The asshole bush wants to replace ashcroft with

01-06-05, 12:37

Quote: "I will no longer represent only the White House. I will represent the United States of America and its people. I understand the difference between the two roles," President Bush's counsel told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Has anyone else made more clear that the goals of dubya do NOT match the goals of the United States of America?

Here is the link if anyone still doubts that the White House is completely out of touch with the American people.

01-06-05, 12:39

The hispanic vote is one of the key things that put Bush into the White House, I saw this coming.

As more and more hispanics come into the states the more votes the conservative party will get. Most hispanics I know are all very anti gay marriage and align themselves with the conservative religious agendas Bush seems to love so much.

Scary.

01-06-05, 13:17

the election was won on moral/religious issues
and a "somebody threw a sucker punch; lets kick some ass, redneck style" mentality
no logic involved, reliance on spinal voting is all the rage these days, you don't even have to be coherent if you can hit the right nerve, you'll get votes

01-06-05, 13:19

lmao

Sorry, saw the title for the thread and it just got me laughing and I haven't stopped.

Scary.

Until now. Well put. This country is starting to fucking terrify me. Wait...starting to? Oh man...the memory holes must be getting to me...

Yee haw.

01-06-05, 17:59

Not surprised Roger. I think I posted about it in a previous thread. You're prob also looking at a future Supreme Court Justice.

01-07-05, 08:24

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

redneck style" mentality
no logic involved, reliance on spinal voting <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
hey
those kind of disparaging remarks
about people are not welcome here
even if they voted for a man you don't care for.
understand ?
i will not tolerate remarks that portray
anyone who supports bush
as a redneck or a moron, etc.
comprende ?

01-07-05, 08:43

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

the White House is completely out of touch with the American people. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
debatable.
perhaps with a minority of people that's true
but the majority voted for bush.
that fact was just certified officially by congress yesterday, a few disgruntled democrats aside.
i think the opposite is more true,
the dems are the party
that is out-of-touch
as their defeat tends to confirm.
mainstream america has always been
and still is
essentially conservative.
the majority does not want
gay marriage, strict gun controls, welfare statism, social activist judges, etc.
opinions are one thing
but votes are hard facts that cannot be denied.
so who really
is out of touch ?

roc · 01-07-05, 12:38

Hippie is feeling better... well said!

Lefty · 01-07-05, 15:40

Rock on,Hippie!

01-07-05, 15:58

yeah my state, the debatable state of the previous election, is filled with hispanics.

01-07-05, 17:02

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

the majority does not want
gay marriage, strict gun controls, welfare statism, social activist judges, etc. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

Very good point. I'm glad you were fair and balanced. "Welfare statism" is practiced by dubya more so than any other president. He's handed out more in corporate welfare in the last four years than has been handed out in the history of the country.

"Activist Judges" is a hallmark of the Republican/christian right agenda.

As for who is out of touch with the American people, just read the quote at the top of the page again. Oh, and dubya's 51% is hardly a mandate by the voters. Bush could be our sides best guy in the long run. Kerry would be picking up the pieces of the largest budget deficit in history, and grappling with a failed war had he won. Now bush has to sleep in the bed he's made for himself.

01-07-05, 17:47

The majority of who voted voted for Bush.

Thats not always the majority of the country.

01-09-05, 00:54

didn't mean to insinuate my comment to include hip or anyone on this board, but where I come from, in my limited observable sphere of the US, me and everyone else is; in most senses of the word: a Redneck
SOME of the people that voted for Bush AND SOME of the people that voted for Kerry voted for reasons other than logic and hard thinking. I just don't think voting for prez should be an emotional descision, just my opinion
The Media twists things and a lot of people get confused. I don't want to be partisan, that was not my intent but I sometimes cannot help picking on any and all politicians and their methods to obtain power. My local government is bankrupt and the politicians came real close to shutting down all 50 sumthin of the public libraries (now they're open two days a week)
In a nutshell, these incompetent people are in office because they managed to hoodwink people into voting for them. SO on a national level, when neither politician that was running for office was anywhere close to being fit for the job IMO... I am a little angry at the fact that some people are satisfied with or even gleeful about the course of events, instead of despairing at having a choice between the lesser of two evils in the greatest country in the world. The fact that we arrived at different conclusions about the better canidate doesn't matter because there is no obvious or even real "right or wrong" about something like this. Especially considering the choices, I mean come on, who here that voted; if you had the chance to choose two canidates for people to vote for, would either of them have been Bush or Kerry?
Again, no offense and I wish we were free of all the bad vibes and mudslinging that goes on between politicians and should have nothing to do w/ us especially in January. sorry I ran on so long 2

01-09-05, 07:28

If the democrats were in power,
they would be doing alot of the
same shit.

And I would be bitching about them.

I am a man without a party.

