, but he said he won't use his personal beliefs to support legislation that discriminates against it.

[dissention]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
I'm still not sure how anyone believes the "Powers That Be" still thought they'd find WMDs there.
Doesn't anyone remember the months and months the UN inspectors searched Iraq, and came up with absolutely nothing... before the current administration insisted they did indeed have them, and we must send troops in?

So do we believe that we were lied to, or merely that they're just that foolish?
Either way, it's not a very flattering commentary on the current presidency.

I also realize that gay marriages aren't "widely" supported... and I was extremely disappointed that Clinton signed the Defense Of Marriage act. But I think Bush's "save marriage" battle-cries are even more offensive, because he's making himself look like some sort of hero, who's going to save the sacred institution of marriage from all of the deviant, immoral, homosexual sinners, who are out to pervert it and make a mockery of it.
And, quite honestly, that offends me.

If they wish to only allow "civil unions," so be it... I can live with that. But I don't appreciate being told that what I am, is something that should be equated with perversion and sin... and something that the good, upstanding, moralled citizens of the USofA need protecting from.

This affects my future and the futures of many of my friends, and I'm sorry, but this is just a subject I can't be dispassionate about.

Amazing post, Johnny. Very heartfelt and so true. Maybe you should move to MA in four months when gay marriage will be legal. They already have some marriage cruises planned!

[dissention]

Originally posted by jwd
I do remember that there was a general feeling that the inspectors were being given the run-around. Everyone believed Saddam had them, and if he didn't have them any longer, he wasn't forthcoming on what he did with them. He provided no documentation or proof of what happened to them. Once again, the intelligence indicated that he had them. At least that's the way I'm taking what's being reported in the news now.

And I remember Kay saying that Saddam was taking steps to comply with the resolutions. Then ChimpCo pounced on him.

The thing that mystifies me about your position is that you don't seem to believe that ChimpCo should be held accountable for the faulty intel (if that's what it was and not complete fabrication like the African uranium joke). It is THEIR JOB to dig around and make abolutely sure that the intel was good. Instead, the supposedly just took it at face value. That makes the alarms go crazy because it shows they didn't do their job.

Blaming all of this on the intel communit is offensive. This admin takes no responsibility for anything it does. None at all.

[CarneVaca]

If two people love each other and they want to marry, why have legislation to prevent them from doing so on the basis of their sexuality?

[dissention]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
If two people love each other and they want to marry, why have legislation to prevent them from doing so on the basis of their sexuality?

Exactly. It defies logic.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by jwd
AND John Kerry does not believe in gay marriage either.
Joe

He's not trying to ban it either.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
????? All Presidents introduce legislation r at least sed bills to Congress. Don't you remeber Michael Douglas in the "The American President" syig "I am dending a bill to Congress that calls for a ban on all assault weapons . . . . "

Yeah. All those Hollywood movies are factual. To clarify:

Submitting a Bill

Bills originate from several different sources, but primarily from individual members of Congress. In addition, bills might be brought to a member by a constituent or by a group of constituents; a bill can be submitted to a member of Congress by one or more state legislatures; or the President or his administration might suggest a bill.

However it is brought to the attention of a member, it must be submitted for consideration by the member. In the House, Representatives need merely drop a copy of a bill into a bin specifically placed to receive new bills. In the Senate, the bill is given to a clerk at the President's desk.

Bills can be introduced in either house, though as noted above, a bill must eventually pass both houses to become law. The exception to this is that bills for raising revenue must originate in the House, and never in the Senate.

[dissention]

Ain't this shocking?

Bush Budget Raises Cost of Medicare
1 hour, 4 minutes ago Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!


By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites)'s new budget will project that the just-enacted prescription drug program and Medicare overhaul will cost one-third more than previously estimated and will predict a deficit exceeding $500 billion for this year, congressional aides said Thursday.

