LowerCaseRepublican

QUOTE(samclemens @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 10:05 PM) on point. taxes need to be lowered. i live in MI and we currently have the most stagnated economy in the entire county. the cause is the large amount of taxes due to democrat control of the state government. my only hope is that jennifer granholm loses. considering her opponent, devos will probably win simply because granholm doesnt do a damn thing. anyway, i thought bush did a great job on the speech. very nice. then i saw that new gov. from VA jump on with a response and i turned that s*** off, i'll go to bed on a happy, constructive note tonight, not a pessimistic, no solution, high-taxing note. Pessimistic, no solution, etc. -- good of you to comment on s*** YOU DIDN'T SEE. And Nuke, one can be for cutting bloat in the military budget to put it to more appropriate uses (i.e. body armor) instead of paying Halliburton for moving empty boxes, price gouging, paying for food that they didn't provide, etc.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 09:36 PM) So if someone works their ass off, makes sacrifices to become successful they should be boned because they got ahead. Lets penalize you for being successful. You make more money you can afford it. But you get penalized for paying for a bloated military industrial complex, price gouging by Halliburton, misappropriated funds in Iraq, etc. yet speaking out against that is somehow construed as "leftist" (although critics are both right and left) propaganda. It is amazing. If penalties for being successful are bad, then speak out against these too.

What was with that Rock-esque eyebrow from Tim Kaine? If you smelllllllllll what Tim Kaine is cookin'!

For those that don't know, I'm doing my student teaching right now. We're covering the Industrial Revolution. So I had the kids do a pro/con of the Industrial Revolution. Then I was asking them role reversal questions (if they thought it was good, what if they were a worker? or if they thought it was bad, what if they were a factory owner?) and what possible alternatives could have been and if we treated the owners and the workers equally, what would be the fairest solution. Anyway, the kids said it was hard because there was no answer that they could just look up in the book. I was looking for them to pick a position and back it up with facts. So, at the end of class, this kid comes out and says in a very disgusted tone "I can't believe he tried to make us think."

To get it back we want a plane, and a bus to get us there and some food. ATTICA! ATTICA! ATTICA! ::starts marching back and forth pandering to cheering crowd:: /golf clap to anybody who knows the movie reference

BHAM, ask and ye shall receive http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/01/31/illi....executions.02/ -- It was stopped because at the time, the state had executed 12 men but exonerated 13. http://www.truthinjustice.org/dphistory-IL.htm -- some of the historical facts as to why Ryan made his decision I'd also suggest looking at the Illinois Governor's Commission on Capital Punishment. It is the report that they made about the death penalty and how it is used in Illinois. And YAS, what if having an abortion is being responsible for their actions? Isn't it responsible to not bring a baby into the world if one can't pay for it, feed it, take care of it, etc.? Wouldn't it be much more irresponsible to put them under the mountain of debt just from the birthing procedure costs? I am not an over-zealous supporter of abortion but like the fact that it is legal for the women who would need it. I'm all for lowering the rate of abortions, but I believe that a sane, rational argument about sexual practices and equipping young adults with the skills to protect themselves would do much more to lower the rate of abortion than merely making it illegal to get one. And Nuke, even if abortion is outlawed, women still get them. It just becomes more unsafe and more hazardous for women. Nuke, children who are 14-15 should be taught the basics so they have a working knowledge of it when it comes time for them to do so. High school health classes could easily incorporate abstinence plus (saying that abstinence is the safest way, but some people don't do that so here's how to protect yourself and here's the possible risks you'd have) or comprehensive (which is just giving out all the facts, without endorsing one way over another) Right now, the government only gives funding for abstinence only without discussing the other options available. That's as bad as, say, me teaching history and not bringing up the Civil War, World War II and the Industrial Revolution. A majority of Americans (55 percent) believes that giving teens information about how to obtain and use condoms will not encourage them to have sexual intercourse earlier than they would have otherwise (39 percent say it would encourage them), and 77 percent think such information makes it more likely the teens will practice safe sex now or in the future (only 17 percent say it will not make it more likely). -- details about the study found http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1622610

Wow ProDeathPenalty.com sure showed me with their detailed, scientific, factually based argumentation and debate skills If they want to talk about being moral degenerates then perhaps they can stop with the active bloodlust wanting to kill somebody. And I am pro-choice. I believe abortion should be safe, legal and rare. But when you have abstinence only being promoted in schools, many parents either unwilling or not knowing how to talk about safe sexual practices with their children, etc, then it is no wonder that these children are growing up into adults who don't know their ass from their elbow when it comes to safe sexuality practices. Plus, I don't see all these pro-lifers who want all these women to have these kids, I don't see them paying the medical bills and paying for all the needs of the kid for 18 years. If you want them around so badly, take care of them. It always struck me as odd that many self-described politicians that described themselves as Christians were always for the death penalty. 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), if we 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), then all of these biblical mores come under the authority of the Spirit. /ends.theological.banter

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jan 29, 2006 -> 01:53 PM) What is it something like 1 in 19 million? Id say thats pretty fullproof. Yeah, except when the FBI etc. has been nailed for falsifying evidence, including DNA evidence. Or you get like we did in Illinois with prosecutors not turning over exculiptory evidence, etc. http://home.iprimus.com.au/dna_info/dna/JA..._20010925a.html -- for a few forensic lying bastards

QUOTE(kevin57 @ Jan 29, 2006 -> 11:02 AM) Don't you think that Hamas should at least have to first declare that they accept some sort of "two state solution" and renounce terrorism as a means to accomplish their goals? I think, to be successful, they will end up doing something like that. However, I think it'll take time for them to get to that point, much like it did with Sinn Fein (in cutting down on the rampant use of IRA attacks), etc. But you're also talking to a guy who thinks that Israel also needs to cut down on its abuses in the area as well. For some of the better research/discussion of that, I'd have to suggest Norman Finkelstein. http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/ He's a professor at DePaul who has written a couple books on the topic, including one that I found really interesting. It is called "The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitations of Jewish Suffering". In it, he gives a lot of evidence that there is some major league deception going on from different organizations using the Holocaust as a hammer to beat people over the head and shake them down for more and more money. Of course, he has a personal stake in being pissed off about the exploitation of the Holocaust -- both of his parents were camp survivors who were upset at different groups abusing the horrors of the Holocaust for financial gain. He's also got a good discussion about the exploitation of the term "anti-semitism" in another book called "Beyond Chutzpah". Both really interesting reads and solid from a historical/factual perspective.

YAS, it is no different than Nuke flaming members of the left. And this pic isn't directed towards you -- it is just kinda-on topic and so I thought I'd throw it into the discussion.

QUOTE(samclemens @ Jan 29, 2006 -> 07:58 AM) i swear i saw a post by you a few pages ago in this thread saying they were good for the long term. anyway, how exactly are hate-mongering terrorists good for palestine? for the middle east? It was more of the "f*** you" vote against the PA/Fatah. Hamas is/was an organization that had no other outlet for their anger/frustration/outrage than to take up arms. As we both know, the PA was corrupt. Hamas did not run on a platform of "driving Jews into the sea" but rather ran on their cleanliness when it comes to the topic of corruption. Add in the fact that they are also a social organization giving food, medical care, etc. to people who need it -- and it is no wonder why people would vote for them. As Tex said before, people vote for beans and beds before other things. Plus, we all know how effective over-the-top nationalism can be as a rallying point for anything. Look at when the IRA created Sinn Fein. After gaining political power, the attacks by the IRA went down since they had a legitimate avenue now to discuss their displeasure & do something about it diplomatically. While the IRA tried to use both attacks and political power for a while at the start, it blew up in their face (no pun intended), they found political power to be much more effective. For the US/Israel to immediately say that they won't talk to them is f***ing stupid. At least show up for f***'s sake. I mean, Bush is the one saying that democracy needs to be on the march through the Middle East and they should be free to pick their leaders. Well, that's what happened.

Firmly against capital punishment. If the state says that murder is a crime, then it cannot murder in response. Not to mention the fact that numerous people have been exonerated and that the death penalty is used quite disproportionately on the poor and minorities -- many of whom don't have adequate funds to mount a defense that would be adequate in a capital case. It is also cheaper in many states to sentence life in prison without parole than it is to go through with a capital case. Neil Manhattan (sometimes Urbana), IL PS: Sorry so short but it is damn near 2 am, haha

QUOTE(samclemens @ Jan 28, 2006 -> 06:03 PM) you seem like a pretty bitter or angry guy when it comes to this topic. seriously, im not trying to offend you, you just come off that way. he does make a decent point about the small percentile. to make an extreme point, theres around 4-6,000 people who vote for the american nazi party in each election. i dont see a s***load of movies and sitcoms about them and a s***load of legislation for what that tiny group of society wants. or wican laws, we should be having more wican and warlock legislation in the US house and senate. equal protection under the law is a legal fiction that we strive for as a society but we will never acheive. to think imperfect beings can is pure idealism, or more frankly put, a pipe dream. and for the record, i would never let my kids see a movie about queer cowboys because i dont want to promote that sort of thing to them, not because i am predjudiced. i guess i would just rather have my kids doing the asskicking on the playground instead of getting their ass kicked. now please dont start with any more namecalling, cause i noticed you and juggernaut were getting into it. just giving my point of view. Yes, because seeing a film about two cowboys having sex = getting their ass kicked on the playground I'd just love to see the logical extension of your argument. "We only have x% of blacks so we don't have to give them equal rights under the Constitution. We only have x% of Latinos so we don't have to give them equal rights. We only have x% of Irish so we don't have to give them equal rights. We only have x% of Jews so we don't have to give them equal rights." Reading your post, I'm reminded of Animal Farm "All animals are created equal but some animals are more equal than others." From a great column by the Angry Liberal: Gay marriage isn't about gay sex. That's already legal. For those who may have forgotten, by a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas sodomy law, and by implication, all other sodomy laws. In other words, those 3,000+ gay and lesbian couples who got married in San Francisco over the last couple of weeks have been having and will continue to have perfectly legal sex whether they are married or not, and no constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage will stop that. Gay marriage is about two people of the same sex standing before their friends and families and promising to spend the rest of their lives together. I find it impossible to believe that any thoughtful American would feel the need to amend the Constitution to prevent a mutual promise. The real irony here is that the group whose ass is chapped the most by gay marriage is the "pro-marriage" folks. As usual, they are sounding off all across the nation, brains in neutral and mouths wide open. They should be called "Pro-straight marriage" folks. Hey, this could be the next KKK! These morons could dress up in white wedding gowns with veils to protect their identities, and ride around San Francisco, burning wedding cakes on the front lawns of happily married gay and lesbian couples. But I digress . . . 2. Marriage isn't about procreation. Hey, I've been to a few weddings in my time, including my own. Never have I heard a line in a marriage vow that includes a requirement that the couple have children. The vows typically consist of stuff about love, honor, cherish, in sickness and in health, well, you know the rest. While many expect a marriage to produce offspring, the legitimacy of an American marriage is not measured by the number of children produced by the couple participating in it. Therefore, anybody who argues that marriage should be limited to heterosexuals because homosexual couples can't reproduce is wrong vis-à-vis marriage and reproduction. This argument would necessitate the denial of marriage licenses to infertile couples, and I'm guessing that movement isn't gathering much steam. 3. Gay marriage would not "threaten the sanctity of the institution," whatever the hell that means. That's right. Since marriage is about taking and honoring vows, the only folks who threaten the sanctity of the institution of marriage are those who break their vows. If Americans wish to protect the sanctity of marriage, they could very well start by denying marriage licenses to Republicans. Dubya's own brother, Neil, recently completed a messy divorce from his wife, Sharon. Adultery played a factor. Then there are Republican icons Rudy Giuliani and Newt Gingrich, with one and two marriages ended via affairs, respectively. In short, until the pro-marriage folks do something about their own, who have been wiping their backsides with their marriage vows, they have absolutely no business talking about anybody else's marriage threatening whatever sanctity that the institution of marriage may still possess. Any couple, straight or gay, that can make and honor marriage vows is upholding the sanctity of marriage. Period. 4. Kids will not be harmed by gays getting married. Unless you consider that kids have been somehow harmed by learning that two members of the same sex can be in a committed relationship, you have no leg to stand on. Again, I submit that heterosexual divorce and infidelity is infinitely more harmful to children than gay marriage. The Chickens-Little on the right can talk about damage to children the minute they fix the divorce problem in America. 5. God hates f**s. BUZZZZZZZZZ! I'm sorry, that sound means you just lost your court case! With the exception of some easily overturned courts located in America's Ignorance Belt, no federal court has any interest in your dumb-assed opinion of what might or might not offend God. Thanks for playing.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Jan 28, 2006 -> 03:50 PM) So Hayes isn't reputable? And Moore is not a journalist. Facts and Moore do not coincide. From now on I guess I can only cite N.Y. Slimes and Wash. Toast. Well the notoriously conservative Washington Times is shooting holes in the Weekly Standard's claims (along with the American Conservative magazine amongst others), so methinks that you're just creating a straw man here about the Washington Post and the NY Times and the so-called liberal media and doing so very ineffectually. And while Moore is pretty liberal with his interpretation at times, he does do good things (think: when he confronted God Hates f**s leader "Rev." Fred Phelps during one of his anti-gay protests and completely flustered the Hell out of the group or when he took on Humana with a guy who needed a pancreas transplant or he would die. The pressure put on Humana due to the show and the exposure caused them to abide by their original statements that they would cover the surgery) Moore is no saint but even a blind squirrel finds a few nuts.

Nuke, that column was written by a follower of Murray Rothbard and a very hardcore libertarian member of the Old Right. I'm pretty sure that Justin Raimondo would have a good laugh at being called a "leftist" considering he is one of the major writers at "The American Conservative" magazine. I also really doubt that the Washington Times is a leftist newspaper -- and they are one of the sources being cited in the article as to the plans of OSP to create fake documents justifying the war. As as Raimondo also stated after making the OSP claim of fake intelligence being scooped up by guys like Hayes at the Weekly Standard -- "Hayes' piece is a perfervid tale of raw "intelligence" vacuumed up by U.S. forces from various sites, including in Iraq, that supposedly documents Iraq's links to al-Qaeda. The secret of Iraq's connection to the 9/11 terrorist attack on the U.S. is allegedly contained in a veritable treasure trove of "raw intelligence," the Holy Grail of the neocons, described by Hayes as "photographs and documents on Iraqi training camps" that "come from a collection of some 2 million 'exploitable items' captured in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan. They include handwritten notes, typed documents, audiotapes, videotapes, compact discs, floppy discs, and computer hard drives." The point of Hayes' piece is that these "secret" documents and other items are being suppressed by evil forces within the U.S. government who want to see Bush and the War Party discredited. All right then, let's release the hidden "evidence" of al-Qaeda's much-touted "links" to Saddam: I can hardly wait to see the videotape of the Iraqi dictator playing Risk with Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, as the three of them chat amiably about how to nuke New York, Washington, and Crawford, Texas. This is the fallback theory the neocons are pushing in light of the complete collapse of the case for WMD, which only the most die-hard cargo-cultists of Neoconland still uphold. It's much more fluid, and easier to "prove," if only in the minds of the president's supporters. Although an alleged Prague meeting between 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence agent turned out to be a crock, there is an infinite number of similarly tall tales on tap, and I'm sure Señor Hayes and other authors of the neocon school of docudrama will rise to the challenge. Such a ploy illustrates the three cardinal rules of warfare, both political and otherwise: Buck up the troops and keep firing at the enemy. Above all, stay on the offensive."

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jan 28, 2006 -> 10:24 AM) OMG what a stupid b****. :rolly Yeah she is a stupid b****. Not just for that comment but in her book "Treason", in a few chapters she has historical events happening in the wrong years. It is really quite funny.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jan 27, 2006 -> 06:16 PM) Exactly how many teachers is that 50% pay cut going to hire? If President Bush cut his salary in half he might be able to hire 4 teachers, in a nation of 300 million. Symbolism over substance. :rolly RTFA. In Bolivia, nobody in civil service can make more than the President, so they'll all be taking some sort of pay cut. All that money (plus lowered cost of living standards) should be enough cash to hire plenty of teachers and doctors.

If Hamas is as bad as we know they can be, then why did Israel and the Knesset fund them for years? http://antiwar.com/justin/ As Richard Sale pointed out in a piece for UPI: "Israel and Hamas may currently be locked in deadly combat, but, according to several current and former U.S. intelligence officials, beginning in the late 1970s, Tel Aviv gave direct and indirect financial aid to Hamas over a period of years. Israel 'aided Hamas directly – the Israelis wanted to use it as a counterbalance to the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization),' said Tony Cordesman, Middle East analyst for the Center for Strategic [and International] Studies. Israel's support for Hamas 'was a direct attempt to divide and dilute support for a strong, secular PLO by using a competing religious alternative,' said a former senior CIA official." Middle East analyst Ray Hanania concurs: "In addition to hoping to turn the Palestinian masses away from Arafat and the PLO, the Likud leadership believed they could achieve a workable alliance with Islamic, anti-Arafat forces that would also extend Israel's control over the occupied territories." In a conscious effort to undermine the Palestine Liberation Organization and the leadership of Yasser Arafat, in 1978 the government of then-Prime Minister Menachem Begin approved the application of Sheik Ahmad Yassin to start a "humanitarian" organization known as the Islamic Association, or Mujama. The roots of this Islamist group were in the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood, and this was the seed that eventually grew into Hamas – but not before it was amply fertilized and nurtured with Israeli funding and political support. -- How quick the Christian rightists and the Zionists forget Galatians 6:7 (that's the reap what you sow verse)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4652940.stm Good to see a politician asking to take a pay cut and then enacting it for the benefit of the country.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Jan 27, 2006 -> 02:40 PM) ] They went in with just their uniforms and a helmet, right? The army has updated the armor of our soldiers 4 times since the start of the conflict. Do you have any idea heavy the body armor is? What are the limitations to mobility if they add more weight to their persons? What about the Iraqi Air Force General who said the WMD's were spirited to Syria? Probably a Bush crony. What about the documents being translated from Iraq stating that Saddam trained over 8000 terrorists. Details. Details. http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8383 What about the fact that in 2003 the US sent intelligence agents into Iraq to cook up "facts" to justify the invasion? Details. Details.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Jan 26, 2006 -> 12:04 PM) Actually what this dolt forgets is that a lot of people joined the military after some group slammed planes into buildings killing innocent people who were not part of the war machine, but were just going to work and such. I am sure he bought his flag and acted like a patriot because it was the cool thing to do. Now of course being anti war is the cool thing. Being antiwar is one thing, being anti solider is another. Before they went to Iraq our warriors went to the country that supported this terror, toppled those who aided and assisted this attack and then sent Osama into hiding. You can question the government, that is your right as a democracy. But for those who question the brave men and women who protect this country, I can only say that you look foolish and stupid. Just as the so called peace activists who spit at our soliders who came home from Vietnam. What a disgrace. This article makes good toliet paper and that is about it. This article is a disgrace to those who have payed the ultimate price in that name of our country. When soldiers force Iraqis to jump off a bridge to their death, I can question them. When Gen. Taguba's report talks about "widespread" (his word) torture and abuse going on at US run facilities in Iraq, I can question them. When people propel fake myths about spit upon Vietnam soldiers, that makes a person look foolish. Jerry Lembcke, an associate professor of sociology at Holy Cross and a Vietnam combat veteran, has written a well documented book, "The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam" (New York University Press, 1998) that thoroughly debunks the tales of protesters "spitting upon" Vietnam vets. Lembcke conducted extensive research to ascertain that there were no contemporaneous news reports or police complaints lodged to substantiate the claims that began appearing in the media about 1991. The perpetuation of such myths only blocks the healing of Vietnam veterans from our "culture of victimization," and it serves the agenda of those pro-war forces who place fear and intimidation in the path of open debate on the pressing issues of the moment. What is a disgrace to those who have paid the ultimate price for our country is that our leaders (both the Republican architects of the plans and the warhawk complicit Democrats) sent soldiers into a country that did not threaten us, did not attack us and did not have any of the weapons of mass destruction that we said they did. In fact, damn near every reason that the Administration has given us has been debunked (chem weapons, nukes, WMD, etc.) It is only a further slap in the face that they sent them in without having any post-war plans set up -- not to mention the lack of body armor, etc. Somehow all that seems to sting a bit more than some guy's column in the LA Times. But then again, I guess it is chic to bash the so-called liberal media.

Easy answer. Take this: http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html I'm 100% on personal and 50% on economic. I'm right on the border which makes me a "liberal libertarian".

I'm just waiting for Oprah to secede from the Union and take 98% of America's women with her.

People merging on the road that I slow down for so they can get in. After getting in they do 15-20 mph under the speed limit with no traffic in front of them. Students in the class that I'm student teaching that make me punish them. I tell them that I don't wanna have to be a rule stickler so consider it one gracious warning. I'm not even 3 steps away and they're doing the exact same thing over again. Then they wonder why they get punished. I got no problem being the hardass disciplinarian in the classroom -- gotta be strict at the start because it is a lot easier to loosen up later than it is to start loose and then try to be more strict.

Check your PM, Juggs. /damn Soxtalk for making me not write up my scenarios and lesson plans! But I had to put my 2 years of minor's knowledge on education into play //got 3 lesson plans done, two worksheets and main scenario with discussion questions but I still have half a chapter to plan ///and a study guide and a test ////slashies rule