01-09-05, 09:38

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

SOME of the people that voted for Bush AND SOME of the people that voted for Kerry voted for reasons other than logic and hard thinking.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
perhaps
but you were implying
that was true far more often
in the bush camp
which is debateable.
my opinion is the opposite,
i saw more fuzzy warm wishful thinking
in the kerry camp.

grave · 01-09-05, 10:19

51% of the TURNOUT voted for bush
but i honestly believe more people DONT show up to vote in more urban states and cities (which tend to be democratic states, along the edges of the country), as opposed to more rural states (which tend to be republican)

so i dont think that more people really WANT bush in office
but more people actually took the initiative to get up and vote for him
commendable and def not a bad thing
but i just wanted to point out that voting polls and turnouts, and what a mass of people want are two diff things.
even if they are too unmotivated to want it enough to get up and vote.

01-09-05, 17:18

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

I am a man without a party.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
I feel and felt the same way during the election.
It was very hard to vote at all, considering I didn't really support either canidate and just voted because as a part of this country and society, I believe you have to vote or forfeit your right to complain later.
Grave's theory about voting initiative I get a feeling is right too, and would like to add to that thought that I remember hearing a statistic about how 80 sumthin percent of voters in the district of Manhattan voted for Kerry.
That doesn't mean he was the right man for the job, any more than the claims of "biggest margin of victory in years" mean that Bush has a mandate from the American people. Unfortunately the media has reached a pro-level ability of twisting statistics to mean anything that will sell a story, so the reliability of pretty much any assertion made by people getting data points from CNN or any other nt'l source is questionable

01-10-05, 08:36

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

so i dont think that more people really WANT bush in office <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

that's called DENIAL,
it's the first stage of the
grieving process.
time to move on to the next step, friend...

01-10-05, 08:45

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

I remember hearing a statistic about how 80 sumthin percent of voters in the district of Manhattan voted for Kerry.
That doesn't mean he was the right man for the job, any more than the claims of "biggest margin of victory in years" mean that Bush has a mandate from the American people.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

more denial.
bush got more votes
than any other presidential candidate in history
bar none.
if that's not a 'mandate'
then what is ??

it's percentages that are distorted to make things appear other than the reality,
the losers say
it's only 51%
as if the % mattered.
but even 1%
of ~300 million
is still a very large number.
even a half-a-percent margin
translates into a million+ votes.
it's easy to massage the data if one just uses statistics like percentages,
such as when a small town that normally has only 1 murder a year that one year gets two
can accurately say
that the murder rate rose by 100%
which sounds very significant and impressive
until you see the real numbers.
and the real numbers tell the
story about last election
quite clearly-
it wasn't even close
bush took a commanding lead early on
and never looked back.
the media pundits just refused to believe the evidence until it hit them full in the face
on the day after the election.
some, apparently,
still cannot accept the reality
and so persist in denying it.

(Message edited by admin on January 10, 2005)

01-10-05, 11:04

Bush may have received a record number of votes, but that's because the population is higher now. 51% of the votes cast is hardly a mandate, but let him go for it.

The point is, the election is over. Kerry conceded. It's time to hope the damage isn't permanent and look to the future.

It would be nice if we could all move on. I have made it no secret that I'm a registered Democrat.
There are stupid republicans who are uninformed, just as there are stupid democrats who only vote the party line because that's what they've been told to do. I hope for the next four years people will begin paying more attention to what's going on than they have in the past. If bush does a great job, people will vote for a republican next time. If he screws everything up, we'll get one of our own in next time.

That's how the system works. To our side, I say please quit whining, and to the other side, I say please quit gloating. This is serious. Let's treat it as such. Our future, and especially our children's future hangs in the balance.

01-10-05, 12:20

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04 /html/new_10_21_04.html#1
I think this is relevant
Bush isn't out of touch with the people
the people are out of touch with the real world
Bush exploits this ignorance
IM not saying both sides don't, IM just saying Mr. Rove is better at it. Democracy like capitalism requires an informed public to work optimally. The wild card that stops this is advertising (political as well as commercial) that tricks the public. Instead of the best product/candidate wining the best stratigest/advertiser does.

01-10-05, 12:31

i think many people in america on both sides of the political spectrum want many of the same things for our country. security, a good economy, healthcare, and a more moral society. do both sides agree on that you tell me?? however what they dont agree on is first what these things mean and also how to accomplish these things.
for me being secure means having good relations with other nations and not constantly screwing them over for money or killing innocent people. but for others security may mean having a strong military and being on the offensive against our enemies.
for me a good economy is one that is sustainable, by sustainable i mean one that takes the environment into consideration since that is our source for all resources in our economy. for me a good economy wouldn't be one driven by material goods and constant resource consumption for max profit. but for many others a strong economy is one where people can spend tons of money on things and put that money into business who can then expand and sell more stuff and people will buy more and on it goes growing.

but this doesnt mean people cant meet on a common ground. our views on how things should be solved may differ but by discussing these issues openly and honestly and giving up their stubborn attitudes and keep an open mind we can make some progress. instead of running around this limbo of nonsense our society is lost in.

