Hidden Costs of Bush Budget will soar AFTER he leaves office

[irishgrl]

Bush Budget a Time Bomb for poor sucker who comes after him (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1803&e=1&u=/washpost/20050214/pl_washpost/a21721_2005feb13)

Jason: I hope you remember this article so I wont have to argue with you later about how badly the Republicans shafted us and continue to shaft us.


After Bush Leaves Office, His Budget's Costs Balloon

By Jonathan Weisman and Peter Baker, Washington Post Staff Writers

For President Bush, the budget sent to Congress last week outlines a painful path to meeting his promise to bring down the federal budget deficit by the time he leaves office in 2009. But for the senators and governors already jockeying to succeed him, the numbers released in recent days add up to a budgetary landmine that could blow up just as the next president moves into the Oval Office.

Congress and the White House have become adept at passing legislation with hidden long-term price tags, but those huge costs began coming into view in Bush's latest spending plan. Even if Bush succeeds in slashing the deficit in half in four years, as he has pledged, his major policy prescriptions would leave his successor with massive financial commitments that begin rising dramatically the year he relinquishes the White House, according to an analysis of new budget figures.

Bush's extensive tax cuts, the new Medicare prescription drug benefit and, if it passes, his plan to redesign Social Security all balloon in cost several years from now. His plan to partially privatize Social Security, for instance, would cost a total of $79.5 billion in the last two budgets that Bush will propose as president and an additional $675 billion in the five years that follow. New Medicare figures likewise show the cost almost twice as high as originally estimated, largely because it mushrooms long after the Bush presidency.

"It's almost like you've got a budget, and you've got a shadow budget coming in behind that's a whole lot more expensive," said Philip G. Joyce, professor of public policy at George Washington University.

By the time the next president comes along, some analysts said, not only will there be little if any flexibility for any new initiatives, but the entire four-year term could be spent figuring out how to accommodate the long-range cost of Bush's policies.

"That president would have to face a very fundamental decision as to whether he would want to do what was right and be a one-term president or continue to play the same game and push it onto his successor," said Leon E. Panetta, who served as budget director and later White House chief of staff under President Bill Clinton. "That's really the choice that's going to face the next president."

The knowledge of what's ahead is hardly lost on some of those eyeing Bush's job. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has been among those raising concerns about the long-term costs of current financial policies.

"Hopefully some very difficult decisions will be addressed between now and the time we have a new White House resident so that occupant isn't faced with some very expensive chickens coming home to roost," said John Weaver, a McCain adviser. "There are some things that we can do, but unfortunately in the political world kicking down the road is often seen as leadership."

Bush advisers argue that he is tackling problems long ducked by other presidents and that his solutions will pay off in the long run. Joshua B. Bolten, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, predicted last week that making the Bush tax cuts permanent could have positive economic consequences that would mitigate their costs. And he expressed hope that the Medicare prescription drug law may still result in health care savings not captured in the current cost estimates.

As for Social Security, Bush aides said that the president's plan would wipe out a long-term structural deficit facing the nation in coming decades and that the transition costs in the next decade or so will ultimately be overshadowed by the benefits. "People in the future are going to benefit from that decision," said budget office spokesman Chad Kolton.

If Congress were to pass Bush's Social Security plan and permanently extend his tax cuts, the budget deficit would bottom out at $251 billion in 2008, then climb steadily to $335 billion by 2015, according to an analysis by The Washington Post and the House Budget Committee's Democratic staff. Those figures assume, however, that Bush will secure all of his proposed spending cuts, that he will need no more emergency war spending and that there will be no changes to the alternative minimum tax, which Bush and other politicians want to rewrite to keep it from affecting more middle-class families in coming years. The AMT originally was designed to make sure wealthy people couldn't avoid paying some taxes.

With a fix to the AMT, deficits in a decade would likely reach $650 billion to $700 billion, said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.). "The days of being everything to everybody are quickly coming to a close," he said, adding that a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts would make it politically impossible to borrow the full cost of a Social Security fix. "We have to look at the deficit in a holistic way."

The White House's own 10-year costs of the Medicare drug benefit, the president's tax cuts and the plan for personal Social Security accounts are beginning to jar Republicans into rethinking the budget's trajectory, Graham said.

June O'Neill, a Republican former director of the Congressional Budget Office, agreed that the current trajectory is no longer sustainable. "I don't think that people should waste too much time on probing the details of current policy, which just can't last," she said.

"I think some adjustments need to be made," said Don Nickles, the recently retired Republican chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. Nickles said the drug law will need to be reopened to address problems of skyrocketing costs. He also said that Congress will have to be selective in extending the tax cuts, dropping some of the cuts and perhaps modifying the estate tax repeal to keep some of the revenue.

The looming problems were easily foreseeable, said Joyce, the public policy professor. The White House and Congress vowed last year to keep the 10-year cost of a prescription drug bill to $400 billion. But to do it, the 2004 law did not come fully into effect until 2006. Hence, legislation once priced below $400 billion over 10 years now will cost at least $724 billion over a decade, simply because the law would then be fully in effect.

Tax cuts approved in 2001 and 2003 were held to $1.7 trillion through an array of slow phase-ins, phase-outs and a Dec. 31, 2010, end date when all of the tax cuts would vanish. Now, Bush wants them made permanent, but according to White House numbers, a five-year extension beyond 2010 would cost nearly $1.1 trillion.

Likewise, Bush is proposing a Social Security restructuring that would cost $754 billion through 2015, including added interest costs for the government. But like the tax cuts and drug benefit, the proposal would begin slowly, with initial borrowing in 2009. The plan would be fully effective in 2011. Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. (S.C.), the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, told Treasury Secretary John W. Snow on Wednesday that the first full 10 years of the program would cost $1.4 trillion, rising to $3.5 trillion in the second decade.

One tax proposal alone underscores the problem. A Bush plan to establish broad new tax-free savings accounts would actually raise $17 billion in the first five years, as savers cash out other tax-free accounts, pay taxes on their withdrawals and roll the money into the new accounts. But in the second five years, the proposal would cost $15 billion, according to Treasury figures. And the cost would rise sharply from there, as the accounts began shielding virtually all American savers from capital-gains, dividend and interest taxation.

"That's a time bomb," said James Horney, a budget analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Congress has long gamed the budget system to make its legislation look less expensive in the short run, Joyce said. But the scale of the drug benefit, the tax cuts, the new tax proposals and the Social Security plan are unprecedented.

Their coming convergence would be a "budgetary perfect storm," Joyce said. "You can't hide from it forever."

I would certainly NEVER think of being President after this clown~the next poor sucker is going to be blamed and the real culprit will be down in Texas patting himself on the back. Americans who voted for him need to have mandatory enemas and shock treatments, wear straightjackets and only be allowed to say :sorry:

here's more proof of his total disregard of the plight of Americans:
Previously Untargeted Programs at Risk (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1803&e=3&u=/washpost/20050212/pl_washpost/a17523_2005feb11)

an excerpt from the above:
President Bush's budget plan calls for elimination or drastic reduction 68 federal programs that he has never targeted before, including vocational-education grants, emergency medical services for children and assistance to local law enforcement agencies, according to a list the White House released yesterday.

Bush is PURE EVIL. We need another Hinckley. We needed him 4 freakin years ago.

[SuzeQuze]

I'm afraid to read this because everything I read about him is worse and worse and I hate him. God forgive me but I hate that man. I do know that he left the cost of the Iraq war and his stupid Social Security changes out of the budget. If I left a whole project out of my budget I would get fired, how the hell does he do this crap? He does have a "mandate", not with the people but with congress, etc. He also cut federal money for police form 600 mil to 60 mil. That is a crime. And he has cut heating aid for the poor and elderly, medical benefits for vets and the poor. I was weeping listening to Randi Rhodes talk about this yesterday. It is just evil and I feel for all of the people affected. :( :mad:

[irishgrl]

I'm afraid to read this because everything I read about him is worse and worse and I hate him. God forgive me but I hate that man. I do know that he left the cost of the Iraq war and his stupid Social Security changes out of the budget. If I left a whole project out of my budget I would get fired, how the hell does he do this crap? He does have a "mandate", not with the people but with congress, etc. He also cut federal money for police form 600 mil to 60 mil. That is a crime. And he has cut heating aid for the poor and elderly, medical benefits for vets and the poor. I was weeping listening to Randi Rhodes talk about this yesterday. It is just evil and I feel for all of the people affected. :( :mad:

All in the GRAND TRADITION OF Ronnie (Im a likeable guy if you're rich) Reagan!

again, Im going to say DAMN YOU HINCKLEY FOR MISSING :mad:

[Sugar]

I wrote an editorial about the proposed ELIMINATION of funds for high school technical school programs that ran our Sunday paper. We have two tech schools in our immediate circulation area and one would loose $235,000 in annual funding and the other one would lose $500,000. But the programs are mandated, so that means the money comes from somewhere else ( :laugh: ) or the programs operate on a shoestring.

But what really kills me is the REASON given to cut this funding! They cited a lack of popularity of these programs and the fact that the schools aren't doing enough to prepare these kids for college.

What?!?! HELLLLOOOOOO...tech schools (for the most part) aren't about preparing kids for college. And as far as popularity, the paper did an article about registration day at the tech school. The competition to get in is fierce. On the morning of registration by 6:00 am there was a line of a couple hundred students and parents snaking through the parking lot all vying for a spot.

So let's give our non-college bound kids EVEN LESS!

Oh that's right...Bush is about the little guy... :mad:

[SuzeQuze]

I wrote an editorial about the proposed ELIMINATION of funds for high school technical school programs that ran our Sunday paper. We have two tech schools in our immediate circulation area and one would loose $235,000 in annual funding and the other one would lose $500,000. But the programs are mandated, so that means the money comes from somewhere else ( :laugh: ) or the programs operate on a shoestring.

But what really kills me is the REASON given to cut this funding! They cited a lack of popularity of these programs and the fact that the schools aren't doing enough to prepare these kids for college.

What?!?! HELLLLOOOOOO...tech schools (for the most part) aren't about preparing kids for college. And as far as popularity, the paper did an article about registration day at the tech school. The competition to get in is fierce. On the morning of registration by 6:00 am there was a line of a couple hundred students and parents snaking through the parking lot all vying for a spot.

So let's give our non-college bound kids EVEN LESS!

Oh that's right...Bush is about the little guy... :mad:

Once again demonstrating that whole parts of the population are irrelevant. A lot of my friends went to tech school, even my brother, and some of those went on to college. Hmm, if a school is struggling, I know, let's take money away! :shrug: Focusing on making sure the tech programs are relevant would make more sense. For example, my brother went for machine shop, an industry which was rapidly shrinking while he was in school. Why did they still have that program? But there are great programs like culinary and cosmetology, just to name two, that will always be popular and important trades. But the people in the trades do not matter because they aren't going to college. WTF??? So they're not going to fudge their way through Yale, that makes them irrelevant? :mad:

[SoundBoyBrad]

All in the GRAND TRADITION OF Ronnie (Im a likeable guy if you're rich) Reagan!

again, Im going to say DAMN YOU HINCKLEY FOR MISSING :mad:

I rarely post here, so I'm not going to get political or start some ridiculous diatribe about who is right and who is wrong for their respective political views. However, I was so amazed that anyone could write such a comment, and IMO, the above statement is just wrong and uncalled for, regardless of your political affiliation.

Brad

[heyjupiter678]

So let's give our non-college bound kids EVEN LESS!

Oh that's right...Bush is about the little guy... Here's a complete list of the 154 programs Bush wants to eliminate or cut:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20050211-2256-programcuts-list.html

[Sugar]

Once again demonstrating that whole parts of the population are irrelevant. A lot of my friends went to tech school, even my brother, and some of those went on to college. Hmm, if a school is struggling, I know, let's take money away! :shrug: Focusing on making sure the tech programs are relevant would make more sense. For example, my brother went for machine shop, an industry which was rapidly shrinking while he was in school. Why did they still have that program? But there are great programs like culinary and cosmetology, just to name two, that will always be popular and important trades. But the people in the trades do not matter because they aren't going to college. WTF??? So they're not going to fudge their way through Yale, that makes them irrelevant? :mad:

You know, I'm not convinced they're failing! A lot of the local businesses here have partnerships set up with the tech school and they're scared to death about the funding cuts. What is the criteria for judging whether or not a tech school is failing?

I don't know about your tech schools but I know our tech schools often take a large percentage of special ed kids and put them through the building maintenence program. so now they have job skills and can get a job after school, but I'm guessing they aren't going to perform very well on some "are the kids ready for college" aptitude test.

Yes, cosmotology, culinary skills, auto mechanics and auto body, building maintenence, and I think even computer type skills, maybe fixing them or something, are the big programs in our schools.

One of the other big fears brought up by an expert quoted in the article in the paper also said that tech school is often an outlet for kids who can't cut it in an academic environment, and that if tech school aren't an option, the drop out rate will probably go up. So yeah, either you're college bound or you don't count...such a wretched attitude...

[strandinthewind]

Bush Budget a Time Bomb for poor sucker who comes after him (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1803&e=1&u=/washpost/20050214/pl_washpost/a21721_2005feb13)

Jason: I hope you remember this article so I wont have to argue with you later about how badly the Republicans shafted us and continue to shaft us.

First and foremost, I think you need a reality check in that the R's do not do this alone - many of the D's are usually right there voting with them. For recent examples, see the Medicare perscription drug boon to the drug companies, the "no child left behind" farce, the past Bush budgets, etc. - those all passed with bipartisan support. For previous examples, see Clinton and, perhaps more so, his second term - pretty much all of it. Also, the D's voted for much of RR's reform stuff. Thus, I think you would be hard pressed to quote me as saying the R's act alone - but that is about all you can quote me on - well that and at least the R have the sand to do it unlike the D's who do not promulgate it, but still vote for it and then say they are the fairer party of the two because the the introduction of the bills by the R's is a severer offense than voting for it - if they have the gall to claim that at all :rolleyes:

Moreover and to address the implication, I have not voted R for years, I consider myself an Independant who votes for the lesser of two evils, which usually is the D candidate. So, please remember this statement the next time you put words in my mouth.

Bush is PURE EVIL. We need another Hinckley. We needed him 4 freakin years ago.

I thought you so vehemently opposed guns? Thus, how hypocritical of you to advocate their use when it suits you and your bloodlust :rolleyes:

[dissention]

Bush is PURE EVIL. We need another Hinckley. We needed him 4 freakin years ago.

Whoa nelly. Even I don't wish that. That's the kind of stuff that makes us liberals look like cold, elitist bastards.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Whoa nelly. Even I don't wish that. That's the kind of stuff that makes us liberals look like cold, elitist bastards.

I'm here with Ann...she is saying "Look, Brandon...I told ya!" :xoxo:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Oh come on. What's wrong with a bit of slaughter to keep one amused. I know when I get depressed there's nothing like a random killing to boost my spirits.

I feel the same way!

So why not bomb the hell out of Iran! One less country to f*ck with!

