Bush's impact on everyday life
Posted by Kacey (+3157) 14 years ago
I have been thinking about how the Bush presidency has affected so many parts of my life. So I thought, how about we start a forum and everyone can add their two cents worth. After all, that's about all anyone has left after filling their gas tank!

Due to high gas prices I no longer take my dad for a ride everyday. He can no longer drive and it was something we always did to get him out of the house.
Top
Posted by JLB (+208) 14 years ago
I don't even think I want to start. Seriously there are people on this site that have no clue that our country is in bad shape, and consider Bush one of the best presidents. Any problems we have now they rationalize it from being left over from the Clinton days. November can't come soon enough for me. Now, I do realize that he may not be all to blame, but I really consider him to play a big role in what is going on. It scares me to think what our children will have to deal with, will there still be student loans? will they even be able to own and operate a car? Will they be able to afford a home for their family? Will the water still be safe to drink? Heck, will there even be an ozone layer.....all these questions cross my mind. It's just scary times and I think even scarrier (sp) to think what lies ahead. Just my opinion, people can think what they want, I hope I am wrong.
Top
Posted by Chuck Schott (+1282) 14 years ago
BLAH BLAH BLAH
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+15285) 14 years ago
Oh good grief... "mopey madpants" is back with a PhD in victimhood and whineology.

I would submit that your continual pessimistic view of life has had more impact on your circumstances than anything the President, (Bush or any other) has done. If you want to have a "mental recession" that is up to you. I chose not to participate. There is so much opportunity in this country, it is hard to know where to start. As a nation, we are really blessed and have absolutely no reason to whine.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (edited 7/19/2008).]
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4461) 14 years ago
Pixie dust is vital to some, Richard.

Top
Posted by Chuck Schott (+1282) 14 years ago
Since George Bush took office my pants no longer fit as well as they used to. As a matter of fact the dirty SOB has caused me to go two pant sizes in the past 8 years. Also my cat is starting to crap on the carpet something he never did under a watchful Bill Clinton administration.

Heaven help us.
Top
founder
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hal Neumann (+10198) 14 years ago
Registering voters and working to get out the vote might be something to consider.

US Election Assistance Commission, National Mail Voter Registration Form:
http://www.fabnit.com/nvr...-12-06.pdf
Top
Posted by Brian (+359) 14 years ago
The rich have spoken!
Top
Posted by Kacey (+3157) 14 years ago
Chuck,

When you were growing up I knew you were different! Maybe I should have smacked you upside the head when you needed it back then and you'd think straight now!

I do worry about my kids and grandkids and what kind of world they are inheriting. When we were turning into adults we had reasons for optimism. We could afford a car and gas for the car. We could get student loans to go to college that didn't bankrupt us for life.
And tuition didn't cost an arm and a leg like it does now.

Anyone with a memory can see that life has gotten MUCH harder than it was ten, twenty, and even thirty years ago. And in order to make things better for future generations we are all going to have to work really hard to change the downward spiral we have been in during Bush's presidency.

I don't blame him personally. But that is only because I don't think he was smart enough to come up with all of this crap on his own. He makes a dandy puppet for those who are really in charge.
Top
Posted by Donna Kingsley Coffeen (+396) 14 years ago
As a teacher, it has changed my life and the lives of my teacher friends drastically. We see more children dropping out of school--being pushed out is more like it. We see creativity being squelched. We see normal childhood developmental stages being set aside resulting in horrible stress among even our youngest students. We see a broad based good foundational education going away and being replaced with trivia that some out of touch person has decided children need to memorize. The joy of learning is disappearing. Inspiring children to curiosity is disappearing.

People are losing their homes. They cannot afford to drive to their jobs. Heck, they cannot even afford milk for their children! The war has cost us not only money, but our souls. Some are ashamed to be connected with a country which attacks small countries unprovoked and leaders who agree with torturing other human beings in the most barbaric and brutal means known. Our privacy is being taken away a bit at a time. We are constantly silenced because objectors are shouted down with taunts of being unpatriotic. It is such a sad state of affairs that I often talk about returning to France. A visit there, talking to citizens, experiencing their medical care, etc. made me long for a place where there is so much less anxiety and so much assuredness that our government does care more about us than about revenge and oil and power.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4461) 14 years ago
Wow, not only did Bush mastermind 9/11, but he orchestrated a massive scheme to increase college tuition in every state in the nation.

What's weird though is most colleges are run by government entities. Why are their costs skyrocketing? I thought only corporate greed could make costs go up so fast.

Donna, assuredness stands in direct contradiction to greatness. When a nation worries more about its comfort than its progress, it's surely all downhill from there, regardless of the person at the helm.

You can coast along trying it for awhile. But soon enough, everyone has to pay the piper...

http://www.telegraph.co.u...roke'.html

France is bankrupt and can no longer afford to pay its workers generous salaries and subsidies, its prime minister has declared.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4461) 14 years ago
Meanwhile, we produce far less oil than we did 30 years ago, use (and import) far more, and wonder why prices are high...

The Democrat nominee calls drilling for more oil a "gimmick" Not at all sure if he's aware where oil comes from. And Pelosi promised us a "plan" to fix everything when gas hit $3 a couple years ago. That "plan" is still MIA.

Now their eco-buddies are trying to sue to prevent drilling for oil within 2 miles of a Sage Grouse... bye bye Bakken. Funny, we used to shoot them not all that long ago.
Top
Posted by Bob Netherton (+1891) 14 years ago
Fine, Richard. But no whining when the Pirate of Radical Islam is president, either.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+15285) 14 years ago
You missed the point. Individual success is not determined by who is president.
Top
Posted by Kacey (+3157) 14 years ago
The No Child Left Behind has destroyed education. Children spend time preparing for the required testing instead of learning as children will do in a normal school environment. I have two daughters who are teachers. One spent weeks just preparing the other teachers so they would know how to give the tests correctly.

I wonder if Bush could even pass them. I would love to see him try.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+15285) 14 years ago
I agree that the "no child gets ahead" program is largely a failure. While the original concept may have been Bush's, let's not forget that he had a lot of help from Sen. Kennedy, his dog "splash", and a bunch of "educrats" who actually wrote the legislation. The congress is more to blame for this program than Bush.

Even so, if one is that upset with this program we are blessed to live in a country where we have many alternatives for education. Certainly no reason for this to ruin your day.
Top
supporter
Posted by ike eichler (+1224) 14 years ago
Donna: To quote you from the RENT IN MC thread. "If you don't think it's fair,then move".

The Utopia you discribe is hardly that. My grandfathers generation died and shed their blood on it's soil and later my fathers generation did the same to insure that country's freedom.

Defeatism and Appeasment characterize that country's will.

Remember the students riots of a few years back? Just a thought, the Garden of Eden was the only perfect place and it did not last long. Ike
Top
Posted by Brian (+359) 14 years ago
Once again, the rich have spoken!
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+12212) 14 years ago
How has my life changed? Every day, I see the yellow "ribbons." (Amazing how a bad song about a felon has changed our lives.) Every day, I know people are at risk of dying in a war that should never have started. Yes, there is less violence in Iraq today but things are falling apart in Afghanistan because we ignored our real enemy for a pointless exercise in ego.

Every day, thousands of families and friends are mourning their dead children, dead spouses, dead friends, dead siblings. Hundreds of thousands are dead or displaced because of our President.

Then there are the survivors. The crippled and damaged, who must be cared for, often for the rest of their life, by an underfunded, inadequate system. Even those who come home with few visible scars will spend their rest of their life with the invisible ones.

Every day, those wooden symbols of war hang on the lamp posts on Main street. Reminding us of the cost in human lives, let alone the financial debt that will burden our children and grandchildren.

Every day, there are the dead, the wounded, and those who mourn and care. Every day. We remember them every day because of the actions of George "Dubya" Bush.

It doesn't matter whether you thought invading Iraq was the best idea since sliced bread or if you opposed it with every bone in your body. Every day, there are the ribbons, the worry, the wounded and the dead. That's how Bush impacted my daily life.
Top
Posted by Kacey (+3157) 14 years ago
As the wife of a Viet vet with PTSD I readily agree with your statements. Hundreds of thousands of innocent American lives have been impacted by our military going to Iraq. From the stories in the Gazette about goodbyes at the airport to seeing the moms and dads trying to raise their children alone while worrying themselves sick that spouse will never come home, it is all wrong.

Patriotism is great. I am all for standing up for what is right and helping the down trodden. WWII was the last war that truly needed to be fought. Viet Nam has destroyed a generation, leaving an example of the long ranging effects after thirty years. Desert Storm killed our troops by battle and by illness. This Iraq war which was declared over by our illustrious president long ago continues to kill and maim. I see nothing patriotic in sending innocent people where we do not belong in order to play power games.

What does it take to learn from our past mistakes? McCain is just like Bush. He will keep us in one war or another if he is elected.
I am just hoping Bush doesn't start another war before he leaves office.

My thoughts and prayers go to everyone who has been hurt by this horrible war.
Top
Posted by JLB (+208) 14 years ago
.....and everyday it costs our country 177million dollars to keep the Iraq war going, that's 7.4 mil/hr and 122,820 dollars per minute and a life loss of over 4000 soldiers killed so far. That's a high price to pay for a losing battle. Now personally I voted for Bush in the last 2 elections and I was all for the invasion of Iraq after 9/11. However, after seeing the economic and emotional impact this has had on our country, it's time for a change. Seriously anyone with half a brain can see what is going on. Whoever takes over in November has a tough challenge ahead that's for sure.
Top
Posted by Mark (+32) 14 years ago
Unpatriotic morons, it's all Clinton's fault.

The real question is, how far has the damage gone, and how much will the reich wingers bellyache and interfere in the real progress that will be attempted when hopefully a democrap takes office.
Top
supporter
Posted by Stone (+1594) 14 years ago
Trickle down economics has taken a dump on America's head. Trickle down is dead and Rick and Richard need Meds.

4 more years of this crap and we can all kiss middle class goodbye.
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3710) 14 years ago
I thought my toenail fungus was cured but now it has come back. I blame Bush. Of course it started during the Clinton administration, but Bush has had 8 years to do something but hasn't lifted a finger, hence my current disillusionment with both parties.

