Full Version: The United States Of America
Nope. However, in the event that line-up happens, who in Europe is willing to put me and Bob up? And the cats?
QUOTE(itsmeBarbara @ Dec 17 2005, 08:38 AM)
Nope. However, in the event that line-up happens, who in Europe is willing to put me and Bob up? And the cats?
you know you welcome
but i agree - that's very doubtful - if the dems seriously look like choosing hillary the republicans will do their level best to put up a man against her.
my money's on mccain - i think the neo-cons will lie low for a while - jeb bush in 2012
Not so sure Rob.
The Neo Cons are on a roll and the poor performance from their current puppet will give them the drive to keep the ball rolling with a full on right wing whack job that gives off an air of sanity. They've never struck me as the sort of people who'll take a step back to regroup. They've made so much ground in such a short time they'd be reluctant to give up, even temporarily, and allow the Dems back into any kind of influential position.
Think you're right about Jeb though. No sane political animal would give credence to the idea that America would elect such a bizarre creature as he, in 08 or 12 or ever.
Having said all that I've just looked at my email and this appears in the online NY Times (and probably many other placs too of course but...) :
It doesn't take a genius to note that the events detailed in paragraph four had a good deal to do with the furthe downturn in the fortunes of the neo cons and their puppet.
It's not much I agree given the powers that Bush has taken for himself but it's a start. It looks like some sort of tide has begun to turn. I hope so anyway.
PS: Barb - If we weren't moving over there you'd be very welcome here.
The Neo Cons are on a roll and the poor performance from their current puppet will give them the drive to keep the ball rolling with a full on right wing whack job that gives off an air of sanity. They've never struck me as the sort of people who'll take a step back to regroup. They've made so much ground in such a short time they'd be reluctant to give up, even temporarily, and allow the Dems back into any kind of influential position.
Think you're right about Jeb though. No sane political animal would give credence to the idea that America would elect such a bizarre creature as he, in 08 or 12 or ever.
Having said all that I've just looked at my email and this appears in the online NY Times (and probably many other placs too of course but...) :
QUOTE
Senate Blocks the Renewal of Patriot Act
The rebuff to Bush comes amid news that he authorized wiretaps of Americans without court clearance. Fate of post-9/11 law is unclear.
By Richard B. Schmitt, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — The Senate on Friday blocked legislation to renew the Patriot Act, delivering a dramatic rebuff to President Bush that reflected rising concern over his treatment of civil liberties and privacy rights in the war on terrorism.
A Republican bid to end debate and consider a bill that the House easily approved this week fell seven votes short, leaving the fate of the anti-terrorism law unclear as Congress prepared to recess. Key provisions of the statute are to expire Dec. 31.
It was the second policy reversal on the terrorism front in as many days for the president, who on Thursday bowed to congressional pressure and agreed to accept a formal ban on cruel or inhumane treatment of detainees in U.S. custody. The Bush administration previously had said such a restriction might undermine U.S. interrogation efforts.
And it coincided with a published report in the New York Times on Friday that Bush had authorized eavesdropping on hundreds of Americans after the Sept. 11 attacks without getting court approval. The report triggered bipartisan criticism that spilled over into the debate over the Patriot Act — and might have hardened opposition to renewing the law.
The report, confirmed by the Los Angeles Times, describes a highly classified program of monitoring communications between Americans in the U.S. and individuals overseas who were suspected of having ties to terrorist networks. The program, run by the top-secret National Security Agency, was approved by Bush in the wake of Sept. 11; it is drawing criticism because intelligence agencies ordinarily must gain permission from special courts before they can listen in on conversations of U.S. citizens, domestically or overseas.
"If we needed a wake-up call about the need for adequate civil liberties protections to be written into our laws … this is that wake-up call," said Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), part of a bipartisan group of senators who ignited the filibuster fight.
"They are saying, 'Trust us, we are following the law.' Give me a break," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.). "Across the country and across the political spectrum, no one is buying it anymore. There is no accountability. There is no oversight…. This is Big Brother run amok.
"With these new developments," Kennedy said, "we must take a step back and not rush the Patriot Act."
Four Republican senators broke ranks in the 53-46 vote. Sixty votes were needed to cut off debate and block a filibuster of the measure. Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) subsequently changed his vote to oppose ending debate, in a maneuver that gives him the right to call for a second vote. That made the official vote 52 to 47.
Critics of the House-backed bill, which would extend 16 expiring provisions of the act, say it doesn't include adequate safeguards for civil liberties. They have proposed a three-month extension of the law in its current form to work out differences. But supporters of the law have said they might prefer to have it expire than subject it to future tinkering.
Frist indicated that he would try to corral more votes over the weekend before Congress adjourns in the next few days for the holidays. "The debate will continue on this very important bill," he said. "We will not see a short-term extension."
Friday's outcome was a blow to Bush and the Justice Department. The Patriot Act has become the administration's signature weapon in waging its fight against terrorism on the battlefield and in the courts, and it has enjoyed the support of most Americans. Many of the provisions have been used sparingly, and the changes being debated in some instances amounted to no more than fine-tuning.
Administration officials said Friday that some members of Congress were putting the nation at risk.
"These provisions of the USA Patriot Act are essential to our efforts in the war on terrorism, and their loss will damage our ability to prevent terrorist attacks," Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales said. "Our nation cannot afford to let these important counter-terrorism tools lapse."
Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, said Bush would not sign a plan introduced Monday by a bipartisan group to extend the act for three months while a compromise was worked out. "The president calls on the leaders of both parties to start putting the safety of the American people above politics," he said.
The Senate vote reflected what some lawmakers see as a deepening credibility gap with the administration and a growing frustration among Democrats and some Republicans that administration officials are not to be trusted.
"The scope of concern has been broadened," said James Dempsey, executive director of the Center for Democracy and Technology, a Washington advocacy group critical of the Patriot Act. Recent disclosures "are telling members of Congress that they need to be a lot less trusting of the administration and a lot more careful. There is a feeling that if you give the administration an inch, they will take a mile."
One expiring provision would make permanent the ability of intelligence agents and prosecutors to share information, which officials have said has been crucial to rooting out and prosecuting suspected terrorists.
If the law is not renewed, "the wall goes right back up again on Jan. 1. Is that what we want?" asked Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.). "God forbid that there be a terrorist attack that could have been prevented by the Patriot Act after it has expired."
But Senate Democratic and Republican foes of renewal denied that they were trying to kill the act, saying it was the administration that was playing politics.
"None of us wants it to expire, and those who threaten to let it expire rather than fix it are playing a dangerous game," said Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.).
Wisconsin Democrat Russell D. Feingold said the Republican leadership would bear responsibility if the law expired. "That would only happen if the proponents block alternative reauthorization that can easily pass," he said. "Now is not the time for brinkmanship or threats."
Though officials said a failure to renew the Patriot Act would be ominous, the effect would be unclear. Investigators would still be able to use their expanded powers to complete ongoing probes. Moreover, despite Republican claims, some believe that prosecutors and intelligence officials would still be able to share information, because of a 2002 court decision.
The renewal legislation passed by the House would make permanent 14 of 16 sections of the law. Two of the most controversial sections — authorizing investigators to use wiretaps to monitor multiple phones and to use secret warrants to obtain business records, including ones from bookstores and libraries — would expire in four years unless Congress renewed them.
Critics are seeking changes to the act that would require the government to establish a closer connection between records requests and terrorism. They also say the law lacks a meaningful opportunity for targets to challenge the requests in court.
Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), an administration critic, said the new disclosures had influenced his vote.
"I went to bed undecided. But today's revelation … is shocking," Schumer said. "If this government will discard a law that has worked well for over 30 years without a whit of discussion or notice, then for sure we better be certain that we have safeguards on that government."
Counting Frist, 51 Republicans and two Democrats — Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Tim Johnson of South Dakota — voted in favor of the renewal legislation. Four Republicans voted against it: Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, John E. Sununu of New Hampshire and Larry E. Craig of Idaho.
The rebuff to Bush comes amid news that he authorized wiretaps of Americans without court clearance. Fate of post-9/11 law is unclear.
By Richard B. Schmitt, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — The Senate on Friday blocked legislation to renew the Patriot Act, delivering a dramatic rebuff to President Bush that reflected rising concern over his treatment of civil liberties and privacy rights in the war on terrorism.
A Republican bid to end debate and consider a bill that the House easily approved this week fell seven votes short, leaving the fate of the anti-terrorism law unclear as Congress prepared to recess. Key provisions of the statute are to expire Dec. 31.
It was the second policy reversal on the terrorism front in as many days for the president, who on Thursday bowed to congressional pressure and agreed to accept a formal ban on cruel or inhumane treatment of detainees in U.S. custody. The Bush administration previously had said such a restriction might undermine U.S. interrogation efforts.
And it coincided with a published report in the New York Times on Friday that Bush had authorized eavesdropping on hundreds of Americans after the Sept. 11 attacks without getting court approval. The report triggered bipartisan criticism that spilled over into the debate over the Patriot Act — and might have hardened opposition to renewing the law.
The report, confirmed by the Los Angeles Times, describes a highly classified program of monitoring communications between Americans in the U.S. and individuals overseas who were suspected of having ties to terrorist networks. The program, run by the top-secret National Security Agency, was approved by Bush in the wake of Sept. 11; it is drawing criticism because intelligence agencies ordinarily must gain permission from special courts before they can listen in on conversations of U.S. citizens, domestically or overseas.
"If we needed a wake-up call about the need for adequate civil liberties protections to be written into our laws … this is that wake-up call," said Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), part of a bipartisan group of senators who ignited the filibuster fight.
"They are saying, 'Trust us, we are following the law.' Give me a break," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.). "Across the country and across the political spectrum, no one is buying it anymore. There is no accountability. There is no oversight…. This is Big Brother run amok.
"With these new developments," Kennedy said, "we must take a step back and not rush the Patriot Act."
Four Republican senators broke ranks in the 53-46 vote. Sixty votes were needed to cut off debate and block a filibuster of the measure. Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) subsequently changed his vote to oppose ending debate, in a maneuver that gives him the right to call for a second vote. That made the official vote 52 to 47.
Critics of the House-backed bill, which would extend 16 expiring provisions of the act, say it doesn't include adequate safeguards for civil liberties. They have proposed a three-month extension of the law in its current form to work out differences. But supporters of the law have said they might prefer to have it expire than subject it to future tinkering.
Frist indicated that he would try to corral more votes over the weekend before Congress adjourns in the next few days for the holidays. "The debate will continue on this very important bill," he said. "We will not see a short-term extension."
Friday's outcome was a blow to Bush and the Justice Department. The Patriot Act has become the administration's signature weapon in waging its fight against terrorism on the battlefield and in the courts, and it has enjoyed the support of most Americans. Many of the provisions have been used sparingly, and the changes being debated in some instances amounted to no more than fine-tuning.
Administration officials said Friday that some members of Congress were putting the nation at risk.
"These provisions of the USA Patriot Act are essential to our efforts in the war on terrorism, and their loss will damage our ability to prevent terrorist attacks," Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales said. "Our nation cannot afford to let these important counter-terrorism tools lapse."
Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, said Bush would not sign a plan introduced Monday by a bipartisan group to extend the act for three months while a compromise was worked out. "The president calls on the leaders of both parties to start putting the safety of the American people above politics," he said.
The Senate vote reflected what some lawmakers see as a deepening credibility gap with the administration and a growing frustration among Democrats and some Republicans that administration officials are not to be trusted.
"The scope of concern has been broadened," said James Dempsey, executive director of the Center for Democracy and Technology, a Washington advocacy group critical of the Patriot Act. Recent disclosures "are telling members of Congress that they need to be a lot less trusting of the administration and a lot more careful. There is a feeling that if you give the administration an inch, they will take a mile."
One expiring provision would make permanent the ability of intelligence agents and prosecutors to share information, which officials have said has been crucial to rooting out and prosecuting suspected terrorists.
If the law is not renewed, "the wall goes right back up again on Jan. 1. Is that what we want?" asked Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.). "God forbid that there be a terrorist attack that could have been prevented by the Patriot Act after it has expired."
But Senate Democratic and Republican foes of renewal denied that they were trying to kill the act, saying it was the administration that was playing politics.
"None of us wants it to expire, and those who threaten to let it expire rather than fix it are playing a dangerous game," said Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.).
Wisconsin Democrat Russell D. Feingold said the Republican leadership would bear responsibility if the law expired. "That would only happen if the proponents block alternative reauthorization that can easily pass," he said. "Now is not the time for brinkmanship or threats."
Though officials said a failure to renew the Patriot Act would be ominous, the effect would be unclear. Investigators would still be able to use their expanded powers to complete ongoing probes. Moreover, despite Republican claims, some believe that prosecutors and intelligence officials would still be able to share information, because of a 2002 court decision.
The renewal legislation passed by the House would make permanent 14 of 16 sections of the law. Two of the most controversial sections — authorizing investigators to use wiretaps to monitor multiple phones and to use secret warrants to obtain business records, including ones from bookstores and libraries — would expire in four years unless Congress renewed them.
Critics are seeking changes to the act that would require the government to establish a closer connection between records requests and terrorism. They also say the law lacks a meaningful opportunity for targets to challenge the requests in court.
Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), an administration critic, said the new disclosures had influenced his vote.
"I went to bed undecided. But today's revelation … is shocking," Schumer said. "If this government will discard a law that has worked well for over 30 years without a whit of discussion or notice, then for sure we better be certain that we have safeguards on that government."
Counting Frist, 51 Republicans and two Democrats — Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Tim Johnson of South Dakota — voted in favor of the renewal legislation. Four Republicans voted against it: Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, John E. Sununu of New Hampshire and Larry E. Craig of Idaho.
It doesn't take a genius to note that the events detailed in paragraph four had a good deal to do with the furthe downturn in the fortunes of the neo cons and their puppet.
It's not much I agree given the powers that Bush has taken for himself but it's a start. It looks like some sort of tide has begun to turn. I hope so anyway.
PS: Barb - If we weren't moving over there you'd be very welcome here.
QUOTE(Martyn @ Dec 17 2005, 12:05 PM)
Not so sure Rob.
The Neo Cons are on a roll and the poor performance from their current puppet will give them the drive to keep the ball rolling with a full on right wing whack job that gives off an air of sanity. They've never struck me as the sort of people who'll take a step back to regroup. They've made so much ground in such a short time they'd be reluctant to give up, even temporarily, and allow the Dems back into any kind of influential position.
The Neo Cons are on a roll and the poor performance from their current puppet will give them the drive to keep the ball rolling with a full on right wing whack job that gives off an air of sanity. They've never struck me as the sort of people who'll take a step back to regroup. They've made so much ground in such a short time they'd be reluctant to give up, even temporarily, and allow the Dems back into any kind of influential position.
Martyn
I think it will depend on the midterms - if the democrats do well i think the neocons may find themselves shafted
probably just wishful thinking and I'm no expert, but hey - at least it's not seen as unpatriotic now in America to question the administrations handling of Iraq and anti-terrorism.
Do you see Bush today - a live and on camera (unheard of) radio address - they are on the ropes.
And did you see the jib-jab cartoon - even sky here were running it in full - if you haven't seen it you must its at http://www.jibjab.com/Home.aspx. hilarious
QUOTE(kindofjudy @ Dec 16 2005, 09:37 PM)
I will put my money on am all girl line up for the next one
Rice V Clinton
Rice V Clinton
I hope not!! Either would make me ill. Will whoever doesn't take Barb in allow four lefties on their couch for four years?
QUOTE(LeftintheUS @ Dec 19 2005, 06:13 PM)
QUOTE(kindofjudy @ Dec 16 2005, 09:37 PM)
I will put my money on am all girl line up for the next one
Rice V Clinton
Rice V Clinton
I hope not!! Either would make me ill. Will whoever doesn't take Barb in allow four lefties on their couch for four years?
Oh and 11 horses too?
OK but the horses have to go out back and you guys can go in the summer house...( It has heating, shower and toilet)
QUOTE(kindofjudy @ Dec 19 2005, 07:17 PM)
OK but the horses have to go out back and you guys can go in the summer house...( It has heating, shower and toilet)
You're too kind. What should we bring? BTW, I'll do the cooking!!
Some root beer would not go a miss....Lets share the cooking, but promise me this, no politics over dinner it gives me indigestion...
I would still really like to know why Mata likes Hillary Clinton. No sarcasm, I want to know.
Hey Barb! You've probably told us before but I don't recall.
What is it that you find so disagreeable about Hillary Clinton?
What is it that you find so disagreeable about Hillary Clinton?
QUOTE(itsmeBarbara @ Dec 19 2005, 09:56 PM)
I would still really like to know why Mata likes Hillary Clinton. No sarcasm, I want to know.
One thing I have noticed since I began posting here is that those on the Left in this forum are further Left than most of the US. The Right on this forum, would probably be Moderate Republicans in the US. I seems to me that Mata is one of the more Right posters here, not the rightest, mind you. In the US that would probably be a Conservative Democrat, just like Hillary Clinton.
I will add that despite the fact half of my family (dad, step-mom and brother) has met Hillary (oh yeah, and my ex-girlfriend was also honored by her when she was in town campaigning for one of our local senators), she is way, way to conservative for my liking.
Hilary Clinton started her life as a republican. Until she met Bill, she was one of that evil breed. So, that is strike number one. What bothers me now is she is firmly in the corner of the Democratic Leadership Council, or what I like to call, the problem. The DLC is right wing, anti-union, pro war and fuzzy to weak on environmental issues. She will fall over on women's issue if given even the tiniest push. She voted for the war and keeps doing so, even in the face of this mind-boggling failure. She stands with Joe Lieberman, which is shaky fucking ground.
The DLC are wrong. The middle/right is not where the Democrats will win the elections. They have fucked up the last three elections. If they have their way, we will lose the midterms and I'll have to come live with you guys in England.
edited to add: the sight of the Illinois-born wife of the ex-governer of Arkansas in the office of Senator of the State of New York is a head-shaking sight. We have had opportunistic elected officials before, but that was carpetbagging extraordinaire. Power grabs are not pretty, but yikes.
I met Hillary Clinton too, and I thought she was very nice*. She has beautiful skin and is much prettier than her photographs would indicate.
*Which is kind of irrelevant. I am also very nice, equally unsuited to the office of President of the United States.
The DLC are wrong. The middle/right is not where the Democrats will win the elections. They have fucked up the last three elections. If they have their way, we will lose the midterms and I'll have to come live with you guys in England.
edited to add: the sight of the Illinois-born wife of the ex-governer of Arkansas in the office of Senator of the State of New York is a head-shaking sight. We have had opportunistic elected officials before, but that was carpetbagging extraordinaire. Power grabs are not pretty, but yikes.
I met Hillary Clinton too, and I thought she was very nice*. She has beautiful skin and is much prettier than her photographs would indicate.
*Which is kind of irrelevant. I am also very nice, equally unsuited to the office of President of the United States.
QUOTE
What bothers me now is she is firmly in the corner of the Democratic Leadership Council
If she could move from a position of Republicanism to be a Democrat then perhaps there is hope that she could be gently persuaded that the DLC's direction is the wrong one. Or is there just too little time for that?
No time and not much motivation. Her brand of Democratism is too close to Republicanism anyway. It was a small jump, and IMHO, she did it to snag Big Billy.
Right. I'm getting an anti Hillary vibe from Barb.
But just suppose the mid terms don't turn to shit for the dems and supposing she wins the dem nomination for the office of prez...
...we're just supposing here, OK...
Would you vote for her?
But just suppose the mid terms don't turn to shit for the dems and supposing she wins the dem nomination for the office of prez...
...we're just supposing here, OK...
Would you vote for her?
Lets be honest,you will all dissaprove of every US President that is elected in your lifetime.It's your duty as a Lefty.No President Rep or Dem will ever meet your extreme agenda,they will always be too middle or the road for you.So you will vilify them.Even if you like them at first, you will end up being dissapoined by them.You wouldn't have it any other way. 
You complete numpty.
In all the time you've spent reading posts on this forum you still haven't got it have you.
It's doubtful you ever will. Your prejudices just keep getting in the way.
It's not about being against a politician, a party or a policy because we're politcally left leaning it's about calling any fucker when he or she is making a god awful mess of it.
For goodness sake, I voted for Blair twice before the penny dropped.
Actually the penny had dropped after the first 4 years but I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt the second time. I was willing to stifle my lefty principles at the ballot box for the sake of the overall benefit to the working people of the UK.
I'm sure a lot of Americans will do just that should they find Hillary Rodham Clintons name on the Ballot nest time around.
And just for the record, whilst I agree that Bill Clinton was not the most left of center politician in the wolrd and whilst I also agree that he made some questionable foreign policy decisions he wasn't the fundemantal evil piece of crap that he was painted by the neo cons and the christian right in the US. No. That dubious distiction belongs to the incumbent.
In all the time you've spent reading posts on this forum you still haven't got it have you.
It's doubtful you ever will. Your prejudices just keep getting in the way.
It's not about being against a politician, a party or a policy because we're politcally left leaning it's about calling any fucker when he or she is making a god awful mess of it.
For goodness sake, I voted for Blair twice before the penny dropped.
Actually the penny had dropped after the first 4 years but I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt the second time. I was willing to stifle my lefty principles at the ballot box for the sake of the overall benefit to the working people of the UK.
I'm sure a lot of Americans will do just that should they find Hillary Rodham Clintons name on the Ballot nest time around.
And just for the record, whilst I agree that Bill Clinton was not the most left of center politician in the wolrd and whilst I also agree that he made some questionable foreign policy decisions he wasn't the fundemantal evil piece of crap that he was painted by the neo cons and the christian right in the US. No. That dubious distiction belongs to the incumbent.
QUOTE(the klf @ Dec 30 2005, 08:48 PM)
Lets be honest,you will all dissaprove of every US President that is elected in your lifetime.It's your duty as a Lefty.No President Rep or Dem will ever meet your extreme agenda,they will always be too middle or the road for you.So you will vilify them.Even if you like them at first, you will end up being dissapoined by them.You wouldn't have it any other way.
I think Clinton was a fine president. And, if it were possible for him to run again, I would vote for him against any republican candidate. While his policies weren't left enough for me, I think that was due in part to him facing a republican congress. His unwavering support of NAFTA always troubled me, but on many core issues I agreed with him.
Same here. Clinton was a realistic (i.e. electable), generally satisfying option.
I'd be *thrilled* if Wes Clark were to run again (and win, this time).
I'd be *thrilled* if Wes Clark were to run again (and win, this time).
Clinton was charismatic,but ultimately proved to be a liar and weak in backbone.As proved by the Lewinski incident.He was also very close to the Blairs and had very similar policies to New Labour.
In retrospect, Clinton was an okay president.
I can't help but be disappointed in the direction his presidency, and as a result, the country went. As a trade unionist, the democratic party has been an unqualified disaster (and every two years, they crawl up to us mewling that without them, we'd be screwed. wahhh wahhh wahhh). I will also always be angry that he considered the needs of his penis before the needs of the country. Every president has had their women (except for our current dry drunk, he gave up Mexican hookers with Jack Daniels) but Clinton had to flaunt it, then lie.
But I'd take president Blow-Job any day. Compared to the murderous chimp.
I can't help but be disappointed in the direction his presidency, and as a result, the country went. As a trade unionist, the democratic party has been an unqualified disaster (and every two years, they crawl up to us mewling that without them, we'd be screwed. wahhh wahhh wahhh). I will also always be angry that he considered the needs of his penis before the needs of the country. Every president has had their women (except for our current dry drunk, he gave up Mexican hookers with Jack Daniels) but Clinton had to flaunt it, then lie.
But I'd take president Blow-Job any day. Compared to the murderous chimp.
QUOTE(the klf @ Jan 3 2006, 07:02 PM)
Clinton was charismatic,but ultimately proved to be a lier and weak in backbone.As proved by the Lewinski incident...
The Lewinsky episode was not a testament to the failure of Clinton's backbone, but rather a testament to the failure of Clinton's frontbone!!
No, it was his lying and snivelling after the incident came to light,that indicated a lack of backbone.No one's questioning his ability to produce a good boner.
QUOTE(the klf @ Jan 3 2006, 08:55 PM)
No, it was his lying and snivelling after the incident came to light,that indicated a lack of backbone.No one's questioning his ability to produce a good boner.
KLF -
I guess it's not much of a joke if I have to tell you I was trying to be funny, BUT, I was trying to be funny.
So was I 
QUOTE(the klf @ Jan 3 2006, 09:07 PM)
So was I
Oooops!! As SallyA said to me on the Food thread, "2 people separated by 1 language". How fitting. Mea culpa!!
QUOTE(kindofjudy @ Dec 16 2005, 10:37 PM)
I will put my money on am all girl line up for the next one
Rice V Clinton
As I have had my head in books for the last couple of months and cannot be bothered to google.
Can some one quickly give me the low down on who the two front runners are for the job of ruler of the world....
National Journal says it's McCain and Hillary.
Aha thanks I shall be keeping an eye on that. I see my fave Condi is an outsider...
1. JOHN McCAIN ®
Arizona senator
Last Ranking: 1
Since our last set of rankings, McCain's apparently secured one of the most important "gets" for 2008: Haley Barbour. As we chronicled two weeks ago, Barbour's decision to serve as McCain's Southern Sherpa may seal a deal. He's winning the insider game right now, and although he hasn't fully convinced every party player that he's the horse to ride to victory in '08, he's not the most hated guy in the conservative room anymore. By the way, no one benefits more from South Carolina being diluted by Michigan more than McCain. Remember, he'll be in the best position financially to fight a two-front war. Almanac Profile
1. HILLARY CLINTON (D)
New York senator
Last Ranking: 1
When are Clinton'’s national poll numbers going to matter? Her favorability rating is as bad as Bush's. But then again, we've always believed that the campaign she’ll emulate if she’s successful is a combination of Bush ’00 (financial inevitability) and Bush ’04 (you may not agree with me, but you know where I stand). Still, Democrats are hungry to win and if the perception gets stronger than Hillary can’t take a general, she’s going to have primary problems. Stay tuned to our next Diageo/Hotline poll, which will show just how deep her support is within the party's rank-and-file. Almanac Profile
2. MITT ROMNEY ®
Massachusetts governor
Last Ranking: 3
Think Romney’s feeling better about that decision not to seek a second term? The sole reason we finally put Romney ahead of Allen is that Allen's '06 re-election is becoming a distraction. Plus, the more we hear about Romney’s financial network, the more we wonder if McCain’s going to have company in the $100 million circle. Between the Mormon financial network, his Bain Capital friends and his own wealth, it’s safe to assume Romney’s going to be among the top three candidates simply because of resources. Almanac Profile
2. JOHN EDWARDS (D)
Ex-North Carolina senator
Last Ranking: 3
If there's a candidate who is even more disciplined when it comes to message than Clinton, it's Edwards. He’s got a plan and he’s sticking to it. He’s positioning himself perfectly to capture the Democratic primary. Hillary won’t let a candidate out-flank her on the right. But the perfect way to beat her is from the left, and Edwards’ drawl makes him a non-scary liberal to many moderates. In addition, his campaign for the minimum wage is allowing him to acquire staff (should he choose) in states where he’s helping with the ballot initiative. Edwards still needs to fill out that foreign policy resume -- although the Council on Foreign Relations gig is helpful.
3. GEORGE ALLEN ®
Virginia senator
Last Ranking: 2
Take a look at the frenzied schedule Allen put together last week and you'll see why we dropped him a notch. He started off in Iowa, came back for a couple of days in Virginia, popped into South Carolina and New Hampshire and closed the week in Tennessee (right on the Virginia border). For reasons many will understand (conflict-of-interest alert!), I’m not handicapping the Senate race, but if Allen has to fight a two-front war in ’06, it’s going to make things tough in '08. Almanac Profile
3. MARK WARNER (D) absentopias secret life is revealed, if he is not running a holiday company for sailing types hes running for president...busy boy
Ex-Virginia governor
Last Ranking: 2
Initial reports from some of his first post-governorship visits to New Hampshire have been good but not great. Maybe Warner's a victim of his own high expectations. But right now, he's a one-issue candidate: electability. And while this could be enough to win Iowa, he’s going to need some more meaty issues to get past Edwards and even Richardson. Almanac Profile
Go Hillary GO
And I do sinscerely mean that
1. JOHN McCAIN ®
Arizona senator
Last Ranking: 1
Since our last set of rankings, McCain's apparently secured one of the most important "gets" for 2008: Haley Barbour. As we chronicled two weeks ago, Barbour's decision to serve as McCain's Southern Sherpa may seal a deal. He's winning the insider game right now, and although he hasn't fully convinced every party player that he's the horse to ride to victory in '08, he's not the most hated guy in the conservative room anymore. By the way, no one benefits more from South Carolina being diluted by Michigan more than McCain. Remember, he'll be in the best position financially to fight a two-front war. Almanac Profile
1. HILLARY CLINTON (D)
New York senator
Last Ranking: 1
When are Clinton'’s national poll numbers going to matter? Her favorability rating is as bad as Bush's. But then again, we've always believed that the campaign she’ll emulate if she’s successful is a combination of Bush ’00 (financial inevitability) and Bush ’04 (you may not agree with me, but you know where I stand). Still, Democrats are hungry to win and if the perception gets stronger than Hillary can’t take a general, she’s going to have primary problems. Stay tuned to our next Diageo/Hotline poll, which will show just how deep her support is within the party's rank-and-file. Almanac Profile
2. MITT ROMNEY ®
Massachusetts governor
Last Ranking: 3
Think Romney’s feeling better about that decision not to seek a second term? The sole reason we finally put Romney ahead of Allen is that Allen's '06 re-election is becoming a distraction. Plus, the more we hear about Romney’s financial network, the more we wonder if McCain’s going to have company in the $100 million circle. Between the Mormon financial network, his Bain Capital friends and his own wealth, it’s safe to assume Romney’s going to be among the top three candidates simply because of resources. Almanac Profile
2. JOHN EDWARDS (D)
Ex-North Carolina senator
Last Ranking: 3
If there's a candidate who is even more disciplined when it comes to message than Clinton, it's Edwards. He’s got a plan and he’s sticking to it. He’s positioning himself perfectly to capture the Democratic primary. Hillary won’t let a candidate out-flank her on the right. But the perfect way to beat her is from the left, and Edwards’ drawl makes him a non-scary liberal to many moderates. In addition, his campaign for the minimum wage is allowing him to acquire staff (should he choose) in states where he’s helping with the ballot initiative. Edwards still needs to fill out that foreign policy resume -- although the Council on Foreign Relations gig is helpful.
3. GEORGE ALLEN ®
Virginia senator
Last Ranking: 2
Take a look at the frenzied schedule Allen put together last week and you'll see why we dropped him a notch. He started off in Iowa, came back for a couple of days in Virginia, popped into South Carolina and New Hampshire and closed the week in Tennessee (right on the Virginia border). For reasons many will understand (conflict-of-interest alert!), I’m not handicapping the Senate race, but if Allen has to fight a two-front war in ’06, it’s going to make things tough in '08. Almanac Profile
3. MARK WARNER (D) absentopias secret life is revealed, if he is not running a holiday company for sailing types hes running for president...busy boy
Ex-Virginia governor
Last Ranking: 2
Initial reports from some of his first post-governorship visits to New Hampshire have been good but not great. Maybe Warner's a victim of his own high expectations. But right now, he's a one-issue candidate: electability. And while this could be enough to win Iowa, he’s going to need some more meaty issues to get past Edwards and even Richardson. Almanac Profile
Go Hillary GO
And I do sinscerely mean that
QUOTE(kindofjudy @ Apr 20 2006, 02:13 PM)
Go Hillary GO
And I do sinscerely mean that
Stay Hillary STAY
You make a great Senator from the state of New York. You will also make great fodder for the Rove's political machine, whoever it is working on behalf of in 2008.
Aha But did I mean GO Hillary or GO Hillary....it is all a question of semmantics......
QUOTE(kindofjudy @ Apr 20 2006, 02:35 PM)
Aha But did I mean GO Hillary or GO Hillary....it is all a question of semmantics......
Ahhhh... A subtle but important (and unfortunately completely lost on me when I first read it) distinction!!
QUOTE(kindofjudy @ Apr 20 2006, 05:13 PM)
MITT ROMNEY
Boo, and indeed, hiss.
He is so, *so* smarmy, and every single fucking move he's made while in office has been ever so carefully calculated to appeal to specific little demographics during his presidential bid. Last week it was his "universal" healthcare for the entire state. It's a royal mess, but it'll get distilled down to "I brought healthcare to the uninsured in Massachusetts, and I'll bring it to the rest of America, too!" come election time.
I didn't vote for him.
i've said it before and i'll say it again...
no woman will be elected to the office of president before a black man...
no woman will be elected to the office of president before a black man...
QUOTE(keri @ Apr 21 2006, 10:16 AM)
i've said it before and i'll say it again...
no woman will be elected to the office of president before a black man...
But when is a black dude gonna be a front runner......
Has any one seenthe new TV programme commander in chief staring gina davis or what ever the hell her name is yet?
Shouldn't everything from post number 80 onward - I haven't backtracked further - be HERE?
This particular thread is pretty much redundant.
Overall I think that very little has changed since it started.
Oh wait...it has... it got worse.
This particular thread is pretty much redundant.
Overall I think that very little has changed since it started.
Oh wait...it has... it got worse.
I lived in a Romney state too, George Romney is his father and the former governor of Michigan. These guys are certifiable (George famously claimed that he was brainwashed by the Vietnamese government). But if Mitt had put a real health care package together, that benefited citizens and not health care corporations, all the nuttiness would be forgiven.
Barack Obama will be the first "legitimate" African American candidate for president (the other many candidates were not sanctified by the almighty Dempublican party so they "don't count"). He might win. But not for another two presidential cycles.
Barack Obama will be the first "legitimate" African American candidate for president (the other many candidates were not sanctified by the almighty Dempublican party so they "don't count"). He might win. But not for another two presidential cycles.
QUOTE(kindofjudy @ Apr 21 2006, 05:46 AM)
QUOTE(keri @ Apr 21 2006, 10:16 AM)
i've said it before and i'll say it again...
no woman will be elected to the office of president before a black man...
But when is a black dude gonna be a front runner......
Has any one seenthe new TV programme commander in chief staring gina davis or what ever the hell her name is yet?
Actually Commander in Chief was preceeded by 24. I think Keri might be onto something.
QUOTE(keri @ Apr 21 2006, 09:16 AM)
i've said it before and i'll say it again...
no woman will be elected to the office of president before a black man...no woman will be elected to the office of president before a black man...
Then Keri, the onus is on the almost 52%of the US population (who are women) who won't vote for one of their own sex. Whose fault is that?
It's our own fault, James. Fear and stereotypes keep the playing field from ever being level.
Careful what you wish. Thatcher was brought to power on female votes.
And she was a women 'who owed nothing to feminism'.
(Having a very rich husband did help a lot though didn't it Maggie?)
And she was a women 'who owed nothing to feminism'.
(Having a very rich husband did help a lot though didn't it Maggie?)
QUOTE(Alberr @ Dec 14 2003, 10:48 PM)
.. . with authentic blood color, the actual sounds of a deer hit with a high velocity bullet, different screams for you amateurs hitting it in the wrong place, and a choice at the end whether to eat it or just throw the carcase away and keep the antlers for the den ... free plastic genuine copy skinning knife given away with each game ... suitable for children aged three years old and upwards ...
I dunno guys. You have a right not to be a hunter… But I don’t think you don’t have the right to impose your views on others. Hunting can be an important rite of passage for young men in a world with fewer and fewer rights of passage.
Half the trouble with our kids today is they have very few things to intiate them into manhood.
I am irish/british but I grew up in Minnesota. Where I grew up hunting was an important part of helping boys become men. They have wilderness there that brits couldn’t imagine and I thank God that I wasn’t reared in a big city like london.
I might add for some of you liberals the “American Indians” were big hunters … I’ll bet you wouldn’t condemn them for hunting (that's a double standard mates).
I agree that to reduce it to a video game is sad though … but it does show the desperation of city kids to have some kind of experience with life and death.
Some liberals want to take death and suffering out of life -- they will never manage it -- and even if they could, they would find that it is not desireable.
QUOTE
Half the trouble with our kids today is they have very few things to intiate them into manhood.
You could try getting a hard-on and dropping your trollys in Sainsbury's. They'd know you were a man then.
I guess you'd pefer that all young boys strip down to a loin cloth and, spear and goatskin of water in hand, head off into the bush to bag a lion.
Just to bring you up to speed it's the 21st century. Boys don't have to KILL things to be men.
Why not go mountain climbing or take up motorcycle racing? Every chance to cheat death and no animals would be harmed in the process. Actually, whilst I think about it, how is it brave to take aim at a fucking deer from half a mile away and shoot it with a high powered rifle?
Want meat? Rear a pig and slit it's throat in the back yard.
QUOTE(kellymich @ May 14 2006, 06:51 AM)
I might add for some of you liberals the ?American Indians? were big hunters ? I?ll bet you wouldn?t condemn them for hunting (that's a double standard mates)
Um, there's kind of a difference between the traditional lifestyles of aboriginal peoples and our contemporary, industrialized lifestyle: the Native Americans didn't have industrial farming or supermarkets. If they wanted meat, they had to go out and get it themselves. There are still people living that way today, due to the circumstances of the environments they live in - they can't buy the food they need, so they have to raise/hunt it themselves.
The main argument of those opposed to hunting is that it's not necessary to those of us who do not live in those environments. And because of that, the act of hunting takes on a significance other than that of simple necessity for survival. It's an emotional luxury for those who who can get into their cars and buy whatever they need.
I doubt very much that the anti-hunting people on this forum would have a problem with hunting by people who have no choice, due to the conditions of where they live. I suspect they have a problem with people who already have more than most of the rest of the planet's population taking even more resources.
But I don't mean to turn this thread into a debate on hunting. There's room for that elsewhere.
I have *far* less trouble with folks eating what they have hunted than I do with folks buying factory-farmed meat at the supermarket.
Here in VT there's a lot of hunting culture. My experience has been that the vast majority of hunters aren't kill-crazy, bloodlusting weirdoes, but see it as a cultural and social heritage of sorts, and hone their skills and seek to hunt as efficiently and humanely as possible.
And oh yeah, we long ago killed off most of the predator species so *have* to hunt some of the species to keep the populations in check lest they all starve.