[Brwn_eyes0511]

I rarely post here, so I'm not going to get political or start some ridiculous diatribe about who is right and who is wrong for their respective political views. However, I was so amazed that anyone could write such a comment, and IMO, the above statement is just wrong and uncalled for, regardless of your political affiliation.

Brad

"You make lovin' fun, it's all I wanna do....

I've a feelin it's time to try...!"

I just feel happy today for some reason!

[Brwn_eyes0511]

I say, it sounds like a plan. Also sounds like a certain government policy but I couldn't be bothered getting into that so for now, we'll agree and go on a rampage. Actually wait, I'm thirsty for some Belgian blood, let's just wipe them out instead.

Any place that is a threat to USA or freedom in general!

Except, I'm not being sarcastic! I'm dead serious!

[strandinthewind]

I feel the same way!

So why not bomb the hell out of Iran! One less country to f*ck with!

at least they are a threat to the U.S. if they get nukes, which they are seeking - as opposed to SH who was indeed and after all no threat despite the hype.

Note: I am not advocating bombing Iran, I am just pointing out that the invasion of Iraq was based on lies.

[dissention]

Any place that is a threat to USA or freedom in general!

Except, I'm not being sarcastic! I'm dead serious!

Too bad we won't allow other countries to feel the same when it comes to being attacked. :rolleyes:

We're never going to attack N. Korea because we'd open a can of worms so huge that we'd be decimated.

[dissention]

I am just pointing out that the invasion of Iraq was based on lies.

Any idiot knows that. Which is why half of America must be even dumber than your average idiot. :o

[strandinthewind]

Too bad we won't allow other countries to feel the same when it comes to being attacked. :rolleyes:

We're never going to attack N. Korea because we'd open a can of worms so huge that we'd be decimated.

and, to be fair, China will hopefully resolve that situation before it gets too bad for us. That they have nukes is scary though - I mean their leader is insane. Yet, we shoot fish in a barrel in Iraq - go figure.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

at least they are a threat to the U.S. if they get nukes, which they are seeking - as opposed to SH who was indeed and after all no threat despite the hype.

Note: I am not advocating bombing Iran, I am just pointing out that the invasion of Iraq was based on lies.

Did i slip into a parallel universe or something. Why is everyone becoming war like on here! It was all about peace and now everyone is talking about wishing presidents were murdered and agreeing with me about attacking a terrorist related country!

Let me go pinch myself....brb

[ontheEdgeof17]

Any idiot knows that. Which is why half of America must be even dumber than your average idiot. :o


We learned that when Britney Spears reached #1.

[estranged4life]

I feel the same way!

So why not bomb the hell out of Iran! One less country to f*ck with!

Bombing the Grammy's would've been better deserved/preferred than to drop bomb's on Iran since I know which I feel is a bigger (LAME!) threat!!! (The music at the Grammy's is a threat to my ears, Which is War in my books) :rolleyes:

[strandinthewind]

We learned that when Britney Spears reached #1.

not to mention the Dixie Chick's embarrasment of the Pres. took precendent over going to war. What kind of FU*&( UP SHIITTE is that :eek:

[strandinthewind]

Bombing the Grammy's would've been better deserved/preferred than to drop bomb's on Iran since I know which I feel is a bigger (LAME!) threat!!! (The music at the Grammy's is a threat to my ears, Which is ar in my books) :rolleyes:

Darling - the grammy's did bomb :cool: and simultaneously lay an egg :eek: save for a few moments of brilliance like Etherige (who should have perfomed alone) and Raitt.

sorry Brian J. - couldn't resist :laugh: :wavey:

[estranged4life]

not to mention the Dixie Chick's embarrasment of the Pres. took precendent over going to war. What kind of FU*&( UP SHIITTE is that :eek:

the Dixie Twits embarrasment was covering (Ruining!) "Landslide"...That is the BIGGER embarrasment IMHO :lol: :nod: :thumbsup:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Any idiot knows that. Which is why half of America must be even dumber than your average idiot. :o

See I never questioned why we went to Iraq! If I were Bush I just would have said..."Look, who cares about WMD (we know they have had them in the past). We have a chance to get rid of one of the biggest possible terrorist in the world "SADDAM"! So lets go kick his a**"

Mass Destruction, Smash Destruction!!!! WHO CARES!

Get rid of him while we have the chance...we had it...and we Carpe Diem-ed- it!

[ontheEdgeof17]

See I never questioned why we went to Iraq! If I were Bush I just would have said..."Look, who cares about WMD (we know they have had them in the past). We have a chance to get rid of one of the biggest possible terrorist in the world "SADDAM"! So lets go kick his a**"

Mass Destruction, Smash Destruction!!!! WHO CARES!

Get rid of him while we have the chance...we had it...and we Carpe Diem-ed- it!


How about Osama? We had a chance there, too but didn't follow through.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

How about Osama? We had a chance there, too but didn't follow through.

Oh yea! Duh, how could I forget about his appearance on The Today Show...he was in CLEAR VIEW we could have snatched him then! DARN IT!

[ontheEdgeof17]

Oh yea! Duh, how could I forget about his appearance on The Today Show...he was in CLEAR VIEW we could have snatched him then! DARN IT!


Had to make a joke because you don't have an answer? :laugh:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Had to make a joke because you don't have an answer? :laugh:

and do you?

[ontheEdgeof17]

and do you?


Nope. I was asking you cause you said we had a chance to get a big threat, so who cares about WMD. Just seeing your thought on the Osama situation.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Nope. I was asking you cause you said we had a chance to get a big threat, so who cares about WMD. Just seeing your thought on the Osama situation.

He will get his, I'm sure.

[dissention]

save for a few moments of brilliance like Etherige (who should have perfomed alone) and Raitt.

Glad to see we agree on those performances. :D

[dissention]

Oh yea! Duh, how could I forget about his appearance on The Today Show...he was in CLEAR VIEW we could have snatched him then! DARN IT!

:rolleyes:

I love how we waited more than two months after 9/11 to even set foot in Afghanistan.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

So who cares if someone destroys NY buildings? Mass destruction! Yeah wahooo!



That was so putting words into my mouth, and not even close to the point I was making!

Have you any idea how ridiculous you are? Do you seriously advocate wiping out civilisations because they're a *threat* to the US? Well Saddam actually never threatened the US. The US threatened Iraq and so with that, we give permission to Iraqi's to waltz over to America and bomb the **** out of it. Forget that it's a civilisation full of people, mass destruction is so cool. Like totally yeah man, right on, to the max, uh huh.

Is it any wonder why people hate America? Hopefully these people I speak of are bigger than you and don't use this a reason to slaughter your people.

No, we will slaughter them first ;)

Why do you even care about American politics so much?!?

[dissention]

Why do you even care about American politics so much?!?

:shocked::shocked::shocked:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

:rolleyes:

I love how we waited more than two months after 9/11 to even set foot in Afghanistan.

Now that I do agree with; we should have launched an attack that day! No time to narrow down "who we think is responsible" we know who was responsible. Anyone who got any pleasure from seeing those towers and the pentagon go up in smoke and watch thousands of Americans die! Those people who cheered on the streets of their countries as these events unfolded!

[Brwn_eyes0511]

:shocked::shocked::shocked:

I don't think he/she is from America? I was just curious what they found so interesting about American politics considering how they don't live here.

[irishgrl]

I rarely post here, so I'm not going to get political or start some ridiculous diatribe about who is right and who is wrong for their respective political views. However, I was so amazed that anyone could write such a comment, and IMO, the above statement is just wrong and uncalled for, regardless of your political affiliation.

Brad

Im not a hypocrite, and even if my post is unpopular, its how I feel so.....

[irishgrl]

First and foremost, I think you need a reality check in that the R's do not do this alone - many of the D's are usually right there voting with them. For recent examples, see the Medicare perscription drug boon to the drug companies, the "no child left behind" farce, the past Bush budgets, etc. - those all passed with bipartisan support. For previous examples, see Clinton and, perhaps more so, his second term - pretty much all of it. Also, the D's voted for much of RR's reform stuff. Thus, I think you would be hard pressed to quote me as saying the R's act alone - but that is about all you can quote me on - well that and at least the R have the sand to do it unlike the D's who do not promulgate it, but still vote for it and then say they are the fairer party of the two because the the introduction of the bills by the R's is a severer offense than voting for it - if they have the gall to claim that at all :rolleyes:

Moreover and to address the implication, I have not voted R for years, I consider myself an Independant who votes for the lesser of two evils, which usually is the D candidate. So, please remember this statement the next time you put words in my mouth.



I thought you so vehemently opposed guns? Thus, how hypocritical of you to advocate their use when it suits you and your bloodlust :rolleyes:

I dont care HOW its done, I just wish Bush were somehow not running this country....

as for who voted what, those programs etc were railroaded on thru by Republicans, who in case you forgot, have a majority in both houses. They didnt even need ONE Democrat vote. Even if they got one, it was still pushed thru by Republicans, so its not me that needs the reality check here. You always say the Dems voted for these heinous programs but you dont prove it.
a paltry handful of votes out of several hundred proves NOTHING to me. Those misguided Dems (if there are any that did what YOU say they did) are a disgrace to the party and should be flogged right along with the Repugs.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Im not a hypocrite, and even if my post is unpopular, its how I feel so.....

Of course it is,

Those children you love to advocate for, I'd love to tell them that the nice lady would love to see a president shot and murdered!

It's treason and it's down right evil.

[ontheEdgeof17]

Treason and down right evil.


I treason all the time. I'm not a big fan of America. :laugh:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

I treason all the time. I'm not a big fan of America. :laugh:

hmmm...let me add that "it's" :]

[irishgrl]

Of course it is,

Those children you love to advocate for, I'd love to tell them that the nice lady would love to see a president shot and murdered!

It's treason and it's down right evil.

that particular president didnt give a rats ass about children or old people or vets or students or poor people.....the true evil was what was done to these groups by the most powerful person in the country, who abused his position of power and trust and trampled on the rights of so many. I HATED REAGAN and I HATE BUSH. Im FREAKIN ECSTATIC that these JERKS only get 8 total years to wreak their brand of havoc on the rest of us. I only hope that its not too hard to undo their damage.

as for your accusation of treason, the original founding fathers were considered treasonous too....maybe its time for another revolution :mad:

[DrummerDeanna]

that particular president didnt give a rats ass about children or old people or vets or students or poor people.....the true evil was what was done to these groups by the most powerful person in the country, who abused his position of power and trust and trampled on the rights of so many. I HATED REAGAN and I HATE BUSH. Im FREAKIN ECSTATIC that these JERKS only get 8 total years to wreak their brand of havoc on the rest of us. I only hope that its not too hard to undo their damage.


:nod: :thumbsup: And from me you get a big fat I totally agree :D

[Brwn_eyes0511]

that particular president didnt give a rats ass about children or old people or vets or students or poor people.....the true evil was what was done to these groups by the most powerful person in the country, who abused his position of power and trust and trampled on the rights of so many. I HATED REAGAN and I HATE BUSH. Im FREAKIN ECSTATIC that these JERKS only get 8 total years to wreak their brand of havoc on the rest of us. I only hope that its not too hard to undo their damage.

as for your accusation of treason, the original founding fathers were considered treasonous too....maybe its time for another revolution :mad:

See the children, the nice lady isn't so nice when she gets angry :rolleyes: :lol:

[strandinthewind]

. . .if there are any that did what YOU say they did) . . . .

Bless your heart - I am not saying it - the record says it. I mean Ted Kennedy did a photo op with W wherein they claimed bi partisan support was the reason for the passing of the GREAT education bill. The facts speak for themselves and do not need any help from me :shrug:

[irishgrl]

:nod: :thumbsup: And from me you get a big fat I totally agree :D
Thanks.....I hardly ever get worked up by hatred, but in the case of Bush (and Reagan), I make an exception. I suppose deep down its just me venting.
Murder is wrong. I'll just leave it at that.

[strandinthewind]

:rolleyes:

I love how we waited more than two months after 9/11 to even set foot in Afghanistan.


So, you think we should have invaded immediately. You never really commit to that because you know that if we had, you would bitch about that too :laugh: Seriously, please tell us exactly how you think we should have invaded and when - please be specific :wavey:

[irishgrl]

See the children, the nice lady isn't so nice when she gets angry :rolleyes: :lol:

I never said I was perfect. :shrug:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

So, you think we should have invaded immediately. You never really commit to that because you know that if we had, you would bitch about that too :laugh: Seriously, please tell us exactly how you think we should have invaded and when - please be specific :wavey:

good points! (You might be the only real moderate person on these forums). Because we all know that I would have supported an immediate attack on Afganistan...and the liberals would say no to war...

Wo where exactly does dissention stand on that? hmmm..

[strandinthewind]

I treason all the time. I'm not a big fan of America. :laugh:

For the record and because this is a pet peeve of mine, what people think contitutes treason and what actually constitutes treason are often not the same.

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Is that clear to all now :laugh:

[ontheEdgeof17]

For the record and because this is a pet peeve of mine, what people think contitutes treason and what actually constitutes treason are often not the same.

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Is that clear to all now :laugh:


Didn't you know the Constitution means squat now? :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

. . . Murder is wrong. I'll just leave it at that.

Are you recanting :laugh: :wavey: :laugh: :wavey:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

I never said I was perfect. :shrug:

Hmmm...the same song I tried to sing lots of times around here, and it always get thrown back in my face...

[irishgrl]

Bless your heart - I am not saying it - the record says it. I mean Ted Kennedy did a photo op with W wherein they claimed bi partisan support was the reason for the passing of the GREAT education bill. The facts speak for themselves and do not need any help from me :shrug:

I'd be interested in seeing just how MANY dems put each of these Republican programs through! Also, I seem to recall that Kennedy had issues with the bill when it became clear that it wasnt being implemented the way it was originally presented. So, out of ALL the programs Bush wanted SO badly, Social Security privatization, Medicare overhaul, etc, just exactly WHICH party pushed it thru? The Numbers are clear, it was a REPUBLICAN victory.
As I said above, any dems that were misguided enuff to join in are a disgrace. and I think that Zell Miller leads the freakin pack. he needs a coating of tar and feathers.

[strandinthewind]

Didn't you know the Constitution means squat now? :wavey:

Touche and 10 points to you :xoxo: :xoxo: :xoxo: :xoxo:

The only think the Const. can be used for is to allow all those "well regulated militia" out there that are "necessary to the security of a free State" to have arms :laugh: I mean really :rolleyes:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

I'd be interested in seeing just how MANY dems put each of these Republican programs through! Also, I seem to recall that Kennedy had issues with the bill when it became clear that it wasnt being implemented the way it was originally presented. So, out of ALL the programs Bush wanted SO badly, Social Security privatization, Medicare overhaul, etc, just exactly WHICH party pushed it thru? The Numbers are clear, it was a REPUBLICAN victory.
As I said above, any dems that were misguided enuff to join in are a disgrace. and I think that Zell Miller leads the freakin pack. he needs a coating of tar and feathers.

Tar and feathers?....we are back on the more primitive ways of dealing with things...awesome!

You are starting to sound more neocon than me and Ann put together!

[irishgrl]

Hmmm...the same song I tried to sing lots of times around here, and it always get thrown back in my face...