Instead of a $400 billion 10-year price tag, Bush's 2005 budget will estimate the Medicare bill's cost at about $540 billion, said aides who spoke on condition of anonymity. Bush will submit on Monday a federal budget for the fiscal year 2005, which starts next Oct. 1.

Bush just signed the Medicare measure into law last month. While it was moving through Congress, Bush, White House officials and congressional Republican leaders had assured doubting conservatives that the bill's costs would stay within the $400 billion estimate.

Some conservatives voted against the legislation anyway, and many of them are already angry that Bush has presided over excessive increases in spending and budget deficits.

"I'm not the least bit surprised," said conservative Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., who voted against the Medicare bill in November and who said he had heard that the cost estimate would rise. "Historically, our estimates of what these programs will cost have been so far off as to be meaningless."

White House budget office spokesman Chad Kolton would not comment on the Medicare figures. But an administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, acknowledged that the estimate would rise to nearly $540 billion.

"Both numbers provide what you can call a reasonable range of possible future costs for Medicare," the official said. "These are complex estimates, based on hundreds of individual programs, decisions and potential actions over an extended period of time."

CBO, Congress' nonpartisan fiscal analyst, estimated the bill's 10-year cost at $395 billion. But administration officials repeatedly stood by the $400 billion figure, which Bush had included in the budget he proposed last February.

Bush's new budget will also estimate this year's budget deficit at about $520 billion, the congressional sources said. That would easily surpass the $375 billion shortfall of last year, the highest deficit ever in dollar terms.

Just Monday, the Congressional Budget Office (news - web sites) projected this year's red ink would total $477 billion.

The new estimate comes as Bush braces for a difficult election-season fight with Congress over spending — after a budget year that he can hardly expect to top.

Although Bush sends his 2005 budget to Congress next week, lawmakers only last week completed their spending work for 2004. That process saw Bush win virtually all his major priorities including a tax cut, new Medicare prescription drug coverage, funds to fight a war with Iraq (news - web sites), and overall spending restraint.

"He wanted a carpet that looked like X, and generally speaking he got a carpet that looked like X," said Richard Kogan, who analyzes the budget for the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

The Republican-run Congress avoided overt clashes with Bush but did not roll over completely.

Lawmakers trimmed his defense plans while boosting funds for highways, Amtrak and veterans. They ignored Bush's plan to make tax cuts permanent, scaled back his proposal to stop taxing corporate dividends, derailed his energy bill and added thousands of home-district projects to spending measures.

Even so, the results were a far cry from the "dead on arrival" label applied to the spending blueprints of some of Bush's recent predecessors. Democrats and moderate Republicans often gave that assessment to plans written by the first President Bush and President Reagan, who were forced to accept both tax and spending increases.

On the other hand, despite the GOP takeover of Congress two years into his tenure, President Clinton (news - web sites) won frequent spending concessions from lawmakers wary of battling him. Bush has followed a similar pattern.

"It would be hard to say he's not getting what he wants," Stan Collender, a senior vice president who follows the budget for the accounting firm Fleischman-Hillard.

Bush has yet to cast a veto after three years in office. He often uses the threat of a veto to get his way, issuing 19 as Congress considered the 13 annual spending bills for this year. In the end, lawmakers dropped challenges on issues like administration plans to change overtime pay rules and divert more government work to private contractors.

Major priorities Bush proposed last year included:

_Tax reductions of $1.3 trillion over 10 years. The bill he signed had $330 billion in tax cuts. That number is expected to grow should lawmakers, as anticipated, make some of its temporary reductions permanent. Congress added $20 billion he did not seek for financially strapped states.

_$400 billion over a decade for revamping Medicare and adding prescription drug coverage. Bush last month signed a bill resembling his proposal.

_$87 billion this year for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (news - web sites), $500 million less than he got. The final bill gave him $1.7 billion less than the $18.6 billion he wanted to rebuild Iraq and less flexibility than he wanted for controlling the money.

[CarneVaca]

I think this thread belongs in RUMOURS.