Here in VT there's a lot of hunting culture. My experience has been that the vast majority of hunters aren't kill-crazy, bloodlusting weirdoes, but see it as a cultural and social heritage of sorts, and hone their skills and seek to hunt as efficiently and humanely as possible.
And oh yeah, we long ago killed off most of the predator species so *have* to hunt some of the species to keep the populations in check lest they all starve.
This is written by a friend of mine, this happened to her. I am blind with anger.
$S$S-ticket flagging
Wands & Rubber Gloves
The following event happened to me at the F0rt Lauderdale airport on May 8th. My husband, son, 72 year old mother and myself traveled by Spirit airlines to the Miami area to enjoy a 4 day family vacation on the beach. LB intended to stay on an extra 4 days to work with some business clients. Thus we had 4 people arrive together and 3 people leaving on May 8th.
The leader, Mr. Shrub, was in F0rt Lauderdale on the 8th for a G0P fund raiser causing traffic jams and road closers. LB drove us to the airport just in time. At the counter the Spirit people said we might encounter some delays due to the Shrub being in town. They processed our tickets then sent our luggage over to high security review. I was trying to manage my elderly mother and get some dinner for my son.
Entering the security gates our tickets were reviewed and ID’s checked the armed security personal corralled my 72 year old mother and son in one direction and shuttled me off in another. As I entered the ‘special line’ it became apparent that I was the only woman. Most of the people around me were young men of color. The man in front said “I got nailed for buying a one way ticket.” I chose not to speak. Fear… set in. They took my bags and one by one the men in front of me were put in a coffin like box. Air was blasted on them to ‘check for expl0sive residue’. At this point I told security that I was holding a wallet with my cash, credit cards and passport inside my skirt. The armed male security came to view the contents and let it pass...so I thought. I entered the coffin like air tester and waited a few minutes inside until a green light appeared and the guard said to move ahead.
I had already passed through 3 types of security and was waiting to walk through the metal detector like the rest of the gentlemen in front of me.
I did not walk through the regular metal detector as those ahead of me did. The guard asked what carry on was mine and escorted me to a separate plexi glass room. Two large female guards came in and asked “would you prefer to go into a room with walls and a door?” FEAR…yes they had on rubber gloves, armed and hand metal detectors. What does one say in this situation? SK: “Well it all depends on what exactly is going to happen here. Are the clothes staying on or off?” Officer: “this will be a pat down search with your clothes on unless we decide other wise.” Where is my mother? Where is my son? How can they do this? What have I done? I take off my shoes, sox, hand over my bag, they take all my money, credit cards, passport & ID. I am left with a shirt, skirt and under wear in a plexi glass box of a room. The guard starts the metal detector and the pat down. It was personal, violating, intrusive. On my breasts, stomach, abdomen, between my legs and up my crotch. I am blushing…..should I have chosen the closed room? Where is my passport? What country is this? What have I done?
The armed security finishes the pat down in about 7 minutes and I get dressed. They give me back my things. The first thing I check for is my passport. They had it all. I may have had a shirt & skirt on but I could not move or ever gotten out…for 25 minutes I was in the system and no way out. It made me appreciate how the wrongly convicted feel if only for a few minutes.
Finally getting out of this maze of plexi glass security with armed guards I am reunited with my mother & son. Sitting down catching my breath and definitely not saying what is on my mind I look at my ticket compare it to my mom’s. My Spirit ticket has a mark of $S$S > 4 of them ran across the top. This appears to be the flagging system and I searched it on the internet as you may choose to read below.
What have I done to become such a security risk to this country or to this administration? I have gone through clearances and met state governors, Hillary Clinton and never was it like that. Was it because LB stayed behind and that flagged us? Is it the union activities, anti war marches or informational lectures I have attended? Or just a random search?
Mean while in the port of F0rt Lauderdale & Miami fleets of ships arrive with thousands of containers from over seas. The port authorities are checking less than 1% of these containers. Do you feel any safer yet? We have more work in the Caribbean in June. Do I go? What if I am held up and do not have access to a lawyer? Jamaica is close to ‘Guantanamo-Bay’. This was really minor but it gave me a taste of what is happening to people being stripped and held without legal recourse.
At the beginning of the second round of the Shrubs administration I asked people to remove me from e-mail lists, list-serves and other politically sensitive activity. Many thought I was paranoid about the spying I thought was happening on the citizens. Well with the recent USA Today story about NSA tracking of all calls both domestic & international…perhaps my paranoia was not so off base. It is not “terr0rism” it is rule by - “Scar0rism” rule by fear. Removing myself from lists didn't seem to help last Monday…guess they know how I vote & what color my blood is too. Welcome to 1984.
My mother didn’t think there was anything wrong with what happened to me or to the other men in line. “It will keep us all safe dear.” I said “mom what if those security people just took me away for no reason and you never knew why?” “Oh honey don’t be dramatic they would never do that.” “Mom the government is doing just that. There are prisoners on an air base in Cuba who are not charged with any thing…it is happening….it is real and that is the one place we know about. What if there are more places like Guantonamo … people being held that we don’t know about yet.”
"yah just can't make this shit up" - Susan
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Benjamin Franklin
The Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Follow up story indicating the S$S$-flagging:
http://springfield.news-leader.com/columni...cke-125340.html
$S$S-ticket flagging
Wands & Rubber Gloves
The following event happened to me at the F0rt Lauderdale airport on May 8th. My husband, son, 72 year old mother and myself traveled by Spirit airlines to the Miami area to enjoy a 4 day family vacation on the beach. LB intended to stay on an extra 4 days to work with some business clients. Thus we had 4 people arrive together and 3 people leaving on May 8th.
The leader, Mr. Shrub, was in F0rt Lauderdale on the 8th for a G0P fund raiser causing traffic jams and road closers. LB drove us to the airport just in time. At the counter the Spirit people said we might encounter some delays due to the Shrub being in town. They processed our tickets then sent our luggage over to high security review. I was trying to manage my elderly mother and get some dinner for my son.
Entering the security gates our tickets were reviewed and ID’s checked the armed security personal corralled my 72 year old mother and son in one direction and shuttled me off in another. As I entered the ‘special line’ it became apparent that I was the only woman. Most of the people around me were young men of color. The man in front said “I got nailed for buying a one way ticket.” I chose not to speak. Fear… set in. They took my bags and one by one the men in front of me were put in a coffin like box. Air was blasted on them to ‘check for expl0sive residue’. At this point I told security that I was holding a wallet with my cash, credit cards and passport inside my skirt. The armed male security came to view the contents and let it pass...so I thought. I entered the coffin like air tester and waited a few minutes inside until a green light appeared and the guard said to move ahead.