Well, I did admit murder is wrong, and I prob shouldnt have let my anger at those jerkwads get the best of me. BUT: we certainly would be better off if Bush werent president. Im NOT going back on THAT.

[strandinthewind]

I'd be interested in seeing just how MANY dems put each of these Republican programs through! Also, I seem to recall that Kennedy had issues with the bill when it became clear that it wasnt being implemented the way it was originally presented. So, out of ALL the programs Bush wanted SO badly, Social Security privatization, Medicare overhaul, etc, just exactly WHICH party pushed it thru? The Numbers are clear, it was a REPUBLICAN victory.

Look it up :wavey:

And - it is rank hypocrisy to imply that the D party should be exonerated from the effect of these horrid acts just because they did not initiate the legislation but voted for it.

[ontheEdgeof17]

The only think the Const. can be used for is to allow all those "well regulated militia" out there that are "necessary to the security of a free State" to have arms :laugh: I mean really :rolleyes:


Oh yes. I learned in Medical Ethics today about what the military did/does to their own in terms of medical research. It was shocking.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

People can't get angry at such acts? And don't use that crap about liberal peace-loving ****. Anger is within human nature, atrocities are not so easily excusable, but anger directed as a result is.

Oh I know a great deal about anger. When thousands of American's are killed because of terrorist attacks on our country. But according to liberals song and dance we shouldn't act on it..but then when it comes to murdering presidents you disagree with, you're all for it!

[strandinthewind]

Oh yes. I learned in Medical Ethics today about what the military did/does to their own in terms of medical research. It was shocking.

and we thought lamp shades of skin were the only autrocities commited and then by others.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Well, I did admit murder is wrong, and I prob shouldnt have let my anger at those jerkwads get the best of me. BUT: we certainly would be better off if Bush werent president. Im NOT going back on THAT.

fair enough! :xoxo:

[ontheEdgeof17]

and we thought lamp shades of skin were the only autrocities commited and then by others.


Let's just say I know who they used to test the effects of nuclear material on. I sure hope it is still not being done today. :rolleyes:

[dissention]

I treason all the time. I'm not a big fan of America. :laugh:

I'm not either. :laugh:

I just got a Bowie boot on DVD and he prefaces "I'm Afraid of Americans" by saying "I really, truly am afraid of Americans. They're scary." :laugh:

[irishgrl]

Look it up :wavey:

And - it is rank hypocrisy to imply that the D party should be exonerated from the effect of these horrid acts just because they did not initiate the legislation but voted for it.

I didnt say they should be exonerated! I said the FEW misguided souls that joined the Repugs should be tarred and feathered! my point was that the numbers show it was the REPUBLICAN party due to their majorities in both houses that pushed those pieces of crap thru! The final vote tallies will still show that Repugs foisted that garbage on us. You cant dispute that, no matter if 2 or 20 democrats joined in! Even if NO democrats would have joined, it would have passed anyway!

[strandinthewind]

. . . Even if NO democrats would have joined, it would have passed anyway!

Last I checked - the D's were in control of the Senate for awhile there during W's term and legislation got through :wavey:

and my point, again, is the R's may have foisted it on us because the though came from them, but the D's were willing participants - I cite the DOMA as proof - Clinton lauded over that travesty as he did with Don't Ask Don't Tell, which is assinine and now hypocritical because our troops serve side by side with openly gay Royal troops.

[dissention]

I love that song, and the filmclip for some reason. It's true, for many who don't live amongst it, it's scary. Maybe that's why I love the song, not for the song itself.

The video is hilarious. So true, too. I was a bit surprised that it didn't cause much of a stir over here, to be honest.

[The Tower]

So, you think we should have invaded immediately. You never really commit to that because you know that if we had, you would bitch about that too :laugh: Seriously, please tell us exactly how you think we should have invaded and when - please be specific :wavey:

Speaking for myself, I think it's more of an issue of hypocrisy than anything else. The Bush administration has claimed and continues to claim that fighting terrorism is its number one priority, however, they obviously don't believe that as they gave Osama a running head start to disappear and subsequently did a half-assed job in Afghanistan.

It's just the typical bull**** coming from the worst administration in the history of American government.

P.S.: I despite dubya and Reagan as much as the next guy, but advocating assassination is assinine. Dubya becomes a martyr to all the bible thumpers and creates sympathy for his sorry ass and then Cheney is officially in charge of the country??? Not a good idea- not to mention that the use of guns (and the advocacy of violence) is abhorrent.

[estranged4life]

Throwing guitars into walls is fine, killing people is not so good.

on the guitar if ya ask me...Never throw a Fender, Gibson, PRS or Rickenbacker into a wall or I may have to hunt ya down and snuff ya out :lol: :nod:

[dissention]

So, you think we should have invaded immediately. You never really commit to that because you know that if we had, you would bitch about that too :laugh: Seriously, please tell us exactly how you think we should have invaded and when - please be specific :wavey:

I've always committed to it and have given my answer numerous times. It's not my problem if you can't retain the answer. :cool:

[strandinthewind]

Speaking for myself, I think it's more of an issue of hypocrisy than anything else. The Bush administration has claimed and continues to claim that fighting terrorism is its number one priority, however, they obviously don't believe that as they gave Osama a running head start to disappear and subsequently did a half-assed job in Afghanistan.

It's just the typical bull**** coming from the worst administration in the history of American government.

P.S.: I despite dubya and Reagan as much as the next guy, but advocating assassination is assinine. Dubya becomes a martyr to all the bible thumpers and creates sympathy for his sorry ass and then Cheney is officially in charge of the country??? Not a good idea- not to mention that the use of guns (and the advocacy of violence) is abhorrent.

and we both agree on that :nod:

[cliffdweller]

Any idiot knows that. Which is why half of America must be even dumber than your average idiot. :o

:laugh: :xoxo:

Truth hurts huh?

[strandinthewind]

I've always committed to it and have given my answer numerous times. It's not my problem if you can't retain the answer. :cool:

that is such rank Diss. spin. You have never ever stated with any specificity when we should have attacked other than to say maybe we should have or something like that - but, if you have, let's see it or hear it again :wavey:

you are so called out and can't come :wavey:

[dissention]

that is such rank Diss. spin. You have never ever stated with any specificity when we should have attacked other than to say maybe we should have or something like that - but, if you have, let's see it or hear it again :wavey:

you are so called out and can't come :wavey:

Bull****. You simply don't remember and act as if you know what you're talking about to cover it up. You know exactly where I stand in regards to invading Afghanistan .

[strandinthewind]

Bull****. You simply don't remember and act as if you know what you're talking about to cover it up. You know exactly where I stand in regards to invading Afghanistan .

Fine, you are right - I cannot remember. So, let's hear it again. Don't tell me you are suddenly afraid of being loquacious :laugh:

[cliffdweller]

Oh I know a great deal about anger. When thousands of American's are killed because of terrorist attacks on our country.

How about terrorists attacks within our own country by Americans? You know, that actually happens MUCH more than vice versa. And speaking of foreign terrorism, how about our terrorism in Iraq? I think there was a nasty little prison scandal a few months ago that people are already forgetting... Ah well, can't account for memory.

[dissention]

Fine, you are right - I cannot remember. So, let's hear it again. Don't tell me you are suddenly afraid of being loquacious :laugh:

Hardly. I just don;t like when you state something as fact when it comes ot things I've said that you're obviously wrong about. :wavey:

We should have been in Afghanistan a week after the attacks. But that wasn't conducive to Bush's needs.

[irishgrl]

P.S.: I despite dubya and Reagan as much as the next guy, but advocating assassination is assinine. Dubya becomes a martyr to all the bible thumpers and creates sympathy for his sorry ass and then Cheney is officially in charge of the country??? Not a good idea- not to mention that the use of guns (and the advocacy of violence) is abhorrent.

True, once again, I let my anger get the better of me. Jason asked me if I was recanting, and I will say for the record that I regret having said that bit about assassination. The last thing I would want is for Dumbya to be a Martyr. AND, I agree murder is wrong. So, I apologise for the assassination comment. I STILL SAY this country needs a different President, and that Reagan and Bush Light are responsible for the plight of the most vulnerable members of our society. And Jason, the Dems were only in control of the congress for the first 2 years of Clinton's term and the legislation that I am referring to is BUSH's agenda, not the stuff from Clinton's term of office. so please dont confuse the issue. This thread was about the hidden costs of BUSH's agenda. My beef is with the CRAP that the Republican controlled congress is churning out.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

How about terrorists attacks within our own country by Americans? You know, that actually happens MUCH more than vice versa. And speaking of foreign terrorism, how about our terrorism in Iraq? I think there was a nasty little prison scandal a few months ago that people are already forgetting... Ah well, can't account for memory.

I remember it very well, and it's something that shouldn't have happened! But also, who has been behind most of these little scandals that have been going on in Iraq, be it the prison scandal or the recent mud resettling?!? WOMEN!

Just another reason I side with Ann when it comes to women in the military.

[DrummerDeanna]

I remember it very well, and it's something that shouldn't have happened! But also, who has been behind most of these little scandals that have been going on in Iraq, be it the prison scandal or the recent mud resettling?!? WOMEN!

Just another reason I side with Ann when it comes to women in the military.

Wha!?! Where did you get that information?

[cliffdweller]

I remember it very well, and it's something that shouldn't have happened! But also, who has been behind most of these little scandals that have been going on in Iraq, be it the prison scandal or the recent mud resettling?!? WOMEN!

Just another reason I side with Ann when it comes to women in the military.

Where did this gross misogyny (not to mention red herring) come from all of a sudden?

[heyjupiter678]

Just another reason I side with Ann when it comes to women in the military. Is there anything on which you don't side with Ann?

[cliffdweller]

I was going to point out how outright misogynistic it was but I think with this person's statements we can rule out any sympathy for that issue.

You're probably right. I fear the day brwn_eyes decides to breed. And if he's reading this...please....don't.

[strandinthewind]

Hardly. I just don;t like when you state something as fact when it comes ot things I've said that you're obviously wrong about. :wavey:

We should have been in Afghanistan a week after the attacks. But that wasn't conducive to Bush's needs.

Good there you have it. ANd when you say "We should have been in Afghanistan" exaclty how do you mean that. Do you mean an all out air assualt, a covert ops, etc.

Also, though I cannot prove it, I remember you initially being against invading Afgan. in any way. That is from where I was drawing that.

[DrummerDeanna]

Let's hope that they're boys, for their own sake.

I always wish gay children upon total right wingers - that they may finally know compasion or something...though I guess that could backfire and then the kid would be treated like absolute ass by their parent...

[strandinthewind]

True, once again, I let my anger get the better of me. Jason asked me if I was recanting, and I will say for the record that I regret having said that bit about assassination. The last thing I would want is for Dumbya to be a Martyr. AND, I agree murder is wrong. So, I apologise for the assassination comment . . .


GROUP HUG FOR THE PRODIGAL MARY :xoxo:

While we are there - we need to remind her that the D party is just as evil as the R party despite her rose colored glasses :wavey:

[dissention]

Good there you have it. ANd when you say "We should have been in Afghanistan" exaclty how do you mean that. Do you mean an all out air assualt, a covert ops, etc.

I don't think an all-out air assault would have been conducive to finding Bin Laden, but I certainly don't think we should have skipped in their and politely knocked on doors.

Also, though I cannot prove it, I remember you initially being against invading Afgan. in any way. That is from where I was drawing that.

Never. :wavey:

[The Tower]

Last I checked - the D's were in control of the Senate for awhile there during W's term and legislation got through :wavey:

and my point, again, is the R's may have foisted it on us because the though came from them, but the D's were willing participants - I cite the DOMA as proof - Clinton lauded over that travesty as he did with Don't Ask Don't Tell, which is assinine and now hypocritical because our troops serve side by side with openly gay Royal troops.

Well........ It would be nice (and naive) to think that politicians are going to vote based on their principles, however (and I know you know this, which is why I am so baffled when you use these types of points), politics is based on compromise, sometimes grudgingly so.

I am far more concerned with the origin and advocacy of legislation, rather than those politicians that are, for all intents and purposes, forced to vote for distasteful legislation due to political realities.

So, with that in mind, the republicans are far, far more responsible for the evils of what we face today. Yes, I would prefer that we have democrats with balls to spare that would shred the **** out of those creeps. However, that ain't gonna happen as long as there are 50,000,000+ morons who will vote based on fear.

My point? I prefer to NOT delude the fight against republican evil by dulling it down with democrat culpability. And, no, I don't think that this point leads me to hypocrisy.

[irishgrl]

I always wish gay children upon total right wingers - that they may finally know compasion or something...though I guess that could backfire and then the kid would be treated like absolute ass by their parent...

I think our dear VP had to backpedal quite a bit on the homophobic position he had been taking. Take it from me, it IS possible to backpedal a bit, it wont hurt ya :rolleyes:

[irishgrl]

Well........ It would be nice (and naive) to think that politicians are going to vote based on their principles, however (and I know you know this, which is why I am so baffled when you use these types of points), politics is based on compromise, sometimes grudgingly so.

I am far more concerned with the origin and advocacy of legislation, rather than those politicians that are, for all intents and purposes, forced to vote for distasteful legislation due to political realities.

So, with that in mind, the republicans are far, far more responsible for the evils of what we face today. Yes, I would prefer that we have democrats with balls to spare that would shred the **** out of those creeps. However, that ain't gonna happen as long as there are 50,000,000+ morons who will vote based on fear.

My point? I prefer to NOT delude the fight against republican evil by dulling it down with democrat culpability. And, no, I don't think that this point leads me to hypocrisy.
VERY nicely put! :woohoo:

[strandinthewind]

Well........ It would be nice (and naive) to think that politicians are going to vote based on their principles, however (and I know you know this, which is why I am so baffled when you use these types of points), politics is based on compromise, sometimes grudgingly so.


True and the R as jerks - I never said any differently did I? If so, I misspoke and herein correct myself. But, my point is that the D's jump on board and then gloat over it - like Ted K. did with the education bill and Clinton did with the DOMA and the Don't Ask Don't Tell joke.

I am far more concerned with the origin and advocacy of legislation, rather than those politicians that are, for all intents and purposes, forced to vote for distasteful legislation due to political realities.

I agree - but I am just not willing to let the D's slide anymore than the R's. I mean look at Kerry. There was not a whoile lot of difference there between him and W :shrug: I get that it has to be this way. But, I also get that it is repugnant. Finally, I do not think it gives credibility to the actions of the R for initiating the tripe. They are wrong for doing so.

That is just me though. I think it is possible to criticize the R's and the D's in the same breath without diluting the argument that the R's are worse than the D's. I agree though that few can or even want to make that distinction. I credit the D party with this because they have been pulling the wool over people's eyes for a long time and it is wasy to do so when your only real comparison if the far worse R party.

[dissention]

[QUOTE=The Tower] Well........ It would be nice (and naive) to think that politicians are going to vote based on their principles, however (and I know you know this, which is why I am so baffled when you use these types of points), politics is based on compromise, sometimes grudgingly so.[QUOTE=The Tower]

True and the R as jerks - I never said any differently did I? If so, I misspoke and herein correct myself. But, my point is that the D's jump on board and then gloat over it - like Ted K. did with the education bill and Clinton did with the DOMA and the Don't Ask Don't Tell joke.

