LowerCaseRepublican

Open ended access to medical records? I thought doctor-patient privilege was sacrosanct. MrEye, this creates a slippery slope. If the government is allowed open access to these, then who is to say that they can't go after more and more medical records not related to this?

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0408/hentoff.php

Sorry I didn't get back to this until now (there was some pretty intense stuff going on at the dorm I live in) Personally, I think the entire primary system is screwed up because after the beginning, the candidates are damn near set in stone with only about 10% of the nation's electorate voting. Nader even said himself that his ability to get on the ballot and run an effective campaign is "like climbing a cliff using a slippery rope". Wouldn't it make sense for him to use the time, effort, money, resources et al. to solidifying the Green Party as a viable 3rd party in US politics? If even he's admitting that it's gonna be a huge uphill struggle to do this one time thing, then shouldn't use his time rather to build up the base he's already established in the Greens? That's my big beef with Nader...not that he's gonna take votes away because he's not gonna make the ballot in a lot of states in the first place. It's that he is using all this time, effort, etc. to run an already doomed campaign instead of solidifying the Greens as a more viable 3rd option. With the current events in more states it's difficult to pick a winner out of the pack of Edwards, Kerry, and Dennis. I mean, going into everything we all thought Dean would steamroll through but that didn't happen. It's still a wide race for the Dem candidate.

It's not meant to be an endorsements of the Dems but rather a critique of Nader and his self serving egotism. If Nader was really concerned about democracy, he'd be cementing the Green party together behind candidates after he's done running and funding them and mobilizing them into a more effective party. As Dean said, if Bush wins in 2004 then the progressive work that Nader has done will be rolled back and curtailed. Nader is going to have trouble getting on the ballot in the first place and having to bankroll it as an independent is not smart in a political perspective. If Nader is true to his guns that he wants a viable party against the Republican/Democrat structure, then he should work to build up the Greens and make it so they can get on ballots in all 50 states amongst other things. If that means not running a Presidential candidate in 2004 then so be it. That's my personal opinion about Nader and his egotism to run this campaign in complete opposition to his goals of wanting a viable 3rd party is beyond comprehension.

What I find more hilarious is how Karl Rove essentially stole the nomination from McCain in 2000 by doing phone banks that said: "Would you be less likely or more likely to vote for McCain if it was known that he had an illegitmate black child?" etc. etc. Or the fact that Ashcroft spent $8000 of taxpayer money to cover up a statue's breast. Those are just a few of the funny moments to come out of these 4 years of ultra-nationalist insanity. This piece from Democratic Underground took the words right out of my mouth: Appearing on NBC News' Meet the Press on Sunday, Nader announced that he is once again running for president of the United States. It seems that Saint Ralph couldn't stand the idea of sitting this one out, and putting the interests of the country ahead of his own massive ego. He has once again illustrated how he is the nation's Number One Bush Enabler. Apparently, multimillionaire Nader has been too busy counting his savings from the Bush tax cut to notice or care that the Bush Administration has damn near ruined our country in less than four years. After a few perfunctory and lackluster criticisms against Bush, Nader (as usual) heaped most of his contempt on those of us who are actually out here trying to defeat the illegitimate, unelected moron. In a particularly gag-inducing bit of spin, Nader said that his critics on the left were "against democracy, against freedom." Funny, that sounds kinda like what Ashcroft and Bush said about us when we dared to criticize them these past few years.

What a stooge. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Feb22.html Good to know that TSA (Thousands Standing Around) are doing a job of detaining a guy who makes a comment that his cat is not a terrorist.

Plus he also has to get the signatures to even get on the ballot in the first place as an independent. He's such a self serving prick.

The US Marines got sent in to protect the US embassy.

1) Bill Hicks (THE COMEDY GOD) 2) Mitch Hedberg 3) Dane Cook 4) Lewis Black 5) Rodney Dangerfield

I know it was all Al Gore. I'm just stating now that even Greens and Dems can agree (well most of them at that) that Bush needs to go and the Greens can focus on 2008 especially since they are nowhere close to getting the 5% threshhold to get federal matching funds.

He's such a self serving douche. Even most Green party affiliates are mobilizing with Dem candidates under the banner of ousting Bush from office.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england...ire/3503891.stm I was on Fark and saw the following synopsis. Me english. Me play joke. Me teach econ with no notes.

The Ani DiFranco song is "Untouchable Face". My friend is a huge Ani fan.

Note: My chickenhawks comment was not just about Bush, but also Cheney, Rove, etc. Chickenhawk n. A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person’s youth The list of chickenhawks: http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore....%20Chickenhawks

Actually, if we want to get technical, he has more balls than a lot of the Chickenhawks that make up the current administration. Lest we forget, Osama was on the front lines of the Afghan-Russian war in the late 70s/early 80s and it was because of the CIA funding, training and arming that Al Qaeda was able to get so prominent. It is because of this military experience that many Afghans like Osama because they fought against the "Russian invaders" but also against the "American infidels". My question is why are we going after Muslims and putting them on watch lists to the point where it's essentially become racial profiling? I mean, yes most terrorists are strict Wahhabists in fundamentalist Islam but when Tim McVeigh blew up the Oklahoma City federal building, there was no blanket alert to search all white people and put them on watch lists or anything like that. My friend Sara has an uncle who worked for the BBC, Financial Times and other newspapers and was invited by the State Department to come to a press dinner. After he gets off the plane, invitation in hand, he was detained for hours because he fit a profile of a Muslim man and the authorities interrogated him until they realized their snafu when they called the State Department. No apology was ever given and he went straight back to Pakistan saying he'll never come back to the States again because of the horrendous treatment he received for no reason. So I'm a little touchy on the racial profiling.

If we insist on placing ourselves under the old law, as Paul reminds us, we are obligated to keep every commandment of the law (Gal. 5:3). But if Christ is the end of the law (Rom. 10:4), ifwe have been discharged from the law to serve, not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit (Rom. 7:6).

Speaking about abortion and stuff...it's weird that most hardline Republicans are pro-life in abortion but also pro-death penalty. Then most hardline Democrats are pro-choice in abortion and anti-death penalty. If any group is going to have the sanctity of life on their side, then they better f***ing love people of all ages and apply it to people of all ages or they can shut the f*** up. (more Bill Hicks just for Brando, haha)

Having the government dictate what can be done with one's body is where it becomes a slippery slope. The government cannot legislate morality be it "Protection of Marriage" to the "War on Drugs" to the abolition of legal abortion. When the make-up of pro life people dictating what can be done to a woman's body medically is like this: There is a problem. There isn't a working uterus or ovary on the stage! Even though this legislation deals solely with the rights and options of a single gender- the female gender- the Bush team didn't include ONE SINGLE MEMBER of this gender, in the ceremony to sign the document. When Clinton vetoed the same "partial birth abortion" bill, he had FIVE women there that had undergone the procedure. They were there to show the human side of the debate- the side that had to undergo the pain and suffering that accompanied their choice to terminate their pregnancy with this procedure. Pro-choice simply dictates that the government has no right to dictate that a procedure that could save a woman's life cannot be performed. I'm not even going to touch the base irony of some pro-lifers murdering doctors either. Personally, I think an open discussion on sex and sexuality be it in school or with parents...whatever the forum, as long as there is an open discussion about the topic, it can serve to take away the forbidden fruit aspect of sex and giving them protection and a full assessment of the risks involved (with none of the bulls*** propaganda) will drastically cut down on abortions being performed in the first place.

You're not a person until you're in my phone book. /bill hicks

Ah yes, I spout my "knowledge" as you call it and yet I am met with, not sources disputing the claims, but rather "anti-Semite", "terrorist lover" et al. If you're going to even attempt to take the high moral road, then refrain from making baseless personal attacks. Especially when I had nothing to do with the suspension of Steve Bartman's My Idol. But who needs facts when one is quite apt at being a knee jerk reactionary? And in #3 would you be referencing yourself, I4E? Just saying is all.

Wow, two overrated douchebags fading from the spotlight...this is JUST the thing to add 3 more minutes to their dwindling 15 minutes of fame.

It was Rove and Karl's Konservative Kuties (I got that from a sign on Whitehouse.org and thought it was amusing )

If Bush changes his mind on abortion, etc. then as FlaSoxxJim said, he should own up to his mistakes instead of the "I commited no felonies since 1974."

This was Coulter's statement: Max Cleland is the Democrats' designated hysteric about George Bush's National Guard service. A triple amputee and Vietnam veteran, Cleland is making the rounds on talk TV, basking in the affection of liberals who have suddenly become jock-sniffers for war veterans and working himself into a lather about President Bush's military service...if we're going to start delving into exactly who did what back then, maybe Max Cleland should stop allowing Democrats to portray him as a war hero who lost his limbs taking enemy fire on the battlefields of Vietnam. Cleland lost three limbs in an accident during a routine noncombat mission where he was about to drink beer with friends. He saw a grenade on the ground and picked it up. He could have done that at Fort Dix. In fact, Cleland could have dropped a grenade on his foot as a National Guardsman or what Cleland sneeringly calls "weekend warriors."? Luckily for Cleland's political career and current pomposity about Bush, he happened to do it while in Vietnam." Now, here's the truth of what happened to Cleland in Vietnam: As for the claim that a Silver Star winner is not a "war hero," Coulter said people "should stop allowing [Cleland to be] portrayed as a war hero" - despite the fact that, in a separate incident four days before he lost three limbs, Cleland won a Silver Star - one of the highest honors for combat courage the U.S. military gives out. The congressional citation which came with the medal specifically said that during a "heavy enemy rocket and mortar attack Captain Cleland, disregarding his own safety, exposed himself to the rocket barrage as he left his covered position to administer first aid to his wounded comrades. He then assisted in moving the injured personnel to covered positions." The citation concluded, "Cleland's gallant action is in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service, and reflects great credit upon himself, his unit and the United States Army." Coulter's claim that it was a non-combat incident was also false, as the 8/1/99 Esquire Magazine notes: "Cleland lost two legs and an arm in Vietnam when a grenade accidentally detonated after he and another soldier jumped off a helicopter in a combat zone." Peter Carlson of the Washington Post also wrote: "On April 8, 1968, during the siege of Khe Sanh, he stepped off a helicopter and saw a grenade at his feet. He thought he'd dropped it. He was wrong. When he reached down to pick it up, it exploded, ripping off both legs and his right hand. He was 25." He returned home to Georgia in December 1969. "I had no job, no girlfriend, no car, no hope," he says. "I figured this is a good time to run for the state Senate. And politics became my therapy, forcing me to get out of the house and be seen." In 1970, at 28, he became the youngest person ever elected to the Georgia Senate. In 1977, President Jimmy Carter appointed him to head the Veterans Administration. In 1982, he was elected as Georgia's secretary of state. In 1996 he was elected to the U.S. Senate, defeating businessman Guy Millner in a very close race." That sounds like an "American Hero" to me. A role model for all people, an example that despite obstacles anyone can succeed.