Rex Kickass

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jan 13, 2005 -> 08:46 PM) But I thought this whole argument was about progressives supporting people's right to choose. By that logic you should be supporting both the gay marriage amendment and your hypothetical interracial marriage ban. When people choose something you don't agree with does that suddenly make them forfeit their right to choose? The people of those 11 states voted to ban gay marriage and a small group of gay rights activists and their lawyers seek to defy the will of the people by challenging them in court. This is nothing new to the left though. When Proposition 187 passed in California in 1994 the left tied it up in court and prevented it from ever taking effect. Now that Arizona has passed a similar amendment the left can be expected to do much the same thing. A bunch of hypocrites is what you people are. You complain about not infringing on people's right to choose and letting them think for themselves but when they disagree with you and enact laws that run contrary to your beliefs then they are suddenly a bunch of "wing nuts" and you do everything in your power to frustrate them. Explain that away. There's nothing to explain away. You said that progressives believe that government runs people's lives better than they can themselves. I gave you some concrete examples about where that's not true. I also said that progressives believe in equality. That would be both in opportunity and equality under the law. You can sit there and say that progressives should support interracial marriage bans because progressives believe in choice. But its not a very smart thing to say. Why? Because progressives believe in individual choices. Progressives don't believe that the government should keep consenting adults from making decisions that are not socially disruptive. Last time I checked, Progressives aren't trying to enact laws and constitutional amendments to keep people from doing anything. The last constitutional amendment proposed by progressives was to create a national election standard. Before that it was the Equal Rights Amendment. It's the Conservatives who want to ban things. Same sex marriage. Flag burning. Foreigners. Unfortunately, they also realize that banning things they, or most people, view as unpleasant, is directly contrary to the spirit of the constitution from which this country is based. So the only solution to get something to stick is to put it in the constitution. Because if its in there, it can't be unconstitutional. Listen, you may be willing to put your rights up for a vote. I'm not. There's not a lot of things I'll fight for. But I'll fight for my freedom and I'll fight for yours and anyone else's. Because its the right thing to do. Its the progressive thing to do. And its the American thing to do.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jan 13, 2005 -> 08:39 PM) BTW, "Progressives" have Vietnam and Korea on their record and I seem to recall us losing about 100 times as many men in those 2 wars as in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Korean war was fought by US troops under UN command, by the way. And was a response to Communist North Korea invading West backed South Korea. Sadly, due to a miscalculation on the part of the US Army command, the US continued to press beyond Pyongyang. Had our side stopped at the capital when it fell, chances are that the DPRK would be no more. Oh yeah, the Republicans controlled Congress, 1946-1954. We went to the aid of an ally attacked in Korea, but then again I guess Progressives are just a bunch of pussy peaceniks. Vietnam was started under Kennedy, again in a fight against communism. And that is a fight where blame can be shared. Roughly have of the 58,000 dead were under Nixon's watch. Last time I checked, progressives don't claim Nixon as their own. This too was fought under an ideological imperative, although many progressives had realized that this war was unwinnable and had sought an exit from Vietnam by the mid 1960s.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jan 13, 2005 -> 08:28 PM) It is the people that don't want gay marriage.......In all states where a ban on it was proposed it passed in the last election. By fighting such things in court your side is defying the will of the people. The state runs education on all levels yet "progressives" are opposed to funding school vouchers for parents who want to send their kids to private schools. Setting standards for states to follow is not a bad thing. Handing money to people who dont work as opposed to giving tax breaks to companies who employ people and drive the economy? Tough choice. Nuke: How many of those amendments would have passed banning interracial marriage in the 1950's? Would those have been the right thing to do? Funny, how in these circumstances too many conservatives, and people in general, can't seem to determine right from wrong, but seem to have a clear idea of black and white when it comes to putting American lives at risk. Before you say that interracial marriage and same-sex marriage are two different things, remember this. They both involve consenting adults in a republic where our foundations clearly state that "All Men are Created Equal." So why does the government have any business telling people who they can and can't get married to, provided that they are legitimate consenting adults? I'm sorry Nuke, could you show me an example where there was a Federal "Free Money to fat unemployed lazy bastards" act? And if you bring up welfare mothers, I'll have to bring up Halliburton and Enron and I think we can both agree that those are tired examples that carry more symbolism with them than fact. However, I will tell you that Progressives do work hard to keep businesses local and jobs for their people. Here's an example, Greenville, Michigan - where progressive Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm took an active role in finding government incentives in keeping the largest factory in the town in Michigan. The company said that they could save 83 million dollars by moving its factory to Mexico. The Greenville city government and the State of Michigan, under Granholm's direct leadership found 83 million dollars in tax savings to keep Electrolux there. The company, part of the group that "drive the economy" decided to move anyway. P.S. They can't seem to solidify their Mexican deal, so now the company is begging the government to put their 80+ million dollar deal back on the table.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jan 13, 2005 -> 08:21 PM) Not only should the death penalty not be abolished it should be expanded and imposed in a uniform manner to cover Murder 1, Rape and the sale of narcotics. So another thing that the government should decide for its people? Many progressives share a similar view with true conservatism. That people have choices in life and if they should so choose to use a narcotic substance, the government has no business keeping them from doing so, as long as it is done in a nondisruptive manner. You know, like how our President did his coke back in the 70s. Oh yes, I went there.