[QUOTE=The Tower] I am far more concerned with the origin and advocacy of legislation, rather than those politicians that are, for all intents and purposes, forced to vote for distasteful legislation due to political realities.[QUOTE=The Tower]

I agree - but I am just not willing to let the D's slide anymore than the R's. I mean look at Kerry. There was not a whoile lot of difference there between him and W :shrug: I get that it has to be this way. But, I also get that it is repugnant. Finally, I do not think it gives credibility to the actions of the R for initiating the tripe. They are wrong for doing so.

Doesn't it drive you nuts when that happens and you have to go back and edit it or face looking like a dolt? I know I hate it when I do it. :laugh:

[irishgrl]

[QUOTE=The Tower] Well........ It would be nice (and naive) to think that politicians are going to vote based on their principles, however (and I know you know this, which is why I am so baffled when you use these types of points), politics is based on compromise, sometimes grudgingly so.[QUOTE=The Tower]

True and the R as jerks - I never said any differently did I? If so, I misspoke and herein correct myself. But, my point is that the D's jump on board and then gloat over it - like Ted K. did with the education bill and Clinton did with the DOMA and the Don't Ask Don't Tell joke.

[QUOTE=The Tower] I am far more concerned with the origin and advocacy of legislation, rather than those politicians that are, for all intents and purposes, forced to vote for distasteful legislation due to political realities.[QUOTE=The Tower]
just WHY you are so bent on including Dem votes that are non-votes is beyond me! But, as I said several times, those misguided Dems should be tarred with the same brush as the Republicans if they vote for any single item on Bush's agenda! From everything Ive seen lately, the votes have been pretty strongly along party lines, with only one or two renegades....not worth mentioning to my mind....
I agree - but I am just not willing to let the D's slide anymore than the R's. I mean look at Kerry. There was not a whoile lot of difference there between him and W :shrug: I get that it has to be this way. But, I also get that it is repugnant. Finally, I do not think it gives credibility to the actions of the R for initiating the tripe. They are wrong for doing so.

no one is saying those few dems SHOULD slide! MY point is, we as a nation are dealing with these issues in the first place because the Repug's are in control and they are foisting this garbage onto us...

[strandinthewind]

no one is saying those few dems SHOULD slide! MY point is, we as a nation are dealing with these issues in the first place because the Repug's are in control and they are foisting this garbage onto us...

I agree and never said differently. My point is and was that running to a complacent and enabling D party is not the solution. Yet, "we" do it because there is nowhere else feasible to run. That sucks, but it is reality.

[strandinthewind]

Doesn't it drive you nuts when that happens and you have to go back and edit it or face looking like a dolt? I know I hate it when I do it. :laugh:

Well there is that AND this particular dolt cannot type for Shinola :cool:

[dissention]

Well there is that AND this particular dolt cannot type for Shinola :cool:

I always have to go back and edit "have" and "you". :laugh: They come out as oyu and ahve...

[strandinthewind]

I always have to go back and edit "have" and "you". :laugh: They come out as oyu and ahve...

that is because you middle finger is tired from using it after reading most of my posts :eek: :laugh: :laugh:

[irishgrl]

I agree and never said differently. My point is and was that running to a complacent and enabling D party is not the solution. Yet, "we" do it because there is nowhere else feasible to run. That sucks, but it is reality.

I get unhappy with the Dems too ya know! never more so than when they failed as a GROUP to stand with Barbara Boxer re: Ohio voting irregularities...

But, no amount of Dem foot dragging can compare with the OUTRIGHT ASSAULT on every American who isnt wealthy that is being waged by the Republican party!!! There is NO comparison as far as I am concerned! :mad:

[dissention]

that is because you middle finger is tired from using it after reading most of my posts :eek: :laugh: :laugh:

There's that, too, but I moon the monitor just as much as I flip the bird. :woohoo:

[strandinthewind]

I get unhappy with the Dems too ya know! never more so than when they failed as a GROUP to stand with Barbara Boxer re: Ohio voting irregularities...

But, no amount of Dem foot dragging can compare with the OUTRIGHT ASSAULT on every American who isnt wealthy that is being waged by the Republican party!!! There is NO comparison as far as I am concerned! :mad:

Perhaps true, but I do not think rallying against the D's dilutes the fight against the R's :shrug:

also, I hate it when you lump all wealthy people into some kind of boat of uncaring people. I know you know that many wealthy people are kind, caring and VERY generous. I mean thanks to the Vanderbilts and their influence, people in Tenn. get free health care at their clinic - or at least I think they used to? Also, how do we define wealthy? That kind of thinking is just defeating of the whole notion that all are equal, no matter how true it may be for some.

[strandinthewind]

There's that, too, but I moon the monitor just as much as I flip the bird. :woohoo:

be still my heart - please turn on your web cam next time you moon and link to Lux and myself :xoxo: :cool: :xoxo: :cool: :woohoo:

[dissention]

But, no amount of Dem foot dragging can compare with the OUTRIGHT ASSAULT on every American who isnt wealthy that is being waged by the Republican party!!! There is NO comparison as far as I am concerned! :mad:

Bull****. They're guilty by complicity and by keeping silent. Show me a Dem who can get anything done and I'll show you a right-wing fundie who approves of gay marriage. When it comes to Dems, it's all about status and whether they have power or not. They don't care about much else, everything is a poll or focus group to them and how they can appeal to voters. They're losers with no real principles.

JMO, of course.

[dissention]

be still my heart - please turn on your web cam next time you moon and link to Lux and myself :xoxo: :cool: :xoxo: :cool: :woohoo:

I wouldn't want you to pass out from delight, who would I talk to? :p

[strandinthewind]

Bull****. They're guilty by complicity and by keeping silent. Show me a Dem who can get anything done and I'll show you a right-wing fundie who approves of gay marriage. When it come sot Dems, it's all about status and whether they ahve power or not. They don't care about much else, everything is a poll or focus group to them and how they can appeal to voters. They're losers with no real principles.

JMO, of course.

ITA and if you were mooning me now - I would be kissing your a$$$$

:xoxo:

[strandinthewind]

I wouldn't want you to pass out from delight, who would I talk to? :p


would you like to borrow one of my many personalities :eek: :laugh: I find them very conversant :laugh:

[dissention]

would you like to borrow one of my many personalities :eek: :laugh: I find them very conversant :laugh:

As if I need another one. :rolleyes: :laugh:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

WTF? You're going to use that line of defence? If so, then when it comes to military atrocities and scandals, you can pretty much eliminate the male of the species from ever entering the military. Are you really willing to say that women have caused more military scandals?

No, Men are cause of military scandals too!!! I was just saying that some of the most recent and most public ones have been involving women! Oh men too have caused a lot of scandals too, maybe even more than the women!

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Is there anything on which you don't side with Ann?

Yes, there is actually! Ann believes that women shouldn't be allowed to vote. I disagree with that. But other than that I agree with most everything she says.

[strandinthewind]

As if I need another one. :rolleyes: :laugh:


Well, several of mine got mad at me and along with my genitalia, which justifiably was incensed at the neglect if not nonuse, and up and went on vacation without me. Thus, I am a little sketchy and seemingly full of estrogen - though I did receive a post card from them that was a picture of them by the shore ne' the edge :eek:

Can you tell it has been one of those days :laugh:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

You're probably right. I fear the day brwn_eyes decides to breed. And if he's reading this...please....don't.

I know lots of WOMEN (not men but WOMEN) who don't think that women should be allowed in the army/military. So I guess Ann and other women who are against it are misogynistic? I mean in all honesty (oh GOD I know where this conversation is going to head now!) men and women are built very differently. There are things that women are better at that men can't do and visa versa.

[The Tower]

True and the R as jerks - I never said any differently did I?
It's not that you've said it differently, it's just that you tend to add the "but, democrats are just as bad", which then has the aura of letting them off the hook a little bit. And I don't think the democrats are just as bad, which is why I pointed out that legislative intent and advocacy should be the point of judgement.

But, my point is that the D's jump on board and then gloat over it - like Ted K. did with the education bill and Clinton did with the DOMA and the Don't Ask Don't Tell joke.
I never once got any impression that Clinton "gloated" over Don't Ask Don't Tell. I think he was very disappointed and saddened that he couldn't do what he wanted to do. He apologized to the gay community many times in different articles, etc., if my memory serves me correct.

There was not a whoile lot of difference there between him and W :shrug:
For me, there was one big difference (and for me, probably the most important one)- I can trust in Kerry to want to do the right thing, whereas Dubya is pure, concentrated evil who is only interested in promoting the interests of the plutocracy. And that, my dear Jason, is a difference that is wider than the Grand Canyon.

[irishgrl]

Perhaps true, but I do not think rallying against the D's dilutes the fight against the R's :shrug:

also, I hate it when you lump all wealthy people into some kind of boat of uncaring people. I know you know that many wealthy people are kind, caring and VERY generous. I mean thanks to the Vanderbilts and their influence, people in Tenn. get free health care at their clinic - or at least I think they used to? Also, how do we define wealthy? That kind of thinking is just defeating of the whole notion that all are equal, no matter how true it may be for some.

I am not characterizing the wealthy people as uncaring, I am not commenting on them at all at this point! I am SAYING the REPUBLICANS DONT CARE ABOUT YOU IF YOU'RE NOT WEALTHY!! WHY are you making these assumptions? And the notion of equality never meant financial equality but rather equality before the law I think.

[dissention]

Well, several of mine got mad at me and along with my genitalia, which justifiably was incensed at the neglect if not nonuse, and up and went on vacation without me. Thus, I am a little sketchy and seemingly full of estrogen - though I did receive a post card from them that was a picture of them by the shore ne' the edge :eek:

Can you tell it has been one of those days :laugh:

:lol:

I'm not touching that one, my love. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

I am not characterizing the wealthy people as uncaring, I am not commenting on them at all at this point! I am SAYING the REPUBLICANS DONT CARE ABOUT YOU IF YOU'RE NOT WEALTHY!! WHY are you making these assumptions? And the notion of equality never meant financial equality but rather equality before the law I think.

If I misunderstood you :sorry:

[The Tower]

be still my heart - please turn on your web cam next time you moon and link to Lux and myself :xoxo: :cool: :xoxo: :cool: :woohoo:

Hello?!??! I'm right here!!! Please include me in your Moonlink... jeezus.

:laugh: :laugh: :] :xoxo:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

And so men should be kept out of the military? That goes with your statement of women being kept out.

No, that’s not the main reason that I think women shouldn't be in the military, it just helps reinforce that theory.

[The Tower]

Bull****. They're guilty by complicity and by keeping silent. Show me a Dem who can get anything done and I'll show you a right-wing fundie who approves of gay marriage. When it comes to Dems, it's all about status and whether they have power or not. They don't care about much else, everything is a poll or focus group to them and how they can appeal to voters. They're losers with no real principles.

JMO, of course.

How about Henry Waxman??? :wavey:

[irishgrl]

Bull****. They're guilty by complicity and by keeping silent. Show me a Dem who can get anything done and I'll show you a right-wing fundie who approves of gay marriage. When it comes to Dems, it's all about status and whether they have power or not. They don't care about much else, everything is a poll or focus group to them and how they can appeal to voters. They're losers with no real principles.

JMO, of course.
and I submit to you that the question is MOOT because the prospect of any Dem getting anything done in the current Congressional makeup is a fantasy.
And, many of them DONT keep silent! I can think of several Dems from CA alone who have principles: Barbara Boxer, and George Miller. and if I wasnt at work, I'd give you more names. You may be right about a large portion of them and its shameful, but in the long run, its only the Democratic party that gives a **** about the normal everyday American. (between the two Biggies that is. I admire much in the Green party but the truth is, they just arent viable. and until they are, Im not discussing them.)

[amber]

Hello?!??! I'm right here!!! Please include me in your Moonlink... jeezus.

:laugh: :laugh: :] :xoxo:
if you get that could you send it to me? :laugh:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

That would be to assume that all military roles involve fighting off giant men. Women can fire rifles, and suprise surprise, they can make decisions and give order. I agree that women are not as useful for on the ground endurance but is that all the military is.

Also you said that because of these scandles, women should not be allowed in the military. That has nothing to do with the physical build of females.

I didn't say singularly because of that one issue with scandals. I just said that that the scandals is another reinforcement.

[dissention]

How about Henry Waxman??? :wavey:

Well, c'mon, it was a bit of an exaggeration, dear, but the fact remains the the Democratic party can get nothing done. They're incompetent fools and more dangerous than the Republicans because they're too willing to compromise in order to save face. No backbones, I tell ya. ;)

[strandinthewind]

I never once got any impression that Clinton "gloated" over Don't Ask Don't Tell. I think he was very disappointed and saddened that he couldn't do what he wanted to do. He apologized to the gay community many times in different articles, etc., if my memory serves me correct.

I never thought Clinton was sincere in his push to allow out people in the military. His record prior to then did not support such an action. But, OI will say that at least he had the sand to breach the issue. As for the DOMA - after signing it, I remember him saying it was good thing blah blah blah - perhaps that is not gloating, but is sure is not contrition.


For me, there was one big difference (and for me, probably the most important one)- I can trust in Kerry to want to do the right thing, whereas Dubya is pure, concentrated evil who is only interested in promoting the interests of the plutocracy. And that, my dear Jason, is a difference that is wider than the Grand Canyon.

Certainly Kerry has differences from W and they are not the same. But, Kerry played it so close to the middle that the starkness of those distinctions was blurred. I mean his whole I believe in the right to chose but not abortion and I belive in civil unions but not marriage - schpeel was a pandering to the moderate voters which I readily admit he needed to win. Remember, I voted for Kerry. I thought he was a liar and a fraud, but I voted for him because I am terrified of the Theocracy ne' plutocracy that will come from the people controlling W. So, we essentially agree here.

[dissention]

and I submit to you that the question is MOOT because the prospect of any Dem getting anything done in the current Congressional makeup is a fantasy.
And, many of them DONT keep silent! I can think of several Dems from CA alone who have principles: Barbara Boxer, and George Miller. and if I wasnt at work, I'd give you more names. You may be right about a large portion of them and its shameful, but in the long run, its only the Democratic party that gives a **** about the normal everyday American. (between the two Biggies that is. I admire much in the Green party but the truth is, they just arent viable. and until they are, Im not discussing them.)

Democrats aren't viable either, they're Republican-lite and it will take a miracle for them to win the White House back. The Republicans managed to get things done when they weren't in control and successfully turned things around for themselves and came out on top. Why can't the Dems do the same? Because Democrats aren't as suave, they aren't as skilled, and they're too analytical. There's a disonnect there and they have no desire to fix it.

As for the Greens, dear, I'd rather align myself with a party that has integrity and stays true to my liberal beliefs and values and they're the party to go with. Not the ****ing Democrats. They're losers and if they keep it up, they deserve to lose in '08.

[strandinthewind]

Oh goody. What am doing now without my knowledge?

