LowerCaseRepublican

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jun 16, 2005 -> 11:06 AM) OK. I'll give you that. They have to filter through these people. But, you are assuming that all Gitmo detainees are being treated to this outlandish degree of (gasp!) discomfort. We have extracted intelligence that may be the very reason you are still alive today. But, then, that's neither here nor there. The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that American citizens detained at Gitmo need to receive due process and their writ of habeas corpus. Jose Padilla is still in the prison while the DOJ continues to tries to circumvent that (despite the Supremes saying that they can't) As Bill Kristol discussed on Fox News -- Many of the JAGs in the military, many senior members of the National Security Council and the Defense Department are upset with the handling of Gitmo and treatment of detainees in general. He went on to say "Do we think that we need to hold people outside of US jurisdiction to run the war on terror? Why can't they be at the base in South Carolina or Texas?" He went on to state that the rules that apply in US jurisdiction would be perfectly adequate for holding "terrorists" also saying that we have terrorists in US jails and are doing alright holding them there. The whole reason they were at Gitmo, Kristol stated, was that the US wanted to keep these people out of US jurisdiction but the Supremes ruled that it is in US jurisdiction so there is no reason to keep detainees there. One of the few times that I agree with Fox News.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jun 15, 2005 -> 08:48 PM) And the hypocrisy surprises you why....? It doesn't surprise me -- just disappoints me.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 15, 2005 -> 05:49 PM) The Supreme Court already shot down laws ok-ing medical marijuana passed by several states so its still a crime to possess or use or distribute this stuff regardless. States attorneys in states where it is legal have said they have no interest in wasting the court's time to prosecute medical marijuana offenses. The Hinchey Rohrabacher amendment would just have the federal government do the same thing.

QUOTE(CubKilla @ Jun 15, 2005 -> 08:21 PM) HUSTLER magazine actually interviewed this wacko. He went as far in the article as to say that WTC workers saw "mysterious" men working in the elevator shafts and maintenance areas prior to 09/11. He concluded that they were probably government agents setting demolition charges in the days leading up to 09/11. A weirdo like this is probably where some here get the majority of their horses*** anti-USA literature Horses*** anti-USA literature? The ignorance you proclaim to any opposite side of a debate is amazing, CK. If we're going to talk anti-US, then perhaps we could bring in James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and head of the Senate Judiciary Committee. During a discussion of the PATRIOT Act and while hearing criticisms of the Act from competent authorities, Sen. Sensenbrenner cut all the mics, ended the meeting early & then ran out of the meeting in a huff because they were showing the facts that the controversial aspects of the Act (i.e. Section 215) have failed to make America any safer or even catch terrorists. Because the United States isn't about making informed governmental decisions based on an adequate discussion of the topic from both sides, right? And are you surprised that Hustler would discuss such political topics? Larry Flynt has been one of the most outspoken critics of Bush and has been at the forefront of numerous free speech efforts.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 15, 2005 -> 05:45 PM) Hence the need for a constitutional amendment to prohibit such activity. So, Constitutionally protected First Amendment speech gets to be circumvented by people who just don't like it? God Bless America!" The Supreme Court already has shown that the concept of this "amendment" is antithetical to the liberties enshrined in the US Constitution.

QUOTE(Jabroni @ Jun 15, 2005 -> 05:09 PM) And yet all of those things (shirts, plates, ties, etc.) still aren't a flag. If the flag is a symbol of freedom, wouldn't burning the flag be a symbol of destroying that very freedom? But what it is saying is that all these images of a flag can be shat on, eaten off of, have food dropped on them, etc. etc. etc. and that is fine but you can't do it to an actual flag. If we truly respected the flag then they wouldn't allow for such callous commercialization of said image. As the article states: "Many Americans consider it the ultimate test of a free society to permit the insult or even desecration of one of the great symbols of the nation." Besides, Texas vs Johnson goes through showing that criminalizing flag burning is against the First Amendment: http://bessel.org/casejohn.htm "The court first found that Johnson's burning of the flag was expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. The court concluded that the State could not criminally sanction flag desecration in order to preserve the flag as a symbol of national unity."

