Kerry has conceded

[jimbo]

Jimbo: Another example : Some states in the south might even today vote away civil rights for blacks and setback racial equality if the federal government and courts let them do it.

Slowpro: Simply unbelievable.... Where do you come up with this shyte, Mr. Fearmonger? I give up. You are beyond the fringe. Give my regards to your sources on the dark side of the moon or wherever it is they reside...

Again you are missing the main point I'm trying to make about the dangers of putting "rights" issues up for a popular vote rather than handling them in the courts at the federal level.

My point is not that this will happen, setbacks in racial equality. I think you misread me again. I was using it as an example.

Besides: you have to admit the statement I made is probably true today in some parts of the country. (comon you know it is)

Put it up for a vote whether blacks and whites can marry, same as the gay lesbian thing that just came up in 11 states, and it would fail in some places.

More importantly there WERE laws on the books making inter-racial marriage illegal in many places up until the civil rights movement of the 60s. If it wasn't for the "activist" courts (brown vs board), and the Johnson administration's subsequent legislative efforts there might still be laws against interacial marriage, integrated schools etc. (well, unless someone else came along and tackled the problem)

In other words if we just left these decisions to the states.

The main point is that similar issues (gay marriage, abortion etc.) are likely to get kicked back to state legislatures in the coming years if the federal courts (especially the supreme court) become more conservative.

And it's likely that they will become more conservative now.

Then there will likely be a large descrepency between states. Abortion will be legal in Pa, illegal in West Virginia. Gay marriage legal in California and Mass., illegal elsewhere.

We could have the same craziness that currently exists with the death penalty. Kill someone in a drunken barfight: in California you might walk free in 15 years, in Texas you fry.

We could see wide variations between states on all these "rights" issues. I don't think that would be good.
------------------------------------

Storm TROOPER -
yin-minded peterpan=paranoid child

See Im learning

[StormTROOPER]

------------------------------------

LOL , Yes Graushoppa very good, maybe soon you have yin-yang epiphany. .........Confucius say... Kerry voter so distraut Bush re-elected doesn't commit hari-kerry, but instead commits hari-bush. :mbrasd

[jimbo]

Ah graushoppa, when you can snatch pebble from my hand ... you ready vote for the Dubya. ;Dp;

[BaM*BaM]

The Unfeeling President By Doctorow

I fault this president for not knowing what death is. He does not suffer the death of our 21-year-olds who wanted to be what they could be. On the eve of D-Day in 1944 General Eisenhower prayed to God for the lives of the young soldiers he knew were going to die. He knew what death was. Even in a justifiable war, a war not of choice but of necessity, a war of survival, the cost was almost more than Eisenhower could bear.

But this president does not know what death is. He hasn't the mind for it. You see him joking with the press, peering under the table for the weapons of mass destruction he can't seem to find, you see him at rallies strutting up to the stage in shirt sleeves to the roar of the carefully screened crowd, smiling and waving, triumphal, a he-man.

He does not mourn. He doesn't understand why he should mourn. He is satisfied during the course of a speech written for him to look solemn for a moment and speak of the brave young Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

But you study him, you look into his eyes and know he dissembles an emotion which he does not feel in the depths of his being because he has no capacity for it. He does not feel a personal responsibility for the 1,000 dead young men and women who wanted to be what they could be.

They come to his desk not as youngsters with mothers and fathers or wives and children who will suffer to the end of their days a terribly torn fabric of familial relationships and the inconsolable remembrance of aborted life . . . they come to his desk as a political liability, which is why the press is not permitted to photograph the arrival of their coffins from Iraq.

How then can he mourn? To mourn is to express regret and he regrets nothing. He does not regret that his reason for going to war was, as he knew, unsubstantiated by the facts. He does not regret that his bungled plan for the war's aftermath has made of his mission-accomplished a disaster. He does not regret that, rather than controlling terrorism, his war in Iraq has licensed it. So he never mourns for the dead and crippled youngsters who have fought this war of his choice.

He wanted to go to war and he did. He had not the mind to perceive the costs of war, or to listen to those who knew those costs. He did not understand that you do not go to war when it is one of the options but when it is the only option; you go not because you want to but because you have to.

Yet this president knew it would be difficult for Americans not to cheer the overthrow of a foreign dictator. He knew that much. This president and his supporters would seem to have a mind for only one thing -- to take power, to remain in power, and to use that power for the sake of themselves and their friends.

A war will do that as well as anything. You become a wartime leader. The country gets behind you. Dissent becomes inappropriate. And so he does not drop to his knees, he is not contrite, he does not sit in the church with the grieving parents and wives and children. He is the president who does not feel. He does not feel for the families of the dead, he does not feel for the 35 million of us who live in poverty, he does not feel for the 40 percent who cannot afford health insurance, he does not feel for the miners whose lungs are turning black or for the working people he has deprived of the chance to work overtime at time-and-a-half to pay their bills - it is amazing for how many people in this country this president does not feel.

But he will dissemble feeling. He will say in all sincerity he is relieving the wealthiest 1 percent of the population of their tax burden for the sake of the rest of us, and that he is polluting the air we breathe for the sake of our economy, and that he is decreasing the quality of air in coal mines to save the coal miners' jobs, and that he is depriving workers of their time-and-a-half benefits for overtime because this is actually a way to honor them by raising them into the professional class.

And this litany of lies he will versify with reverences for God and the flag and democracy, when just what he and his party are doing to our democracy is choking the life out of it.

But there is one more terribly sad thing about all of this. I remember the millions of people here and around the world who marched against the war. It was extraordinary, this spontaneous aroused oversoul of alarm and protest that transcended national borders. Why did it happen? After all, this was not the only war anyone had ever seen coming. There are little wars all over the world most of the time.

But the cry of protest was the appalled understanding of millions of people that America was ceding its role as the last best hope of mankind. It was their perception that the classic archetype of democracy was morphing into a rogue nation. The greatest democratic republic in history was turning its back on the future, using its extraordinary power and standing not to advance the ideal of a concordance of civilizations but to endorse the kind of tribal combat that originated with the Neanderthals, a people, now extinct, who could imagine ensuring their survival by no other means than pre-emptive war.

The president we get is the country we get. With each president the nation is conformed spiritually. He is the artificer of our malleable national soul. He proposes not only the laws but the kinds of lawlessness that govern our lives and invoke our responses. The people he appoints are cast in his image. The trouble they get into and get us into, is his characteristic trouble.

Finally, the media amplify his character into our moral weather report. He becomes the face of our sky, the conditions that prevail. How can we sustain ourselves as the United States of America given the stupid and ineffective warmaking, the constitutionally insensitive lawgiving, and the monarchal economics of this president? He cannot mourn but is a figure of such moral vacancy as to make us mourn for ourselves.

[t2p]

Sgt:
.
Again, you make some valid points ........
.
information that I 'casually forgot' ....... omitted ....or never knew .......
.
I'm basically in the same boat as you ..... and hoping this all works out .......

[t2p]

Jimbo .........
.
I may be in the minority, but I felt the 'witch hunt' campaign against Pres Clinton *was* legitimate .......
.
I felt (again - my opin) he was a loose cannon ....... he had baggage when he first stepped into the oval office and it continued. His behavior was reckless ...... with actions that could lead to issues with national security .... etc.
.
I thought he should have been removed from office.
.

[MrCrowley]

Thought I would pass this funny along...


Dear President Bush,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding
God's Law. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both
male and female, provided they are purchased from
neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this
applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify?
Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as
sanctioned in Exodus 21:7 In this day and age, what do you
think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while
she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev.15:
19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking,
but most women take offense

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know
it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The
problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not
pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath.
Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am
I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the
police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish
is an abomination Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination
than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
Are there 'degrees' of abomination? Oh, sorry. IS there
degrees ..

7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of
God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I
wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or
is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed,
including the hair around their temples, even though this
is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead
pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I
wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting
two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by
wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread
(cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and
blaspheme lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all
the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone
them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at
a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep
with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus
enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am
confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal
and unchanging.

In Jesus' name,
Consolidated Dumbasses of America

[V-Twin hiCROSS]

Wow Bam Bam, that was pretty heart-wrenching.
Now then, let's hear how you would have acted at the time if you were in charge. From what I remember, the House and Senate both voted in support of the war. At the time, all information pointed to Iraq having/making terrible weapons. Not to mention, the past history of Saddam killing off his own people with chemical weapons. When we made the move into Afghanistan, we essentially moved on all of the terrorist countries in that part of the world.
I look at our President and see a man doing the necessary evils that I would not have the Kahoni's to do. Believe me, he feels the pain and mourns the death of those soldiers much more intensely than you or I could ever imagine.
Get off of you high horse and tell us just exactly how you would have proceeded at that time of national unrest. I would be interested to hear how the families of those KILLED in the attack on 9/11 would react to your "go hug the terrorists" response.

[johnnyapollo]

Cajones? sorry - the spelling just struck me as funny.

-- John

[BaM*BaM]

V-Twin,
No prob. Here is what I would have done in Feb. 2002..

If anyone was really paying close attention to the UN negotiations that were going on back when Bush said he had 'finally had enough' .... and decided to no longer listen to any dialogue with UN Security Council members, ... Germany, France and Russia had agreed to demand that Iraq accept fully armed UN forces into Iraq to assist the inspectors in their investigations. To back this up, France and Germany had agreed to setting a military ultimatum for 6 months (Sept. or Oct, which was a much better time to start military actions) to force Iraq to accept these UN military forces. If one combined these demands with the USA's own passion to invade, these would NOT have been idle threats. And it would have resulted in a true multi national power, military police force entering Iraq and securing any threat that Iraq represented to the USA, the Middle East, and the world as a whole..

This UN force would NOT have been perceived as an INVADING and CONQUERING power of the Iraqi homeland. The USA military would have then been free to pursue the true Al Queda threat in Afghanistan and in the rest of the world.. (please remember that Sadam, ( a fanatic of Joseph Stalin,... not Mohammed) had been responsible for killing over 2 million Moslem fundamentalists in the Iran- Iraq war. Al Queda hated him as much as they hate the USA.)

The reason that this plan was not forwarded by the Bush Administration, was because Bush NEVER wanted a combined UN force to invade Iraq. If the invasion, or policing of Iraq was done under the command and authority of the UN Security Council, the USA would NOT have been in position to establish their own permanent US puppet government in Iraq, and it would NOT have been able to permanently secure the Iraq oil reserves for the long time future of USA corporations.

[jimbo]

Johnny- It's spelled Kahonis in Hawaii

[valenki]

dam! this post survived a while!

[V-Twin hiCROSS]

Reasonable response Bam Bam, but hadn't we been in the ongoing cycle of inspections, get thrown out of Iraq, return for inspections, etc....... for the previous 15 or so years. During which time Saddam attempted to take over Kuwait and committed many Atrocities (especially against his own people). Another issue not taken into account in your plan (which sounds very plausable, thank you for actually responding) is that Saddam's sons would have taken power as soon as the old man was not capable. That is when the real trouble would have brewed. Your plan does not relieve that dispicable family of its reign of terror. It was very necessary in order to ever have peace of mind. Another key piece of information that you are forgetting is that France was regularly accepting large sums of cash form Saddam and the Iraq gov't. France had many reasons to support not throwing that family out of power, including: cash, gas, freedom from attack, etc..
I hope that in a few years from now, we can take some pride in the fact that a whole country will be liberated and freed from a fanatical so called "leader".

As far as the spelling of Cajones, Kahonis, or whatever, I usually just call 'em "Nads".

[jimbo]

Two points:

I may be in the minority, but I felt the 'witch hunt' campaign against Pres Clinton *was* legitimate

t2p - I wanted Clinton to resign, it would have been better from the country and the democrats .. but I think it was a witch hunt. Nothing at all ever came from whitewater, filegate etc. etc. Ken Star et all is to blaim for that period of history. Put any politician (including Bush) under that kind of microscope and stuff will come up that's disturbing.

There was a right wing conspiracy to tear down Clinton's presidency and they finally caught him in a lie (which they forced by putting his back to the wall) about getting a BJ.

I would be interested to hear how the families of those KILLED in the attack on 9/11 would react to your "go hug the terrorists" response.

I'm not willing to go along with the assumption that the war in Iraq had anything to do with terrorism before we invaded and attracted all the terrorists in from outside the country. I don't think Bam Bam buys into this either. (and neither do many of the 911 families some of whom are very hostile towards a government that they feel failed to protect them)

Even Rumsfeld and Bush, based on solid advice and intelligence, felt Iraq had nothing to do with 911 right after the attacks on the towers and pentagon.

Much of the intelligence they would later use to come to an opposite opinion already existed and had been reviewed at that time.

Why they later totally reversed their position, gave in to Wofowitz, started touting the WMD thing and drug us into this mess is still not very clear.

I think they decided to use 911 as an excuse to make the world better.

Whether it has made the world better is still very much up in the air.

Sept 15th 2001 (quoted from 911 Commision Report):

Secretary Powell recalled that Wolfowitz—not Rumsfeld—argued that Iraq was ultimately the source of the terrorist problem and should therefore be attacked. Powell said that Wolfowitz was not able to justify his belief that Iraq was behind 9/11.

“Paul was always of the view that Iraq was a problem that had to be dealt with,” Powell told us.“And he saw this as one way of using this event as a way to deal with the Iraq problem.”

Powell said that President Bush did not give Wolfowitz’s argument “much weight.”

[jimbo]

As far as the spelling of Cajones, Kahonis, or whatever, I usually just call 'em "Nads".

Yes, Nads is the official scientific term.

It is correct that Saddams sons would have taken over. But did we have to invade?

I hear one of them had photos of Bush's daughters on his wall. Couldn't we have just given them Bush's girls to appease them. ;eekr;

Glad it wasn't my call.