Diss. often moons his computer monitor after reading my posts here. So, suggested that seeing as how we discussed tantamount polygamy - he should let us in on the mooning. Now Tower wants in - Oh Well, the more the merrier I say - though I will have to wire for the expedited return of my vacationing friends if I am to have any effect other than a vocal hello :cool:

[irishgrl]

Democrats aren't viable either, they're Republican-lite and it will take a miracle for them to win the White House back. The Republicans managed to get things done when they weren't in control and successfully turned things around for themselves and came out on top. Why can't the Dems do the same? Because Democrats aren't as suave, they aren't as skilled, and they're too analytical. There's a disonnect there and they have no desire to fix it.

As for the Greens, dear, I'd rather align myself with a party that has integrity and stays true to my liberal beliefs and values and they're the party to go with. Not the ****ing Democrats. They're losers and if they keep it up, they deserve to lose in '08.

I think you're going to be surprised....Dems may be down but they're certainly not OUT, and this last campaign proved that to me. The grassroots swelling that Kerry got behind him surprised EVERYONE. We are NOT silent, and we are NOT going down. I think it is a mistake for the Dems to go any more to the right, I think we need to (instead) go back to our roots, and be true to our historical positions. If the Dems ever stop representing choice, or the environment, Im cutting all ties. Until that time, I will continue to support them any way I can, because they are our only line of defense at this point. Your disgust may be deserved but I hope you have the balls to praise the Dems when they turn this party around and be again the bastion of the working man that they once were. :nod:

ps: based on the original post in this thread, I hope the Dems wise up and let some poor Republican sucker have the Presidency after Bush leaves....

[amber]

Democrats aren't viable either, they're Republican-lite and it will take a miracle for them to win the White House back. The Republicans managed to get things done when they weren't in control and successfully turned things around for themselves and came out on top. Why can't the Dems do the same? Because Democrats aren't as suave, they aren't as skilled, and they're too analytical. There's a disonnect there and they have no desire to fix it.

As for the Greens, dear, I'd rather align myself with a party that has integrity and stays true to my liberal beliefs and values and they're the party to go with. Not the ****ing Democrats. They're losers and if they keep it up, they deserve to lose in '08.
:nod: :nod: :xoxo:

[dissention]

The grassroots swelling that Kerry got behind him surprised EVERYONE. We are NOT silent, and we are NOT going down.

You mean the grassroots swelling that he inherited from Howard Dean, right? There was no conscious grassroots effort for Kerry, there was a grassroots effort to get Bush out. And Howard Dean is the father of it all.

I think it is a mistake for the Dems to go any more to the right, I think we need to (instead) go back to our roots, and be true to our historical positions. If the Dems ever stop representing choice, or the environment, Im cutting all ties. Until that time, I will continue to support them any way I can, because they are our only line of defense at this point. Your disgust may be deserved but I hope you have the balls to praise the Dems when they turn this party around and be again the bastion of the working man that they once were. :nod:

They won't turn the party around, they'll run it even mroe into the ground than they already. They're a joke. Clinton was the worst thing to happen to the Democrats, he turned them sour, yet everyone praises him as the God of Liberalism. He's not. They haven't represented the working man for years, it'll take a miracle for them to do it again. Howard Dean will kick ass, but I don't think it will be enough. But if and when he does, I hope you'll have the balls to praise him and the not the spineless wimps we call Democrats.

[dissention]

:nod: :nod: :xoxo:

Thank you, dear. :xoxo:

I know most people don't want to admit it because it really is scary to think that not one of the big party's has their best interest at heart or represents them, but call a spade a spade. The Democrats represent liberalism as much as Republicans represent atheism and that's the truth. How can any true self-respecting liberal align themselves with that party? Why not stay true to your beliefs instead of just wanting to win?

[SuzeQuze]

I know that. The point I was making was that you were joyously speaking of killing others and it's no better than being joyous about the killing of those people.



You speak to those of other nations the way you did, causing a hatred of yourself, and then declare that because of hatred you caused, you will slaughter them. You really don't see what you're doing do you? Is it ok for them to kill you because they hate you? This even before mentioning that you caused this hatred.

Why do I care about American politics so much? Oh jesus. That just shows your ignorance. Firstly, blackmailing other nations into aligning with your country and then putting us in the same position as America, for some reason sparks an interest for me. We're in Iraq because of America. We're hated in our region because we align ourselves with America and part of the reason we do this is because of trade. The other factor in my reason for showing an interest is that I'm actually human and when we witness atrocities and injusticies, no matter what country we may be in, as humans, we tend to show a concern. To think it's just your business to go around killing others is absurd. Why do I care if somebody murders my neighbour?

Stop wasting valuable typing energy trying to use logic on someone who has no ability to think logically.

[irishgrl]

You mean the grassroots swelling that he inherited from Howard Dean, right? There was no conscious grassroots effort for Kerry, there was a grassroots effort to get Bush out. And Howard Dean is the father of it all.



They won't turn the party around, they'll run it even mroe into the ground than they already. They're a joke. Clinton was the worst thing to happen to the Democrats, he turned them sour, yet everyone praises him as the God of Liberalism. He's not. They haven't represented the working man for years, it'll take a miracle for them to do it again. Howard Dean will kick ass, but I don't think it will be enough. But if and when he does, I hope you'll have the balls to praise him and the not the spineless wimps we call Democrats.

I have no problem giving a Democrat praise! if its Dean or Kerry or Kucinich its all good!

fyi: I was part of the grassroots movement for KERRY. He may be lackluster as a speaker, but I think he has good ideas and I believe we would have been better served as a nation to have HIM rather than Dumbya ANY day. As for your opinion of Clinton, you're welcome to it. I happen to like the man. Whether you do or not makes no difference to me. He was pro-choice, and pro-environment, two of my biggest issues, so whats not to like?

[dissention]

I have no problem giving a Democrat praise! if its Dean or Kerry or Kucinich its all good!

Kucinich is too radical to be called a Dem, but if he likes being called one, more power to him. He's a helluva man.

fyi: I was part of the grassroots movement for KERRY. He may be lackluster as a speaker, but I think he has good ideas and I believe we would have been better served as a nation to have HIM rather than Dumbya ANY day. As for your opinion of Clinton, you're welcome to it. I happen to like the man. Whether you do or not makes no difference to me. He was pro-choice, and pro-environment, two of my biggest issues, so whats not to like?

What's not to like? I won't live long enough to list all the things, my love. He's a swine, one look at his record proves as much.

As for Kerry, we'd be in the same boat we're in now. He wasn't an alternative, he was part of the problem. Another rich white guy with big aspirations and a remarkable disconnect from the average people in this country. And you're the first person I've ever spoken to who will admit to thinking Kerry was a good candidate with an actual grass movements behind him.

[SuzeQuze]

I love that song, and the filmclip for some reason. It's true, for many who don't live amongst it, it's scary. Maybe that's why I love the song, not for the song itself.

Um, it scares the bejesus out of me. :eek:

[SuzeQuze]

I always wish gay children upon total right wingers - that they may finally know compasion or something...though I guess that could backfire and then the kid would be treated like absolute ass by their parent...

LOL, I do too! May your children be gay, and may you lose all your money and be poor, amen.

[irishgrl]

Kucinich is too radical to be called a Dem, but if he likes being called one, more power to him. He's a helluva man.



What's not to like? I won't live long enough to list all the things, my love. He's a swine, one look at his record proves as much.

As for Kerry, we'd be in the same boat we're in now. He wasn't an alternative, he was part of the problem. Another rich white guy with big aspirations and a remarkable disconnect from the average people in this country. And you're the first person I've ever spoken to who will admit to thinking Kerry was a good candidate with an actual grass movements behind him.

I find myself to be the lone voice quite often, and thats ok with me. I LIKE Clinton. I was behind Kerry. Does that mean I think we as a party couldnt do better? NO. I would have preferred Kucinich, but he didnt have the numbers behind him. Its too bad, too, because he is the one candidate who most closely represents what I always believed the Democratic party to be about. As for Kerry's grassroots movement, whether he got his headstart from Dean, or whether the movement was actually a desire to get Bush out is a minor detail to my way of thinking.

[SuzeQuze]

It's not that you've said it differently, it's just that you tend to add the "but, democrats are just as bad", which then has the aura of letting them off the hook a little bit. And I don't think the democrats are just as bad, which is why I pointed out that legislative intent and advocacy should be the point of judgement.


I never once got any impression that Clinton "gloated" over Don't Ask Don't Tell. I think he was very disappointed and saddened that he couldn't do what he wanted to do. He apologized to the gay community many times in different articles, etc., if my memory serves me correct.


For me, there was one big difference (and for me, probably the most important one)- I can trust in Kerry to want to do the right thing, whereas Dubya is pure, concentrated evil who is only interested in promoting the interests of the plutocracy. And that, my dear Jason, is a difference that is wider than the Grand Canyon.

You are a wise one, I've liked what you've had to say in this thread today. :nod:

[SuzeQuze]

I see your point. The first time I read it I thought you were rousing on me.

Sorry, I should have added more detail, I'm mentally exhausted after my interviews, which I think went well. So no, I wasn't "rousing on you". It's just that this person continually demonstrates no ability to be logical yet many try to use logic on him. Is it not futile? I get tired watching all the energy folks put into posts, which will become lost in a brain that works in some manner alien to me.

[The Tower]

Why not stay true to your beliefs instead of just wanting to win?
If we're talking about Presidential politics then let's see....

1) The Supreme Court

2) The Cabinet

3) The Veto

4) The ability to control the national agenda.

Do you think any news outlet of any kind would be paying attention to the "social security crisis" if Dubya wasn't the president?

If Kerry had won, I could have breathed a sigh of relief with regard to the replacement of that scuzzbag Rehnquist. Think of all the judicial nominees that are going to sleaze their way into a lifetime on the bench because of Dubya.

Presidential politics is mundane. I reserve my liberal hair-splitting for local politics and rank and file offices.

[strandinthewind]

I find myself to be the lone voice quite often, and thats ok with me. I LIKE Clinton. I was behind Kerry. Does that mean I think we as a party couldnt do better? NO. I would have preferred Kucinich, but he didnt have the numbers behind him. Its too bad, too, because he is the one candidate who most closely represents what I always believed the Democratic party to be about. As for Kerry's grassroots movement, whether he got his headstart from Dean, or whether the movement was actually a desire to get Bush out is a minor detail to my way of thinking.

Interestingly, Dean is far from a liberal and, in fact, is rather a moderate http://www.issues2000.org/Howard_Dean.htm I like him, but many do not take him seriously thanks to Rove and that awful scream :eek:

[irishgrl]

If we're talking about Presidential politics then let's see....

1) The Supreme Court

2) The Cabinet

3) The Veto

4) The ability to control the national agenda.

Do you think any news outlet of any kind would be paying attention to the "social security crisis" if Dubya wasn't the president?

If Kerry had won, I could have breathed a sigh of relief with regard to the replacement of that scuzzbag Rehnquist. Think of all the judicial nominees that are going to sleaze their way into a lifetime on the bench because of Dubya.

Presidential politics is mundane. I reserve my liberal hair-splitting for local politics and rank and file offices.

BADDA BING!

[dissention]

If we're talking about Presidential politics then let's see....

1) The Supreme Court

2) The Cabinet

3) The Veto

4) The ability to control the national agenda.

Do you think any news outlet of any kind would be paying attention to the "social security crisis" if Dubya wasn't the president?

If Kerry had won, I could have breathed a sigh of relief with regard to the replacement of that scuzzbag Rehnquist. Think of all the judicial nominees that are going to sleaze their way into a lifetime on the bench because of Dubya.

Presidential politics is mundane. I reserve my liberal hair-splitting for local politics and rank and file offices.

Darling, I don't disagree at all in many, many ways. That's why I voted Kerry. But anyone who thinks the Republicans will ban such things as abortion is delusional, they'd lose too much leverage by doing so. And just think of all the scuzzbag nominees who will sleaze their way onto the bench with Democratic approval.

[irishgrl]

Darling, I don't disagree at all in many, many ways. That's why I voted Kerry. But anyone who thinks the Republicans will ban such things as abortion is delusional, they'd lose too much leverage by doing so. And just think of all the scuzzbag nominees who will sleaze their way onto the bench with Democratic approval.
I think abortion is the first in a long line of dominoes.

[dissention]

Interestingly, Dean is far from a liberal and, in fact, is rather a moderate http://www.issues2000.org/Howard_Dean.htm I like him, but many do not take him seriously thanks to Rove and that awful scream :eek:

He is a moderate and I didn't support him because of that and because of his stand on the death penalty. But if he can rally the troops and bring life to that dying party, he's fabulous to me. He's got his work cut out for him.

[dissention]

I think abortion is the first in a long line of dominoes.

It would be political suicide. It will never happen. :cool:

[strandinthewind]

Darling, I don't disagree at all in many, many ways. That's why I voted Kerry. But anyone who thinks the Republicans will ban such things as abortion is delusional, they'd lose too much leverage by doing so. And just think of all the scuzzbag nominees who will sleaze their way onto the bench with Democratic approval.

If they could they would because the fight will always be there even if it is banned :shrug: Plus, there is always gay people to demonize after that and then, the lowest of them all in their eyes, the Middle Eaterners.

[strandinthewind]

He is a moderate and I didn't support him because of that and because of his stand on the death penalty. But if he can rally the troops and bring life to that dying party, he's fabulous to me. He's got his work cut out for him.

Thus, Mary (I think) and Tower's point that compromise sucks, but is a necessary evil in this imperfect world!!! :cool:

[dissention]

If they could they would because the fight will always be there even if it is banned :shrug: Plus, there is always gay people to demonize after that and then, the lowest of them all in their eyes, the Middle Eaterners.

You know I think Republicans and conservatives are the spawn of Satan, but I truly do not believe they will ban it. They'd never be able to get the support even if they tried to. But they'd lose too much of their rhetoric and their "Why-You-Must-Vote-Republican" appeal.

[irishgrl]

It would be political suicide. It will never happen. :cool:

then why do you suppose all the salivating over who sits on the freakin bench?
I am very much afraid that is HUGE to the Republican party. If it turns out to be political suicide, so much the better. :shrug:

[dissention]

then why do you suppose all the salivating over who sits on the freakin bench?

Because I think they're blowing smoke up everyone's asses so that when the nominee gets rejected, the Democrats look bad. :xoxo:

[The Tower]

You know I think Republicans and conservatives are the spawn of Satan, but I truly do not believe they will ban it. They'd never be able to get the support even if they tried to. But they'd lose too much of their rhetoric and their "Why-You-Must-Vote-Republican" appeal.

I hoping for/betting on republican hubris leading to the overturning of Roe vs. Wade and/or the institution of a new draft. That's just the kind of electrifying jump start the dems need!

[dissention]

I hoping for/betting on republican hubris leading to the overturning of Roe vs. Wade and/or the institution of a new draft. That's just the kind of electrifying jump start the dems need!

:nod:

But even if that happened, there would be no guarantee the Dems would do anything but bitch and then continue to pass Republican legislation.