I had already passed through 3 types of security and was waiting to walk through the metal detector like the rest of the gentlemen in front of me.
I did not walk through the regular metal detector as those ahead of me did. The guard asked what carry on was mine and escorted me to a separate plexi glass room. Two large female guards came in and asked “would you prefer to go into a room with walls and a door?” FEAR…yes they had on rubber gloves, armed and hand metal detectors. What does one say in this situation? SK: “Well it all depends on what exactly is going to happen here. Are the clothes staying on or off?” Officer: “this will be a pat down search with your clothes on unless we decide other wise.” Where is my mother? Where is my son? How can they do this? What have I done? I take off my shoes, sox, hand over my bag, they take all my money, credit cards, passport & ID. I am left with a shirt, skirt and under wear in a plexi glass box of a room. The guard starts the metal detector and the pat down. It was personal, violating, intrusive. On my breasts, stomach, abdomen, between my legs and up my crotch. I am blushing…..should I have chosen the closed room? Where is my passport? What country is this? What have I done?
The armed security finishes the pat down in about 7 minutes and I get dressed. They give me back my things. The first thing I check for is my passport. They had it all. I may have had a shirt & skirt on but I could not move or ever gotten out…for 25 minutes I was in the system and no way out. It made me appreciate how the wrongly convicted feel if only for a few minutes.
Finally getting out of this maze of plexi glass security with armed guards I am reunited with my mother & son. Sitting down catching my breath and definitely not saying what is on my mind I look at my ticket compare it to my mom’s. My Spirit ticket has a mark of $S$S > 4 of them ran across the top. This appears to be the flagging system and I searched it on the internet as you may choose to read below.
What have I done to become such a security risk to this country or to this administration? I have gone through clearances and met state governors, Hillary Clinton and never was it like that. Was it because LB stayed behind and that flagged us? Is it the union activities, anti war marches or informational lectures I have attended? Or just a random search?
Mean while in the port of F0rt Lauderdale & Miami fleets of ships arrive with thousands of containers from over seas. The port authorities are checking less than 1% of these containers. Do you feel any safer yet? We have more work in the Caribbean in June. Do I go? What if I am held up and do not have access to a lawyer? Jamaica is close to ‘Guantanamo-Bay’. This was really minor but it gave me a taste of what is happening to people being stripped and held without legal recourse.
At the beginning of the second round of the Shrubs administration I asked people to remove me from e-mail lists, list-serves and other politically sensitive activity. Many thought I was paranoid about the spying I thought was happening on the citizens. Well with the recent USA Today story about NSA tracking of all calls both domestic & international…perhaps my paranoia was not so off base. It is not “terr0rism” it is rule by - “Scar0rism” rule by fear. Removing myself from lists didn't seem to help last Monday…guess they know how I vote & what color my blood is too. Welcome to 1984.
My mother didn’t think there was anything wrong with what happened to me or to the other men in line. “It will keep us all safe dear.” I said “mom what if those security people just took me away for no reason and you never knew why?” “Oh honey don’t be dramatic they would never do that.” “Mom the government is doing just that. There are prisoners on an air base in Cuba who are not charged with any thing…it is happening….it is real and that is the one place we know about. What if there are more places like Guantonamo … people being held that we don’t know about yet.”
"yah just can't make this shit up" - Susan
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Benjamin Franklin
The Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Follow up story indicating the S$S$-flagging:
http://springfield.news-leader.com/columni...cke-125340.html
QUOTE(Tanya @ May 14 2006, 10:41 AM)
QUOTE(kellymich @ May 14 2006, 06:51 AM)
I might add for some of you liberals the ?American Indians? were big hunters ? I?ll bet you wouldn?t condemn them for hunting (that's a double standard mates)
Um, there's kind of a difference between the traditional lifestyles of aboriginal peoples and our contemporary, industrialized lifestyle: the Native Americans didn't have industrial farming or supermarkets. If they wanted meat, they had to go out and get it themselves. There are still people living that way today, due to the circumstances of the environments they live in - they can't buy the food they need, so they have to raise/hunt it themselves.
The main argument of those opposed to hunting is that it's not necessary to those of us who do not live in those environments. And because of that, the act of hunting takes on a significance other than that of simple necessity for survival. It's an emotional luxury for those who who can get into their cars and buy whatever they need.
I doubt very much that the anti-hunting people on this forum would have a problem with hunting by people who have no choice, due to the conditions of where they live. I suspect they have a problem with people who already have more than most of the rest of the planet's population taking even more resources.
But I don't mean to turn this thread into a debate on hunting. There's room for that elsewhere.
Well, there is no difference in the actual hunting and killing of the animal … whether a person is forced by necessity to do it or not.
There was mutual respect between the american indians where we lived and the white men around them because they were MEN who understood a thing or two about being men. Respect is not something that can be bought, bartered or conferred … it is something that must be EARNED and it is either there or it is not there. These people were not craven, bloodthirsty, vicious men ... quite the contrary. They were solid, happy, athletic, capable, no nonsense men who understood the meaning of friendship and instinctively knew what counts in life.
The more and more I listen to some leftists the more and more I dislike like the slave mentality, the guilt trips, and the double standards in the name of justice, equality, that some people appear to be trying to create. Are you guys trying to make everybody “equally” miserable in the world ? Is that the liberal definition of justice and equality ?
You guys need to rethink some of your ideas. You judge things that you know nothing about and you always use the suffering in the world to confer an instant moral authority to your ideas.
Have you ever ever fucked, bucked, hustled, or muscled a damn thing ? What makes you think you are qualified or capable of giving us a world fit to live in ? People don't want to merely to survive in life, that is a low and unworthy goal ... people want to LIVE !
We are all very aware of the sins of the tories and the capitalists ... but the left has blinders on regarding its own crimes against the human race and the human spirit. The greatest crime in life, to my mind, is not living life to the full. It seems to me like a lot of you guys are enemies of the human race.
How wonderful it must be to be able to lump all leftists into one group, then climb on your high horse and look down on us. How is the view up there, kellymich?
You might want to troll around (if you'll excuse the expression) a little more. Or as the blues song says, before you accuse me, take a look at yourself.
Barbara, from the US, from a hunting family. A joy-sucking leftist.
You might want to troll around (if you'll excuse the expression) a little more. Or as the blues song says, before you accuse me, take a look at yourself.
Barbara, from the US, from a hunting family. A joy-sucking leftist.
QUOTE(kellymich @ May 14 2006, 09:16 PM)
You judge things that you know nothing about
Yeah, judging people you know nothing about makes *so* much more sense.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.