01-10-05, 13:02

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

Bush may have received a record number of votes, but that's because the population is higher now.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
population is larger, true
but folks are not required to vote.
it takes effort.
more people put forth the effort to vote
than ever before.
there were enough people
back in 1980 or 1990
for someone to have gotten as many votes as bush did, if the voters had been motivated.
but they weren't.
what got bush elected was not mere population growth but instead it was unprecidented voter turn-out, something heretofore thought to be a friend of democrats but no more eh ?

01-11-05, 00:09

Kerry got the second most amount of votes ever.

Heh does that mean people like him more than all other past presidents?

The electoral college is what made Bush win the popular vote. I know lots and lots of people who did or didn't vote because they knew which way their state would swing. In the super-blue states people didn't need to get out in force because they were already locked up. In the super-red states people just stayed at home and hung their heads low.

Granted, its not the best way to get things done but I don't think you can clearly judge that the majority wants Bush in office based soley on the election. The electoral college plays a major role in that.

I'm not denying that Bush won the election and is our president for the next 4 years, I'm just saying that things aren't so black and white when it comes to comparing the majority of people with the actual turnout of voters.

01-11-05, 06:58

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

I know lots and lots of people who did or didn't vote because they knew which way their state would swing. In the super-blue states people didn't need to get out in force because they were already locked up. In the super-red states people just stayed at home and hung their heads low. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

IF that were true
voter turn-out wouldn't have set new records.
looks like damn few folks stayed at home anywhere.
besides
bush beat kerry by 3 million popular votes
which is quite significant
when one considers that
most of the country's population
lives in BLUE states.
quibble all you want
about the semantics
of majority and mandate
but the reality on the ground
says that bush surprised everyone
including most of y'all
by beating expectations, false news stories,
foreign interference and millions of dollars
of negative advertizing to
win a decisive re-election victory.
he has the only majority/mandate
that matters now.

(Message edited by admin on January 12, 2005)

01-11-05, 09:00

I was really hoping all this bullshit would end once Nov 2 was past. I didn't vote for bush but he won. That's it. Period.

The thread was to point to what is happening NOW, not last year. All the scandals of bush's first term are still working their way through the system and will eventually come to completion.

Bush's famous 'torture is ok' lawyer is who he wants to replace ashcroft with. I'm sure they had to search far and wide to find someone even more scary than ashcroft, but alas, they're professionals.

01-11-05, 10:09

you are still
twisting the facts
by applying a false label
to wit-
"famous 'torture is ok' lawyer
he denies that allegation
and so far as can be documented
no one has ever actually said
officially
that 'torture is ok'.
instead they redefined torture more specifically,
in a technical legal sense
as opposed to mere popular concepts & definitions.
what you might call torture
depends greatly on your own political perspective.
so plz be more specific-
what specific torture has gonzales approved ?

01-11-05, 13:08

01-11-05, 14:50

so how do we keep the administration in check? what happen to checks n balances or power to the people...

01-11-05, 18:28

There are no more checks and balances. They own the white house and both houses of congress. Unless we can keep a couple of supreme court justices on life support for the next four years, they're going to own three out of three.

Lefty · 01-11-05, 20:41

I thought torture was okay as long as we didn't do it on U.S. soil or paid someone else to do it? The C.I.A. or similar authority approved "aggressive" interrogation, didn't they? Been all over the media & several civil rights groups are screaming.

01-12-05, 12:07

define torture

01-12-05, 12:16

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

how do we keep the administration in check?<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
the entire house will
have to stand for elections
in just two years,
as will a third of the senate.
there are currently many many democrats
serving as federal judges at various levels
including the supreme court.
and then there's the constitution itself.
plenty of checks and balances
and no one to blame
but the voters themselves
who sent dems like daschle back home.
this is another
telling point, imo.
it's not just bush
that the country likes,
it's the republicans across the board
in almost every state
winning.
explain that away
as a fluke
if you can.

01-12-05, 12:18

Its no fluke. This country is moving more and more towards the religious right for several reasons everyday.

01-12-05, 16:24

im not saying anythings a fluke. the people vote they decide. im just worried that as more and more republicans take over more and more seats in government and courts that even more rights are going to be lost and theres going to be no way to stop it if its all on group of people running everything. i mean honestly how is our nation ever going to mature if people who think that gay marraige is satans way of ruining the human race, or that evolution didnt happen, or that if you dont do exactly whats in the bible your going to hell. sorry im not tyring to stereotype republicans or anything but this right ring religious movenment is disturbing. thats not what america is about its about freedom. yes people should have the freedom to practice their religion christian jew rasta whatever. but the bush adminitration has used religion as a tool to control peoples minds and freedoms and to me and my man jesus its discusting.

Lefty · 01-12-05, 16:46

Torture, as I was referring to here, may be viewed at:rotten.com/library/crime/prison/abu-ghraib

(Message edited by Lefty on January 12, 2005)

01-12-05, 16:49

The public is simply misinformed as that P.I.P.A report partly shows. EVERY time i speak to Bush suporters they are not very informed and flat out wrong when it comes the facts on many of the issues they are familiar with.