[irishgrl]

I hoping for/betting on republican hubris leading to the overturning of Roe vs. Wade and/or the institution of a new draft. That's just the kind of electrifying jump start the dems need!
ok now you need to rephrase that: "leading to the ATTEMPT at overturning Roe vs. Wade..." There's no going back once its overturned! Dont forget we are talking about a different arm of the power structure here.....this is a whole different ball of wax than re-instituting the draft....
one is a Congressional action the other a Judicial one. they are apples and oranges. One is a result of political wrangling the other a result of judicial decision. The problem lies in who gets appointed and the odds favor a conservative based on the makeup of Congress.

[irishgrl]

Because I think they're blowing smoke up everyone's asses so that when the nominee gets rejected, the Democrats look bad. :xoxo:
rejected? with a Republican majority in BOTH houses? Whatchoo smokin?

[strandinthewind]

ok now you need to rephrase that: "leading to the ATTEMPT at overturning Roe vs. Wade..." There's no going back once its overturned! Dont forget we are talking about a different arm of the power structure here.....this is a whole different ball of wax than re-instituting the draft....


All Roe did was to prevent a state from asserting its interest in protecting the interest of the fetus over that of the mother's right to control her own body as allegedly found to exist in the penumbra of rights eniminating from the linerty interests inherently contained in the Bill of Rights. In other words, the Fed. Govt. trumps the state. Thus, the states would still be free to allow abortion and, interestingly, would in theory then no longer be limited to the frist trimester. Also, many states would allow abortions, though I am sure the R's would work on that as well. In the end, Roe needs to stay the law even though I am horrified by its "legal" reasoning.

[strandinthewind]

rejected? with a Republican majority in BOTH houses? Whatchoo smokin?

I think Diss is correct here, though it appears to be so, there is no way a non pro choice person will sit on The Court. But, I could be proven wrong.

[dissention]

rejected? with a Republican majority in BOTH houses? Whatchoo smokin?

Whatchoo smokin'? I'm a freakin' loon, but even I know abortion will never be overturned. It's liberal BS, nothing more.

[The Tower]

ok now you need to rephrase that: "leading to the ATTEMPT at overturning Roe vs. Wade..." There's no going back once its overturned! Dont forget we are talking about a different arm of the power structure here.....this is a whole different ball of wax than re-instituting the draft....
They already are attempting to overturn it. And, of course, there's going back. The Supreme Court changes its mind all the time. It wasn't that long ago that they ruled that it was okay for states to make sodomy illegal.

If 50,000,000+ people voted for Dubya with a clear conscience knowing his first-term record, then I don't think any kind of simple persuasions are going to shake up this electorate.

Both reinstituting the draft and banning abortion are scary prospects for Americans. However, since the neocons want both things, I say give them to them and watch the consequences. It's a longshot- I think the neocons are too shrewd to allow either misstep to happen, but here's to hoping.

[irishgrl]

All Roe did was to prevent a state from asserting its interest in protecting the interest of the fetus over that of the mother's right to control her own body as allegedly found to exist in the penumbra of rights eniminating from the linerty interests inherently contained in the Bill of Rights. In other words, the Fed. Govt. trumps the state. Thus, the states would still be free to allow abortion and, interestingly, would in theory then no longer be limited to the frist trimester. Also, many states would allow abortions, though I am sure the R's would work on that as well. In the end, Roe needs to stay the law even though I am horrified by its "legal" reasoning.



Jason, please re-read your post, you contradict yourself: if the FED says abortion is illegal, even if the STATE says its ok the FED TRUMPS! CA passed a law making medicinal use of MJ ok but the FED is still prosecuting! There is a Supreme Ct case waiting to be heard on this very issue!

[irishgrl]

Whatchoo smokin'? I'm a freakin' loon, but even I know abortion will never be overturned. It's liberal BS, nothing more.
I hope you're right....but for once I think your crystal ball is dark.

[dissention]

I hope you're right....but for once I think your crystal ball is dark.

Not at all. I'm not using a crystal ball this time, I'm staring reality in the face. :nod:

[irishgrl]

They already are attempting to overturn it. And, of course, there's going back. The Supreme Court changes its mind all the time. It wasn't that long ago that they ruled that it was okay for states to make sodomy illegal.

If 50,000,000+ people voted for Dubya with a clear conscience knowing his first-term record, then I don't think any kind of simple persuasions are going to shake up this electorate.

Both reinstituting the draft and banning abortion are scary prospects for Americans. However, since the neocons want both things, I say give them to them and watch the consequences. It's a longshot- I think the neocons are too shrewd to allow either misstep to happen, but here's to hoping.

a good portion of the doofuses who voted him in wont be alive to see the havoc their votes have wrought. sad but true. all those old timers, conservatives to their dying breath, will not live to see the misery their kids and grandkids will have to deal with. Also, there wont be going back as long as the makeup of Justices who overturns it remains the same. The chance of it being changed back would require a new lineup of justices, and considering they are appointed for life, I dont believe either you or I would see a change back once Roe is overturned. JMO.

[irishgrl]

Not at all. I'm not using a crystal ball this time, I'm staring reality in the face. :nod:

time will tell.....

[Hawkeye]

I hoping for/betting on republican hubris leading to the overturning of Roe vs. Wade and/or the institution of a new draft. That's just the kind of electrifying jump start the dems need!

well of the two I pray its overturning Roe V Wade and not the draft.

[The Tower]

well of the two I pray its overturning Roe V Wade and not the draft.

Lemme guess... you're under 35???

[ontheEdgeof17]

Lemme guess... you're under 35???


Try under 18.



I think.

[irishgrl]

I would much rather Diss be right and NEVER have to worry about Roe being overturned, but with all due respect, though I agree with 99.9% of everything Tower has said in this thread, I as a woman am absolutely AGHAST and HORRIFIED at the idea of any legislation telling me what I can do with my OWN freakin body. I dont know your gender (or your name) Tower, but I suspect you are male otherwise you would not be so casual about "giving the neocons what they want". In one fell swoop, half the population would be affected. whether they agree with it or no....this is a HUGE issue, one that I cannot be so casual about. :shrug:

[irishgrl]

well of the two I pray its overturning Roe V Wade and not the draft.

obviously a male. also, the deaths of thousands of soldiers arent as important to you as a woman's choice to do what she wants with her own body? Why I wonder?

[Hawkeye]

No, quite simply I don't want to be drafted, and to me thats far more scary then the thought of a woman not being allowed an abortion :laugh: purely thinking of as Stevie sings in Straight Back "Me Me Me"

[strandinthewind]

Jason, please re-read your post, you contradict yourself: if the FED says abortion is illegal, even if the STATE says its ok the FED TRUMPS! CA passed a law making medicinal use of MJ ok but the FED is still prosecuting! There is a Supreme Ct case waiting to be heard on this very issue!

No - I was and am talking only about if the Court overturn Roe, which I think was the topic at hand when we were the Court nominees. If the Court overturns Roe, there is no Federal Law in place banning abortions. Thus, the overturning of Roe merely leaves the issue to the states to the states :shrug:

Now, if the Federal Lesgislative Branch passes a Constitutional Amendment, that would overrule Roe and ban the states from making it legal regardless of whether Roe is overturned. This will never happen though because the votes will never be there or at least they will not for the foreseeable future.

Or, if the Court overturns Roe and then the Federal Legislative Branch passes some Act and that Act passess judicial muster which is a big if - then yes, that would prevent the states from asserting any authority in this area other than to uphold the Federal law.

But and again, the overturning of Roe by the Court does not automatically put in place a Federal Law banning abortions. Thus, I did not contradict myself :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

obviously a male. also, the deaths of thousands of soldiers arent as important to you as a woman's choice to do what she wants with her own body? Why I wonder?

hello - who, regardless of gender, would not want no war over no abortion - but that is an idiotic argument because the two are not related and it is one of those academic arguments.

[irishgrl]

hello - who, regardless of gender, would not want no war over no abortion - but that is an idiotic argument because the two are not related and it is one of those academic arguments.

Do the lives of several thousand boys, mother's sons every one of them mean nothing? If there was no war, there would be no need for the draft. The war is a deliberate decision by an administration who obviously is not thinking of the lives it is sacrificing all for OIL, yet it can be OH SO CONCERNED about what a woman does with her own body which is no strain on this country, its economy or its people? give me a break!

[irishgrl]

If the Court overturns Roe, there is no Federal Law in place banning abortions
When the Court overturned Plessy v. Ferguson With Brown v. Board of Education, it created a new standard that said "separate is NOT equal" and expected States to adhere to the new standard. I think the same thing will happen if Roe is to be overturned. They will use a "landmark" case and apply it to Roe.

[The Tower]

I would much rather Diss be right and NEVER have to worry about Roe being overturned, but with all due respect, though I agree with 99.9% of everything Tower has said in this thread, I as a woman am absolutely AGHAST and HORRIFIED at the idea of any legislation telling me what I can do with my OWN freakin body. I dont know your gender (or your name) Tower, but I suspect you are male otherwise you would not be so casual about "giving the neocons what they want". In one fell swoop, half the population would be affected. whether they agree with it or no....this is a HUGE issue, one that I cannot be so casual about. :shrug:
Well, I don't think my gender has anything to do with what I've stated. I highly doubt that anything will happen to Roe vs. Wade. I do think that something needs to happen to wake people up. I just picked the overturning of Roe vs. Wade and the initiation of the draft as two things that might actually galvanize the electorate to get things done. Do I want either of these things to happen? Of course not. While I am absolutely pro-choice (always have been, always will), I don't think the overturning of Roe vs. Wade would be as devastating as you make it out to be- especially considering that right now the overwhelming majority of women in the U.S. already do not have legitimate access to an abortion provider. However, I do think that it would snap people awake and realize just how much the sleazy right-wing can f*ck with one's life.

Abortion isn't just exclusively a women's issue- it's everyone's issue. My tax dollars go toward paying for all sorts of services for the children who were born as an "unwanted pregnancy". Obviously, it starts as a women's issue- but ultimately the problems created from overpopulation and neglected children are burdened by us all.

[strandinthewind]

Do the lives of several thousand boys, mother's sons every one of them mean nothing? If there was no war, there would be no need for the draft. The war is a deliberate decision by an administration who obviously is not thinking of the lives it is sacrificing all for OIL, yet it can be OH SO CONCERNED about what a woman does with her own body which is no strain on this country, its economy or its people? give me a break!


Do not muddle the issue. You said to Hawkeye's proposition that it is one or the other that "obviously a male. also, the deaths of thousands of soldiers arent as important to you as a woman's choice to do what she wants with her own body? Why I wonder?"

So, the question is if someone walked up to you and said, listen, I am God and I can make it so that there will never ever be war again - but to get that Mary, you must allow me to ban all abortions forevermore. What hearless person would pass up that offer (ridiculous as it is but that was the issue at hand :shrug: ) regardless of their gender - yet the male bashing continues :laugh: But, you obviously will never admit that deal is more humane of the two though it is totally true because I submit countless more have died in wars not to mention the many times more severely injured, those displaced, etc. So, given that assinine example of a choice between two completely sep. things, I think no war ever again is better and more humane than no abortions. My word, I thought your were more compassionate than that :eek:

I think you are talking about the current war - I am not. I am talking about all wars vs. abortion, which is where I understood the conversation to be. But, I agree that the R and D's (let's not leave the majority of them out of the picture :wavey: ) voted for the current war. I mean I assume you voted for Kerry and he voted for the current war and Clinton was gung ho on it in the beggining as well and still stands by the decision to remove SH :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

When the Court overturned Plessy v. Ferguson With Brown v. Board of Education, it created a new standard that said "separate is NOT equal" and expected States to adhere to the new standard. I think the same thing will happen if Roe is to be overturned. They will use a "landmark" case and apply it to Roe.

Well, that would not be the issue in the case. If it would be, please tell me the factual scenario because it is not readily apprant. AND - like in Plessy - in Roe a new standard was created. Again, all Roe held was that the state's interest in protecting the fetus could not by law trump a woman's Federal Constitutional right to privacy during the first trimester. Thus, overturing Roe can only mean that the Federal right to privacy is no longer applicable and the states can be free to do as they please in the first trimester. It would be beyond rare for the Court to go further and simultaneously pass Federal Legislation banning Roe in its decision esp. considering no such Federal law was ever at issue in Roe nor does one exist now.

[amber]

Well, that would not be the issue in the case. If it would be, please tell me the factual scenario because it is not readily apprant. AND - like in Plessy - in Roe a new standard was created. Again, all Roe held was that the state's interest in protecting the fetus could not by law trump a woman's Federal Constitutional right to privacy during the first trimester. Thus, overturing Roe can only mean that the Federal right to privacy is no longer applicable and the states can be free to do as they please in the first trimester. It would be beyond rare for the Court to go further and simultaneously pass Federal Legislation banning Roe in its decision esp. considering no such Federal law was ever at issue in Roe nor does one exist now.
Thank you, Strandelah! I've always been confused about Roe v. Wade, and knew it was a weak legal argument. :distress: This post has clarified it for me. :wavey:
Back to regularly scheduled confusing political discussion.

[irishgrl]

Well, that would not be the issue in the case. If it would be, please tell me the factual scenario because it is not readily apprant. AND - like in Plessy - in Roe a new standard was created. Again, all Roe held was that the state's interest in protecting the fetus could not by law trump a woman's Federal Constitutional right to privacy during the first trimester. Thus, overturing Roe can only mean that the Federal right to privacy is no longer applicable and the states can be free to do as they please in the first trimester. It would be beyond rare for the Court to go further and simultaneously pass Federal Legislation banning Roe in its decision esp. considering no such Federal law was ever at issue in Roe nor does one exist now.

If Roe were overturned, the FEDERAL Constitutional "right" would be rescinded, and any States that tried to keep such a "right" at that point would be forced by new lawsuits (believe me there are no shortage of pro-lifers waiting in the wings to bring this to a head in State Courts which would then have no legal leg to stand on if there is no Federal Protection) to adhere to a lesser Federal standard as would be evident if the highest court in the land all of a sudden decreed that there WAS NO SUCH PROTECTION afforded to women.

Courts dont pass legislation and you know that as well as I do--BUT their decisions have the same weight as legislation and they are as apt to create the new standard as anything out of the Senate or House. In fact, they can de facto create law by declaring something that the Legislature passes "unconstitutional". Thus, once the Highest court in the land says There is NO constitutional protection, and/or there never was, the States will be effectively emasculated. The State has NO defense if there is no constitutional right. and the State Courts will then have to follow Federal courts because if a State Case is appealed and is heard by the Supreme Court, the State case will lose.

[irishgrl]

Do not muddle the issue. You said to Hawkeye's proposition that it is one or the other that "obviously a male. also, the deaths of thousands of soldiers arent as important to you as a woman's choice to do what she wants with her own body? Why I wonder?"