QUOTE(Cerbaho-WG @ Jun 15, 2005 -> 04:57 PM) I bet Bill Frist feels pretty f***ing stupid right about now. Shouldn't he always? He's a f***ing medical doctor and would not state if he knew for certain that tears and sweat could not transmit the HIV/AIDS virus because he had to tow the party line. To quote Jon Stewart: "I'd cry...but I don't want to have to put a condom on my face."

Hinchey Rohrabacher amendment goes down again, much at the hands of Republican control who seem to wrap themselves in the states' rights mantra when it suits them. The amendment would simply bar federal agents from criminalizing medicinal marijuana in states where it had already been legalized in state referendums. And Rep. Mark Souder (news, bio, voting record), an Indiana Republican who worked to defeat the marijuana initiative, accused supporters of "hiding behind a few sick people to try to in effect legalize ... marijuana in this country." "The rhetoric about marijuana as a treatment for medical purposes was probably dreamed up at some college dorm," he said. What an insensitive, ignorant dick. Let's throw sick people in jail! I guess that the DEA's own judge Francis L. Young stated: "Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known....[T]he provisions of the [Controlled Substances] Act permit and require the transfer of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II. It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for the DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance." Source: US Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Agency, "In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition," [Docket #86-22] (September 6, 1988), p. 57.

Sure, you can't burn it...but damn it, you can totally turn its form into t-shirts, dinner plates, ties, dressy shirts, pants, suspenders, boxers, thongs, bikinis, do-rags, hankerchiefs, etc. etc. What a f***ing crock. The flag isn't freedom. The flag is a symbol for freedom which includes the freedom to burn the f***ing flag. I got a suggestion for the people that don't want to burn a flag -- DON'T BURN ONE. edit: Link should work now.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jun 15, 2005 -> 04:14 PM) Ah, seeing that it is the Reverend Hatemonger Phelps, I can't say I'm surprised. The best picture in my head of Phelps comes from a time that Michael Moore assembled a group of gays and lesbians who showed up at his protest singing "America the Beautiful" and Phelps running away when the gays "got too close" like he was going to catch something.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/228401...html?source=rss What a f***ing assgoblin.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jun 15, 2005 -> 03:53 PM) So did Tom Clancy in his books. So is he a "traitor" and a "conspirator" like the labels that are being insinuated here? But Tom Clancy isn't one of the major policy makers currently in office like Feith, Wolfowitz, Rummy, Cheney etc. etc. that were/are members of PNAC.

QUOTE(ScottPodRulez22 @ Jun 15, 2005 -> 03:10 PM) Dont belive it why would the goverment blow up the tower on purpose and kill tons of people and basically intetionally start a war! Because the Project for a New American Century, in the previous years, stated in their position statement that to get their militant project of controlling Middle Eastern oil as a bargaining chip, increasing defense spending, decreasing almost all domestic program spending, etc., they'd need a devastating event. http://www.americanfreepress.net/12_24_02/...l_harbored.html The group’s essential demand was for hefty increases in defense spending. “We need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future,” the statement’s first principle reads. The increase in defense spending is to bring about two of the other principles: “to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values” and “to accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.” A subsequent PNAC plan entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century,” reveals that the current members of Bush’s cabinet had already planned, before the 2000 presidential election, to take military control of the Gulf region whether Saddam Hussein is in power or not. The 90-page PNAC document from September 2000 says: “The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.” “Even should Saddam pass from the scene,” the plan says U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain, despite domestic opposition in the Gulf states to the permanent stationing of U.S. troops. Iran, it says, “may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests as Iraq has.” A “core mission” for the transformed U.S. military is to “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars,” according to the PNAC. The strategic “transformation” of the U.S. military into an imperialistic force of global domination would require a huge increase in defense spending to “a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually,” the PNAC plan said. “The process of transformation,” the plan said, “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”

You'd figure on a doctor's salary that he'd be able to afford an actual deli sammich.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1650822,00.html MINISTERS were warned in July 2002 that Britain was committed to taking part in an American-led invasion of Iraq and they had no choice but to find a way of making it legal. The warning, in a leaked Cabinet Office briefing paper, said Tony Blair had already agreed to back military action to get rid of Saddam Hussein at a summit at the Texas ranch of President George W Bush three months earlier. The briefing paper, for participants at a meeting of Blair’s inner circle on July 23, 2002, said that since regime change was illegal it was “necessary to create the conditions” which would make it legal.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 15, 2005 -> 06:52 AM) I attended our school board meeting last night, and at this meeting they announced our AYP results (annual yearly progress) for No Child Left Behind. We had a couple of our schools who passed the results part for both math and english, but their results were failing because the schools did not hit the % of students attending classes that was required. Then there was a bunch of whining about how their interpretation of the numbers was different than ours. They said we had 95% attendance, vs the state saying 92%. My question is does anyone know what factors into those numbers? My guess is that things like suspensions or expulsions are getting included by one group and not the other, but I am not sure, and am curious if anyone out there knows for sure. Thanks Off the top of my head I think dropout rates affect it (when they start counting people who could drop out -- Texas a few years ago started counting eligible dropouts at like the 6th grade), students attending every class and not skipping, students just making it to the school, excused vs unexcused absences. Most schools probably get their rates by using average daily attendance for the school year. And as for NCLB, I'm just glad I'm going to be a social studies teacher. I don't have to teach to the state test since there is no social studies on it anymore. From a great article on the problems with NCLB: http://www.rethinkingschools.org/special_r...n/nclb181.shtml . NCLB's unfunded mandate to eliminate all test-score gaps in 12 years assumes that schools by themselves can overcome the educational consequences of poverty and racism. Not only has the federal government failed to meet the social, economic, and health-related needs of many children, but NCLB itself does not authorize nearly enough funding to meet its new requirements. The Bush administration has sought almost no increase in ESEA expenditures for the coming year. The current education appropriations bill before Congress would underfund the already inadequate authorized spending levels by $8 billion. Meanwhile, states are suffering their worst budget crises since World War II and cutting education as well as the social programs needed by low-income people. The one-size-fits-all assessment requirements-annual testing in reading and math and periodic testing in science-and the accountability provisions attached to them are rigid, harmful, and ultimately unworkable. They will promote bad educational practices and deform curricula in significant ways. In the end, they will lower, not raise, standards for most students. For example, the assessment requirements will lead to further devaluing of non-tested subjects like social studies, music, and art. NCLB focuses on large-scale testing, which is a poor tool for diagnosing individual students' needs and for assessing higher-order learning. The provisions of the law are turning large numbers of schools, particularly those serving low-income children, into test-prep programs. The testing regime punishes the teachers who choose to work in the nation's most under-resourced schools and fosters the inaccurate view that most of the nation's public schools are failing. In the end, NCLB will enforce lower standards, not high quality learning. Estimates by groups such as the National Conference of State Legislators suggest some 70 percent of the nation's schools will be declared "in need of improvement" before the decade is over and thus be subject to escalating sanctions. Florida reported that 87 percent of its schools and all of its districts failed to make "adequate yearly progress" (AYP) in 2002-03. NCLB's punitive test-and-label approach to accountability is the foundation for an equally ineffective approach to school improvement. The first step toward improving schools, according to NCLB, is to allow parents to transfer their children to a school with higher test scores. But it does not guarantee that classroom seats will be available. In Chicago, 240,000 students are in schools "in need of improvement," but the district says it has only 1035 spaces. In part, this is because a majority of Chicago schools are not making AYP. In districts where some schools are labeled "failing" and some are not, the new law may force increased class sizes by transferring students without creating new capacity. The Bush administration has said overcrowding does not matter. NCLB does not invest in building new schools in failing districts, nor does it make rich districts open their doors to students from poor districts. The transfer regulations are designed to manufacture a demand for alternative school placements and ultimately to transfer funds and students to profit-making private school corporations through vouchers. For those left behind, the next step is to "reconstitute" the school. Among the list of options in the law are to turn it into a charter school or privatize its management. These marketplace "solutions" to the difficult and complex problems of schooling will not improve the public school system, but may lead to dismantling it.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jun 14, 2005 -> 10:12 AM) Obviously, they hate you.

Last week, the House Appropriations Subcommittee voted to slash the Corporation for Public Broadcasting’s budget for next year by $100 million and eliminated another $23 million used to pay for shows such as Sesame Street and Arthur. To make matters worse, the subcommittee also voted to entirely eliminate federal funding for the CPB – the government agency that dispenses public funds for PBS stations across the nation -- within two years. What a f***ing crock. If you've got a minute, give your Congressman a call and tell them that these cuts are total and complete bulls***. I'm glad Congress has got a lot of important things on their schedule. Halliburton pilfers billions from US taxpayers in moving empty trailers, outright fraud and who can forget overcharging for items but who cares about that -- we gotta stop federal funds from being wasted on giving children educational programming.

I received the Mariah Carey christmas album from my parents for some odd, godforsaken reason when I was like 12.

Nuke, see lawyers and law experts. See experts write. See experts own your incorrect position. In Odah v. U.S. the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit faced the question of whether citizens of Australia, Kuwait, and Britain captured in Afghanistan and detained at the U.S. base in Guantanamo, Cuba have a legal right to challenge their detention. The fact that the detainees are non-citizens was not crucial to the decision: non-citizens in the U.S. enjoy many of the same constitutional rights that citizens do. Accordingly, the court in Odah acknowledged that the relief sought - a writ of habeas corpus - was indeed available to non-citizens. The courts have also ruled that suspects must receive Miranda warnings. People who will face our criminal law, as courts have stated, should receive the protections of our Constitution, especially when Guantanamo is US soil for all extensive purposes (Cuba can only opt out of the treaty which created Gitmo if the US agrees)

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 13, 2005 -> 06:36 PM) Why should we show them any courtesy on the battlefield? You know what happens to our people when they get captured by these savages? -They get beaten to death and dragged through the streets with all the other assholes around cheering and spitting on them ( Mogadishu 1993) -They get their heads chopped off on live television and the video gets broadcast all over the internet ( SPC Matt Maupin, 2004, Iraq ) -They get hung from a bridge and used as human pinatas by a mob ( 4 Blackwater contractors, Fallujah, 2004 ) f*** these people. Where are all the cries of protest at the way our people get treated when they fall into enemy hands? You won't hear them because as far as Amnesty and all those other do gooder asshole groups are concerned our soldiers are nothing but murderers and baby killers so instead of sticking up for our people they run around and shill for a bunch of people who are only interested in killing as many Americans as possible. As I stated before we are going far too easy on these scumbags we have in our custody. You talk about the whining pussies of Amnesty and here you are crying a river. Pot meet kettle. And actually Amnesty has come out and condemned the activity of insurgants. And Nuke, you still haven't answered my question -- if we're so certain of their guilt, why no trials to prove it so? My shilling is not for Al Qaeda but for the erosion of Constitutional protections that has taken place in the name of national security when they can't prove that these eviscerations of the Bill of Rights has done anything to make us safer. I don't appreciate a government having the ability to say "Well, we say he's a suspect. We don't have to prove it. We'll just detain them for an indiscriminate amount of time and never bring charges. Even if acquitted in the illegal military tribunals, people could still be detained. And Nuke, it says no person in the Constitution as Soxbadger so noted. But let's say for the sake of argument that the Constitutional protections don't apply to people who are not US citizens. That brings up more trouble for the "f*** 'em all" side. What about the Americans like Jose Padilla who are being held at Guantanamo? It took 2+ years for him to get a trial -- talk about his constitutional rights of a speedy trial, due process and his writ of habeas corpus being violated.

QUOTE(Soxfest @ Jun 13, 2005 -> 03:35 PM) Do anything you want in California if you got money and famous you will simply walk. Not to be guilty on count 2 is a joke he admitted to giving kids alcohol. Even if they found him guilty of the misdemeanors it would just be a fine and then done.

Reports from the court room are that after hearing the verdict, Jackson stated: "You've been hit by, you've been struck by a smooth criminal" /obvious?

Not guilty on Counts 1, 2 or 3 so far...