01-12-05, 17:45

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

honestly how is our nation ever going to mature if people who think that gay marraige is satans way of ruining the human race, or that evolution didnt happen<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
the world has managed to muddle along ok
without gay marriage
or knowledge of evolution.
i suspect things will go on
much as they always have.
it just seems more dramatic
when you're in the midst of the moment
as time passes
you'll see more and more
that this too
is just another
swing of the pendulum.
cycles are the nature of this universe,
we are currently in a cycle
that will bring great violence and disorder
but out of the pain and the blood
will come a better world.
just keep the faith.
evolution takes time,
and time is plentiful
even if patience is not.
work on fixing your own
little piece of the world,
that is every bit as important,
chaos theory teaches us
that little things matter a great deal.
plant a tree, hug a child.
the world will be a better place
because of you.

(Message edited by admin on January 12, 2005)

01-12-05, 17:46

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

EVERY time i speak to Bush suporters they are not very informed and flat out wrong when it comes the facts on many of the issues <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

bring it on.
here's one bush supporter
who is neither
ignorant nor inarticulate.
btw
i consider your remark
to verge on rudeness.
maybe you just haven't talked to very many people
able to express themselves well.
but over 50 million voted for bush
and i'm quite certain you haven't spoken
to even .01% of that total
so i'd be hesitant about
drawing negative conclusions
based on such skimpy 'evidence'.
someone like me
might just call you out on that.
now
plz make a real case
not about the what KIND of people
voted for bush
as the very question itself
is ridiculuous.
there was no one kind of person,
that's not how you get 50 million+ votes.
it's just not that damn simple folks
and you are doing your own cause
a gross disservice
when you portray the matter
in such a distorted manner.
speak the truth plainly
and maybe a dem will
actually win office.

(Message edited by admin on January 12, 2005)

01-12-05, 17:50

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

Torture, as I was referring to here, may be viewed at:rotten.com/library/crime/prison/abu-ghraib<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
be specific
which act was torture
and how ?
i don't see
humiliation as torture.
at least
no more torturous
than being confined in a cage.
surely there were acts of brutality
but no has demostrated
that those specific acts
were official us policy.
the devil is in the details, as they say.
it's easy to paint in broad strokes,
make accusations
but exactly what particular case/act
is often left deliberately vague
to secure an advantage in argument
that really is not merited.
what, exactly, officially sanctioned by the
us government act of torture was carried out at abu graib ?
what evidence do you have of this claim,
both that it actually occured
and that it was a result of official orders ?

01-13-05, 06:43

Lots of people are rotting in prison on circumstantial evidence. There is no need for solid, smoking gun, written proof beyond all doubt. That isn't how the law works.

The future attorney general wrote the opinion that said torture isn't really torture unless it leaves permanent, serious injury such as loss of limbs. That means, punching in the face, stacking naked prisoners on top of each other, forcing prisoners to give blowjobs to each other, putting them on leashes while naked, etc. etc. etc., isn't actually torture, according to him because it doesn't leave permanent serious physical injury. Right after the memo, the abuse started. Most of us are quite capable of putting two and two together.

01-13-05, 08:04

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

Right after the memo, the abuse started.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
how do you know that ?
there was abuse even before the memo.
but you still have not demonstrated
that "punching in the face, stacking naked prisoners on top of each other, forcing prisoners to give blowjobs to each other, putting them on leashes while naked, etc"
was official us military policy
and not just some sadistic soldiers out of control.
you are using
coincidence to prove cause,
and that is insufficient.

01-14-05, 12:29

I disagree. If you fail to think that being forced by dozens of soldiers to give blowjobs to someone else is wrong, go for it. The rest of us think otherwise.

01-14-05, 12:30

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

there was abuse even before the memo.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Please document that.

01-14-05, 14:15

easy to do,
just examine the charges made against the soldiers involved rodger,
some go back before abu graib to
during the invasion itself.
i mean, it's not like
we just now invented brutality
recently here in america.
but let's get specific.
is giving a blowjob torture ?
no.
it's not, my wife gives them to me regularly
and she's fine with that.
it may be humiliating and degrading
for an iraqi prisoner
but it's not exactly 'torture'
as most would use the word.
so again we are at definitions.
i say torture by definition
involves inflicting pain,
which leaves a great deal of room
for very aggressive interogations
that still stop short of causing any
physical harm/damage.
i do not see torture in
stripping a prisoner naked,
we do it everyday to prisoners right here in the usa.

i don't expect, rodger, to be honest
that anyone bush appoints would suit you
seeing as how you reject bush & his sort.
ashcroft, gonzales,
there's no suiting bush's enemies
so why bother trying ?
ya got to please yourself, right ?
bush should appoint whoever he thinks he wants
and unless congress finds a 'smoking gun' that
renders that appointment blatantly unsuited
then congress must oblige the prseident and approve his choices for posts in his own branch of government, the executive.

01-14-05, 16:59

While I can agree with you on other things, being forced to give someone a blowjob is could very well be torture. It all depends on what you mean by two things, torture and force. Torture is usually considered (as you have pointed out) to involve inflicting pain. What about mental pain? Some things can be so damaging to a person's mental state that they simply must be classified as torture (ie, solitary confinement for prolonged amounts of time). I'm assuming most people here can agree on that. Force, what kind of force was used against them to make them perform oral sex on another person? Threats of death, physical pain, etc? If, for example, they are physically harmed into performing oral sex on the condition that the physical pain will stop when they start to perform, that could possibly be construed as torture as in the victim's mind the act of performing oral sex is (at the very most) as harmful (in a mental sense) as being physically tortured. I suppose it all really boils down to what the person giving the oral sex felt. I'm not trying to be funny or anything, but hell, they might have enjoyed it. While torture that removes limbs or leaves scars or involves lots of pain is usually easy to define as torture, forced acts that leave mental or emotional scars is much more difficult to define as torture. I suppose what I'm saying is that while making a person perform oral sex on another person could be considered torture there's no real way to make certain it really was torture, people are prone to lying about their mental states, as I'm sure we are all aware.

Lefty · 01-14-05, 18:09

Here we go with the hairsplitting. Okay, fine, prove any event you didn't personally witness actually happened. Even if you did witness it, could it have been faked?
By your words, being forced to suck off a stranger isn't "torture". Watching a fetus removed from your wifes' womb by chainsaw isn't because it caused no physical discomfort to the person made to watch. Electrocution is not torture because it doesn't leave marks.
Just wondering Hip, has anyone ever thrown anything at you while arguing a point with you?
I know several soldiers, one who really has my sympathy because he was supposed to get out but can't now. He did his time, really rough shit that his profile said he was capable of, and he is. At the same time he read what he signed when he joined (alot of them don't read it all) and he knows he's screwed. A friend of his is an interrogator, can't get out of it because it looks bad on your record if your replaced for mental reasons or object to duty.
Look at the guy who came forward with the pictures that originally detailed prisoners being put in less than comfortable positions (but not TORTURE). He is now being prosecuted for some horseshit, but he should have seen it coming.
Hippie, you could argue the other side just as well, or better, and you know it. It just goes against what you want to believe.
What is soo great about Baby Bush anyway? Not his political affiliation, but him as a person. Real hard on drug policy but evasive about questions pertaining to his own use. Avowed non-drinker who has been video taped doing just that while making an ass of himself (Smokinggun.com). Refuses to take a drug test for seemingly no good reason at all. Fried alot of people as Governor of Texas, could have commuted the sentence to life in prison & that makes him a murder in alot of eyes. Why all the National Guard & legal records that can't be found? Alot of unanswered questions, and he's less than forthcoming...

01-15-05, 10:39

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

it all really boils down to what the person giving the oral sex felt.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

interrogations of enemies who have set off bombs,
murdered policemen, etc.
should not be
regulated by how the prisoner FEELS
about his treatment.
of course the prisoner will
object to any treatment,
including imprisonment itself,
which gets back to the whole
sillyness of 'mental torture'.
if we are to be bound and restrained
from causing our mortal enemies
any 'stress' or 'embarrassment' or 'mental anguish' [boo hoo]
then we will never win at the game.
one cannot ask prisoners
what they think of their captors and treatment
and expect honest unbiased answers.
so i say draw the line
at real clinical pain that can be detected by
blood pressure, heart rate, bruising, bleeding, fractured bones.
then we have firm objective guidelines
capable of measurement,
real evidence for use in a court of law if needed.
save the testimony from the shrinks
for civilian american citizens who have rights
and treat enemy POWS as the enemy.

and still no one has introduced a shred of evidence
that those acts were carried out as a result of orders or official us military policy.
the ongoing court-martials of the soldiers involved argues to the contrary,
such acts were criminal at the time they were committed, under the uniform code of military justice in place at the time.

(Message edited by admin on January 15, 2005)

01-15-05, 10:50

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

Electrocution is not torture because it doesn't leave marks. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
untrue.
electrocution can leave hairline bone fractures as the muscles clench hard, etc.
my definition said pain,
and electrocution is painful.
as is cutting out a fetus from a womb
which again would preclude
your other ridiculous example as well.
get serious please,
no one's advocating chainsaw abortions
not even bush.

01-15-05, 10:51

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

Hip, has anyone ever thrown anything at you while arguing a point with you? <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

maybe once
never twice.

[Home]	[The Vaults]	[Glossary]	[Sponsors]	[Affiliates]
[Search]	Today's Posts	Mark Forums Read	[Register]	[Activate]	[Resend Email]

01-06-05, 17:59	#5 (permalink)
~sweetness Guest Posts: n/a	<font color="0000ff">Not surprised Roger. I think I posted about it in a previous thread. You're prob also looking at a future Supreme Court Justice. </font>

01-07-05, 08:24	#6 (permalink)
~hippie3 Guest Posts: n/a	<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font> redneck style" mentality no logic involved, reliance on spinal voting <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> hey those kind of disparaging remarks about people are not welcome here even if they voted for a man you don't care for. understand ? i will not tolerate remarks that portray anyone who supports bush as a redneck or a moron, etc. comprende ?

01-07-05, 08:43	#7 (permalink)
~hippie3 Guest Posts: n/a	<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font> the White House is completely out of touch with the American people. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> debatable. perhaps with a minority of people that's true but the majority voted for bush. that fact was just certified officially by congress yesterday, a few disgruntled democrats aside. i think the opposite is more true, the dems are the party that is out-of-touch as their defeat tends to confirm. mainstream america has always been and still is essentially conservative. the majority does not want gay marriage, strict gun controls, welfare statism, social activist judges, etc. opinions are one thing but votes are hard facts that cannot be denied. so who really is out of touch ?

01-07-05, 12:38	#8 (permalink)
roc Old Man Join Date: Mar 1970 Posts: 4,450	Hippie is feeling better... well said! __________________ ubuntu! Member of Native Geekaho Tribe. "Think for yourself and question authority"

01-06-05, 12:37	#1 (permalink)
~rodger Guest Posts: n/a	Quote: "I will no longer represent only the White House. I will represent the United States of America and its people. I understand the difference between the two roles," President Bush's counsel told the Senate Judiciary Committee. Has anyone else made more clear that the goals of dubya do NOT match the goals of the United States of America? Here is the link if anyone still doubts that the White House is completely out of touch with the American people.

01-06-05, 12:39	#2 (permalink)
~i_am_me Guest Posts: n/a	The hispanic vote is one of the key things that put Bush into the White House, I saw this coming. As more and more hispanics come into the states the more votes the conservative party will get. Most hispanics I know are all very anti gay marriage and align themselves with the conservative religious agendas Bush seems to love so much. Scary.

01-06-05, 13:17	#3 (permalink)
~vrooota! Guest Posts: n/a	the election was won on moral/religious issues and a "somebody threw a sucker punch; lets kick some ass, redneck style" mentality no logic involved, reliance on spinal voting is all the rage these days, you don't even have to be coherent if you can hit the right nerve, you'll get votes

01-06-05, 13:19	#4 (permalink)
~taoist Guest Posts: n/a	lmao Sorry, saw the title for the thread and it just got me laughing and I haven't stopped. Scary. Until now. Well put. This country is starting to fucking terrify me. Wait...starting to? Oh man...the memory holes must be getting to me... Yee haw.

01-07-05, 15:40	#9 (permalink)
Lefty Shared Animosity Join Date: Jan 1970 Posts: 2,377	Rock on,Hippie! __________________ Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds

01-07-05, 15:58	#10 (permalink)
~JT Guest Posts: n/a	yeah my state, the debatable state of the previous election, is filled with hispanics.

01-07-05, 17:02	#11 (permalink)
~rodger Guest Posts: n/a	<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font> the majority does not want gay marriage, strict gun controls, welfare statism, social activist judges, etc. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> Very good point. I'm glad you were fair and balanced. "Welfare statism" is practiced by dubya more so than any other president. He's handed out more in corporate welfare in the last four years than has been handed out in the history of the country. "Activist Judges" is a hallmark of the Republican/christian right agenda. As for who is out of touch with the American people, just read the quote at the top of the page again. Oh, and dubya's 51% is hardly a mandate by the voters. Bush could be our sides best guy in the long run. Kerry would be picking up the pieces of the largest budget deficit in history, and grappling with a failed war had he won. Now bush has to sleep in the bed he's made for himself.

01-07-05, 17:47	#12 (permalink)
~i_am_me Guest Posts: n/a	The majority of who voted voted for Bush. Thats not always the majority of the country.

01-09-05, 00:54	#13 (permalink)
~vrooota! Guest Posts: n/a	didn't mean to insinuate my comment to include hip or anyone on this board, but where I come from, in my limited observable sphere of the US, me and everyone else is; in most senses of the word: a Redneck SOME of the people that voted for Bush AND SOME of the people that voted for Kerry voted for reasons other than logic and hard thinking. I just don't think voting for prez should be an emotional descision, just my opinion The Media twists things and a lot of people get confused. I don't want to be partisan, that was not my intent but I sometimes cannot help picking on any and all politicians and their methods to obtain power. My local government is bankrupt and the politicians came real close to shutting down all 50 sumthin of the public libraries (now they're open two days a week) In a nutshell, these incompetent people are in office because they managed to hoodwink people into voting for them. SO on a national level, when neither politician that was running for office was anywhere close to being fit for the job IMO... I am a little angry at the fact that some people are satisfied with or even gleeful about the course of events, instead of despairing at having a choice between the lesser of two evils in the greatest country in the world. The fact that we arrived at different conclusions about the better canidate doesn't matter because there is no obvious or even real "right or wrong" about something like this. Especially considering the choices, I mean come on, who here that voted; if you had the chance to choose two canidates for people to vote for, would either of them have been Bush or Kerry? Again, no offense and I wish we were free of all the bad vibes and mudslinging that goes on between politicians and should have nothing to do w/ us especially in January. sorry I ran on so long 2

01-09-05, 07:28	#14 (permalink)
~jam Guest Posts: n/a	If the democrats were in power, they would be doing alot of the same shit. And I would be bitching about them. I am a man without a party.

01-09-05, 09:38	#15 (permalink)
~hippie3 Guest Posts: n/a	<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font> SOME of the people that voted for Bush AND SOME of the people that voted for Kerry voted for reasons other than logic and hard thinking.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> perhaps but you were implying that was true far more often in the bush camp which is debateable. my opinion is the opposite, i saw more fuzzy warm wishful thinking in the kerry camp.

01-09-05, 10:19	#16 (permalink)
grave Mycotopiate Join Date: Jan 1970 Posts: 235	51% of the TURNOUT voted for bush but i honestly believe more people DONT show up to vote in more urban states and cities (which tend to be democratic states, along the edges of the country), as opposed to more rural states (which tend to be republican) so i dont think that more people really WANT bush in office but more people actually took the initiative to get up and vote for him commendable and def not a bad thing but i just wanted to point out that voting polls and turnouts, and what a mass of people want are two diff things. even if they are too unmotivated to want it enough to get up and vote.

01-09-05, 17:18	#17 (permalink)
~vrooota! Guest Posts: n/a	<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font> I am a man without a party.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> I feel and felt the same way during the election. It was very hard to vote at all, considering I didn't really support either canidate and just voted because as a part of this country and society, I believe you have to vote or forfeit your right to complain later. Grave's theory about voting initiative I get a feeling is right too, and would like to add to that thought that I remember hearing a statistic about how 80 sumthin percent of voters in the district of Manhattan voted for Kerry. That doesn't mean he was the right man for the job, any more than the claims of "biggest margin of victory in years" mean that Bush has a mandate from the American people. Unfortunately the media has reached a pro-level ability of twisting statistics to mean anything that will sell a story, so the reliability of pretty much any assertion made by people getting data points from CNN or any other nt'l source is questionable

01-10-05, 08:36	#18 (permalink)
~hippie3 Guest Posts: n/a	<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font> so i dont think that more people really WANT bush in office <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> that's called DENIAL, it's the first stage of the grieving process. time to move on to the next step, friend...

01-10-05, 08:45	#19 (permalink)
~hippie3 Guest Posts: n/a	<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font> I remember hearing a statistic about how 80 sumthin percent of voters in the district of Manhattan voted for Kerry. That doesn't mean he was the right man for the job, any more than the claims of "biggest margin of victory in years" mean that Bush has a mandate from the American people.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> more denial. bush got more votes than any other presidential candidate in history bar none. if that's not a 'mandate' then what is ?? it's percentages that are distorted to make things appear other than the reality, the losers say it's only 51% as if the % mattered. but even 1% of ~300 million is still a very large number. even a half-a-percent margin translates into a million+ votes. it's easy to massage the data if one just uses statistics like percentages, such as when a small town that normally has only 1 murder a year that one year gets two can accurately say that the murder rate rose by 100% which sounds very significant and impressive until you see the real numbers. and the real numbers tell the story about last election quite clearly- it wasn't even close bush took a commanding lead early on and never looked back. the media pundits just refused to believe the evidence until it hit them full in the face on the day after the election. some, apparently, still cannot accept the reality and so persist in denying it. (Message edited by admin on January 10, 2005)

01-10-05, 11:04	#20 (permalink)
~rodger Guest Posts: n/a	Bush may have received a record number of votes, but that's because the population is higher now. 51% of the votes cast is hardly a mandate, but let him go for it. The point is, the election is over. Kerry conceded. It's time to hope the damage isn't permanent and look to the future. It would be nice if we could all move on. I have made it no secret that I'm a registered Democrat. There are stupid republicans who are uninformed, just as there are stupid democrats who only vote the party line because that's what they've been told to do. I hope for the next four years people will begin paying more attention to what's going on than they have in the past. If bush does a great job, people will vote for a republican next time. If he screws everything up, we'll get one of our own in next time. That's how the system works. To our side, I say please quit whining, and to the other side, I say please quit gloating. This is serious. Let's treat it as such. Our future, and especially our children's future hangs in the balance.

01-10-05, 12:20	#21 (permalink)
~lazlow Guest Posts: n/a	http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04 /html/new_10_21_04.html#1 I think this is relevant Bush isn't out of touch with the people the people are out of touch with the real world Bush exploits this ignorance IM not saying both sides don't, IM just saying Mr. Rove is better at it. Democracy like capitalism requires an informed public to work optimally. The wild card that stops this is advertising (political as well as commercial) that tricks the public. Instead of the best product/candidate wining the best stratigest/advertiser does.

01-10-05, 12:31	#22 (permalink)
~burnt Guest Posts: n/a	i think many people in america on both sides of the political spectrum want many of the same things for our country. security, a good economy, healthcare, and a more moral society. do both sides agree on that you tell me?? however what they dont agree on is first what these things mean and also how to accomplish these things. for me being secure means having good relations with other nations and not constantly screwing them over for money or killing innocent people. but for others security may mean having a strong military and being on the offensive against our enemies. for me a good economy is one that is sustainable, by sustainable i mean one that takes the environment into consideration since that is our source for all resources in our economy. for me a good economy wouldn't be one driven by material goods and constant resource consumption for max profit. but for many others a strong economy is one where people can spend tons of money on things and put that money into business who can then expand and sell more stuff and people will buy more and on it goes growing. but this doesnt mean people cant meet on a common ground. our views on how things should be solved may differ but by discussing these issues openly and honestly and giving up their stubborn attitudes and keep an open mind we can make some progress. instead of running around this limbo of nonsense our society is lost in.

01-10-05, 13:02	#23 (permalink)
~hippie3 Guest Posts: n/a	<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font> Bush may have received a record number of votes, but that's because the population is higher now.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> population is larger, true but folks are not required to vote. it takes effort. more people put forth the effort to vote than ever before. there were enough people back in 1980 or 1990 for someone to have gotten as many votes as bush did, if the voters had been motivated. but they weren't. what got bush elected was not mere population growth but instead it was unprecidented voter turn-out, something heretofore thought to be a friend of democrats but no more eh ?

01-11-05, 00:09	#24 (permalink)
~i_am_me Guest Posts: n/a	Kerry got the second most amount of votes ever. Heh does that mean people like him more than all other past presidents? The electoral college is what made Bush win the popular vote. I know lots and lots of people who did or didn't vote because they knew which way their state would swing. In the super-blue states people didn't need to get out in force because they were already locked up. In the super-red states people just stayed at home and hung their heads low. Granted, its not the best way to get things done but I don't think you can clearly judge that the majority wants Bush in office based soley on the election. The electoral college plays a major role in that. I'm not denying that Bush won the election and is our president for the next 4 years, I'm just saying that things aren't so black and white when it comes to comparing the majority of people with the actual turnout of voters.

01-11-05, 06:58	#25 (permalink)
~hippie3 Guest Posts: n/a	<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font> I know lots and lots of people who did or didn't vote because they knew which way their state would swing. In the super-blue states people didn't need to get out in force because they were already locked up. In the super-red states people just stayed at home and hung their heads low. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> IF that were true voter turn-out wouldn't have set new records. looks like damn few folks stayed at home anywhere. besides bush beat kerry by 3 million popular votes which is quite significant when one considers that most of the country's population lives in BLUE states. quibble all you want about the semantics of majority and mandate but the reality on the ground says that bush surprised everyone including most of y'all by beating expectations, false news stories, foreign interference and millions of dollars of negative advertizing to win a decisive re-election victory. he has the only majority/mandate that matters now. (Message edited by admin on January 12, 2005)

01-11-05, 09:00	#26 (permalink)
~rodger Guest Posts: n/a	I was really hoping all this bullshit would end once Nov 2 was past. I didn't vote for bush but he won. That's it. Period. The thread was to point to what is happening NOW, not last year. All the scandals of bush's first term are still working their way through the system and will eventually come to completion. Bush's famous 'torture is ok' lawyer is who he wants to replace ashcroft with. I'm sure they had to search far and wide to find someone even more scary than ashcroft, but alas, they're professionals.

01-11-05, 10:09	#27 (permalink)
~hippie3 Guest Posts: n/a	you are still twisting the facts by applying a false label to wit- "famous 'torture is ok' lawyer he denies that allegation and so far as can be documented no one has ever actually said officially that 'torture is ok'. instead they redefined torture more specifically, in a technical legal sense as opposed to mere popular concepts & definitions. what you might call torture depends greatly on your own political perspective. so plz be more specific- what specific torture has gonzales approved ?

01-11-05, 13:08	#28 (permalink)
~vrooota! Guest Posts: n/a

01-11-05, 14:50	#29 (permalink)
~burnt Guest Posts: n/a	so how do we keep the administration in check? what happen to checks n balances or power to the people...

01-11-05, 18:28	#30 (permalink)
~rodger Guest Posts: n/a	There are no more checks and balances. They own the white house and both houses of congress. Unless we can keep a couple of supreme court justices on life support for the next four years, they're going to own three out of three.

01-11-05, 20:41	#31 (permalink)
Lefty Shared Animosity Join Date: Jan 1970 Posts: 2,377	I thought torture was okay as long as we didn't do it on U.S. soil or paid someone else to do it? The C.I.A. or similar authority approved "aggressive" interrogation, didn't they? Been all over the media & several civil rights groups are screaming. __________________ Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds

01-12-05, 12:07	#32 (permalink)
~hippie3 Guest Posts: n/a	define torture

01-12-05, 12:16	#33 (permalink)
~hippie3 Guest Posts: n/a	<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font> how do we keep the administration in check?<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> the entire house will have to stand for elections in just two years, as will a third of the senate. there are currently many many democrats serving as federal judges at various levels including the supreme court. and then there's the constitution itself. plenty of checks and balances and no one to blame but the voters themselves who sent dems like daschle back home. this is another telling point, imo. it's not just bush that the country likes, it's the republicans across the board in almost every state winning. explain that away as a fluke if you can.

01-12-05, 12:18	#34 (permalink)
~i_am_me Guest Posts: n/a	Its no fluke. This country is moving more and more towards the religious right for several reasons everyday.