So, the question is if someone walked up to you and said, listen, I am God and I can make it so that there will never ever be war again - but to get that Mary, you must allow me to ban all abortions forevermore. What hearless person would pass up that offer (ridiculous as it is but that was the issue at hand :shrug: ) regardless of their gender - yet the male bashing continues :laugh: But, you obviously will never admit that deal is more humane of the two though it is totally true because I submit countless more have died in wars not to mention the many times more severely injured, those displaced, etc. So, given that assinine example of a choice between two completely sep. things, I think no war ever again is better and more humane than no abortions. My word, I thought your were more compassionate than that :eek:

I think you are talking about the current war - I am not. I am talking about all wars vs. abortion, which is where I understood the conversation to be. But, I agree that the R and D's (let's not leave the majority of them out of the picture :wavey: ) voted for the current war. I mean I assume you voted for Kerry and he voted for the current war and Clinton was gung ho on it in the beggining as well and still stands by the decision to remove SH :shrug:

First of all I am not muddling the issue. Hawkeye stated that he would rather there be no draft than for a woman to not have a choice, to which I replied that he must be a man. YOU insist on moving the discussion to a different point which I did not make and ascribing motives and beliefs to me that I do not have. I am quite capable of expressing what I DO believe so please, if you want to take issue with my points of view, dont paraphrase them because you change them when you do so. Now: to explain, my point is: this administration which is so hellbent on preventing abortion (and interfering with a woman's choice to do with her body as she pleases) has no problem waging an unnecessary war which takes FAR MORE LIVES than women seeking abortion EVER did. Each of these dead boys/girls are children that mothers CHOSE TO HAVE and to what avail? And all this from an Administration that claims to be pro-life? THAT is my point. Please do not alter it.

as for the Draft, I am against it but then, I am against this war in the first place. I would point out to you that I was not the one that posited this bizarre choice between no abortion or no draft in the first place. I was merely commenting on Hawkeyes choice and inferred that if he were female the issue of choice might mean more. I wasnt male bashing but rather shining a spotlight on just how casual the male half of the population can be about women's rights.
As a woman, I was offended.

[strandinthewind]

If Roe were overturned, the FEDERAL Constitutional "right" would be rescinded, and any States that tried to keep such a "right" at that point would be forced by new lawsuits (believe me there are no shortage of pro-lifers waiting in the wings to bring this to a head in State Courts which would then have no legal leg to stand on if there is no Federal Protection) to adhere to a lesser Federal standard as would be evident if the highest court in the land all of a sudden decreed that there WAS NO SUCH PROTECTION afforded to women.

Courts dont pass legislation and you know that as well as I do--BUT their decisions have the same weight as legislation and they are as apt to create the new standard as anything out of the Senate or House. In fact, they can de facto create law by declaring something that the Legislature passes "unconstitutional". Thus, once the Highest court in the land says There is NO constitutional protection, and/or there never was, the States will be effectively emasculated. The State has NO defense if there is no constitutional right. and the State Courts will then have to follow Federal courts because if a State Case is appealed and is heard by the Supreme Court, the State case will lose.

What you say is incorrect in the sense that cases stemming from new state abortion laws could still be found unconstitutional under state constitutions :shrug: and the Court would most certainly not resolve a state constitutional issue :shrug: In fact, there would be no jurisdiction because there would be no Federal question on which to enter Federal Court. The Court has to my knowledge never taken such an issue nor could they legally. Thus, the states would most certainly not be "effectively emasculated" as you incorrectly asserted and, again, the sole effect of overturning of Roe would be to allow states individually to determine whether they will allow abortion and that issue will be hotly contested as it is now on the Federal level. But, it will be different in each state and the pro choice people will be hard pressed to assert the right to privacy the Court, right or wrong, fabricated out of nothing in Roe, e.g. the Const. never mentions a right to privacy, some judge (Blackmon I believe) made that up to help out people.

edited to correct typo

[dissention]

And I thought Strand and I were catty bitches when we discussed such matters. Hot damn. :laugh: :thumbsup:

[strandinthewind]

First of all I am not muddling the issue. Hawkeye stated that he would rather there be no draft than for a woman to not have a choice, to which I replied that he must be a man. YOU insist on moving the discussion to a different point which I did not make and ascribing motives and beliefs to me that I do not have. I am quite capable of expressing what I DO believe so please, if you want to take issue with my points of view, dont paraphrase them because you change them when you do so. Now: to explain, my point is: this administration which is so hellbent on preventing abortion (and interfering with a woman's choice to do with her body as she pleases) has no problem waging an unnecessary war which takes FAR MORE LIVES than women seeking abortion EVER did. Each of these dead boys/girls are children that mothers CHOSE TO HAVE and to what avail? And all this from an Administration that claims to be pro-life? THAT is my point. Please do not alter it.

I was adressing your comment that I quoted earlier - so stop putting words in my mouth.

BTW - why not answer the question - If someone said Mary if there are no more abortions, I can make so war will never happen again - what would your answer be. I think you answered the quetion earlier, but you say you did not - so let's hear it.

And - by the way, you did not just say "he must be a man" - Rather, Hawkeye said:

well of the two I pray its overturning Roe V Wade and not the draft.

to which you replied:

obviously a male. also, the deaths of thousands of soldiers arent as important to you as a woman's choice to do what she wants with her own body? Why I wonder?

Thus, you took it a little further in the abstract than your last post indicates :shrug:

[SuzeQuze]

And I thought Strand and I were catty bitches when we discussed such matters. Hot damn. :laugh: :thumbsup:

Right, is it hot in here, or is it me? I'm too dumb tonite to follow the thread. My brain is fried.

[irishgrl]

What you say is incorrect in the sense that cases stemming from new state abortion laws could still be found unconstitutional under state constitutions :shrug: and the Court would most certainly not resolve a state constitutional issue :shrug: In fact, there would be jurisdiction because there would be no Federal question on which to enter Federal Court. The Court has to my knowledge never taken such an issue nor could they legally. Thus, the states would most certainly not be "effectively emasculated" as you incorrectly asserted and, again, the sole effect of overturning of Roe would be to allow states individually to determine whether they will allow abortion and that issue will be hotly contested as it is now on the Federal level. But, it will be different in each state and the pro choice people will be harp pressed to assert the right to privacy the Court, right or wrong, fabricated out of nothing in Roe, e.g. the Const. never mentions a right to privacy, some judge (Blackmon I believe) made that up to help out people.

Jason, you KNOW that any time there is a dispute between the State and the FED, the FED trumps! If the State allows abortion and the Fed does not, any lawsuit that heads up the pike would be resolved AGAINST the State~
California's medical Marijuana law is just one example. Should the Supreme Court decide that it is illegal, even tho California voters voted it in, it will be illegal! end of story! Same thing with abortion! And btw, you just proved my point by saying this:

the pro choice people will be harp pressed to assert the right to privacy the Court, right or wrong, fabricated out of nothing in Roe, e.g. the Const. never mentions a right to privacy, some judge (Blackmon I believe) made that up to help out people.
therefore, if CA says "we believe a woman has a right to privacy" the fed will say "how so?" and thus, CA will have no defense if the Supreme Court has decided ther is no right to privacy and thus NO STATE IN THE LAND WILL BE ABLE TO ALLOW ABORTION ONCE THE FED OVERTURNS ROE. Which is what I said to you to start with: States will NOT be free to do as they please contrary to your first assertion. You are all over the map tonight!

[irishgrl]

I was adressing your comment that I quoted earlier - so stop putting words in my mouth.

BTW - why not answer the question - If someone said Mary if there are no more abortions, I can make so war will never happen again - what would your answer be. I think you answered the quetion earlier, but you say you did not - so let's hear it.

And - by the way, you did not just say "he must be a man" - Rather, Hawkeye said:



to which you replied:



Thus, you took it a little further in the abstract than your last post indicates :shrug:
a) I was not putting words in YOUR mouth, that is what YOU were doing.
b) I explained my comment about Hawkeye being a man by stating that in my opinion if he were a woman the choice might be different.
also, I didnt answer your question because it serves no purpose, as it is a Kobyashi Maru type situation where you are in control of the whole scenario, so therefore there is no answer possible for me. A) You're not God so its irrelevant. B) this is just asking the same exact question that you deplored someone else asking. I might remind you that I was not the one who posed the initial choice between draft/abortion in the first place! I as woman take umbrage whenever I feel that womens rights are denigrated, as I felt Hawkeye did when he insinuated that a womans choice was less important than whether or not the draft came back.

[strandinthewind]

Jason, you KNOW that any time there is a dispute between the State and the FED, the FED trumps! If the State allows abortion and the Fed does not, any lawsuit that heads up the pike would be resolved AGAINST the State~
California's medical Marijuana law is just one example. Should the Supreme Court decide that it is illegal, even tho California voters voted it in, it will be illegal! end of story! Same thing with abortion! And btw, you just proved my point by saying this:

I do not see where you think there will be a Federal law on this if Roe is overturned :shrug: Overturning of Roe will not say that abortion is illegal. Rather, it will take away Federal Constitutional Protection in the first trimester and the others as well - though the first trimester is the most important. The effect of a decision overturning Roe will be that it just reverts to the way it was before Roe, which was some states allowed and some did not. Thus, the state courts will become the legal battlefield instead of the Federal Courts.

As for the Calif. pot law, that situation is different and not analagous to the overturning of Roe. There is a Federal law on the books that prohibits pot as a med. That law trumps Calif. law, which is being contested. Again, no Federal law exists that band abortions and, as explained above, overturning Roe will not create one - only the Legislature can do that.

Thus, I am on sound legal ground.



therefore, if CA says "we believe a woman has a right to privacy" the fed will say "how so?" and thus, CA will have no defense if the Supreme Court has decided ther is no right to privacy and thus NO STATE IN THE LAND WILL BE ABLE TO ALLOW ABORTION ONCE THE FED OVERTURNS ROE. Which is what I said to you to start with: States will NOT be free to do as they please contrary to your first assertion. You are all over the map tonight!

Again, how are you going to get into Federal Court for the Federal Courts to resolve this issue? In general, Federal Courts may decide cases that involve the United States government, the United States Constitution or federal laws, or controversies between states or between the United States and foreign governments. See http://www.uscourts.gov/understand02/content_4_0.html

Again, overturning Roe means the states must decide for themselves and there is no Federal issue. Thus, how does a solely state issue get into Fed. Court? Now, if Congress passes a law banning abortion, then a state law to the contrary becomes the issue.

I cannot believe you are having a hard time following this.

[strandinthewind]

a) I was not putting words in YOUR mouth, that is what YOU were doing.
b) I explained my comment about Hawkeye being a man by stating that in my opinion if he were a woman the choice might be different.
also, I didnt answer your question because it serves no purpose, as it is a Kobyashi Maru type situation where you are in control of the whole scenario, so therefore there is no answer possible for me. A) You're not God so its irrelevant. B) this is just asking the same exact question that you deplored someone else asking. I might remind you that I was not the one who posed the initial choice between draft/abortion in the first place! I as woman take umbrage whenever I feel that womens rights are denigrated, as I felt Hawkeye did when he insinuated that a womans choice was less important than whether or not the draft came back.

Don't you get all Star Trek on me :laugh:

[irishgrl]

Quote:
If the Court overturns Roe, there is no Federal Law in place banning abortions

When the Court overturned Plessy v. Ferguson With Brown v. Board of Education , it created a new standard that said "separate is NOT equal" and expected States to adhere to the new standard. I think the same thing will happen if Roe is to be overturned. They will use a "landmark" case and apply it to Roe.

If the Supreme Court says there is no constitutional protection, there is no leg the states can stand on.

I also want to say that I think Justice (Blackmun?) in articulating the "penumbra of the bill of rights" was merely giving voice to a concept so elemental as to decry the need for elucidation: that of privacy, that unspoken guarantee that a person has autonomy over their own person, papers and effects. I cannot conceive how such a concept can even be considered "a stretch" in a document which allows that persons have certain basic rights to which they are entitled! It boggles the mind!

[irishgrl]

I do not see where you think there will be a Federal law on this if Roe is overturned :shrug: Overturning of Roe will not say that abortion is illegal. Rather, it will take away Federal Constitutional Protection in the first trimester and the others as well - though the first trimester is the most important. The effect of a decision overturning Roe will be that it just reverts to the way it was before Roe, which was some states allowed and some did not. Thus, the state courts will become the legal battlefield instead of the Federal Courts.

As for the Calif. pot law, that situation is different and not analagous to the overturning of Roe. There is a Federal law on the books that prohibits pot as a med. That law trumps Calif. law, which is being contested. Again, no Federal law exists that band abortions and, as explained above, overturning Roe will not create one - only the Legislature can do that.

Thus, I am on sound legal ground.





Again, how are you going to get into Federal Court for the Federal Courts to resolve this issue? In general, Federal Courts may decide cases that involve the United States government, the United States Constitution or federal laws, or controversies between states or between the United States and foreign governments. See http://www.uscourts.gov/understand02/content_4_0.html

Again, overturning Roe means the states must decide for themselves and there is no Federal issue. Thus, how does a solely state issue get into Fed. Court? Now, if Congress passes a law banning abortion, then a state law to the contrary becomes the issue.

I cannot believe you are having a hard time following this.

I am not having a hard time following anything! the issue is (as it always was) one of a constitutional right to due process, and protection of privacy which IS a federal issue because it is consitutional in nature! therefore, it will end back up in federal court the same way it did before because you cant create a right to privacy and then take it away!

[strandinthewind]

If the Supreme Court says there is no constitutional protection, there is no leg the states can stand on.

Sure there is - they can assert the right to privacy found in state constituions. I am not saying it will be easy - I am just saying once Roe is gone (which I am not advocating) - the Fed. govt. will have no say on the issue unless it passes a law on it, which I think it will not. Interestingly, are there any current Federal Laws on the issue of abortion. There is the so called "partial birth" (a misnomer if you ask me) - but that allows abortion that is not that method - thus providing support for abortions in the Federal Govt. Are there others I cannot think of?

I also want to say that I think Justice (Blackmun?) in articulating the "penumbra of the bill of rights" was merely giving voice to a concept so elemental as to decry the need for elucidation: that of privacy, that unspoken guarantee that a person has autonomy over their own person, papers and effects. I cannot conceive how such a concept can even be considered "a stretch" in a document which allows that persons have certain basic rights to which they are entitled! It boggles the mind!

Well, there is some lang. in the Bill of Rights to support it in a round about way in that the Ninth Amendment says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In other words, I think this is saying the rights listed in the Bill of Rights is not exhaustive and the rights retained by the people could be construed as the right to privacy :shrug: Interestingly, I found this article:

Rights Retained by the People

Aside from contending that a bill of rights was unnecessary, the Federalists responded to those opposing ratification of the Constitution because of the lack of a declaration of fundamental rights by arguing that inasmuch as it would be impossible to list all rights it would be dangerous to list some because there would be those who would seize on the absence of the omitted rights to assert that government was unrestrained as to those. 1 Madison adverted to this argument in presenting his proposed amendments to the House of Representatives. ''It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.'' 2 It is clear from its text and from Madison's statement that the Amendment states but a rule of construction, making clear that a Bill of Rights might not by implication be taken to increase the powers of the national government in areas not enumerated, and that it does not contain within itself any guarantee of a right or a proscription of an infringement. 3 Recently, however, the Amendment has been construed to be positive affirmation of the existence of rights which are not enumerated but which are nonetheless protected by other provisions.