No it is not. Go to the metra website and it will show you exactly where the station stop is. If you click on the line and station.

See post 32.

Wow, so you only read GOP spin points huh? Progressives don't believe that government runs your life better than you do. Maybe that's why Progressives don't believe the government should say whether a same sex couple is less equal than a heterosexual couple. Maybe that's why Progressives don't believe that government should decide what a woman should do with her body in the beginning stages of pregnancy. Maybe that's why Progressives don't believe that government should have the right to exercise the death penalty against its own citizens. Progressives believe in rewarding hard work. So those who have a family that works hard for the little that they have should have the opportunity for basic medical care, a solid education for their kids, an insurance policy like Social Security to protect against financial default in old age. Progressives also believe that the weakest among us have a place at the table in a civil society. Progressives believe in responsible, fair governance. A government that allows for transparency in itself and one where the people control the government and not the other way around. Progressives believe in times of national crisis that everyone should share the burden and make sacrifices. Progressives are what made this country great in the 30s and 40s. Progressives are who helped the Army integrate in World War II, who got electricity to rural areas where the market wouldn't bear it, who got the elderly and infirm the basic protection they deserve in a republic that values people. What do the Conservatives have to show for their time in office? McCarthy, Pinochet, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden. It was conservatives like Henry Kissinger who helped to develop the "Salvadoran option." It is conservatives like our president who want to recodify discrimination in our constitution, and who talk about fighting the war on terror while leaving our borders unprotected. But, hey, the people know better right? As long as they're on your side apparently.

John F Kerry, September 30, 2004. John F Kerry, September 4, 2004 John F Kerry, August 10, 2004 John F Kerry, September 9 2003 John F Kerry, May 3 2003. So enough about where Kerry stood, ok?

John F Kerry, October 8, 2004

Sorry dude, but not all "progressives" are peaceniks. Progressives believe in liberty, equality and responsibility. That means that progressives believe that war is sometimes necessary, but they want to make sure that there's an airtight case for the war or that the American public is truly at grave and immediate danger. Fighting a war of choice is not progressive, you're right. Because it's not responsible.

I insist on writing my small "a" like this typeface.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jan 13, 2005 -> 07:21 PM) Funny but I kept hearing them say "It's time to do something about Iraq". Well someone did something and here they are with their 20-20 hindsight calling Bush a liar and a war monger when they held the same position he did. It's not flexibility, it's hypocrasy. You're right. John Kerry and Al Gore did needlessly support combat in Iraq. However, they also said that troops shouldn't proceed into Iraq without a phase four, post war plan. But I guess saying that "you should have planned the whole thing out" is the same as saying "you should never have gone in the first place."

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jan 13, 2005 -> 07:17 PM) I dont recall us wanting to change anything about how the Indonesian government wanted to run their country. About all I really remember hearing about was how we were going to build roads, clear debris, treat the wounded and sick and provide them with food and drinkable water. None of which they were capable of without foregin assistance. The comparison does not hold at all. First we're called "Stingy" by the U.N. & now that the full resources of our country are brought to bear to help those in need we're told we're not wanted anymore. And so the America bashing around the world continues. :rolly Did you even read the story? They asked that foreign troops not remain in country longer than three months. How is this unreasonable? Again, this is a situation that includes more than just American troops. But like the "stingy" comment, certain people take it to mean America exclusively. Because apparently, there's no one else in the world. Never mind the fact that there are foreign troops from Japan, Australia, France, and other countries providing relief in the region as well. They only meant us.

Richard Cheney, August 1992.

Awwwwwwwwwwww SNAP! Seriously, changing your mind when it becomes obvious that your position is flawed is bad? When there are American lives on the line? Sorry, I wanted a President who wasn't concerned with standing firm as much as protecting the lives of Americans.

BTW: The ISG didn't just look under rocks. If there was such movement, there would most likely be records of such movement that they did secure after the fall of Baghdad. It was about all they did secure, if memory serves me. The paper trail doesn't match up. What does match up was the original conclusion of the Weapons Inspection team in 1998 when the US pulled them out of Iraq through the UN. That although Saddam Hussein was still in violation of resolutions before the Security Council, he was most likely disarmed of at least 90% of his WMD stockpiles and those left would be poorly stored and virtually unusable because of seven years of invasive inspection regimes. If what you're saying about the WMD is true, the situation makes us look even worse. Because then the worst case scenario happened. Someone else we don't like got a hold of them - and we don't know who has them, what they are or how much of it they have. So, I hope that makes you sleep better at night.

I agree, looking at Favre, I wasn't impressed this year. But his O line hasn't been great and his receiver corps hasn't been as top notch as it was either. He's still throwing 60 mph fastballs... its just his receivers aren't as open as they used to be.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 13, 2005 -> 06:54 PM) Dollars are replaceable, lives are not. Let's count the body bags associated with foreign aid and see who is the greatest contributor. That's the sacrifice that really matters and when that isn't appreciated, I get pissed fast. I am far more impressed when some third world country contributes 1,000 men for peacekeeping force, than some country that sends a check and a thank you. Hell, half the time they forget the thank you. I hate to bring this discussion back to reality, but if you look at the peacekeeping forces under the blue helmet, you'll find that it is mostly third world nations that are contributing to humanitarian causes with their own flesh and blood.

Yes, because the "progressives" that controlled government culture during the New Deal era and World War II turned us all into soft, pussies. Progressives believe that governments have a responsibility to its citizens. Apparently the wingnuts that run the country have forgotten that to the point where the House Republican congress wanted to remove ethics rules in the House that prohibit Congressmen from holding posts of leadership while being indicted for felonies. The wingnuts that run this country's government seem more concerned with protecting their own power than anyone else. We now have proof, by our own hands, that the basis for this war in Iraq was false. Now, who's going to get fired? Nobody.

Here's a thought. A government wants to control how aid is distributed within its own borders. After 9/11, if the French or Germans wanted to bring troops into NYC to help with recovery efforts, do you think the US would have stood for that? Just because you're being charitable doesn't mean you suddenly have free reign over a country's sovereignty.

I believe that would be Dulles. At the same time, the French were one of the first to come to our side in the Cuban Missile Crisis at the U.N. The French-American relationship is a complicated one and isn't as simple as DeGaulle asking for the end of American occupation in France... despite owing his political livelihood to the American presence in the 1940s. Part of the Marshall Plan's design was to ensure that France did not go any other direction but Center Right in the late 1940s. Prior to 1948, the Communist party was the largest political party in France.

All I ever get is "Your best days are behind you."

Every time I've taken Amtrak, someone's tried to steal s*** from me. But the last time, all they got the chance to do was steal a loaf of bread and peanut butter.

Mansrea? Sounds like something I got after that night in Bangkok at the "massage table." Or have I said too much?

My entrance song would be "Our Prayer" by the Beach Boys. I don't know why, I think it would just be funny to hear that suddenly and then see my ugly, fat ass. My theme song - "Drinking In L.A." by Bran Van 3000.