[This message has been edited by Levi Forman (edited 7/20/2008).]
Top
supporter
Posted by Stone (+1594) 14 years ago
Levi, I could not agree with you more. If you are interested check out http://www.progressivestates.org/content/524/ or http://www.davidsirota.com/

This administration is so out of touch with reality that it is not funny. Here is another example of there ignorance. "Have you noticed that President Bush and John McCain keep telling Americans our problems are all in our heads and that we just need to feel better?

Late last night, McCain's campaign co-chair Phil Gramm had to step down because of controversy over his comment that we were in the middle of a "mental recession." But the the truth is, McCain himself has repeatedly said our problems are merely "psychological"-Gramm was just more openly condescending about it.


Gramm's gone-but so far, the media's giving McCain a free pass for saying similar things."
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4459) 14 years ago
JLB, you're scared?

Mission accomplished.
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3710) 14 years ago
Levi, I could not agree with you more.

Really. Well I wasn't expecting that...
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17954) 14 years ago
The Democrat nominee calls drilling for more oil a "gimmick" Not at all sure if he's aware where oil comes from.

Why, it is a gimmick. There are no offshore platforms ready to drill the areas Bush just opened up, it'll take at least 10 years to build them. And even if that oil became available tomorrow, all of our refineries are operating at peak capacity.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6019739/

Seems like we should start building some refineries in this country.
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3710) 14 years ago
If anything that doesn't have an immediate impact is a 'gimmick' then where does that leave wind or solar?
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17954) 14 years ago
Hmmmm.....not sure what your question is about, Levi. Wind and solar aren't going to reduce the price of gasoline in a year, either. Nuclear power plants aren't going to be built on one, five, even 10 years. Yet all those alternatives, plus oil and gas, are long-term solutions to the crippling costs that the Bush administration has ignored for 8 years.
Top
supporter
Posted by ike eichler (+1224) 14 years ago
Hmmmm.... Thought Nancy and Harry were going to fix all that in their first hundred days. Ike
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3710) 14 years ago
Hmmmm.....not sure what your question is about, Levi.

So why do you call offshore drilling a "gimmick"?
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17954) 14 years ago
Because offshore drilling is not going to reduce the price of gasoline in one year, let alone 5 years, which is what the Republicans are trying to market this proposal as.

Gimmick. Pure and simple. Obvious to all.

Ike, I think Nancy and Harry realize now that Congress has very little power over policy compared to the executive branch.
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3710) 14 years ago
So you think it shouldn't be done? By that definition anything we do right now is a "gimmick". Gas prices have dropped by about 20 cents a gallon this weekend around here btw, not that I think it will be a long term effect.

Congress has given away a lot of their power, especially with regard to going to war, for one reason...they don't want to take any responsibility for it. This goes back to the Korean war though, not just in the last few years.

[This message has been edited by Levi Forman (edited 7/21/2008).]
Top
supporter
Posted by ike eichler (+1224) 14 years ago
Gunnar, Hmmm...What you are saying, is the whole, "Contract With America" 100 days pledge was a "Gimmick"?? That all alternatives now are at least 5 years off, were they not the same then?? Ike
Top
supporter
Posted by Stone (+1594) 14 years ago
So are you guys saying that there are no WMD's. Are we fighting for oil and the solvancy of the dollar.
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17954) 14 years ago
I am not saying it should not be done. Please read what I have posted (i.e., building more refineries). What I am saying that any proposal should be included in a comprehensive energy policy for this country, not simply throw out election year half-baked ideas to pander to the moronic masses. The reality is that we are not going to lower the price of gas with any simple proposal. A responsible candidate would be advancing long-term solutions, not political grandstanding.

Ike, yes, Newt Gingrich's Contract with America was indeed a gimmick. Look how well it worked. The 2007 Congress 100-days worked just as well as 1996's Contract With America.
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3710) 14 years ago
What I am saying that any proposal should be included in a comprehensive energy policy for this country, not simply throw out election year half-baked ideas to pander to the moronic masses.

That would be nice, sure, but it's not gonna happen in an election year (or probably any other time). I agree with you that what Bush did was a good idea. 8)
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17954) 14 years ago
I am so happy for you, Levi, that you support seeing our nation's beaches covered in tar like they were in the 1970s and early 1980s. Maybe you can sign up to adopt a oil-covered seagull?
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3710) 14 years ago
So now you don't think we should drill offshore? I could swear you just said the opposite.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9424) 14 years ago
It's a gimmick because it's a short-term solution to a long-term problem, and because it lets mouthbreathing idiots stick one in the eye of the eeeevil environmentalists. There are reasons why the ban on off-shore drilling has lasted for the last 30 years, through administrations with several sigmas of variation from a baseline of sanity, have those concerns been addressed? Probably not, but DAMN IT FEELS GOOD TO MAKE A HIPPY CRY!!!

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (edited 7/21/2008).]
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17954) 14 years ago
Wow. Just wow. You EVEN quoted my text like you read it, but your last post shows you comprehended nothing.

I am just speechless.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9424) 14 years ago
Reading comprehension has never been a MC.com strong point.
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17954) 14 years ago
Thank you, Bridgier. Good luck in arguing with Levi, I seem to be getting nowhere. Might as well be arguing with Rick.
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3710) 14 years ago
I understand what you are saying just fine. I am giving you a hard time because you are trying to justify your knee-jerk reaction (Bush did it so it must be bad) rather than looking at it from a practical standpoint. If you notice, the only time I get involved in these politics discussions is when I think someone is arguing from an illogical standpoint. You are attacking this as a "gimmick" while saying that it's not necessarily a bad thing to do. All I am doing is asking you to justify that statement which you have, to an extent, but I don't agree with you. I don't think anyone including GWB would suggest that offshore drilling is anything more than a minor piece of the puzzle. If Barack Obama was to propose a bill that would increase spending on electric cars I doubt you would object to it, even if it's not the complete solution. Obviously an unpopular, lame-duck president who will be gone in 5 months has zero chance of enacting any kind of comprehensive energy reform. Do you feel that nothing should be done unless a full solution can be achieved?

Bridgier showing up with his usual pat theory that conservatives are wrong because they are stupid and evil may be enough for you to declare the discussion over, but I still say you are condemning this based on partisan and not logical reasoning.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4461) 14 years ago
Sorry, Gunnar, it's hard to take "comprehensive" seriously from the guys who consistently oppose practical development of

oil
gas
coal
nuclear
hydro

which combined account for probably 98% of our energy produced. If you can't utilize any of these sources, you can't solve the problem. Even the most pie-in-the-sky Wind advocate is forced to admit it will be lucky to account for 20% of electrical generation in 30 years. If electrical is forced to take on more of the transportation burden, it will be far less. By your own standard, we should be saying "why bother." And that doesn't take into account the signature NIMBYism that takes over whenever someone tries to actually place any turbines (ie within sailing distance of the Kennedy compound, or the pristine wilds of Glasgow)

It's funny how we're constantly told to rely on some shapeless future technology that will save us all... if we just wait a decade longer for it... with those same people attacking any of their political opponents for not having an insty-solution today.

As far as cheap political stunts go... need I remind...

http://www.house.gov/pelo...stamp.html

Monday, April 24, 2006

With skyrocketing gas prices, it is clear that the American people can no longer afford the Republican Rubber Stamp Congress and its failure to stand up to Republican big oil and gas company cronies. Americans this week are paying $2.91 a gallon on average for regular gasoline - 33 cents higher than last month, and double the price than when President Bush first came to office.

"Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels."


It always seems to be your side that's essentially "solving" the problem by blaming the other team. When someone actually steps up and says "hey, let's produce some of the energy we have here, and stop outsourcing great-paying jobs to Dubai" it's a "gimmick"

Free markets, not your government, will provide the solution, if left to function. It will be comprehensive if the money drives it to be.

Government always specializes in gimmicks.


We need them out of the way.

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (edited 7/21/2008).]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9424) 14 years ago
But Levi, conservatives ARE wrong because they're stupid and evil - name me one position in the last 50 years that conservatives have ended up being on the right side of...

Okay, so there's probably one (or maybe even two) and that will be used (which is Levi's stock response ) to ignore everything else that's said. Actually, I'm sure there's plenty of things that the Republican's have gotten right, so I'm not really interested in any rebuttals, reasoned or otherwise.

Also - getting back to the basis of this thread. GWB has created a extraterritorial prison where we TORTURE people - and that's stupid, evil AND wrong.

Here's the part where Levi puts on the Good German mask and tut tuts about how we need to be more measured in our rhetoric.

Screw that. GWB and his authority-sucking sycophants have created a meat-grinder into which we throw perfectly good soldiers and get spam out the far end. Luckily we've got a hell of a VA to make sure their sacrifices are repaid with interest.

Oh. Right.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4461) 14 years ago
Good idea, Bridgier, but premature. Scientists have so far proven unable to harness the considerable energy inherent in irrational liberal rage.

If only Bush had properly funded the research, eh?

See you Saturday

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (edited 7/21/2008).]
Top
supporter
Posted by Big Dave (+433) 14 years ago
"rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies"

If there is someone here who is a better economist than I, please explain how reducing subsidies to oil companies would reduce gas prices. I haven't a clue what those subsidies are, but that is an incredibly stupid statement.

I would also say that any subsidy to oil companies at this time should be scrutinized, but unless they are being paid a subsidy specifically to keep the price of gas high, that statement makes absolutely no sense.

So what are the subsidies?
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4461) 14 years ago
Careful, Dave. Often times in Democrat lingo "subsidy" means "taxing the pants off them less than we'd like to" which in some cases can mean any rate under 100%

How increasing that taxation decreases the price of gas is a well-kept secret.... which of course only the most partisan Democrats are privy to. They promised to deliver on it a couple years ago. But apparently $4.17 a gallon isn't enough for them to let it out of the bag.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9424) 14 years ago
Am I going somewhere on Saturday that I wasn't aware of? Or are you going to be at the Boise Farmer's Market this weekend as well?

If so, awesome - we can stop in at Shige's and discuss trickle-down economics vs. reality over sushi
Top
supporter
Posted by Cory Cutting (+1270) 14 years ago
"Ike, I think Nancy and Harry realize now that Congress has very little power over policy compared to the executive branch."

The power is still there in the veto. However, the parties have grown so "loyal" as to be blind to "right and wrong." Reps are not voting by what should be, only what they've promised or by blind faith of a person.

The congress could veto and over ride all the stupid stuff that's been done, but with a majority being of the party of the President, the veto/impeachment/non-support of the President will never pass. It would be that way no mater who was President if the elements of the storm were the same. One party being in charge of all of it is the only way the big changes truely happen. However, then one side is pushing their agenda only because none of our "representitives" represent what is correct, only what they owe someone.

The biggest problem I see is that lets say Obama sells his promises for change and gets elected. He still has to be able to win over the congress to pass his ideas. He can't just "make it happen." Unless the dems gain control of both houses, then change very well may happen. Look at that 100 days promise.... the dems don't look all that good when you think about all the promises vs what actually happened.

The exact system that was set up to keep these things from happening is making it happen. I do not believe this is how it's supposed to be.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4461) 14 years ago
I'd say I disagree with most of what you said Cory. The reason for inaction is because the electorate is too influenced by shallow pandering. Politicians can't afford to do anything meaningful because it makes them accountable, which is the only 4-letter word a politician knows.

The key is to act like you've got solutions without really providing them.

There hasn't been a better time for a third party to emerge in at least a couple generations. I still don't know that it's possible though. Somehow if you could unite the blue-collar with a federalist/libertarian influence, you might have something. But it'd have to be led by the right person.
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3710) 14 years ago
Here's the part where Levi puts on the Good German mask and tut tuts about how we need to be more measured in our rhetoric.

I don't ask for being measured, just rational . And I don't really disagree with you on torture, I just think comparing our stupid and evil prison to some from the past which were many orders of magnitude worse makes you sound a little silly.

And of course no one is actually required to listen to my whining. If you just ignore me I will go back to reading about the county commissioners and let the fur fly.

And if I have any German blood it is just a faint echo in amongst all the Brits in my family tree, but maybe I came up with a recessive gene.
Top
Posted by Chuck Schott (+1282) 14 years ago
Levi,

I just quit trying to explain, they'll never get it.
Top
Posted by J. Dyba (+1348) 14 years ago
Levi tries to remove the politics from it and discuss things from as close to an intellectual standpoint as possible. I can appreciate that.

If you guys haven't figured out that Rick doesn't have the education, experience, knowledge or wisdom required to correctly discuss these issues then you're going to bang your head against that brick wall for a long time.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9424) 14 years ago
Levi, what I truly want is good and responsible government, that tries to do its best for as many people as it possibly can. In general, that also means that I'd like to see things resolved at the lowest level possible - if it's something the city can take care of, then let the city take care of it, then the county, then the state, etc etc.

We haven't had anything resembling that for the last eight years though have we? When I see the party in power happily turning the justice dept into the Office of Grudges and Dirty Tricks, when it puts a horse lawyer in charge of FEMA, when it mandates that sex-ed in this country will consist of "only sluts do it", then yes, when George Bush tells me that it gets dark at night, I'm going to suspect that Karl Rove has something to do with it.

As far as overblown rhetoric goes - well, I've spent the last eight years being told I'm not patriotic enough, that I'm not American enough, that supporting the troops means supporting the war and that if I don't like it I can always move someplace else.

Told this by the same people who can't burn the constitution fast enough, who will never feel safe even if every sheepherder and date farmer in the world was sent to Guantanamo, who appear to believe that the President is a King for whom the law is whatever he desires.

These are the people who want to lecture me on hating America first? They should be down at the veterans cemetery begging forgivness, because they don't deserve the sacrifices done in their names.

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (edited 7/22/2008).]
Top
Posted by mule train (+1054) 14 years ago
Nice speech B-Real. If we were in the 1800's, a Southern congressman would beat you with a cane about this time.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9424) 14 years ago
Yeah, back when democratic congressmen had spines instead of strongly worded letters.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4461) 14 years ago
Wow J. Sticks and stones, I guess. But then again I wasn't sure, considering the source, if that was an insult, or an invitation to run for President of the United States of America.

Bridgier, I'd really think we could come to better common ground on these issues. After all, if we conservatives offend by (according to some) wanting to "burn" certain sections of the constitution, then you can only say that our offense is in wanting to trash amendments in a slightly different order than you would prefer.

We both value civil liberties... just different ones. You think I should have the unfettered ability to collect call my 2nd cousin Ahkmed in the Pakistani highlands, no questions asked.

I think you should be protected from the government rifling through your pockets, deciding how much of your own money you deserve to keep at the end of the day.

The only difference between us is what we consider "real" freedom.

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (edited 7/22/2008).]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5105) 14 years ago
Hey Ricky:

You just proved Mr. Dyba's point for him.

Congratulations!
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4461) 14 years ago
Hey, Bruce. Thanks for breaking away.

I figured with your busy premiere week, we wouldn't be hearing from you for awhile.

Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5105) 14 years ago
*YAWN*
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+15285) 14 years ago
Wow! I didn't realize that so many people depended so much on the federal government for their happiness. No wonder you are so miserable. I still say that despite the problems we face, we are blessed far beyond what we deserve.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (edited 7/22/2008).]
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4461) 14 years ago
The truth of it is Richard, is that for the laundry list of laments about the 8 years of our current administration, I could go point by point on how previous administrations were no better, sometimes worse.

It seems there's only one conclusion that would satisfy some, and that is that their guy wins, so they can resume happily sweeping these unforgivable sins under the rug instead of wallowing in them.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9424) 14 years ago
Well Rick, start the Why Clinton Sucked thread, and I'll happily throw in my two cents. I'll even give you a something to start with - Leonard Peltier deserved a pardon long before Marc Rich. And the whole "welfare-to-work" thing was a pretty crappy bait & switch. Plus, I think he should have stuck by his guns on universal health care and gays in the military.

Something tells me we may have different lists.

But as for the whole "Hurray for Our Side" thing - you really misunderstand which team I'm actually rooting for. I'm more 'Emma Goldman' than 'Jane Fonda'. Put that in your google and smoke it.

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (edited 7/22/2008).]
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4461) 14 years ago
I'm sure our lists are quite different.

It's just hard to listen to some people cry about our government possibly monitoring a few calls to Saudi Arabia, when they're often the same people who shrugged and said "eh" when a prior administration tried to install a master key to every secure transaction on the internet, and monitor email at will.

Just seems like there's a bit of a speck and plank component here.

And it doesn't stop with Clinton. We can go back to the most-cherished Presidents in your party's history (as well as ours), and find many more far-reaching and disturbing examples of civil liberties set aside than we're mourning today. Yet the gnashing was never quite as pronounced.

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (edited 7/22/2008).]
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 14 years ago
Impact on me: At $4.49/gallon, it would cost me over $600 RT to drive to attend my cousin's wedding next month, so I probably won't. Because of the high gas prices, it would cost our family of 3 over $1500 to fly to the wedding. Many other family members are also unable to attend the wedding based on economic woes-1 laid off from his construction job as a result of the housing crash, another laid off from a teaching job due to her school being closed as it wasn't "up to standards" as a result of funding cuts directly related to the "No Child Left Behind" Policies (they were in a poor urban neighborhood where the kids had a lot of issues that made it hard for them to memorize a bunch of "facts" to regurgitate on standardized tests so the school did poorly and was penalized for it. Way to help those kids out....). Even the ones who are coming are worried about budgeting for it. Even the Bride and Groom have had to cut back on wedding planning due to the fact that the Bride, who graduated from collge in May, has yet to find a decent paying job in this economy...

My cousin, stationed in Iraq, has never seen his first child who was Born in Late February. His wife is living at Camp Pendleton on less than $1200 a month to cover all of her and the baby's expenses in a place where rent for a 1 bedroom apartment usually is over $1,000 a month, but where she has to stay as she waits for him to come home (he was supposed to be back in late June, but there is some sort of an involuntary extension added to his Iraq Duty).

My neighbor, who was stationed in Iraq until 2006, said they were not protecting the people of Iraq from Saddam Hussein 4 years ago-they were all stationed around the oil wells to make sure that they would not become a casualty in the so-called "war against terrorism" where it appears that the terrorists are really as not as big a concern as the oil wells.

So, I guess I would have to guess the high gas prices and the Iraqui War keep families apart, affect the prices for food and rent (since all of the people who have lost their houses are competing for rentals), education is in a tailspin, banks are stating to fail and companies are too nervous to hire new employees due to their uneasiness in an economy where the dollar is sinking to new lows against the currencies of the major U.S. trading partners -The Federal Reserve's trade-weighted exchange index has hit its lowest point since the Fed created the index in 1973. It doesn't take a genius to see that the Bush Administration's Iraqui War and poor fiscal policies are the thing that has thrown the US treasury into a deficit in the Trillions and has caused this to happen.

The worse President in History?

http://www.rollingstone.c...in_history

"Calamitous presidents, faced with enormous difficulties -- Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Hoover and now Bush -- have divided the nation, governed erratically and left the nation worse off. In each case, different factors contributed to the failure: disastrous domestic policies, foreign-policy blunders and military setbacks, executive misconduct, crises of credibility and public trust. Bush, however, is one of the rarities in presidential history: He has not only stumbled badly in every one of these key areas, he has also displayed a weakness common among the greatest presidential failures -- an unswerving adherence to a simplistic ideology that abjures deviation from dogma as heresy (recognize anyone from mc.com here?), thus preventing any pragmatic adjustment to changing realities. Repeatedly, Bush has undone himself, a failing revealed in each major area of presidential performance".
************************************************************
Bush Administration Projects Economic Improvements, Then Backs Away from Data
During the first three years of the Bush-Cheney administration, the unemployment rate increased by one-third and 2.2 million jobs were lost, and the country has gone from a $281 billion surplus to a $521 billion deficit. Debt has increased 23% from $5.7 trillion, to $7 trillion.

"Since the Great Depression, no other president who served at least 52 months has overseen a net loss in private sector jobs through this point. In addition to lack of job growth, real weekly and hourly wages have declined since the start of the recession. At a time when middle-class Americans are experiencing stagnant wages and vanishing benefits, CEO pay continues to rise."

"Bush Budget Slashes Education, Veterans' Health Care, Law Enforcement, and Environmental Protections
The Bush administration's budget for the 2006 fiscal year will cut non-defense discretionary spending, including education, veteran's health care, law enforcement, and environmental protections. In all, President Bush's fiscal 2006 budget plan calls for elimination of or drastic cuts from 154 programs. Funding for the Iraq war, however, was recently increased. A House subcommittee approved an initial $45 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan next year, two weeks after Congress approved $82 billion for this year's costs of the conflicts."

"Bush Racks Up More Debt
For the third time in three years, Congress will have to raise the federal debt ceiling, thus increasing the government's borrowing authority by as much as $800 billion. According to the Washington Post editorial board, "the Treasury Department has been doing the governmental equivalent of scrounging for spare change in the couch cushions to pay its obligations." This latest hike in the debt limit will amount to a grand total of more than $2 trillion during Bush's first term. "The deficits [the government] racks up year after year impede economic growth, burden future generations and force the United States to rely on foreign governments and investors," the Post reports. "Meanwhile, as the government has to pay more interest on its debt, it has less for health care, education and other programs." In his first State of the Union address, Bush spoke of his plan to pay off over the next decade the entire $2 trillion debt held by the public at that time. He said, "We owe it to our children and grandchildren to act now." As it stands today, the debt is on track to reach the $6.5 trillion mark by 2011."

http://mytalktoday.com/fo...vt538.html
Top
Posted by Major Pain (+199) 14 years ago
Despise Bush for running roughshod over the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th amendments? For wasting the lives of 4000 precious US soldiers in an extended act of violence that had nothing to do with what he claimed it did? For failing to act against the source of the 19 Arabs (not Afghanis, not Iraqis) who were on those planes on 9/11?

You have an immediate opportunity to do something direct about it:

Go here, sign the impeachment petition, and they'll forward your input to your congressperson.

http://kucinich.us/

Don't just sit on your hands.
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3743) 14 years ago
Major Pain this "Resolution" will go nowhere. With less than five months left until Bush is out of office I can't see this getting anywhere in the House, much less the Senate. There is a lengthy process just for getting the Article out of the House, even before it reaches the Senate.

Again with only about 5 months left before he leaves office I can't see this going anywhere.

Impeachment in the United States
http://en.wikipedia.org/w...mpeachment

[This message has been edited by Kyle L. Varnell (edited 7/23/2008).]
Top
Posted by Major Pain (+199) 14 years ago
It certainly won't if it isn't supported; defeatist attitudes have brought us to where we are today. Need I make my point any sharper?
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3743) 14 years ago
It's not being a "Defeatist" it's simply stating the reality of the situation. With less than 5 months left in office and the lengthy process it takes to formally remove a sitting President I doubt this will get much farther Kucinich's desk.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4461) 14 years ago
Wow, Tinfoil hat brigade back out in full force.

Nice to see Rolling Stone taken as such an authority on Presidential history. Maybe we should see what the editors at Car and Driver think next

I really like how Bush is simultaneously slashing every federal program under the sun, and blowing the federal budget at the same time. Seems consistent with the rest of the post, at least.

And of course, what exactly it is you think Bush can do about global oil prices is still an enigmah. Gas prices are over $10 a gallon in some European countries right now. I'd love to hear the "Bush's fault" theory behind that one.

What can he do? Set aside enviro lawsuits to increase production? Nope.

Allow drilling in new locations known to contain large amounts of oil? Nope, stonewalled by a congress that won't even schedule a vote on it.

There are certainly some problems we have that Bush has some responsibility for. But this is all part of the BDS... everything everywhere is Bush's fault. Price of oil, even when we don't produce any... Bush's fault. 9/11... Bush's fault FISA... even though brought to you by Carter and a Democratic congress, and used by every administration since... Bush's fault. Athlete's foot... Bush's fault.

It just can't be reasoned with. I guess if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Pass the tin hat and let's help Kucinich get to the bottom of who REALLY masterminded 9/11. Fire can't melt steel!
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5105) 14 years ago
Woo, Rickenhawk, go pound on that Straw Man!

Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9424) 14 years ago
I prefer the term "Rickophant" (as in - MC.com's great, if you ignore all the rickophancy) myself.

And yes, I would have thought the War on Straw would have been won long ago... but what do I know? I'm consumed with liberal rage

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (edited 7/23/2008).]
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 14 years ago
Rick-

I hate to point this out to you, but the Rolling Stones didn't write the article "The worse President in History?". Sean Wilentz, PhD wrote it( the Sidney and Ruth Lapidus Professor of History at Princeton University).

" Wilentz earned one B.A. at Columbia University in 1972, before earning another at "Oxford University on a Kellett Fellowship, and his Ph.D. at Yale University. His historical scholarship has focused on the early years of the American republic. His major study, The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln, received the Bancroft Prize in 2006 and was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize. His first book, Chants Democratic, won several awards, including the Beveridge Award from the American Historical Association. He has more recently turned his scholarship to recent U.S. history. His latest book is The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974-2008.[1]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...an_Wilentz

Rolling Stone Magazine published ithe story because unlike a majority of the media in the U.S. it is not owned by Media Conglomerates such as Clear Channel or Rupert Murdoch, whose stories are for sale to the highest bidder (in this case the U.S. Govt. who has pillaged the Middle Class).
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3710) 14 years ago
This thread is pretty much unsalvageable, but I wanted to reply to this post even though I'm late.

Levi, what I truly want is good and responsible government, that tries to do its best for as many people as it possibly can.

I doubt there's anyone who doesn't want this, although we may vary widely on the details.

We haven't had anything resembling that for the last eight years though have we?

Not really. I'm not going to defend the Bush administration as a good example of how the executive branch should be run at all and in a lot of ways, they have done the exact opposite of what I would consider core conservative values. I listened to Scott Mckellen's speech to the commonwealth club of California a few weeks ago and one of the more interesting things he said was that they were pretty surprised when they first got into office and proposed a lot of fairly broad social programs that they felt could have been proposed by Dems but the Dems fought them tooth and nail on them. Of course then 9-11 happened and everything changed.

As far as overblown rhetoric goes - well, I've spent the last eight years being told I'm not patriotic enough, that I'm not American enough, that supporting the troops means supporting the war and that if I don't like it I can always move someplace else.

Who told you that? Rick? Ann Coulter? Did the chairman of the RNC call you at home and say you were not patriotic enough?

The way I see it, there are 2 problems with the political dialog on this board and it pretty much extends to the political dialog in the country as well.

1) People blindly follow their ideology. They don't even know if their arguments make sense because they haven't actually thought about them. They approach every issue with the assumption that their team is right and the other team is wrong.

2) They are not arguing with each other, they are arguing with a cartoonish stereotype that they have applied to the opposite party so they don't have to feel conflicted about anything.

Rick doesn't disagree with Bridgier, he disagrees with an America-hating, terrorist sympathizing, communist hippy person that doesn't actually exist (outside of Berkeley anyway). Bridgier doesn't disagree with Rick, he disagrees with a bloodthirsty, racist, xenophobic, religious fundamentalist and/or a heartless capitalist that wants to destroy the poor for the benefit of big corporations. Luckily those people don't exist either, at least outside of an Alabama trailer park or the 5 biggest offices at Enron. Arguing with those people is a lot easier than actually thinking about issues and trying to see both sides of the story though.

There was an excellent column in the Village Voice a few months ago by David Mamet that I don't think I posted here but was a great read.

Village Voice: Why I Am No Longer a 'Brain-Dead Liberal'
An election-season essay
By David Mamet
Tuesday, March 11th 2008


http://www.villagevoice.c...-liberal/1

I highly recommend it, but I should warn you, this is not an essay about how he has seen the light and become a neo-con and reacting to the title without reading the article will probably make you look like a fool.
Top
Posted by J. Dyba (+1348) 14 years ago
I mostly agree with what you said Levi but I will differ with you a bit on one point. I disagree vehemently with ANYONE who thinks G Bush has done a good job. Those people do exist and some of them post on this board. My actions in that regard have been to stop engaging those types in any political dialogue at all.
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3743) 14 years ago
I disagree vehemently with ANYONE who thinks G Bush has done a good job

Really J. Dyba? It seems to me he's done a pretty good job of getting a Democrat elected as our next President.

Top
Posted by Kacey (+3157) 14 years ago
Levi,
I think that the reference to not being patriotic was from our illustrious president. He said people who did not support his war were unpatriotic. I would have taken offense at the comment but I had to consider the source.
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3710) 14 years ago
Link please...
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9424) 14 years ago
Actually no - I disagree pretty much completely with anything that Rick says.

And yes, I've had my american bona-fides questioned to my face by actual flesh and blood people - to say nothing of views expressed here and elsewhere. It makes a person a little touchy

he disagrees with a bloodthirsty, racist, xenophobic, religious fundamentalist and/or a heartless capitalist that wants to destroy the poor for the benefit of big corporations.

The above is interesting, but not true - I disagree with authoritarians who promote ideology over science, who perceive will to power as right to power, and brazen incompetence which rewards loyalty with positions of power and responsiblility.

You're as bad as Rick at not understanding what I'm trying to say.

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (edited 7/23/2008).]
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4461) 14 years ago
Yeah, but Bridgier, you would've had FDR and JFK impeached.

That's what makes you so lovable.

Levi, I think the thing here is that we're not so much real people here as actors in a play of our own design. I know Bridgier from way back in the day, and don't really think of him personally in the way this online back and forth might suggest. Online, we're mostly caricatures of ourselves, which we pretty much feed by caricaturing each other. The dialog is generally a mutual race to the bottom. I understand where they're coming from. Pride just makes it difficult to say so unless the other side makes the same concession. Human Nature.

J. it's fair to say people shouldn't think Bush has done a good job on everything. But you have to admit that it's just as unfair to say that everything on the planet that's a problem right now is Bush's fault. The premise of this thread is just as ridiculous as believing Bush is 100% right all the time.

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (edited 7/23/2008).]
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3710) 14 years ago
The above is interesting, but not true - I disagree with authoritarians who promote ideology over science, who perceive will to power as right to power, and brazen incompetence which rewards loyalty with positions of power and responsibility.

It was probably a mistake to use people's names in my example. I didn't mean it as the actual feelings of those individuals, I was just listing stereotypical views of the right by the left and vice versa.

Online, we're mostly caricatures of ourselves, which we pretty much feed by caricaturing each other. The dialog is generally a mutual race to the bottom. I understand where they're coming from. Pride just makes it difficult to say so unless the other side makes the same concession. Human Nature.

That's very well put, and I am probably the silly one for expecting to have an open minded and thoughtful discussion when half of the participants are probably here in the first place cause it's fun to fight.

[This message has been edited by Levi Forman (edited 7/23/2008).]
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17954) 14 years ago
All the stereotypying on this site, as far as I can tell, are done by those of the right wing persuasions...Richard, Levi, and especially Rick. Rick has never posted anything that wasn't us versus them, black versus white, as far as I can recollect seeing here. Levi's posts in this thread are just as bad.

Most posters here seem to be moderate (with the exception of howdy, who is definitely a bleeding heart liberal )...moderates do not necessarily have a middle of the road position on every issue, but have some views that some would call conservative, other views that some would call liberal. The right wingers here definitely seem to support only the view points of their ideologues.
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3710) 14 years ago
I object to being called a right winger. I am a registered independent and I voted 3rd party in the last presidential election. I think you will have a hard time backing up the assertion that I am a right-winger from the content of my posts.

My posts in this thread are all decrying stereotypes and could be applied to either right or left wing web warriors. I did generate some stereotypes of my own while I was at it, but I only meant them as examples to illustrate what I am talking about.
Top
supporter
Posted by Cory Cutting (+1270) 14 years ago
I just saw on CNN that the city of San Francisco wants to name their wastewater treatment plant the "George W Bush Waste Treatment Plant" since he has, as the main supporter said, "He has had so much waste in his presidency." (or something close to that). The group got enough signatures to put it on the ballot in November to vote on the name change. Something like 14,000 signatures.

A spokesman for the treatment plant said it will cost over $50,000 just to change all the signs, letterhead, etc.

Even Lou Dobbs was critical of this plan on air right after the story ran.

This plan should make some of you cheer and want to move to SF.
Top
supporter
Posted by Levi Forman (+3710) 14 years ago
Will be interesting to see if it passes. It's very safe to say that GWB doesn't have a large amount of support in old San Fran.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5105) 14 years ago
RE: GWB Sewage Plant

Meh.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4461) 14 years ago
All the stereotypying on this site, as far as I can tell, are done by those of the right wing persuasions

Funny. Kinda reminded me of a nameless presidential candidate's recent quote:

"It's always a bad practice to say 'always' or 'never'"
Top
Posted by J. Dyba (+1348) 14 years ago
I personally think the sewage plant thing is a ridiculous waste of time and money that could be better channeled elsewhere. If I was GW and that was the worst thing that happened as a result of my incompetance I think I would consider myself a much superior strategist.

I think the thing that irks me the most is when this is all said and done, even if we manage to recover, the score will be Dubya - 1, USA - 0.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4461) 14 years ago
I thought GW could really score a few points if he picked this up and ran with it. Maybe gave it a slogan... especially being in SanFran and all.

"The George W Bush Wastewater treatment plant...

Cleaning up Liberal $#@% since 2001"

Probably why I'm not a political strategist.
Top
Posted by Major Pain (+199) 14 years ago
"It's always bad practice to say 'always' or 'never.' So never do either one."
Top
Posted by Cheryl Pieters (+484) 14 years ago
I have a friend who lives in the Bay Area, and here's what she has to say when told
*************************************************************
"We are re-naming the wastewater plant the George W. Bush memorial sewage treatment plant, please help"

She said:

"I disagree.

Reason #1: I don't want to see anything named after W.

Reason #2: There are hardworking people at the sewage plant, I bet
it's not a great job, and it could only be made worse by having to go
to work at a place named for this country's arguably worst president,
as a reminder that the voters where you live disrespect you, your job
and your place of business.

So there's my $.02!"
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2742) 14 years ago
At the time that I'm writing this there are 93 previous posts on this thread. I think the last time I read it there were maybe 20 or so. For some illogical reason I committed myself to catching up by reading posts 21 to 93. At about post 81 I became very bored ... same old liberal A-holes vs. Conservative SOBs routine. Then something really interesting happened. It only lasted a little while, but it was there long enough to restore my faith in our basic human desire to seek out --- I'm not sure what --- Understanding? Common ground? Peace? Whatever it is, at this particular moment I think it's real - and I just want to thank Bridgier, Rick, Gunnar, Levi and the rest of you for providing me with that illusion.
Top
Posted by Lisa (+26) 14 years ago
In Ref. to Kacey: You think he(Bush)makes a good puppet. Clinton was Hillary's during his presidency.

[This message has been edited by Lisa (edited 7/31/2008).]

[This message has been edited by Lisa (edited 7/31/2008).]
Top
Posted by Kacey (+3157) 14 years ago
Obviously not....
Top
Posted by Chuck Schott (+1282) 14 years ago
Ahhhh! No terrorist attacks on US soil for almost 7 years. Does stuff like this count?
Top
supporter
Posted by Ken Minow (+373) 14 years ago
I'm not sure of the actual data,but I was thinking I read that a very small percent of cargo ships are searched.I would think that it'd be pretty easy for a terrorist to sneak a suitcase dirty bomb into our country.I realize that according to the Shrubspin,we've thwarted numerous terrorist attacks and that may very well be true.Unfortunately,I'm afraid that between container ships and our poor border security it's just a matter of time.I'm also fairly certain that the next attack won't be by plane.As far as I know,terrorists come from more than just the country of Iraq,so to think that our conflict over there has nullified any threat here is ridiculous.
Top
Posted by JLB (+208) 14 years ago
Also, maybe I have misread information, but didn't the terrorists wait around 6-10 years or so before the actual attack on the trade center??? From what I remember they wait for the right timing even if it takes a decade. I doubt that just because we haven't had an attack it's credit due to Bush. Sorry, but as stated above, it's all a matter of time.
Top
Posted by Chuck Schott (+1282) 14 years ago
I don't give credit to the War for stopping all attempts at sabotage here in the US but I've got to think a certain % of evil bastards with intents towards harm to our homeland are now dead. That's a good thing. Is it worth the cost? Now there's a question I am unable to answer, can you? Do I thing war sucks? Yes I do.

I guess I'm trying to say out of all things comes some good, even Jimmy Carter gave us Billy beer. Oh! Billy beer sucked, Jimmy may still have the tittle of worst President ever. Not to fear my Liberal friends GWB can still be worst two term President ever if you'd like.
Top
Posted by Bob Netherton (+1891) 14 years ago
A certain number of those with evil intentions towards the U.S. may be dead, but how many more have been created?
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3743) 14 years ago
In listening to a weeks worth of radio broadcasts from the Howard Stern Show that were broadcast during and after 9-11-01 a couple of things came across to me in hindsight.

The first was just how much political capitol Bush had after 9-11 and the second thing is just how much he squandered what could've been a great opportunity since then. Had he kept up the offensive in Afghanistan and then gone after Saddam he probably could've gone down as one of our Country's great Presidents.

Now.......

[This message has been edited by Kyle L. Varnell (edited 8/2/2008).]
Top
Posted by Major Pain (+199) 14 years ago
...and it's always worth remembering that there were 19 Saudis involved; neither Afghanistan or Iraq had much to do with the event at all. However, Iraq was a very weak, non-Muslim nation (that's right, they were a secular society) and had a lot of oil, and as we see today, as Iraq's oil rights are doled out to American oil companies, as oil company profits soar beyond all previous ranges, the consequences of the war in Iraq for the forces behind the PACs haven't been bad at all.

Now, life is harder for *us*, fewer rights, costlier fuel, but then again, when's the last time you dropped a serious bunch of money on a congressman's re-election fund, or took 'em on a jaunt to the fleshpots of Tokyo or the Netherlands, or gave them all manner of "deals" on home construction and repairs, like those our friend the Senator from Alaska was too dimwitted to hide? So why should you have rights, eh?

Anyway, obviously, we couldn't attack the Saudis. They're a serious trading partner, regardless of their terrible human rights record (particularly with regard to women), monetary support of terrorism (including 9/11), and effective theocracy. But Iraq... Saddam... no problem.

Iran has a lot of natural resources as well. Isn't that an interesting fact? Keep your eyes on the middle east.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4461) 14 years ago
Just curious, Major. What "rights" are you no longer able to enjoy?
Top
Posted by Major Pain (+199) 14 years ago
Rights reduction in the USA has been extremely broad, as have other constitutional erosions.

Starting with the bill of rights...

1st amendment: "free speech zones." Government funding of religious activities. The shifting of religious tax obligations onto the shoulders of others. Laws making it a felony to picket at a funeral. Numerous examples of censorship (federal, state, and local.) Arrest of peaceable (silent, still, small sign-holding) protesters at rallies.

2nd amendment: Any law that makes it a crime to keep or carry arms. Which means most arms laws from sword canes to machine guns. Even the recent "victory" at SCOTUS regarding the Washington D.C. law was utterly ridiculous, based upon an assertion that never appears in the constitution, and ignoring the language of the amendment itself.

4th amendment: Telecomm law violations. FISA in its entirety. Seizure of funds without a warrant or any kind of due process. Warrantless physical searches. Seizure of computers without probable cause. All manner of net monitoring, general tracking systems like cameras and license plate recognition systems, the continuous and in-depth snooping of banking activity, credit card activity, payment services like paypal, auction services like EBay... I could really go on for quite a while here, but I think I've made the point sufficiently.

5th amendment: Torturing someone until they say what you want pretty well sunders that whole "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Likewise, imprisoning someone without access to an attorney, a hearing, the ability to call anyone... that takes out the "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (and the aforementioned seizure of funds violates that as well.)

6th amendment: speedy and public trial; representation; assistance of counsel; none of these are a given any longer.

8th amendment: Cruel and unusual punishment... waterboarding. Unending, non-judicially imposed imprisonment. Inadequate prison facilities. Rape.

10th amendment: Federal usurpation of many powers not delegated to them is a direct violation of the rights of the states, and of the people.

More generally...

Ex post facto laws, explicitly forbidden to both the federal government and the state government, are now quite common. Worse, they've been to the supreme court and survived (as have some of the 2nd amendment violations.)

The commerce clause, which lays out that the feds shall have the power to regulate commerce [the sale and trade of goods and services] between the states, has been turned upon its very head and now serves as justification for the feds to do anything they like in any state they like, claiming that it "could" affect interstate commerce. For instance, in California, where medical marijuana use is legal by state law, federal agents have seized product and arrested citizens based on the idea that marijuana "could" be sold over a state line (not "was" just "could.") Likewise, anything you do online through a modem, including a DSL modem, *within* your state can be used to make you guilty of a federal crime, because they define a modem as "an instrument of interstate commerce."

The government has a history of using blackmail to get its way when it cannot find a way to exert direct power. For instance, Carter's "national speed limit" was implemented by coercing states to set speed limit laws or face non-distribution of highway funds; the power to tax is given as "to provide for the common Defence(sic) and general Welfare"; this cannot rationally be interpreted as the power to tax and subsequently withhold benefits of those taxes based upon regulatory controls not otherwise authorized. In deja-vu news, congress is currently considering a national speed limit again; I'm not sure how they plan to force this one on the states, but I'm fairly sure it'll use similar means.

Article V provides for alterations of the constitution. It has been roundly ignored in favor of repeated unauthorized power grabs; for instance, the feds decide they want to search without a warrant under some set of conditions; the constitution explicitly says they can't. Instead of trying for an amendment, they just make law, and until that makes it to SCOTUS, and unless, once there, the court strikes it down, people suffer the consequences of the unauthorized law. Almost everything above is a violation of the spirit of article V, and of the letter of constitution, and of the oaths of office of the judges, executive, and congress.

On top of all this, the government -- at all levels -- seems to think it has blanket permission to regulate what informed, consenting adults do to themselves and with each other, which frankly, I find outright tyrannical and completely out of touch with the state of mind of the people who created the constitution itself. On the other hand, I also find it a natural consequence of the trend away from a constitutional state that was formed honoring liberty, towards a dictatorial state that treats liberty as an inconvenience to be brushed aside for any reason it finds convenient, and where the authorizing document, the constitution itself, is roundly ignored by the supposedly oath-bound lawmakers.

Along these lines, most sex laws, most recreational drug laws, most marriage laws, most poly/mono-gamy laws, some insurance laws, and some zoning and construction laws all founder on the most basic and sensible definitions of liberty.

Does that answer your question?
Top
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10018) 14 years ago
Damn Major Pain, I usually try not to get involved in political dicussions here -- but that was a good post.
Top
Posted by Major Pain (+199) 14 years ago
MCW, thanks for your kind words.
Top
supporter
Posted by Stone (+1594) 14 years ago
Major P, with your permission I would like to keep that in my files. Good stuff. If you have not looked into the erosion of our rights by NAFTA give it a look.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4461) 14 years ago
Does that answer your question?

Not really. The point of your comment on "rights" was to say how you now enjoy fewer rights than you did since 9/11.

Sure, you laundry-listed a bunch of things that sound bad to people when put in your terms (with decidedly few specifics) But on most of your fronts, you're lamenting things as they've always been, or even things that are better than they were even in the "good ol' days"
Top
Posted by Kacey (+3157) 14 years ago
In the "good ol' days" there were lots of problems. But you could inhale the air, drink the water and go out in the sun. All things that are NOT the same as now.
Top
supporter
Posted by Jim Brady (+423) 14 years ago
Pardon me Major Pain if I take exception to your pseudo-intellectual drivel, but I seem to remember that nearly 3,000 innocent Americans were incinerated and ground to death on 9/11 because being a "non-believer" apparently gives Islamists the obligation to kill us.

"and it's always worth remembering that there were 19 Saudis involved; neither Afghanistan or Iraq had much to do with the event at all."

Last time I checked, radical Islam is a belief that transcends Europe, the Middle East, Africa and much of the Asian sub-continent. It is not a country with defined boarders. Many of the "19 Saudi's" had been trained as al Qaeda in Afghanistan with the consent of the Taliban.

That action "involved" them.

"However, Iraq was a very weak, non-Muslim nation (that's right, they were a secular society)"

"very weak"? As I remember, the Republican Guard was reputed to be one of the most well armed and powerful ground forces in the Middle East. They were no match for the American forces, but then again, the Syrian, Saudi, Jordanian, Egyptian and Iranian armies didn't shed any tears when we took them out.

"non-Muslim"? Please explain to me sir, what are Sunni's and Shiites? Iraq seems to be full of them. Saddam's "government" banned a theocracy, but they all still pointed their heads to Mecca five times a day. Did they dance in the streets in Baghdad on 9/11? I'm sure the film is around here somewhere.

"and as we see today, as Iraq's oil rights are doled out to American oil companies"

No, I don't see. Can you reference a reputable source for this statement?

Terrorists are terrorists no matter where the nest is. Saddam Hussein funded all the Islamist terrorist groups around the world with Iraqi oil money which killed tens of thousands of "non believer's' over the twenty years he was in power. (Much of which came from our wonderful NATO allies in Europe.)

The world is a better place with Hussein and the psycho-sadist sons in the grave.

People need to wake up, take the "I hate George Bush" blinders off and understand what is at stake here. If Bush was right on anything it was to start killing terrorists where they live and those who enable them. This is a war of cultures that has been going on for 1500 years and I can guarantee you if the human flotsam in Washington D.C. (including the current candidates) continue to run the show the way they have been, we won't survive it.

And you sir; you need to stop apologizing for monsters.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+12212) 14 years ago
So, how come we didn't attack Saudi Arabia, since that is where 19 of 20 terrorists came from? Our attacking Iraq after Sept. 11 was like attacking New Zealand after Pearl Harbor. We attacked a country who had NOTHING to do with Sept. 11 because we weren't suck up buddies with their ruler anymore. Used to be. Gave him the weapons we were worried about. (And knew their expiration date!)

Iraq was unjustified, period. They did not attack us. They had no intention of attacking us. But Dubya is buddies with the Saudis so we couldn't attack them.

There was no justification for attacking Iraq. No, the guy who ran the place wasn't pleasant but if we are going to invade every country with an unpleasant dictator, we are going to need a MUCH bigger army! Russia has an unpleasant dictator. Should be go after them. After all, they invaded a sovereign nation and planned to roll tanks through its capitol and kill its citizens.

Oh, wait. . .
Top
Posted by J. Dyba (+1348) 14 years ago
Mr. Brady,

You're very confused.
Top
Posted by Bob Netherton (+1891) 14 years ago
Jim. If Bush is to kill enablers of terrorism, he should shoot himself.
Top
Posted by Bob Netherton (+1891) 14 years ago
Jim. Iraq is now mostly full of Shiites. Just like Iran - another country I suppose you'd like to see us invade. When President Bush travels to Iraq, he has to sneak in during the middle of the night. Iran's president gets the vestal-virgin-bearing-flowers-on-the-tarmac treatment. This is what we've spent billions of dollars and thousands of lives for. When Saddam was in power, Iran and Iraq were at odds. We were supporting Saddam - that's a fact. He got on our sh*t list for invading a friendly oil producing nation, not for supporting terrorists. Now if it will make you feel better, go listen to a C&W song about putting a boot up someone's ass. It's the American way.
Top
Posted by Major Pain (+199) 14 years ago
Jim Brady enters the fray:

> Pardon me Major Pain if I take exception to
> your pseudo-intellectual drivel, but I seem
> to remember that nearly 3,000 innocent
> Americans were incinerated and ground to
> death on 9/11 because being a "non-believer"
> apparently gives Islamists the obligation to
> kill us.

I remember the same thing. And your point, or exception, to my "pseudo-intellectual drivel" is what, exactly?

> Last time I checked, radical Islam is a belief
> that transcends Europe, the Middle East, Africa
> and much of the Asian sub-continent. It is not
> a country with defined boarders. Many of the
> "19 Saudi's" had been trained as al Qaeda
> in Afghanistan with the consent of the Taliban.

So. Your position is, since Bush is ruining the country, we should bomb... Harvard? Don't you think bombing his home in Texas is more likely to make an impression?

> "very weak"? As I remember, the Republican Guard
> was reputed to be one of the most well armed and
> powerful ground forces in the Middle East.

Well, yes. If you ride a camel and carry an old Springfield. We don't ride camels, and we annihilated the entire Republican Guard without any trouble in one timely swirl of infrared penetrated dust and depleted uranium sabots. Plus a few hellfire missiles from the occasional Apache.

Or did you get your information from Faux News? Did you really think Iraq had an army that could be described as anything but "weak" as compared to even the fraction of the force we could have brought (but didn't even bother) to bear? Didn't you see us dropping smart weapons right down ventilation ducts? Didn't you see us destroy entire hardened bunkers with single weapon deployments, captured for your amusement on video?

Man, now you are what I call gullible. Our attacking Iraq was like you picking up a 1-week old baby and simply shaking it to death. It was more difficult to leave enough intact to have somewhere for people to rebuild than it was to actually trounce them.

> "non-Muslim"? Please explain to me sir,
> what are Sunni's and Shiites? Iraq seems
> to be full of them.

Don't be intentionally dense. They weren't running the country. They were free to worship, but then again, so are we. Saddam kept them from controlling the country. He no longer does that; and in case you haven't noticed, NOW THEY DO.

> No, I don't see. Can you reference a reputable
> source for this statement?

Sorry. I keep forgetting you're a Faux News fan. here you go:

http://www.google.com/sea...nistration

Have a picnic. No charge for me doing your research at Google. I'm just nice like that.

> Terrorists are terrorists no matter where the nest is.

Terrorists aren't terrorists unless they attack. You do remember that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing, right? Trials, international borders, respect, finding the actual guilty party, that stuff? Or is that just old hat to you, like it is to our president and a good portion of our criminal judiciary? Is it your position that half of South America should be bombing us right now for the clandestine CIA ops we run, or do you think diplomacy might be a better idea, with the responsible folks identified and remanded? Go on, take your time, think it over. (whistles)

> The world is a better place with Hussein and
> the psycho-sadist sons in the grave.

Well, the question is, would the astonishing number of Iraqi people who died in order for us to put him down, and raise up the Muslims into power, agree? Somehow, I still find room to ponder that question. That one thing is bad may be without question; but if you cannot ensure that something worse will not take its place, should you destroy it anyway? This is probably why no one has shot Bush, even though most of us know he's a cast iron, dangerous, foolish idiot. There isn't a sane person in this country who would want Cheney for president. That man is Bush's insurance policy.

Unfortunately, Bush ignored the best advice offered him, and crapped all over Iraq like a very spoiled child, and now we have to pay for it, to the estimated tune of about a trillion dollars (conservatively... some are estimating as high as five trillion. Not counting Afghanistan, of course.) For which we get a bunch of really, really angry Muslims angry at us instead of angry at Saddam's secular, if iron fisted, rule. Yeah. That was a great improvement.

> People need to wake up, take the "I hate
> George Bush" blinders off and understand
> what is at stake here.

You mean, our national economy and the tax burden for the next 20 years or so? Or do you mean the fact that Bush's war has killed more Americans than the terrorists did? Or do you mean the erosion of our liberties? Or the uncounted dead Iraqis? Or the destruction of our country's international reputation? Really, you need to be more specific.

> If Bush was right on anything it was
> to start killing terrorists where they
> live and those who enable them.

Oh. You mean in Saudi Arabia? Where they live? Where they are primarily funded from? Like I said in the first place?

Keep on posting, sparky; your shoe leather will only taste better after you chew on it for a while.

[This message has been edited by Major Pain (edited 8/19/2008).]
Top
Posted by Major Pain (+199) 14 years ago
Rick expresses:

> Sure, you laundry-listed a bunch of things
> that sound bad to people when put in your
> terms (with decidedly few specifics)

I assume my readers are informed (or at least Google-capable) until the uninformed, incompetent ones come out of the woodwork. Which issue would you like more specifics on, Rick? I'm 100% ready to help you out.

> But on most of your fronts, you're lamenting things
> as they've always been, or even things that are better
> than they were even in the "good ol' days"

Really? Most?!? Ok, I'll bite. Start by naming just one. We'll go from there. This should be amusing. One of us is certainly wrong. But this isn't religion, where you can wave your hands, chant "I believe in the magic", and claim to have won the day.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9424) 14 years ago
"chant "I believe in the magic", and claim to have won the day."

You haven't been arguing with Rick for very long.
Top
Posted by J. Dyba (+1348) 14 years ago
For those who don't want to read all the annoying words, I have created an illustration to sum this thread up for you:



[This message has been edited by J. Dyba (edited 8/19/2008).]
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17954) 14 years ago
Hahaha! Good one, J.!

I cannot think of a bigger waste of time than arguing politics with Rick on mc.com.....there is absolutely no way of changing his narrow-minded world view.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5105) 14 years ago
Meh. I liked the Venn diagram better.
Top
supporter
Posted by Jim Brady (+423) 14 years ago
Gollly-Geee, thar Mister Major Pain but you done fisked the s**t out `o me!

Ah ben up all nite, chewin' my shoes sance Missy Ammorett done stuck it to me 30 seconds after Ah posted. Man `o man, thet gal kin read fast! Nothin' sticks, but she shore kin read fast!

Y'all done showed me the way! I has seen the light of CNN and the Neuw Yourk Times! Ahm gonna Google me on up to them Media Matters and that thar Huffington Post too!!

Ah' Cain't Wait!

I has ta admit `em war-mongerin' Bush and Cheney `r just BAD HOMBRES fer killin' all `em murderin' Islamist thugs without affordin' em `em thar Civil Rights! `Em boy's `l burn in hell, fer bringin' a gun to a sword fite, Fore Shore!

I'm sure thangs `ll be all better whan Mister President Obama `an Mister Majority Leader Reid and Missus' Speaker Pelosi is all on thar knee-bones at that thar Throne of Allah!

Allah Achbar!! Destroy the infidel!! Thas' whut I aways say!

(Wall,,, thas whut ahm gonna be sayin' now what Ah know's better!) That thar's DIPLOMACY, ain't it?

Hell fire boy! You like whistlin' too??? Than you can look forward ta whan `ol Mahmoud Ahmadinejad comes by to cut yer head off with a dull `nife! Him `n `ol Mister President Jimmy Carter `ll be whistlin' that thar catchy tune from "Deliverance", jus' fer YOU!!!

Y'all Enjoy now, Skippy!
Top
Posted by Major Pain (+199) 14 years ago
Jim... your meds... you forgot your meds...
Top
Posted by Major Pain (+199) 14 years ago
Gunnar spake:

> I cannot think of a bigger waste of time
> than arguing politics with Rick on mc.com.....
> there is absolutely no way of changing
> his narrow-minded world view.

The potential benefit isn't about bringing him around. The benefit is uncovering his thinking, and in learning something from him. He can refuse to learn from me; but there's no way he can stop me from learning from him. Even when he fails to answer direct questions, I learn something useful about the outlook he represents.

Conversation isn't always about conversion; dealing with dogmatics requires a decent understanding of the underlying pathologies. You cannot achieve (or maintain) that by refusing to engage.

In argumentum ad ignorantiam veritas.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9424) 14 years ago
Quiquid latine dictum sit altum viditur
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4461) 14 years ago
Not that I really have much to complain about being painted as an ideologue. I know I've earned quite a bit of it. But it seems to me though that the people who trot it out the most might be projecting just a little.

I'd say that an objective observer in these cases would have a hard time determining who most resembles the beating head, and who the brick wall.

Now hopefully Gunnar will refrain from stepping in and claiming said "objective" mantle.

Beyond that, I'm not sure whether it's worth it to do more "specifics" than I did in that other thread.... where asking a simple question about early Christian history yielded a treatise on what the word "believe" means.

But what the heck. There are loads of them, but here's a couple.

2nd Amendment... How are we worse off than we were in say the year 2000.

LGBT Rights... How specifically have they receded since 9/11?
Top
supporter
Posted by Stone (+1594) 14 years ago
"In argumentum ad ignorantiam veritas"

That's Latin darlen, it appears Mr. Pain is and educated man.
Top
Posted by Major Pain (+199) 14 years ago
Rick rolled:

> 2nd Amendment... How are we worse off than we
> were in say the year 2000.

You'll note this is a far cry from what you said previously:

> But on most of your fronts, you're lamenting things
> as they've always been, or even things that are better
> than they were even in the "good ol' days"

Still, things are definitely worse. In 2008, the Supreme Court had a chance to actually read the operative clause of the 2nd amendment as written:

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Instead, the majority opinion, written by Scalia, cited a constitutionally non-existent rationale, that of self-defense. This puts a further stamp of unauthorized interpretive garbage on top of plain English. That's not all, though. Scalia quite specifically indicated that this decision did not in any way invalidate the government's (unauthorized, illegitimately taken) power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Which is an outright disaster.

The resulting situation is a further example of the government seizing unauthorized power that was specifically forbidden to it, in this case by the 2nd amendment itself.

Prior to the decision, the 2nd stood a chance of being heard and accurately interpreted by the last line of defense against the legislative branch, the judiciary -- but they failed utterly to do their job, and any 2nd amendment case that tries to force the issue of the violation of the operative clause is going to face that precedent and get knocked right out of the ballpark. A huge step backwards. The only upside is that residents of Washington DC no longer face that law, though there are new ones now that are just about as restrictive and so they're one step forward, one step back at best.

> LGBT Rights... How specifically have they receded since 9/11?

Since 9/11? Again that's hardly related to your original statement:

> But on most of your fronts, you're lamenting things
> as they've always been, or even things that are better
> than they were even in the "good ol' days"

...nor are LGBT rights something I remarked on, so I'm not sure why I'm being called to defend your formulation. Methinks you have a focus problem, Rick.

Having said that:

o In July 2008, The Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck portions of the state's hate crimes law that added sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, ancestry and disability, effectively removing these protections from the LGBT community.

o LGBT adoption: The United States became signatory to the Hague Adoption Convention in 2008, which affects adoption of children. The move closes off adoption from some countries where families previously could adopt children, and will make international adoption even harder for LGBT families. Countries where the U.S. was formally able to adopt from that were LGBT friendly, such as Guatemala, are no longer adoption options for the U.S. because these countries are not signatories of the Hague Convention. To further complicate matters, many countries around the world are also in a period of transition and are changing their own adoption regulations. For example, China, which used to allow adoption by unmarried persons, is now prohibiting adoptions by parents who are unmarried. Obviously, where LGBT couples cannot marry, they cannot quality for a Chinese adoption.

o A proposed constitutional amendment has been placed on the 2008 California general election ballot to reinstate the California DOMA act, which definitely represents a step backwards for the LGBT community; this is one example of many where the government (at all levels) is moving to control who marries who based upon sexual orientation. Hopefully this attempt will fail. In the meantime, however, it represent a serious threat.

o Right now, the feds are engaged in a brand new anti-first amendment crusade that focuses on "porn"; this will affect the LGBT community, though not just them.

...from here on in, however, please restrict your requests for me to defend propositions to those I actually made. Thanks.
Top
Posted by Major Pain (+199) 14 years ago
Bridger quoth:

> Quiquid latine dictum sit altum viditur

Yeah, I think that was the bible's basic problem until the 1600's.

Still, doesn't mean that the occasional Latin truism isn't spot-on. In modern times, with Google and other resources, it's no longer the barrier to the unexposed that it once was. Translation is mere moments away.

Besides - Latin is just plain fun. I've enjoyed it since I was in grade school. Anyone remember the scene in "Life of Brian" where the centurion makes Brian get his Latin right? I laughed until tears came out of my eyes. Python, truly awesome stuff:

http://www.epicure.demon....esson.html
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4461) 14 years ago
Keep that target movin' major.

> 2nd Amendment... How are we worse off than we
> were in say the year 2000.

You'll note this is a far cry from what you said previously:

> But on most of your fronts, you're lamenting things
> as they've always been, or even things that are better
> than they were even in the "good ol' days"


Actually, no because what I said was...

Not really. The point of your comment on "rights" was to say how you now enjoy fewer rights than you did since 9/11.

Sure, you laundry-listed a bunch of things that sound bad to people when put in your terms (with decidedly few specifics) But on most of your fronts, you're lamenting things as they've always been, or even things that are better than they were even in the "good ol' days"


Michael Moore style editing doesn't work so well in text, Major.

Also remember that the title of this thread is "Bush's impact on everyday life" which is what you were addressing. Although you seemed to tie most of it back to 9/11 initially, if you'd like to move it over to "Bush's fault" in general, that's fine. Feel free to move the target back to January instead of September 2001.

Now back to the topic... your 2nd Amendment argument, as far as Bush goes, doesn't make any sense at all.

First off I fail to see how a de facto handgun ban is preferable to an overturn of said ban based on language not quite up to your standards. The ban was in place for 30 years. If other courts would have overturned it based on old precedent, what the heck happened?

Second, two of the 5 votes required to overturn the ban were Bush nominees. Very simple math here... subtract Bush, add Gore and you have gun ban upheld completely. Now we're talking precedent.

And that's not even counting that Scalia likely had to make some big concessions on the language of the decision to keep Kennedy on board. If Bush had one more nominee on the court (3 instead of 2), they could have told Kennedy where to go, and the language would have probably been even more to your liking.

nor are LGBT rights something I remarked on, so I'm not sure why I'm being called to defend your formulation. Methinks you have a focus problem, Rick

I guess I took it from the combined mention of "consenting adults", "most sex laws", "most marriage laws." If I drew the wrong conclusion, then I'm sorry. But your defense leads me to think maybe it wasn't.

Not that it was a defense I really understood. I'm pretty sure the Hague Adoption Convention had nothing to do with gay people. Saying it's anti-gay is like saying raising taxes is anti-gay because some gay people are going to have to pay it.

And as far as what the federal government or Bush would have to do with what state courts decide, or what ballot initiatives are brought up in California, I'm kinda lost. DOMA... who signed that federal law again? Can't remember

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (edited 8/19/2008).]
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4461) 14 years ago
Rick Rolled
Heh heh

http://www.youtube.com/wa...BghD0XBN5M

Resemblance uncanny
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3743) 14 years ago
Rick,

That was way too funny!

[This message has been edited by Kyle L. Varnell (edited 8/19/2008).]
Top
Posted by Major Pain (+199) 14 years ago
I'm going to use caps here, not to shout, but to make comments out of the quotes, because this involves four levels of commentary. Apologies.

> Although you seemed to tie most of it back to 9/11 initially

Rick, no, actually I didn't. I put up a general post about rights loss trends. Go read it again. You can challenge what I wrote; not what you want to change it into. Here's EXACTLY how it went:

0) MP:
> Now, life is harder for *us*
***GO READ THIS ENTIRE PARAGRAPH - NOT 9/11 RELATED

1) Rick:
> Just curious, Major. What "rights" are you no longer able to enjoy?

*** NOTE COMPLETE LACK OF 9/11 QUALIFICATION

2) MP:
> Rights reduction in the USA has been extremely
> broad, as have other constitutional erosions.

> Starting with the bill of rights...

***ANSWERED AS ASKED

3) Rick:
> Not really. The point of your comment on "rights"
> was to say how you now enjoy fewer rights than you did since 9/11.

***NOW THAT WAS YOU TRYING TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT. YOU ASKED WHAT RIGHTS, NO QUALIFICATION: THAT'S THE ANSWER I GAVE YOU. I CAN GIVE YOU A SIMILAR ONE FOR 9/11 AND LATER; BUT THAT WASN'T IT

4) MP:
> Really? Most?!? Ok, I'll bite. Start by naming
> just one. We'll go from there.

***THAT WAS ME NOT LETTING IT CHANGE

5) Rick:

> 2nd Amendment... How are we worse off than
> we were in say the year 2000.

> LGBT Rights... How specifically have they receded since 9/11?

*** STILL OFF TRACK

6) MP:
> You'll note this is a far cry from what you said previously:

*** ME POINTING OUT YOU'RE DERAILED

...and there you have it.
Top
Posted by Major Pain (+199) 14 years ago
> Now back to the topic... your 2nd Amendment argument,
> as far as Bush goes, doesn't make any sense at all.

It isn't about Bush. It's about how we're worse off, which is what you asked.

> I guess I took it from the combined mention of
> "consenting adults", "most sex laws", "most
> marriage laws." If I drew the wrong conclusion,
> then I'm sorry. But your defense leads me to
> think maybe it wasn't.

You did draw the wrong conclusion. I was thinking about assisted suicide when I mentioned consenting adults, and as far as sex laws go, I meant what I said - most of 'em are insults to liberty, regardless of who they address. Though I am certainly a strong supporter of personal liberties for the LGBT communities, I really don't think they're doing all that badly right now. That's going to be a long haul for them, and they're definitely making progress most places. Just not all, and there are always idiots trying to legislate them back into the closet, and they deserve watching.

> Not that it was a defense I really understood.

You'd understand it if your adoption options suddenly dropped through the floor. Or maybe you wouldn't. Perhaps I'm giving you too much credit.

> And as far as what the federal government or
> Bush would have to do with what state courts
> decide, or what ballot initiatives are brought
> up in California, I'm kinda lost. DOMA... who
> signed that federal law again? Can't remember

That's because your QUESTION was:

> LGBT Rights... How specifically have they receded since 9/11?

Where does that question specify only federal rights losses again? And how is Bush involved - the word Bush does not appear in your question or my earlier post, either. I repeat, I wasn't posting about Bush. I was posting about rights losses. I don't care a lot about Bush, other than to generally despise him. I don't think the man can tie his shoes, much less attack anyone else's rights. That problem rests with the legislature and with Cheney, IMHO. I care about the citizens.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9424) 14 years ago
Oh I agree with you completely on the Latin MP - in fact, in a galaxy far, far away, a previous blog of mine went by the title "Romanes Eunt Domus"

Now get back to fighting the armies of straw....

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (edited 8/20/2008).]
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4461) 14 years ago
Dude, I think you need to read yourself again, noting thread title "Bush's impact on every day life"

Kyle noted

The first was just how much political capitol Bush had after 9-11 and the second thing is just how much he squandered what could've been a great opportunity since then. Had he kept up the offensive in Afghanistan and then gone after Saddam he probably could've gone down as one of our Country's great Presidents.

Now.......


You followed up, marked as if in continuation

...and it's always worth remembering that there were 19 Saudis involved; neither Afghanistan or Iraq had much to do with the event at all. However, Iraq was a very weak, non-Muslim nation (that's right, they were a secular society) and had a lot of oil, and as we see today, as Iraq's oil rights are doled out to American oil companies, as oil company profits soar beyond all previous ranges, the consequences of the war in Iraq for the forces behind the PACs haven't been bad at all.

Now, life is harder for *us*, fewer rights, costlier fuel


Now I'm not sure what "Now" means to you. But I can say that generally, "now" in a narrative like this is usually an attempt to establish cause/effect. If that wasn't the case, then what was "now" supposed to mean? Since 1967? Since ABBA's last album release?

Anyway, after I asked which rights were fewer, I heard what seemed to me to be a lament on everything that's wrong with the world, and that it didn't seem to tie to Bush or his actions after 9/11 like your context and language from the previous post led me to think. Which is essentially what I clarified when you asked if you answered my question.

Had you any objection to the premise, I'd think it would have been raised at that point. Instead, you either accepted or ignored what I said and taunted me to provide you specifics. When I did, you then suddenly started attacking the premise. I'm not sure if it was an honest miscommunication, or something else.

I know if it was just a miscommunication, I maybe could have phrased the "which rights" question more fully. But considering the context I thought it was pretty clear at the time.

Nevertheless, you went down the Blame Bush road anyways, and made arguments that I still say hold no water. Bush deserves plenty of blame, but as I've said a million times, he's no worse than his predecessor(s) on most of your issues. Much better on some.

The fact of the matter is that things get alot more dicey when a president is faced with the choice of which country vs. a choice of which intern.
Top
Posted by Bob Netherton (+1891) 14 years ago
Laptops! At 50 paces!
Top
Posted by Major Pain (+199) 14 years ago
Rick rhetorically replies:

> Now I'm not sure what "Now" means to you.
^^^
Now, look. I used it there just as you used it here; in conversation, to draw attention to an initial or cogent statement or point in a narrative: Now, my first impulse was to run away | I don't like Scotch. Now, if it had been Irish Whiskey you'd offered me, then... | Now, I don't know what you would have done, but... | Now, life is harder for *us*, fewer rights, costlier fuel, but...

Now, you may rest assured I'm being honest, that I was not talking about Bush. I was talking about our rights; I started and ended the paragraph on point.

Now, if you think about it for just a moment, it should be quite clear to you that many of the reductions of our rights occurred far from (either) Bush administration. FISA was inflicted on us in 1978, for instance.

Now, you can either question me on what I meant to say, or you can
continue to insist that what I meant to say was something in your mind. I will not attempt to defend positions I have not taken.

Now, I don't know if that's going to convince you or not, but if not, I still decline to play.

Now, do you understand what I'm saying, or not?

Now that's all I have to say about it.
Top
Posted by Major Pain (+199) 14 years ago
Odds are good that my laptop will crush his laptop. Even at 100 paces.
Top
Posted by Bob Netherton (+1891) 14 years ago
He doesn't give up easily, Major.
Top