The Ninth Amendment had been mentioned infrequently in decisions of the Supreme Court 4 until it became the subject of some exegesis by several of the Justices in Griswold v. Connecticut. 5 There a statute prohibiting use of contraceptives was voided as an infringement of the right of marital privacy. Justice Douglas, writing the opinion of the Court, asserted that the ''specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.'' 6 Thus, while privacy is nowhere mentioned, it is one of the values served and protected by the First Amendment, through its protection of associational rights, and by the Third, the Fourth, and the Fifth Amendments as well. The Justice recurred to the text of the Ninth Amendment, apparently to support the thought that these penumbral rights are protected by one Amendment or a complex of Amendments despite the absence of a specific reference. Justice Goldberg, concurring, devoted several pages to the Amendment.

''The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments. . . . To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so deep-rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth Amendment and to give it no effect whatsoever. Moreover, a judicial construction that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment. . . . Nor do I mean to state that the Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of right protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government. Rather, the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitution's authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive.'' 7 While, therefore, neither opinion sought to make of the Ninth Amendment a substantive source of constitutional guarantees, both did read it as indicating a function of the courts to interpose a veto with regard to legislative and executive efforts to abridge other fundamental rights. In this case, both opinions seemed to concur that the fundamental right claimed and upheld was derivative of several express rights and in this case, really, the Ninth Amendment added almost nothing to the argument. But if there is a claim of a fundamental right which cannot reasonably be derived from one of the provisions of the Bill of Rights, even with the Ninth Amendment, how is the Court to determine, first, that it is fundamental, and second, that it is protected from abridgment? 8

Footnotes

[Footnote 1] The Federalist No. 84 (Modern Library ed. 1937).

[Footnote 2] 1 Annals of Congress 439 (1789). Earlier, Madison had written to Jefferson: ''My own opinion has always been in favor of a bill of rights; provided it be so framed as not to imply powers not meant to be included in the enumeration. . . . I have not viewed it in an important light--1. because I conceive that in a certain degree . . . the rights in question are reserved by the manner in which the federal powers are granted. 2. because there is great reason to fear that a positive declaration of some of the most essential rights could not be obtained in the requisite latitude. I am sure that the rights of conscience in particular, if submitted to public definition would be narrowed much more than they are likely ever to be by an assumed power.'' 5 Writings of James Madison, 271-72 (G. Hunt ed. 1904). See also 3 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 1898 (1833).

[Footnote 3] To some extent, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments overlap with respect to the question of unenumerated powers, one of the two concerns expressed by Madison, more clearly in his letter to Jefferson but also present in his introductory speech. Supra, n.2 and accompanying text.

[Footnote 4] In United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 94 -95 (1947), upholding the Hatch Act, the Court said: ''We accept appellant's contention that the nature of political rights reserved to the people by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments [is] involved. The right claimed as inviolate may be stated as the right of a citizen to act as a party official or worker to further his own political views. Thus we have a measure of interference by the Hatch Act and the Rules with what otherwise would be the freedom of the civil servant under the First, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments.'' See Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288, 300 - 11 (1936), and Tennessee Electric Power Co. v. TVA, 306 U.S. 118, 143 -44 (1939). See also Justice Chase's opinion in Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386, 388 (1798), and Justice Miller for the Court in Loan Ass'n v. Topeka, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 655, 662 -63 (1875).

[Footnote 5] 381 U.S. 479 (1965).

[Footnote 6] Id. at 484. The opinion was joined by Chief Justice Warren and by Justices Clark, Goldberg, and Brennan.

[Footnote 7] Id. at 488, 491, 492. Chief Justice Warren and Justice Brennan joined this opinion. Justices Harlan and White concurred id. at 499, 502, without alluding to the Ninth Amendment, but instead basing their conclusions on substantive due process, finding that the state statute ''violates basic values implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,'' (citing Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937)). Id. at 500. It would appear that the source of the fundamental rights to which Justices Douglas and Goldberg referred must be found in a concept of substantive due process, despite the former's express rejection of this ground. Id. at 481-82. Justices Black and Stewart dissented. Justice Black viewed the Ninth Amendment ground as essentially a variation of the due process argument under which Justices claimed the right to void legislation as irrational, unreasonable, or offensive, without finding any violation of an express constitutional provision.

[Footnote 8] Notice the recurrence to the Ninth Amendment as a ''constitutional 'saving clause''' in Chief Justice Burger's plurality opinion in Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 579 -80 & n.15 (1980). Scholarly efforts to establish the clause as a substantive protection of rights include J. Ely, Democracy and Distrust--A Theory of Judicial Review (Cambridge: 1980), 34-41; and C. Black, Decision According to Law (New York: 1981), critically reviewed in W. Van Alstyne, Slouching Toward Bethlehem with the Ninth Amendment, 91 Yale L. J. 207 (1981). For a collection of articles on the Ninth Amendment, see The Rights Retained by the People: The History and Meaning of the Ninth Amendment (Randy E. Barnett, ed., 1989).


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment09/

[irishgrl]

As for the Calif. pot law, that situation is different and not analagous to the overturning of Roe. There is a Federal law on the books that prohibits pot as a med. That law trumps Calif. law, which is being contested. Again, no Federal law exists that band abortions and, as explained above, overturning Roe will not create one - only the Legislature can do that

Again, overturning Roe means the states must decide for themselves and there is no Federal issue. Thus, how does a solely state issue get into Fed. Court? Now, if Congress passes a law banning abortion, then a state law to the contrary becomes the issue.

I cannot believe you are having a hard time following this.
again: Courts DO create law, they just do it in a different fashion than the legislature. A court has the duty of determining whether or not something is constitutional. In 1973 the Court said: a woman's right to privacy trumps a state's right to protect the fetus (depending upon the trimester) If, later on, the court decides that a woman has no such right, then no STATE can declare any such right, because any number of pro-life groups would gladly step up and say, there IS no right per (whatever case the court uses to overturn Roe)....they would then take it all the way to the top just as every other case with a constitutional issue would do...

ps: I see you posted some caselaw/legal opinion, which I always appreciate. I am not taking issue with Blackmun, I appreciate what he tried to do. I was merely stating that is is a dirty shame that he felt he had to go so far out on a limb to articulate something which should already be accepted as fact.

I personally never had a problem with the Roe opinion, nor how they came to it. Some type of system needed to be developed, and I think for that time, the system they used (the trimester) was as medically sound as any they could have used. To this day, it still makes sense. I know you think it will be obsolete at some future point but for right now, viability checkpoint is 24 weeks, like it or not. I myself was a 24 week baby, and in 1958, that was pretty darn lucky. as it was, I spent 3 months in an incubator and my folks spent the first 24 hours of my life keeping my heart pumping. it was no picnic.

[strandinthewind]

I am not having a hard time following anything! the issue is (as it always was) one of a constitutional right to due process, and protection of privacy which IS a federal issue because it is consitutional in nature! therefore, it will end back up in federal court the same way it did before because you cant create a right to privacy and then take it away!

Well, the Court can and if it does, that will be the end of that. I mean how is it going to come back into Federal Court when the Court just said there is no Federal Protection because there is not Const. right? It will be res judicata and there will be no Federal jurisdiction. It will solely be a state court issue. I suppose some maverick Federal District Court could allow it in by finding a new Const. right exists. But, I think the Court will not really be too impressed by that if it reaches that level.

[strandinthewind]

again: Courts DO create law, they just do it in a different fashion than the legislature. A court has the duty of determining whether or not something is constitutional. In 1973 the Court said: a woman's right to privacy trumps a state's right to protect the fetus (depending upon the trimester) If, later on, the court decides that a woman has no such right, then no STATE can declare any such right, because any number of pro-life groups would gladly step up and say, there IS no right per (whatever case the court uses to overturn Roe)....they would then take it all the way to the top just as every other case with a constitutional issue would do...

No, the Court will be holding that the right in question does not exist in the Federal Constitution. It will not be commenting on the individual state's constitutions or laws. Thus, it will be leaving the issue to the states as to whether they want to recognize the woman's right to choose in their own constitutions or allow abortions by some other method such as the laws currently in the books in all states. Those laws would have to be overturned by a state court or rescinded by the state legislatures.

[irishgrl]

No, the Court will be holding that the right in question does not exist in the Federal Constitution. It will not be commenting on the individual state's constitutions or laws. Thus, it will be leaving the issue to the states as to whether they want to recognize the woman's right to choose in their own constitutions or allow abortions by some other method such as the laws currently in the books in all states. Those laws would have to be overturned by a state court or rescinded by the state legislatures.

if a state says "We allow a woman to choose," and a pro-life group sues, and the case goes to the fed and the fed says: "we already decided," then the state will have to say: "guess we wont allow choice any more." thus there will be no choice in any state. which is my point.

my computer is acting goofy and the screen keeps jumping all around and the meds I took to get sleepy are actually working for a change so I am going to sign off for now....

in the end, all our speculation is nothing more than sound and fury unless or until the court actually DOES address this issue. I personally hope it doesnt but Im afraid its coming. If and when that day comes, all I can say at that point is Im glad Im not going to be a young woman having to live with that type of restriction. Im VERY grateful I grew up in a time frame when civil rights were something to fight for, and people were important. Im sorry to see the idealism of my youth fade away into the cynicism and bitterness I now see....its too bad really....:distress:

[strandinthewind]

if a state says We allow a woman to choose, and a pro-life group sues, and the case goes to the fed and the fed says: we already decided, then the state will have to say: guess we wont allow choice any more. thus there will be no choice. in any state. which is my point.

No - first, you assume all states will say this. I mean I do not see New York, Mass., Calif., etc. saying no to abortions and when I say saying no I mean in the Legislatures and their highest courts. But, yes, some states will outlaw it - but not because a Federal Court told them to do. That is why Roe should not be overturned.

Interestingly, this is why judicial activism is great when it flows your way, but it sucks on the contrary side.

[strandinthewind]

. . . in the end, all our speculation is nothing more than sound and fury unless or until the court actually DOES address this issue. I personally hope it doesnt but Im afraid its coming. If and when that day comes, all I can say at that point is Im glad Im not going to be a young woman having to live with that type of restriction. Im VERY grateful I grew up in a time frame when civil rights were something to fight for, and people were important. Im sorry to see the idealism of my youth fade away into the cynicism and bitterness I now see....its too bad really....:distress:

On this we can agree!!!!!!!! :cool:

[irishgrl]

No - first, you assume all states will say this. I mean I do not see New York, Mass., Calif., etc. saying no to abortions and when I say saying no I mean in the Legislatures and their highest courts. But, yes, some states will outlaw it - but not because a Federal Court told them to do. That is why Roe should not be overturned.

Interestingly, this is why judicial activism is great when it flows your way, but it sucks on the contray side.

I dont think CA or NY or MA will say "no" either~ I think those will be the states that will eventually have to eat crow when the fed standard of NO protection is forced on them, the same way NO MEDICAL MJ ALLOWED will be forced on them. There is no State's rights any more, its all about the Fed.
just an fyi: my computer is acting up, the screen is jumping all around, I cant even see what I am typing without constantly stopping and using the scroll arrows...its a pain....also, my sleeping meds are actually working, so I am going to sign off for now, its been stimulating as always...

[strandinthewind]

. . . I think those will be the states that will eventually have to eat crow when the fed standard of NO protection is forced on them, the same way NO MEDICAL MJ ALLOWED will be forced on them. There is no State's rights any more, its all about the Fed.

But that can only happen if the Congress passes a law that outlaws abortion after Roe is overturned. I just do not see that happening :shrug:

[irishgrl]

But that can only happen if the Congress passes a law that outlaws abortion after Roe is overturned. I just do not see that happening :shrug:
ok you know that ever since Bush took office, the pro-life groups have pushed for the legislature to ban abortion in various forms, such as partial birth, no crossing state lines to get abortion etc. I can MOST DEFINITELY SEE congress doing this. OH MOST DEFINITELY. With control in both houses, and with the Court on their side, its a slam dunk. no brainer. you betcha.

[strandinthewind]

ok you know that ever since Bush took office, the pro-life groups have pushed for the legislature to ban abortion in various forms, such as partial birth, no crossing state lines to get abortion etc. I can MOST DEFINITELY SEE congress doing this. OH MOST DEFINITELY. With control in both houses, and with the Court on their side, its a slam dunk. no brainer. you betcha.

Whether they do or not is a question only time will answer.

[irishgrl]

Whether they do or not is a question only time will answer.
we wont have long to wait....on that dismal note, I am heading off into the sunset pahdner, adios!

[Brwn_eyes0511]

ok you know that ever since Bush took office, the pro-life groups have pushed for the legislature to ban abortion in various forms, such as partial birth, no crossing state lines to get abortion etc. I can MOST DEFINITELY SEE congress doing this. OH MOST DEFINITELY. With control in both houses, and with the Court on their side, its a slam dunk. no brainer. you betcha.

I hope, for once, that you are right!

[GypsySorcerer]

I do not think Roe will be overturned. It's the R trump card (along with gay marriage). The fundies are their bread and butter.

Since 1980, we've had all R presidents with the exception of Clinton. W has had both houses of Congress, the SC, and a majority of governorships. I really don't think Roe will be overturned. Hell, I doubt R politicians even want it to. It's their rhetoric. :nod:

[irishgrl]

I do not think Roe will be overturned. It's the R trump card (along with gay marriage). The fundies are their bread and butter.

Since 1980, we've had all R presidents with the exception of Clinton. W has had both houses of Congress, the SC, and a majority of governorships. I really don't think Roe will be overturned. Hell, I doubt R politicians even want it to. It's their rhetoric. :nod:

I hope you guys (that think Roe is safe) are right. I just have very grave concerns. Also, its been a lousy day. My favorite shoes broke, I ruined my clothes at work, I have a splitting headache, and Im tired too. I think I should go sleep for a million years if I can possibly accomplish it...

[strandinthewind]

I hope you guys (that think Roe is safe) are right. I just have very grave concerns. Also, its been a lousy day. My favorite shoes broke, I ruined my clothes at work, I have a splitting headache, and Im tired too. I think I should go sleep for a million years if I can possibly accomplish it...

:xoxo: :xoxo: :xoxo: on the forehead and well wishes for a better tommorow ;) (see- I aint so bad :wavey: )

[irishgrl]

:xoxo: :xoxo: :xoxo: on the forehead and well wishes for a better tommorow ;) (see- I aint so bad :wavey: )
No, you are a sweetheart! you know I luv ya! thanx for the kind wishes, I actually went to bed around 7:30ish and slept (off and on) til 4! kinda a record for me! now, Im not counting the hour or so I was awake at 1am to 2am, because I didnt get up...but I am basically an insomniac so if I get more than 4 hours sleep its because Im sick or something...or my lack of sleep finally catches up with me and I am just plain exhausted. I try all kinds of herbal sleep aids, but they dont work so I add a sleeping pill (OTC) and an allergy pill (OTC) and a vicodin (PRESCRIPTION!!) and I MAY get 4 hrs sleep if Im lucky...
anyway, thanks for the sweet smileys and kind words! :angel: